[Vote] Who did 911?

[brendanjhwu]

Everyone here is wrong,
It was not an inside job.

I REPEAT, NOT AN INSIDE JOB!!!

[luckyflop]

I just want to know why was there not any airplane debris at the PA crash
Thats all !!! Not even 1 ITEM

[bumpk1nK]

It was da aliens! NO DOUBT!

[J. J. Phillips]

...

hello,
i have not forgotten our debate , i am just a little bit busy with my personnal life, not going very well right now. i will post the notes when i finish sorting out the real life problem i have first. i am sorry to keep you waiting

@Netpyder: Real life is more important. I try to limit my time on forums because I can easily forget myself that real life is more important. I hope things get sorted out.

[TECSHARE]

Why, please tell,would someone "bother to look" to divide 10 seconds into x number of feet?  Your link uses meters, not feet.

I don't see any problem with the 500-600 foot distance finding of large stuff after a 1300 some foot building falls down....

Why would that take explosives?  Why would you not consider sections of that vertical metal snapping like twigs and going flying off?   The fact the thing weighs 4 tons is not relevant at all to these calculations.

Neither is this consistent with explosives - they, say having 50,000 feet per second gas expansion, would propel a great many objects quite far (all having the chemical signature of the explosive, by the way).  That 50k fps is in excess of the speed to fracture and disintegrate materials, hence it would be small stuff flying around for great distances.

I said feet and the link uses meters....and...? Does this some how negate the force needed to eject them or the math it is based on? This is just another distraction from the points.


First of all steel doesn't snap like a twig, it bends and contorts under pressure. Additionally such massive objects don't just randomly get thrown so far from the core structure. The amount of energy required to propel them that distance from the towers requires explosive forces. The fact that you are arguing the mass of the object has no bearing on the amount of force needed to propel it a great distance from the building is quite telling of your ignorance of basic physics. Materials were disintegrated, and were propelled for great distances. The building was pulverized, and yes, there were traces of thermate explosives btw.

Well, 500-600 feet is the actual limit of the rubble heap, so it's not like it was 3x beyond the rubble.  

I'm not sure what you are trying to say (bolded above).  The force any falling object has is related to it's mass and gravitational acceleration.  A lightweight object is equally capable of going the same distance as a heavy object if either is deflected sideways.   Because the force involved is gravity.....

Now you seem to think that additional force over and above that would be required - I don't see why.  At 1800 feet, we could talk about something like that.  But why do you think it would be required just at the edge of the rubble heap?

Also, some steels certainly can snap, and quite obviously hundreds of welded together steel box columns did come apart into bunches of pieces, didn't they?

Finally, I don't even see the logic or internal consistency in the conspiracy theory as presented.  Let me show you why.

1.  Plane hits building at level XYZ.
2.  Building burns for an hour.
3.  Carefully planted explosives at or about the same level XYZ are detonated.
4.  Building collapses FROM FLOORS PLANE STRUCK.

You realize that after the plane hit that building was totally worthless, whether or not it went down?  It would have had to be destroyed later as unsafe and dangerous.

So why is #3 a useful or necessary item for the bad guys?

It makes no sense.   As for the "traces of thermite found?"   This is pretty laughable from several points of view.  A lot of thermite compounds exist, typically we might look at iron oxide and aluminum, both finely powdered.  Well, you could find those anywhere.  That is not evidence of thermite.  It's just rust and maybe beer cans.

Next, thermite is not an explosive as we typically use the term.  So it's not going to launch 4 ton chunk of metal anywhere.  To get around this problem I understand the answer is ratcheted up - "Oh, but it was NANO-THERMITE!!!!"

Those are rare and highly dangerous things to handle.  I'm not familiar with their use although similar issues exist with nano powdered metals of all sorts.  And that stuff, it's ridiculous to talk about a stealth operation of this scale using it - or for that matter anything else.

It's quite puzzling why exactly anyone who was going to conceive of blowing up a building would come up with thermite and or nano thermite.  Seems like it would be the absolute worst idea, frankly.  Very hard to get ignition, too.

So I really just don't get it - can't we have a better conspiracy theory than this?

Again you expose your pure ignorance of basic physics. The 4 ton steel beams were EJECTED LATERALLY. In order for a 4 ton object to be ejected laterally AGAINST THE FORCES OF GRAVITY explosive forces would be required. In this scenario the importance of the mass of the object is not under dispute.

