Free Fall thread

Dohnjoe wrote: »

On camera?

"Uh Sir there's a camera right there.."

"Meh, ignore it, people come in and out all the time, no one will notice us bringing in hundreds of tons of explosives and demolition equipment"

You imagine they have the power to rig 3 massive skyscrapers in complete secret, why not just imagine up that they have the power to scrub video tapes of them doing so..

Jesus christ..

Using this logic, then the plane's attacks on 9/11 were not done secretly?

Forgetting here this operation was only revealed to the public when it happened? Nobody was aware behind the scenes until the day? People around the world watched on the TV screen the attack.

What happened there, using your logic?

The Nal wrote: »

Zero. Not one person seen where they shouldn't be, not one wire, one detonator, one knocked wall, one exposed beam, one single person who saw anything. Zero, nothing, nada.

Theres your answer.

Apparently if you can rationalise something happened, then it did

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Using this logic

You aren't using logic, you are using your imagination.

If you are going to imagine they walked in and out of a building planting hundreds of tons of explosives in secret, why not imagine they just scrubbed the video tapes?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No. You've noted that some firefighters misidentified molten or hot metals as "molten steel" (many made this mistake, not just firefighters).

what did they witness other then molten metal or steel ?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You aren't using logic, you are using your imagination.

If you are going to imagine they walked in and out of a building planting hundreds of tons of explosives in secret, why not imagine they just scrubbed the video tapes?

The approach you take is silly. Who in the buildings would identify criminals are coming in to plant explosives before an attack nobody thought would happen? They could have arrived at night when security was light and just did their work and went home before the workers arrived the next morning. This operation not impossible, it just takes time and having access to the building infrastructure. The people who ordered this must be influential and powerful to send men in to plant devices.

Obviously the discovery of nanothermite suggests they're were using exotic military based chemical materials to bring the towers down on 9/11 and they tried to mask what they were doing here.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

To cut across you both, if we want to be precise -

Gravity applies acceleration to all bodies certainly, but this isn't what is meant by the term, 'Gravitational Acceleration'.

Nor did it occur to the debris falling from WTC7 - by definition, gravitational acceleration only occurs in a vacuum. The object must be free from drag, which the debris falling was self-evidently not.

so is the quote below correct or incorrect ?

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

King Mob wrote: »

Well first, do you agree that there has to be another explanation since the ones provided by conspiracy theorists are inadequate?

Again, we know that nanothermite can't produce a free fall collapse because it can't instantly cut things.
And we know that it can't be explosives because we don't hear 650 detonations right before the collapse.
And we know that it can't be a space laser because that's also silly.

So, if you agree that the conspiracy theory explanations fail to explain the free fall, we can move on and discuss the actual explanation.

I think they explain free fall without producing the evidence yes

I also believe NIST got it wrong ( reasoning why explained here on multiple occasions

I clearly steered clear of the demolition hypothesis and focus the free fall discussion on NIST its failure to produce a plausible explanation ... which ironically enough fueled a lot of the CT mindset

King Mob wrote: »

It's odd you say that when it seems the idea of molten metal seems to be only valid when it suits the conspiracy narrative.

Molten metal is not a feature of controlled demolitions.
Explosives cannot form rivers and pools of molten metal.

Yet, molten metal is used as evidence for both...?

You missed the context of the firefighters being reliable witnesses context of my post

You are getting a bit ahead of yourself

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Who in the buildings would identify criminals are coming in to plant explosives before an attack nobody thought would happen? They could have arrived at night when security was light and just did their work and went home before the workers arrived the next morning. This operation not impossible, it just takes time and having access to the building infrastructure. The people who ordered this must be influential and powerful to send men in to plant devices.

Its as easy as that!

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The approach you take is silly.

lol

Notmything

The Nal wrote: »

Zero. Not one person seen where they shouldn't be, not one wire, one detonator, one knocked wall, one exposed beam, one single person who saw anything. Zero, nothing, nada.

Theres your answer.

