Bitcoin Forum

The whole 9/11 incident was an inside job. Probably all that Bush did directly, was to stand by. But then he caused the Iraq war, which was part of the plan all along. Now we are entrenched all over the Middle East. And the murderers of the people in the World Trade Center buildings are still free.


University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7's Collapse on 9/11 (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/279644-2020-03-27-university-study-finds-fire-did-not-cause-building-7s-collapse.htm)




8)

Seriously, after 19 years still bringing that up?
Next thing you gonna say moon landing was faked?
Or that earth is round....

sky scrapers are actually built to collapse on themselves in any instance natural or man controlled.

its how they are allowed to be built so high and so close to other buildings. because the chance of a building leaning and falling over like a lumberjack hops a tree.. is SMALL
yep they can only make skyscrapers if the architect and construction company can prove that the risk to other building is low
so they are made to crumble in on themselves if the structure becomes weakened

please do your research badecker

also...
'researchers at university' translates to 'college kids'
also it took them 4 years.. dang
4 years to earn a doctorate in conspiracies.

Calling it a "study" is a bit of a stretch too, it was a computer simulation funded by conspiratards (AE911Truth). Nice job finding a school in Alaska to do it for them.

Mwahahahahahahahahahaha https://media.istockphoto.com/vectors/emoticon-with-tears-of-joy-vector-id528415533 https://media.istockphoto.com/vectors/emoticon-with-tears-of-joy-vector-id528415533 https://media.istockphoto.com/vectors/emoticon-with-tears-of-joy-vector-id528415533 https://media.istockphoto.com/vectors/emoticon-with-tears-of-joy-vector-id528415533 https://media.istockphoto.com/vectors/emoticon-with-tears-of-joy-vector-id528415533

Yo are so good, franky1. https://media.istockphoto.com/vectors/emoticon-with-tears-of-joy-vector-id528415533

You might as well say that anything is made to happen any which way.

 :D

Well, do you know for a fact that it wasn't a study? Probably way more study went into this than is going into Coronavirus research regarding the CV truth about pandemics.

8)

and why did taliban and al qaida then claim it for itself in order to start jihad?

or we can go by your theory. that buildings are just random.. prop a stick up here.. put a brick there and hope it holds..
no
architects and building companies study this stuff at university t know about weight/balance. know about which building materials to use. they know about distance between pillars/columns and how thick the columns need to be to hold X weight
they know about what happens during earthquakes and high winds and their effects on a buildings sway.

yep sky scrapers and bridges are constructed to a certain standard and with safety in mind. its not just pick a plot of land and lay a brick and hope.

seriously. try to learn a few basics about the real world

Just remembering that you were the one who said your theory, is getting me to start laughing all over again. So, thanks. We need a good laugh now and again.

Anybody who thinks about it for a moment, knows that the building collapses were demolition. Now the universities are starting to prove it.

8)

ok well try to do a bit of research

try some research on the topics of
building regulations
construction
architecture
physics

i bet you think that bridges can break in earthquakes or a small gust of wind because no understanding of physics has been done when making them.

if you truly think that if a building collapses for any reason apart from controlled demolition that it should lean over and fall like a tree being cut down. then the only person you should be laughing at is yourself

they are build to fall down on themselves. not fall over and hit other buildings..
you might learn something if you try

They aren't built to fall at nearly the speed of free fall, except when there are explosives ignited in proper order throughout. It's called demolition. Do some research.

8)

anyone can make a computer model and then say 'we think its explosives'
but architects, not conspiracy geeks who make up their own narrative. . actual architects who actually know how buildings are made know how skyscrapers and tall buildings fall

here is an example for you.
you can make a 3d virtual girlfriend. but it will never make you an expert on women.
so try to learn about the building. learn about women. and dont think you have learned all that needs to be learned from a computer model

i know that if the code for the computer model was 'la la la' youd instantly think its detailed factual science just because you been told 'the code is detailed, even when other people tell you that there should be something behind the 'lalala' but you will continually avoid to research what should be behind things
(you have been proven this is the case)

also knowing you, you will ofcourse find lame excuses to avoid learning common sense life skills.
with your lame narrative of 'ill do the opposite of whats been told'
thats just your style. and its getting boring. your not helping yourself or anyone else with your lack of ability to research

...
screw it. i wont wait around for you to do some research and realise the flaw in your opinion.. ill just ask u to watch this 23second video a few times

https://youtu.be/zRpCwKRnL1M
now pause it between 0sec and 3 seconds.

the smoke to the left. that left/back side is where the twin towers were and where damage would have hit WTC7
i then want you to. without pushing play yet.. ask yourself to watch the 3d model that only shows 'near perfect collapse'
right.. thats what the model shows. which can onlyhappen if it was a perfect collapse..with no previous structural damage
but just fire.. right? thats your opinion

but now watch from 4sec to 10seconds,..

oh wait. is that.. hmm. yes it is. structural collapse of the side where the twin towers was.. meaning WTC7 must have got hit by something.

hmm but i know you badecker, still thinking the building was 100% structurally sound and just fell all in one go perfectly..
hmm


i wonder.. was the side on the left that was billowing out smoke just smoke or could there have been structural damage...
oh wait there was actually a gaping hole on that side even before the video.. and then it finally gave out and then seconds later the rest of the building fell to...
using physics and very well known building regulation standards of construction

so it wasnt ever about 'just fire damage' as you seem to think

so dont just skip to 11seconds and scream  what happened after 11seconds is all that happened. actually understand what happened before the 11th second.

the 3d model you salivate over only represents something after the 11th second detail as if the first 10 seconds didnt happen.
yep the 3d model excludes the first 10 seconds part. thus tainting the results by ignoring the first 10 seconds and the fact that there was a gaping hole in the side of the building before even 0 seconds  taint results further
if you think it was just an office fire. and no physical structural damage before the 11 second. then you really are stuck believing in la la land

We're in agreement, then. Buildings aren't built to fall at nearly the speed of free fall, except when there are explosives ignited in proper order throughout. It's called demolition.

8)

you utter ignorant dumb moron

your stuck in la la land of only what happened after 11th second. not the cause of the structural weakness.

when a buildings structural weakness is compromised then a building does collapse on itself.. thats what they are built to do.
your still trying to ignore the structural weakness to pretend the only way to collapse was human placed explosive charges.

you really are deluded

Hey! Thank you, franky1. Any less from you and lots of us would have been disappointed. Keep up the resoundingly good work. :D

8)

well ofcourse you will stay ignorant about the first 10 seconds and before the collapse..
and ofcourse you will only salivate at the 11+second final collapse..
stay in your dream world. as many others can see where you first fail to grasp the real situation. then fear admitting how wrong you are, and instead just continue your ignorant path of only thinking the 11+second footage occured

But mostly, we all will stay ignorant of what in the world you are going on about.

It's not ignorance about the facts of 9/11. It's ignorance of how your mind works.

Somehow people don't generally think like you do. If you can't explain how you think, so that somebody can figure out what you mean by what you say, of course people will remain ignorant. But it's ignorant of what you mean... not ignorance about what happened on 9/11.

And, also, I don't know if I really want to learn how you think. I have enough work to do simply programming in common programming languages.

8)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

Thanks, TECSHARE.

I don't know what franky1 will say, but he might say that this proves that construction is powerful stuff to have made buildings that can do this by non-demolition collapse.

I am on the other end. My crazy-conspiracy-theorist theory is that the charges were built into the buildings at the time of their construction, so that they could easily be demolished whenever any proper authority wanted. And that's the nice part of my theory. The rest of my theory is that the remaining buildings still have the explosives in them, just waiting for a time when they need to be demolished.

Has anybody gone out there and taken samples from the remaining World Trade Center buildings to ascertain this? I mean, many people died because of Twin Tower collapses, both during, and from exposure to dust during cleanup. I'd be scared to work in any of those buildings until I found out for a fact that they were clean from explosives.

8)

"A study". Looks like it's actually "a study" by one guy, who is a doddering old 80+ year old who has not published in 20 years..... and two "students" .... Chinese .... ?

A Chinese disinformation scheme?

if there were explosive charges
you would see the explosive charges taking out all the columns of every floor

what badecker is not realising is building are designed to collapse on themselves anyway when their colums fail

.. badecker thinks the columns failed due to explosives.. but there were no 'bang bang bang bang' explosives. there was just crumbing

2 things can weaken columns. explosives. and damage
the building was damaged due to debris from the planes in the buildings next to it

the study badecker got spoonfed wants to make people think that buildings fall like a lumbered tree, sideways.
but badecker is wrong.. they are not designed that way
 for many common sense reasons.. such as the building being in a well populated area so designed to cause least impact to other buildings should something happen

badacker cannot show any sign of explosives (the bang bang bang) and only crumbling of already damaged columns.. so is resorting to suggest that buildings meant to lean over naturally.. but only fall down straight if demolished,

just shows how small minded he is about most things as usual. mainly small minded about common sense

Not only that, but bldg 7 had been essentially "hollowed out" to create a huge atrium in the inside. It didn't have its original structural integrity.

The building was situated above a Consolidated Edison power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints...

On September 11, 2001, the structure was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm, according to FEMA,[5]:23 while the 2008 NIST study placed the final collapse time at 5:20:52 pm.[6]:19, 21, 50–51 The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

Like we're supposed to believe that the architects and constructions workers were so good that they could make a building that you could do just about anything to, and it would still crash, just at the right time, almost at free fall, into its own footprint.

Those jokers missed their true calling. They could have made $trillions in the stock market.

8)

Beats believing a "study" by two Chinese disinformation agents who duped one old doddering professor.

I think it would be relatively simple to design a building to fall inwards. First semester engineering statics, maybe the next semester dynamics. Maybe...

Of course most European and US people wouldn't believe a couple of Chinese researchers. They're not of a high enough IQ to recognize what the Chinese found.

8)

sorry but badecker has no clue about building regulations or building materials costs. or things like basic physics, weighted loads and other basics of life.

i know in badeckers world he thinks flowers and tree's can only grow if its natural wind blowing seeds randomly.
he doesnt realise that some people actually have skills to know what distance and what type of thing they can plant in a certain area so that it can gain most height with least disruption nearby to maximise utility of space
badecker doesnt think architects have skills and thinks farmers are just guys with harvesters.  badecker has absolutely no clue

What did the Chinese find? A place to sow division and disinformation propaganda, by teaming up two subversive agents with a doddering old fool of a professor.

They simply found more proof that the whole 9/11 thing was an inside job.

8)

More likely they were paid disinformation agents, who fabricated results to concoct an anti-American story that naive, ignorant and gullible people might believe.

is badecker still being ignorant

ok one more time..
the computer generated model was not a model of exact representation of exact events.
instead it was a model of a building falling equally
which is the case for all sky scrapers for all main reasons of structure defect or demolition (both)

the other computer mode was a random model of a leaning building which is not even typical expectants to occur in most real life situations

the leaning building model was then told to be 'what should happen'
and the fall model was told as 'only should happen under demolition'

both statements are false
watching the actual video. it shows the building got damaged. and the side nearest the towers(south) took the brunt of it. and the east side just had a couple floors of fire billowing out

9-11 consiracists think the east side showing a bit of fire was the side that the towers were on.. it was not
most of the damage was on the south side.

the south side fell first. which then weakened the rest of the building. and then it a came down. as designed it should do

If you were close enough to see this, you would be dead, long before you recognized what you saw.


But if you want to see the explosive residue found in the Twin Towers, watch this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkaX5n3pfZE and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOWWSjol6Ps.


These buildings were designed to withstand plane hits like the ones that happened on 9/11.


Demolition experts can barely cause buildings to fall the way they want when the whole demolition is controlled. So you think that the design from years before could make the buildings fall... like the designers had a crystal ball? If you get any sillier... oh go ahead. We need some more laughs.



Explosions in the Towers before the collapses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM, and the explosions, themselves, this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnyiT9gCYlA.

Sorry franky1. You better go back to school. What!? You never attended school? I take off my hat to you. You are doing very well for somebody who never went to school. :D

8)

So now the "proof" is not from paid Chinese spies disinformation to "Youtube proof."

And no, there wasn't any bang-bangs in those towers. But if there were, then can you please provide all that info to the US military? They might want to be sure that our troops only shoot an enemy when a land mine is going off under his feet. You know, just to be sure?

Well, make up your mind. First you say its from paid Chinese spies, and now you say it isn't.

You were there? Listening for bangs in the Towers? Other witnesses say there were bangs in the Towers. Watch the videos, or search. You know how, right?

8)

oh badecker.

it must really hurt when someone calls you out on your lack of common sense.
i do like how you flip flop to try hiding that you ever were as dumb on the flop as you pretend not to be on the flip. but a couple days later you return back to the flop again. and it just makes your whole comedy routing stale.

try some new material. its become obvious you dont know 99.9% of the stuff you talk about
atleast spend a couple days trying to learn something. and just make a little effort in actually trying to provide something useful and factual

You are trying to shift the subject to the Towers. The subject... YOUR subject... is building 7.

It's not me that has to make you a mind. It's You. You said the Chinese spies were "Proof", now you are trying to use an alternate "proof", Youtube videos. They are about the towers, not building 7. But somehow something there supports your ideas?

I don't think so. But what do I know? You have some Youtube videos made by more Chinese disinformation agents or those they paid?

What is it with you? I simply reported an article so that people can see the other side of the story. But it somehow hurts your itty-bitty feewings enough that you are trying to make a personal thing out of it. What's the matter? Are you one of those Americans that fought in WW2 or Viet Nam or Korea, and you just can't believe that there would be somebody in the USA government who would dishonor you so badly?

Wake up, buddy. They are playing you. And the longer you let them, the bigger of a play it will be.

8)

Be my guest, post more Chinese propaganda.

You wouldn't know what propaganda was if it jumped up and bit you in the eyeball.

8)

we get it badecker wants to show this forum 'the other side of the story'
problem is he is grabbing at the shelves of the sci-fi/fantasy section of the library

we know badecker is super religious
in a library there is sections that talk about religion philosopically. some have it in the childrens section where its made into child friendly stories. some have it in horror and disaster sections like stories of plagues/noahs ark..

but badecker is only grabbing at the fantasy/scifi section for all his knowledge about everything.
he wouldnt know where the philosophy section was even if someone pointed him in its direction.

let alone know where to look for actual fact

Badecker has so far created three separate threads on this forum each on a "miracle cure" for Covid-19.