As far as your hypothetical scenarios I am not going to dignify that waste of time with a response because nothing constructive can come of it.

The evidence of thermite found was not just a mix of powders, it was a very SPECIFIC type of thermate which contained nano-sized particles which is primarily found in weaponized forms of thermate. This proves it was manufactured, not just a random mixing of dust. Additionally there were telltale iron nanoshperes which are also indicative of thermite also found in the dust which require very high temperatures to be formed beyond the melting point of steel.

"Niels Harrit Phd in chemistry:
What we have found is the modern version of Thermite, which we call Nano-Thermite.
This is produced in a different way. It is not just two powders being mixed.
The material is actually built from the atom scale up.
We call the bottom-up procedure which is what you do in Nano technology."
http://thewe.cc/weplanet/news/americas/911-Destruction/911-controlled-demolition-twin-towers-nano-thermite.html


As far as your claim of thermite not being explosive, again you demonstrate your ignorance of physics and chemistry. Thermite can be quite explosive, only you do not imagine it to be because you are only aware of the powdered form being burned in the open. Once placed in a container or form, the force most certainly is of high explosive velocities. Once more, just because thermate was used does not some how automatically exclude the possibility of other high explosives being involved. By the way, if nanothermite is as you claim so "highly dangerous" to handle, why is it so hard to ignite? (P.S. If you have any basic knowledge of chemistry it is really not that hard to ignite.)

http://www.911truth.org/the-explosive-nature-of-nanothermite/

Physics dictates that explosive force would be required to blow 4 ton girders over 500 feet from their original position. You can play word games with your footprints all day, I never made any such claims.

Well, if the fall was ten seconds, it would need to be moving sideways at 50 feet per second, or about 35 mph.   That doesn't seem to prove the need for explosives.  Say something fell, then 100 feet down hit a section of the building that hadn't collapsed and spun off it at a slant.  Acceleration due to gravity is 32 feet per second, so less than 2 seconds and you've got the velocity, then just need to translate it into sideways motion.

Anyway, which is it?  Bad guys with bombs that throw girders 500 feet, of the building "falling into it's own footprint"? 

I can't keep track of all the mutually contradictory conspiracy data factoids....

For people catching up, the situation appears to be this.

One conspiracy theorist on the thread (BADecker) argues that the fact that the towers collapsed into their own footprint implies explosives were used.

A different conspiracy theorist on the thread (TECSHARE) argues that the fact that the towers didn't collapse into their own footprint implies explosives were used.

Brilliant.

But wait, there's more.  No "controlled demolition" tosses 4 ton chunks of metal 500 feet. 

So WTF?  I would like a clear and simple explanation of one or both or the best of these theories, because I truly don't get it.  And no rambling off into Evil World Overlords halfway through the explanation -we might be in agreement about the Evil World Overlords, but that doesn't have anything to do with HOW a building falls down or whether a plane hit it.

If 4-ton chunks of metal were tossed 500 feet in the collapse of the Twin Towers, then controlled demolition absolutely does toss 4-ton chunks of metal 500 feet.

Sez who?  You?  Controlled demolition means just that - the force of the explosive charges is applied to a job, not to randomly blowing things up and tossing shrapnel around.  This is crazy talk.  There are hundreds of controlled demo videos, go show one where something is tossed 500 feet.

To illustrate the problem, ask what kind of explosion would toss a Humvee 500 feet.   That's not characteristic of a "controlled demolition."  Neither is it something a 500 lb shell would do.  In fact, no explosive would do this, because it would disintegrate the metal into small pieces rather than move it as a large object.  This is because the metal disintegrates when the shock wave exceeds the speed of sound in steel.  High explosives pressure wave exceed that requisite velocity by a factor of ten.

If the debris field mound extended 500 feet, which it did, who says the chunk didn't just slide down the mound and come to a stop at marker 500.

There is so much ignorance of basic science and physics I hardly know where to begin.
Just because a demolition is "controlled" does not magically mean there is no danger of projectiles. You know how they normally manage projectiles in commercial controlled demolitions? They make sure no one is near by, and they often cover the floors where the main columns are being destroyed in netting to contain the ejections. In addition to that the designers maximize the safety of the surrounding area by carefully placing the explosives to reduce ejections. In a situation where complete devastation is the goal, why would you expect the safety procedures that come along with controlled demolition?  It is a well known fact that there is a danger of projectiles in all controlled demolitions.

