The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[alienentity]

Bump for Tempesta... still avoiding it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6735210#post6735210

 

[tempesta29]

Why don't you apply this same standard to the CD proposal?

For CD, you use freefall AS evidence that the columns are already fractured. I agree with you that it is good evidence that the columns are already fractured.

What do you mean "already fractured"? The columns are severed level by level starting at the base.

And yet, for fire-induced collapse theory, you demand OTHER evidence that the columns are already fractured to EXPLAIN freefall.

Double standard.

Well how else does this building achieve free fall unless all the columns are somehow already fractured but still somehow supporting their loads? I can't explain the official story; that's your job.

Bah. I'm done with Armchair Engineer's bald assertions about what's ordinary in a CD yet extraordinary in a fire-induced collapse

If you have some evidence that WTC 7's collapse rates are out of the ordinary for CDs and ordinary for a fire-induced collapse then I'm all ears.

tempesta29, I hope one day you come to grips with the reality of what happened on 9/11.

I, like you, once believed in what I was told about 9/11, but then I got tired of explaining all of the coincidences, firsts, and anomalies. Sometimes the obvious answer isn't always the obvious answer.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I, like you, once believed in what I was told about 9/11, but then I got tired of explaining all of the coincidences, firsts, and anomalies.

I know how you feel. I, too, get sick and tired of explaining things.

Sometimes the obvious answer isn't always the obvious answer.

True, but it doesn't follow that the obvious answer is always wrong.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Well how else does this building achieve free fall unless all the columns are somehow already fractured but still somehow supporting their loads?

How do people experiencing such cognitive dissonance get through the day?

edit:

I can't explain the official story

Obviously not.

 

[tempesta29]

Except that to remove all the 'load bearing capacity' of the building with explosives would have taken a massively large explosion......but that's not what happened.
So your theory fails as it is directly contradicted by the evidence and facts (video and audio).

Two eyewitnesses reported a sequence of explosions coming from WTC 7 as it collapsed. Lack of recorded explosions in videos does not preclude the possibility of a controlled demolition.

As the trained engineers explained, using exhaustive computer models, the 8 floors of support were removed by a progressive collapse, which began roughly 8 seconds before this.

So.. those columns failed before they failed? Because that's essentially what you're saying. If those 8 floors of support had been removed then we would have seen that failure visibly before those floors hit the ground. Instead, we have a fully intact north face prior to the onset of the roofline's descent.

Also, the support was not removed 'immediately', according to the careful measurements of truthers and NIST, as you've actually pointed out (but failed to understand). There was a multi-stage collapse, if you look at the acceleration graph, roughly stated as stage 1, 2 and 3.
Stages 1 and 3 were not in fact at freefall acceleration.

Straw man. I never claimed 1 and 3 descended at gravity. Stage 3 however, was very close to free fall and NIST even admits this deceleration is only due to the growing rubble pile, NOT due to structural components resisting collapse. The building is essentially in free fall after Stage 1, which is only 7 feet of structure.

In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0 s and 5.4 s, the north face corner fell an additional 39.6 m (130 ft).

Given that the entire collapse spanned roughly 15 to 18 seconds, what about the 2.25s of acceleration at G (about 14% of the total collapse, about halfway thru) makes it in ANY way similar to ANY explosive controlled demolition?

I've heard this argument before: it's a cop out. The total collapse time is irrelevant to the descent of the roofline because it is this measurement that tells us what the structure is doing. We can't measure the descent of the east penthouse because it becomes invisible.

You could theoretically have a CD that lasted 24 hours. Blow up the east wing of a structure then wait 24 hours and blast the west wing. Does the fact that took 24 hours mean it wasn't a CD? No. What matters is the rate of failure of the main structural components.

Can you correlate this claim with any other existing CD? I don't think you can, but you really ought to try before repeating the errors of other truthers like a robot.

Could you clarify this question?

 

[twinstead]

This is where we tell truthers to stop playing God of the Gaps and put forward a coherent theory that explains what happened to that building taking into account the ENTIRE body of evidence better than the "official story" does. And, this is usually where they tell us, "hey. I'm just asking questions".

Lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Two eyewitnesses reported a sequence of explosions coming from WTC 7 as it collapsed. Lack of recorded explosions in videos does not preclude the possibility of a controlled demolition.

You could theoretically have a CD that lasted 24 hours. Blow up the east wing of a structure then wait 24 hours and blast the west wing. Does the fact that took 24 hours mean it wasn't a CD? No. What matters is the rate of failure of the main structural components.