1) a licorice extract
2) MMS2
3) vitamin C

And then, claimed that the symptoms of covid-19 were really those of zinc deficiency, using a chart with bogus information. Any medical study, and most nurses could immediately state the symptoms of zinc deficiency.

^^^ Yes, but, the proof is in that 9/11 was a demolition activity from the inside.

8)

badecker.

WITNESS video footage of the building 7 shows structural defects. and a collapse of the south side (left of video) several seconds first

the conspiracy geeks computer model does not
thus the computer model does not represent actual events.

the WITNESS video footage of buildin 7 showed no boom boom boom that comes with demolition charges.
those are two FACTS that are plane to see..


the conspiracy site you wish you believe in. showed 2 computer models. 1 of how a building is supose to callapse down on itself. and one that shows it leaning over which is not a normal construction thing.
the conspiracy geeks want to tell a story that the fall down model only occurs in demo. and leaning only occurs non demo

again wrong wrong wrong.

buildings are not designed to lean like a lost game of jenga. there are rules and regulations and material criteria and architectural design involvement done that allows a building to be made so tall without much risk to neighboring buildings.
they wouldnt be allowed to be built in the first place if the design was to lean over under a structural malfunction//damage


atleast wise up
then stop drinking bleach

so stop trying to dig deeper down this path. because you are only digging a hole for yourself.
atleast realise ur trying to bury yourself neck deep in dirt. and actually accept that you need to just stop falling

That building 7 was designed originally one way, then over time was hollowed out to create a huge interior atrium. Guess what? They took a lot of the supporting structure away when they did that. There were questions about that work, too. But it was signed off on and done.

Please explain better. Your wording could mean many things. And you don't have a link to the witness video you were talking about. But in a previous post I have listed videos that show the opposite of what you are saying. In addition, you seem to contradict yourself in several of the things you say, right in your post I am quoting.

Thanks for your understanding, and your desire to do a better job.

8)

dang you have a real memory loss problem
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5236144.msg54127072#msg54127072

The idea that 9/11 was a demolition is really weird, and actually pretty funny. Because somehow it has to have the planes hit the towers, AND THEN THE DEMOLITION CHANGES SET OFF.

It's like an incredibly complicated and ridiculous conspiracy theory. I guess the Chinese or the Iranians are pouring a lot of huge amount of money into keeping it afloat.

to put explosive charges into a building. demolition crews would not just let offices workers mingle around all day. while they lay the charges..
people would notice charges strapped to the columns.
people will notice demolition guys strapping things to columns

for badecker to think that hundreds-thousands of people saw nothing.. but only badecker and his motley crew of youtube armchair theorists seen it all.. shows less awareness of badeckers own actions than of anything else he thinks could have happened
yep i said it badecker cant even work out his own actions. let alone something he has no experience or first person knowledge over..
and thats the part that makes me laugh

actually reminds me of a while back some guy was trying to argue on this forum about how great cars would be with tanks of hydrogen fuel. several guys including me with actual experience started arguing with him, but oh he knew everything. Because, internet...

If (A) cannot or won't listen to (B) about issues such as basic safety protocols in industry, there is a problem.

Having had by sheer accident some small charges go off on the table right in front of me (static electric set it off, black powder antique gun) I have the utmost respect for anyone who works with such things everyday ... the idea of sneaking in and setting charges is so totally laughable...

When you want to do a criminal act, like crashing a couple of tall buildings with people inside, do you simply walk in and say to the security guard on duty, "We're here to set the demolition charges?"

The planes were the excuse to start a war in the Middle East. They were also a cover-up for using demolition to bring the buildings down for other reasons.

Of course the operation was complex. You can't stand out in the parking lot, and huff and puff and blow the buildings down. And if you are trying to accomplish several main objectives, and hide the facts of what you are doing, it absolutely is going to be complicated.

But they pulled you and frank1 in. So it worked. But there are a lot of other people who haven't been tricked.

8)

That's just the popular video of the demolition being done. They did it pretty good, too, didn't they. Straight down into its own footprint, almost at free fall speed.

So you think buildings are designed to crash in on themselves, right? Do you sleep in your car because you are scared of buildings? Aren't you afraid that cars might be designed to crash in on themselves?

8)

But that is all you jokers can say. Because you haven't watched the videos that explain how and when the explosives were taken into the buildings.

8)

badeckers response is that normal people havnt watched a video of some conspiracy nutter guy tell a story..

sorry.. but for a guy that loves to throw buzzwords about like: courtrooms, stand under oath, evidence
where he says nothing is true unless its done in court...
he himself must realise his own empty speaches from conspiracy guys that quote other conspiracy guys does not create proof

i should quote a book about spaceships that travel at lightspeed and impregnate badecker everynight..
would it suddenly make it happen .. no
because story telling is not evidence. especially if its from someone who clearly shows no experience in the matter and no first hand knowledge, nor even the decency to even attempt some actual research

its nut jobs that dont want to believe anything that contradicts their idea, who double down and say only way to prove it is in court.. are so oblivious to how the real world works that they are just trying any way they can to not hve to admit they are wrong.
at first i thought it was just lazy and ignorance. but it is most definitely a sign of some mental disfunction

What you have not and really cannot explain is why any Evil Person or Evil Group would want to BOTH blow up and ram planes in to buildings.

That's rather like committing suicide by shooting yourself in the head two or three times, isn't it?

Spendy, you are such a sweet, innocent person. Only a sweet, innocent person can't imagine that evil people and evil groups often don't have a goal other than to simply do evil. Sooo innocent that you can't even imagine that anybody could have such a simple goal of doing evil.

Of course, if you search the Net for all those old explanations for the whys of 9/11, you can easily find the other goals they had and might have had.

You are right when you say evil is rather like committing suicide. Evil people often don't care. All they want is what they get now. They think they just might be smart enough to ward off trouble later. Too bad for them. Or good that they will get justice one way or another.

8)

ok guys give it time.. i have a feeling badeckers next topic will be that elvis is alive and living with michael jackson

Well thank you kindly, franky1. But why not make it easier on yourself by simply saying is straight out? Saying what? That you know that 9/11 was an inside job.

I know, I know. If you did this, you'd be tempted to get right into who you really are. Don't be afraid. You can be honest. You are the same as all of the rest of us. You are different like all the rest of us.

Are we having fun, yet?

8)

^
(facepalm)

If you would stop facepalming for a minute, and get out there and do some research, you would actually find out that 9/11 was an inside job.

8)

says the guy that just grabs the first conspiracy he finds from some cultish acting group and believes it as being as truthful..
dare you go back and research the computer models to realise the one pretending to be of actual events. doesnt match actual events.
nope you wont dare yourself to research the model.
dare you research how buildings are made.. nope
dare you actually use common sense nope.

you will just say if its wrong then not your fault blame someone else and pretend your innocent and had nothing to do with starting this topic. pretending it was not your theory.. as usual
which is such a loser approach to life.

maybe next time you put a bit of effort into actually researching a new idea /theory you want to post about. and actually have put some intellectual thought into it. an been critical in your methods of research to actually want to find whats real.
but no, i doubt that. you will instead just latch onto the very first conspiracy that entertains you. and spend a week trolling people about it

Please don't duck and dodge the subject just answer.

Why would anyone BOTH blow up and building and ram a plane into it?

You don't seem to believe what I say. So why not do your own research to see what the professionals are saying? It's not out on the front pages any longer. But it is still available for anyone who wants to look.

All of a sudden you seem to want to duck and dodge doing your own research.

8)

Because I would like you hear your answer. To execute the condemned murderer you'd cut his head off, shoot him, and electrocute him? Why?

My answer would be the things that I would find if I researched. Are you accusing me of being the brains behind the 9/11 terrorist act?

8)

My answer would be the things that I would find if I researched. Are you accusing me of being the brains behind the 9/11 terrorist act?

8)
[/quote]Brains, no.

Brains, no.
[/quote]

Maybe you aren't so much of a troll after all.     8)

It seems pretty self explanatory that this would serve as an effective diversion from questions about the explosives (as it has been).

Forget all the tangential arguments. The laws of physics prove explosives HAD TO be involved to acheive the results obtained in the destruction of the WTC towers. This is basic math and physics here, not theorizing, not postulating, not debate, scientific fact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

ok.. the thumpnail of the video seems to make YOU and others think that the steel girders must have come from low down the building.. (the subliminal primer)

the narrater then explains that the force needed to push it 2 football feilds from such a low level must have been huge..

but.. physics and common sense and science.. which is something he hints at. is that girders from the 90th floor dont need that much force.
..
the real funny thing i find with conspiracy theorists is
when there is no big word changing event. they like to cause a conspiracy that the world should be in panic and utopia is impossible..
when there actually is a world changing event. they like to invent a conspiracy that the world is actually utopia and the event is fake.

seems like there is no pleasing these people. no matter if something is happening or not.
i bet they still think that all the fire fighters of 9-11 are still alive but living on an island with elvis too

..
one last thing about explosives used in demolition
architects know and design buildings to fall in on themselves .. thats how they are built. they are not designed to fall sideways like trees being lumbered. regulations see to that because in huge dense area's they dont want earthquakes or planes causing buildings to tople sideways like a path of dominos.
so safety regulations ensure building design have it that if the columns defect. it crumbles DOWN.

the next part is if a column is not defected due to earthquake, being struck by large object. and they plan to take it down then they only use enough explosives to defect the columns. they would not load it with enough explosives to send shrapnil 2 football fields away. again safety regs are involved... and common sense

lastly if there were explosives involved and enough to actually cause the force of a 2 footbal field velocity at the stupid low floor level the video trues to subliminal suggest. the "bang bang bang bang" would be HUGE
much more apparent and more visable than normal controlled demolition

there was not standard demolition explosive bang bang bang sounds nor extreme bang bang bang bang sounds
so that rules out both posibilities of explosives.

all that is left is the stupid subliminal propaganda that the girder came from a low level floor..
again common sense suggests other wise. but it is obvious that people dont want to admit the obvious and instead want to set up/suggest that it wasnt from near the 90th floor but more likely from the first floor.. just to push their conspiracy

No, it's not "basic math and physics."

I went through this with Badecker 2 years ago, using 8th grade math and physics, and disproved every single one of the math and physics arguments. No college level statics or dynamics. No computer modeling. That's how ridiculously bad the arguments actually are.

That leaves BELIEF, which is a different matter. But I do find it somewhat comical, ... Okay, next time I go hunting, I'll be sure to spear the deer before I shoot it.

Next time I change a tire, I'll put the car up on a lift, then get out the jack stand and crank that tire up.

And of course, next time I derive a math or engineering proof, I'll first check with YouTube to be sure it's right.

Scratched your own itch, didn't you! Now get out into the real world and find out what is real.

8)

Well...they HAVE the force of gravity which is enormous. The total energy of the fall of each of the towers was several percent of the joules of energy in an atomic bomb.

This was easily seen by the large amounts of concrete turned back into powder.

However to move an object sideways does not take a lot of energy to move sideways 500 feet in 10 seconds is 50 fps, to impart 50 fps in 1 second is no big deal.

At construction sites its pretty common to see something big and heavy like a bridge beam hanging from a crane and one guy rotating it sideways with his hands.

... and then tossing it through the air, sideways, to land a couple of football fields away. Yep, done all the time, right?

8)

You tried arguing this same item with me two years ago, I explained and provided the formulas and derivations. it was simple, textbook 8th grade physics. You didn't do too well. Remember that?

Actually, I remember that the textbooks stuff you used wasn't applicable to the Towers.

8)

Tell me, how does gravity send multi-ton steel girders 500 feet in a lateral direction at velocities that require explosive force?

"velocities that require" what?

Explosive force?

That's good for a laugh. There's really no meaning to the term, is there? There's just watts, joules, ways of measuring or calculating energy.

Gravity is 32 ft/sec^2.

That adds up pretty fast.

How does a bullet ricochet?

As in there is no way to get such a massive object moving such lateral distances in such a short period of time without the use of explosives. Gravity pulls downward, not sideways. Are you suggesting gravity pulled multi-ton girders 500 feet laterally?

Bullets use explosive force...

your 2 flaws.. that i already pointed out to you
you beleive that it had to be moving in a lateral/horizontal direction..

i told you before the video thumbnail was just a subliminal message..
watch the whole video.. he doesnt even say which floor the beam come from..
you just believe it must have come from a bottom floor due to the thumbnail.

atleast put your idea aside.. research independently and without bias.. and then check if the actual facts match your opinion

You and Spendy seem to like playing word games.

600 feet away from the place the building was before it fell... do you think the beams teleported there?

Not only does he not know which floor the beams came from, but he SAID he doesn't know this. So, he showed what it would be like no matter which level the beam came from.

In simple language, tell us, how did the beams get moved 2 football fields away? Gravity pulls downward. It doesn't pull sideways.

8)

EDIT: Note that the towers were 208 feet wide on each side. But the beams moved 3 times that far away from the towers. Even if the beams were the width of the towers, themselves, that's at least 3 times the the width of the Towers the beams had to fly sideways. What can cause that in simple crashing down?

first you have to grasp reality. before you can grasp physics.
plus even if someone explained it to you in 10 different ways, each only differing in the tone of the words.
you would still be ignorant and ignore it and come up with an excuse to not believe it.

I know. It's difficult to acknowledge that you have been simply believing, when you should have been studying. We all make mistakes some of the time. Don't take it so hard.

8)

screw it. just to make you look a fool. ill give it a shot


YOUR conspiracy is how a girder went horizontally but you have no proof of a horizontal direction.. its just what you beleive
____
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      |
|      | . . . ||
|      |
|      |

reality is..
____
|      |
|      |.
|      |   .
|      |     .
|      |      .
|      |       .
|      |        .
|      |        ||
|      |
|      |

why
because that || steel girder was lodged into another building and the impact path in the other building reveals the angel of entry was not horizontal.. yep thats a real physics thing
..
also.. guess what.. theres a video of it

bet you wish you done your research before you came to your flawed no evidence conspiracy theory.

Good job on your drawings! Congratulation. But the point is...

Girders and beams don't do that without force causing them to do that. Gravity pulls down, not sideways. The girders and beams should have fallen right with the rest of the building, into the building's own footprint. But the footprint fall is more proof of the demolition that was used to push the girders and beams so far away from the building proper. Buildings can't be built to perfectly fall into their own footprint at near free fall speeds without knowing well ahead of time what forces will act on them... except with demolition.

Or do you have the engineers and designers that can show this and prove it?