Learn the difference between shaped charges and non directed explosives please. Explosives most certainly do not just completely disintegrate metal, and it can in fact move large objects. In a large metal object, the part which had the most direct contact with the explosion will be disintegrated while the vast majority of the heavy metal will become a projectile. As far as your "slide down the mound" theory, there were many 4 ton girders ejected in multiple directions, some of witch lodged into other buildings. So much for your random sliding theory. Stop referencing looney toons for your information on explosives please, it is getting embarrassing having to explain these things to an adult.

[Spendulus]

Why, please tell,would someone "bother to look" to divide 10 seconds into x number of feet?  Your link uses meters, not feet.

I don't see any problem with the 500-600 foot distance finding of large stuff after a 1300 some foot building falls down....

Why would that take explosives?  Why would you not consider sections of that vertical metal snapping like twigs and going flying off?   The fact the thing weighs 4 tons is not relevant at all to these calculations.

Neither is this consistent with explosives - they, say having 50,000 feet per second gas expansion, would propel a great many objects quite far (all having the chemical signature of the explosive, by the way).  That 50k fps is in excess of the speed to fracture and disintegrate materials, hence it would be small stuff flying around for great distances.

I said feet and the link uses meters....and...? Does this some how negate the force needed to eject them or the math it is based on? This is just another distraction from the points.


First of all steel doesn't snap like a twig, it bends and contorts under pressure. Additionally such massive objects don't just randomly get thrown so far from the core structure. The amount of energy required to propel them that distance from the towers requires explosive forces. The fact that you are arguing the mass of the object has no bearing on the amount of force needed to propel it a great distance from the building is quite telling of your ignorance of basic physics. Materials were disintegrated, and were propelled for great distances. The building was pulverized, and yes, there were traces of thermate explosives btw.

Well, 500-600 feet is the actual limit of the rubble heap, so it's not like it was 3x beyond the rubble.  

I'm not sure what you are trying to say (bolded above).  The force any falling object has is related to it's mass and gravitational acceleration.  A lightweight object is equally capable of going the same distance as a heavy object if either is deflected sideways.   Because the force involved is gravity.....

Now you seem to think that additional force over and above that would be required - I don't see why.  At 1800 feet, we could talk about something like that.  But why do you think it would be required just at the edge of the rubble heap?

Also, some steels certainly can snap, and quite obviously hundreds of welded together steel box columns did come apart into bunches of pieces, didn't they?

Finally, I don't even see the logic or internal consistency in the conspiracy theory as presented.  Let me show you why.

1.  Plane hits building at level XYZ.
2.  Building burns for an hour.
3.  Carefully planted explosives at or about the same level XYZ are detonated.
4.  Building collapses FROM FLOORS PLANE STRUCK.

You realize that after the plane hit that building was totally worthless, whether or not it went down?  It would have had to be destroyed later as unsafe and dangerous.

So why is #3 a useful or necessary item for the bad guys?

It makes no sense.   As for the "traces of thermite found?"   This is pretty laughable from several points of view.  A lot of thermite compounds exist, typically we might look at iron oxide and aluminum, both finely powdered.  Well, you could find those anywhere.  That is not evidence of thermite.  It's just rust and maybe beer cans.

Next, thermite is not an explosive as we typically use the term.  So it's not going to launch 4 ton chunk of metal anywhere.  To get around this problem I understand the answer is ratcheted up - "Oh, but it was NANO-THERMITE!!!!"

Those are rare and highly dangerous things to handle.  I'm not familiar with their use although similar issues exist with nano powdered metals of all sorts.  And that stuff, it's ridiculous to talk about a stealth operation of this scale using it - or for that matter anything else.

It's quite puzzling why exactly anyone who was going to conceive of blowing up a building would come up with thermite and or nano thermite.  Seems like it would be the absolute worst idea, frankly.  Very hard to get ignition, too.

So I really just don't get it - can't we have a better conspiracy theory than this?

Again you expose your pure ignorance of basic physics. The 4 ton steel beams were EJECTED LATERALLY. In order for a 4 ton object to be ejected laterally AGAINST THE FORCES OF GRAVITY explosive forces would be required. In this scenario the importance of the mass of the object is not under dispute.

As far as your hypothetical scenarios I am not going to dignify that waste of time with a response because nothing constructive can come of it.

The evidence of thermite found was not just a mix of powders, it was a very SPECIFIC type of thermate which contained nano-sized particles which is primarily found in weaponized forms of thermate. This proves it was manufactured, not just a random mixing of dust. Additionally there were telltale iron nanoshperes which are also indicative of thermite also found in the dust which require very high temperatures to be formed beyond the melting point of steel.