Temp,

Where are the remains of the demo cords? Why aren't those 2 witnesses deaf by the explosions or dead?

A CD in a building while it's on fire? Sure, explain that to everyone here why the explosives don't go off prematurely.

You have no idea what the "rate of failure" is becuase you're not a structural engineer.

 

[alienentity]

Two eyewitnesses reported a sequence of explosions coming from WTC 7 as it collapsed. Lack of recorded explosions in videos does not preclude the possibility of a controlled demolition.

I disagree. There is no real evidence of high explosives, including shockwaves. Yes, there were reports of loud sounds, but they weren't recorded on any devices.

You have no real evidence of CD. Still.

So.. those columns failed before they failed? Because that's essentially what you're saying. If those 8 floors of support had been removed then we would have seen that failure visibly before those floors hit the ground. Instead, we have a fully intact north face prior to the onset of the roofline's descent.

Your argument makes no sense. You obviously haven't read the engineering analysis. Your ignorance does not help your case.

Straw man. I never claimed 1 and 3 descended at gravity.

It's not a strawman to point out your error. You said the failure was 'immediate'
But then, you're still claiming 'The building is essentially in free fall after Stage 1,' so what's your point? Make up your mind.

besides, freefall acceleration was not a factor in the WTC tower collapses, so it is a powerful refutation of your claim that this is an indicator of CD.
To apply your own standard, we'd have to rule out CD for the towers.

But you won't apply the same standard, you'll dodge.

I've heard this argument before: it's a cop out. The total collapse time is irrelevant to the descent of the roofline because it is this measurement that tells us what the structure is doing. We can't measure the descent of the east penthouse because it becomes invisible.

What's a copout is pretending that the collapse didn't happen until about halfway thru where it actually began. That's equally stupid, dishonest and plain insulting if you wish to present it as such.

You might as well claim that the gestation of an egg is the time it takes to lay it, since there isn't a youtube video of the growth inside the chicken. That's how stupid your argument is.

What matters is the rate of failure of the main structural components.

You're getting warm, but no, you missed your opportunity by ignoring your own advice. Yes, the main structural components, some of which were directly below the E Penthouse, failed some 8 seconds before the entire roofline descended, at largely less than freefall speed.

btw, neither of the towers fell at freefall speed, only 64% or so that speed. So de facto, this renders your argument moot: freefall acceleration is not a reliable indicator of explosive controlled demolition, by your own standards.

If you won't apply your own standards to the various events, you are fooling yourself. Which you are, of course.

Can you correlate this claim with any other existing CD? I don't think you can, but you really ought to try before repeating the errors of other truthers like a robot.
Could you clarify this question?

Correlate your claim that, as part of a collapse which took some 14-18 seconds (verified by seismic records, btw), that this corresponds to any actual historical controlled demolition on record.

Pick any controlled demolition, do the measurements of acceleration, and get back to us with your analysis. If you really think you're a genius, go ahead and get the results published in a mainstream engineering journal.
Or failing that, send them to a qualified CD expert for commentary.

You'll do nothing of the sort, since your claims are fallacious and incompetent.

 

[GlennB]

If those 8 floors of support had been removed then we would have seen that failure visibly before those floors hit the ground. Instead, we have a fully intact north face prior to the onset of the roofline's descent.

That's because the failure level is below anything visible on the good videos. All the WTC7 collapse videos are from the north, and the line-of-sight to the lower levels of WTC7 was masked by several buildings. (In fact it might be best if you referred us to those specific videos where we 'should' see the NISTian initial collapse zone.)

Meanwhile, however, flashes and booms would not be entirely masked by intervening buildings. Explosive CD could not be hidden.

 

[Sabretooth]

First, there is nothing "near" about the free fall. It is cited in NIST's report as "at gravitational acceleration". Even in Stage 3, the roofline accelerates only slightly slower than free fall due to the increased resistance from the rubble pile forming underneath it.

Not sure about the point you’re trying to make here. But let’s read what NIST says:

Stage 1: there is significant resistance which “corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face.”

Stage 2: “the north face descends at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper section.” In other words, the resistance found in Stage 1 no longer exists as the columns have completely failed.

Stage 3: “the acceleration deceased somewhat as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure.”

The paragraph immediately after the above description (found in the NSTAR1A, pg. 45) states:

As noted above, the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first 18 stories of descent.

