Political Crossfire Forums

[Mighty Oak]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: There is a "kink" that is very easy to see in some of the videos of the collapse which look a lot like a controlled demolition.

Controlled demolitions start at the bottom of the building, where the charges break the supporting beams. The bottom floors collapse and this collapse goes up floor by floor as the building falls into the hole.

The WTC collapse obviously starts at the top of the building and the collapsing floors go downward toward the bottom.

Watch the tapes. It falls straight, but other than that it does not look like a controlled demolition at all. We were talking about building 7

[Free Thinkr]

Mighty Oak wrote: Quote: The building did not fall at freefall speeds Thats BS,it most certainly did.
No, it didn't. Anyone who claims it did is either an outright liar, or ignorant. There's no possible way to even tell how long the collapses took, as they were completely obscured by dust.

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: Quote: The building did not fall at freefall speeds Thats BS,it most certainly did.

Maybe your not aware but you sir are not looking for the truth,you are looking to reinforce the Governments story.

Wrong again. Even in a controlled demolition the building does not fall at freefall speeds because a controlled demolition does not remove every piece of resistance to the collapse. The part you fail to comprehend is that the forces involved in a collapse don't impede the collapse's downward momentum much regardless of what started the collapse. In other words, it doesn't matter if the main structures failed due to explosive charges or failure due to heat / stress. The building is going to fall at the same speed. The only difference in the collapse is what initiates the collapse.

Now how about addressing all the rest of the evidence you're ignoring? You know.... the video / audio evidence that shows no explosions. The firefighter testimony showing far more damage than you will acknowledge, signs of imminent collapse, and lack of explosions before or during the collapse. The seismic evidence. So far all you've done is attacked one small insignificant fact that does not prove one way or the other whether or not explosives were used.

[Mighty Oak]

Free Thinkr wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Quote: The building did not fall at freefall speeds Thats BS,it most certainly did.
No, it didn't. Anyone who claims it did is either an outright liar, or ignorant. There's no possible way to even tell how long the collapses took, as they were completely obscured by dust. We are talking about building 7.You can see it and you can time it as well.

[Patriot911]

Free Thinkr wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Quote: The building did not fall at freefall speeds Thats BS,it most certainly did.
No, it didn't. Anyone who claims it did is either an outright liar, or ignorant. There's no possible way to even tell how long the collapses took, as they were completely obscured by dust.

The seismic evidence shows a very conservative timeline of a collapse, but would fall just short of the actual collapse time as the final part of the collapse is hard to pinpoint. This is the primary evidence the NIST uses to determine the time of the collapse, and the seismic evidence is longer in duration that a freefall event. We may never know the exact duration of the collapse, but we do know it wasn't exactly freefall.

[Mighty Oak]

Quote: The part you fail to comprehend is that the forces involved in a collapse don't impede the collapse's downward momentum much regardless of what started the collapse. In other words, it doesn't matter if the main structures failed due to explosive charges or failure due to heat / stress. The building is going to fall at the same speed. The only difference in the collapse is what initiates the collapse Kinda makes you wonder why they put so many explosives in a build for demolition,don't it?

Did I say that exposives were used?There are other means of cutting steel you know.Tell me,does thermite make a loud noise?

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: Quote: The part you fail to comprehend is that the forces involved in a collapse don't impede the collapse's downward momentum much regardless of what started the collapse. In other words, it doesn't matter if the main structures failed due to explosive charges or failure due to heat / stress. The building is going to fall at the same speed. The only difference in the collapse is what initiates the collapse Kinda makes you wonder why they put so many explosives in a build for demolition,don't it?
No it doesn't. A controlled demolition wants to make absolutely sure that the building falls the way they want, so they err on the side of overdoing it than not doing it enough.

Mighty Oak wrote: Did I say that exposives were used?There are other means of cutting steel you know.Tell me,does thermite make a loud noise?
Thermite isn't used in controlled demolitions for numerous reasons, the primary of which is that it is unreliable in the timing of both ignition and cutting speed. Other reasons include the fact that thermite is very bad at cutting vertical beams as it uses gravity to cut, the enormous amount of termite needed to cut large beams, and the fact that thermite can't even be assured of cutting through a beam. Thermite or thermate also leaves very distinct cut marks on the beams which would have been identified by the demolitions crews and the forensic specialists who examined the steel.

So which is it? A controlled demolition uses high explosives. If you're claiming now that high explosives weren't used, then it wasn't a controlled demolition in the traditional sense.

