ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags controlled demolition , free fall , wtc7

Reply
Old 9th July 2013, 02:36 PM   #201
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
...
However its shown that your fantastical eight storey column removal would result in an eight storey acceleration profile completely dissimilar to that which describes the fall of wtc7. ...
Come to think of it, wouldn't the "explosive removal" of eight stories worth of columns been noticed by someone? MM cited the lack of broken windows as evidence, but his own scenario should also have windows blown out.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2013, 06:19 PM   #202
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Come to think of it, wouldn't the "explosive removal" of eight stories worth of columns been noticed by someone? MM cited the lack of broken windows as evidence, but his own scenario should also have windows blown out.
That's because they used Shrink-A-Boom, it causes implosions instead of explosions.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2013, 03:04 AM   #203
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Which would implode the windows. Even parodic, made up substances aren't enough.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2013, 11:24 AM   #204
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Come to think of it, wouldn't the "explosive removal" of eight stories worth of columns been noticed by someone? MM cited the lack of broken windows as evidence, but his own scenario should also have windows blown out.
Indeed, and I noted in a post above, window breakage in the event of dozens of simultaneous explosions, some of which MM states, are the north perimeter columns. I may have forgotten to note that there is no witness to this widespread explosive demolition of all columns for eight floors. The reason of course is that these floors were already collapsing removing any requirement for explosives.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2013, 04:34 PM   #205
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,770
Seeing this idea that it "looks like" according to opinion an "industry standard" demolition get thrown around isn't even amusing anymore... If the parties responsible for making these claims are too lazy to do a real investigation this conspiracy theory should be left for dead. Of course it runs contrary to their interests if they decide to commit to anything that involve themselves being responsible for proving their own theories wrong to the audience they've captivated
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 11th July 2013 at 04:35 PM.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2013, 02:47 AM   #206
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Quote:
Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition
Correct! End thread!
Dog Town is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2013, 01:10 PM   #207
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
Seeing this idea that it "looks like" according to opinion an "industry standard" demolition get thrown around isn't even amusing anymore... If the parties responsible for making these claims are too lazy to do a real investigation this conspiracy theory should be left for dead. Of course it runs contrary to their interests if they decide to commit to anything that involve themselves being responsible for proving their own theories wrong to the audience they've captivated
Yes, that! I have stated many times that before one can go spouting that the collapse and its acceleration profile up to and beyond 'g' is definitive evidence of a controlled demolition, that one would absolutely need to study other CD and non-CD collapses and determine IF there is a common acceleration profile for a CD ( I strongly suspect there is not), and if there is any commonality that can set CD versus non-CD apart.

Unfortunately those who wish to point to a short period of FFA as definitive proof of CD seem quite content to simply make pseudo-technical declarative statements rather than anything they can back up without waving their arms about.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 03:02 PM   #208
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
What's up with this WTC7 FREE FALL proof?

Can you disprove this simple proof?
I. Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building” due to the structural components below providing resistance; (David Chandler, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)(1.)

II. And given that NIST agrees, “free fall” is only possible if there are “no structural components below” providing resistance; (Shyam Sunder, NIST)(2.)

III. Therefore, NIST understands that it requires no structural resistance below for a building to free fall.

IV. Given that NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall, and therefore there was no structural resistance from the structural components below;(3.)

V. And given that the only way for there to have been no structural resistance below allowing WTC7 to free fall, would have been to remove all structural resistance at once and that can only be done with a controlled demolition;

VI. Therefore, the free-falling WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
Q.E.D


(Note re: footnotes. I apparently not allowed to add URLs until afyer 15 posts)
1.) Freefall and Building 7: Search: "ae911truth 426-freefall-and-building-7-on-911"

2.) “WTC 7 Technical Briefing,” NIST, August 26, 2008. Although NIST originally had a video and a transcript of this briefing at its Internet website, it recently removed both of them. The transcript, under the title “NIST Technical Briefing on Its Final Draft Report on WTC 7 for Public Comment,” is available at David Chandler’s website


3.) NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 - p.45 (The report talks about WTC7 “descend[ing] at gravitational acceleration, i.e., free fall” and the “free fall continu[ing].

