What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[Gohs]

Illuminati written all over 9/11.

[1714657530]

1714657530

[BADecker]

This argument...
4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.


...asserts that if X is the speed of the fall of an object in air, then a building collapse should be X - Y speed.  Where Y is resistance by the part of the building below the section falling on it.

This argument is flawed in it's premises, it's approach, and in it's conclusion.

The "free fall speed" is V = 32 ft * time^2/seconds.

Roughly in the first second, an object moves 32 feet.  In the second second, 64 feet, and so on.

I'm not seeing support for #4 either in the video of the towers collapse, the seismic records, or in the math and structural stuff.....

Nor are you taking into account many other factors that show that buildings like these can not fall in free fall style as they did, without some critically timed detonations going off inside to make them fall that way.

If we wanted to use odds, it couldn't happen with one building. Three buildings in the same day equals demolition equals an inside job.

It's simple problem of the exponential increase in kinetic energy from t=0, weakened by a factor for the resistance.  So if free fall was V = m * T^2, the proposition of "resistance" would lead us to calculate the possible range of that resistance, and we might have V = m * T^1.7 or 1.9, or whatever. 

But these are huge numbers for the energies, regardless of exactly what that exponent is. 

Oh, and there is no such thing as "odds" here.  There seem to be two lines of thought among conspiracy theorists.   First there is the belief that the initial structural failure could not have occurred without "additional assistance" such as thermite or explosives.  Second there is a belief that the downward pancaking of the towers must have been accompanied by additional explosives or thermite, such as charges on each floor or something of that sort.

In my opinion the first is a valid question, and should be explored and answered.  We can do that pretty easily.   Also in my opinion, the second is way over in batshit crazy land.   

Actually, odds is all there is. I don't mean the odds in chemical reactions, or the odds in math. I mean the odds that the chemical reactions and the math that you stress apply to 9/11. The reason? Because there were all kinds of other activities going on that you don't take into account in your chemistry and math application.

Name one? Nobody knows what amount of the fuel was on board the planes. Nobody knows what percent of fuel was boiled off before it could burn. Everyone can see that the almost perfect collapses, if they happened because of the fuel, would have had to have the perfect amount of fuel added to the absolute correct places in the Towers, or the Towers would have toppled well outside of their footprints.

These simple points make all your math and chemistry irrelevant, except if it is applied to explosives already placed in the buildings.

[Spendulus]

....Nobody knows what percent of fuel was boiled off before it could burn....

It's only after fuel is in vapor form that it DOES burn.

[BADecker]

....Nobody knows what percent of fuel was boiled off before it could burn....

It's only after fuel is in vapor form that it DOES burn.

It's only after the vapor fuel is mixed in proper quantities with air that it burns. Percents unknown.

[tvbcof]

Anyone else here wonder if Spendus knows damn good and well that 9/11 was a false flag but is 'trolling'?

I mean, if it wasn't for the stuff he peddles, we would not be researching and/or communicating and this thread would be dead and forgotton.  Keeping it alive with all of the devistating points that the rest of us are making is probably going some distance toward informing those who've not put much time into researching things for themselves.

[TECSHARE]

Again, you just conveniently ignore the velocity of the 4 ton girders. This was not a fluke where some how just one made it that far. There were MULTIPLE 4-ton girders hundreds of feet from the towers. Additionally considering there was ZERO TILT when the buildings went down right into their footprints, your entire argument about it some how magically being moved sideways is fallacious.

Okay, here we go.

A dirt mound, say one created by dump trucks, has a side angle of slope related to the type of material.  But very broadly, a mound is about three times in diameter as it is tall.  A building collapsing would create a mound of some such proportions.

Reports of the 911 trajedy were that standing on top of the debris mound, a person was 15-20 stories up.  Also that the mounds extended out 400-500 feet.  So basically about 200 feet up and 800 feet in diameter.  There's the "conical mound of debris."  

Now, all of this debris has converted its potential energy it had when up in the sky into kinetic energy as it fell down, and sideways, and then again it became potential energy when it came to rest on the ground.  The sideways movement occurs in EVERY CASE where material is deposited on the ground under the force of gravity.

