Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[Hijiri Byakuren]

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.

You don't get to say this until you respond to the posts I've made in this thread. You've yet to address a single one of my criticisms.

[AtheistMoFo (OP)]

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.)

I could, but I won't.  Why should I bother?  

 You would not bother to look at the links even if I posted them (again) and this is obvious from the fact that you did not bother to click the links when I provided them in my OP.  I posted two links in my original post kicking off this discussion.  And I don't understand how a person can "know that freefall would have been quite a lot faster" when even NIST eventually had to admit freefall as a fact.

They denied it at first, and it was while they were still denying freefall when Dr. Sunder explained how freefall was impossible.  But when the evidence stared them in the face, they finally had to admit the truth.

Oh, but why am I writing what I have already written?  You did not read it the first time I wrote it, so you will not read it now.  Deny what I say without even knowing what I said.  Sound familiar?

Did anybody, Hijiri Byakuren or anyone else, anybody click even one of the two links in my OP?  Show of hands, please?

[Hijiri Byakuren]

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.)

I could, but I won't.  Why should I bother?  

Aaaaaand this is where I stopped reading. If the reason isn't obvious, then you're an idiot who has no business spouting this bullshit off as fact.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

You know the fucktards like to harp on about Building 7 being the first steel structure building to collapse from fire, but how many steel structure buildings have had to deal with a large, out of control fire for several hours? Shit, how many with construction similar to Building 7 have had to do that?

[Insult to Rocks]

Look, just stop this childish banter, Mofo. We have stated our opinion and given evidence for it multiple times by this point, and insulting us will not get us to change our minds.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

You know the fucktards like to harp on about Building 7 being the first steel structure building to collapse from fire, but how many steel structure buildings have had to deal with a large, out of control fire for several hours? Shit, how many with construction similar to Building 7 have had to do that?

Especially since the inside of the building was totally consumed by fire because the sprinkler system didn't have the water pressure for a fire of that size; not to mention that half the fucking building was already gouged out by the debris flying out of the north tower. But then again, why would 9/11 "Truthers" be concerned about such small details? :roll:

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Mofo, you're barking up the wrong demolition. It's been refuted, but conspiracies take on their own life then take over the lives of their theorists.  I used to buy into this foolishness too until it was explained to me why it's nonsense then I simply moved on.
But hey! Conspiracies exist and theories exist. Find a few that make real sense like Chris Christie.  :-k

[Jason78]

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.

Conservation of Energy doesn't really enter into it.

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.

You can't even show that demolition charges were placed at the site.  Let alone specify what explosive was used, who placed them, or how they were detonated.  Until you provide a scrap of evidence that hints at demolition, your ideas are pure conjecture.

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.

Fire, and don't forget that some of those load bearing steel girders would have been removed by the several tons of plane slamming into them.  The towers didn't instantly collapse when they were hit by planes.  They stayed up for a little bit while the steel gradually got weaker and weaker until the force exerted by the weight of the stories above exceeded the sheer strength of the steel.  At that point I'd expect the support to approach zero fairly instantaneously.

[Plu]

It's funny to see someone with a very strong opinion engage with people with a weak, but opposing opinion. Generally speaking, people with very strong opinions are much more likely to be wrong because it takes more to convince them.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Mofo..the notion jet fuel doesn't get hot enough to melt steal makes sense if all you do is pour a bit of kerosene on it and toss a match on it. You're lucky to melt a beer can then, but toss several hundred tons of older building material,  plastic,  furniture, who knows what else and extreme violent forces into a funnel that creates a vacuum and now you have a giant blow torch and melting steel becomes pretty fucking easy.
You're spending to much time up by the tracks by the grassy knoll. Come on down and look at reality. It's pretty nice down here.  :roll:
I'm not an engineer, but did auto body work for years so I have some knowledge of violent forces and steel and I've done more than my share of welding. Steel isn't that tough to weaken with even lower temperatures. It's not as if structural steel is the same stuff they drill oil wells with.

[Jason78]

Mofo..the notion jet fuel doesn't get hot enough to melt steal makes sense if all you do is pour a bit of kerosene on it and toss a match on it. You're lucky to melt a beer can then, but toss several hundred tons of older building material,  plastic,  furniture, who knows what else and extreme violent forces into a funnel that creates a vacuum and now you have a giant blow torch and melting steel becomes pretty fucking easy.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Good one..  =D>  =D>  
I once bought into that except the chemtrail theory..

[jumper]

...

[Hijiri Byakuren]

[snip]

Not that I want to interrupt your little group therapy session here, but I still see an awful lot of conjecture and zero evidence. Meanwhile, the rest of us are are providing evidence in copious amounts and being ignored. So why don't y'all stop pontificating about how awesome you are for two seconds, and actually address some of the criticisms we have. Don't talk about how "brave" you are for standing up to us when all the two of you have done thus far is act like a couple goddamn cowards.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wow.  Consider it refuted.  No reasoning, no logic, no evidence, but Thumpalumpacus refutes the laws of physics, and presto, they are refuted.  

Actually, I didn't refute the laws of physics, which you'll see if you reread my point: I refuted your argument, not any laws of physics.  

I did so using logic, specifically, pointing out that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise; it's a non sequitur.  Saying that free-fall "proves" demolition is illogical, because it could also be caused by, y'know, burning steel losing structural strength.

I'm sure the fact that you're ignoring that alternative explanation is in no way connected to the fact that it completely undermines your point.  

You've based your entire argument upon a logical fallacy. Pretty easy to refute that, and no need to address physics at all.