Last edited by david.watts; 4th December 2013 at 03:23 PM. Reason: add footnotes
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 03:10 PM   #209
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post

V. And given that the only way for there to have been no structural resistance below allowing WTC7 to free fall, would have been to remove all structural resistance at once and that can only be done with a controlled demolition;
[Citation Needed]
I don't accept that this is a given.
kid meatball is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 03:14 PM   #210
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
Originally Posted by kid meatball View Post
I don't accept that this is a given.
Nor do I. Silly logic is silly
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 03:18 PM   #211
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,567
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Can you disprove this simple proof?

I. Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building” due to the structural components below providing resistance; (David Chandler, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)

II. And given that NIST agrees, “free fall” is only possible if there are “no structural components below” providing resistance; (Shyam Sunder, NIST)

III. Therefore, NIST understands that it requires no structural resistance below for a building to free fall.

IV. Given that NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall, and therefore there was no structural resistance from the structural components below;

V. And given that the only way for there to have been no structural resistance below allowing WTC7 to free fall, would have been to remove all structural resistance at once and that can only be done with a controlled demolition;

VI. Therefore, the free-falling WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
Q.E.D
Sure, IV is untrue. Global collapse was at least 14.6 seconds, which is far longer than free fall.

QED. Thanks for posting.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 03:24 PM   #212
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,294
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
VI. Therefore, the free-falling WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
Q.E.D
Wow, I'm glad that's settled. Now we don't have to explain all of those uncomfortable anomalies such as the complete absence of any audible or visible explosions.
The complete lack of any evidence of blast damage from explosions.
The complete lack of any recovered evidence of explosives or explosive residue.
Nor do we have to bother explaining how the explosives got in the building without anyone noticing or how they survived 8 hours of raging fires without cooking off prematurely.
And best of all, we don't have to come up with a plausible motive for why anyone would want to blow up an unimportant office building and use an elaborate scheme of hijacking 4 airliners and crashing them into different buildings - even different cities - as a cover.

Thanks for that.

PS

Who is taking bets on this being another drive-by Truthing? Anyone?
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 03:27 PM   #213
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Kid Meatball, you do not take 'IV' as a "given." Well, how else do you "remove ALL structural resistance at once."?

Last edited by david.watts; 4th December 2013 at 03:35 PM. Reason: address reply
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 03:28 PM   #214
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
The "silly logic" is NIST's "silly logic."
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 03:31 PM   #215
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Gosh, NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall. I'm just taking their word for it.
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 03:35 PM   #216
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Kid Meatball, you do not take 'IV' as a "given." Well, how else do you "remove ALL structural resistance at once."?
Ask NIST.
kid meatball is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 03:36 PM   #217
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,567
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Gosh, NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall. I'm just taking their word for it.
No they didn't. I gave you the time for global collapse, right here, right in this thread.

QED.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 03:38 PM   #218
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
 
Dumb All Over's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name)
Posts: 5,357
Hello david.watts,

How come you created your account in 2008 but only decided to start using it now over five years later?

Welcome to the forums.

DAO
__________________
The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty forum word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead."
"Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." -Steve Martin
Dumb All Over is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 03:39 PM   #219
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Wow, I'm glad that's settled. Now we don't have to explain all of those uncomfortable anomalies such as the complete absence of any audible or visible explosions.
The complete lack of any evidence of blast damage from explosions.
The complete lack of any recovered evidence of explosives or explosive residue.
Nor do we have to bother explaining how the explosives got in the building without anyone noticing or how they survived 8 hours of raging fires without cooking off prematurely.
And best of all, we don't have to come up with a plausible motive for why anyone would want to blow up an unimportant office building and use an elaborate scheme of hijacking 4 airliners and crashing them into different buildings - even different cities - as a cover.

Thanks for that.

PS

Who is taking bets on this being another drive-by Truthing? Anyone?
Mark F, The proof is valid. But, maybe you can disprove it. Please make a valid attempt.
Thanks
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 03:41 PM   #220
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Mark F, The proof is valid.
Since when?
kid meatball is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 03:47 PM   #221
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
The "silly logic" is NIST's "silly logic."
NIST doesn't associate "free fall" with controlled demolition. That's your silly logic. Also, after the NIST reports were released, people did much more accurate measurements and it was shown the building was accelerating faster than gravitational acceleration for a brief period.

