Discussion in '9/11' started by LiberalHypocrisy, Apr 22, 2014.
And the evidence supports our point of view.
I can understand the angle the Security Services use when they deny declassifying information, but when the scientists and nerds get involved in invoking National Security to explain their inability To Show Their Math then it enters a different realm altogether. Since we know that information is being withheld from us, coming to any solid conclusion is premature at best, eh?
So then does this mean that you lean toward something along the lines of the plot for the film…..
In that film……. a British agent poses as a radical Islamic thinker…… in order to get some really really naive people to actually set off bombs…. which sets up the people who want an excuse to have tighter security measures enforced in England?!?!
OBE evidence that driving a plane into a tall building is bad theology!???
Dr. P. M. H. Atwater had three near death experiences in 1977!
She claims to have done an out of body experience and travelled to the scene of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack.
What she saw could inspire people to begin to question the wisdom of taking religion to a place where it justifies violence!
Where is your proof of that claim?
I want you to show me the calcs or FEAs from you truther side that show the perimeter columns would resist the aircraft impact. I provided FEAs that show the plane would penetrate.
You have provided NOTHING.
If you think that all the resistance was removed at all the same time, tell me why there was a period of no freefall when the roofline started to descend. Tell me why they observed the building leaning when they put a transit on it prior to collapse. Tell me why they observed a bulge in the side of the building way before the collapse initiation. Tell me why they heard the building creaking prior to collapse.
And as far as your freefall claim, it was an average. The data points show periods of lower than free fall speeds. Explain that.
- - - Updated - - -
Is this a lie genericBob? Was it the entire WTC structure that fell at this point or just a portion?
More like an exaggeration. 7WTC fell for over 17 seconds and free-fall was noted on the NW corner for 2.25 seconds at the 12.5 second mark. It is in the NIST report in the appendices, however, it does not support Chandler's claim of 'instantaneous and protracted free-fall', nor does it support any notion of controlled demolition. It was also noted that for two seconds the collapse exceeded free-fall suggesting that the collapsing interior might have 'dragged' the curtain wall down, thus explaining the acceleration (that was one hypothesis I read-thanks Oystein).
Several theories have been posited on why and at best, it is only a guessing game as to what actually occurred within the building and any hypothesis on the collapse initiation cannot be proven conclusively. Having said that, I believe whatever occurred is a result of the fires and building damage, and that the idea of a CD is technically, logistically, and practically implausible.
Poll results at this point in time:
argument from incredulity......
also the fact that the North & West walls are seen descending at Free-Fall acceleration, proves beyond any doubt that ALL of the structure had to have been removed and all at the same time in order to produce the result as observed. there have been ideas floated about how the falling penthouse "helped" the North & West walls fall at free fall acceleration, however these sorts of scenarios are in only miniscule probability of actually happening, its difficult enough to get a laboratory bench set-up that demonstrates the effect but to expect that falling stuff within a skyscraper would just happen to arrange itself so as to provide the levers & fulcrum points to achieve the result is simply reaching too far.
Speculation about what sort of explosive was used or who planted it and how did they do it doesn't in any way negate what is seen, & the fact of what is clearly indicated by what is seen.
No, I believe it was terrorists flying planes into the buildings
No, and I can back up my case.
No, I posited that the falling interior perhaps 'pulled' the curtain wall down and that is supported by the acceleration beyond free-fall that was observed for 2 seconds. If you are going to challenge a hypothesis at least get it right, or you may be accused of misrepresenting a post with deceitful intent. On an added note, why don't 9/11 truth members ask 'why did it exceed free-fall?'
Yet you're unable to demonstrate your claim, and if you think that is reaching too far, then what does that make the implausible scenario of planting fire-proof and noiseless explosives? You dismiss the plausible without a valid reason to embrace the implausible without a valid reason. All that tells us is that you're a victim of your own anti-governmental sentiment, and not given to rational and critical thinking.
Yeah, you can't let logistics and probability get in the way of a tall story. Seriously? If you can't explain what type of explosives were deployed, or why they were planted and by whom, all without any physical evidence, or that of any witnesses, and all you have is the supposition of universal free-fall to lean on, you haven't got much of a case.