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Quote: The building did not fall at freefall speeds Thats BS,it most certainly did.
No, it didn't. Anyone who claims it did is either an outright liar, or ignorant. There's no possible way to even tell how long the collapses took, as they were completely obscured by dust. We are talking about building 7.You can see it and you can time it as well.

So show us the video where you can see the entire collapse event to the point where you can see the exact moment the top hits bottom with no obfuscation from debris and dust. You must be using one of those new x-ray cameras that can see through everything. ;-)

[Patriot911]

On a side note, you can't time the exact freefall speed regardless of seeing it in a video. Freefall calculations have to use a known distance, in this case the height of the building. The trouble is the collapse doesn't travel the height of the building but rather the height of the building - the height of the pile of rubble the collpase produces. Claiming you know the exact freefall speed of the building means you can not only time the collapse to a fraction of a second, but you also know the exact height of the debris. Please tell us what the height of the rubble pile is and your collapse duration figures are so we can see if your calculations of freefall are precise.

[Mighty Oak]

Patriot911 wrote: On a side note, you can't time the exact freefall speed regardless of seeing it in a video. Freefall calculations have to use a known distance, in this case the height of the building. The trouble is the collapse doesn't travel the height of the building but rather the height of the building - the height of the pile of rubble the collars produces. Claiming you know the exact freefall speed of the building means you can not only time the collapse to a fraction of a second, but you also know the exact height of the debris. Please tell us what the height of the rubble pile is and your collapse duration figures are so we can see if your calculations of freefall are precise. You don't need to know the size of the rubble pile to know at what speed the building fell.I've been felling trees and pruning trees for nearly a 1/4 of a century, I know what freefall speed looks like.If you can determine the height of the building in relation to the height of another building in close proximity and know the height of that building and know by it's windows the height of each floor,then you can determine the speed of fall of said building.I am not a physicist.But I know there is a calculation there somewhere.It's already been done,if I remember correctly.

[Patriot911]

Mighty Oak wrote: Patriot911 wrote: On a side note, you can't time the exact freefall speed regardless of seeing it in a video. Freefall calculations have to use a known distance, in this case the height of the building. The trouble is the collapse doesn't travel the height of the building but rather the height of the building - the height of the pile of rubble the collars produces. Claiming you know the exact freefall speed of the building means you can not only time the collapse to a fraction of a second, but you also know the exact height of the debris. Please tell us what the height of the rubble pile is and your collapse duration figures are so we can see if your calculations of freefall are precise. You don't need to know the size of the rubble pile to know at what speed the building fell.I've been felling trees and pruning trees for nearly a 1/4 of a century, I know what freefall speed looks like.If you can determine the height of the building in relation to the height of another building in close proximity and know the height of that building and know by it's windows the height of each floor,then you can determine the speed of fall of said building.I am not a physicist.But I know there is a calculation there somewhere.It's already been done,if I remember correctly.
You trim 50 story trees? Wow! I didn't realize you are such an expert at eyeballing freefall over such distances.

You're still ignoring two things:

1. The fall would be the same whether started by explosives or by failed strucural supports. A controlled demolition only starts the collapse. Gravity takes care of the rest. Same happens if major supports fail. In other words, the building falling at near free fall speeds (wasn't exact no matter what you say, and sorry, but eyeballing it doesn't cut it) would occur regardless of what started the collapse. And besides... you've already clarified you don't think it was a classic controlled demolition but a collapse started by some other means such as thermite. If anything you are arguing against your own theory.

2. You are ignoring all the rest of the overwhelming evidence against explosives and just focusing on one piece that doesn't matter.

[Patriot911]

deleted due to duplicate post

[Mighty Oak]

I need to go,but I'll pick this up later.

I knew I would catch some sh!t for my tree thingy :-D And no I don't do 500 feet trees,Trees in my area reach 110 feet.

[cap'n queasy]

Mighty Oak wrote: I need to go,but I'll pick this up later.

I knew I would catch some sh!t for my tree thingy :-D And no I don't do 500 feet trees,Trees in my area reach 110 feet.

I used to do some tree work when I was younger.
:-D

Pretty fun stuff. a hundred foot tree is plenty high enough.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: The fall would be the same whether started by explosives or by failed strucural supports.

Terminal velocity is terminal velocity, no matter what the cause of the fall is. :lol:

[psholtz]

Patriot911 wrote: Mighty Oak wrote: Quote: OK. Let me prove my point. What do you think happened to WTC 7 and what is your proof to back up your assertion? Ok I'll bite.

What I believe happened to WTC7 is it collapsed.Why did it collapse is what I am trying to find out.It did fall at freefall speed,it did have damage to the right side bottom of it and there were fires in it.

Yet you ignore all the rest of the evidence, primarily from firefighters who say there was a 10-20 story tall hole in the middle of the building that covered about a third of the front face of the building. You also ignore the other evidence of imminent collapse such as a three to five story bulge and the fact that the fire department felt it was only a matter of time before the building fell. It is their job to be able to identify buildings at risk of collapse.

Mighty Oak wrote: No steel highrise has ever fell due to fire in the past so I am concerned about this.
Any other steel highrise buildings have two 110 story buildings collapse nearby? And why do you insist on ONLY blaming the collapse on the fire and not on the structural damage? This is what I am talking about when I say you selectively ignore evidence.

Mighty Oak wrote: There is a "kink" that is very easy to see in some of the videos of the collapse which look a lot like a controlled demolition.

So because it "looks" like a controlled demolition to you, an untrained civilian, then it MUST be a controlled demolition? This is what I was talking about thinking with emotion rather than thinking with the facts.

Mighty Oak wrote: Freefall speed means no resistance which is not possible without something taking out the steel to let it fall so quickly.

The building did not fall at freefall speeds. And in a controlled demolition, the explosives only take out the primary supports which means the rest of the building collapses at the exact same speed as it would if those primary supports were to collapse for other reasons.

Mighty Oak wrote: Also there is molten metal at the base of this building as well as the two towers which is suspicious by itself.

There is no report of molten metal in the base of WTC 7. You have to quit believing everything you read at the conspiracy sites and do some independant investigation.

Mighty Oak wrote: My proof would only be the lack of an investigation into why,how the building fell.

Lack of investigation?!? What do you call the FEMA and then NIST investigations? Thousands of people including numerous independant structural engineers examined the evidence and determined the building fell due to structural failure.

Mighty Oak wrote: Everything that I mentioned above does not prove a thing except that we are not being told something here,so I believe there is something being hidden from us.

So what are we not being told? While I agree it is highly likely we do not have the whole story about 9/11, I can't imagine what they are witholding from us that would explain the collapse of WTC 7 more than the NIST report did.

Mighty Oak wrote: As it stands right now I believe it was a controlled demo.

So you have no video or audio evidence of explosives going off before the collapse, the fire department clearly stating in multiple testimonies that they believed the building was clearly going to collapse on its own and stated what they saw that led them to come to that conclusion, no seismic evidence that would indicate explosives being used and
no evidence of steel being blown by explosives that the demolition crews and forensic experts would have noticed during the removal of the debris. Yet you still believe it was a controlled demolition? Why?

Mighty Oak wrote: There are more reasons but that would turn into a book,I hope you can understand that.

No, I don't understand that. You want to convince people that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives, then give us ALL your evidence. Don't bother cutting and pasting from conspiracy sites. This does not constitute evidence.

OK. Let me make it easy on you. Give me ONE piece of hard evidence that explosives were used. Something that could be used in a court of law. In other words, it can't be supposition (you "think" the kink proves it), it can't be coincidental (They were trying to hide evidence so that proves explosives were used) and it can't be heresay (Alex Jones said it so it HAS to be true!).

I've given you numerous pieces of hard evidence that would hold up in a court of law. First hand expert witnesses. Video and audio evidence that does not show explosives being used when the camera was WELL within range of hearing any explosive being used. Seismic evidence from multiple sites that show the collapse, but none of the telltale signs of explosives being used. And of course a government report done with the help of numerous independant structural engineers that show a working theory as to how the collapse could have occured.
You might be more convincing if you picked one point and just argued that till you win or lose. I don't know about other people, but I kinda get lost in these "quote forests" you like to build..

Brevity is the Soul of wit..

When you make one point, and make it well, people tend to remember it better..

That said, you have *not* given any evidence that would hold up in a court of law (per one of the many zillions of comments you made here).

Carry on.. :-D

[Patriot911]

psholtz wrote: You might be more convincing if you picked one point and just argued that till you win or lose. I don't know about other people, but I kinda get lost in these "quote forests" you like to build..

Brevity is the Soul of wit..

When you make one point, and make it well, people tend to remember it better..

That said, you have *not* given any evidence that would hold up in a court of law (per one of the many zillions of comments you made here).