Do you think that means they installed upside down rockets on the roof in addition to demolitions?

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Mark F, The proof is valid. But, maybe you can disprove it. Please make a valid attempt.
Thanks
He just did.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 03:49 PM   #222
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,567
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Mark F, The proof is valid. But, maybe you can disprove it. Please make a valid attempt.
Thanks
I already did, WTC7 was not in freefall.

QED
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 03:56 PM   #223
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
I already did, WTC7 was not in freefall.
Eh, too subtle under the circumstances. I'd rather agree that the NIST report refers to a period of free fall, point out that it offers an explanation, and conclude that kid meatball won the thread approximately 8 minutes in. But it's a matter of taste.
MarkLindeman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 04:04 PM   #224
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,567
Originally Posted by MarkLindeman View Post
Eh, too subtle under the circumstances. I'd rather agree that the NIST report refers to a period of free fall, point out that it offers an explanation, and conclude that kid meatball won the thread approximately 8 minutes in. But it's a matter of taste.
How the hell is he going to learn? Plus, they said that (for one small part of the WTC7 that was under observation) there were periods that exceeded free fall.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 04:32 PM   #225
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,294
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Mark F, The proof is valid. But, maybe you can disprove it. Please make a valid attempt.
Thanks
I don't have to. This topic has been done to death. As I recall there is quite a bit of discussion on this currently active thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=267933

While you may be new to this and think you have made some great revelation, most of the rest of us regard this as tired old news, so long ago discredited it is hardly worth the bother.

We for example all understand that "free fall" is not a characteristic of CD and no one has ever proven a single case of free fall during a CD. Thus your primary argument is invalid before it leaves the gate.

Secondly, the rest of us know that - for a brief moment at least - 7 World Trade exceeded free-fall. How does that fit into your CD hypothesis?

PS

I should add that since I am not the one making claims the burden of proof is not mine, it is yours. You have not made a prima facie case and I reject your attempt to reverse the burden of proof.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.

Last edited by Mark F; 4th December 2013 at 04:33 PM.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 04:49 PM   #226
Macgyver1968
Philosopher
 
Macgyver1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 5,164
Spank me and call me jaded...but I smell a 5 year old sock.
__________________
"Fixin' crap that ain't broke."
Macgyver1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 04:52 PM   #227
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,826
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Gosh, NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall. I'm just taking their word for it.
The explosives stuff, or controlled demolition stuff was made up by 911 truth. Like a fantasy, and now you need proof their fantasy is not real? Sounds like a Bigfoot like belief, one based on nothing.

Here is how it works, you provide the evidence, and prove it was CD. You can't, case closed. That was quick.

lol, the old 911 truth lies. Did the 911 truth tell you it took over 16 seconds for WTC 7 to collapse, and that the internal structure was collapsing first?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE
oops, faster than free fall.

Falling faster than Free fall, is what the IQ of one does who believes in 911 truth woo.

Did you know the interior of WTC 7 was collapsing before the facade fell? Is that a NO? OR what?

There were no explosives used on WTC 7; I don't need to prove it, you need to prove otherwise, and the OP is not full of anything but woo from 911 truth. Fantasy junk made up out of ignorance.

Do you still believe in explosives 7 stories ahead the WTC collapse? Where have you been"?

What did it? Thermite?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 04:52 PM   #228
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21,567
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Secondly, the rest of us know that - for a brief moment at least - 7 World Trade exceeded free-fall.
This is not strictly accurate. here is what NIST said:

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* 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


