....
No we don't need to look at sheer and tensile strengths of materials, because under the conditions and speed of the fall, it would appear that there is ZERO sheer strength and ZERO strength of the materials, because the building falls through them WITHOUT RESISTANCE. The ONLY WAY that happens is if they are BLOWN out of the way with explosives before the falling sections make contact. There is nothing more to debate about it. This is check and mate. Your desire to discuss tertiary engineering issues of which none of us including you are experts is simply an act of distraction from this very salient and damning point to your bullshit narrative.
I would disagree with that. Yes some materials can fall through others virtually without resistence under the right conditions. Depends on several factors. For example, if I put a 1/4" piece of steel between two vices, and hit it with a heavy axe, there is negligible slowdown of the axe going through the material because it is sheared. If every floor individually buckled and warped and collapsed individually, that would mean that shear point had not been reached. Possibly the first floor to collapse was a buckling and bending motion, then all subsequent floors' structural members sheared apart. Shearing is fast; bending and buckling is slow. Which was it? Well, in the videos do we see slow bending and buckling? No? Then structural members were sheared. But the question is how. Explosives would have sheered them, so could have the immense weight from above falling down. However, if the momentum of the falling structure was insufficient to create the shearing forces, then it's necessary to look for another cause. That's why I asked if you are good with 10 seconds plus or minus 0.8. I'm not arguing or agreeing with some report, so there's no reason for me to go look at it. I asked what your number was. Give me that and I'll look at it. Under the right conditions... you mean like if the laws of physics didn't apply? There is ONLY ONE WAY this could have happened, if the supports were COMPLETELY REMOVED. There is NO OTHER WAY that they could offer no resistance. It is physically impossible. Of course you would disagree with the laws of physics, it might hurt the narrative you are trying to shill otherwise. You are oversimplifying a building that was over engineered to withstand 2000% of its own mass to the point of being asinine. How do all these thousands of supports just magically shear themselves in such precise timing that they offer zero resistance? Why would the first floor shear? There was no impact there, and any claimed fires were momentary at most. The first floor is the STRONGEST PART of the building. Additionally the fall is clearly initiated from the point of impact, not from the bottom, so your bullshit makes zero sense. The weight from above COULD NOT have sheered the supports as I have demonstrated in several ways including references to the over engineering of the building, it being designed to withstand plane impacts, locations of localized damage, testimony from the actual engineers on the project, as well as the laws of physics which deem your scenario impossible under Newton's 3rd law, let alone others. Even if your ninja friends some how sheered the supports, there would STILL BE RESISTANCE if it were a collapse, slowing the momentum of the fall. You are disregarding so many laws of physics your excuses are reaching epic levels of retardation. Of course you don't want to go look at the reports, it is much easier to feign ignorance if you don't actually look at any references. Additionally I already answered your question, you are just asking it again to avoid the points as usual. Why didn't someone leak it? They would have been able to negotiate a billion dollar fee.
Its called compartmentalization. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. It managed to keep the Manhattan project a secret, as well as many other sensitive operations. Then for anyone who does get a big mouth there is always a bullet to the head, and there were plenty of those going around after 9/11 for people who talked too much. SO FOR A BILLION DOLLARS, NOBODY WOULD TALK?
Wow. They must have been really dedicated.
So who is offering this mythical billion dollar payout? Additionally, I think you will find a bullet to the head is a lot cheaper than a billion dollars. What is a billion dollars worth if you can't live to spend it? To everyone else here posting, I have this shill cornered with no place to go and nothing sensible to reply with. Please refrain from giving him more tertiary side issues to endlessly argue about in order to give him a platform for giving himself a pretense of pretending like he still has a leg to stand on. |
|
|
|
 ..My world be much better than yours..Show there girls parents what he posted and see if they like what he has done..If they like then I am wrong ?..If they don't then i am right.. if you showed the parents what he posted who do you think they will like it.. Are you not as bad as the kids who posted it?..Did she or her parents consent to the video been posted?..Plus she is a child.. I could understand posting if 25 boys raped her but they never.. YOU ARE THE BIGGEST RETARD ON THIS BTC THREAD..And no one listens to you My English be much better than yours. I think the girl's parents have more to worry about than people discussing the story on the internet. Additionally it is anonymized if you haven't noticed, so the media isn't naming anyone. Anyone that knows her name already knows about it, so once again your argument is retarded. You are just another brain dead lefty looking for something to direct your rage upon, senseless or not. Seriously? You think talking about it is as bad as gangbanging a 15 year old and posting child porn publicly....ooook. Say that last part again, only this time look in a mirror while you do it. |
|
|
|
There you go, shifting the goal posts again. So the OFFICIAL RECORDS aren't good enough for you? Very convenient you don't even wish to comment on WTC 7, why talk about a subject you have no counter argument to? Why not just refuse to address any facts about these events when they don't fit your narrative bias?
You can argue until you are blue in the face, but you are arguing against THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. Explosives are required to reach free fall speeds with a building coming down, this is A FACT. There is nothing to debate about it. Wake the fuck up, stop your flailing, you are wrong. Deal with it.
I eagerly await for your new goal posts as well as your next disingenuous verbal gymnastic performance. Just don't forget to stretch, you wouldn't want to strain yourself with the massive amounts of bullshit you are spouting.
I have no idea what you are talking about. The simple question posted is whether this is the argument you'd like to to defeat and that you believe or want to defend. I have no idea what "OFFICIAL RECORDS" say.So the premise then is a 10 second fall plus or minus 0.8 seconds? Then you would argue that these numbers are impossible without explosives being added to the PE of the buildings? I invited you to change it if it did not reflect what you believe. If explosives are required to reach free fall speeds, we'll establish that. Or not. Then why don't you go take a look you lazy arrogant fuck? I handed it to you on a silver platter, all you had to do was scroll down to page 305. You are sitting here arguing with me and you don't even bother to check any of the sources? How much more disingenuous and presumptuous can you get? This proves you don't give a flying fuck about what really happened and are simply here to sell your version of the narrative at all costs. The fall speed has to do with how connected the parts were. The question revolves around connected beams and girders vs. disconnected beams and girders. Would there be any difference in fall speed if the beams and girders were disconnected ahead of time by explosives vs. if they became disconnected by a pancake "crash?" Seems logical that there would be a difference. If there would be this difference, how do we calculate how big the difference might be?  There's likely a classical problem in engineering to be seen here. It's an issue where the cause and effect you are seeking to find is much smaller than the errors in measurement. For example if you are looking for a difference of 0.1 second, and the error in measurement is + or - 0.8 seconds, then you cannot make a statement about the 0.1. If on the other hand the cause and effect is 2.0 seconds or 3.0, then regardless of the 0.8 second measurement, you can make a statement. I'm picking those numbers strictly out of the air to answer your question. Also, note that the above formulation does not address the "initial cause." I refer there to the initial cause of collapse. We are (as I understand it) discussing the presence or absence of a continuing string of explosives used to create a higher than natural fall speed of the tower. The problem with your logic is estimates I have seen are around the ONE MINUTE range for a total pancake collapse to happen for a building of that height, so .8 seconds is negligible. Again, you are simply using this as an opportunity to divert from the subject matter and create more dithering rather than address the points presented by arguing tertiary issues. Does every point need to be repeated in each post in order to fit with your seemingly goldfish sized memory? Pretty sure we have been clear that explosives were used. You however are relying on allegories about bridges, objects in orbit, space rays, and ninjas. If Tecshare was saying the same thing you said, that's like saying a stopped clock is right twice a day, but without glasses you don't know what it says.
He can speak for himself. No, we don't need to look at examples. We can simply look at shear and tensile strengths of materials, and use standard engineering formulas.