Not to mention not one person noticed a freshly painted/plastered wall and thought "hmm I wonder what that's about"?

weisses wrote: »

I think they explain free fall without producing the evidence yes

But that's not the question I asked.

I asked if you believed if they were viable given that:
1. Nanothermite cannot produce a freefall collapse, therefore can't be the explanation.
and
2. Explosives cannot be the explanation because there wasn't 650 detonations right before the collapse

If you can agree with those then we can move on.

If you're not willing to address this directly and clearly, why would you expect anyone to answer your demands directly and clearly.

Notmything

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The approach you take is silly. Who in the buildings would identify criminals are coming in to plant explosives before an attack nobody thought would happen? They could have arrived at night when security was light and just did their work and went home before the workers arrived the next morning. This operation not impossible, it just takes time and having access to the building infrastructure. The people who ordered this must be influential and powerful to send men in to plant devices.

Obviously the discovery of nanothermite suggests they're were using exotic military based chemical materials to bring the towers down on 9/11 and they tried to mask what they were doing here.

And noone in any of the buildings in the area around the towers noticed anything or thought it was unusually busy so late at night?

No drive by police patrols? Security was so light they never noticed people moving around inside, making holes in walls and planting explosives? Or if they did, they didn't think to go see what was going on?

As for nanothermite, another thread has already disbunked this

The Nal wrote: »

lol

We can see the physical evidence something unusual and strange and rare happened on 9/11.

If the buildings fell down and there were no anomalies found, that's something different. We can dismiss the demolition narrative.

The investigators were finding steel had melted and found Iron Microspheres in the dust ( extra evidence of temps not expected in a building fire) and people on site saw a red/hot liquid flowing next to the steel (more evidence of melting of metals and alloys) Then we have the freefall at building seven ( a collapse that breaks Newton law)

The official story from NIST is not one piece of steel or Iron melted inside the building. This is not backed by the evidence here at all.

weisses wrote: »

what did they witnessed other then molten metal or steel ?

Molten and red hot metals, like the stuff that poured from one of the buildings, pretty much everyone thought that was "molten steel" at the time

Truthers have claimed burning paper was "molten steel". I highly doubt these two or three firefighters were metallurgists, on the day it seemed to be a common enough mistake to make, as others also made those observations

You are trying to use that in order to discredit firefighting views on a burning building to suggest that the fires in that building were less serious than they were

This is because you believe WTC 7 was secretly "blown up", it's okay, no need to mention narratives, you personally don't believe fire brought WTC 7 down, correct?

Fionn1952

weisses wrote: »

so is the quote below correct or incorrect ?

The quote would be inaccurate. Anything falling experiences drag. Items with a greater surface area experience a greater degree of drag/air resistance. The debris falling from WTC7 did not fall in a vacuum, so it experienced a non-zero amount of air resistance, reducing it's speed to below Gravitational Acceleration (as correctly defined).

If measured with low accuracy (tenths of a second instead of milliseconds for example), the measured time to two or three significant figures may end up the same, but the issue lies with poor measurement rather than the absolutely basic physics I'm talking about here.

I really don't care what side of the debate anyone is on, I just like to see correct terminology used.

Apparently that means I have some sort of connection with another poster in this thread, despite having never engaged with said poster at any time I can recall during my time on Boards, and clearly posting in VERY different subject threads with very different interests. If Cheerful would like to clarify what (s)he is insinuating by that comment, I'd appreciate it.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

They could have arrived at night when security was light and just did their work and went home before the workers arrived the next morning.

Who arrived at night? what were their names? what time did they arrive? and the evidence for that?

Otherwise you are just imagining this scenario in your head

Do you understand the difference between someone imagining something in their head vs them demonstrating something with evidence?

If you don't, it's okay, just be honest and admit it.

King Mob wrote: »

But that's not the question I asked.

I asked if you believed if they were viable given that:
1. Nanothermite cannot produce a freefall collapse, therefore can't be the explanation.
and
2. Explosives cannot be the explanation because there wasn't 650 detonations right before the collapse

If you can agree with those then we can move on.

