Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

Started by AtheistMoFo, January 19, 2014, 09:48:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Shiranu

QuoteAnd 'the Iraqis that brought down the world trade center'?  

I don't even... Iraqis?

*sigh*



First they smuggled copious (ridiculous, one might say) amounts of explosives into the world trade centre, then they did so and wired them without being noticed, then a government that cant keep secrets to save its life has kept it a secret all this time, then buildings that are missing huge chunks of their support and are drenched in jet fuel and other burning shit (as well as having wind gusts fanning the flames from these huge holes in them and intensifying the heat) fall but that is too ridiculous to believe could happen naturally... so therefor it HAD to have been the Jews or the government (or both) in an even more complex and elaborate conspiracy that has little reward to make up for the ridiculous risk they were taking...

I don't even...

"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

jumper

#46
...

Thumpalumpacus

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"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.

This is incorrect.  Look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA

You'll notice that the failure happens in a very short time (0:49 - 0:52) -- not a gradual process, as you've asserted several times.

 
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"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.

This is nonsense.  Gravity being always at play, the moment steel cannot support the weight laid upon it, it fails.  It's true that it takes time for steel to lose structural strength, but once it does, failure is most often catastrophic. If the building itself doesn't collapse instantaneously, well, that's probably because they're built with redundant support members and such.

 
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"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!

If that's the case, you'd best stop using logic. You've violated it here, and don't even realize it.
<insert witty aphorism here>

Insult to Rocks

WHERE. IS. THE . PROOF. OF. EXPLOSIVES? SHOW. ME.
"We must respect the other fellow\'s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken

jumper

#49
...

jumper

#50
...

jumper

#51
...

Shiranu

If you don't believe that, then don't say it like you do and then get pissy when people assume you do.

Also; the Universe is too complex, therefor God MUST HAVE created it. The evidence is in how complex the universe is.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Insult to Rocks

#53
Quote from: "jumper"THE. WAY. IT. FELL. IS. THE. PROOF.
No it is not. At this point you have said only why (you think) the towers could not have fallen from a plane crash, not why it had to  be a controlled demolition, nor have you described how said demolition took place.
Also, no theories I've heard have even addressed flight 93, and you still haven't talked about how the Pentagon attack happened if it was not a plane.
"We must respect the other fellow\'s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-- H. L. Mencken

AtheistMoFo

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "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.
Like that matters.  You never read any of my posts anyway.  If you did, you would know that I already provided you with all the information you are asking for.

Quote from: "Jason78"Conservation of Energy doesn't really enter into it.
Conservation of Energy... How does it NOT enter into it?  What it means is that you've got only a finite amount of energy.  You can not create new energy out of thin air.  Now, freefall means that 100% of energy is being used to propel the building toward the ground.  Id est, there is 0% energy remaining to crush the structural steel and concrete.  Even if the steel was weakened by the heat, you could not pulverize concrete with zero energy nor could you turn "weakened" steel into pretzels.  Have you ever tried to pulverize concrete and bend weakened steel?  I would like to see a demonstration.

Quote from: "Jason78"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.
No, I can not show you that demolition charges were placed at the site any more than you can show me Osama bin Laden masterminded the attack.  If you do your own research, you will find plausible theories as to how the charges were placed, but those theories are nothing but plausible theories.  I am not saying I have proof for anything other than that WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition.  How, who, why, etcetera need to be investigated.  That is why I advocate a real investigation.


Quote from: "Jason78"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.
Several tons of plane slamming into WTC 7? ? ? ? ?   :shock:
First time I ever heard that!  Can you provide me with a link or something to show that WTC 7 was hit by a plane?  If so, which plane?  One plane hit WTC 1, a second plane hit WTC 2, a third plane hit the Pentagon, and a fourth plane crashed into a field.  Was there a fith plane that crashed into WTC 7?  Or did one of the planes hit two buildings?  or what?


Quote from: "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.
:Hangman:
Call me retarded, but please explain how jet fuel got into WTC 7?


Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Good one..  =D>  =D>  :lol:
I once bought into that except the chemtrail theory..
So now you are saying chemtrails caused some sort of quantum shift, resulting in the suspension of the laws of physics? ? ?

jumper

#55
...

Shiranu

QuoteFirst they smuggled copious (ridiculous, one might say) amounts of explosives into the world trade centre, then they did so and wired them without being noticed, then a government that cant keep secrets to save its life has kept it a secret all this time, then buildings that are missing huge chunks of their support and are drenched in jet fuel and other burning shit (as well as having wind gusts fanning the flames from these huge holes in them and intensifying the heat) fall but that is too ridiculous to believe could happen naturally... so therefor it HAD to have been the Jews or the government (or both) in an even more complex and elaborate conspiracy that has little reward to make up for the ridiculous risk they were taking...

Again; what you propose is far more ridiculous than believing that steel gets weaker when its heated and collapsed. Add onto that gas lines and electrical fires exploding and heating up the metal even more and I just don't see how you can say, "Nope, that sound's ridiculous... therefor it HAD to be a cover-up on a scale never-before seen!".
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

The Skeletal Atheist

ITT: Morons who can't understand that gradual processes can bring about sudden and catastrophic results.
Some people need to be beaten with a smart stick.

Kein Mehrheit Fur Die Mitleid!

Kein Mitlied F�r Die Mehrheit!

Shiranu

QuoteNo, I can not show you that demolition charges were placed at the site any more than you can show me Osama bin Laden masterminded the attack.

He can, however, show probable cause/the fact that OBL claimed responsibility/the fact that the hijackers were under OBL's command... which gives him a bit more credibility than explosives magically appearing without anyone knowing about them.

QuoteI am not saying I have proof for anything other than that WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition.

A controlled demolition with zero evidence of explosives having been planted. Damn.

QuoteSeveral tons of plane slamming into WTC 7? ? ? ? ?  :shock:
First time I ever heard that! Can you provide me with a link or something to show that WTC 7 was hit by a plane?

He was talking about the towers. He did however post a nice little video of how much damage WTC 7 took from the tons and tons of debris that slammed into it.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Hijiri Byakuren

Quote from: "jumper""In over 100 years of experience with steel-framed buildings, fires have never caused the collapse of a single one, even though many were ravaged by severe fires. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure."
You're right, and they didn't in this case either. Notice the hole:

Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel