Support for the controlled demolition theory

a reply to: neutronflux

Again, you are choosing to ignore the evidence. The times the buildings fell are well known. The BS you posted is gibberish.

WTC 7 fell exactly at free-fall speed for 2-3 seconds.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Because I actually cite sources? Make a case with facts? And you just want to pass judgement on mental states?

Again, how did the towers fall to fast?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: dfnj2015

Because I actually cite sources? Make a case with facts? And you just want to pass judgement on mental states?

Again, how did the towers fall to fast?

Here is a citation:

www.ae911truth.org...

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: mrthumpy

I what I find interesting is the level of cognitive dissonance people have by ignoring evidence.

Try puuting together an argument and presenting your evidence instead of being lazy and expecting others to work it out for you

a reply to: mrthumpy

The evidence is my own eye balls. The buildings fell too fast. There was no resistance from the supporting columns. The only way this could happen this way in the video is if the columns did not exist. It's simply Newton's 3rd law. The only way we know buildings to fall this way is by controlled demolition. There's not enough energy from falling acceleration to also pulverize the floors below both at the same time. All the energy went into the acceleration.

This is my opinion based on my understanding of physics. You may have your own opinion which ignores Newton's 3rd law.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: mrthumpy

The evidence is my own eye balls. The buildings fell too fast. There was no resistance from the supporting columns. The only way this could happen this way in the video is if the columns did not exist. It's simply Newton's 3rd law. The only way we know buildings to fall this way is by controlled demolition. There's not enough energy from falling acceleration to also pulverize the floors below both at the same time. All the energy went into the acceleration.

This is my opinion based on my understanding of physics. You may have your own opinion which ignores Newton's 3rd law.

So your basic argument from incredulity fallacy then. Standard

a reply to: mrthumpy

And yours is ignorance fallacy.

_

a reply to: dfnj2015

Sorry you don’t understand there was resistance, but it was negligible. What do you think happens when the 12 or 29 upper stories of a building fall into a floor system only rated to withstand the dynamic load equivalent to 6 falling stories? Long portions of vertical columns stood whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor systems for the towers. They did not fall through the path of greatest resistance.

Where is the proof of a floor to floor system of CD? A complex system that carried out the first top down implosions of a high rise building? After being compromised by jet impacts and floor to floor fires? With no detectable audio of detonations, and did not spray the streets and near by buildings with demolitions shrapnel? In the context, people have been killed up to 400 meters away from a small building implosion by shrapnel?

a reply to: dfnj2015

Why doesn’t AE ever release their “papers” as formal studies for public comment and review, and then release them for peer review?

Seems they worry more about theatrical production than credibility. But they already have a target audience?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: dfnj2015

Why doesn’t AE ever release their “papers” as formal studies for public comment and review, and then release them for peer review?

They give their references:

[6] Chandler, David: “The Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (February 2010).

[7] Szamboti, Tony and MacQueen, Graeme: “The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (April 2009).

[8] Bažant, Zdeněk and Le, Jia-Liang: “Why the Observed Motion History of the World Trade Center Towers is Smooth,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics (January 2011).

[9] Szamboti, Tony and Johns, Richard: “ASCE Journals Refuse to Correct Fraudulent Paper Published on WTC Collapses,” Journal of 9/11 Studies (September 2014).

[10] Szuladziński, Gregory and Szamboti, Tony and Johns, Richard: “Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis,” International Journal of Protective Structures (June 2013).

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: dfnj2015

Sorry you don’t understand there was resistance, but it was negligible. What do you think happens when the 12 or 29 upper stories of a building fall into a floor system only rated to withstand the dynamic load equivalent to 6 falling stories? Long portions of vertical columns stood whole seconds after the complete collapse of the floor systems for the towers. They did not fall through the path of greatest resistance.

We are not going to agree on this fantasy.

originally posted by: neutronflux
Where is the proof of a floor to floor system of CD? A complex system that carried out the first top down implosions of a high rise building? After being compromised by jet impacts and floor to floor fires? With no detectable audio of detonations, and did not spray the streets and near by buildings with demolitions shrapnel? In the context, people have been killed up to 400 meters away from a small building implosion by shrapnel?

The people who are putting forth the controlled demolition theory are just using the evidence of what happened. How the controlled demolition charges were placed is not good science. You can only go with the facts you have.

Here is a published paper on the evidence of controlled demolition:

benthamopen.com...

a reply to: dfnj2015

The stuff coming out of AE truth seems more representative to what happened on 9/11.

that shows you are easy to manipulate.

High rises have 15,000 fires per year. Years of experience has told us no building has ever collapsed from fire at near free-fall speed.

This shows you are beyond rational thinking.


One has to be convinced that the planes were holographic to suggest this.

The evidence is my eye balls.

can also see chemtrails with your eyes alone?

I what I find interesting is the level of cognitive dissonance people have by ignoring evidence.

what level is one at when they compare other building with fires with the towers and say other building didn't collapse.

Seriously what level?

You said this just before, so please tell the readers how you can compare 2 buildings, 1 with fires and another with fires due to a large plane crashing all the way in and through the building?

What levels of ignorance/cognitive dissonance and numerous other mental defects must one be suffering from to be seriously trying to make such comparisons?

Now choosing to ignore evidence because you don't like the hypothesis is a psychological problem.

is that like choosing to ignore planes hit the building when trying to compare with other building on fire?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: mrthumpy

And yours is ignorance fallacy.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane.

a reply to: dfnj2015

"Abstract:
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 ˚C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

The Source...a PDF

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: InhaleExhale

WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane.

and that makes very little to any difference in the point I am trying to make.


so you are comparing building 7 now?


OK,

what was building 7 hit with that other building you are comparing with didn't?


All the other building that have had fires and didn't collapse, how many had a collapsing 100story building fall beside them and cause quite a bit of damage to parts of the structure?

a reply to: dfnj2015

Great to see this analysis. Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth also released their smoking-gun analyses

Only three skyscrapers have ever collapsed due to structural fire. All three were in NYC on 9/11/01. Two planes, three buildings (tower 7). Furthermore, plenty of other skyscrapers have been hit by aircraft without collapse. The WTC were specifically designed to withstand such high energy impacts.

Yes, 9/11/01 did not occur as we were told. At a minimum, it was allowed to happen so USGOV could brand it as "the new Pearl Harbor"

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: dfnj2015

Great to see this analysis. Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth also released their smoking-gun analyses

Only three skyscrapers have ever collapsed due to structural fire. All three were in NYC on 9/11/01. Two planes, three buildings (tower 7). Furthermore, plenty of other skyscrapers have been hit by aircraft without collapse. The WTC were specifically designed to withstand such high energy impacts.

Yes, 9/11/01 did not occur as we were told. At a minimum, it was allowed to happen so USGOV could brand it as "the new Pearl Harbor"

Windsor Tower anyone?

They keep chanting this same tired old tripe like it's some kind of religious mantra

Reminder:

The 9/11 Forum is one of the forums that staff monitors closely and violations of the Terms and Conditions are enforced quite strictly.

Members participating in this forum may want to review the guidelines for the 9/11 Forums:

All Members: 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Update and Information

Civilty and Decorum are expected here.

Trolling and Shill accusations here will be dealt with harshly by staff.

Leave no doubt: The ATS 9/11 forum is the one place members can find themselves in trouble for not behaving.

With that in mind: Please behave yourselves and make sure you strictly stick to the Terms and Conditions of ATS.

As always: Do not reply to this post.