"Niels Harrit Phd in chemistry:
What we have found is the modern version of Thermite, which we call Nano-Thermite.
This is produced in a different way. It is not just two powders being mixed.
The material is actually built from the atom scale up.
We call the bottom-up procedure which is what you do in Nano technology."
http://thewe.cc/weplanet/news/americas/911-Destruction/911-controlled-demolition-twin-towers-nano-thermite.html


As far as your claim of thermite not being explosive, again you demonstrate your ignorance of physics and chemistry. Thermite can be quite explosive, only you do not imagine it to be because you are only aware of the powdered form being burned in the open. Once placed in a container or form, the force most certainly is of high explosive velocities. Once more, just because thermate was used does not some how automatically exclude the possibility of other high explosives being involved. By the way, if nanothermite is as you claim so "highly dangerous" to handle, why is it so hard to ignite? (P.S. If you have any basic knowledge of chemistry it is really not that hard to ignite.)

http://www.911truth.org/the-explosive-nature-of-nanothermite/

Look, why the attitude?  I get the impression that you can't talk about physics or chemistry without it.  Why not lay off?   Understanding chemistry and physics is not going to work by way of condescending attitudes, last I heard.

I am familiar with the constraints of pressure and temperature on explosive behavior.  I am also familiar with the issues of nano size metals, which is what you are referring to.  And no, it is not from a quick read on the Internet.    (Used to read Phd dissertations on rocket motor propellant studies just for fun).

Apparently the section that you shrugged off was this...

I don't see any problem with the 500-600 foot distance finding of large stuff after a 1300 some foot building falls down....

Why would that take explosives?  Why would you not consider sections of that vertical metal snapping like twigs and going flying off?   The fact the thing weighs 4 tons is not relevant at all to these calculations.

Neither is this consistent with explosives - they, say having 50,000 feet per second gas expansion, would propel a great many objects quite far (all having the chemical signature of the explosive, by the way).  That 50k fps is in excess of the speed to fracture and disintegrate materials, hence it would be small stuff flying around for great distances.

Why are these factors not worth considering?

Any powdered metals are dangerous, the finer the powder they rapidly become ridiculously dangerous, such that they are kept and stored under oil continuously.  I am also familiar with so called "nano-thermite."  This almost does not exist.  It is not "the modern version" as your source purports, it is more what might be thought of as research grade.

I don't understand at all what you are trying to get at here.  Some fucking religious nutcases fly airplanes into these two buildings, and then some CIA operation blows the buildings up?  Or what?  Please explain.

And also, please use reputable sources when discussing chemistry and physics.  I hope you will not think I am crazy for not accepting 911truth.org as such.

[BADecker]

Why, please tell,would someone "bother to look" to divide 10 seconds into x number of feet?  Your link uses meters, not feet.

I don't see any problem with the 500-600 foot distance finding of large stuff after a 1300 some foot building falls down....

Why would that take explosives?  Why would you not consider sections of that vertical metal snapping like twigs and going flying off?   The fact the thing weighs 4 tons is not relevant at all to these calculations.

Neither is this consistent with explosives - they, say having 50,000 feet per second gas expansion, would propel a great many objects quite far (all having the chemical signature of the explosive, by the way).  That 50k fps is in excess of the speed to fracture and disintegrate materials, hence it would be small stuff flying around for great distances.

I said feet and the link uses meters....and...? Does this some how negate the force needed to eject them or the math it is based on? This is just another distraction from the points.


First of all steel doesn't snap like a twig, it bends and contorts under pressure. Additionally such massive objects don't just randomly get thrown so far from the core structure. The amount of energy required to propel them that distance from the towers requires explosive forces. The fact that you are arguing the mass of the object has no bearing on the amount of force needed to propel it a great distance from the building is quite telling of your ignorance of basic physics. Materials were disintegrated, and were propelled for great distances. The building was pulverized, and yes, there were traces of thermate explosives btw.

Well, 500-600 feet is the actual limit of the rubble heap, so it's not like it was 3x beyond the rubble.  

I'm not sure what you are trying to say (bolded above).  The force any falling object has is related to it's mass and gravitational acceleration.  A lightweight object is equally capable of going the same distance as a heavy object if either is deflected sideways.   Because the force involved is gravity.....

