Free Fall thread

Dohnjoe wrote: »

But why do AE911 keep referring to "explosions" during the day, what, some shadowy unknowns were slowly blowing up a burning building during the day?

Why? it's on fire, job is done! Why is there always this extra absurd effort and risk setting off explosives and nano-thermites

And truthers deliberately avoid talking about this, like they know how bad it is, which requires some astonishing level of dishonesty and delusion

I think it's simply a product of conspiracy mongers looking for the most eye catching and attention getting factoids.

The can fudge things to make it seem like there are explosions and a secret demolition by twisting things and throwing factoids out. On the face of it, it's convincing if you listen, but don't think about it critically.

But on the other hand, they can't go too far if they want to pull in the widest audience. That's why ideas like holographic planes, space lasers and mini nukes are left on the fringes. The big players don't go near those ideas openly because most people would rightly dismiss them out of hand as cranks. Also, compared to the idea of normal demolition it's easier to find official and scientific things that can be twisted to suit the more grounded ideas.

The other extreme isn't very marketable. The conspiracy mongers could easily reduce the conspiracy down to bare bones and it could be far more believable and reasonable.
But if they did that, then the conspiracy theory wouldn't be as eye catching or sensational. It would be a lot of very dry youtube videos talking about arcane political connections and political history. And then it would be far more obviously speculative.
Frankly, that kind of conspiracy would just be above the heads of the majority of the target audience the conspiracy mongers are aiming for.

They are clever enough to keep their theories open so that they can pretend to be on the same side even when they have completely incompatible theories.

King Mob wrote: »

I think it's simply a product of conspiracy mongers looking for the most eye catching and attention getting factoids.

The can fudge things to make it seem like there are explosions and a secret demolition by twisting things and throwing factoids out. On the face of it, it's convincing if you listen, but don't think about it critically.

But on the other hand, they can't go too far if they want to pull in the widest audience. That's why ideas like holographic planes, space lasers and mini nukes are left on the fringes. The big players don't go near those ideas openly because most people would rightly dismiss them out of hand as cranks. Also, compared to the idea of normal demolition it's easier to find official and scientific things that can be twisted to suit the more grounded ideas.

The other extreme isn't very marketable. The conspiracy mongers could easily reduce the conspiracy down to bare bones and it could be far more believable and reasonable.
But if they did that, then the conspiracy theory wouldn't be as eye catching or sensational. It would be a lot of very dry youtube videos talking about arcane political connections and political history. And then it would be far more obviously speculative.
Frankly, that kind of conspiracy would just be above the heads of the majority of the target audience the conspiracy mongers are aiming for.

They are clever enough to keep their theories open so that they can pretend to be on the same side even when they have completely incompatible theories.

There are individuals who actually believe this stuff, and that's understandable, however it's the people who know it's bull**** but continue the charade, with themselves, and others..

This clip from the Nat Geo doc at 28 mins when Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin are confronted with evidence really sums up how truthers think and react

https://youtu.be/0jrUsKiu2CU?t=1684

This interview

Becoming more and more obvious Griffin is a complete sham, at least Tony S turns up and isn't completely debunked with a couple of phone calls

banie01

This thread has gone the way of the others really hasn't it.
Gish galloping, deliberate evasion of already debunked points, efforts to spam, dismissing scientific reports, whilst accepting single points that are directly contradictory, ignoring questions and responding with whataboutery, even a quite measured and deliberate attempt at martyrdom (again).

Nonsensical arguments need to be called out and placed in the light.
I do hope that anyone who stumbles across these threads, reads the entirety of those on here related to 9/11.

That they see the quicksand foundations of a particular viewpoint, the mercurial nature of particular responses, the complete lack of honesty, the lack of scientific comprehension and where that leads.

The efforts made by a small number of posters to counter and address the nonsense that is rinsed, slightly altered, then self-contraticted, then repeated.
Should be appreciated for the effort it is.

Letting this shíte stand in unchallenged is dangerous.
The thing is, if actual compelling or indeed even contradictory real evidence was introduced, many of us on the skeptic side of this argument would do what skeptics do.