8)

Nice drawing. Who said anything about angle of entry? I said lateral movement, which by the way is demonstrated in both of your crayon renderings. Gravity pulls objects in one direction. Down. Not sideways. Also the landing spot of these girders is fact documented by FEMA, not based on "belief".

https://i.imgur.com/rMQMXye.jpg

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch7.pdf

i think you have been watching too much of that WB cartoon called road runner.
where they run off the edge of a cliff.. stop just off it and drop down straight.

you like drawings so here is how i think you believe it should be
____
|      |
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |.
|      |||

that dont happen.
lets put it another way. if you stood at the top of a building at the edge and just leaned forward to fall off. with leas force as possible..
you would not be faling with ur ankles grinding against the building as you fall
____
|      |
|      |.
|      | .
|      | .
|      | .
|      | .
|      | .
|      | .
|      | .
|      | ||

now if you do it with a bit of a force like a push or a jump
____
|      |
|      | .
|      |  .
|      |   .
|      |   .
|      |   .
|      |   .
|      |   .
|      |   .
|      |   ||

now if you take a bit more force like bending metal like a spring/ slingshot. and add a bit of spin
you will get even further out
without needing any massive explosives..

but hey all it takes is to actually watch the videos and you will see the shrapnil fliying.. at an angle
not low level horizintal and not high level complete vertical

Oh! They lied to us. It was only a quarter of a football field. Not two football fields. Well, if they lied about this, they lied about the rest.

Or could it be you skewing the figures? :D

I think you are simply having fun drawing.

8)

I think it is you who gets his ideas of how physics work from roadrunner cartoons. "Spin" doesn't add momentum or distance to multi-ton steel girders. The amount of energy required to move such massive objects is a simple formula detailed in this video, and operates by the accepted laws of physics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

Yes, do watch the video. Watch how the debris goes up and out, not just down at a acute angle like your falling out a window theory, indicating a powerful outword force being exerted in EVERY direction. Interesting you use the word "shrapnil", because shrapnel by definition (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shrapnel) is an ejection from an explosive device.

They make simple formulas and simple videos for simple minds.

If anyone is interested in modern physics, research rotational frame dragging.   Techy's claim is no different than saying global warming is caused by lack of ocean pirates.  :/

Yeah, who needs plain old physics when you can deflect from the scientific facts with irrelevant "modern physics" theories never intended to be applied to such a scenario. Clearly those plain old formulas for measuring mass and velocity over distance are outdated and need to be spiced up.

The fact that explosives were used is an indisputable fact based on the laws of physics. You feel free to argue against physics if you like. People like you are always crying for proof, well here it is, raw, undeniable, scientifically sound proof. You have fun arguing with all the other tards about no planes, nukes, and lasers if you like. All you need to prove the events of the day are the laws of physics.

That's why physics keeps changing - we keep finding new things out.  Do you still believe the earth is the center of everything?

I don't mean to pressure you to keep current Techy - but you don't need to insult everyone when people propose something else.

the spin is not about causing more force to have more velocity. its about basic physics that it causes a bit of varience to its direction and path down to the ground
think about it this way. if you jump off a building straight. vs if you do a cartwheel off a building. you wont land in the same place... same force, same distance to ground.. but follows a different path

its you conspiracy guys that think its explosives. so yea i used shrapnel as a subtle buzzword, just to tickle your metaphoric genitals, thinking it might actually awaken a part of your brain to atleast think about it. rather then just be a reality denier

How does a bullet ricochet? Redirection of previously existing force.

Behavior of an object under gravity on a ramp is textbook beginning physics.

As in there is no way to get such a massive object moving such lateral distances in such a short period of time without the use of explosives.

Clearly you believe that. But this is a physics problem, so can you just show the work, the equations that prove that? No YouTube links please, just the 8th grade physics equations.

Gravity pulls downward, not sideways. Are you suggesting gravity pulled multi-ton girders 500 feet laterally?

Gravity pulls kids down slides.

Gravity doesn't pull "down" - that's a human term.   Gravity is attracted to mass, period.

If you heat up something fast, an atmospheric tsunami wave could also push something without an explosion.  The large solar collectors that concentrate power on a single spot vaporize water with no explosions involved.

Techy, you are an internet troll, not a physicist.  :)

Classical physics vs others, so what? The nature of the force of gravity is not relevant here, right? (Actually I always thought it more accurate to think in terms of gravity causing the space between objects to shrink)

Here is a useful on line calculator.

https://www.angio.net/personal/climb/speed.html

Taking a quick look, a 1 kg mass takes 7.82 seconds to fall 300 meters and when it goes splat, has kinetic energy of 2940 joules. "Multi ton" is not relevant, each unit of mass has its own potential energy which may become one of several forms of kinetic energy.

To move sideways "500 feet" in 7.82 seconds starting with an energy impulse only requires a velocity of 18 meters per second. That is about 162 joules/kg. So out of 2940 joules/kg, 162 must be converted to horizontal force for all this to happen. This is for 1 kg, for larger mass the problem scales proportionally. It does not matter how heavy the object is.

There's no need here for "explosive force" and the "very heavy multi ton beam" is not correct thinking, the initial energies of position (potential energies) are quite large, and the speed required to move the object 500 feet is quite low.

Conversely, if explosive force is required, I am sure you can show it to be required, right?

Regarding "Techy, you are an internet troll, not a physicist." the entire point here is to show that these arguments are wrong using 8th grade physics. That's how really, really stupid the arguments are.

:)

LOL! A standard demolition explosive explosion IS heating something up fast. What is heated up fast? The explosive material as it is exploding.

8)

That's why it's so easy getting a car rolling by pushing, right? How many tons were those girders? Were they on wheels to let them roll easily? Were they attached to the building?

The basic 8th grade physics might apply. But the complexity of forces in the demolition doesn't use the physics the way that eighth-graders would. Totally inappropriate comparison.

8)

2980 joules/kg for EVERY kg that fell, and only 162 joules required imparted in sideways force.

Those are THE numbers, really nothing is going to change them.

For exmple, I kg of TNT (4.6 megajoule) would impart  2300 joules of energy on every kg of that two ton beam. But the inherent potential energy of that beam IS HIGHER (5.96 megajoule). And the energy for the sideways movement is only a few percent of either number.

So now, where do you think "explosive force" comes from?

So, in simple terms, what does that mean? Sideways force comes from somewhere, doesn't it? Also, the sideways force is a one-time force. Downward force is an acceleration that is constant, except when hindered, of course.

If the sideways force came from vectored downward force, and we have nearly free-fall speeds down, how can you calculate what force went where, and on which materials without complex, computer models? And that is exactly what the university guys did in their study... they did the complex study.

It doesn't simply fall together the way you say it. It's way more complex than that, even if the "crash" uses much of the simplicity that you talk about. It uses the simplicity in many ways, many angles, many vectors, many impedances, almost like multitudes of different kinds of fractals.

Simple talk doesn't produce this type of model. Computerization barely does it. But the computer models are way more accurate because they take many things into account.

8)

but we already debunked how the computer models of WTC7 you linked didnt account for the left side (south facing) damage before the fall

LOL! You would have to go to school first, before you could debunk the university model.

 :D

the model itself by lacking the left facing defect first. debunks itself. just by watching the video of the actual events

but its you that even has to learn to question things. to then go to school to learn to then go research the truth.
but instead ull play your ignorance game

500 feet of variance? Seriously? So you are going with the explanation that the way the multi-ton girders spin is what sent them 500 feet laterally? Doing a cartwheel off of a building isn't going to send you hundreds of feet from the building. The further from the origination point you move laterally, and the more mass there is, the more energy is required.



Exactly. A previously existing EXPLOSIVE force. Where was the ramp? I didn't see any ramps. No kids slides either.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b9b0428d95d2fd8f108ce35df9cfea6d

no
im not saying its just spin..
thats about as short minded single pointe dipcrap to be expected of conspiracy loving guys lack of understanding

its the non demolition explosion thrust of a natural damage along with wind and other debris nd many other factors of nature aswel as the debris spin and height of the origin point..

heck. even swimming pool divers know how spin and jump force and lean and sway can affect how and where they land

you and your conspiracy buddies want the world to beleive that it must have come from a near ground level .. first error. and due to that it must have been pushed with substantial force only available through explosives.. second error

your conspiracy guys keep trying the horizontal projectile conspiracy.. when reality is actually a high up tumble initially pushed with alot less force than you want to admit
..
but you conspiracy guys are too ignorant to even watch videos and study basic physics.
instead you want to make up a narrative of a low level projectile just to set a goal of proving or disproving if a projectile can reach that far from your determined low level ..
thus capturing people into an endless no win scenario about a scenario that didnt happen but you want people to only talk about it as if that the only option..

but the real debate is not even about your high power projectile from low level.. the real debate is the real flow of debris from the real incident using real physics from the real high height.. not your story

A model can't debunk itself except from gross math or other errors. Why not? It's a model. Nothing to debunk.

There is, however, one thing that the model does. It debunks the official report by taking into detailed account all kinds of things that the official report doesn't even begin to consider, but that are easily recognized as part of the equation once they are shown.

8)

Wind? That's what you are going with? Wind blowing multi-ton steel girders around? Even at the higher floors the amount of force required is in high explosive territory.

theres a combination of many factors
by you trying to be ignorant and think im suggesting one thing. or you being ignorant thinking it should/could only be one thing is just you showing limited capacity of thought

heck .. if you ever look at things like earthquakes these dont just make things fall.. it makes things rock and get thrown across

so before you reply 'earthquake, you going with that' no im going with rocking from the crumbling movement of the floors below shifting.. as they collapse

there are many many things involved. and your  fool if you just want to consider one. and deny any that just dont fit your narrative you came up with before doing independent research/understanding


the main issue and problem with conspiray people is this
1. they form an opinion before truly understanding the factors of the issues
2. they then seek out any small details that back up their opinion
3. they ignore/avoid/dismiss any info that debunks thier opinion
4. they have no interest in finding fact/truth. they just want to grab anything that adds weight to their initial thought
even if that initial thought is wrong
and finally
5. they will never admit they are wrong.. at very best they will change subject and move on. at worse they will blame others that sourced the data they grabbed

Duh, has it occurred to you that a section of steel beam is it's own ramp? Obviously not.  So, 2000 kg * 162 joules = 364,000 joules required to move this beam 500 feet.

So, let me see if I understand this correctly. You've got a beam with PE = > 6 Mj and you are claiming that "High Energy Explosives" is required to supply the tiny amount of energy of 364 Kj?

If that were the case, the amount of TNT would be 2-3 ounces. I'm seriously not impressed with the utter necessity you project of explosives being "REQUIRED" here.

The numbers just don't show it. If I have missed something, please show the corrections.

I've ignored wind, due to this particular object's density and mass.

Of course in the real world, the object would have various motions in all six degrees of freedom. But all these can I think be ignored, because the assertion is that it's a tremendous feat to launch a multi ton beam five hundred feet.

I have shown that for the length of time for an object to fall 300 meters (7.8 seconds), this only requires 18 meters per second sideways travel to get the beam sideways 500 feet.

That's 162 joules per kg, 364Kj total, which is simply not a huge amount of energy. It's roughly the kinetic energy in a car at 30-40 miles per hour.  This is eight grade stuff, guys.

Franky, after these guys lose on one point, they'll just slither to the next point on their conspiracy list. Notice that Badecker tried to slide this discussion into towers 1 and towers 2 after getting nowhere on Bldg 7?

I bet those Chinese disinformation and propaganda agents are really laughing at how quickly these guys believe anything they put on the internet.

though i know "badecker" is not a real name of a real world person to defame. and just a pseudonym

my aim is more about to let others see how foolish his posts are.. because there are some people that would just latch onto some person and believe stupid things. so the sooner people realise badecker is a fool, the better it is for others.

i just have a personal bias against scammers and idiots that want to act cultish, trying to influence others for some personal gain

But only a few percent of total energy (KE+PE) per unit of mass is required to do 500 feet laterally.

Right, and where all these arguments lead for them is the US Government did 911, not Al Queda, or Al Queda worked for the US, blah-blaH-BLAh. They'll eventually get around to that, but they never start off with those claims.

yea i know the long game they play. then its the al queda or gov debate
then if its a alqueda path..
then its a is alqueda foreign or us gov paid agent
then its how come bush went to wrong country in first couple years
then its.. and so on and so on and so on

i know the long game they play..
point is just to make them look stupid purely so others dont get involved in it..
.. imagine how much worse it would be if 10 newbies tried to argue with them..
best to cut it short and make badecker bored with only talking to one person

There is an attribute called "Intellectual dishonesty." This is for exmple when one asserts A and it is clearly shown beyond a doubt that not A but B is true. Later, the same person is asserting A.

In such a case, there are various reasons. Financial, political, religious, cultish, a need for attention, etc.

All Hail Lysencho! The great Trofin Lysencho!

The answer is reasononably easy in this case. Contact the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and tell them about the flaw(s) in their study. I'm sure they would want to see where they went wrong, and correct it. If you are good enough, they might even offer you a reward.

But when you do this, please get back to us with their answer, and contact points were we can confirm with them that you are explaining your meeting correctly.

8)

see typical badecker who started this topic.. but now is trying to back out and point fingers back to alaska

badecker this topic is about YOUR opinion of WTC7..
i informed you of the flaw of their model

for YOU to not even have the intelect to even consider your opinion might be wrong. for you to lack the courage to actually want to know whats actually the truth. and for you to just want to point fingers just so you can remain lazy.. is your flaws

we all know that no matter if i did contact the model makers you would deny it happen and just play your usual empty buzzword nonsense games.

here is the point.. this topic is about YOUR opinion. so its up to you to fix yourself. by you actually trying to find the truth and facts for once. by looking at the actual evidence like the witness video of what actually happened at the WTC7

i have already told you the models dont match the video..
now its your time to see it.

this is not about getting alaska uni to correct the model.
this is about the links you provided do not show the conclusion you made.

.. ill word it more simply
you can get a combustion engine car.. and tell me that its powered by electric.. obviously it isnt. but you could demand i prove it. then play ignorant when i show you the fuel tank and why your wrong..
but instead of admitting it. you tell me to go to the car manufacturer and get them to make you a new electric car

sorry but thats not how life works. you need to realise the model does not match the actual video footage and thus proves nothing... and you got to admit a combustion engine car is a combustion engine car.

man up and realise your flaws. you dont win prizes for being ignorant

So you are suggesting a steel beam slides against itself and redirects its OWN momentum? What the fuck are you even talking about?