I can speak for myself, and I would appreciate it if you did not try to make my points for me Badecker. I Choose specific points and paths of discussion carefully in order to prevent diversion of the debate by this obvious shill, what you are doing is just giving him more endless unprovable topics to argue about in order to pretend his arguments have merit. No we don't need to look at sheer and tensile strengths of materials, because under the conditions and speed of the fall, it would appear that there is ZERO sheer strength and ZERO strength of the materials, because the building falls through them WITHOUT RESISTANCE. The ONLY WAY that happens is if they are BLOWN out of the way with explosives before the falling sections make contact. There is nothing more to debate about it. This is check and mate. Your desire to discuss tertiary engineering issues of which none of us including you are experts is simply an act of distraction from this very salient and damning point to your bullshit narrative. |
|
|
|
Shock as 15-year-old student filmed on Snapchat having sex with 25 boys in school toilet  A TEENAGE girl had sex with up to 25 male students inside a school toilet cubicle before a video of the orgy was shared on social media. The school has launched an investigation after footage of the sex session involving the 15-year-old pupil was circulated on Snapchat. An incident report by South Fort Myers High School in Florida said the girl admitted to teachers she had had sex with multiple male students. Eric Struble, a father to two 15-year-old girls who attend the school, said the community's reaction was " shock, disbelief, concern and sadness". He said: " Somebody should have been notified or been aware of what was going on." The incident took place inside the main male toilets on the second floor of the high school, outside normal school hours on Wednesday morning. A school spokeswoman said no one had been arrested and that the the matter would be dealt with internally. watch the video:http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/672463/Schoolgirl-15-Snapchat-sex-boys-school-toiletPOINT 1..Don't want to look at your video of a 15 year old girl POINT 2..The young girl and her family doesn't need you to make them feel bad as they already feel by showing more of the world her video.. ..At the end of the day who as she hurt no one but her own pride AND her families pride..She might be getting practice to be the next jenna jameson It's not the end of the world and it's none of your business SO BUZZ OFF. LEAVE HER ALONE.. YOU HORRIBLE PERSON..Talk about something interesting you boring plantpot  1. That is child pornography and not legal to publish, so you won't. 2. The teenagers involved posted the video, not her family. 3. You are a retard. you should not have understood for what reason I posted the news, this is not a campaign to disparage or defame over the child, it is a reflection: Even where some parents talk to their children and even where the school can give a good education PS: I live in a country where there is war, so I know very well what it means pain, Here children lose their parents early, even I almost died in an accident that people were watching and nobody came to save me, people were taking me photos and filming while I languished on the floor. Photos and videos ended up on the Internet and news programsSlow Death, this criticism was not directed at you, it was directed at Dickcorn over there. You didn't do anything wrong. It is not your fault he is brain damaged. |
|
|
|
Of course, on the OP, I forgot to mention the major defender that major economic inequalities have serious consequences on Democracy: Noam Chomsky. His Requiem for the American Dream is worth watching, even by people that disagree: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTMqEn8HSowNoam Chomsky is a SELF ADMITTED tool of the elite. He is an expert in linguistics. Nothing else. I put him one or two notches above Michael Moore or John Stewart as far as credibility. He is just a quasi academic tool bag. BTW RE: the op. If you think Republicans are the only elite causing inequality I think you need to stop getting your news from television and open a couple books. The two party system is just two sides of the same elitist corrupt coin. Divide and conquer. |
|
|
|
You don't have to use Google you know. You can use Mozilla Firefox for a browser instead of Chrome. You can use yahoo mail or microsoft mail instead of Gmail. You can use DuckDuckGo as a search engine instead of the Google search engine. For those who don't know, DuckDuckGo doesn't track you. Here's the link: https://duckduckgo.com/Google has its scripts on about 80% of every page on the internet. Even if you use a script blocker, a lot of sites like Cloudflare + Captcha REQUIRE you allow Google to even access the site. Even so - the more you block them (and don't use their services) the more difficulty they have tracking you. Do you know why they have such a dominant position? Because people say, oh well they are everywhere so no point using any other search engines.  These other search engines basically redirect to Google for answers and queries and search tabs. I don't really see any point in it. But yea, thanks for the note. How does https://duckduckgo.com/ "redirect to Google for answers and queries and search tabs"? It uses the Google API to do a search indirectly and forward search results while stripping your personal identifying information. It does not ensure you privacy, but it is a worthwhile step to increase your privacy that is very easy. |
|
|
|
Shock as 15-year-old student filmed on Snapchat having sex with 25 boys in school toilet A TEENAGE girl had sex with up to 25 male students inside a school toilet cubicle before a video of the orgy was shared on social media. The school has launched an investigation after footage of the sex session involving the 15-year-old pupil was circulated on Snapchat. An incident report by South Fort Myers High School in Florida said the girl admitted to teachers she had had sex with multiple male students. Eric Struble, a father to two 15-year-old girls who attend the school, said the community's reaction was " shock, disbelief, concern and sadness". He said: " Somebody should have been notified or been aware of what was going on." The incident took place inside the main male toilets on the second floor of the high school, outside normal school hours on Wednesday morning. A school spokeswoman said no one had been arrested and that the the matter would be dealt with internally. watch the video:http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/672463/Schoolgirl-15-Snapchat-sex-boys-school-toiletPOINT 1..Don't want to look at your video of a 15 year old girl POINT 2..The young girl and her family doesn't need you to make them feel bad as they already feel by showing more of the world her video.. ..At the end of the day who as she hurt no one but her own pride AND her families pride..She might be getting practice to be the next jenna jameson It's not the end of the world and it's none of your business SO BUZZ OFF. LEAVE HER ALONE.. YOU HORRIBLE PERSON..Talk about something interesting you boring plantpot 1. That is child pornography and not legal to publish, so you won't. 2. The teenagers involved posted the video, not her family. 3. You are a retard. |
|
|
|
....I represent and speak for my self, not anyone else, and they don't represent me either. I am not attempting to prove the speed of the fall of the building with the seismic record, this is your claim not mine. It is proven by the hundreds of videos publicly documenting the speed of the fall which can easily be charted with quite a bit of accuracy as I have already shown. Considering that the evidence of the free fall speed is video....
Lets review the calculations for free fall speeds:
So, as an object falls, it gives up potential energy for kinetic energy.
Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared)
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall....
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)
Time = 9.2
....to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec...
The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies which encounter zero resistance, as in a vacuum. In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy.
Anything which interferes with any falling object's downward progress will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance. Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.
A review of why the official story for the collapse is physically impossible, including a reference to your precious seismic data, which shows the length of the fall of the tower at 8.4 seconds....(youtube linky)
So let me ask again. What exactly is your claim? Can you just state it in seconds and please provide a margin of error. Because I just looked at the seismic record again and I'm just scratching my head wondering where you get not just a certain number, but a number so certain that you can proceed to the claim "Ah HAH! Explosives!" And I looked at the videos but there is so much dust and crap in the air around the buildings, I don't think I could state the exact number except maybe plus or minus a couple of seconds. All that needs be done to account for resistance to the downward motion is to introduce a term for that. Examples - D = 1/2 D * T^(2-TERM) or perhaps D = (1/2 D * T^2) - c*D where c is a constant and so forth. Easy and well understood in ballistics and aerodynamic. So which is it? An aerodynamic drag or a drag from the building struts being sheared? Do you have a calculation for those factors and terms or just the assertions? And somehow you know this with a degree of precision that enables you to pronounce "Explosives had to be used!" Sorry, this isn't clear at all. I think it's clear there is no such certainty. But let's hear it. By the way, are you ready to concede the point that exponentially higher forces are required to move an object successive distances sideways? I notice you don't seem to want to continue talking about that? I have already stated my claim clearly, several times. I don't need to argue about the seismic record and only mentioned it because you did, and the length of the seismic signal is shorter than free fall speeds. The buildings can clearly be seen from the moment of initiation to the moment they stop, there are about a thousand different angles to choose from. The view is especially clear with WTC 7. I noticed you had zero comment about NIST admitting free fall speeds as well. I guess even the official report is not good enough for you now? ....for the sake of argument lets use 10 seconds.... number alone matches the profile of free fall speeds and does not account for air resistance nor the resistance of the increasingly stronger floors supposedly collapsing below it which would reduce the momentum of the collapse. At this point this is proof that it was not a collapse, because there HAS TO BE resistance from the air AND the structure below. THE ONLY WAY the building could have fallen this fast is WITH EXPLOSIVE FORCE removing the resistance of the structure. I don't need to provide any more calculations for you to endlessly dither about to distract from this point, because this is proof in its own right. THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE states that the building fell within 0.8 seconds of free fall speed as calculated from WITHIN A VACUUM. 0.8 seconds is not anywhere close to enough time to account for air resistance let alone the resistance of crushing the structures below, even if Newton's third law did not prove that to be impossible. 0.8 seconds IS NOWHERE NEAR enough time to account for this discrepancy. BTW, I am not conceding anything. I am not talking about the explosive ejection force required to move the 4-ton steel sections 600 feet laterally simply because I am too busy deconstructing your endless piles of baseless bullshit designed to distract from that point. Once again, you provide no countering evidence of your own... Well, you said you speak for yourself, so there is no way for me to figure out what your argument is except just to ask, right? For a number of reasons I like a seismic record better than the video. I stated my inability to accurately calculate the fall time from the video given the huge amounts of smoke and dust, whatever. Actually, an acoustic record would also be interesting. So the premise then is a 10 second fall plus or minus 0.8 seconds? Then you would argue that these numbers are impossible without explosives being added to the PE of the buildings? (by the way, I don't see any reason to segue into WTC 7, very different dynamics there.) So this issue is concerned strictly with events AFTER the collapse beings. Let's say 1 second after some unknown type of structural failure. I would argue is that these premises do not NECESSARILY lead to the conclusion that explosives caused the subsequent events, and that the immense potential energy of the structure is SUFFICIENT to explain the fall rates, after some reasonable consideration for air resistance and a range of resistance or slowing-down from the floors below. That sound fair? If not, changes? There you go, shifting the goal posts again. So the OFFICIAL RECORDS aren't good enough for you? Very convenient you don't even wish to comment on WTC 7, why talk about a subject you have no counter argument to? Why not just refuse to address any facts about these events when they don't fit your narrative bias? You can argue until you are blue in the face, but you are arguing against THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. Explosives are required to reach free fall speeds with a building coming down, this is A FACT. There is nothing to debate about it. Wake the fuck up, stop your flailing, you are wrong. Deal with it. I eagerly await for your new goal posts as well as your next disingenuous verbal gymnastic performance. Just don't forget to stretch, you wouldn't want to strain yourself with the massive amounts of bullshit you are spouting. |
|
|
|
....I represent and speak for my self, not anyone else, and they don't represent me either. I am not attempting to prove the speed of the fall of the building with the seismic record, this is your claim not mine. It is proven by the hundreds of videos publicly documenting the speed of the fall which can easily be charted with quite a bit of accuracy as I have already shown. Considering that the evidence of the free fall speed is video....