This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

The North Face is not the entire building, and this occurred because much of the structure supporting that facade had already collapsed (at less than free fall)
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 05:14 PM   #229
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,294
Originally Posted by Macgyver1968 View Post
Spank me and call me jaded...but I smell a 5 year old sock.
Your jaded
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 05:15 PM   #230
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,386
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Can you disprove this simple proof?
It isn't a proof but here, briefly, are the key errors:
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
I. Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building” due to the structural components below providing resistance; (David Chandler, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)(1.)
Both claims are false - the main one being "Given that “free fall is impossible for a building” due to the structural components below providing resistance;" is true if there are resisting structural elements and false if there are not. So it is a "come in suckers" statement with an unstated implied premise. The second claim - i.e. with the "Natural collapse" limit inserted "Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building” due to the structural components below providing resistance;" is also false. Both CD and "natural collapse" (whatever that is supposed to mean) may show some parts of a building in free fall. Free fall is of zero value distinguishing "CD" from "natural". THEN Chandler is a person known to be incompetent in applying physics at the level of complexity presented by WTC collapse AND a demonstrably untruthful person.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
II. And given that NIST agrees, “free fall” is only possible if there are “no structural components below” providing resistance; (Shyam Sunder, NIST)(2.)
Two points - the issues is truth or otherwise of the claim for CD. What NIST says is irrelevant. THEN the quote mined answer is taken out of context. It is not a global truth. Put simply the misquotation of NIST is not a valid step in the logic of the claim.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
III. Therefore, NIST understands that it requires no structural resistance below for a building to free fall.
misleading use of part truth. It is not "a building" - the free fall was part of a building. (It is relatively easy to achieve free fall for part of a building. Difficult to do for the whole building. And that is a key "lie by innuendo" practised by the truth movement. Get them to show how - even with CD - they can achieve free fall of a building. Too complex for this first rebuttal BUT the truther setting of "WTC in free fall" is a false dichotomy.)
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
IV. Given that NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall, and therefore there was no structural resistance from the structural components below;(3.)
The fact of evidence stands alone - the truth of it does not rely on NIST. It is true BUT given the use of multiple "lies by inference" in the claim to be valid logic it should explicitly state "... from the structural components below that part of the building which was in free fall". (even that is not "bulletproof" but good enough for this first round rebuttal.)
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
V. And given that the only way for there to have been no structural resistance below allowing WTC7 to free fall, would have been to remove all structural resistance at once and that can only be done with a controlled demolition;
Both claims false viz "at once" and "only...controlled demolition" A collapse mechanism is a collapse mechanism - it has no cognitive ability to know whether it was started by "CD" or "naturally".
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
VI. Therefore, the free-falling WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
since none of the supporting steps are valid the claim is not made out.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Q.E.D
Yes it is QED - but QED "no prima facie" case - or in lay language "no case to answer".

Last edited by ozeco41; 4th December 2013 at 05:17 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 05:25 PM   #231
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by kid meatball View Post
Since when?
To be fair, the proof is valid, provided the premises are true. That, however, is the problem. The things he takes as "given" aren't givens at all, they're Truther distortions of the truth or outright lies. Therefore, while the proof is perfectly valid, it's also perfectly useless because the premises are worthless.
__________________
Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 05:34 PM   #232
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,386
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Well, how else do you "remove ALL structural resistance at once."?
False premise as explained in my previous post.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
The "silly logic" is NIST's "silly logic."
Two points - what NIST says is irrelevant - if NIST said "Santa's custard did it" it would not be true. Nothing NIST said years later can change what happened. Stop confusing the objective "CD or not?" does not depend on whether NIST explained it right or wrong.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Gosh, NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall. I'm just taking their word for it.
Part of WTC7 was in free fall - approximately free fall actually - it went over "G" briefly according the the most accurate measurements we have seen. And that much is fact whether or not NIST OR Chandler got it right.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Mark F, The proof is valid.
Hogwash. See my previous post. Every step of the claim is in error.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
But, maybe you can disprove it.
He doesn't have to disprove it. It is your claim. YOU have to prove it. You haven't proved it. So even if the burden was on us to "disprove" there is nothing to disprove.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Please make a valid attempt.
Actually some of us would even though it is your burden of proof. BUT we cannot "disprove it" until you give us a case to answer. Ball in your court.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Thanks
Don't be hypocritical BUT thanks anyway.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 05:41 PM   #233
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,386
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
To be fair, the proof is valid, provided the premises are true. ... Therefore, while the proof is perfectly valid, it's also perfectly useless because the premises are worthless.
That is an interesting definition of "proof".

I usually take a "Proof" to consist of:
A) elements of facts verified (or verifiable) by evidence;
B) linked by a logical structure of argument.