If you're not willing to address this directly and clearly, why would you expect anyone to answer your demands directly and clearly.

Uhhh I asked you a question many pages ago and still waiting for a proper answer

I will state it again ... I am staying away from the demolition theories

You can go back to page 1 of this thread and try to answer my posts

The part in bold is yet another tactic to distance yourself from the questions directed to you ...

I believe the demolition theories are as valid as the NIST theory ..

weisses wrote: »

You missed the context of the firefighters being reliable witnesses context of my post

You are getting a bit ahead of yourself

Not really. We're not denying what the witnesses saw completely. We're just disagreeing with your narrow and contradictory interpretation of their statements.

I was also pointing out that if you are to believe their testimony you have to exclude the notion of explosives. Explosives cannot produce pools or rivers of molten metal. It's simply not how it works.
Since that's the case, we can agree that the explanation is not explosives.
Right?

weisses wrote: »

Uhhh I asked you a question many pages ago and still waiting for a proper answer

But I have answered it. My answer remains the same as in my first post in the thread.
You guys just don't really know what the concept of free fall means and you are conflating and misinterpreting statments.

I can go into more detail if we can first agree that the conspiracy theory explanations are invalid.

weisses wrote: »

I believe the demolition theories are as valid as the NIST theory ..

Ok?
So you believe that the nanothermite and explosives theories are impossible and inadequate?

Again a direct answer would be great for a change.

Fionn1952 wrote: »

The quote would be inaccurate. Anything falling experiences drag. Items with a greater surface area experience a greater degree of drag/air resistance. The debris falling from WTC7 did not fall in a vacuum, so it experienced a non-zero amount of air resistance, reducing it's speed to below Gravitational Acceleration (as correctly defined).

That quote is from NIST

Problem with WTC7 and air resistance only ... There was a building in the way that should have prevented acceleration of gravity .... The collapse of WTC 7 was always described as a progressive collapse anyway ... I dont have my BSc yet but I cannot understand how a building that suffers a progressive collapse can experience gravitational acceleration ... I asked posters here to explain but haven't seen any answer that is even remotely scientific

weisses wrote: »

I clearly steered clear of the demolition hypothesis and focus the free fall discussion on NIST its failure to produce a plausible explanation ... which ironically enough fueled a lot of the CT mindset

Yeah. You have demonstrated you are a keen supporter of AE911, which is a bunch of pseudo-scientists and cranks who you have often referred to. Like them, you believe WTC 7 was "blown up", but since it's such an absurd bogus theory that you know you can't support, you play this "on the fence" role, pretending to ask objective questions for your "own understanding" - the reality is you are just trying to unreasonably cast doubt on the event in order to hint that some unspecified conspiracy took place.

It puts you in the comfortable deniers position of demanding evidence and explanations from everyone here, and you don't have to provide anything supporting your absurd position

It's par for the course. If you had any logical approach to this historical event, you'd be looking for information and explanations from proper sources, scientists, engineers, whatever... but you aren't, you are choosing to go to a conspiracy theory forum

It's the usual "if you guys can't explain it to me, then it has to be a conspiracy". Personally I can't understand having an irrational belief so strong it drives me to those dishonest lengths, but hey, each to their own

King Mob wrote: »

But I have answered it. My answer remains the same as in my first post in the thread.
You guys just don't really know what the concept of free fall means and you are conflating and misinterpreting statments.

You have not .... You recuse yourself from answering by questioning another posters intellect .....

King Mob wrote: »

Ok?
So you believe that the nanothermite and explosives theories are impossible and inadequate?

Impossible no Inadequate yes .... they haven't been proven in my opinion

Notmything wrote: »

And noone in any of the buildings in the area around the towers noticed anything or thought it was unusually busy so late at night?

No drive by police patrols? Security was so light they never noticed people moving around inside, making holes in walls and planting explosives? Or if they did, they didn't think to go see what was going on?

As for nanothermite, another thread has already disbunked this

This rogue private network planned this operation out in advance and would have prepared for everything.The Truthers have suspects- plenty of investigation done behind the scenes and its lead back to a suspected intelligence front company called Ace Elevator.