Lets review the calculations for free fall speeds:
So, as an object falls, it gives up potential energy for kinetic energy.
Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared)
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall....
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)
Time = 9.2
....to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec...
The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies which encounter zero resistance, as in a vacuum. In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy.
Anything which interferes with any falling object's downward progress will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance. Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.
A review of why the official story for the collapse is physically impossible, including a reference to your precious seismic data, which shows the length of the fall of the tower at 8.4 seconds....(youtube linky)
So let me ask again. What exactly is your claim? Can you just state it in seconds and please provide a margin of error. Because I just looked at the seismic record again and I'm just scratching my head wondering where you get not just a certain number, but a number so certain that you can proceed to the claim "Ah HAH! Explosives!" And I looked at the videos but there is so much dust and crap in the air around the buildings, I don't think I could state the exact number except maybe plus or minus a couple of seconds. All that needs be done to account for resistance to the downward motion is to introduce a term for that. Examples - D = 1/2 D * T^(2-TERM) or perhaps D = (1/2 D * T^2) - c*D where c is a constant and so forth. Easy and well understood in ballistics and aerodynamic. So which is it? An aerodynamic drag or a drag from the building struts being sheared? Do you have a calculation for those factors and terms or just the assertions? And somehow you know this with a degree of precision that enables you to pronounce "Explosives had to be used!" Sorry, this isn't clear at all. I think it's clear there is no such certainty. But let's hear it. By the way, are you ready to concede the point that exponentially higher forces are required to move an object successive distances sideways? I notice you don't seem to want to continue talking about that? I have already stated my claim clearly, several times. I don't need to argue about the seismic record and only mentioned it because you did, and the length of the seismic signal is shorter than free fall speeds. The buildings can clearly be seen from the moment of initiation to the moment they stop, there are about a thousand different angles to choose from. The view is especially clear with WTC 7. I noticed you had zero comment about NIST admitting free fall speeds as well. I guess even the official report is not good enough for you now? How about the official 9/11 commission report which states it took 10 seconds for the first tower to collapse?"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals—both first responders and civilians—in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets" Page 305 The 9/11 Commission Report That number good enough for you hoss? I don't agree with it, but for the sake of argument lets use 10 seconds since it keeps you from endlessly diverting the debate with conjecture. This number alone matches the profile of free fall speeds and does not account for air resistance nor the resistance of the increasingly stronger floors supposedly collapsing below it which would reduce the momentum of the collapse. At this point this is proof that it was not a collapse, because there HAS TO BE resistance from the air AND the structure below. THE ONLY WAY the building could have fallen this fast is WITH EXPLOSIVE FORCE removing the resistance of the structure. I don't need to provide any more calculations for you to endlessly dither about to distract from this point, because this is proof in its own right. THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE states that the building fell within 0.8 seconds of free fall speed as calculated from WITHIN A VACUUM. 0.8 seconds is not anywhere close to enough time to account for air resistance let alone the resistance of crushing the structures below, even if Newton's third law did not prove that to be impossible. 0.8 seconds IS NOWHERE NEAR enough time to account for this discrepancy. BTW, I am not conceding anything. I am not talking about the explosive ejection force required to move the 4-ton steel sections 600 feet laterally simply because I am too busy deconstructing your endless piles of baseless bullshit designed to distract from that point. Once again, you provide no countering evidence of your own, but simply rely on denials, conjecture, and sewing implausible doubt with no factual basis behind your assertions. Maybe your ninja friends can explain this to you. |
|
|
|
 Yes, I did explain how PE is translated into sideways motion. Twice. It's possible you missed it or I did not state it clearly. I'll be happy to state it again, or just pull the explanation from a book and link to it. Here's a third attempt, though. A long time ago, building designers created "arches" and used them. Think Roman era. But balancing tension and compression forces wasn't understood. A simple circular arch in stone would cause failure, and at the points of failure, the stones would be thrown out sideways. The arch that balanced tension and compression was later figured out. Now in the WTC case, you will agree that there was careful and sophisticated balancing of forces. But when they started to come down, that balancing ceased to exist. Of course pieces would be thrown out sideways. At the tail end of the WTC towers' fall all the PE is translated into some or all of four things. Heat, a bigger hole in the ground, sideways motion, and/or fractured materials. How do we know this? Because the PE does not exist anymore. It's gone. One of the easiest of these four factors to understand is sideways motion, because in any movement of a group of junk toward the ground, sideways motion occurs. You accept that. You just have a problem with the 21 meters per second. Is that correct? If it was nominal, you would shrug it off. However, equations exist for the size and shape of piles of rubble. Civil engineer stuff. "If we put 500 dump trucks of stuff over there, how big will it be around the base?" You have posted yourself illustrations of the size and extent of the debris of the twin towers. You've admitted it went out laterally to the extent of 500-600 feet. To me this is just part of the necessary dissipation of the potential energy. A quick google search indicates the PE of one WTC tower's fall to be > 150 tons of TNT...But there's just something about a 4 ton piece of steel going out six hundred feet that bothers you. Why? No, you didn't. Additionally this is your first attempt at explaining this mechanism. Up until now you just claimed the force was sufficient to throw the 4-ton sections 600 feet sideways without explaining HOW that occurred. Your excuse is still as absurd as ever. Again it is nothing more than a baseless theory to deflect away from examination of the physics of the problem. The WTC towers were not composed of arches, and it is not a horizontal structure like a bridge. Nothing you have said so far explains how these 4-ton sections ended up hundreds of feet away from the towers in EVERY direction. You are not explaining any physical mechanism, just making extremely generalized claims of what you claim could have happened. Your theories are not consistent with a collapse no matter how much you thrash and flail. You also still haven't explained how exactly the towers could collapse at free fall speed equivalent to there being no resistance to the fall, consistent with a controlled demolition, but not a collapse..... Nobody claimed "the WTC towers were composed of arches <<blah blah blah>> The basics of structural analysis is statics and dynamics. Statics covers bridges, arches and such things as the framework of a building. It explains how loads are transferred between points. You asked about sideways loads. Even an improperly designed house roof can generate sideways loads, and collapse. Roof trusses solve that. It is not possible to understand statics and claim there is no sideways load on a structure even two stories high, only that it is contained within frameworks by tension on some members, and compression on others. Break the right part, you certainly will see things flying outwards. The actual energy in these members under tension or under compression is quite easy to calculate. For something like a skyscraper, they are going to be huge numbers. Frankly one thing that's rather baffling is that you'd like to assert "controlled demolition" but then the building would have collapsed inward. But at the same time you're saying it exploded outwards. So which is it? Or is your theory just incompetant ninja demolition experts? So first you have incompetent terrorists that can't down the buildings with their planes, followed by incompetent demolition guys, and then followed by incompetent explosives guys? Really?
You also still haven't explained how exactly the towers could collapse at free fall speed...Actually I did answer this. The seismic record doesn't even agree with your assertion. Other 911 conspiracy theorists do not agree with it. So what is it? How do you prove the fall was at 9.8 meters per second (AGAINST the seismic record???), and with what accuracy and precision? Please no "proof by youtube." So what is it? Is it "about free fall speed? Exactly free fall speed?" By "basic" you mean generalized, nonspecific, and nonapplicable. It doesn't explain anything. You are just making claims about a general concept without explaining exactly what happened. It is convenient you declare that you do not have to detail any physical actions in specific that created this repeating effect in all directions around the building with such consistency. Roofs don't fly 600 feet sideways, sorry. Again you are just making proclamations and claims without ANY BACKING whatsoever. I have provided PAGES of sources, calculations, documented physical evidence and other references. You have nothing but empty claims and assertions. Frankly one thing that's rather baffling is that you'd like to assert "controlled demolition" but then the building would have collapsed inward. But at the same time you're saying it exploded outwards. So which is it? Or is your theory just incompetant ninja demolition experts?