There are several problems with your assumptions here regarding the calculations. First of all, it wasn't just single beams launched hundreds of feet, it was entire panel sections. Second, you assume the explosive force you calculated is 100% efficient as if they were shot out of a canon, and that is not how reality works in this case.

"In all there are 5,828 of these panels, each about 10 ft wide, 36 ft high, with the heaviest individual panel weighing about 22 tons. Each panel consists of three box columns, 14 in. square, made up of plate up to 3 in. thick and, connected by 54-in, deep spandrels."
[January 1, 1970, Engineering News Record, Volume 184, Part 1, 'World's tallest towers begin to show themselves on New York City skyline', pp. 26-27]

"The perimeter structure was actually formed from pre-fabricated sections of vertical columns attached to horizontal beams (called spandrels). The prefabricated sections were about 10 feet (3 m) wide, either two or three stories high, and weighed about 22 tons."
[https://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/wtc4.htm (https://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/wtc4.htm)]

https://i.imgur.com/qy03cvM.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/TLOUwxD.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3Uz1DrNCveI/VnBYdlQsIhI/AAAAAAAAGf8/taYjZ9G0rdY/s400/585feet.jpg

You can see here an entire panel section on the roof of the winter garden approximately 600 feet away.

https://i.imgur.com/ARu9dYG.jpg

More evidence of high speed ejections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHnLlwqiu0A

To take such a massive object in a resting state and to accelerate it with enough velocity to move it in a ballistic trajectory 600 feet laterally within seconds requires high explosive amounts of force.



We aren't talking about falling, we are talking about lateral motion of massive multi-ton steel panels from a full stop momentum, to hundreds of feet away in a few seconds.

I am not Badecker. You will notice I have had one point this entire time and I have stuck with it. You and your buddy Franky however are having a grand time topic sliding all over the place though in a really sad attempt to break up the cohesion of the discussion, because so far neither of you has been able to offer any kind of valid factually or scientifically based retort to this evidence.



Earthquakes are in no way comparable to this event, the fact that you think they are even remotely comparable is just asinine and demonstrates your gross understanding of even the most basic physics. You will notice you aren't actually addressing any of the evidence I presented, you are just forming a list of character attacks, assumptions, and your own confirmation bias.

do you now, using your own link you provided atleast admit that from the angle of how that beam lodged into the roof shows that it was not a horizontal trajectory. which would require extra force... but instead more of a fall into building from above

ill ask it again to ensure that its not confusing
dont worry ill get to the rest after.. but can you atleast take the very first step of admitting it was not a horizontal trajectory of a panel slapping against the building. but instead a sloped/diagonal/vertical directory of coming from above and falling to lodge into the roof

ill ask again. saves having to make many posts trying to get an answer
can you take that first step in admitting what actually happened..
if you can.. then we can move onto the next detail of contention . but first.. please lets handle the first critical detail of contention.. the direction of trajectory

The panels moved horizontally. That is not under debate. You have fun with the rest of that.

and there we have it folks.
even when using his own image.. he cant see the obvious
it has been declared.. techshare is an idiot

while the real world can see its lodged in the roof from above.. meaning the numbers are different to techchshares fantasy of a horizontal thrust.
he can scream, and argue and cry as loud and for as long as he likes as many numbers as he wants about horizontal thrust. but he has already lost the debate by just saying horizontal


im moving on to other topics, because idiots cant be taught not to be idiots

ill just leave this here.. and "troll" in this case =techshare
https://i.imgur.com/Md576iT.png

watch the video and you will see..
(i still laugh at techshares 'no spin' 'horizontal' 'huge force to cause horizontal trajectory needed'

Interesting subject. I was tempted to include the coriolis effect, but that would have violated Rule 1.

"Defeat conspiracy arguments about 911 with only 8th grade physics and chemistry."


At about 18 meters/second, or 43 miles per hour.

REGARDLESS of the mass of the object or its sideways velocity, it will be moving at 77 meters per second downward when it strikes the ground.


As far as conversion of a fraction of kinetic energy from straight vertical to horizontal it makes no difference whether an object hits a flat edge at a slant, or hits a slanted surface perpendicular or parallel to the Earth surface. Or two objects collide in flight. All you need is the end effect of some 5% conversion to horizontal.

It does NOT MATTER how many objects there were or how much they weighed. Each KG of mass has TE = (KE + PE), and requires 162 joules energy to achieve horizontal flight sufficient to reach 500 feet.

This is a simple ballistics trajectory problem. If the beam had MORE ENERGY than 162 joules launched from 300 meters height it would travel farther than 500 feet, and if it had less it would not go as far. Of course this changes with height, right? For example if you claimed the object was tossed through the air from 30 meters height, the numbers would be considerably different.

And no, I didn't assume "explosive force was 100% efficient" because there was no need for "explosive force."

If you want to assert that each kg had > 162 joules sideways force then you are going to have to explain why they did not travel FARTHER.

So let's hear it.

Kids play a little informal game of baseball. One of them hits the ball over the 9-foot high chain-link fence. One of the outfielder kids runs around the fence to retrieve the ball, but he happens to be a kid with a weaker throwing arm. So, he walks up to the fence, and tosses the ball over the fence. It lands on the other side, a few feet away from him, the fence in between him and the ball.

There wasn't any sideways.

Joules schmoules. The demolition experts were good. But a few of the pieces got wildly away. You jokers have it backwards.

8)

[sees image]
[projects what he wants to see on it to confirm his bias]

"If you can't see it you are just an idiot!"

Speaking of idiots, you can't even define horizontal movement correctly. It is a 100% fact the panels moved horizontally. This part isn't even a debate.

How can I know this? Well, because if it only moved along a vertical axis downward, it would fall within the footprint of the building. The fact that it was lodged into a building 600 feet a way is 100% solid proof of horizontal movement. Maybe later you would like to regale me with your exceptional understanding of how sticking your finger into the barrel of a fired gun will cause it to backfire onto the shooter leaving you unharmed.


It does in fact matter how much they weighed, even making such a statement that it doesn't matter in this context shows extreme amounts of ignorance and or disingenuousness. The more massive the object, the more it necessitates increasing force in order to cause it to travel against the forces of gravity, 600 feet laterally.

I said nothing of the shape of any objects, you did. You made a claim that these panel sections were ramping off of themselves. Objects do not interact with themselves mechanically to produce momentum like standing in a sail boat and  blowing into the sail like in a cartoon, because every force has an equal and opposite reaction. 5% conversion of what? The resting state from which the panels were ejected?

You did assume 100% efficiency of explosive force in fact. Sorry if you forgot your own words already.


Here you are estimating the amount of explosives required to eject a specific mass. The problem with this logic is, it assumes that 2-3 ounces of TNT transfers 100% of its force into the steel beam. Real explosives go in every direction and follow the path of least resistance. Your calculation assumes the force is all directed into the steel beam with your reverse calculation of the amount of explosive material required. Also you can clearly see you said "a section of steel beam is it's own ramp", which is just physically impossible.

^
denies the video that shows the debris

thinks the only opinion is debris falling within a few feet from tall height.. or blown hundreds of feet from low down
he cannot see or accept even when there is video evidence the curve (diagonal)

idiot... definitely moving on because this guy will never learn to actually look at the video of the actual event.. and instead just continue circling his fantasy made up in his head

You should learn what words mean, then get back to us.

Perhaps you should go back and re read what I've said.

162 joules is the RESULTANT FORCE imparted to the beam. That's the energy per kilogram that the object that traveled 500 feet actually had. About the energy of an average automobile at 30-40 miles per hour (per KG of course).

2-3 ounces of TNT is the amount that is equal to 162*2000 kg. I have no interest in ridiculous speculation of actual explosives with EXPLOSIVE FORCE being required to move MASSIVE BEAMS blah blah blah. But as I already mentioned, you tell us what TNT charge was used, and why it was required to move that MASSIVE BEAM. By all means. Just show your work at the 8th grade physics level please.

It's relatively easy to figure that out by the way.

As far as my comment 'Also you can clearly see you said "a section of steel beam is it's own ramp"'

You comment "which is just physically impossible."

Which simply means you cannot clearly see it, not that it's physical impossible. Plus, somehow here you appear to be arguing that a bunch of objects moving in one direction at varying speeds cannot interact and affect each other's direction vector. That's ridiculous. Avalanches, car wrecks, of course objects interact and impart energy and change direction of each other.

I've shown that the energy required for that sideways movement is truly very tiny, that it is a small (about 5%) fraction of total energy, that it is on a Per KG basis, that it does not matter if something is "tiny" or "MASSIVE", that no "EXPLOSIVE FORCE" from "EXPLOSIVES" is required, that there is nothing amazing or incredible about objects dropping from 300 meters winding up 500 feet away, on and on.

 Deal with it and don't be ridiculous.

So, you're saying, that all that it takes to move something sideways against its weight and other forces that hold it in place is about 2 or 3 ounces of TNT. Have you measured all the counter forces that were attempting to hold these objects in place?

We don't know that the major explosions didn't boost the objects in question up into the air in a lateral upward boost. Gravity changed the vectors so that the objects came down with hardly any sideways force applied at all... not even 1 ounce of TNT sideways.


The university jokers have taken way more forces into account than you can even imagine existed.

8)

You're wrong.

2-3 ounces TNT/ 2 ton beam is the resultant of the applied force, and it is simply what is required to move the beam 500 feet. The beam was moved 500 feet, therefore that amount of force was applied.

Instead of the beam being 500 feet away being the PROOF of "major explosions required" it is the very DIS PROOF.

The way you are impractical makes all you calc entirely worthless. Why? Because your calc doesn't fit the real beams in any way. After all, was there any force that might hinder beam movement? Consider simple resistance to beam movement:
1. If the beams were simply floating in the air, your forces might be nearly accurate;
2. If the beams were submerged in water, your forces might be nearly accurate. But there is more resistance in water than in air;
3. If the beams were lying on level ground with the friction of the ground the only thing to hinder their movement, you would have to drastically change your calc;
4. If the beams were up against the face of a mountain; your applied TNT wouldn't budge them a any measurable amount.
5. Depending on resistant forces, your calc could be right on, or it could be way off.

Play the physics game if you want. But don't go around expecting people to believe that you are in any way talking about 9/11.

8)

There is no other game.

Oh, I forgot. There is the game of the Chinese disinformation agents and spies that you push and encourage.

But of course. Even your deception falls under the classification of physics... at its base and core.

Now, do like the university study did, bring thousands of more physics calculations into it, rather than just one little point that doesn't really work without the rest of the calc.

8)

First of all you are still basing your calculation on a 2 ton mass. The photos I provided showed an ENTIRE panel section, coming in at 22 tons 600 feet away laterally from the point of origin. That aside, you are also pretending as if your calculation was based on a perfectly efficient explosion which transferred all of its energy into the mass. Your calculation shows only the energy used to move the mass itself and totally ignores inefficiencies that happen in real explosions. Real explosions follow the path of least resistance, so the pressure wave travels in all directions, most of the energy being wasted pushing air or other debris, meaning MUCH more explosives than you got from your calculation would be required. In summary your calculation is trash.

find a dictionary and learn the word diagonal
i know what diagonal is. but you are stuck with horizontal

For confirmation on a nonsensical conspiracy theory debunked years ago, just use a 2007 YouTube vid
with comments disabled. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Really dude? You still haven’t let this drivel go after 19 years?
Pushed by OP.... none  other than the resident bitcointalk,
 godswill, science denying, nut job troll, BADecker?
I honestly thought you were smarter than that.

I'm not solving your problem of trying to figure out why and how EXPLOSIVE FORCE is required and don't lecture me about real explosions. I know there was zero need for explosions for this case. That's you that believes there was that need, but you haven't proved it. You've just talked about how INCREDIBLE it was that a MASSIVE BEAM was moved 500 feet. And don't try to explain to me about inefficiencies in a spherical expansion of mass being inefficient in producing movement in just one direction. I could have thrown that formula in, but didn't for several reason.

You have several misunderstandings, the first one being attempting to shoe horn this problem into EXPLOSIONS REQUIRED. If they are required, they are, and if they are not, they are not required.

Finally, I am surprised that apparently even at this point, you do not see that the E = (KE + PE)/KG is and will always be PER KG. It does not matter that your "massive beam" is 2 or 22 tons.

But now you seem to want to talk about a 22 ton piece of metal and 600 feet of travel. So this will be not 5% but 6-7% of starting PE, energy of position. So what? It's a tiny part of the instantaneous energy.

Seriously, if you showed some big heavy thing 500 feet after a 4 story building fell down, you'd have a point. But you don't.

No explosives were needed to produce the effects seen.

each floor has air in it. and windows dont open. so when a floor collapes that air (wind) has to go somewhere
no explosives are needed just air pressure escaping each floor plus debris spinning.
as seen on THE ACTUAL VIDEO. not some conspiracy blog of words wrote by people that were not even at the scene

but hey

----> techshare
vs

\
 \
  \
   | science/phsyic/commonsense/witnesses/evidence

But we don't know that it wasn't something like this:


            #  #
        #          #
     #                #
  #                     #
#                         #
                             #
                              #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #
                               #

8)

video shows it wasnt the case
you know. the video.. you know actual account of actual events.you know evidence. proof

but atleast you admit you dont know. so now you can stop guessing

Such things have a parabolic down ward path.

Diagonal movement is a combination of movement along a vertical and horizontal axis, thus the panels moved horizontally. I know this is hard... but think. Rub those last 2 brain cells together.



Nice circular logic. The initial starting energy is actually the vast majority of the energy needed, but conveniently you pretend that is not the case. It didn't just fall, it traveled 600 feet horizontally against the effects of gravity. Objects don't fall sideways.

What video?     8)

its only been 6 days since the last time you asked.
wow you really are forgetful
here again.

LOL ;D

Why didn't you bring up a video from a couple of years ago? LOL.

Okay, I'll look at the link to see if it has a video in it. What was I supposed to be watching for, again?

 :D

funny part is
techshare draws a curve.. not a horizontal
self debunks his own horizontal story with his own post

TECSHARE was simply showing us that the actual pictures show some of the material being blown upward (somewhat) by the explosions. So, all this blab about lateral and horizontal and diagonal is superfluous. The university did the testing in their model, which shows way more info than we could ever show in a forum.