Now you seem to think that additional force over and above that would be required - I don't see why.  At 1800 feet, we could talk about something like that.  But why do you think it would be required just at the edge of the rubble heap?

Also, some steels certainly can snap, and quite obviously hundreds of welded together steel box columns did come apart into bunches of pieces, didn't they?

Finally, I don't even see the logic or internal consistency in the conspiracy theory as presented.  Let me show you why.

1.  Plane hits building at level XYZ.
2.  Building burns for an hour.
3.  Carefully planted explosives at or about the same level XYZ are detonated.
4.  Building collapses FROM FLOORS PLANE STRUCK.

You realize that after the plane hit that building was totally worthless, whether or not it went down?  It would have had to be destroyed later as unsafe and dangerous.

So why is #3 a useful or necessary item for the bad guys?

It makes no sense.   As for the "traces of thermite found?"   This is pretty laughable from several points of view.  A lot of thermite compounds exist, typically we might look at iron oxide and aluminum, both finely powdered.  Well, you could find those anywhere.  That is not evidence of thermite.  It's just rust and maybe beer cans.

Next, thermite is not an explosive as we typically use the term.  So it's not going to launch 4 ton chunk of metal anywhere.  To get around this problem I understand the answer is ratcheted up - "Oh, but it was NANO-THERMITE!!!!"

Those are rare and highly dangerous things to handle.  I'm not familiar with their use although similar issues exist with nano powdered metals of all sorts.  And that stuff, it's ridiculous to talk about a stealth operation of this scale using it - or for that matter anything else.

It's quite puzzling why exactly anyone who was going to conceive of blowing up a building would come up with thermite and or nano thermite.  Seems like it would be the absolute worst idea, frankly.  Very hard to get ignition, too.

So I really just don't get it - can't we have a better conspiracy theory than this?

Again you expose your pure ignorance of basic physics. The 4 ton steel beams were EJECTED LATERALLY. In order for a 4 ton object to be ejected laterally AGAINST THE FORCES OF GRAVITY explosive forces would be required. In this scenario the importance of the mass of the object is not under dispute.

As far as your hypothetical scenarios I am not going to dignify that waste of time with a response because nothing constructive can come of it.

The evidence of thermite found was not just a mix of powders, it was a very SPECIFIC type of thermate which contained nano-sized particles which is primarily found in weaponized forms of thermate. This proves it was manufactured, not just a random mixing of dust. Additionally there were telltale iron nanoshperes which are also indicative of thermite also found in the dust which require very high temperatures to be formed beyond the melting point of steel.

"Niels Harrit Phd in chemistry:
What we have found is the modern version of Thermite, which we call Nano-Thermite.
This is produced in a different way. It is not just two powders being mixed.
The material is actually built from the atom scale up.
We call the bottom-up procedure which is what you do in Nano technology."
http://thewe.cc/weplanet/news/americas/911-Destruction/911-controlled-demolition-twin-towers-nano-thermite.html


As far as your claim of thermite not being explosive, again you demonstrate your ignorance of physics and chemistry. Thermite can be quite explosive, only you do not imagine it to be because you are only aware of the powdered form being burned in the open. Once placed in a container or form, the force most certainly is of high explosive velocities. Once more, just because thermate was used does not some how automatically exclude the possibility of other high explosives being involved. By the way, if nanothermite is as you claim so "highly dangerous" to handle, why is it so hard to ignite? (P.S. If you have any basic knowledge of chemistry it is really not that hard to ignite.)

http://www.911truth.org/the-explosive-nature-of-nanothermite/

Look, why the attitude?  I get the impression that you can't talk about physics or chemistry without it.  Why not lay off?   Understanding chemistry and physics is not going to work by way of condescending attitudes, last I heard.

I am familiar with the constraints of pressure and temperature on explosive behavior.  I am also familiar with the issues of nano size metals, which is what you are referring to.  And no, it is not from a quick read on the Internet.    (Used to read Phd dissertations on rocket motor propellant studies just for fun).

Apparently the section that you shrugged off was this...

I don't see any problem with the 500-600 foot distance finding of large stuff after a 1300 some foot building falls down....

Why would that take explosives?  Why would you not consider sections of that vertical metal snapping like twigs and going flying off?   The fact the thing weighs 4 tons is not relevant at all to these calculations.

Neither is this consistent with explosives - they, say having 50,000 feet per second gas expansion, would propel a great many objects quite far (all having the chemical signature of the explosive, by the way).  That 50k fps is in excess of the speed to fracture and disintegrate materials, hence it would be small stuff flying around for great distances.