So first you have incompetent terrorists that can't down the buildings with their planes, followed by incompetent demolition guys, and then followed by incompetent explosives guys? Really? The building did collapse inward, right into its own footprint. Not once but THREE TIMES, at free fall speeds. The statistical odds of this happening 3 times with a collapse are FUCKING ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely, IE IMPOSSIBLE. Here you go again with your ninjas, I thought we established your belittling shaming tactics aren't effective on me and only serve to make you look the bigger fool. Oh well, fool on dancing boy. As far as your assertion that controlled demolitions don't have ejections, you might just want to double check on that one. Even in regular building implosions they deploy netting around the building to catch ejections, and also create a large exclusion area around the building for safety. Some times even that is not enough. Usually ejections are mitigated for safety reasons, but considering this attack was designed to kill thousands of people, safety was not exactly a high priority was it? Additionally the term "implosion" is a misnomer. It employs explosives to cause the structure to collapse upon itself. It doesn't physically suck in air, so your argument here is nothing more than the usual semantic gymnastics in a pathetic attempt to justify your own nonsense. Actually I did answer this. The seismic record doesn't even agree with your assertion. Other 911 conspiracy theorists do not agree with it. So what is it? How do you prove the fall was at 9.8 meters per second (AGAINST the seismic record???), and with what accuracy and precision?
Please no "proof by youtube." So what is it? Is it "about free fall speed? Exactly free fall speed?"
Actually, no. You didn't. You made claims about pile drivers and crushing forces which I quickly was able to disprove based on Newtons 3rd law, demonstrating it would be impossible for 12 floors above to crush the ENTIRE building below before it was destroyed itself. I never brought the seismic record into this, you did. I don't give a fuck what "other conspiracy theorists" agree with. I represent and speak for my self, not anyone else, and they don't represent me either. I am not attempting to prove the speed of the fall of the building with the seismic record, this is your claim not mine. It is proven by the hundreds of videos publicly documenting the speed of the fall which can easily be charted with quite a bit of accuracy as I have already shown. Considering that the evidence of the free fall speed is video, it is rather convenient you dismiss "proof by youtube" now isn't it? Perhaps you want to prohibit "proof by internet", or "proof by physics" next to make absolutely sure there is no way to present physical evidence which conflicts with your own confirmation bias? How about the final version of the NIST official report where they are forced to admit free fall speeds of WTC 7? "In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s." http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610In order for there to be free fall speeds at ANY time in the "collapse" the resistant force of the support structure has to be COMPLETELY removed. In an actual collapse, the loss of energy as the floors impact each other results in the slowing of the momentum of the fall. This is not up for debate, it is a FACT. Here is a detailed analysis of the NIST report demonstrating that there was in fact free fall speeds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7ILets review the calculations for free fall speeds: So, as an object falls, it gives up potential energy for kinetic energy. The equation for potential energy- Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height The equation for kinetic energy- Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared) The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's the free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height. Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared) or 2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7 Time = 9.2 So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height. Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph. The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies which encounter zero resistance, as in a vacuum. In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy. Anything which interferes with any falling object's downward progress will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance. Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height. A review of why the official story for the collapse is physically impossible, including a reference to your precious seismic data, which shows the length of the fall of the tower at 8.4 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxM2DHX_zskMore analysis of the ejections from the towers demonstrating explosive arc consistent with explosives, and excluding collapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7kGZ3XPEm4I have provided pages and pages of reputable sources, calculations, witnesses, expert testimony, documented physical evidence, a lot even from official reports. Lets list everything I have provided so far to back my argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTa_XL_k8fYhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.htmlhttp://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/646-faq-8-what-is-nanothermite-could-it-have-been-used-to-demolish-the-wtc-skyscrapers.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhanghttps://i.imgur.com/EOin4tE.jpghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-forbes-interview.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratesechttps://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2016-featured-story-archive/bush-as-director-of-central-intelligence.htmlhttp://www.spacedaily.com/news/gps-01k.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eEhttp://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.htmlhttps://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/img383.imageshack.us_img383_3036_moltenmetalpp1.jpghttps://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdfhttp://censored.strategicbrains.com/Graphics/MoltenMetalSmokingGun/SpillingSteel2.jpghttp://censored.strategicbrains.com/Graphics/MoltenMetalSmokingGun/RedHotMetal.jpghttp://censored.strategicbrains.com/Graphics/MoltenMetalSmokingGun/ShovelPickingUpHotMetal2.jpghttp://www.thesleuthjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/molten-steel-at-wtc-448x300.jpghttps://i711.photobucket.com/albums/ww114/peterene/pic89059.jpghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elYw7MHf7GQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCAoJuDw2Ichttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HMqx0m9DG4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK2TTl6LAnkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUsg6UUHFxshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtiCUUj0RwUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=913Am7ZScVMhttp://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a022793skilling&scale=0#a022793skillinghttp://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.htmlhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forging_temperaturehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK2TTl6LAnkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS0wcajrgpghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djwBCEmHrSEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne1FJBVkh4shttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjmktbt-F_Qhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocljtvzQVMchttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYSV2OxAvZEhttp://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/sep/12/towers_built_to/http://pilotsfor911truth.org/myPictures/impactreportsp2.jpghttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805074287/http://www.911truth.org/ul-executive-speaks-out-on-wtc-study/http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfmhttp://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/research/nfpa-reports/occupancies/oshighrise.pdf?la=enhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhanghttps://imgur.com/EOin4tEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8https://youtu.be/U9nE372Ymc4?t=318http://www.1728.org/energy.htmhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/Exhibit_C.jpghttp://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/Exhibit_K.jpghttp://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/debris_field_sm.jpghttp://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/Exhibit_I.jpghttp://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/Exhibit_F.jpghttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022369711000308https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAD8HlrLZghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1Fye_H1wIMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd70TwKS3qohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8QCQudNEtYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc1ql4TfCZwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt8PMLTmcnghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flaghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complexhttps://web.archive.org/web/20131022123450/http://newamericancentury.org/http://wayback.archive.org/web/20020923154604/http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdfhttps://www.aclu.org/infographic/surveillance-under-patriot-acthttp://www.americanfreepress.net/html/martial_law_made_easy.htmlhttps://www.aclu.org/fix-fisa-end-warrantless-wiretappinghttps://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr5005http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.j.res.00064: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:s.01510: https://www.unodc.org/pdf/publications/afg_opium_survey_2002.pdfhttp://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants1.htmlhttp://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants2.htmlhttp://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants5.htmlhttp://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants6.htmlhttp://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants7.htmlhttps://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdfhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805076824/http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/07/09/the-price-of-oilhttps://web.archive.org/web/20070331031508/http:/www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/27904/Ground_Zero_for_the_Secret_Service.html?detectflash=false&https://web.archive.org/web/20020911154453/http://www.thestreet.com/markets/matthewgoldstein/10041194.htmlhttp://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/11/18/evidence-for-informed-trading-on-the-attacks-of-september-11/https://web.archive.org/web/20010918033937/http://www.nylawyer.com/news/01/09/091701e.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/25/nyregion/25TOWE.htmlhttps://web.archive.org/web/20011130225259/http://www.nylawyer.com/news/01/09/091701e.htmlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stmI have documented MEANS, MOTIVE, and OPPORTUNITY. Your contribution to this debate- Denials Unsubstantiated claims Conjecture Allegories about objects in orbit and bridges Ninjas A Galactic Energy Ray from Alpha Centauri |
|
|
|
Yes, I did explain how PE is translated into sideways motion. Twice. It's possible you missed it or I did not state it clearly. I'll be happy to state it again, or just pull the explanation from a book and link to it. Here's a third attempt, though. A long time ago, building designers created "arches" and used them. Think Roman era. But balancing tension and compression forces wasn't understood. A simple circular arch in stone would cause failure, and at the points of failure, the stones would be thrown out sideways. The arch that balanced tension and compression was later figured out. Now in the WTC case, you will agree that there was careful and sophisticated balancing of forces. But when they started to come down, that balancing ceased to exist. Of course pieces would be thrown out sideways. At the tail end of the WTC towers' fall all the PE is translated into some or all of four things. Heat, a bigger hole in the ground, sideways motion, and/or fractured materials. How do we know this? Because the PE does not exist anymore. It's gone. One of the easiest of these four factors to understand is sideways motion, because in any movement of a group of junk toward the ground, sideways motion occurs. You accept that. You just have a problem with the 21 meters per second. Is that correct? If it was nominal, you would shrug it off. However, equations exist for the size and shape of piles of rubble. Civil engineer stuff. "If we put 500 dump trucks of stuff over there, how big will it be around the base?" You have posted yourself illustrations of the size and extent of the debris of the twin towers. You've admitted it went out laterally to the extent of 500-600 feet. To me this is just part of the necessary dissipation of the potential energy. A quick google search indicates the PE of one WTC tower's fall to be > 150 tons of TNT...But there's just something about a 4 ton piece of steel going out six hundred feet that bothers you. Why? No, you didn't. Additionally this is your first attempt at explaining this mechanism. Up until now you just claimed the force was sufficient to throw the 4-ton sections 600 feet sideways without explaining HOW that occurred. Your excuse is still as absurd as ever. Again it is nothing more than a baseless theory to deflect away from examination of the physics of the problem. The WTC towers were not composed of arches, and it is not a horizontal structure like a bridge. Nothing you have said so far explains how these 4-ton sections ended up hundreds of feet away from the towers in EVERY direction. You are not explaining any physical mechanism, just making extremely generalized claims of what you claim could have happened. Your theories are not consistent with a collapse no matter how much you thrash and flail. You also still haven't explained how exactly the towers could collapse at free fall speed equivalent to there being no resistance to the fall, consistent with a controlled demolition, but not a collapse. Again as far as the velocities, I have already stated that 21 m/s is one of the POSSIBLE velocities, and at the low end I might ad. Again for review here are the required velocities to move an object at said distance over the observed time frame.  I thought your claim was that the energy was consumed bringing the building down with the "pile driver" effect? Considering I have already demonstrated this impossible using Newton's third law (every action has an equal and opposite reaction), the floors above would be crushed at an equal rate as they crushed the floors below, you are already at an energy deficit. Now you want to add more energy to this claiming some how all of these 4-ton girders were flung out at explosive velocities in all directions using that same energy already consumed? Is this kind of like how you claim the fuel created a massive fireball, some how burned and heated the steel framework to weakening point, flooded down the elevator shafts and exploded in the lobby? You are claiming one source of energy yet claiming it was consumed multiple times. As I demonstrated with photos, the debris pile did not reach out far enough in quantity to take these sections 600 feet away from the towers, therefore they were EJECTED at high velocity. Additionally some of these sections were found stuck in the roof of The Winter Gardens which was 600 feet away. That means it did not even reach the ground, it reached the roof of the building well above the debris pile. 4-ton objects don't just fly 600 feet against the force of gravity and air resistance at the readily observed velocities by themselves. The potential energy of the collapse was a DOWNWARD force, not a lateral force. None of what you have presented explains how this downward force some how was mysteriously directed laterally. All you have is lofty claims about bridges, objects in orbit, and some unexplained springing force that just so happened to uniformly effect the sections in all directions around the building. ...
I see what this is now. This is not about reality, this is about supporting your bias. I haven't misstated physics, nor am I anti-American, which you should know damned well by now from my posts in other threads. How is getting to the bottom of who really attacked us anti-American? How is routing out corruption within our government anti-American? You think it is American to let murderers, con artists, and thieves operate within America using it as its shell to take what it wants and dispose of us later leaving us to take the aftermath of its crimes? I don't find that at all American. ...
Hmm.... I think it's up to you to prove the case of of the US "murderers, con artists and thieves" being responsible for 911, otherwise you actually are, although unwittingly, operating as a relay station for Muslim propaganda. In this discussion about the four ton beam you have not done that. You have made some errors in the physics, yes, and I don't doubt they were caused by your simply repeating things taken for granted as true on various 911 conspiracy oriented websites. But I did some time ago tell Badecker that I'd be willing to refute 911 conspiracy theories using 8th grade math, chemistry and physics, and that remains true. So far I have presented motive, means, and opportunity for forces within the US to do so. I have also explained in several ways, many of which you have not even attempted to refute, that the official narrative was not only extremely unlikely, but not possible. You act as if the USA operates as some kind of monolith with unified force. It does not. It has several factions which are constantly at conflict with each other. This is not "Muslim propaganda", there were many within the US expecting such an attack (including the USA's own intelligence services). On DAY ONE, there were people within the USA who had no affiliation with "Muslim propaganda" which were critical of the official narrative. Questioning of the official story originated from WITHIN the US, not in the Middle East. Again, you expose your confirmation bias by invoking "Muslim propaganda", fitting right in line with your knee jerk reaction to anything which is critical of Israel as demonstrated by your years of posting on this forum. I don't disagree that radical Islam is a problem, but that doesn't explain the plethora of gaps in the official narrative such as the conflicting physical evidence, NORAD standing down, or the hundreds of other complicit evens that had to be coordinated within the US infrastructure to allow these attacks to happen as purported. You keep making these claims about "errors" in my physics, yet you never actually specify them. Perhaps it is because your arguments rely completely upon claims which you can not back with your own evidence? After all it is much more simple to just make counter claims and never explain any of the underlying causes. You tell Badecker whatever you like, I am not Badecker. Again, you can't fight me on the facts, so you have to resort back to your cognitive and semantic gymnastics to attempt to give yourself an air of legitimacy. It is failing miserably. |
|
|
|
I took a trip to New York City to improve my coding skills and everyone there told me that 9/11 was perpetrated by 19 Islamic hijackers. i'm sorry to say but i think that 9/11 was carried out by 19 hijackers brainwashed by Osama bin laden
Good for you. You can let other people think for you. Have a cookie. |
|
|
|
We are not in agreement. You are using the term EXPLOSIVE FORCE. I used the term Joules, which can be provided in various ways, one being explosives. We agreed on 40,000 Joules if I recall correctly.
We had calculated the required initial velocity at 21 meters per second, supplied by 40,000 joules and the approximate altitude at 333 meters.
I suggested the energy came from sideways displacement of only 0.2% of the potential energy of the beam during it's fall.
You suggested that it could only come from explosives. But this is an assertion and not a proof. The debris field extended quite wide, and so nobody is questioning whether much of that was displaced sideways by translation of potential energy to sideways and downward kinetic energy and movement. How then is beam is proof of explosives, if it does not lie seriously outside the field of debris?
The calculations of energy, potential and kinetic energy, and sideways motion do not require "explosive force." They simply use an input in Joules for F. It's not that high a value, either. 40,000 joules does not require a "chemical explosion" to produce it.
You introduced several errors and misunderstandings of physics here. If those are corrected, then I would hope that you understand that the movement of 4 ton beams as described is not evidence that supports a requirement of controlled demolition, explosives, etc in the collapse of the towers.
Only by mistating the physics and the dynamics of the beams can this issue be used to support the anti-American, pro-Muslim propaganda effort that blames the USA for the 911 atrocity, and makes the terrorists Muslims innocent of it. And it's exactly that sort of propaganda and beliefs that encourages not too smart Muslims to become little Allah Akbars...
No I did not expect you would give up your pathetic attempt at supporting your bias no matter how many facts I beat you over the head with. So canons don't use explosive force? Riiiight. Regardless of what you call it, it is the same thing. Large amounts of energy. You claim that this comes from the potential energy of gravity pulling the building down, but yet you still can not explain how that downward force is translated into lateral motion, nor can you explain the mechanism for this. Repeating yourself endlessly will not make your huge gaps in logic any smaller. If you think there are errors, why don't you specify them instead of leaving them vague accusations and unsupportable claims? I see what this is now. This is not about reality, this is about supporting your bias. I haven't misstated physics, nor am I anti-American, which you should know damned well by now from my posts in other threads. How is getting to the bottom of who really attacked us anti-American? How is routing out corruption within our government anti-American? You think it is American to let murderers, con artists, and thieves operate within America using it as its shell to take what it wants and dispose of us later leaving us to take the aftermath of its crimes? I don't find that at all American. Finally you reveal your bias. This is about Israel, as it always is with you. At every criticism of Israel you jump to invoke "Jew Hate" TM over and over for years. You want America to continue fighting Israel's battles for it, and if the people realize that 9/11 was a contrivance to get the USA into the Middle East, you are afraid your precious apartheid state might not get the endless military aid it does now any more. The USA has been dragged into this conflict unwillingly and I don't trust Israel any more than I trust the Muslim nations. Either would sell out the USA in a heartbeat if it served their goals. For you though, you can not acknowledge the reality of the facts of the day of 9/11, because if those facts did come out, people might start looking at who benefited from things going down that way right? You have a lot of fucking nerve invoking Americanism while you support Israel above American values. You are nothing but a shill, and frankly a piss poor one at that. Time for you to take up a new hobby. |
|
|
|
Hmm... No, that's wrong. If that was true, a spacecraft could never orbit a planetary body. The small pieces of rubble and dust are affected both by wind and air resistance. I think air resistance on the 4 tons of steel can be disregarded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_bodyd = 1/2 (g * t^2) t = sqrt(2d/g) sideways movement ts = 21 mps g= 9.8 mps d = 333 meters 1. How long does the object take to fall from 333 meters height? t = sqrt (2*333/9.8 ) = 8.18 seconds 2. In 8.18 seconds, how far will it move sideways? = 21mps * 8.18s = 171 meters (564 feet) Yeah, just a small problem with your logic... The WTC towers did not EXTEND INTO SPACE. Additionally objects don't just orbit by themselves. They require MASSIVE amounts of velocity and fuel to get there, so no, nothing I said would make orbiting impossible. Lets just forget about the massive solid fuel rockets required to send something into orbit. Also while we are at it lets forget about the fact that gravity is weaker the further you get away from the center of the earth out into space. I can't believe you are arguing against the laws of physics now. You are either a fool or a liar. First, the equations cited provide numerical answers for the question at hand, assuming initial altitude is 333 meters and speed is 21 meters per second. If there is an error please show where and how and stop the ad hominem attacks. I'm NOT IN CONTROL of the output numbers from these formulas, so stating them does not make me a fool or a liar. Second, here is where it seems you have erred. Newton's First Law - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motionWhen viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.You made this claim - Of course debris would fall and spread out a little bit, but not eject laterally 600 feet. With every foot you extend the lateral movement, you are requiring MORE FORCE to eject it. You are acting like the difference between moving a 4 ton section of steel 5 feet and moving it 600 feet is a moot point. It is not, every foot that 4-ton object goes requires exponential amounts more of energy to move it. I have only pointed out that this is not true, according to Newton's first law. The beam once given a sideways motion will continue in that path until it hits the ground. The distance it travels is a function of time and is not exponentially higher for distance moved. I used the example of spacecraft. Once set in motion, it