8)

^ still has trouble understanding diagonal is a combination of the vertical and horizontal axis.

i said diagonal. you argued it wasnt. thus you think it was purely horizontal
hense me calling you out on your ----------->

you categorically become soo stubborn to want to argue it was horizontal, not vertical not diagonal. because to get a horizontal path would require explosives.

but now you admit its not. you also have to admit the force needed is not as you first promoted.

hopefully one day you will learn about air pressure.. which i dumbed down to your level by calling it wind.
once you realise that the air from each floor falling caused airpressure to send debris into a spin. you will accept my description is actually what happened. and your original description was a myth

Yep, that's pretty crazy. How about the buildings in my town, are they wired too? Those in Moscow? Dubai? Are all buildings wired to blow? Only big ones? How about all the doghouses?

just to fully explain the process..
watch the video again slowly. but keep an eye on that black long diagonal piece(just below your curved arrow).. and the debris around it
here ill show you before a couple frames and then highlight it with nice childish colours.

https://i.imgur.com/nKNYz66.png

now look at my previous illustrations of the orange section that ended up in the winter garden roof

and have a nice 19 years.
hopefully your all caught up with the rest of society

i hope you now realise that there was no horizontal part of how the orange piece i indicated ended up loged IN THE TOP of the winter garden roof (not slapped against and lodged against the side

Nice theory. Convenient you just get to assume what is behind a massive debris cloud. Still doesn't explain why debris is going up and out in a ballistic trajectory.

watch the video

you can see the dark section. and you can see it falling and changing in angle.
then you see the end break off

as for the rest of the debris
think about the air pressure from each floor collapse, think where the air has to go. realise its air pushing it.
explosive pressure acts differently and at different speeds.


but hey. ill give it a few hours and ill probably start seeing you backtrack out of ever saying the word horizontal. and backtrack out of the massive force needed for low level horizontal theory.

then a few hours later go back to it as if you forgot which narrative to actually think about. purely so you can entertain yourself in fantasy land

The "massive debris cloud" is extremely easy to understand. Concrete hit the ground with something like 2980 joules per kilogram, and disassociated, turning into dust instantly.

That energy must be dissipated, by turning into heat or breaking materials or disassociating concrete bonds. Or a combination. Oh, and the typical mushroom appearance of such a cloud, which is made into a big deal here? That is hot, often very hot air rising in the center, cooling as it expands to ambient pressure, and then going down. How did it get hot? From the dissipation of the 2980 joules per kilogram, energy of PE turning into KE (heat).

There is NOTHING MYSTERIOUS about the dust cloud.

Or a plausible alternative, there is continued levels of funding by the likes of Chinese spies and propagandists (or other nations that hate America) to create continued discord on matters like this.


No, I did not. I assumed the initial starting energy was 2980 joules/kg.

And the object didn't travel 600 feet "against the effects of gravity." Like it had a magic carpet, you think?

Technically the trajectory would be parabolic but I'm okay with the phrase "diagonal" as a loose approximate of what happens. By the time the object has been moving sideways for  several seconds it's mostly moving vertically down.

I had shown sideways velocity 11m/second. But the vertical component is about the same at the end of the first second and compounds each second.

The effect of compressed air release from each floor creating a sort of air cannon is interesting. It's a significant sideways force. Suppose a falling object gained some sideways velocity as it passed a floor that was pancaking. It would gain such a velocity component for each of several floors it passed by. That would continue until it had fallen past such floors or was too far out sideways to be influenced by such events.

Shoot air sideways, initial air velocity is high and the end result is air velocity low or zero, with eddies and swirls and a return to normal air conditions. That's the continuity equation, basic to aerodynamics. How far out wold this be? I'd guess 100-200 feet. A comparison with potato cannons would be interesting.

Simple air pressure, even under great pressure, doesn't crush this amount of concrete into clouds of dust. The only thing that could do that is well-placed charges of explosives... placed throughout the whole building.

All of the ideas being played with in this thread, don't have any strength until one recognizes the clouds of dust for what they are... results from explosions where the explosives are placed throughout the building.

My idea that the explosives were mixed right into the concrete that the building was built from, is the only thing that could produce this kind of dust-cloud effect.

Stephen Jones and an associate tested the dust. He found that unexploded nano-thermite existed in the dust and tiny chunks of concrete. The only way for it to get where he located it, was to mix it right into the concrete at the time the buildings were built.

8)

More than likely the kennels in the Towers for the service dogs of office workers, were not part of the original construction.

I suspect that some of the buildings around the world have nano-thermite explosive built right into the concrete. But most countries don't have to hide demolition like criminals in the USA might. Why not? Because we are free enough that we just might find out about it, if we are smart enough to go looking in the piles of rubble, afterward.

A big jet liner crashes. People are killed. Authorities spend months to over a year working out exactly what happened. They house the parts in airplane hangars just to check them out over and over.

With the Towers, they almost immediately shipped the parts away. Why? They should have kept them and examined them for years, even if they had to do it rather discretely to keep from hurting the feelings of relatives of the victims. But probably, the victims would rather have watched the examination just to be sure nothing funny was happening.

Inside job.

8)

NONE OF THAT is true if the TE = (PE + KE) is more than what is required to turn concrete into dust.

All you need is sufficient energy to do that. That does not mean it must come from explosives. Where in the world did you get that idea?

Stephen Jones ---> another link to a co-conspirator with the Iranian/Chinese disinformation agents.

"unexploded nano-thermite existed in the dust and tiny chunks of concrete. The only way for it to get where he located it, was to mix it right into the concrete at the time the buildings were built"

Wow, a crackpot theory that spontaneously disassembling concrete could be created using an imaginary form of thermite. Can we mix that in with dirt and create spontaneously exploding countries?

Blah, blah, blah. Proper amounts of the correct sound vibration can turn concrete to dust as well.

Pretty much you are way closer to being a commie that Stephen Jones could ever think of being.

8)

and its happened again a post of mine has got deleted.and techshare this time was smart enough to delete the quote
but ill include it again

nice try second time round techshare. but your 'horizontal' game is up.
your cover up didnt work

ill just leave this as my settled conclusion of the debris from twin towers ended up so far away.. by actually studying the video
https://i.imgur.com/9tFcliA.png

enjoy playing your "needs huge force".. "horizontal"

it does not need very much to tip a large panel into a lean.. and then later the top of the panel brake off in a spin to then lodge into the winter garden buildings roof

These 9/11 conspiracy theory nutters have been watching to many re-runs of the thoroughly debunked and laughable documentary "Loose Change". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change)
I remember watching it back in the day and I was like "huh, well that's interesting...."
Then I did like 5 minutes more research and realized it was a bunch utter bollocks for folks like badecker and techy the gullible masses.
Reminds me of the name of a track my band played ....  "Paranoid Delusions"


Ok troll

Watch this:

Wonder Woman (2017) - Saving Veld Scene (7/10) | Movieclips
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/c2k_kuU84ro/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEjCNACELwBSFryq4qpAxUIARUAAAAAGAElAADIQj0AgKJDeAE=&rs=AOn4CLCRLbIU5_R-PDTfxtr5QHXl4XvCcw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2k_kuU84ro#t=3m0s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2k_kuU84ro#t=3m0s)

Twin Tower demolition.

8)

The universal constant they have is to ask people to watch Youtube Videos.


That's entirely plausible as an explanation, and it's quite easy to calculate if the leverage by a long arm pivoting would impart the small percentage of energy required for 500-600 foot landings.

Such a thing is determined not by trying to impress people with words like "MASSIVE BEAM" and "EXPLOSIVE FORCE" but by simply calculating the force required or imparted by a simplified model.

In this case it's extremely easy because you are arguing against the assertion "ONLY EXPLOSIVES COULD HAVE DONE THIS!!!"

Any number of perspectives and approaches can show there are many other ways, as has been done easily here. Then, the assertion is refuted. End of subject.

And then, a rational person might say "I STILL BELIEVE IT WAS EXPLOSIVES!" but he cannot say "ONLY EXPLOSIVES COULD HAVE DONE IT!!!"

wel techshare is atleast taking a step forward.
away from his original

mega explosive force---------------># horizontal
to now atleast be considering.
lessser force .
                     ' .
                        '.
                          :
                          #diagonal

but the next step he needs to take is about the force.
if you ever had a windy day had one door open. then opened another door at the other end of the house. causes the first door to move.
its just basic small force of air pressure.. no explosives
air pressure from each floor being compressed and blowing out the windows from air pressure.. or as i dumb it down as 'wind' along with the gravity . and also the lean/spin of the large pillar. and the other debris impacting to break off a section. spinning that off..

it aint rocket science. but if you were to put maths to it. the numbers would be low for that requirement to happen.
along with the observation of seeing a large pillar break of into a lean/spin.

yet i have yet to see any explosion. nor any horizontal.

TECSHARE isn't moving away from what he said. It's just that he has figured out a better way to say what he meant all along. And it still isn't as simple as it could be.


The simple thing is that the explosives from the demolition cause all kinds of building destruction, this way and that, which can never be figured out without a carefully thought-out computer model.

8)

There are enough study online that confirms it was an engineering failure and the impact was just a catalyst.

we already debunked the computer model of building 7 because it doesnt represent actual events.
so thats where you go wrong. believing computer models which dont represent actual events. but have been 'carefully thought out'... carefully thought out to show something different than actual events. thus defeating the purpose of actually doing it

Badecker used to argue that. I think he's gave up on that one.


Then your initial assertion, that it could have been nothing except explosives, is falsified.

Yeah who ever heard of people showing photographic evidence of an event? Fucking nutters!

Quick question. Lets assume for a second your tilting theory is correct. The panels were thrown in at least three different directions as documented by the FEMA debris field map I linked earlier. How exactly did the building tip in more than one direction simultaneously? The video of the event clearly shows material being ejected up and out. Things don't collapse upward.

the building. did not tip in 3 directings


but the external paneling broke off from the sides whilst the main building structure fell down
as shown in my example the BLUE is the building. and the black is just the external panelling

.. to pre-empt yo trying to meander this into some kind of mindgame of confusing the external panneling to the main internal columns. no they are different things

here
https://cdn.hswstatic.com/gif/wtc-tube.jpg

the long deep red | are the main structural columns and the white squares are the floors
the main strcuture column are in the centre of the floor plan.


as for the smaller
############
############ this is the external panelling
like the one that ended up in the roof of the winter garden

i know you want to twist this into how you think the previous posts must mean that the main building tilted. but no. only the external panelling fell away from the main building while the main building collapsed down on itself

Small force?

Assuming each floor was 10' high the surface area of the glass was

S= 10x 4 x 208

And atmospheric pressure is 14.7 PSI, so at the point where a floor is half collapsed and the PSI is doubled, you have an excess pressure equal to:

total F = S x F/sq in * Area

          = 144 sq in/sq ft * (10*4*208) * 14.7

          = 17,611,776 lb

Which certainly makes Tecshare's MASSIVE 22 TON BEAMS look puny, each of those MASSIVE 22 TON BEAMS weighing a puny ...

quarter of ONE PERCENT of this force!

And that's for each of the 110 floors. Since the excess pressure is 2116 lb/sq ft, Tecshare's MASSIVE 22 TON BEAM's weight would be matched by the force projected outward by a 4'x6' side area of one floor of the tower at the moment it was collapsing.

Now please go back to your Iranian or Chinese handlers who generate and maintain this garbage and ask them how to respond now that the MASSIVE BEAMS have been shown not to require EXPLOSIVES to generate the HUGE FORCES. Please tell them that their house of cards blaming the US government 911 has collapsed. When you get instructions will you tell us please?

^^^ The buildings were designed to handle everything that happened on 9/11, without collapsing, without burning down, without destruction of the buildings. Yet the buildings came down against all odds, and against construction design that should have easily handled what happened. All the silly idea of pancaking, is stuff that couldn't have worked... except in the following way.

The best of building designers and contracting builders are still not all-knowing. They can only do a tremendously excellent job. In order to find a flaw in their construction, other expert contractors and builders would have to laboriously pour over the designs of the designers until they find some hidden a flaw or potential flaw that might exist in the construction.

The point is, the failure of the Trade Center buildings in 9/11 was an inside job:

1. If it was a job done by the planes and the fire, it was done by critical examination of the plans and construction to find the only way that it could be done by planes, and then to have the planes hit the exact places necessary to make the building collapse work. Remember, the design and construction was such as to be able to protect against exactly what happened.

2. More than likely it was done by demolition.

Either way, it was absolutely an inside job.

8)

Were there chemtrails in the sky over the twin towers too? You know, when the nano thermite that had been mixed into the concrete since the buildings were erected was set off?

Also, I'd like clarification as to what it means for it to have been an "Inside Job."

Does it mean that guys were running around with windbreakers that said in big letters "Inside Jobbers"?

The blue is the building huh? You can't even make any sense under your own terms. So the building just peeled like a banana in every direction huh? Cool story. I never once tried to confuse the external structure with the internal, not that you need a reason to just make shit up and attribute it to me. BTW just FYI the external panels were load bearing just so you know, but I am not sure what the purpose of even bringing this up was. Probably just more confusing the situation as you accuse me in the same breath of doing just that. Objects don't fall up and out regardless of all this nonsense you are rambling about.



That might make sense if everything was perfectly sealed, but it was not. That kind of air pressure would blow out windows, then the force would escape, not blow 22 ton panels 600feet. You are really stretching now desperate to come up with anything that even sounds close to a potential to find a reason why several 22 ton masses of steel traveled hundreds of feet laterally from their resting positions.

 Ah I see, now I am a disinfo agent am I? Because I have been so supportive of the CCP around here haven't I? Also, when was the last time you even heard me mention Iran? You are getting desperate now. Its sad.

Damn, couldn't find the meme ...someone get on that.


no comment....lol

Nope, you don't understand my intent. I only show the force in the air in a volume size of a single floor of WTC if a sudden collapse halves the volume. Then I explore how that compares to your MASSIVE BEAM.

Now you have asserted " That kind of air pressure would blow out windows, then the force would escape, not blow 22 ton panels 600feet. "

You are welcome to show the math and the numbers to support that. I suspect you are wrong, but you might be right. I KNOW that 20 square feet on the interior face of any beam will be subjected to the force I described during the collapse as described.

Because I got a MASSIVE FORCE. Your MASSIVE BEAM is 1/400 of that force.

It is what it is. Your breathtaking, awesome, massive forces that REQUIRE HIGH EXPLOSIVES just aren't and don't.

