Free Fall thread

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The Weidlinger report does not back the NIST findings.

It does, both studies come to the same conclusion.

You are trying to play "spot the difference" in order to discredit both in order to suggest some conspiracy involving Nazi's. No two large-scale investigations are going to be precisely the same, especially something on the scale of 9/11. Due to the spread of fires, and the sheer amount of variables, that **** is hard to determine to an exact precise point, and that is acknowledged.

Neither of the studies found the buildings were "blown up".

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.

Theres no evidence to suggest theyre anything but a regular maintenance company.

They didn't do any maintenance in WT7.

Explain that please. Provide evidence for your claim.

"This rogue private network". lol. Poor old Ace Elevators. 3 or 4 lads doing their job branded as mass murdering treasonous terrorists by a lunatic.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It does, both studies come to the same conclusion.
".

One builder told you a collapse started on a 15th floor and another came along and said no it happened on the 9th floor. Are the agreeing with each other about the collapse mechanisms:)

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

One builder told you a collapse started on a 15th floor and another came along and said no it happened on the 9th floor. Are the agreeing with each other about the collapse mechanisms:)

These aren't builders. These are structural engineers, experts and investigators.

They have come to a conclusion that you don't like because it contradicts a personal belief you have, one that also happens to correspond neatly with your world view. A belief which changes randomly.

One day it's the Jews (Larry S), the next it's Nazi's.

This is why posters describe your views on this as "child-like" because these beliefs are determined by what you are imagining on a particular day. The only way you can support these beliefs is by relying on denial of the event.

That's it.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

These aren't builders. These are structural engineers, experts and investigators.

They have come to a conclusion that you don't like because a personal belief you have, one that also happens to correspond neatly with your world view. A belief which changes randomly.

One day it's the Jews (Larry S), the next it's Nazi's.

This is why posters describe your views on this as "child-like" because they are determined by what you are imagining on a particular day. The only way you can support these beliefs is by relying on denial of the event.

That's it.

You so called experts on video by the way denied freefall. If Hulsey did the same he be attacked for it. We have them on video saying there was no freefall what more evidence do you need here? The knew then it was physically impossible based on their own study findings.

Larry being a Jew irrelevant. People read his statement about pull it and then asked questions. Larry even says on video a firefighter phoned him to talk about pull it and then he says we watched it fall.

Debunkers claim pull it it not a term used in demolition, of course this another lie.

Still with the Larry thing! lol

Poor Larry. Another person being branded as a mass murdering treasonous terrorist.

The Nal wrote: »

Still with the Larry thing! lol

Poor Larry. Another person being branded as a mass murdering treasonous terrorist.

There was nobody in the building to kill, it was empty. There plenty of financial offices inside the building, and CIA had one of the largest offices of operations outside of langley in the building. They brought it down, evidence is clear.

[Deleted User]

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There was nobody in the building to kill, it was empty. There plenty of financial offices inside the building, and CIA had one of the largest offices of operations outside of langley in the building. They pulled down it evidence is clear.

And throwing out more random ranting tangents because you're being backed into a corner again.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You so called experts on video

You have literally stated they were "in" on the conspiracy. 200 or so experts.

Likewise, just because you personally don't understand certain concepts, doesn't mean the world is wrong or in on a conspiracy

The delusion here is extraordinary

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You have literally stated they were "in" on the conspiracy. 200 or so experts.

Likewise, just because you personally don't understand certain concepts, doesn't mean the world is wrong or in on a conspiracy

The delusion here is extraordinary

There is no evidence 200 people worked on this, who are they? Can we hear them on video describing what they did?
Hulsey completed his study with two others over 4 years
NIST took six whole years for the building seven study to come out.
Videos belonging to NIST: I just saw 6 to 8 people sitting in a badly light room looking at drawings on a board.
NIST never released their raw data about the collapse to be checked. History shown debunkers only care about transparency when it involves truther studies, they couldn't careless nobody can download NIST finite element data online.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

There is no evidence 200 people worked on this

"Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests, and created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse."

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

All you do is deny, deny, deny

Dohnjoe wrote: »

"Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests, and created sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse."

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

All you do is deny, deny, deny

The largest terrorist attack in history and yet in 18 years not one of them has come out and spoken about their time investigating the collapses on 9/11.

NIST impulsion to lie is noted already elsewhere in their work, so anything they say must be investigated.

There no doubt people worked doing different things, watching video and reviewing photographs, stuff like that, but the structural engineering and collapse work involved a handful of picked people NIST trusted.

Until we hear from the 85 people, not believing anything they say.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Until we hear from the 85 people, not believing anything they say.

You do a better job of highlighting how ridiculous 9/11 truthers are than anyone here

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You do a better job of highlighting how ridiculous 9/11 truthers are than anyone here

Today can you download NIST data for the collapse of building seven?

Nobody can it's a study based on faith and you just have to believe them. If this happened on another day they would not let NIST off the hook. Refusing to let people in the engineering community see their input and calculations data for the fire collapse is nonsense.

Science is replication of an experiment and someone elses study to show it is true.

Not even a hint of an theory on how they rigged these three huge buildings apart from "they sneaked in at night".

Until this is tackled there is no further conversation to be had about thermite, freefall and so on.

The Nal wrote: »

Until this is tackled there is no further conversation to be had about thermite, freefall and so on.

You'd think

The Nal wrote: »

Not even a hint of an theory on how they rigged these three huge buildings apart from "they sneaked in at night".

Until this is tackled there is no further conversation to be had about thermite, freefall and so on.

How do others do it?
What so hard about walking into a empty building at night and placing devices on steel and leaving?
It not Fort Knox when a military unit guarding the facility.
You have a security guard or two at night who could easily be paid off or placed there ahead of time to let them in.
Fact remains, the physical observations and collapse of the 8 floors (resulting in freefall) is evidence for a controlled demolition.
Freefall is not a feature of collapse that's natural.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The largest terrorist attack in history and yet in 18 years not one of them has come out and spoken about their time investigating the collapses on 9/11.

NIST impulsion to lie is noted already elsewhere in their work, so anything they say must be investigated.

There no doubt people worked doing different things, watching video and reviewing photographs, stuff like that, but the structural engineering and collapse work involved a handful of picked people NIST trusted.

Until we hear from the 85 people, not believing anything they say.

What in the special goalpost hell is this logic

Overheal wrote: »

What in the special goalpost hell is this logic

Fact is there supporting evidence fire alone was not melting steel.When you find unusual events are taking place not seen in a fire before, that should be enough to wake people up. The audience on here is debunkers who dismiss everything as just a normal occurrence. I don't call steel with holes and material missing from steel normal. We should be seeing similar phenomenons in other building fires and we don't. Buildings in New York are not magic buildings, they are made with the same construction materials you find in other buildings.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What so hard about walking into a empty building at night and placing devices on steel and leaving?

This is how it would have to be done...

https://youtu.be/0jrUsKiu2CU?t=1931

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

How do others do it?
What so hard about walking into a empty building at night and placing devices on steel and leaving?

Because it wasn't empty. Far from it. And they would've had to bring tonnes of explosives in with them.

An absurd (and hilarious) suggestion thinking you could just stroll in or that there were just "a security guard or two" (lol!) at the World Trade Centre.

This isn't your local Centra. Its the financial capital of the world.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is how it would have to be done...

Yup. Until this is approached, anything else is irrelevant.

But this is how they really got in.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This is how it would have to be done...

https://youtu.be/0jrUsKiu2CU?t=1931

A few sagging floor Trusses brought down the twin towers?
Controlled demolition ridiculous?
Just place a few demolitions on the floor trusses and walk away its that easy!

You don't place thousands of explosives- that's nonsense- no demolition crew wires up the complete building.
They just place devices on key floors to start a gravity-based collapse after the set them off.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Just place a few demolitions on the floor trusses and walk away its that easy!

Did you watch the video?

The Nal wrote: »

Because it wasn't empty. Far from it. And they would've had to bring tonnes of explosives in with them.

An absurd (and hilarious) suggestion thinking you could just stroll in or that there were just "a security guard or two" (lol!) at the World Trade Centre.

This isn't your local Centra. Its the financial capital of the world.

Yup. Until this is approached, anything else is irrelevant.

But this is how they really got in.

I reject your view is not possible. We have no film from inside the garage area or inside the twin towers to rule it it out. Your social reality is can't happen and you think people in power can't make it happen. This for me is naive. Plus you think they arrived with boxes or containers stamped with a bomb tag Nobody cares about workers who have access to the buildings. The steel not exposed to the public for them to notice what going on anyhow.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

We have no film from inside the garage area or inside the twin towers to rule it it out.

This is incredible..

"There isn't footage of them not planting explosives so they planted explosives"

You are losing any remaining grip on reality here..

Ipso

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

How do others do it?
What so hard about walking into a empty building at night and placing devices on steel and leaving?
It not Fort Knox when a military unit guarding the facility.
You have a security guard or two at night who could easily be paid off or placed there ahead of time to let them in.
Fact remains, the physical observations and collapse of the 8 floors (resulting in freefall) is evidence for a controlled demolition.
Freefall is not a feature of collapse that's natural.

Yeah. Because buildings that were a prior target would have very little security.

Ipso wrote: »

Yeah. Because buildings that were a prior target would have very little security.

If there no footage of a no demolition team planting hundreds of tons of explosives.. then how can you confirm it didn't happen?

4a5001b7beea096457f480c8808572428b-09-roll-safe.rsquare.w700.jpg

4a5001b7beea096457f480c8808572428b-09-roll-safe.rsquare.w700.jpg

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I reject your view is not possible. We have no film from inside the garage area or inside the twin towers to rule it it out.

And no evidence whatsoever to rule it in. No witnesses, nothing out of the ordinary. Zero. One of the more idiotic statements I've ever seen on the internet.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Your social reality is can't happen and you think people in power can't make it happen. This for me is naive.

Nope, its possible it could've been done. But there would have had to be a lot of evidence. There is no evidence.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Plus you think they arrived with boxes or containers stamped with a bomb tag Nobody cares about workers who have access to the buildings.

This is 100% not true. any workers going into those buildings needed pre clearance, had to sign in, say where they were going, what they were doing, for how long, log every activity, debrief the foreman who would've then spoken to the building managers who would've had to report to the city authorities and so on. A huge chain of custody when it came to physical work in the buildings.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The steel not exposed to the public for them to notice what going on anyhow.

100% not true. Also "The public" didn't have access to or work in those buildings.

This is the reverse scientific method and it falls at the first hurdle which you rather hilariously have proved time and time again. You're actually the greatest debunker I've witnessed.

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

A few sagging floor Trusses brought down the twin towers?
Controlled demolition ridiculous?
Just place a few demolitions on the floor trusses and walk away its that easy!

You don't place thousands of explosives- that's nonsense- no demolition crew wires up the complete building.
They just place devices on key floors to start a gravity-based collapse after the set them off.

So a few charges are/were used to remove key structural supports on key floors?

That would initiate a progressive/pancake collapse.
The floor above the removed supports would drop into the vacated space, and further collapse would be slowed by the resistance offered by each complete floor.

Your "few" charges theory is completely incompatible with demolition induced freefall.

Other than that tho, great story bro.