This company 'went out of business mysteriously about a year +after the 9/11 attacks. The Truthers suspect some of the rogue operatives gained access by being employees of this company. It gave them access to steel core through the elevator shafts. Renovation work was taking place early 2001 inside both towers.

The Nanothermite theory not debunked because Iron Fe spheres is a byproduct of a thermite reaction. One Official study by RJ Lee found too many of these previously molten Fe spheres in the WTC dust for it to be a natural occuring event.

You thinking of commercial demolitions where they are paid to be careful how the buildings are brought down. Conspirators don't give a crap about the health and environmental concerns of the surrounding area. The columns just need to brought down and could be just enough to place explosives on the steel (with enough energy) to take them out. Conspirators also don't care about cost, whereas commercial companies involved in demolitions use the same materials to keep the price low and not go over budget.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah. You have demonstrated you are a keen supporter of AE911, which is a bunch of pseudo-scientists and cranks who you have often referred to. Like them, you believe WTC 7 was "blown up", but since it's such an absurd bogus theory that you know you can't support, you play this "on the fence" role, pretending to ask objective questions for your "own understanding" - the reality is you are just trying to unreasonably cast doubt on the event in order to hint that some unspecified conspiracy took place.

This kind of crap doesn't do you any good in pretending to rise above me

I never stated wtc7 blew up ... I looked into CD yes because from looking at it it ticks all the boxes for CD

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It puts you in the comfortable deniers position of demanding evidence and explanations from everyone here, and you don't have to provide anything supporting your absurd position

It's par for the course. If you had any logical approach to this historical event, you'd be looking for information and explanations from proper sources, scientists, engineers, whatever... but you aren't, you are choosing to go to a conspiracy theory forum

It's the usual "if you guys can't explain it to me, then it has to be a conspiracy". Personally I can't understand having an irrational belief so strong it drives me to those dishonest lengths, but hey, each to their own

All Im asking is to be just as critical towards NIST then you are towards the likes of AE911 ... They have good points that I posted here to be addressed ... But you seem to be more comfortable shouting and kicking against them then engage in a fruitfull discussion

Notmything

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

This rogue private network planned this operation out in advance and would have prepared for everything.The Truthers have suspects- plenty of investigation done behind the scenes and its lead back to a suspected intelligence front company called Ace Elevator.

This company 'went out of business mysteriously about a year +after the 9/11 attacks. The Truthers suspect some of the rogue operatives gained access by being employees of this company. It gave them access to steel core through the elevator shafts. Renovation work was taking place early 2001 inside both towers.

The Nanothermite theory not debunked because Iron Fe spheres is a byproduct of a thermite reaction. One Official study by RJ Lee found too many of these previously molten Fe spheres in the WTC dust for it to be a natural occuring event.

You thinking of commercial demolitions where they are paid to be careful how the buildings are brought down. Conspirators don't give a crap about the health and environmental concerns of the surrounding area. The columns just need to brought down and could be just enough to place explosives on the steel (with enough energy) to take them out them. Conspirators also don't care about cost, whereas commercial companies involved in demolitions use the same materials to keep the price low and not going over budget.

You know that the presence of iron spheres is not evidence for thermite, better posters than me explained this to you, patiently, time and time again. The also explained why the total absence of another by product of thermite undermined your theory.

So this private, unnamed company, silenced the security, the police, random people who lived in the neighborhood or happened to be in the vicinity. They left absolutely no evidence behind, they must be very good at cleaning up. But not good enough to ensure there was no evidence that thermite was used. There were also not so good that you are able to tell use about them, so who are they?

Notmything wrote: »

You know that the presence of iron spheres is not evidence for thermite, better posters than me explained this to you, patiently, time and time again. The also explained why the total absence of another by product of thermite undermined your theory.

?

I have explained this multiple times in another thread.

Fe Iron Spheres is Molten Iron. There only two ways to have Molten Iron spheres making them by excessive heat (melting process) or by a chemistry reduction (example thermite)

When you read the NIST study they claim no steel melted- therefore no production of steel microspheres.