Why are these factors not worth considering?

Any powdered metals are dangerous, the finer the powder they rapidly become ridiculously dangerous, such that they are kept and stored under oil continuously.  I am also familiar with so called "nano-thermite."  This almost does not exist.  It is not "the modern version" as your source purports, it is more what might be thought of as research grade.

I don't understand at all what you are trying to get at here.  Some fucking religious nutcases fly airplanes into these two buildings, and then some CIA operation blows the buildings up?  Or what?  Please explain.

And also, please use reputable sources when discussing chemistry and physics.  I hope you will not think I am crazy for not accepting 911truth.org as such.

Why would anyone think yo are crazy? YOU JUST CAN'T SEE THE FOREST FOR THE TREES.

[Spendulus]

Why would anyone think yo are crazy? YOU JUST CAN'T SEE THE FOREST FOR THE TREES.

It does not matter what you think, or for that matter, what "anyone thinks."  What matters is what you can prove.

[freakying99]

We all did 9-11..

[TECSHARE]

Look, why the attitude?  I get the impression that you can't talk about physics or chemistry without it.  Why not lay off?   Understanding chemistry and physics is not going to work by way of condescending attitudes, last I heard.

I am familiar with the constraints of pressure and temperature on explosive behavior.  I am also familiar with the issues of nano size metals, which is what you are referring to.  And no, it is not from a quick read on the Internet.    (Used to read Phd dissertations on rocket motor propellant studies just for fun).

Apparently the section that you shrugged off was this...

I don't see any problem with the 500-600 foot distance finding of large stuff after a 1300 some foot building falls down....

Why would that take explosives?  Why would you not consider sections of that vertical metal snapping like twigs and going flying off?   The fact the thing weighs 4 tons is not relevant at all to these calculations.

Neither is this consistent with explosives - they, say having 50,000 feet per second gas expansion, would propel a great many objects quite far (all having the chemical signature of the explosive, by the way).  That 50k fps is in excess of the speed to fracture and disintegrate materials, hence it would be small stuff flying around for great distances.

Why are these factors not worth considering?

Any powdered metals are dangerous, the finer the powder they rapidly become ridiculously dangerous, such that they are kept and stored under oil continuously.  I am also familiar with so called "nano-thermite."  This almost does not exist.  It is not "the modern version" as your source purports, it is more what might be thought of as research grade.

I don't understand at all what you are trying to get at here.  Some fucking religious nutcases fly airplanes into these two buildings, and then some CIA operation blows the buildings up?  Or what?  Please explain.

And also, please use reputable sources when discussing chemistry and physics.  I hope you will not think I am crazy for not accepting 911truth.org as such.

The attitude is because you proclaim authority on subjects you very clearly have no knowledge of. The fact that you keep repeating that the mass of an object does not effect the amount of energy required to move it laterally shows me that your understanding of physics is sub-childlike, thus you are treated accordingly.

[Spendulus]

The attitude is because you proclaim authority on subjects you very clearly have no knowledge of. The fact that you keep repeating that the mass of an object does not effect the amount of energy required to move it laterally shows me that your understanding of physics is sub-childlike, thus you are treated accordingly.

The momentum acquired by an object in free fall is proportional to it's mass.  Hence it does not matter what weight the object is, in about three seconds of free falling any reasonable heavy object will acquire a downward velocity which if translated to sideways movement will move it 500 feet sideways.

For objects to be found 500 feet from a 100 foot tower collapse would be very unusual.  For objects to be found 500 feet from a 1300 foot tower collapse would be nothing unusual.  

This is easily testable.   Dropping things from a roof and seeing how far they go out from center after hitting various obstructions, for example.  Would dropping pebbles from 10 feet result in a 5' diameter scatter pattern?  The momentum here would be far less per unit mass, because it is 10 feet instead of 400-1300.  But you get the idea.

I'm asking you to prove up to there being "something unusual" or "something that required explosives" in finding a 4 ton steel chunk 500 feet from the collapse of a 1300 foot high tower.

[BADecker]

The attitude is because you proclaim authority on subjects you very clearly have no knowledge of. The fact that you keep repeating that the mass of an object does not effect the amount of energy required to move it laterally shows me that your understanding of physics is sub-childlike, thus you are treated accordingly.