[bolding mine]

Now that we are clear, regarding my question about the relatively short period of free fall, what makes this so out of place in a building that suffered uncontrolled fires in multiple floors and a large area?

As for your unchecked burning, the only serious fire was on the south face.

Wrong.

Check the NCSTAR1A again. Refer to Figure 3-6 on page 34. These pictures show the gas temps on Floor 12. We see some seriously high temps in the N and NW sections of the building between the 16:00 and 17:00 hours. Zero visible fire does not mean zero critical heat.

You can hardly see fire from the north. Why then does the north face experience gravitational acceleration? There is no evidence columns there were damaged to any significant degree. Surely if the undamaged north face fell at free fall then the heavily damaged south face must have as well. We are told this building was expected to fall because of its damage from fire and debris. Wouldn't you expect the south face to fall faster?

Not necessarily. Internally, the initial collapse began on the East portion of the building and the load distribution to the rest of WTC7 was in chaos. The buckling shown in Figure 3-14 shows the critical failures to the NW side because of that cascading distribution.

How can both of these faces have descended at the same rate if there is such a massive discrepancy in the strength of their respective columns? The answer is that debris and fire damage weren't factors at all in the collapse rates. Explosives made this discrepancy in resistance irrelevant. There is nothing natural at all about that collapse. There is nothing progressive or "cascading" about it. The roofline descends nearly parallel to the horizon in a virtual free fall. Any controlled demolition expert without any knowledge of WTC 7 would instantly recognize it as a CD.

…and this is nothing but baseless, uninformed speculation, and ignorance.

 

[alienentity]

The roofline descends nearly parallel to the horizon in a virtual free fall.

No. It was approx 40% longer than freefall acceleration. This is not 'virtual freefall', you are misrepresenting it.

ETA this is the second time you've contradicted yourself, first claiming that it wasn't freefall, then claiming that it was 'virtual' freefall or 'immediate'. Your arguments are disingenuous.

 

[WildCat]

Two eyewitnesses reported a sequence of explosions coming from WTC 7 as it collapsed.

(citation needed)

Lack of recorded explosions in videos does not preclude the possibility of a controlled demolition.

It certainly excludes the possibility of explosives, and according to your last answer it appears you fave explosives, yes?

There is a 0% possibility that explosives were used and yet not recorded.

 

[Sabretooth]

Two eyewitnesses reported a sequence of explosions coming from WTC 7 as it collapsed. Lack of recorded explosions in videos does not preclude the possibility of a controlled demolition.

Two? C'mon, you've got to be kidding me. That's only 1/6th of a jury box.

You can't possibly be serious that you are taking the words of two people out of context to further a dying dead argument, are you?

 

[Thunder]

Two eyewitnesses reported a sequence of explosions coming from WTC 7 as it collapsed.

what are their names?

where were they during the collapse?

did they hear explosions....or see explosions?

details matter, ya know.

 

[carlitos]

You haven't demonstrated how it doesn't fit into my theory.

Hi tempesta29!

Perhaps you could outline your theory, so we could avoid confusion on this? If you think it's off topic, you could post it in this thread.

Thanks!

Hi tempesta29. Perhaps you missed this? You said you have a theory. Why not share it for clarity's sake. If you don't have one, just link or copy/paste the one you find most plausible.

 

[GlennB]

As for your unchecked burning, the only serious fire was on the south face. You can hardly see fire from the north.

A fairly minor point, but that's totally ridiculous. The NIST report shows them and tracks their progress. Do you just make **** up as you go along and hope it might be right?

 

[WildCat]

what are their names?

where were they during the collapse?

did they hear explosions....or see explosions?

details matter, ya know.

How much you want to bet these 2 people, if they even exist, aren't truthers and don't think there were explosives?

tempesta? Got cite?

 

[Thunder]

You haven't demonstrated how it doesn't fit into my theory.

is this a scientific theory?

you know, like one that has verified evidence to back it up, and has been tested and studied by other scientists who have confirmed it?

or is this a "truther theory"...which is really just an untested hypothesis.

 

[tempesta29]

A fairly minor point, but that's totally ridiculous. The NIST report shows them and tracks their progress. Do you just make **** up as you go along and hope it might be right?

Tracks what? The fires? Is there any disputing that the north face showed limited signs of fire damage?

 

[tempesta29]

Hi tempesta29. Perhaps you missed this? You said you have a theory. Why not share it for clarity's sake. If you don't have one, just link or copy/paste the one you find most plausible.

I think it was a covert op. The three WTC buildings were rigged with explosives.