Assess the evidence and reassess our positions.
The rational and scientific method.

banie01 wrote: »

This thread has gone the way of the others really hasn't it.
Gish galloping, deliberate evasion of already debunked points, efforts to spam, dismissing scientific reports, whilst accepting single points that are directly contradictory, ignoring questions and responding with whataboutery, even a quite measured and deliberate attempt at martyrdom (again).

I think that Robver actually did come in and make his case in a clear, succinct and competent way. (Slightly snipey comments aside.)

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113548744&postcount=26

It was a refreshing change of pace, but I don't think we'll be hearing from him again.

King Mob wrote: »

It was a refreshing change of pace, but I don't think we'll be hearing from him again.

Indeed it's a pity these types often don't stick around, but people who approach from this level would be expected to provide more sane/logical arguments and not the usual vapid side-stepping and made-up-on-the-spot rationalisations, e.g. why and how so many structural engineers, civil engineers, chemical engineers, related experts and investigators all happen to be completely wrong on this subject

They are up against a very steep cliff of academic knowledge and expertise - not to mention overwhelming consensus. Sometimes people with a bit of knowledge (cough Tony S) like to show off a bit by dragging an argument down into granular details in order to impress non-experts - but are quickly schooled when dealt with by proper engineers and experts

I'd love to see this topic on an active engineering forum - but more often than not it's either banned, or most appear to have no interest in entertaining the nonsense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

but are quickly schooled when dealt with by proper engineers and experts

Meh, you don't even need to be an expert. You just need rudimentary knowledge.
Things like cheerful being unable to tell the difference between velocity and acceleration or Weisses claiming that the acceleration needed to "ramp up" to free fall come to mind.

Kader collapse in 1993. Horrendous loss of life, demonstrates how quickly steel can fail in fire

https://www.iloencyclopaedia.org/part-vi-16255/disasters-natural-and-technological/item/374-case-study-the-kader-toy-factory-fire

Dohnjoe wrote: »

But why do AE911 keep referring to "explosions" during the day, what, some shadowy unknowns were slowly blowing up a burning building during the day?

Why? it's on fire, job is done! Why is there always this extra absurd effort and risk setting off explosives and nano-thermites

And truthers deliberately avoid talking about this, like they know how bad it is, which requires some astonishing level of dishonesty and delusion

When there irrefutable evidence no free fall happened in the NIST collapse model, than we don't have to listen to debunkers delusions about fire bringing down the building..

Nanothermites love fires:) You have not coped on to the fact too.
There 84 columns in building seven- explosive on each column is still 84- not hundreds.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

When there irrefutable evidence no free fall happened in the NIST collapse model, than we don't have to listen to debunkers delusions about fire bringing down the building..

Nanothermites love fires:) You have not coped on to the fact too.
There 84 columns in building seven- explosive on each column is still 84- not hundreds.

Over 8 floors though...
Also there was no nanothermite.
Nanothermite isn't an explosive.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed it's a pity these types often don't stick around, but people who approach from this level would be expected to provide more sane/logical arguments and not the usual vapid side-stepping and made-up-on-the-spot rationalisations, e.g. why and how so many structural engineers, civil engineers, chemical engineers, related experts and investigators all happen to be completely wrong on this subject

They are up against a very steep cliff of academic knowledge and expertise - not to mention overwhelming consensus. Sometimes people with a bit of knowledge (cough Tony S) like to show off a bit by dragging an argument down into granular details in order to impress non-experts - but are quickly schooled when dealt with by proper engineers and experts

I'd love to see this topic on an active engineering forum - but more often than not it's either banned, or most appear to have no interest in entertaining the nonsense

Structural building Engineer would notice immediately this is not free fall, please go ahead show them this image on any site, and claim this is freefall caused by a fire. I bet the response is, they laugh at you.

Image from the video i posted.

At this time during the collapse the floors and columns are no longer there to provide resistance across the entire width of the building.

In the NIST computer model the floors are crumbling and buckling and no freefall can occur in that scenario. Of course most people have never looked at their modelling to notice how flawed their building seven study really is.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

At this time during the collapse the floors and columns are no longer there to provide resistance across the entire width of the building.

And the only way to do this, is to use high explosives. We know that there were no explosives. You don't believe there were explosives.