The momentum acquired by an object in free fall is proportional to it's mass.  Hence it does not matter what weight the object is, in about three seconds of free falling any reasonable heavy object will acquire a downward velocity which if translated to sideways movement will move it 500 feet sideways.

For objects to be found 500 feet from a 100 foot tower collapse would be very unusual.  For objects to be found 500 feet from a 1300 foot tower collapse would be nothing unusual.  

This is easily testable.   Dropping things from a roof and seeing how far they go out from center after hitting various obstructions, for example.  Would dropping pebbles from 10 feet result in a 5' diameter scatter pattern?  The momentum here would be far less per unit mass, because it is 10 feet instead of 400-1300.  But you get the idea.

I'm asking you to prove up to there being "something unusual" or "something that required explosives" in finding a 4 ton steel chunk 500 feet from the collapse of a 1300 foot high tower.

If you keep on examining the trees in minute detail, you are never going to see that the combination of the trees shows us the forest of "an inside job."

[btcusury]

@BADecker,

You understand that the buildings were demolished and that therefore (and for many other reasons as well) the event was a false flag operation... but what evidence do you actually have that it was done by people in the US "government"? I've never been able to find any significant evidence.

Also, do you believe for a moment that you have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing the people/egos you are arguing against that they are gullible fools?

[BADecker]

@BADecker,

You understand that the buildings were demolished and that therefore (and for many other reasons as well) the event was a false flag operation... but what evidence do you actually have that it was done by people in the US "government"? I've never been able to find any significant evidence.

Also, do you believe for a moment that you have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing the people/egos you are arguing against that they are gullible fools?

Of course you are right. The evidence is reverse-evidence: the military not taking care of the air space by accident; the Twin Towers not withstanding the forces they were made to withstand by accident; the government not responding to all the reports by all the building engineers who say that the Towers' collapse could not have happened the way the formal report says, all by accident.

This is the best way to make your report strong. Suggest it was all an accident.

[Spendulus]

@BADecker,

You understand that the buildings were demolished and that therefore (and for many other reasons as well) the event was a false flag operation... but what evidence do you actually have that it was done by people in the US "government"? I've never been able to find any significant evidence.

Also, do you believe for a moment that you have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing the people/egos you are arguing against that they are gullible fools?

I wondered that too, in my vain effort to understand conspiracy theories on 911.  How does always wind up being the US government? 

But I'll stick to the physics and chemistry, since I'm not seeing much but junk science there.

[BADecker]

@BADecker,

You understand that the buildings were demolished and that therefore (and for many other reasons as well) the event was a false flag operation... but what evidence do you actually have that it was done by people in the US "government"? I've never been able to find any significant evidence.

Also, do you believe for a moment that you have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing the people/egos you are arguing against that they are gullible fools?

I wondered that too, in my vain effort to understand conspiracy theories on 911.  How does always wind up being the US government? 

But I'll stick to the physics and chemistry, since I'm not seeing much but junk science there.

Your application of what otherwise might be good science turns it into junk even if it was not in the first place.

[Spendulus]

@BADecker,

You understand that the buildings were demolished and that therefore (and for many other reasons as well) the event was a false flag operation... but what evidence do you actually have that it was done by people in the US "government"? I've never been able to find any significant evidence.

Also, do you believe for a moment that you have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing the people/egos you are arguing against that they are gullible fools?

I wondered that too, in my vain effort to understand conspiracy theories on 911.  How does always wind up being the US government? 

But I'll stick to the physics and chemistry, since I'm not seeing much but junk science there.

Your application of what otherwise might be good science turns it into junk even if it was not in the first place.

Ad hominem.

[TECSHARE]

The attitude is because you proclaim authority on subjects you very clearly have no knowledge of. The fact that you keep repeating that the mass of an object does not effect the amount of energy required to move it laterally shows me that your understanding of physics is sub-childlike, thus you are treated accordingly.

The momentum acquired by an object in free fall is proportional to it's mass.  Hence it does not matter what weight the object is, in about three seconds of free falling any reasonable heavy object will acquire a downward velocity which if translated to sideways movement will move it 500 feet sideways.

For objects to be found 500 feet from a 100 foot tower collapse would be very unusual.  For objects to be found 500 feet from a 1300 foot tower collapse would be nothing unusual.  

This is easily testable.   Dropping things from a roof and seeing how far they go out from center after hitting various obstructions, for example.  Would dropping pebbles from 10 feet result in a 5' diameter scatter pattern?  The momentum here would be far less per unit mass, because it is 10 feet instead of 400-1300.  But you get the idea.