So next, why don't we take a 200 foot section of beam tilting under gravity only from the base point, and at 45 degrees the 50 top feet breaking off, and ask another simple, 1st semester physics problem.

How far does it go sideways before hitting the ground?

Now why would we do that? Because that's actually the way, and the only way, to examine problems of this sort.

Your intent has no bearing on the validity of your assertions. So you are implying that such a pressure wave would blow a 22 ton panel hundreds of feet but wouldn't blow out windows? This isn't rocket science, it is a simple comparison of materials. Glass is weaker than steel, air pressure takes the path of least resistance, thus once the windows are blown, the vast majority of that pressure simply would go around the panels and would have no where near the force required to eject them hundreds of feet laterally. Your tipping theory might make sense if the panels were not blown several different directions. For your model to make sense the panels would all have to peel off effortlessly like a banana peel on all sides, that makes zero sense.

Those are your ideas, not mine. I'm just saying that we can figure the forces on that beam fragment. Not the same as advocating that as what happened.

I get the impression that you still don't really understand my approach to this problem. It is simply to show, via a variety of proofs at the level of beginning physics, that there are many ways these things could have happened, and thus to refute the argument that "high explosives were REQUIRED"...

which is a totally ridiculous assertion when the total energy in kinetic and potential of one of the WTT falling is a significant fraction of the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Deal with it, it is what it is.

Regarding...

Glass is weaker than steel, air pressure takes the path of least resistance, thus once the windows are blown, the vast majority of that pressure simply would go around the panels and would have no where near the force required to eject them hundreds of feet laterally.

Be my guest, show your work, prove that is true. You don't get to assume it's true because you feel that way. As for "The vast majority of that pressure" ? That does not matter, the force of the air is 400x greater, isn't it?
So yet again we see how truly puny and insignificant the 22 ton MASSIVE BEAM is...

You keep presenting "proofs" and I keep detailing why they make no sense even by your own terms. I understand you perfectly, I just reject your conclusions because they aren't supported by the facts or the laws of physics. You might as well calculate the total energy of the Earth's spin and throw that in there the way you are engaging in your premise.

Yes, it does matter, because that means a tiny fraction of that force will be applied to the object. Wait, you want me to mathematically prove glass is weaker than steel? Seriously? This is is just a pathetic roundabout game because you have nothing.

...You might as well calculate the total energy of the Earth's spin and throw that in there the way you are engaging in your premise.

Yes, it does matter, because that means a tiny fraction of that force will be applied to the object.
[/quote]

It matters? No, it results in about a one meter offset in the landing position from straight vertical. And the force is quite trivial.

See, there you go again. Saying something based on your brain's wild guess without actually knowing anything.

So, you are wrong again. Wrong by relying on a gut "feeling" about the level of a physical force.

It matters? No, it results in about a one meter offset in the landing position from straight vertical. And the force is quite trivial.

See, there you go again. Saying something based on your brain's wild guess without actually knowing anything.

So, you are wrong again. Wrong by relying on a gut "feeling" about the level of a physical force.
[/quote]

You are telling me about "feelings" about the level of force as you arbitrarily pull numbers like "one meter offset" out of your ass. This isn't a wild guess. It is a fact. Even if enough air pressure was available, it could NEVER be efficient enough to blow out a 22 ton mass by collapse pressure alone because it would simply blow out the windows and then the force would no longer be applied to the panels.

This is exactly why a high explosive pressure wave would be required, because anything else wouldn't be fast enough to overcome the loss of pressure via the path of least resistance from windows and other gaps being blown out. Like I said before, your calculations depend on 100% of your calculated  force being applied to the mass. In reality much more force would be required, because most of that energy would be lost via the path of least resistance.

You are telling me about "feelings" about the level of force as you arbitrarily pull numbers like "one meter offset" out of your ass. This isn't a wild guess. It is a fact. Even if enough air pressure was available, it could NEVER be efficient enough to blow out a 22 ton mass by collapse pressure alone because it would simply blow out the windows and then the force would no longer be applied to the panels.

This is exactly why a high explosive pressure wave would be required, because anything else wouldn't be fast enough to overcome the loss of pressure via the path of least resistance from windows and other gaps being blown out. Like I said before, your calculations depend on 100% of your calculated  force being applied to the mass. In reality much more force would be required, because most of that energy would be lost via the path of least resistance.
[/quote]

No, I calculated the offset being one meter. Which you'd know if you'd checked, but you didn't. You have not calculated anything. Everything you said, is you relying on your gut instincts.

That's going to get you wrong answers every single time on a matter like this. And it's clear you still don't understand the calculations. NONE of them "depend on 100% of the calculated force...."

So why don't we go back and see where and how you misunderstood that? Was it when I showed the force required to move a KG 500 feet and you tried to shoe horn that into a spherical gas expansion at 50,000 feet per second (which is your HIGH EXPLOSIVE) but you didn't know the way to compute the fraction of total force that would project on a side object?

There, you wanted to see the "Total force", right? It's easy enough, but all that does is give you the number such as 1.5 or 2.5kg of TNT which applies a force of 2-3 ounces of TNT on the piece that goes off 500 feet. But that's totally irrelevant, isn't it? That does not lead you to a proof that high explosive was used or needed. It gets that argument nowhere.

Meanwhile, what you absolutely know is the joules required to move each KG 500 feet. Period. End of subject.

You keep telling me the energy required to move the mass. I keep telling you that more than that amount of energy needs to be released in order to move that mass, because your calculation only accounts for the kinetic energy transferred to it, not the total energy required under the conditions to deliver that sum of energy to the mass. It is not complicated. You are calculating the bare minimum amount of explosives assuming 100% efficiency. Maybe you can argue with me some more about the question if glass is weaker than steel.

if you stood ontop of a skyscraper, on the edge. it does not need a bomb to push you over the edge. just a little tap or a gust of wind will send you tumbling

watch the video you actually see the external panals falling of in a tilt.
if you think buildings should only lose their external panels on one side  is more foolish nonsense

if the main building structure is collapsing down. then there is nothing for the external panels to hold onto. so the fall away and because the external panels are surrounding every side. then yea every side will peel away

..
here is a test for you to try..
if you have a GF or spouse. pick them up and get them to wrap their legs around your waist and their arms around your neck
then ask them to let go of hugging u around the neck... they will lean backwards, without you needing to put a granade between you and her

tits called gravity and moment and balance.
the force needed does not need to be much. it just needs not having a building to secure against

We're in agreement with one important exception. YOU are the only one saying "Explosives, explosives, explosives, blah, blah, blah."

Any transfer of energy may be assumed somewhat inefficient. For example, suppose that two falling beams hit each other, just right, and one receives a energy transfer enough to create the 11 m/s vector force.  The impact likely created considerable heat, and perhaps the 2nd beam moved in some direction also. Therefore, perhaps the total energy transferred was 250 joules, and the part of interest to us is 192 joules.

Amazing how something so statistically improbable happened so many times that day isn't it?

statistically probable that terrorists would do something bad. statistically probable that the damage to a building would cause the outer panels fall away when the main structure collapses

..
statistically improbably that terrorists just happened to hit a building which just happened to have been primed with explosives but where none of the office staff ever seen the explosives during the priors days/hours being installed.

i know you want to keep pushing that it must have been explosives to have the velocity needed to push a large object horizontal..

but the way the pillar was lodged in the roof and not slammed into the side shows it was not horizontal.
the video backs this up by showing the detaching of the pillars from the main structure and leaning over as it falls sending debris out with it. and breaking up on the way down in a curved diagonal motion.

so why are you keep on pressing the illusion of a horizontal high force theory when there is no evidence or video footage of a high force horizontal action.

I'm good with your alleging "statistically improbable" as long as you show the statistics that show it's statistically improbable, but in the absence of that, forget it. You don't get to use big words and assert they are Truey. You are not the arbitrator of what happened on that day. You are just one guy arguing that explosives were required without any evidence and without producing serious arguments for that premise.

It's pretty laughable to say something like "it's obvious that it's statistically improbable." What is the chance that of 30 people in a room 2 have the same birthday? If you are gambling, heads you win tails I win, start gambling with 1$ and double it every bet, you'll win it all after a while, right?

Huge fortunes and entire cities, such as Las Vegas, exist because of peoples' poor comprehension of statistical principles.

It's funny how people call the story about it being an inside job "made up by conspiracy nutjobs" but they completely ignore that buildings that were not hit by planes on 9.11 collapsed to the inside, just like a normal demolished buildings do and witnesses heard explosions. It's the good old "if it looks like a duck..." case. Also, I haven't even seen the government try to prove that it wasn't a demolition. They just gave their version that it was all due to fire damage. How many often do you see buildings collapse and turn into a pile of rubble just hours after a fire breaks out? Never?

Building 7 had been extensively changed prior to these tragic events. The interior had been hollowed out into a large atrium.

It's not exactly like the water pressure, fire sprinklers were working.

Steel under heat becomes weak. It doesn't have the strength to hold buildings up.


It's hard for most people to tell the difference between a firecracker, a car backfiring, or a gunshot. After all, all three ARE explosions, of a sort.

There are only two basic ways to look at it. Either 9/11 was done by terrorists from the outside, or 9/11 was an inside job by people in government and others.


The terrorists-from-the-outside idea doesn't fly, because the buildings were built to withstand the exact thing that happened to them. The only way to take them down via airplanes, is that some highly intelligent construction analysts examined the building plans, and found an overlooked weakness. The only people who could do this were people who were trained in such construction analysis.

In addition, there are loads of other things - like the lack of ability of Muslim pilots to properly fly the planes - that make the terrorists-from-the-outside idea to be impossible.


All that remains is "terrorists" from the inside - inside job.

Probably there was no design flaw in the Twin Towers. The way the planes were expertly piloted into the buildings as they were - through radio controlled, drone-like controllers - shows that the whole thing was a hoax, and that the buildings came down via demolition... of the kind shown here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2k_kuU84ro#t=3m0s.

8)

the twin towers were not built to be invinsible..
they were also not built to just topple over with a push of wind or earthquake ir the instant there was a direct hit by a large plane not even available in the 1960's

the towers withstood the impact. but weakened the structure. which later collapsed.

it seems you think humans and buildings are immortal to harm. whats next, are you going to start saying that 911 wouldnt of happened if they injected megadosed of chlorine and vitamins into the concrete

sorry but i do find it really funny how one day you think buildings are not built or planned and you expect them to topple over.. but because it didnt topple over it must have been a bomb..

next you say it was so carefully designed that it would never fall under any circumstance

can you try and make your mind up.
because now your making so many theories that it just makes each of your arguments weaker

^^^ Your excuses that attempt to defy logic, show how your mindset is being controlled by the sad situation you are in. It's been shown over and over - taking all the things into account that you said - that the buildings came down by demolition. Demolition experts express this, and have for the last almost 18 years.

But understanding this would wreck your cozy fantasies about how things work in life, wouldn't it?

8)

Only the few "demo experts" paid off by the anti-American, foreign enemies say these lies. All of the other demo experts, all of the other people laugh at these ridiculous crazy ideas.

One more time.

Why would anyone run planes into the towers, and then after a while, blow them up?

You assume it is the case, so it must be true! Am I anti-American? Do you really believe that? Just for the sake of argument assume my assertions of what happened on 9/11 were true. Which of us is REALLY anti-American here in that case?

Duck and dodge the question, AGAIN?

The ONE conspiracy theory that makes perfect sense about 911 is the continued funding and internet promotion of various schemes in which the US Government was behind the attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon. Why, for those who hate America it's just the gift that keeps on giving, isn't it?

^^^ Wow! You did a little bit of your own research, rather than wait for TECSHARE to do it for you, and then express you don't believe him anyway.

8)

the actual video shows no explosives. the logic is with the video footage from many sources.
the video shows no low floor huge velocity horizontal thrust.
many actual real videos and photos onscene show debris lodging in the roof not slamming the side. thus double backing up the lean/spin/curve fall of exterior panelling.
architects show no explosives. the logic is with the architects.
architects show that building is able to withstand the initial hit by the plane. but the weakening of the columns due to the plane would eventually not support the weight.

all logic supports reality.. so its your illogic an fantasy which you are not realising is your flaw

as for your conspiracy websites that ask for donations to get special priviledges of more conspiracy theories and other silly things, reavels their interest is in getting money by telling stories. even your supplement salesmen cultish sites do the same

so instead of believing websites that ask for loyalty and money and recurring loyalty and money. just take a step back. and start researching the facts. and when presented then look for the source.

The university model talked about in the OP, is a peer reviewed study that shows that fire didn't bring Building 7 down.

8)

Virtually no one believes any of the conspiracy theories about 911.

They are just too nutty.

Nano-explosives built into concrete from the day the buildings were constructed?

Crackpot.

the university done 2 models
one where the whole building tumbled over like a tree.. (never gonna happen even in natural disaster) and THEY said thats what happened in non explosive situation... but that has been disproven by science and architects.. and even by badecker himself by saying building suppose to be built to withstand certain things.

the other model was just a fall flat model. but it was not a model that resembled the actual fall of the building seven..
and THEY said this model was(facepalm) and then said it can only happen in a explosive used scenario.. again wrong

the models didnt accurately show actual events. and the summary of how the results of the models occured were not realistic either

.. sorry badecker. but try to actually do some research and compare info you find to actual events and other info available

WELL, WHAT ABOUT THOSE HUGELY MASSIVE BEAMS THAT GOT TOSSED 500 FEET LIKE NOTHING, HUH? THAT COULDN"T POSSIBLY HAPPEN WITHOUT EXPLOSIVE LEVELS OF EXPLOSIVELY EXPLOSIVE EXPLODERS.

 YOU KNOW I'M RIGHT BECAUSE, HUGHLY HUGE, AND EXPLOSIVELY EXPLOSIVE. BECAUSE, SHUT UP.

You are forgetting that the model showed that it wasn't fire that brought the building down. This means that we have fire out of the way as a cause.

So, what's left. Wind, bulldozers, and explosives. Oh yeah! Explosives.

8)

You are so funny, lol. "So he huffed, and he puffed, and he puffed, and he huffed, and at last he blew the house down."