So the simple "logical structure" may be correct but the other half of the "proof" is wrong. The concept that the facts are not part of the 'proof' is new to me.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 06:09 PM   #234
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Gosh, NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall. I'm just taking their word for it.
wrong. they said the NORTH FACE of the building was in free fall for 4 seconds.

Since when was the NORTH FACE of a building an entire building?

Fail on your part and fail at reading properly.
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 06:12 PM   #235
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
What fools like idiot boy Chandler and little Dickie Gage over lolok is that the so-called free-fall only occurred along one edge of a structure that was the last remnant of a structure which had already been effectively destroyed. The back wall was no longer supported by the right. Its own weigh appears to have carried it over the rest of the rubble.

When an unsupported wall breaks, the pieces tend to come down at freefall.

Little Dickie and the bearded weirdo would have a lot more credibility if they ever had to actually assemble the crap the design.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 06:36 PM   #236
DC
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 23,064
What's up with it? its not proof at all of what you claim it to be, that is whats up with it.
DC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 06:52 PM   #237
Porkpie Hat
Critical Thinker
 
Porkpie Hat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Can you disprove this simple proof?
I. Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building” due to the structural components below providing resistance; (David Chandler, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)(1.)
Perhaps you could show where and how Chandler has proven free fall is impossible for a natural collapse.

Steel has and does fail in fires.

Structural failures can lead to collapses.

The rate of those collapses is, in part, determined by the amount of structural integrity lost to local failures.

Unless you can prove those statements incorrect, your main premise is nothing but fallacious garbage.
Porkpie Hat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 07:31 PM   #238
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,647
Looks like someone forgot to tell Con Ed and the US courts.

US appeals court rules negligence was not cause of 3rd building collapse in Sept. 11 attacks

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/...249/story.html


Quote:
Con Ed had claimed negligence resulted in part because Tower 7's tenants were allowed to install diesel backup generators.


The fuel burned for hours in the building after hijacked planes struck the two nearby towers, flinging debris into the smaller skyscraper. Con Edison had maintained that fuel from the diesel tanks heightened the fire's intensity.


The fire department decided to let Tower 7 burn because it was unable to reach adequate water supplies, there were no people in the building and 343 firefighters had already been killed that day, the appeals court noted.
You're welcome.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 08:03 PM   #239
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26,121
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Can you disprove this simple proof?

I can disprove it with one video, supplied by (but clearly not understood by) A&E 9/11 themselves.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmdcMb5D9gM


Pause that at about 9 seconds, and look at what is happening to a section of the building that covers about 6-8 stories down near the base.

That's 6-8 stories of support columns all buckling and failing virtually instantaneously, across the width of the north face of the building.

As explained here:


Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
This is not strictly accurate. here is what NIST said:

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* 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


This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

The North Face is not the entire building, and this occurred because much of the structure supporting that facade had already collapsed (at less than free fall)

...the period of freefall occurred well after the onset of general collapse (which A&E9/11 lies about, btw), and just about matches the timing of the buckling shown in that video.



One would think a bunch of "professionals" like A&E9/11 claim to be would have noticed this, and addressed it already, but they didn't and they haven't. Go ask them how they explain this, and see what they have to say.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 08:22 PM   #240
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
WTC7 was never in a sustained free fall. The measured point achieved ff only as it was actually passing through that rate and that measured point went beyond ff acceleration.
Here's a given;
Given that it is impossible for an object to achieve greater than g acceleration in simple vertical motion it follows that some other mechanism was in play.
Given that there is no mechanism specific to the use of explosives/ controlled demolition presented by Chandler or AE911T that accounts for this , the premise that the data set proves CD is not supported. If some mechanism of internal collapse leveraged an addition to the force on the facade, or if rotational effects caused an higher acceleration these can easily be part of a so called natural collapse.

Furthermore, AE911T simply contends ffa requires CD but can present no study of structural failures indicating that ffa is specific to CD and cannot occur without the use of explosives. Even the bald contention fails in that it is a strictly 1d proposition for what was a 3d event over a time period of 16+ seconds.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 4th December 2013 at 08:33 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:50 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.