continues. In the case of an orbiting spacecraft, the orbit is defined as an ellipse where it's fall due to gravity is the same as it's movement away from the planet due to it's momentum vector in any given time slice. This is according to Kepler's laws of motion. Maybe that's confusing - perhaps the mechanics of a cannon is better? Assume the cannon fires exactly horizontal to the Earth's surface. The cannon is fired and the cannon ball goes through the air until it hits the ground. The ball has two force vectors, one the explosive charge in the direction it is aimed, and the other the downward force of gravity. There is no additional energy needed to move the ball farther. If we move the cannon upwards, say to higher levels or ramparts of a castle, the ball goes further. (Unless you want to consider the 'additional energy' as being the additional Potential Energy of being higher up in the castle.) No, you make you a fool or a liar. You clearly aren't swayed by facts, perhaps embarrassment will work to break you out of your cognitive dissonance. You are now rephrasing my words to fit your argument and make it sound scientific. You are like an actor putting on a lab coat to push the idea he is a doctor. All your formulas cover are the distance that the particular 4-ton section traveled, and how long it took to get there. It does not include any explanation of how the object that was at rest (the 4-ton steel section) was suddenly ejected laterally against the forces of gravity and air resistance. This is simply an attempt to sound as if you have science backing your argument by repeating formulas back to me I have already presented and pretending they some how support your argument. They don't. That is why I presented them in the first place and you are simply appropriating them to make your senseless arguments appear to have some kind of scientific basis. I have only pointed out that this is not true, according to Newton's first law. The beam once given a sideways motion will continue in that path until it hits the ground. The distance it travels is a function of time and is not exponentially higher for distance moved. Again, this beam is just "given sideways motion" as if by some magical unexplained force. Also I never said the distance or time was exponentially higher, I said the FORCE REQUIRED to do so is exponentially higher, meaning we have a set height, therefore to eject this 4-ton object AGAINST THE FORCES FOR GRAVITY and air resistance, from its former state of rest, requires more energy for every foot further it is to travel. You are clearly desperate at this point and resorting to rewriting my words as well as purposely confusing the laws of physics to make it sound as if they support your argument. This is reaching pathetic levels of desperation on your part. "When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force." Your comparison of spacecraft in orbit is flawed and I believe you know this, but again are simply being disingenuous because it serves your goal of supporting the official narrative. In order to place an object in to orbit, what is required? Massive amounts of fuel in order to provide the required velocity, pretty much a controlled explosion. What else is missing in space? Air resistance. What is lacking in space? The forces of gravity, as they are weakened the further away from Earth you get. Your comparison just dismisses the forces of, air resistance, the reduced effect of gravity, and the massive amounts of energy and velocities required to get the object moving at those speeds. Additionally orbiting objects DO NOT orbit forever, eventually they all fall to Earth, UNLESS, you guessed it, more force is applied to keep it in orbit. Perhaps you would like to reference Wile E. Coyote cartoons next? He does after all float after he steps off of the edge of cliffs, maybe that magical force is what allowed those 4-ton girders to travel 600 feet from where they were previously at rest. The ball has two force vectors, one the explosive charge in the direction it is aimed, and the other the downward force of gravity. There is no additional energy needed to move the ball farther. If we move the cannon upwards, say to higher levels or ramparts of a castle, the ball goes further. (Unless you want to consider the 'additional energy' as being the additional Potential Energy of being higher up in the castle.) Have you noticed how your own explanation here requires explosive force to send a massive object laterally? Are we finally in agreement or is this simply an exercise of truly sad levels of cognitive dissonance on your part? Considering that one of the vectors (the potential energy of the height of the origination point) is a set factor, the ONLY WAY we can get the object to travel further is to apply more of the single remaining vector EXPLOSIVE FORCE.
Thank you for making my argument for me. |
|
|
|
Hmm... No, that's wrong. If that was true, a spacecraft could never orbit a planetary body. The small pieces of rubble and dust are affected both by wind and air resistance. I think air resistance on the 4 tons of steel can be disregarded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_bodyd = 1/2 (g * t^2) t = sqrt(2d/g) sideways movement ts = 21 mps g= 9.8 mps d = 333 meters 1. How long does the object take to fall from 333 meters height? t = sqrt (2*333/9.8 ) = 8.18 seconds 2. In 8.18 seconds, how far will it move sideways? = 21mps * 8.18s = 171 meters (564 feet) Yeah, just a small problem with your logic... The WTC towers did not EXTEND INTO SPACE. Additionally objects don't just orbit by themselves. They require MASSIVE amounts of velocity and fuel to get there, so no, nothing I said would make orbiting impossible. Lets just forget about the massive solid fuel rockets required to send something into orbit. Also while we are at it lets forget about the fact that gravity is weaker the further you get away from the center of the earth out into space. I can't believe you are arguing against the laws of physics now. You are either a fool or a liar. |
|
|
|
....
Of course debris would fall and spread out a little bit, but not eject laterally 600 feet. With every foot you extend the lateral movement, you are requiring MORE FORCE to eject it. You are acting like the difference between moving a 4 ton section of steel 5 feet and moving it 600 feet is a moot point. It is not, every foot that 4-ton object goes requires exponential amounts more of energy to move it. You are just rephrasing the same explanations that I have disproved using the laws of physics, over and over again. You still are offering no explanation for the lateral ejection force or action sufficient enough to eject 4-ton sections of steel 600 feet laterally (other than what you have already said several times now). .....
See bolded above. You are wrong. For a given speed, the movement sideways is a simple function of time. We agreed on 21 meters per second as a velocity. That speed imparted to your 4 ton section of steel will move it the 600 feet in 10 seconds. (sure this is ignoring atmospheric friction but that will have no effect on a massive piece of steel) All I did was show that that energy was 0.2% of the potential energy of the beam, and ask why such a small percentage could not reasonable be thought to be translated into sideways movement. You accept that there were debris fields extending out 600 feet. Why is the problem any different for small pieces of rubble as opposed to a 4 ton girder? Um, no. You don't even understand basic physics. It is not just a function of time. Every foot it moves laterally means another foot in which it has to resist gravity to travel that far, meaning MORE LATERAL FORCE is required. It is different because small pieces of rubble DON'T WEIGH 4 FUCKING TONS. I see now your only remaining strategy here is deny deny deny. I am starting to get the impression you are just being willfully ignorant now. |
|
|
|
Why is it so important that someone is able to spy? I guess people overestimate themselves thinking that someone is really interested in wasting time exploring smb's life
Do you understand how blackmail works? You don't need to be doing anything illegal. With massive all encompassing spying, anyone who resists the powers that be can be crushed using sensitive private information. Stop watching so many movies and take a look around every once and a while buddy. |
|
|
|
I used the term "standard iron oxide thermite" for a reason. I never said it HAD to be nanothermite, only that there was evidence for it. Additional, there is plenty of reason to assume thermite and nanothermite have the same properties, as they are almost chemically identical. The main difference is particle size and burn rate. The igniton temperature is roughly identical. Additional compounds can be added to have other effects if desired. It is not magic or alchemy, it is chemistry, and if you know how chemistry works you can change its properties considerably, so it is not some unimaginable feat that the properties could vary. Again you seem to want to pretend nanothermite is some fantastical nonexistant substance. Its existence and its properties are well documented. Umm....NO. Particle sizes and burn rates are huge differences. Look at my note about nano particle aluminum being the fuel for torpedoes. Change the particle size, that does not work. What I am saying is that one must get very specific on "nano-thermite" or otherwise it is a nebulous term that can have any characteristics you want. Regardless, we can agree to use "standard iron oxide thermite." ....
Less than one part in 500 translated into sideways movement.
You still want to argue that this cannot occur without explosives? I have not so far defined the METHOD of translation into sideways motion, just sought to illustrate that the energy was there in sufficient quantities to allow it. I do have an idea on the answer, am trying to think of ways to explain it well.