8)

the models dont show anything. because the models did not even come close to what happened in reality

plus it was not fire.
it was physical debris hitting the building from the twin towers

if you think it was just fire.. then you have just made an error for yourself

thats like me slapping you in the head with a basball bat. u falling to the ground. i then say it must have been fire or a granade that caused you to collapse
now heres a video of your head tilting first due to delayed concussion.. and then you falling on ur ass.. but ignore that

instead heres is two computer models. one not showing the head not tilting first. and other u just falling sideways on your face

neither models suggest reality neither suggest truth. but are just meaningless distractions to keep a troll entertained

Anybody who thinks that a little bit of physical debris can bring down a building like Building 7, so that it falls at nearly free-fall speeds, into its own footprint...
... and then advertises that he believes this, doesn't know anything about construction, common sense, or gravity...
... and is essentially a waste of time.

But if he gets into a position of authority, he could easily be dangerous.

8)

Everything except what paid Chinese and Iranian disinformation agents would want to assert was the cause. That rules out explosives and your inside jobbers.

If there really was a pay-off, prove it. But if there really was, anybody who could pull off an inside job like 9/11 would easily cover their bases by paying off some jokers that could be accused of lying.

So, still an inside job.

8)

so if i slapped u with a baseball bad. .. and hours later due to concussion u fell..
you would not link the cause to the baseball bat hit you took earlier?
instead you would say someone must have burned you?

well you would. thats your illogical theory

the fire seen on the east side of wtc7 was not the damaging factor. that was just fire
the debris hit on the south side was the damaging factor

when u see the video footage. you see the south side fall first and then the rest goes down in response

here
note the black gap down the middle where the debris hit the building and went down through many floors
https://wtc7fact.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/7gashfromgroundclose.png

That's the point. It WASN'T fire that brought B-7 down.

The video is inconclusive. You can use your imagination this way or that.

My though is that the whole inside of the building was collapsing from the demolition. We saw the corner collapse the way it did, because it was falling inward... part of the strategy for demolitioning it to fall into its own foot-print.

8)

Says the guy who has blurted out a dozen miracle cures for coronovius while simultaneously claiming it doesn't exist.

Just reporting on what works. The idea that 9/11 wasn't an inside job doesn't work.

8)

What doesn't work is your blurting that insane crap, and what also doesn't work is the miracle cures.

Thank you. Since my blurting of insane crap doesn't work, like you said, my stuff is what really happened.

8)

EDIT: I'm starting to feel a little sorry for you with all your pathetic responses. :'(

Wait, the wtc7 was OVER THREE HUNDRED FEET AWAY!!!! How could falling debris hit it?

Oh, I forgot. Those MASSIVE 22T BEAMS THAT FELL OVER 500 FEET AWAY!

But really heavy stuff from the towers coming down couldn't have been the cause of WTC7 being weakened even though really heavy stuff traveled twice as far, because SHUT UP.

:)

Right! Everyday happenings for thousands of years.
Buildings being hit by planes or debris from other falling buildings...
and falling down into their own footprint at almost free-fall speeds...
all neat and cozy-like...
happens all the time, right?

Oh wait. This never happened before. Why did it happen now?

Must be a hyper-spatial vortex in the area of the World Trade Center, and just to prove how good construction really is, it only happened to 3 of the major buildings in the area.

That must be it. A hyper-spacial vortex in New York! One with all the luck in the world so that it got 3 buildings, all within the same little period of time on the same day. Wish I had lottery-winning abilities like that. I'd be richer than a thousand Gate's combined.

8)

im gonna give it 3 years before badecker flip flops his theories.
he will read all the scripts that been debunked years ago. but based on the delay. im giving badecker 3 years before he catches up

we tried to help him out a bit. but it seems he is re hashing old scripts yet doesnt realise how old they are. he thinks he is saying new stuff..
so not just an idiot or deluded but also ignorant

so last chance to speed badecker up with all the conspiracy theories based on the area you seem stuck at in the script
next ou will come across the buildings owner took out large insurance policy
then you will later come across all the actual science and studies where actual facts come out of what happened. where building 7 was not just a random office fire started for no apparent reason
nor was it explosives causing the fire or causing the whole collapse

but it was physical damage from debris hitting it. mixed in with fire that got to the exposed(due to debris damage) columns and expanded them due to heat. which further weakened the columns.

but i feel it will take you 3 years of jumping through all thee scripts your reading before you have the lightbulb moment

Notice that franky1 is so steeped in "movie" views, that he can't even recognize what reality is any longer. For him, it will take a collapse of the whole money system of the world before he wakes up. Why might he wake up then? Because of the "pain" in literally having to plant a garden, or hunt with bow and arrow, just to provide himself with his daily food.

If his physical is anything like he shows through his posts that his mentality is, he very likely won't have the strength to farm or hunt, and will die along with the many masses.

8)

badecker thinks everything is a movie

its like he is stuck watching the matrix, not realising there are other things in the world. but he just wants to watch the first matrix movie over an over and want to review the first movie.
having no clue about anything else

Notice the attempts to misdirect the conversation from hard-to-argue-facts?

I said, "Wait, the wtc7 was OVER THREE HUNDRED FEET AWAY!!!! How could falling debris hit it?

Oh, I forgot. Those MASSIVE 22T BEAMS THAT FELL OVER 500 FEET AWAY!

But really heavy stuff from the towers coming down couldn't have been the cause of WTC7 being weakened even though really heavy stuff traveled twice as far, because SHUT UP."

yea. badecker doesnt understand anything beyond the scripts he has read. he comes back with the same old stuff repeated over and over. not an original thought of his own.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why ram the planes into the towers, and then explode them. Of course I'd also like to see a demo of nano-thermite (a made-up fantasy thing of course, with mythical properties) mixed in with concrete and the resulting mix passing engineering tests on site, then being exploded decades later.

that will take him a couple months to get to those conspiracy scripts. its why he is staying ignorant and looping with the same old myths from a decade ago.
he is too afraid to move forward and actually find details/give answers.
.. i have seen guys like badecker over the decades and they just cant even bring themselves to move forward and catch up with reality. so i just giving up on asking him to prove his point and instead just trying to catch him out with spoilers of how his conspiracy scripts end.. just to seep him up and get to the finale lightbulb moment where he has been duped and has to admit he is a bored troll. but taking the long route i see it taking him 3+ years to get to that point

Good thing BADecker doesn't have to understand any of it. Loads of people have come out with the understanding, so that anybody who wants to know, can easily see that 9/11 was an inside demolition job.

Since this has been done, it shows that jokers like franky1 and Spendulus are simply the same as climate change deniers.

8)

I think a lot of us have been noticing how difficult it is for you to do research... and even think on your own, a little. Are you still sitting in your dirty diaper, wondering why somebody hasn't changed it yet?

8)

He and I have been through these discussions before, but apparently he's forgot.

freefall speed of collapse, 3x. yeah, 10 seconds quarter mile high to hit the ground (ZERO resistance from existing massive steel columns)

reported on BBC television (bldg 7) to have collapsed 20 minutes BEFORE it actually did collapse

no airplane parts found at the pentagon

and what part of the pentagon was hit? (by something)
   it was where the accountants were working to track D. Rumsfeld's missing 2.3 trillion dollars

just glad someone out there still cares

thanks BD   :D

I'm confused. what are you saying here?

Loads of people care. But they don't know what to do and how to do something about it. Probably the payments issued to 9/11 injured and families of victims isn't anywhere near the earnings made by the insiders who did the collapse.

So, here we go again with a pandemic this time... which is as much fake-news as the official report about 9/11. The herd of people matches the lemming story better than the story ever matched the lemmings.

8)

So after they made the wrong report and then figured out it was wrong, they dispatched teams to make it true?

Dispatched teams? They did what they could to cover their blunder.

8)

So instead of a simple mistake by a dumb reporter, it has got to be changed into another part of a coverup by scheming conspirators. That's pretty weak.

But I'm curious about one thing. Why does it matter at all what one guy said on one TV channel?

Anyway, as I remember that day multiple TV channels were reporting about building 7, that it had been on fire, that it was likely to collapse or about to collapse. Can't remember the exact words, but the point was it was common knowledge because half of one side was tilting over and the top had caved in.

So what's the big deal about the BBC reporter's words?

LOL!

Thanks, Spendy. Laughs are good for the soul.

The buildings were designed to not come down from plane crashes. So why would anyone step out and say that Building 7 came down when it hadn't and wasn't supposed to and hadn't even been hit by a plane?

You don't just walk around and make statements about things for no reason at all. Or maybe you do: "That car is going to crash into that truck that we don't know is on the other side of the hill."

But thanks. And for the insight into you, a little.

8)

 the towers were designed to withstand impacts from 2 or 3 707 jets simultaneously. (there are 4 engines on a 707)

 they are were supported by 200 vertical steel columns around the perimeter, and several massive core columns that rise from the foundation to the roof.

on the day, it was as if they did not even exist, as the buildings fell at freefall speed (32 feet per second squared) the roofs meeting the ground in just ten seconds

there was zero resistance from these supporting columns, which means that incindiarys and explosives had to be used to accomplish such a quick fall




  that's not true at all. watch it again. there were some fires, some incidental damage, the building evacuated. just before the collapse the rooftop can be seen to dip, as the core columns were cut using incindiarys and explosives

it might have been common knowledge locally, because of all the loud explosions heard and reported by many witnesses

jet fuel (kerosine) does not burn hot enough to melt steel. no steel framed building has ever collapsed from a fire


word

,,,,,
You don't just walk around and make statements about things for no reason at all. Or maybe you do: "That car is going to crash into that truck that we don't know is on the other side of the hill."
[/quote]

So the reporter was wrong. Who cares? What's laughable is that you make that into a big deal.

Where was this guy anyway? In NY watching the scene, or in London?

Pretty weak, to try to use something like this to support your pet theory.

It remains the fact that I remember hearing a lot of talk about bldg 7 the afternoon of 9/11 by reporters on the television channels.

 "They expect building 7 to fall anytime", "firemen have been told to stay away from building 7," etc etc.

So there's no reason for you to act like it was some big surprise.

Okay, I got your argument now. Go ahead and support that with the relevant physics or static force diagrams, if you really believe it.

What you really have to prove is that after the 88th floor (IIRC) collapsed due to fire, then the weight of the floors above coming down at the speed when it hit the next floor was insufficient to pop the supporting structures.

A shearing of a beam would occur at the speed of sound in steel which would be essentially instantaneous, and certainly not result in some slow-motion collapse such as you seem to be arguing for. Once some of the potential energy is converted to kinetic, there is so much force in action that no sort of "slow motion collapse" is conceivable.

If a reporter is wrong, who cares, right? But it was the BBC that was wrong. Reporters are the end-point of the system of news. They get their info from their bosses. If they happen to be investigative reporters, it's still their bosses that allow what they report on to go through to the people.

In this case, it's easy to speculate that the BBC knew in advance that Bldg. 7 was going to come down, and simply got their timing wrong with their TV reporter.

However, if the BBC didn't know, and it was a simple reporter mistake (highly unlikely, because reporters don't simply make crazy statements without some reason), you still can't show that this was the way it was.

After all, look at what is going on with Sinclair. Why not the BBC? The point being that things are planned ahead in the news. The suggestion being that the reporter mistake was a mistake in timing of what was already planned. Where did they get their info to plan like this? The inside job people.

Viral video raises worry over Sinclair's political messaging inside local news
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/xwA4k0E51Oo/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEjCPYBEIoBSFryq4qpAxUIARUAAAAAGAElAADIQj0AgKJDeAE=&rs=AOn4CLDWauR4o9aRKqocGSAa_XkljGUOhA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwA4k0E51Oo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwA4k0E51Oo)

8)

So there is something to the UofA Fairbanks study! They are making it into a movie. See the preview.


SEVEN Official Teaser (2020) | World Trade Center Building 7 (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/281332-2020-04-19-seven-official-teaser-2020-world-trade-center-building-7.htm)




SEVEN Official Teaser (2020) | World Trade Center Building 7
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FL9CCZFuDFY/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEjCPYBEIoBSFryq4qpAxUIARUAAAAAGAElAADIQj0AgKJDeAE=&rs=AOn4CLCg_NkgAAwjpS06FOCLB1lbRN4eqg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL9CCZFuDFY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL9CCZFuDFY)


8)

No need to WATCH it again. I'm talking about what the reporters on site SAID that afternoon.


Got their timing wrong? That's silly. Your imaginary conspirators would just sit back and let their own reporter watch it go down and report it. This is really, really grasping at threads.




Absolutely. There is Chinese disinformation.

You are basically right. Where you are wrong is, what you said is exactly what they thought they were doing. They mistakenly thought the building had come down already. Otherwise they would never have allow her to tell us that it was down, while it was standing UP right in her background.

8)

Lol so a reporter does a ridiculous thing, and you have to find an even more ridiculous explanation.

You started off with a predetermined wacko theory and tried to make the facts fit it.

Like I said, all of the reporters were receiving information that that tower was likely going to fall, among others from firemen. I remember that from watching it that day. This is a gigantic nothing burger. Here's what the BBC had to say about this issue.

5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... "

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

I agree. It was an error. But which direction was the error in?
1. An error in timing of a report they knew they were going to broadcast;
2. An error in reporting something that they didn't know they were going to report.

Of course, look at how it is stated in 5, above, "... it would have been an error ..." In other words, "We aren't going to admit that an error was made."

The point being that they might have done it the way they did on purpose, just to find out how many people would think "conspiracy" and how many wouldn't. Or, they might have had another reason for doing it on purpose... an undermining of some real mistakes they made somewhere that day... so that people would focus on this, and never find the really damning mistakes.

So you see? It's a conspiracy no matter how you look at it.

8)

Like I said (final time here repeating this ) they knew all afternoon that building was most likely going to fall down, any minute. They could have recorded that to play later and by mistake it went on the air right then. So what?

There's nothing there. That's got to be the weakest, most totally worthless argument I've ever heard.

Well, when you take what I said out of context, you simply show that your points aren't very strong.

8)

a building is designed not to topple over at the very instant of an impact. but its not designed to be immortal to everything.
the whole damage to the columns does cause weaknesses and eventually them weaknesses would cause a collapse. but again to save repeating in many posts. they are built to withstand an initial hit.
railroad bridges, and other large structures are built like this. not to be immortal but to atleast delay the collapse.

i feel that spendulus was addressing the reality of what occured. where by news media knew it was going to collapse because thats common sense.
he was not addressing your(badecker) fantasy version
remember this if you can
it is your(badecker) fantasy version that is out of context. so when someone does not address your context. that is because they are not blindly following your fantasy.
i know you dont like it that you are failing to have success of being a promoter/influencer. but let this be a lesson to you. if you stop trying to promote fantasy and instead actually do the research and promote actual proper common sense logical/realistic stuff. you might actually get different responses

Spendy is simply doing what he does best. He is taking the whole point out of the context of what happened on 9/11. Doing this is causing him to miss the whole conspiracy.