Thermite can't do this. We also know that there was no thermite.

So, we're left to find another explanation because it can't be controlled demolition.

I think that explanation is that you, and other conspiracy theorists are just misunderstanding and misrepresenting things.

Overheal wrote: »

The work is not flawless and they are limited by what they can do via computer simulation.

As in the thread I showed, a collapse model was built for a controlled demolition with known variables. It still cut corners, made virtual assumptions, and had to bridge gaps between numerical methods and real world physics. The simulation took 29 days to compute. That was in 2011. NIST was working with less advanced computing several years removed and a fraction of the power. Subsequently the NIST simulation doesn’t look like a 1:1 recreation of the total collapse. But then, that fact is not surprising given the realities of simulation analysis.

Problem is though they based their whole finding on a simulation not even close to resembling the actual event

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The same principles of logic apply

You claim you need evidence (large amounts of it) to convince you the building fell due to X

You require no evidence to believe it fell due to Y

That's completely nonsensical - unless you want to clarify your position..

I posted a simple question to answer in regards to free-fall ... I would appreciate if you could address it

King Mob wrote: »

So then all the supports on all of those 8 floors were rigged with high explosives?

No there were sporadic fires which caused the 8 floors to disappear

Dohnjoe wrote: »

https://www.engineeringcivil.com/complete-report-on-failure-analysis-of-world-trade-center-5.html

Steel fails due to fire, no questions asked by truthers.

Funny though that somehow miraculously the fires made all the beams collapse within a fraction of a second

Overheal wrote: »

Yes the facade fell without impedance for about 2 and a quarter seconds. This is because the interior of the structure had already fallen apart.

Well the interior is still inside providing resistance and then there is that inconvenient part that there are dozens of beams not affected by the hypothesis of complete interior collapse

Overheal wrote: »

And the WTC did have fireproofing

Which was rated for 2~3 hours depending on which fire proofing feature you want to call attention to.

But the fires raged for about 7+ hours. And no firefighting happened. And the sprinkler systems were disabled.

Plasco fire was 3.5 hours between outbreak and collapse. And they had firefighters actively trying to put it out. As you say, no fire proofing.

That hypothesis would allow for a progressive partial collapse

In wtc 7 fires were out on several floors before the collapse

Overheal wrote: »

"After about 2.5 seconds of free fall, the slope deviates from a straight line, indicating resistance as the falling part of the building engages with the bottom section. 2.5 seconds of free fall corresponds to a distance of 30.6 m, or about 100 ft. At 12.5 ft per floor, that divides out to 8 stories of free fall."

In other threads you argued this was not the case? Even got into some dizzying and error-filled semantics about acceleration and velocity and speed.

If you look into that 10 minute video I provided you can see fort yourself how NIST was very creative with their timeline ..Chandler has a continues fall

Overheal wrote: »

That's okay we can throw out the NIST model.

With that their scientifically based conclusion ...|Finally we are making progress

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Are you suggesting all these firefighters who were at the scene are mistaken, they are lying?

According to debunkers they were when they saw molten steel flowing like in a foundry

weisses wrote: »

No there were sporadic fires which caused the 8 floors to disappear

Again, the only way to have the building drop at free fall for those 8 floors is to instantaneously remove the supports on all 8 of those floors all at once.

The only way to do that is to use high explosives on every support on all of those floors. Thermite, nano- or otherwise, is not able to do the same kinda of instant cutting.

That's 81 supports for 8 floors.
So in all that's at least 648 explosive charges for the vertical components.

We don't hear any of these 648 explosions on any video.

So we know there was no high explosive demolition charges. And since those demolition charges were the only way a controlled demolition leading to free fall could happen, we can exclude that as a possibility.

So there must be another explanation.

weisses wrote: »

I posted a simple question to answer in regards to free-fall ... I would appreciate if you could address it

Sure, if you had genuine intent here, but, from past experience you've demonstrated that clearly isn't the case

It's a snide challenge dressed up as a "simple question". One loaded with feigned objectivity asking others to explain something to you that you'll "not get", act incredulous about and dump 15 years of pseudo-scientific AE911 muck on .. to put it very mildly

Of course, perhaps you've turned a corner, in which case, cool, I'd be more than glad to provide links and sources that explain what happened to WTC 7 in great detail, I'm sure others can to

And yes, I am well aware in response you will keep repeating that you are just asking a simple question and want straightforward information..

weisses wrote: »

According to debunkers they were when they saw molten steel flowing like in a foundry

There are no debunkers in the equation.

From their testimony many firefighters witnessed and described how serious the fires were in building 7 were and how close it was to collapse in the end. However since that threatens your conspiracy beliefs, you're attempting to discredit all that testimony by drawing attention to the fact that a handful of firefighters were mistaken in identifying hot/molten metals

Why stoop to such a level when you are trying to portray yourself as objective?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Sure, if you had genuine intent here, but, from past experience you've demonstrated that clearly isn't the case

It's a snide challenge dressed up as a "simple question". One loaded with feigned objectivity asking others to explain something to you that you'll "not get", act incredulous about and dump 15 years of pseudo-scientific AE911 muck on .. to put it very mildly

Of course, perhaps you've turned a corner, in which case, cool, I'd be more than glad to provide links and sources that explain what happened to WTC 7 in great detail, I'm sure others can to

And yes, I am well aware in response you will keep repeating that you are just asking a simple question and want straightforward information..

You have no interest in knowing the real truth. Accepted the Bush/ Neocon base proclamations for 19 years and totally ignore this base never told a truth when they held power for eight years. You think it impossible it could be anything else and ignore this same leadership there on 9/11 lied about the Iraq war, supported torture, and secretly kidnapped people, from their homes at night and brought them to secret prisons in Europe to be tortured and some were murdered there. You have accepted the Bush war on terror nonsense and believe it impossible 9/11 was a false flag.

Further no imperialist agenda in the middle east occurred?. Even though 5 years before the neocons wrote a white paper saying they needed a new Pearl harbour event to achieve their military aims in the Middle East. You ignore the NIST study was funded by the Bush administration and they were politically pressured to avoid finding anything that would cripple them and bring the whole house of cards down. With 9/11 people seem to have amnesia and forget multiple drills took place that day effectively shut down its ability to response to hijackings. This is another thing private rogue group would do so nobody would stop the planes from hitting the buildings on 9/11.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You have no interest in knowing the real truth. Accepted the Bush/ Neocon base proclamations for 19 years and totally ignore this base never told a truth when they held power for eight years. You think it impossible it could be anything else and ignore this same leadership there on 9/11 lied about the Iraq war, supported torture, and secretly kidnapped people, from their homes at night and brought them to secret prisons in Europe to be tortured and some were murdered there. You have accepted the Bush war on terror nonsense and believe it impossible 9/11 was a false flag.

Further no imperialist agenda in the middle east occurred?. Even though 5 years before the neocons wrote a white paper saying they needed a new Pearl harbour event to achieve their military aims in the Middle East..

So because we don't believe that there was magic nanothermite in the towers and it wasn't a silly, elaborate inside job, we all must therefore be Bush supporters?

Lol, Ok...

None of the rest of your rant has much to do with freefall or any of the points raised.
I guess that's another aspect of the conspiracy theory you can't actually support.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You have no interest in knowing the real truth.

I do

However if by "real truth" you mean a conspiracy, then yes, I would also like to know, which is why I created a thread asking for it (I remain deeply skeptical since nothing remotely plausible has so far been suggested)

Not brainwashed. Bush war on terror scared the media and everyone to look further into the crimes committed that day. The left even jumped on board to support this fake war. Even came out before the Iraq War that Bush proposed a false flag to Blair involved painting a US plane with UN colors to be shoot at over Iraq. Most sane people would look at this evidence of an administration out of control. Bush administration is the fourth reich dressed in business suits.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-plotted-to-lure-saddam-into-war-with-fake-un-plane-6109959.html

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I do

However if by "real truth" you mean a conspiracy, then yes, I would also like to know, which is why I created a thread asking for it (I remain deeply skeptical since nothing remotely plausible has so far been suggested)

What you mean how? The set up was not stopping the hijackers from boarding the planes on 9/11.

No hijackings and planes taken and hitting buildings, no demolition can be used. It look mighty strange if buildings just collapsed down with no terrorist event