I'm asking you to prove up to there being "something unusual" or "something that required explosives" in finding a 4 ton steel chunk 500 feet from the collapse of a 1300 foot high tower.

The momentum acquired by an object in free fall is proportional to it's mass.  Hence it does not matter what weight the object is, in about three seconds of free falling any reasonable heavy object will acquire a downward velocity which if translated to sideways movement will move it 500 feet sideways.

The more you write, the further you expose your complete ignorance of basic grade school physics. The mass and the downward velocity of the object both are very important variables, because they both are forces that force the object along its current path. The fact that it has downward velocity and great mass requires EVEN MORE FORCE to drive the object laterally because it is contrary to its existing momentum and inertial forces. Your own arguments are self contradictory and demonstrate your lack of knowledge of basic physics.

"Newton's first law of motion states that "An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force." Objects tend to "keep on doing what they're doing." In fact, it is the natural tendency of objects to resist changes in their state of motion. This tendency to resist changes in their state of motion is described as inertia.        Inertia: the resistance an object has to a change in its state of motion. "
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum

For the sake of argument here, lets just ignore the laws of physics and look at your theory of deflected 4 ton beams. Say counter to the laws of physics, it just happens to by some freak accident happen one time, ok sure, but multiple times? There were many 4 ton columns ejected from the towers at distances that required EXPLOSIVE FORCE to eject them those distances. The basic physics to perform your own calculations are outlined here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-1/Momentum

I'm asking you to prove up to there being "something unusual" or "something that required explosives" in finding a 4 ton steel chunk 500 feet from the collapse of a 1300 foot high tower.

I already did, only you have chosen to deny reality and the laws of physics in favor of your preferential flavor of confirmation bias.
If you are denying the basic laws of physics, then there really is no evidence that does or can ever exist that will be good enough for you and your world view.

[protokol]

@BADecker,

You understand that the buildings were demolished and that therefore (and for many other reasons as well) the event was a false flag operation... but what evidence do you actually have that it was done by people in the US "government"? I've never been able to find any significant evidence.

Also, do you believe for a moment that you have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing the people/egos you are arguing against that they are gullible fools?

I wondered that too, in my vain effort to understand conspiracy theories on 911.  How does always wind up being the US government? 

But I'll stick to the physics and chemistry, since I'm not seeing much but junk science there.

That's one of my problems as well, it's similar to convicting a person for murder with no evidence whatsoever, but with a strong motive and lack of alibi.

Rather than concentrating on loads of tiny, supposed anomalies, and trying to compound them together to prove some fantastical plot, I wish these truthers would find some evidence of the ACTUAL PLOT.

I mean, just look above. Someone is saying that a steel beam travelled "too far away", so explosives 100% must have been used. They were probably told this by an "internet expert", so now they refuse to believe there is even a small chance that this could have happened with no explosives.

Now I'm not an architect, but it's pretty obvious to me that there are ways that this could have happened with a normal collapse. They may be unlikely, but certainly not impossible. I mean you have thousands of tons of beams and concrete under all sorts of pressures, there may have been deflections as someone said above, there may have been torsional, catapulting type impacts. Anyway, even if it's a 0.1% chance, it still could have happened.

So we end up getting stuck on a fallacious "appeal to authority", where a supposed expert says an obviously false thing (that something is 100% impossible when it clearly isn't), and this anomaly somehow matches with the initial US Gov false flag theory.

These truthers would make terrible detectives.

Find me some ACTUAL evidence of a plan and we'll talk, in the meantime stop linking totally unrelated little things and fitting them to your own story of what happened.

Pro tip - multiple unlikely things occuring do not make the final evidence any stronger, unless the things are directly linked.

So, let's say the chance of the beams going too far without bombs is 10%, the probability of the Pentagon incident being a missile is 50%, and prob of Building 7 collapsing without bombs is, say 1%. Now, these three events being unlikely, but still all happening, does not make the probability of the attack being a US Gov false flag any higher, because the events are not linked. (even though it seems like it would, it's your mind playing tricks.) It's counterintuitive, humans are shit at this sort of thing.

[protokol]

@Tecshare, I think you're treating the building collapse like a game of pool, when really it's a bit more complex. To say what you're saying with such conviction, would require evidence such as intricate mathematical models with hundreds of variables.

Again, it might be unlikely but I don't believe you're in a position to say it's 100% impossible.