And you? You're just a puppet, playing with all kinds of things you know nothing about. You should really go out and play with the other kids. If you play in your backyard, possibly the cops won't even think about how you might be breaking the lockdown, 'cause they won't see you. Do you think the neighbors will squeal on you?

8)

spendy loves the maths of trajectory.
i prefer to find the witnessed evidence
badecker prefers to dream of fantasy

A couple years ago I decided to refute these clowns arguments about 911 using only 8th grade math, physics and chemistry level refutations.

That's how low grade and laughable these conspiracy theories really are.

You'd think Iran could have done better with their disinformation campaign.

the thing that makes these conspiracy nutter of 2020 look even more stupid. is that they cant even comprehend the decade of debunks. its like they found a new toy to play with and talk about not realising the rest of the world knows its an old toy that is no longer trending.
you know the type. the people that bought at the bitcoin $20k peak thinking they were buying in at the cheap
you know the type. the ones that hear a chatup line and use it on a women. not realising she heard it 50times already. and yet the idiot still wonders why she doesnt act with surprise. thinking that he thought he was being original

That's okay it's going to remain 8th grade debunking. Apparently no one has realized how much of an insult that is to their precious theories.

Trying to insult 8th graders, right? Even they will tell you that they don't know enough to calculate the 9/11 crashes.

8)

It is what it is. You can see any of your favorite arguments that 911 demolished at a very low level of educational standards.

None of your arguments deserve college level.

None.

Yep, you've fallen for Iranian propaganda.

Well, I'm glad you made it through 8th grade whatever.    8)

It will end when anti-American propaganda mills stop funding it, and go on to something with more likely payoff.

The 911 memes are getting weaker and weaker as they age.

Trump will find the 9/11 inside job crooks next term.     8)

Are you sure you don't have one. mistaken digit?

Maybe you are thinking of the 7/11 inside job crooks.

I thought you meant that Trump will investigate already this term.

 :D

Well dude gotta give you credit.
Your debunked 9/11 conspiracy theory nonsense thread here has made 13 pages.
I suppose not quite up to the level of your willfully ignorant anti vax, evolution is a hoax and various godswill garbage threads that pollute this space, but hey, who's counting?

^^^ Hey, man! Thanks for saying right out that you don't believe in studies. It's really fun watching you debunk the things you say exactly at the same time you are saying them.

8)

But the interesting thing is that people are ignorant of how their own minds work.

8)

What there is here is not the normal give and take of intelligent debate, but you being repeatedly showed that your arguments about 9/11 being wrong based on basic chemistry, physics and math. That's followed by  you goal-shifting and ad hominem, and then your again stating your "beliefs." Then you start it all over.

You seem to forget that a whole lot of engineers proved 9/11 was an inside job. Rather, you would pick on me. Why? Do you think that somehow if you can get me to be a believer in the standard 9/11 lie, that somehow the inside job proof will suddenly disappear? You act so silly.

8)

Engineers did not prove 9/11 was an inside job.

Competent engineers' work can not be disproved with 8th grade math, chemistry and physics.

You have simply believed lies propagated on the Internet by anti-American forces such as Iran.

Engineers proved that the official story was entirely incorrect in all the important aspects.

What's left? An act of God? Invisible aliens with advanced technology? The inside job is the most plausible.

Or, since the official story has been proven to be way off base, and since the rapid destruction of the evidence without proper investigation is unheard of, what do you think it was?

8)

No, they did not. That's a blatant lie. The work of engineers is the work of men with college engineering degrees, and typical ten years experience in the field. It is not disproved by eight grade level refutations. That's what we've got here.

The likes of Iranian disinformation agents paid Americans and set up propaganda channels to continue this farce.

Propaganda spreads by way of naive, gullible believers such as yourself.

Don't you see what you are really saying? American inside-job people paid off Iranian disinformation agents to trick everybody into thinking the impossibilities of 9/11 could really happen the way the official report says they could.

8)

Don't waste anyone's time trying to be clever and think of some way your conspiracy theory might still be true. You really are sounding more and more like foreign anti-American paid disinformation.

Oh, oh. Now you are starting to say that you are one of those paid disinformation agents.

8)

Coronavirus is just another government power grab, just like 9/11 inside job was. Personally, I believe that we will be able to get our freedom back, if we wake up and stop trusting people in government.


This Is A Power-Grab The Likes Of Which We Haven't Seen Since 9/11 (https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/281847-2020-04-28-this-is-a-power-grab-the-likes-of-which-we.htm)




8)

Now you are making things up, and relapsing into ad hominem arguments ...
...and attempting change the subject.

Fact. Your 9/11 theories have been defeated with eight grade level math, physics and chemistry.

Debating lunatics like BADecker is a waste of time, imo.
Tbh, you’d have a better chance of convincing a creationist that Adam and Eve,
talking snakes, and Noah’s Ark is a laughable crock of shit.
And that chance is zero to none.
These nut jobs are simply brainwashed and no amount of rational talk is gonna
convince them otherwise.
I just laugh at them and mock their silly delusions.
(Especially when I’ve had a few.....)

  hey, let's watch some TV:

                         https://youtu.be/_nyogTsrsgI

              https://www.ae911truth.org/

No, how about...

Let's not watch some of your anti-American, Iranian propaganda.

Spendulus your arguments are a kick in the balls to the thinking man..  it's truly flawed to the core, you jave no basis in anything other than the governments engineers said so.. well do you know how govt works, it asks you for the answer it wants, and if you don't give it they just go the next engineer or doctor until they get it. If you don't ackowledge this you will be wrong all your life as you have put your faith in the governments engineers, who are usually so bad and corrupt that only the governement wants them.

the towers did not collapse, they turned to DUST and then collapsed.. I know, it was the jet fuel right.

Why don't you dump some gas on metal and concerete and see if it turns to dust.

But you win, because you have the governments report. Why even take part in this thread if you're too scared to look past CNN.

I somewhat agree with that, but the Challenger inquiry was led by .... Dr. Feynman ... so your statement of opinion ... Well at least it's true in your own mind?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw


No gov report needed here. I'm doing 8th grade science, goofball. From first principles.

You want to talk about how and why concrete turns to dust, go ahead. Be prepared to NOT acknowledge you were defeated by a superior and trained intellect but instead ...

"Okay, I was beaten to the ground with junior high level crap. Boy was I stupid. I definitely need to find some better stuff to smoke."

Your eighth grade level math, physics and chemistry, definitely isn't eight grade level math, physics and chemistry. How do we know? Because eighth graders who have learned eight grade level math, physics and chemistry, will tell you right out that they don't know how their eight grade level math, physics and chemistry could bring the towers down.

Have you figured out what this means? It simply means that you don't have a clue what you are yammering about, right? But we knew that already, didn't we!

8)

I'm not concerned about what various types of 8th graders could do or might do, but what the level of presentation in textbooks allows and does not allow. For example, calculus is not possible with this level.

But you wouldn't even know the implications of that. And yet again you've misrepresented others' statements. I did not say anything about ...

"eight grade level math, physics and chemistry could bring the towers down."

We are discussing refutation of crackpot 911 conspiracy theories using 8th grade math.

Please stop the lying.

Spendy, why bother with that nonsense. you just up the game all the time by saying its proven right by gr8 or a govt report. that shit doesn't work on anyone.  9/11 has nothing to do with 8th gr science or math. I'm starting to think you were made after 2001.

How in the world silly are you? If it is eight grade level math, physics and chemistry that we are talking about, then it is something that eighth graders learn about. If they don't or can't learn it, it simply isn't eight grade level math, physics and chemistry. If they don't or can't learn it, you can call it eight grade level math, physics and chemistry all day long, but it isn't.

However, if it really is eight grade level math, physics and chemistry, then why shouldn't eighth graders be able to explain how the buildings came down using it?... like they knew what they were talking about?

The thing that you are missing is that there is a whole lot of stuff besides eight grade level math, physics and chemistry that happened in the buildings. It happened through the demolition. The same eight grade level math, physics and chemistry that you are talking about works in demolition. That's why you might be able to find it in 9/11.

The point is that we need to look at the rest of the story, not just the eight grade level math, physics and chemistry. And that's what we have done. The buildings came down by demolition. Loads of scientists and demolition experts have expressed it. All you need do is search the Internet for their info.

Why are you so hung up on eight grade level math, physics and chemistry? Are or were you a eighth grade teacher? Eighth graders don't build buildings like the Trade Center buildings.

8)

BADecker,, don't bother with this guy, just distracting with nonsense.

If you want to know my theory which is more than plausible, and pretty much admitted to in several pieces, and can't be disproven by science, is as follows.

Weakend with DEW
Taken down by explosives

people talk of nukes and mini nukes but I don't see that and there is no need for it.  If you are familiar with energy weapons you can pretty much dial in anything from a pin to a massive structure like a building. It would appear to me that the properties of metal are transformed at the molecular level and you can soften it or down right dust it. I'm no scientist but in laymans terms its like taking out the ions that bind the molecules, same as heating when something transforms and changes shape and colour but this is done with radiation and targets specific properties of the material. When you consider this, it pretty much answer where all the dust came from and why much of it was even lighter than air. If you were alive back then, you may remember the TV showing a space view and much of the WTC was flowing up.

No matter what there was no plane. American Airlines admitted to this and they didn't have a flight 11 that day. The video they kept showing that day on TV was actually proven to be old footage from Denver, sleuths online were able to identify the background as the Denver airport but CNN kept airing it as a new york boarding. It was the only footage they had of mohammed atta.

Oh, it's fun playing with Spendy. But your theory has merit, I think.

There are probably several theories that do. Mine is based on the fact that Stephen Jones and a fellow scientist found unexploded nano-thermite in the remains of the Towers. My theory is that it was placed into the concrete of the towers as they were being built... without the knowledge of the construction workers, of course. This was done to make future demolition easier.

The kinda scary point about this is, which of the buildings still standing and in use, have nano-thermite built right into them... that could be set off at any moment by demolition experts under orders of the building owners?

8)

Well now, that's an interesting rant.

So this is done with radiation?

Let's say for a moment, that we don't care about what "would appear to you" to be true. We care about provable facts. Can you be more specific about what energy is applied, in what amounts and frequencies, and what its effects are across the spectrum of "dial in"?

Badecker has a magical material that is so exotic it could only exist in the secret labs of Area 51, and thus argues it must be the US Government behind this.

Is your device similar? Is it from Area 51 or Roswell? Sounds very interesting. If enemy planes, ships or tanks come at you just melt them, or turn them into dust.

It is obviously similar in that it advocates an anti-American propaganda such as would be done by Iranian interests. By the way, can you answer one thing? I've never gotten a good answer to this. Why would someone ram planes into the Towers, and then immediately blow them up(or melt or turn to dust with your sci-fi weapon)? That's kind of like cutting someone's head off and then shooting them, right?



Because that shows how crude and ridiculous the theories you spout are. That's really how bad they are.

It puts it all right out in the open. You and I are not debating at the level of senior engineers or scientists. We are not debating at the level of undergraduate engineering students.

You are debating with me, and I am refuting your arguments, with science and math at the level of children.

That's the whole point. When you analyze 9/11 using eighth grade level math, physics and chemistry, but you analyze in different directions than the way you are analyzing, you come up with demolition. Eight grade level math, physics and chemistry doesn't cut it for determining one way or the another... demolition, or natural causes, or whatever else.

8)

You come up with demolition, virtually nobody else. You have repeatedly made that claim in these 15 pages and been knocked down every time. Every single time. By refutations at the level of children's science textbooks.

Claiming demolition is just an Iranian, Anti-American propaganda effort. Or maybe Saudi.

>>You come up with demolition, virtually nobody else. You have repeatedly made that claim in these 15 pages and been knocked down every >>time. Every single time. By refutations at the level of children's science textbooks.

you're wrong there, maybe the well contained chinese and pakistanis in this forum don't agree but in real world. its pretty much 9 out of 10 that go with demolition.  just look at a construction demo and 9/11 and its practically the same thing. The part I forget to mention, which should be obvious was the inital explosion that I didn't put in my timeline.

so it goes

1) blown out from the inside (not from planes, you can verify this if you look hard enough. plenty of footage from people on the ground saying no plane, just a flash.)

2) weakened with energy weapons to create the dustification and alter the materials at the molecular level

3) demoltion / explosives, whatever you want to call it for the final crumble.

And the evidence is in the debris, or lack thereof.  The tower just dissappeared. I know 100 stories just burns away in 45 minutes because of grade 8 math.

Really? Why?

And how many go with your magic energy weapon?

And why ram the planes into the towers and then use magic energy weapons followed by demolition?

Spendy you're a weak distractor..  you keep asking questions which have no end or are designed to go in circles.

The short answer to why is because that's where the evidence leads. If you follow evidence you reach the same conclusion and gr8 can't help you here.

You're still talking planes but that's old news.. no planes whatsoever. Not 1 plane was used on 9/11, both American Airlines and FBI provided evidence. AA cleared their name by showing there was never a flight 11 from anywhere on the books and FBI released footage at the other site showing no existence of planes.

The plane is a overlay at TWC, bascially 8th grade video editing. It is needed because that's the whole catalyst to cover for the energy weapon and to point the blame on the so called pilots, which was the whole purpose of 9/11 to continue wars in the middle east without pesky congress getting in the way. After 9/11 , just as with CV19 ,, the sheep believed the media and practically begged for war.

The demolition is to cover for the lack of evidence of planes. If you just used explosives and blamed it on muslims, eventually it would be discovered and it would be a tough sell that muslims got in the WTC and planted explosive everywhere without knowledege.  If you just used energy weapons and explosives it would again be impossible to blame muslims. The plane story is the crucial factor to achieve what you want, which is pretend we are under attack by muslims

Problem. Reaction. Solution.

Except in both cases 911 and CV19, the solutions have been planned for 10 years and its just a matter of creating the problem to wait for the reaction and offer the solution. 

I'll have to run all that by my cousin, who'd just walked out of Tower 1 and was across the street at the Starbucks when it was hit. I kind of don't think she'll agree with you.

But that is a anti-American story that a lot of illiterate Islamsists in Jordon, Iran, and the Middle East would likely be easy to sucker into.

So, what's this magic energy weapon?