Carry on.. :-D

Once again you prove just how ineffective a debater you are. Expert witnesses are most definitely evidence that holds up in a court of law. Video and audio evidence? Absolutely admissable. The video doesn't show the flashes associated with high explosives and the audio doesn't have the distictive sound of explosives being used. The NIST report is a report done by a credible government agency with the help of experts in their fields. The forensic examiners and demolitions experts who saw the debris are also considered expert witnesses who are admissable as evidence in a court of law.

Sorry, but once again just your lame claim that something is true doesn't make it true. Try again.

[psholtz]

Patriot911 wrote: psholtz wrote: You might be more convincing if you picked one point and just argued that till you win or lose. I don't know about other people, but I kinda get lost in these "quote forests" you like to build..

Brevity is the Soul of wit..

When you make one point, and make it well, people tend to remember it better..

That said, you have *not* given any evidence that would hold up in a court of law (per one of the many zillions of comments you made here).

Carry on.. :-D

Once again you prove just how ineffective a debater you are. Expert witnesses are most definitely evidence that holds up in a court of law. Video and audio evidence? Absolutely admissable. The video doesn't show the flashes associated with high explosives and the audio doesn't have the distictive sound of explosives being used. The NIST report is a report done by a credible government agency with the help of experts in their fields. The forensic examiners and demolitions experts who saw the debris are also considered expert witnesses who are admissable as evidence in a court of law.

Sorry, but once again just your lame claim that something is true doesn't make it true. Try again.
Sure..

The only problem is that all the expert witnesses, audio + video + seismic evidence, etc that you're going to find will vouch for the fact that WTC7 was brought down by bombs..

Whose team are you playing for anyway? :lol:

Here's my favorite expert witness testifying on video/audio:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=silverstein&hl=en

[JohnnyQ]

psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: psholtz wrote: You might be more convincing if you picked one point and just argued that till you win or lose. I don't know about other people, but I kinda get lost in these "quote forests" you like to build..

Brevity is the Soul of wit..

When you make one point, and make it well, people tend to remember it better..

That said, you have *not* given any evidence that would hold up in a court of law (per one of the many zillions of comments you made here).

Carry on.. :-D

Once again you prove just how ineffective a debater you are. Expert witnesses are most definitely evidence that holds up in a court of law. Video and audio evidence? Absolutely admissable. The video doesn't show the flashes associated with high explosives and the audio doesn't have the distictive sound of explosives being used. The NIST report is a report done by a credible government agency with the help of experts in their fields. The forensic examiners and demolitions experts who saw the debris are also considered expert witnesses who are admissable as evidence in a court of law.

Sorry, but once again just your lame claim that something is true doesn't make it true. Try again.
Sure..

The only problem is that all the expert witnesses, audio + video + seismic evidence, etc that you're going to find will vouch for the fact that WTC7 was brought down by bombs..

Whose team are you playing for anyway? :lol:

Here's my favorite expert witness testifying on video/audio:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=silverstein&hl=en

Silverstein meant pull the firefighters back and away from the building. Why would they risk exposing the conspiracy to the firefighter chief?

[NAB]

yanniv wrote: psholtz wrote: Patriot911 wrote: psholtz wrote: You might be more convincing if you picked one point and just argued that till you win or lose. I don't know about other people, but I kinda get lost in these "quote forests" you like to build..

Brevity is the Soul of wit..

When you make one point, and make it well, people tend to remember it better..

That said, you have *not* given any evidence that would hold up in a court of law (per one of the many zillions of comments you made here).

Carry on.. :-D

Once again you prove just how ineffective a debater you are. Expert witnesses are most definitely evidence that holds up in a court of law. Video and audio evidence? Absolutely admissable. The video doesn't show the flashes associated with high explosives and the audio doesn't have the distictive sound of explosives being used. The NIST report is a report done by a credible government agency with the help of experts in their fields. The forensic examiners and demolitions experts who saw the debris are also considered expert witnesses who are admissable as evidence in a court of law.

Sorry, but once again just your lame claim that something is true doesn't make it true. Try again.
Sure..

The only problem is that all the expert witnesses, audio + video + seismic evidence, etc that you're going to find will vouch for the fact that WTC7 was brought down by bombs..

Whose team are you playing for anyway? :lol:

Here's my favorite expert witness testifying on video/audio:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329&q=silverstein&hl=en

Silverstein meant pull the firefighters back and away from the building. Why would they risk exposing the conspiracy to the firefighter chief?


Shh....don't disturb the discussion with common sense. It takes the fun out of it. :wink: