Free Fall thread

Dohnjoe · 29-05-2020 1:25pm

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

weisses · 29-05-2020 1:26pm

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

Cheerful Spring2 · 29-05-2020 1:28pm

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.

weisses · 29-05-2020 1:30pm

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 · 29-05-2020 1:35pm

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?

Cheerful Spring2 · 29-05-2020 1:42pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 29-05-2020 1:51pm

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

Cheerful Spring2 · 29-05-2020 2:01pm

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.

King Mob · 29-05-2020 2:18pm

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 29-05-2020 2:22pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

The Weidlinger report does not back the NIST findings. The same side of the building the collapse started yes ( on the eastside) but Weidlinger group said the collapse started on the 9th and 10th floor.

Which means NIST progressive collapse is wrong as they hypothesis the event was triggered on the 13th floor.

When they can't agree how fire brought it down exactly, it says a lot about their expertise. Weidlinger made no mention of freefall in their report. The fire studies are only looking at potential trigger events on the eastside and still overlooking, the physical fact 8 floors disappeared below with no concievable way to how that was triggered in a fraction of a second.

Dohnjoe · 29-05-2020 2:27pm

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".

The Nal · 29-05-2020 2:30pm

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 29-05-2020 2:41pm

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:)

Dohnjoe · 29-05-2020 2:48pm

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 29-05-2020 2:57pm

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.

The Nal · 29-05-2020 2:58pm

Still with the Larry thing! lol

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

Cheerful Spring2 · 29-05-2020 3:02pm

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.

King Mob · 29-05-2020 3:05pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 29-05-2020 3:05pm

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

Cheerful Spring2 · 29-05-2020 3:13pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 29-05-2020 3:17pm

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

Cheerful Spring2 · 29-05-2020 3:26pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 29-05-2020 3:33pm

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

Cheerful Spring2 · 29-05-2020 3:38pm

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.

The Nal · 29-05-2020 3:40pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 29-05-2020 3:49pm

The Nal wrote: »

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

You'd think

Cheerful Spring2 · 29-05-2020 3:49pm

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 · 29-05-2020 3:52pm

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

Cheerful Spring2 · 29-05-2020 4:00pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 29-05-2020 4:06pm

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

The Nal · 29-05-2020 4:12pm

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 29-05-2020 4:15pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 29-05-2020 4:20pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

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

Did you watch the video?

Cheerful Spring2 · 29-05-2020 4:24pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 29-05-2020 4:29pm

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 · 29-05-2020 4:34pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 29-05-2020 4:39pm

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

The Nal · 29-05-2020 4:39pm

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 · 29-05-2020 4:40pm

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.

Cheerful Spring2 · 29-05-2020 4:40pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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..

What incredible you ruling it out, and yet have not seen one roll of film to debunk it. Your opinion is baseless.

I've provided evidence in different threads to support the controlled demolition theory.

Debunkers have to be right all the time. Truthers only have to be right one time about these anomalies and it's game over.

Freefall- is 100 percent proof for me the truthers are right. The twin towers explantations provided make sense when you believe seven building was rigged to come down on 9/11.

You have not taken that step yet to acceptance.

Dohnjoe · 29-05-2020 4:41pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What incredible you ruling it out, and yet have not seen one roll of film to debunk it.

lol

Have you seen footage from pinewood studios that doesn't show them filming a fake moon landing, if not, then how can you rule it out?

This is amazing, even for you!

The Nal · 29-05-2020 4:46pm

I've seen footage of them not filming the Loch Ness monster. Incredible people ruling it out.

Cheerful Spring2 · 29-05-2020 4:47pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

lol

Have you seen footage from pinewood studios that doesn't show them filming a fake moon landing, if not, then how can you rule it out?

This is amazing, even for you!

Like I said, Freefall having taken place here during the collapse of seven, is what convinced me. Because of this i know debunkers are wrong.

banie01 · 29-05-2020 4:48pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

lol

Have you seen footage from pinewood studios that doesn't show them filming a fake moon landing, if not, then how can you rule it out?

This is amazing, even for you!

If I don't have video footage 24/7 of the suspect beams proving that they weren't tampered with...

Then that's proof that they were tampered with!?

This is honestly a whole level of craziness above any CS has spun on any of his efforts to date.

CS, as has been explained too you many times.
The absence of evidence, is not evidence.

In particular the absence of video of explosives not being planted,well that's must certainly not evidence.

I mean this from a place of concern, not as trying to score points.
Please!
Please, seek professional help.

Dohnjoe · 29-05-2020 4:53pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Like I said, Freefall having taken place here during the collapse of seven, is what convinced me. Because of this i know debunkers are wrong.

Convinced you Nazi's blew all the towers up..

Cheerful Spring2 · 29-05-2020 4:55pm

Official narrative about building seven collapse got torn apart in Aug 2008 when NIST admitted on tape here free fall was an impossibility (can't happen). They can't recover from that (the end!)

Ipso · 29-05-2020 5:17pm

No footage of UFOs, holograms, space lasers etc
The list is endless. Is this line of reasoning really where we are in the 21st century?

Dohnjoe · 29-05-2020 5:22pm

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Official narrative about building seven collapse got torn apart in Aug 2008 when NIST admitted on tape here free fall was an impossibility (can't happen). They can't recover from that (the end!)

Here's an interesting read for you, and this isn't agreeing fully with the NIST's figures

Bonus: he gets replies from Chandler

https://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2019/01/did-wtc7-on-9-11-really-descend-in-free-fall-for-2-25-seconds-a-closer-look-at-the-nist-calculation/

weisses · 01-06-2020 12:39pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

you personally don't believe fire brought WTC 7 down, correct?

Following the evidence at hand I find that highly unlikely

weisses · 01-06-2020 12:44pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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

Wow

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..

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

I think you are posting in the wrong forum

All you do is engage in whinging at me in your reply .... Focus at the question at hand ... this thread is about free fall

Free Fall thread

Comments