Good so far?  If not let me know.

So I conjecture that something "unusual" would be something that was far outside the natural debris mound.  For example, if our dump truck dumped a load of sand in our front yard, but one part of the offload was mysteriously thirty feet to the side.

But we don't have that here, do we?  The beams that are "hundreds of feet sideways" are within what we would expect for the debris field's size and distribution.

I can show the equations for the (theoretical) conical mound but realized that the actual physical size of the debris mound is in agreement, so no reason to.

Does that make sense?  If not why and how.  Maybe there's something I'm not getting.  But I'm not getting how a thing found 400-500 feet away is "unusual" and how it requires another explanation outside and beyond PE --> KE.

Again, you just conveniently ignore the velocity of the 4 ton girders. This was not a fluke where some how just one made it that far. There were MULTIPLE 4-ton girders hundreds of feet from the towers. Additionally considering there was ZERO TILT when the buildings went down right into their footprints, your entire argument about it some how magically being moved sideways is fallacious.

I believe my explanation covers both the velocity and the zero tilt issues.  

Except we aren't talking about "conical mounds" of dirt. One of the exceptional facts noted about the debris pile was that it WAS NOT larger. It SHOULD HAVE been several stories tall, but it wasn't because the vast majority of the concrete was pulverized. Collapses do not pulverize concrete into dust. High explosives do however. Additionally many of these ejected girders were embedded in surrounding buildings. According to your explanation, the girders toppled down a large debris pile and just rolled down it. How exactly does this happen if the girders are lodged in buildings well above the debris pile? Collapses do not propel massive debris laterally hundreds of feet, gravity pulls it downwards because there is no lateral force pushing it outwards against gravity. This is a simple trajectory calculation.

This argument...
4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.


...asserts that if X is the speed of the fall of an object in air, then a building collapse should be X - Y speed.  Where Y is resistance by the part of the building below the section falling on it.

This argument is flawed in it's premises, it's approach, and in it's conclusion.

The "free fall speed" is V = 32 ft * time^2/seconds.

Roughly in the first second, an object moves 32 feet.  In the second second, 64 feet, and so on.

I'm not seeing support for #4 either in the video of the towers collapse, the seismic records, or in the math and structural stuff.....

I am not seeing any actual substance in your argument here, just denials of basic properties of physics. IT IS A FACT that a building collapsing upon itself will fall more slowly than free fall speed. It doesn't matter how massive it is, it is not going to fall at free fall speed. The mass of the building dispersing energy crushing the floors below MUST slow the speed of the collapse. Again this is just basic laws of physics. Building 7 is the most clear cut example of this, it is undeniable. Again you aren't providing any substantive arguments, just creating more hackneyed denials without presenting any facts of your own. It is amazing how few large steel frame buildings have collapsed due to fires that have burned for many hours longer than the WTC towers did, yet it just happened to occur 3 times in one single event, and in one case without a plane even impacting the building. Additionally ALL THREE of the buildings went down directly into their own footprint. Controlled demolitions are very complicated because the supports need to be removed in carefully timed sequence to prevent the building from the default tipping effect that happens when a collapse is not controlled. It is also astounding that this just so happened to occur perfectly 3 times, in addition to the freak event of 3 steel framed buildings "collapsing" due to fire. The odds of this happening are ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely. These facts alone make the official narrative suspect, let alone the hundreds of other facts and unlikely anomalies that don't line up with this story.

For reverence, here is an ACTUAL gravity driven collapse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

The supports on one of the floors are blown out in order to use the momentum of the building to crush the floors below. Note the deceleration of the collapse as the building impacts the floors below it. Again, note the lack of lateral ejection of debris (except for the initial blast and dust). Also pay close attention to the end of the video, starting at 3:45, where Newton's 3rd law is evoked, which states "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". In effect, the falling section of the tower would be crushed itself along with the floors it is crushing below it, meaning that if the building was structurally equivalent (it was not, the building is build progressively stronger as you travel down the building) it would crush the top 12 floors at the same time as it collapsed the 12 floors beneath it, leaving nothing solid to act as a "pile driver" to crush the remaining floors below it.