Poll update: Yes - 20
No - 58
NO, you are missing the point, the fact of 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration + the fact that the north west corner can be seen to remain vertical as it dropped clearly indicates that the structure holding up the North & West walls all just disappeared and all at the same time. falling structural elements do NOT magically help along other bits to fall faster than the acceleration of gravity. There were explosive sounds recorded on 9/11 however the debunkers insist that these sounds could not possibly have been from explosives that were used to bring down WTC7.
Serious problem here is that it can NOT be explained by fire & any sort of convoluted logic to have the structure simply disappear as had to have happened in this case.
Again,Bob,seeing as how 2.25 seconds amounts to around 100 feet of the building,what 'speed' did the rest fall at?
The fact of the free fall acceleration and the condition of the building while it fell, is all the evidence needed to conclude that the structure under the falling mass had to have been removed completely and all at the same time. For a building or for that matter just the North & West walls if you will, to descend for 100 ft at free fall acceleration is a VERY significant feature of the event, and indicates clearly that this was an engineered collapse not the product of unfocused fires in the building.
Just answer the question,Bob.
And I have provided two points that refute your "freefall = controlled demolition claim".
1. The instant that all the support components were removed at the same time to initiate the roofline descent, why was there a brief period of non-freefall? According to you and all the other truthers, zero support equals free fall right?
2. The freefall speed of descent was NOT, repeat NOT a consistent acceleration as indicated by Chandler's graph. There are periods of slower than freefall and faster than freefall. The rate of descent you keep blathering on about was an AVERAGE. So what caused the less than freefall data points? Resistance of some sort eh?
I disagree. It's a blatant lie/misrepresentation to add an "awe factor" to the discussion. Most truthers like to claim the entire structure of WTC7 came down in 6 to 7 seconds as they believe that description lends more to their CD theories then having to actually incorporate the REAL descriptions of what happened to that building during the course of the day.
What inspires thoughts of controlled demolition between the two descriptions below?
1. WTC7 suddenly came down at freefall in 6 to 7 seconds
2. WTC7 was observed to have a visible bulge on one side of the building, had a transit set up to show a lean to the structure, had the east penthouse collapse first into the building itself which propagated to the west penthouse, had a kink and twist become visible in the roofline and facade, had what remained of the structure come down at an average freefall speed for 2.25 seconds.
Where are your numbers to back this up genericBob?
Why, number 2 makes sense of course. They reject the reasonable in favour of the ridiculous.
'Magically'? Please don't introduce such terms as they are misrepresenting the hypothesis. You cannot demonstrate that the interior DIDN'T pull down the curtain wall as it fell, and you can't explain why greater than free-fall was observed for 2 seconds.
There are explosions in fires, Bob, it is that simple. How did these explosives survive seven hours of unfought fires?
Well, Bob, it's like this, fire is the only reasonable explanation posited thus far and the only explanation with supporting evidence. 9/11 truth has been unable to demonstrate that there was a CD, nor has it been able to demonstrate that fire COULDN'T have destroyed the building, therefore, the accepted hypothesis still stands.
Convoluted logic? BS. It is a rational hypothesis that you have been unable to address or discount.
So the truther community is expected to come up with an explanation as to why fire could not possibly have removed ALL of the structure, and ALL at the same time out from under the North & West walls of WTC7. Lets put it this way, engineered events show order & completeness of the job, non-organized, non-engineered events are chaotic in nature and do NOT display the sort of order that the fall of WTC7 had.
WTC7's collapse was chaotic. Wildly so.
Please use your "common sense" to explain why the wings didn't break off in the video below. Why didn't the tail break off? That was a solid concrete block!
Can you show me where the truthers have provided any engineering documentation that shows where any of the math or engineering is wrong in the NIST report? Can you provide any truther documentation that shows the FEAs of the tower impacts to be wrong?
I do not think it was an inside job.
Neither do I.......... but I have to admit......… that I am in no position to dogmatically rule out the possibility of a secret service agent or two or three being seriously tempted to encourage an Islamic terrorist or two or three....... to consider a radical action that could galvanize the western democracies................ and make us willing to support another minor Middle Eastern war????????!
Although I am not exactly on the same page as Mr. Steven D. Kelley when it comes to his ideas on September 11, 2001.......... I do not think that he is at all irrational to suspect what he thinks may have happened then??????
A great book to explain UFO - CIA connection?
Separate names with a comma.