Oh no? You seemed to think it was a viable explanation until I presented this information. Funny how it suddenly is not your argument any more after confronted with the evidence. Again you are ignoring that fact that this effect happened over and over again with multiple sections, in all directions. When this energy is transferred multiple hundreds or thousands of times over the entire structure, it becomes a much greater proportion of the total percentage of kinetic energy some how magically redirected laterally against the forces of gravity. Again, this is all in a situation where there is no perfect transaction of energy, meaning that there also had to be a lot of energy wasted in this translation of kinetic energy laterally. Not being able to define the method of lateral translation of energy is pretty much the entire point of presenting this evidence, so the fact that you can't explain it is a pretty fucking big hole in your logic. .... Come on, that's not fair. I only said I was trying to think of a simple way to explain it. Here goes. The WTC towers were by volume, about 10% steel, concrete, etc - building structure, and 90% air - working spaces. Then one falls. All material goes downward. Material fragments in the process. By the time 10 stories have pancaked, there is in that area pretty much a solid mass of building material. It is no longer 90% air. Once the density of material reaches a certain number - you pick it, 30%, 50%, 70%, then that area or section is effectively presents a solid mass to materials coming down from above. Then they move sideways because that's all they can do. Now do you seriously want to argue that 0.2% of the PE of a beam cannot translate into sideways movement? Really? We could agree that the debris pile from a 200 foot x 200 feet building extended 5 feet further out than the original perimeter. That's sideways motion. It extended 200 feet. Again, that's sideways motion. It extended 500 feet. That's sideways motion. Yeah, you're right that is not fair. You are only ignoring the laws of physics and just restating the same theory over and over again in different ways pretending it is a new explanation. We already discussed Newton's 3rd Law, which states any action must have an equal and opposite reaction. IE as the "pile driver" of the floor is falling it also is destroying itself, meaning since the "collapse" was initiated 12 floors down from the top, it could only have operated with this effect for a maximum of 12 floors below it because it would be turned to loose rubble by this point. Hence your whole excuse about the rubble getting more dense is just nonsense. Of course debris would fall and spread out a little bit, but not eject laterally 600 feet. With every foot you extend the lateral movement, you are requiring MORE FORCE to eject it. You are acting like the difference between moving a 4 ton section of steel 5 feet and moving it 600 feet is a moot point. It is not, every foot that 4-ton object goes requires exponential amounts more of energy to move it. You are just rephrasing the same explanations that I have disproved using the laws of physics, over and over again. You still are offering no explanation for the lateral ejection force or action sufficient enough to eject 4-ton sections of steel 600 feet laterally (other than what you have already said several times now). Let's say hypothetically that there was a controlled demolition of the twin towers, plus building 7. In that case, then why the hell did planes crash into the towers in the first place, and why did they blow up building 7 too?
It makes absolutely no logical sense to me, why spend more resources on having planes fly into them? And why blow up a third tower when the huge twin towers were already going to fall, no added shock value was added by having building 7 fall too, it seems needless. Think I asked this question earlier in this thread but no-one had a good answer.
As far as I'm concerned, even without delving into the mechanics on whether this could or couldn't have occured, the logic of the controlled demoliton theory is massively flawed.
I think you have a bit of cognitive dissonance going on there buddy. There is a HUGE list of reasons why these buildings were chosen, and why it was immediately cast as a terrorist attack. I am actually glad you made this comment, because it gives me an opportunity to give evidence for the potential motives for this attack, which are at the core of any criminal investigation and have gone largely ignored in this case. Means, motive, and opportunity. Here is a list of potential motives for multiple parties: 1. As Vokain explained the key to any false flag attack is misdirection. This was already a very large and complicated attack no matter how you think it actually went down. They are already blowing up two massive skyscrapers, the rest of the WTC complex, hitting the pentagon, and were probably going for an additional target with the plane that went down in Pennsylvania. Crashing a few planes is relatively easy in comparison to all of the rest of the prep work to pull this all off successfully. 2. Gaining increased funding for the military industrial complex. After the end of the cold war and the unpopularity of getting involved militarily in the Middle East, the military industrial complex needed justification for expanding into a new war. War is extremely profitable for a plethora of industries like banking, weapon systems manufacturing, private military forces, as well as the government run military as well. This one was outlined very clearly in a document released by The Project For A New American Century, a group very closely tied with the Bush administration. The document they released called " Rebuilding America's Defenses" stated among other things: Further, the process of transformation [of the military], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor. There have been plans to go into Iraq again for many years previous to the attacks, and this event was used as justification to deploy to Iraq at first and other countries later, even though there is zero evidence Iraq was at all involved with the attacks. this group included members closely tied with the Bush administration such as: -Jeb Bush -Dick Cheney -William Kristol -Donald Rumsfeld -Dan Quayle -Paul Wolfowitz -Scooter Libby 3. It was used as justification for passing totalitarian legislation domestically. Legislation which had been written many years before, and had been attempted to put into law in the past, but was rejected because it was extremely unpopular and seen as overreaching was passed, such as The USA Patriot Act, The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments of 2008, Homeland Security Act of 2002, Authorization for Use of Military Force, Uniting and Strengthening America Act, and many more. These laws gave the federal government massive amounts of centralized power, removed several constitutional rights, over wrote laws like Posse Comitatus, gave green lights for warrantless wiretapping, mass collection of communications, created private security forces under the control of the president, put all the law enforcement agencies under the control of Homeland Security, and a lot of other power grabs government has been trying to put in place for decades. 4. Justification for stealing natural resources from the invaded countries. There was a lot of oil, gold, and other resources in Iraq and many other countries invaded since used to shore up the US's bottom line. In Afganistan the opium poppy production went up 900% since the US invaded, and US troops were guarding poppy fields. The poppies are used to produce heroin which is used to fund black ops, and also weaken Russia and China by shipping these drugs in tot he countries just like the old British empire silk road strategy with China. 5. Destruction of evidence. The WTC complex housed many financial institutions and government agencies where evidence of large scale financial crimes as well as evidence related to past governmental misconduct was stored. Some of the more notable residents of the complex: Lehman BrothersAmerican AirlinesSalomon Smith BarneyMorgan StanleyJP Morgan Chase & Co.Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & FirearmsInternal Revenue ServiceU.S. Secret ServiceThe Federal Bureau of Investigation (23rd floor, WTC N. Tower)Central Intelligence AgencyThe Department of DefenseSecurities and Exchange CommissionEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionThe IRS had many files destroyed relating to evidence of tax fraud, including Enron. The SEC lost many important documents when the building was destroyed, including much of what was needed to effectively prosecute Enron and WorldCom. Lehman Brothers now well known to be engaged in shady banking activity and soon to be bankrupt had evidence destroyed. The entire accumulation of evidence for the cases against Mobil Oil and James Giffen on illegal oil swaps between Iran and Kazakhstan., as well as in the the investigation of gold price fixing stemming from charges brought against Alan Greenspan, JP Morgan, and Goldman Sachs. "All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building,". "Regardless of what the regulators say, they lost a ton of files," says Bill Singer, a New York securities lawyer, who says one case he had pending before the SEC quickly settled because so many of the original documents were destroyed. "In my opinion it was a wholesale loss of documents.". Wirt Walker, the son of a CIA employee who was flagged by the SEC for suspected 9/11 insider trading, was McDaniel’s boss at Stratesec, the company responsible for security at the WTC. "substantial files were destroyed" for 3000 to 4000 of the SEC's cases . They include the agency’s major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. The New York Times revealed in November 2001 that Building 7 was the location for a secret CIA office and Sensitive Compartmentalized Intelligence Facility (SCIF). SCIFs are where the most sensitive intelligence information is stored. The EEOC reported that documents for 45 active cases were destroyed. 6. People seeking to win back support to increasingly unpopular Sharonist policies in Israel. 7. When the United States established military bases in Afghanistan, the bases all seemed to line up along the pipeline route, indicating that even without Enron, the pipe dream was still alive. UNOCAL continued to toy with the idea of an Afghanistan pipeline long after Enron. There were other major pipeline plans meant to go through the region. 8. 9/11 created an opportunity to place US forces in close proximity to Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Since then the US has been engaged in several proxy wars with Russia, Iran, and arguably Saudi Arabia. 9. President Bush has agreed to bail out the airlines with BILLIONS of dollars, an industry that was swimming in red ink LONG BEFORE the WTC/Pentagon attacks. There is a lot more but you get the gist. Let's say hypothetically that there was a controlled demolition of the twin towers, plus building 7. In that case, then why the hell did planes crash into the towers in the first place, and why did they blow up building 7 too?
It makes absolutely no logical sense to me, why spend more resources on having planes fly into them? And why blow up a third tower when the huge twin towers were already going to fall, no added shock value was added by having building 7 fall too, it seems needless. Think I asked this question earlier in this thread but no-one had a good answer.
As far as I'm concerned, even without delving into the mechanics on whether this could or couldn't have occured, the logic of the controlled demoliton theory is massively flawed.