[TECSHARE]

Anyone else here wonder if Spendus knows damn good and well that 9/11 was a false flag but is 'trolling'?

I mean, if it wasn't for the stuff he peddles, we would not be researching and/or communicating and this thread would be dead and forgotton.  Keeping it alive with all of the devistating points that the rest of us are making is probably going some distance toward informing those who've not put much time into researching things for themselves.

It doesn't matter if he denies it until his face turns blue, or why he does so. As you said this is educating third parties by demonstrating the official narrative is counter to the laws of physics as well as demonstrating his weak arguments against these facts.

[Spendulus]

Again, you just conveniently ignore the velocity of the 4 ton girders. This was not a fluke where some how just one made it that far. There were MULTIPLE 4-ton girders hundreds of feet from the towers. Additionally considering there was ZERO TILT when the buildings went down right into their footprints, your entire argument about it some how magically being moved sideways is fallacious.

Okay, here we go.

A dirt mound, say one created by dump trucks, has a side angle of slope related to the type of material.  But very broadly, a mound is about three times in diameter as it is tall.  A building collapsing would create a mound of some such proportions.

Reports of the 911 trajedy were that standing on top of the debris mound, a person was 15-20 stories up.  Also that the mounds extended out 400-500 feet.  So basically about 200 feet up and 800 feet in diameter.  There's the "conical mound of debris."  

Now, all of this debris has converted its potential energy it had when up in the sky into kinetic energy as it fell down, and sideways, and then again it became potential energy when it came to rest on the ground.  The sideways movement occurs in EVERY CASE where material is deposited on the ground under the force of gravity.

Good so far?  If not let me know.

So I conjecture that something "unusual" would be something that was far outside the natural debris mound.  For example, if our dump truck dumped a load of sand in our front yard, but one part of the offload was mysteriously thirty feet to the side.

But we don't have that here, do we?  The beams that are "hundreds of feet sideways" are within what we would expect for the debris field's size and distribution.

I can show the equations for the (theoretical) conical mound but realized that the actual physical size of the debris mound is in agreement, so no reason to.

Does that make sense?  If not why and how.  Maybe there's something I'm not getting.  But I'm not getting how a thing found 400-500 feet away is "unusual" and how it requires another explanation outside and beyond PE --> KE.

Again, you just conveniently ignore the velocity of the 4 ton girders. This was not a fluke where some how just one made it that far. There were MULTIPLE 4-ton girders hundreds of feet from the towers. Additionally considering there was ZERO TILT when the buildings went down right into their footprints, your entire argument about it some how magically being moved sideways is fallacious.

I believe my explanation covers both the velocity and the zero tilt issues.  

Except we aren't talking about "conical mounds" of dirt. One of the exceptional facts noted about the debris pile was that it WAS NOT larger. It SHOULD HAVE been several stories tall, but it wasn't because the vast majority of the concrete was pulverized. Collapses do not pulverize concrete into dust. High explosives do however. Additionally many of these ejected girders were embedded in surrounding buildings. According to your explanation, the girders toppled down a large debris pile and just rolled down it. How exactly does this happen if the girders are lodged in buildings well above the debris pile? Collapses do not propel massive debris laterally hundreds of feet, gravity pulls it downwards because there is no lateral force pushing it outwards against gravity. This is a simple trajectory calculation.

This argument...
4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.


...asserts that if X is the speed of the fall of an object in air, then a building collapse should be X - Y speed.  Where Y is resistance by the part of the building below the section falling on it.

This argument is flawed in it's premises, it's approach, and in it's conclusion.

The "free fall speed" is V = 32 ft * time^2/seconds.

Roughly in the first second, an object moves 32 feet.  In the second second, 64 feet, and so on.

I'm not seeing support for #4 either in the video of the towers collapse, the seismic records, or in the math and structural stuff.....

