Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[josephpalazzo]

There's a video somewhere showing that the side of Building 7 facing the Twin Towers was completely shredded and pretty much standing on toothpicks toward the end. (I seem to have lost the link, but I think it was dprjones who featured it in one of his debunking videos.) It would be far more surprising if it hadn't collapsed, given what the video shows.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

There's a video somewhere showing that the side of Building 7 facing the Twin Towers was completely shredded and pretty much standing on toothpicks toward the end. (I seem to have lost the link, but I think it was dprjones who featured it in one of his debunking videos.) It would be far more surprising if it hadn't collapsed, given what the video shows.

[ Image ]

WTC 6 was significantly shorter than WTC 7. This photo proves nothing. The following video, on the other hand:

[youtube:2kvg96ln][/youtube:2kvg96ln]

[Jason78]

Some of you may be wondering why I posted this in the "other religions" category.  Or even if you are not, I will inform you anyway.  Simply because like theists, many of you stand on the claim that you have long held despite no hard evidence of what you believe.  In fact, even when it is proven without a doubt to be false, you still can not give up your faith that the muslims did it and the israelis are innocent.

Four planes were hijacked by terrorists.   They then used those planes as weapons.   We know this to be true.

You are the one acting like a theist with your belief in the existence of controlled demolition charges that no one has ever seen.

Exactly as I predicted.  There are 13 posts attacking my OP with straws at the time of this writing.  NOT EVEN ONE person who posted here even bothers to come up with a lame ass excuse of how the laws of physics could have been suspended for a few seconds on September 11.  My point was, and still is, freefall is impossible if controlled demolition is ruled out.

If you're predicting something after the fact, then you're doing prediction wrong.

Instead of trying to refute what is obviously true, people make assinine remarks about tinfoil hats.  How does that prove freefall was possible without controlled demolition?  Links that don't work.  Links to WTC 1 and WTC 2 but no links related to WTC 7.  Parodies about the US government being behind the attacks.  More nonsense about conspiracy theories.  BUT NOT ONE FUCKIN MENTION of the laws of physics and how they were supposedly suspended on that day.

I believe this proves my point.  Freefall is proof of controlled demolition.  Nobody can refute that.  No one has tried.  Only a lot of unrelated garbage.  Just like any other theist when cornered.  Hurl a lot of insults and slurs.  Ignore the facts and keep babbling about stuff that has nothing to do with what the OP said.

What do you guys call your religion anyway?  The religion of Conspiracy By 19 Jihadists?  Osama's Angels?  Church of the 72 Virgins?

If you've got any documented evidence of these demolition charges, or how they were rigged in all of the buildings without anyone noticing, please share it.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

If you've got any documented evidence of these demolition charges, or how they were rigged in all of the buildings without anyone noticing, please share it.

Otherwise known as: If you look at a 20 story gash in the back of the building that puts weight load onto structural supports in the process of being weakened by extreme heat and call it "normal office fires," we're gonna call bullshit.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So if there was structural resistance at 5:20:00 PM but at 5:20:01 PM there was zero resistance, how is that possible?  Other than controlled demolition, it isn't.

This is incorrect.  Steel will lose structural strength after continued exposure to high heat, and its failure can be sudden.

Freefall is proof of controlled demolition.  Nobody can refute that.  

It doesn't matter how much you embolden your text, or underline it.  This is clearly wrong.  It ignores the objection I've made above, firstly; and secondly, it's logically absurd.  Free-fall is only evidence that the structural support of the building has been removed.  It doesn't prove a single thing about the cause(s).  

Consider it refuted.  Move onto your next "point", please.

[Insult to Rocks]

My favorite thing about 9/11 conspiracies is that they completely forget that there were other planes than just the ones that hit the towers. I always feel a bit sorry for the Pentagon. It had a plane fly into it too! Why isn't it getting any attention?

[Shiranu]

Some of you may be wondering why I posted this in the "other religions" category.

Tl;dr, but I would assume it's because you make a claim with little to no evidence and then say that the burden of proof is on everyone else to prove you wrong... even though you are the one making the crazy claim, just like theists do with god.

[josephpalazzo]

There's a video somewhere showing that the side of Building 7 facing the Twin Towers was completely shredded and pretty much standing on toothpicks toward the end. (I seem to have lost the link, but I think it was dprjones who featured it in one of his debunking videos.) It would be far more surprising if it hadn't collapsed, given what the video shows.