+1 I've tried and failed to get this very basic subject discussed. It'd be nice to see internal consistency among the conspiracy theories, but there isn't any. That's an indication it's more active dis information by groups who are adversaries to the US on the world stage, of course. They don't need quality theories, just crap repeated over and over to ignorant populations, such as in Jordon, Pakistan and Egypt. By contrast the JFK killing is a very clean, simple conspiracy theory. There was one bullet or several; there were several assassins or only one. Now you got your wish. I haven't brought it up yet because I was too busy watching you flail trying to argue against rock solid evidence based on the laws of physics. Now that I have demonstrated you have no explanation for this I can present more tertiary evidence that would otherwise just serve as a distraction from the facts of the physics of the matter you have failed to explain using the official story. Actually the entire issue is dead as a doornail except for (1) Muslim apologists and protectors of the faith who want to use Takiyya, cast the US in a bad light regardless of how much lying they do (2) repeaters of the propaganda of (1)
Actually, no. You still haven't offered any reasonable explanation of how 4-ton girders flew laterally 600 feet or how the towers fell at free fall speeds. It is much simpler to just declare the debate over so you do not have to address these gaping flaws in your argument. Additionally you haven't even attempted to refute: 1. The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to collapse the structures.2. Fire fueled by the fuel in the planes and other material in the towers could not have softened the steel structures enough to cause complete structural failure. There may be a few people like that. But the problem with your conceptualization is that if you put such a person in front of Conspiracy Theorist A, he asserts that no planes hit the towers. Then you put him in front of CT-B, and B says the planes hit the towers but there was ALSO explosives, yada yada yada. And put him in front of CT-C, and C says that the planes hit the towers but they were all driven by Evil Jews. On and on and on.
You see, multiple lines of suspicion do not converge on an alternative explanation. Plus many of them break down on examination using 8th grade physics and chemistry.
However it does form an interesting version of the logical error of an "Irrefutable hypothesis."
Sort of like...
"Believe anything OTHER THAN the official story, and that's okay. Even if what you believe is easily refutable using chemistry and physics. Believe it anyway, because the official story must be refuted."
Multiple people have more than one opinion of what actually happened, therefore none of them are correct. Nice logic. Again this is another convenient way to avoid having to actually defend your own argument with facts. |
|
|
|
One of the relatively few things that bother me about the thermate/nano-thermite hypothesis is that the nano-thermite which was discovered in all of the dust is quite reactive. In terms of stability, it is vastly different from high explosives which require another high explosive to initiate a detonation.... Anyway, the troublesome aspects of my current strongest hypothesis (thermate/nano-thermite) pale compared to the problems associated with the 'official conspiricy theory' which I am supposed to be believing.
Note true. Standard Iron oxide thermite is extremely stable. It is not reactive to impact, and its ignition temperature requires a temperature of 2731.730 F, so well within the safe range of any petrol based fuel fires. You make a fair point about it not being sufficient to pulverize concrete, but there is a lot of evidence to support the additional use of high explosives. There's no reason to presume that a "nano-thermite" would have the same stability characteristics as regular thermite. None whatsoever. In fact, nano-thermite seems to be a mythical creation of 911 conspiracy advocates which has whatever features they want to give it. Real behavior of nano-materials is quite different. For example, nano aluminum which can be used as a propellant reacting with sea water alone. Not exactly something that could be used reliably or safely as a explosive. Again, Nobel won his prize for discovering a way to save lives by making explosive materials safe for those whose job required using them. I used the term "standard iron oxide thermite" for a reason. I never said it HAD to be nanothermite, only that there was evidence for it. Additional, there is plenty of reason to assume thermite and nanothermite have the same properties, as they are almost chemically identical. The main difference is particle size and burn rate. The igniton temperature is roughly identical. Additional compounds can be added to have other effects if desired. It is not magic or alchemy, it is chemistry, and if you know how chemistry works you can change its properties considerably, so it is not some unimaginable feat that the properties could vary. Again you seem to want to pretend nanothermite is some fantastical nonexistant substance. Its existence and its properties are well documented. What's "far away?" Just like the assertion that the beam being found "far away" is taken to be some kind of "evidence." It's not and there's nothing of an anomaly in the beam.
Again, that kinetic energy is acting with a DOWNWARD force. What is "far away"? Lets examine that. Here is a diagram of the paths and velocities required for each of these sections depending on the originating floor.  The sections were ejected in ALL directions, and from every floor. This totally disqualifies any theory of it being a result of the plane impacts, or some freak "spring" action created by the collapse. Here are photographs showing where this wall segment landed, 600ft away on roof of the Winter Gardens. Note the section lodged in the building at the top of the photo well above the height of the debris pile, disqualifying the toppling down the debris pile theory. Finally here is an aerial shot of the area showing really how far away 600 feet is. As you can see, this area is also well outside the main mass of the debris pile clearly demonstrating it did not simply topple down a debris pile. To an extent I agree with you. "Toppling down a debris pile" wasn't precisely what I had in mind. Rather I wanted to illustrate the massive amounts of potential energy in each of these pieces of the building when they were up in the air. The translation of just a small part of this energy into sideways motion easily results in the sideways displacement. What percentage? 40,000 required for sideways movement/24,000,000 joules PE = 0.16% (this is for that one column fragment previously discussed, eg 4 ton section A36 steel) Less than one part in 500 translated into sideways movement. You still want to argue that this cannot occur without explosives? I have not so far defined the METHOD of translation into sideways motion, just sought to illustrate that the energy was there in sufficient quantities to allow it. I do have an idea on the answer, am trying to think of ways to explain it well. Oh no? You seemed to think it was a viable explanation until I presented this information. Funny how it suddenly is not your argument any more after confronted with the evidence. Again you are ignoring that fact that this effect happened over and over again with multiple sections, in all directions. When this energy is transferred multiple hundreds or thousands of times over the entire structure, it becomes a much greater proportion of the total percentage of kinetic energy some how magically redirected laterally against the forces of gravity. Again, this is all in a situation where there is no perfect transaction of energy, meaning that there also had to be a lot of energy wasted in this translation of kinetic energy laterally. Not being able to define the method of lateral translation of energy is pretty much the entire point of presenting this evidence, so the fact that you can't explain it is a pretty fucking big hole in your logic. Here is more evidence for you to chew on while you manufacture your next denial. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAD8HlrLZghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1Fye_H1wIMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd70TwKS3qohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8QCQudNEtYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc1ql4TfCZwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt8PMLTmcnghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg |
|
|
|
One of the relatively few things that bother me about the thermate/nano-thermite hypothesis is that the nano-thermite which was discovered in all of the dust is quite reactive. In terms of stability, it is vastly different from high explosives which require another high explosive to initiate a detonation.... Anyway, the troublesome aspects of my current strongest hypothesis (thermate/nano-thermite) pale compared to the problems associated with the 'official conspiricy theory' which I am supposed to be believing.
Note true. Standard Iron oxide thermite is extremely stable. It is not reactive to impact, and its ignition temperature requires a temperature of 2731.730 F, so well within the safe range of any petrol based fuel fires. You make a fair point about it not being sufficient to pulverize concrete, but there is a lot of evidence to support the additional use of high explosives. Are there videos showing an explosive force capable of ejecting bone fragments that far away?
Maybe you can clarify exactly what you are asking for. Frankly, physics proves it regardless of how you interpret the video. As in, if 9/11 was a demolition and explosives were used that caused the bone fragments to be thrown far away, are there videos showcasing said explosions? Or would kinetic energy from the plane colliding with the building be enough to do so? If you bother to actually read the thread this is exactly what I have been providing evidence for based on the laws of physics. What's "far away?" Just like the assertion that the beam being found "far away" is taken to be some kind of "evidence." It's not and there's nothing of an anomaly in the beam.
I guess it's up to whoever makes the claim "bone fragments were found far away" to support his claim that somehow this is evidence or proof of explosives. As I've already shown, the kinetic energy of position at 1000 feet alone is orders of magnitude higher than is required to move things a few hundred feet sideways.
A piece of debris from an aircraft colliding with a tower, if it continued forward at it's initial velocity for ten seconds would come to rest over a mile away.
Many of the bone fragments found were like 1-2mm in size, these would decelerate quickly from the plane's velocity but would be moved by the wind.
So what exactly is "far away?"
Again, that kinetic energy is acting with a DOWNWARD force. Any lateral force would be irregular and insufficient to move 4-ton objects the distance they were found and at the speed of their travel. As far as the bones, the question is HOW they became pulverized in the first place. A collapse would crush them, but not turn them into tiny shattered fragments. You make arguments about the plane impacts, but the fragments were not simply found in one direction, they radiated outward in all directions surrounding the area which does not line up with your explanation of it being caused by the plane impact. Even in horrible massive plane crashes there are still bodies and bones left. Anyways, this is an ancillary topic that you will only use to distract from the indisputable physical evidence of explosive force based on the distance of the massive steel supports hundreds of feet from the towers, so I am not going to address this specific topic any further. What is "far away"? Lets examine that.  For reference here is the wall segment we are talking about. Here is a diagram of the paths and velocities required for each of these sections depending on the originating floor. The sections were ejected in ALL directions, and from every floor. This totally disqualifies any theory of it being a result of the plane impacts, or some freak "spring" action created by the collapse.  Here are photographs showing where this wall segment landed, 600ft away on roof of the Winter Gardens. Note the section lodged in the building at the top of the photo well above the height of the debris pile, disqualifying the toppling down the debris pile theory.  Finally here is an aerial shot of the area showing really how far away 600 feet is. As you can see, this area is also well outside the main mass of the debris pile clearly demonstrating it did not simply topple down a debris pile. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