I am not seeing any actual substance in your argument here, just denials of basic properties of physics. IT IS A FACT that a building collapsing upon itself will fall more slowly than free fall speed. It doesn't matter how massive it is, it is not going to fall at free fall speed. The mass of the building dispersing energy crushing the floors below MUST slow the speed of the collapse. Again this is just basic laws of physics. Building 7 is the most clear cut example of this, it is undeniable. Again you aren't providing any substantive arguments, just creating more hackneyed denials without presenting any facts of your own. It is amazing how few large steel frame buildings have collapsed due to fires that have burned for many hours longer than the WTC towers did, yet it just happened to occur 3 times in one single event, and in one case without a plane even impacting the building. Additionally ALL THREE of the buildings went down directly into their own footprint. Controlled demolitions are very complicated because the supports need to be removed in carefully timed sequence to prevent the building from the default tipping effect that happens when a collapse is not controlled. It is also astounding that this just so happened to occur perfectly 3 times, in addition to the freak event of 3 steel framed buildings "collapsing" due to fire. The odds of this happening are ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely. These facts alone make the official narrative suspect, let alone the hundreds of other facts and unlikely anomalies that don't line up with this story.

For reverence, here is an ACTUAL gravity driven collapse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

The supports on one of the floors are blown out in order to use the momentum of the building to crush the floors below. Note the deceleration of the collapse as the building impacts the floors below it. Again, note the lack of lateral ejection of debris (except for the initial blast and dust). Also pay close attention to the end of the video, starting at 3:45, where Newton's 3rd law is evoked, which states "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". In effect, the falling section of the tower would be crushed itself along with the floors it is crushing below it, meaning that if the building was structurally equivalent (it was not, the building is build progressively stronger as you travel down the building) it would crush the top 12 floors at the same time as it collapsed the 12 floors beneath it, leaving nothing solid to act as a "pile driver" to crush the remaining floors below it.

I assume, but am not certain that this is a response to my comment on #4 and not a response to #3?  Because NO, I had not started arguing the issue of #4.  I was only expressing that I am puzzled at looking at the claims relating to it.

I'm not seeing support for #4 either in the video of the towers collapse, the seismic records, or in the math and structural stuff.....

So do you want to talk about #4?  Are you satisfied with my view on #3 or not?

[Spendulus]

....
Says FUCKING PHYSICS. Gravity doesn't pull 4-ton beams 600 feet sideways, .....
Try doing the calculation for the energy required yourself: http://www.1728.org/energy.htm

Using the MINIMUM meters per second velocity assuming the beam came directly from the impact zone, 21 m/s, and the mass of the girder at 4 tons, the required force is equivalent to 2.1e-4 TONS of TNT! That is the MINIMUM VALUES. If the beam came from the middle of the building, at 30 m/s, the required force would be 4.3e-4 TONS of TNT. Tell me some more about how explosive force is not required......

That's 4.3 x 0.0001 x 2000 lb/ton = 8.6 lb of explosive (EQUAL TO 40,000 joules).  

But PE = mgh, mass gravity height,

E= 8000 lb * 32 ft/sec^2 * 1000 = 2.4 * 10^7 joules.

40,000 joules from your explosives
24,000,000 joules of  PE, potential energy

So again, isn't the PE explanation a SUFFICIENT one?
Why is the explosives explanation a NECESSARY one?

As you can see, there are trying enormous amounts of energy in a tall building's collapse.  A cartwheeling 40' section of an I beam certainly can deflect a 4 ton section of an I beam hundreds of feet sideways.  Or it slides sideways on a rubble heap.  Or a section of the perimeter columns tilts over like on a pivot (which IS SEEN in the video) and imparts energy. 

[Spendulus]

.. the falling section of the tower would be crushed itself along with the floors it is crushing below it, meaning that if the building was structurally equivalent (it was not, the building is build progressively stronger as you travel down the building) it would crush the top 12 floors at the same time as it collapsed the 12 floors beneath it, leaving nothing solid to act as a "pile driver" to crush the remaining floors below it.

This is not true.  When the top section moves as one piece down just one floor, it is acting as a dynamic, not a static load.  As one moving section, it's internal stresses balance each other out.