Iron components inside the building also never melted to make Molten droplets of Iron, when Iron has a higher melting point than Steel.

weisses wrote: »

This kind of crap doesn't do you any good in pretending to rise above me

I never stated wtc7 blew up ... I looked into CD yes because from looking at it it ticks all the boxes for CD

Which demonstrates my point, you believe it was a controlled demolition by denial

Wow

All Im asking is to be just as critical towards NIST then you are towards the likes of AE911

LOL. The FEMA report, the NIST, the Weidlinger report, the ASCE, the AIA - these are not the same as pseudo-science pulp and whatology from a crank internet conspiracy group

You seem like a logical, smart person, but why do you have such a dogmatic blind spot on this subject that you think people like Haritt, Gage, Jones, etc are even remotely close to proper science and investigation on this issue?

Some of these people in that group believe there were no planes involved, Gage has suggested explosives were planted in the buildings when they were being built, Jones was caught manipulating a photo of 9/11 workers looking down at a light to suggest it was molten steel..

Many of these lunatics have been on the Alex Jones show, multiple times, what does that tell you..

engage in a fruitfull discussion

Denialism and arguing against the use of evidence isn't a "fruitful discussion", it's a common trick used by faulty thinkers to validate illogical beliefs

Fionn1952 wrote: »

The quote would be inaccurate. Anything falling experiences drag. Items with a greater surface area experience a greater degree of drag/air resistance. The debris falling from WTC7 did not fall in a vacuum, so it experienced a non-zero amount of air resistance, reducing it's speed to below Gravitational Acceleration (as correctly defined).

If measured with low accuracy (tenths of a second instead of milliseconds for example), the measured time to two or three significant figures may end up the same, but the issue lies with poor measurement rather than the absolutely basic physics I'm talking about here.

I really don't care what side of the debate anyone is on, I just like to see correct terminology used.

Apparently that means I have some sort of connection with another poster in this thread, despite having never engaged with said poster at any time I can recall during my time on Boards, and clearly posting in VERY different subject threads with very different interests. If Cheerful would like to clarify what (s)he is insinuating by that comment, I'd appreciate it.

The centrepiece is the freefall. What would cause 8 floors from corner to corner to collapse in a fraction of a second? This is what the evidence is telling us!

The support was there one moment holding the building, and suddenly it wasn't in a second or less. A portion of the building came down at freefall, and there was zero resistance stopping the collapse vertically at 100 feet and horizontally (the wide span of the floor system, from one side to the next)

Unfortunate the debunkers still ignore NIST even said themselves on video that freefall was an impossibility during a natural collapse. You not getting the points made here, they admitted later after denial, freefall happened, but then wrapped it up in nonsense the columns were only offering negligible support and fire caused it. Their own Finite element models show the opposite thing, and steel and floors are still there providing resistance to the collapse of the upper end floors.

weisses wrote: »

You have not .... You recuse yourself from answering by questioning another posters intellect .....

I'm not insulting your intelligence. I'm just stating a fact.
You don't actually understand what free fall is. That's something you've demonstrated when you claimed that the building "ramped up" to free fall acceleration.
You are confusing terms and notions and you are not accepting the possibility that you are incorrect or you're misinterpreting things.

We can get into it, but first we need to reach some kind of baseline.

weisses wrote: »

Impossible no

But it has been shown to be impossible.
You guys have been telling us that the only way to produce a free fall is to instantly cut all of the supports.
It's a fact that thermite can't instantly cut anything.
That's only something that high explosives can do.
So we know it wasn't thermite.
If you believe it can be possible that thermite can do it, you're going to have to explain how it is possible.

We also know it can't be explosives, because we don't hear 650 explosions right before the collapse.
If you believe the explosion theory is possible, you're going to have to explain how it is possible.

And likewise, you'll need to explain why these theories are somehow different to ideas like space lasers and mini nukes, which are exactly as ridiculous.

Or you could just get off the silly artificial fence and accept that the conspiracy theory explanations aren't possible.