[ Image ]

WTC 6 was significantly shorter than WTC 7. This photo proves nothing. The following video, on the other hand:

[youtube:2re82f7s][/youtube:2re82f7s]

Thx

So much for freefall control demolition... :rollin:  :rollin:  :rollin:

[AtheistMoFo (OP)]

Some of you guys if you looked at yourselves from a different angle you would be amazed at how ridiculous your claims sound.  If I had not read it with my own eyes, I would not believe that I am being accused of sounding like a theist for having blind faith in the Law of Conservation of Energy.  But because I can not point a finger at who placed the explosive charges, and because I can not describe in detail how they managed to rig the demolition, that is seen as sufficient proof that demolition could not have happened.

But, when two buildings across the street are struck by airplanes, each plane carrying 10 thousand gallons of jet fuel, and both buildings across the street come tumbling down, that is cited as sufficient proof that the Law of Conservation of Energy was suspended at Ground Zero on 9/11.  If you said Allah waved his magic wand and spoke, "Let there be a suspension of the laws of nature" it would hardly be more plausible.  (You might get some muslims to believe you though.)

Consider it refuted.  Move onto your next "point", please.

Wow.  Consider it refuted.  No reasoning, no logic, no evidence, but Thumpalumpacus refutes the laws of physics, and presto, they are refuted.  Do you realize how intelligent that statement sounds?  Because Dr. Sunder (leader of the investigation of WTC 7's demise at the National Institute of Standards and Technology) clearly stated that freefall could not have occurred in WTC 7 because there were structural components resisting the fall.

Sure, fires that burn hot enough can cause steel to loose some of its strength.  I never claimed otherwise.  It is a gradual process that causes the steel to get weaker and weaker with the passage of time.  Theoretically it could cause a building to collapse, even though it never happened before 9/11 and never since.  But steel does not instantaneously loose all of its strength at once.  Full support to zero support in a tiny fraction of a second.  Only some type of incindiary device can do that.  Furthermore, pointing out that one side of the building was burning fiercely while the other side was relatively unharmed only supports the claim that the building could not have come down symetrically if not for cutter devices.

The reason I do not mention the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, or the one at the Pentagon, or even the two that crashed into the Twin Towers is that I do not have conclusive irrefutable proof of anything related to those planes at this time.  What I do have is conclusive irrufutable proof that WTC 7 came down at freefall acceleration, thus intention controlled demolition.

I have furnished you with the proof.  If your faith in what you have believed for years prevents you from accepting the facts of life, fine.  Go on living in your fantasy world.

But remember... Next time you try to reason with a theist you will no longer be able to use science to prove your point, because you have refuted science in this discussion.  Can't have your science and refute it too!

[AtheistMoFo (OP)]

Since everybody else posting to this topic is totally sidestepping the issues and merely babbling a lot of gibberish, let me add my own bit of nonsense.  (What the hell, I've already proved my point.)

I keep hearing this term "conspiracy theory" being used in a mocking way.  The people who use the term seem to believe there was no conspiracy behind the 9/11 attacks.  They never really explain their own theory, all they do is parrot what has been pounded into their heads over and over, just like any other religious indoctrinee.

So here is what I assume the Church of the No Conspiracy followers must believe.  (Correct me if I am wrong.)

[center:3963tfi3]CHURCH OF THE NO CONSPIRACY[/center:3963tfi3]
On the morning of 9/11, an Arab businessman on his way to a jihad conference boarded his flight.  After take off and the fasten seat belt lights were turned out, he suddenly got the urge to hijack the aircraft.  Luckily, he happened to be carrying a box cutter.  He stood up, brandishing the box cutter and shouted, "Hey, ya'll.  I'm hijacking this infidel plane.  Anyone with me?"

Another muslim also on his way to the jihad conference (who also just happened to have a box cutter) jumped to his feet.  "Count me in.  Allah is awesome!"  Then another, "Me too!  Death to America!"

The first man asked his two new-found partners, "Can either of you fly this infidel contraption?"  But neiter could.  Looked like their jihad was doomed, until another muslim sprang to his feet, "I can fly a single engine Cessna!  Long live Allah!"

Forcing their way into the cockpit (the third and fourth men also had box cutters by the way) they took over the controls and headed toward WTC 1.  An idea occurred to them: Maybe some other muslims on other planes would join their jihad?

One of them picks up the intercom mic and asks the passengers, "Anybody back there with a cell phone who wants to collect 72 virgins?"  Another muslim (who had a cell phone) piped up, "Did you say 72 virgins?  Allah here I come!"  So the hijackers took turns on the cell phone calling all their other muslim friends on different flights and told them of the plan.  In this way, four airplanes were hijack, all on the spur of the moment, and there was never a conspiracy.

And they all died happily ever after (with their 72 virgins).

The End

[Insult to Rocks]

Okay then. Say... it was a demolition. I'll humor you. Why the planes then? What about the Pentagon? Do you have any proof that that wasn't a plane attack? And what about the fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, which has an audio track from it's black box detailing the hijacking, reclaiming, and subsequent crash of the plane?
The reason why we're comparing you to theists is twofold: first, you are very active in defending your own ideas from criticism, yet expect us to immediately switch sides upon your words. Second, your argument is a classic example of the logic that is used in the "God of the Gaps" theory, that is, if X did not happen then it MUST be Y. Even if we accept that the buildings didn't fall from being hit by various planes and debris. You have presented no conclusive evidence that their destruction came from a controlled demolition, as opposed to something else. Your racism and bigotry do not help your argument either.
Also, why are you so obsessed with 9/11? So far we've had 3 or 4 threads about it in the past month, and almost all your posts have been about it. Is it really so important as to dedicate all your efforts into discrediting the official claims?

[Shiranu]

So please explain how they rigged the buildings to collapse without a single person noticing.

This is why you sound like a theist...

"I don't believe it's possible it happened naturally, therefor an even more ridiculous claim is the only possible answer!"

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I have furnished you with the proof.  If your faith in what you have believed for years prevents you from accepting the facts of life, fine.  Go on living in your fantasy world.

But remember... Next time you try to reason with a theist you will no longer be able to use science to prove your point, because you have refuted science in this discussion.  Can't have your science and refute it too!

You haven't refuted a single point made in this thread. Also, care to provide some math proving that Building 7 was in freefall? (I happen to know that freefall would have been quite a lot faster.) You claim that steel does not suddenly buckle and collapse under weight, but you seem to forget that by the time it fell Building 7 was almost literally standing on toothpicks:


The dust is not smoke, but debris. You're looking at a giant hole in the south side of the building. The collapse of the north tower sent debris crashing into Building 7, basically gutting it. The building had little to no support, the remaining supports eventually buckled under the weight, and the building basically imploded because there was literally nothing in the center or the back holding it up.

If you still believe it was a controlled demolition then by all means, explain this.

[AtheistMoFo (OP)]

Okay then. Say... it was a demolition. I'll humor you. Why the planes then? What about the Pentagon? Do you have any proof that that wasn't a plane attack? And what about the fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, which has an audio track from it's black box detailing the hijacking, reclaiming, and subsequent crash of the plane?

Why the planes?  I do not know.  But I would like to see an investigation so that we could find out.
What about the Pentagon?  No, I don't have proof that it was not an airplane.  And I never claimed it was.  Why are you so many others asking me to back up claims I never made?

The reason why we're comparing you to theists is twofold: first, you are very active in defending your own ideas from criticism, yet expect us to immediately switch sides upon your words.

No, I don't expect you to "just switch sides."  Most of you are much too brainwashed.  I am simply trying to show you how theists can be as thick headed as they are by putting YOU into their shoes.

Second, your argument is a classic example of the logic that is used in the "God of the Gaps" theory, that is, if X did not happen then it MUST be Y. Even if we accept that the buildings didn't fall from being hit by various planes and debris. you have presented no conclusive evidence that their destruction came from a controlled demolition, as opposed to something else.

For the obvious reason that controlled demolition is the only possibility.  Even if there were other possibilities, controlled demolition being the most obvious and most likely, Occam's Razor would have it that an investigation should be carried out from that perspective.

Also, why are you so obsessed with 9/11? So far we've had 3 or 4 threads about it in the past month, and almost all your posts have been about it. Is it really so important as to dedicate all your efforts into discrediting the official claims?

Well, I am not dedicating ALL my efforts to discrediting the official conspiracy theory, but I admit that I dedicate much effort.  The reason being that 9/11 has had an enormous impact on society not only in the United States, but around the world.  How many Iraqis were killed or died from lack of sanitation etc. brought on but their country being invaded?  How many Afghani and Pakistani women and children have been murdered by rouge drones?  How have things like freedom of speech, innocent until proved guilty, no cruel or unusual punishment, no search without warrant and so many more gone from a way of life to things of the past?

All of those things were made possible by 9/11.  That is why we need to know what really happened.  I do not know what really happened and I want to find out.  I owe it to my grandchildren to make the effort to find out the truth.

[Insult to Rocks]

We are not brainwashed.We reached our own decisions based on evidence, none of which you have refuted. The "official conspiracy theory" you mentioned is the only one backed up by a large amount of evidence. Your theory has conjecture and speculation to back it up, which is to say it has nothing to back it up at all.