Yes the floors were progressively stronger as you go down.  But that's nothing compared to the momentum from above. 

Here is a simple example.  A bowling ball weighs 10 lb, and rolls off a table 48" high onto your foot.  Once it hits your foot it dissipates it's energy in 0.25 inches.  The force on your foot is -

F = 48/.25 * 10 = 1920 pounds.  Your foot is crushed.   

Once the pile driver effect starts it can't be stopped. 

[BADecker]

.. the falling section of the tower would be crushed itself along with the floors it is crushing below it, meaning that if the building was structurally equivalent (it was not, the building is build progressively stronger as you travel down the building) it would crush the top 12 floors at the same time as it collapsed the 12 floors beneath it, leaving nothing solid to act as a "pile driver" to crush the remaining floors below it.

This is not true.  When the top section moves as one piece down just one floor, it is acting as a dynamic, not a static load.  As one moving section, it's internal stresses balance each other out.

Yes the floors were progressively stronger as you go down.  But that's nothing compared to the momentum from above.  

Here is a simple example.  A bowling ball weighs 10 lb, and rolls off a table 48" high onto your foot.  Once it hits your foot it dissipates it's energy in 0.25 inches.  The force on your foot is -

F = 48/.25 * 10 = 1920 pounds.  Your foot is crushed.  

Once the pile driver effect starts it can't be stopped.  

Except for one minor detail. There was no heat from burning fuel that was hot enough to weaken the structure symmetrically enough that it would fall directly into its own footprint. The fact of people walking around in the damaged section of the building shows this.

If the little bit of heat from the burning fuel did any damage, the damage would have been minor, or would at worst have caused a topple, but more than like would have caused a tipping or a sag.

The only way that the symmetrical fall at near gravitational rates could have happened would be through demolition.

[Spendulus]

.. the falling section of the tower would be crushed itself along with the floors it is crushing below it, meaning that if the building was structurally equivalent (it was not, the building is build progressively stronger as you travel down the building) it would crush the top 12 floors at the same time as it collapsed the 12 floors beneath it, leaving nothing solid to act as a "pile driver" to crush the remaining floors below it.

This is not true.  When the top section moves as one piece down just one floor, it is acting as a dynamic, not a static load.  As the top 20-30 floors is moving as one section, it's internal stresses balance each other out.

Yes the floors were progressively stronger as you go down.  But that's nothing compared to the momentum from above.  

Here is a simple example.  A bowling ball weighs 10 lb, and rolls off a table 48" high onto your foot.  Once it hits your foot it dissipates it's energy in 0.25 inches.  The force on your foot is -

F = 48/.25 * 10 = 1920 pounds.  Your foot is crushed.  

Once the pile driver effect starts it can't be stopped.  

Except for one minor detail. There was no heat from burning fuel that was hot enough to weaken the structure symmetrically enough that it would fall directly into its own footprint. The fact of people walking around in the damaged section of the building shows this.

If the little bit of heat from the burning fuel did any damage, the damage would have been........

That's #2.  I'm on #3 and #4 currently.  Here are Tecshare's assertions.  We'll get to #1 and #2.

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. 

3.  The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel multiple 4 ton steel beams hundreds of feet laterally at the readily observable velocities demonstrated.

4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings cannot coexist with a building collapse due to the resistant force created at the building impacts the lower levels of itself.

[TECSHARE]

.. the falling section of the tower would be crushed itself along with the floors it is crushing below it, meaning that if the building was structurally equivalent (it was not, the building is build progressively stronger as you travel down the building) it would crush the top 12 floors at the same time as it collapsed the 12 floors beneath it, leaving nothing solid to act as a "pile driver" to crush the remaining floors below it.

This is not true.  When the top section moves as one piece down just one floor, it is acting as a dynamic, not a static load.  As one moving section, it's internal stresses balance each other out.

Yes the floors were progressively stronger as you go down.  But that's nothing compared to the momentum from above.  

Here is a simple example.  A bowling ball weighs 10 lb, and rolls off a table 48" high onto your foot.  Once it hits your foot it dissipates it's energy in 0.25 inches.  The force on your foot is -

F = 48/.25 * 10 = 1920 pounds.  Your foot is crushed.  

Once the pile driver effect starts it can't be stopped.  

We aren't talking about bowling balls and feet. Again we are talking about the LAWS of physics. If the force is sufficient enough to crush the progressively stronger floors below it, it is strong enough to crush the "pile driver" at minimum in the equivalent amount of time as it crushes the floors below, eventually leaving crushed debris as the only remaining downward force. As a result this means that the "pile driver" effect is dissipated with every floor it crushes below it because it does not act with a unified downward force and falls to the side or is otherwise dissipated interacting with itself. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Again you are just denying the laws of physics while providing no actual reasoning, just providing sad examples of bowling balls and feet while you play word gymnastics to try to make it sound like you have some logic behind your point. Physics trumps word gymnastics.

....
Says FUCKING PHYSICS. Gravity doesn't pull 4-ton beams 600 feet sideways, .....
Try doing the calculation for the energy required yourself: http://www.1728.org/energy.htm

Using the MINIMUM meters per second velocity assuming the beam came directly from the impact zone, 21 m/s, and the mass of the girder at 4 tons, the required force is equivalent to 2.1e-4 TONS of TNT! That is the MINIMUM VALUES. If the beam came from the middle of the building, at 30 m/s, the required force would be 4.3e-4 TONS of TNT. Tell me some more about how explosive force is not required......

That's 4.3 x 0.0001 x 2000 lb/ton = 8.6 lb of explosive (EQUAL TO 40,000 joules).  

But PE = mgh, mass gravity height,

E= 8000 lb * 32 ft/sec^2 * 1000 = 2.4 * 10^7 joules.

40,000 joules from your explosives
24,000,000 joules of  PE, potential energy

So again, isn't the PE explanation a SUFFICIENT one?
Why is the explosives explanation a NECESSARY one?

As you can see, there are trying enormous amounts of energy in a tall building's collapse.  A cartwheeling 40' section of an I beam certainly can deflect a 4 ton section of an I beam hundreds of feet sideways.  Or it slides sideways on a rubble heap.  Or a section of the perimeter columns tilts over like on a pivot (which IS SEEN in the video) and imparts energy.  

There are several problems with your logic. First of all you are taking the entire energy force of the building (I assume, you still haven't explained where you get your numbers from), and claiming all of it is available to some how fling these multi-ton objects laterally. The calculation I provided was for ONE single 4-ton girder, and you are attempting to use the entire crushing force of the building as an energy source in comparison claiming it is not very much. Multiplied thousands of times to account for the fact that this force does not just act on one single girder, your comparison dwindles. Additionally the buildings were not a perfectly engineered projectile launcher, it was an open space with giant gaps for air pressure to flow out of, meaning that this force had to be MUCH larger in order to act with such pressure against the fact that there was not an airtight seal acting only upon a single girder. Your argument reminds be a lot of gun control freaks who try to compare US and UK gun crimes stats without correcting for population and claiming this is a valid comparison.

The second gaping hole in your logic, is that all of that energy is directed DOWNWARDS by gravity, not laterally. The rubble heap was not tall enough to account for your "sliding" theory, and even if the girder was "cartwheeling", a massive force still had to act upon it to send it flying. Describing a different type of movement of the object does not explain away the amounts of energy required to send it on this path. Again, Newtons 3rd law states every action has an equal and opposite reaction, hence that free falling "cartweeling 40' section" would absorb the impact of the 4-ton girder, it does not account for some "unexplained" propelling force away from it, it is not attached to anything providing sufficient resistance or force to make it magically fly laterally. Even if by some miracle this were true, you still need to account for the massive lateral force provided by that 40" section, which would require EVEN MORE lateral force! In effect you are arguing against your own point. Again your argument has no substance, it basically just consists of deny deny deny, and hey look over here!

[BADecker]

.. the falling section of the tower would be crushed itself along with the floors it is crushing below it, meaning that if the building was structurally equivalent (it was not, the building is build progressively stronger as you travel down the building) it would crush the top 12 floors at the same time as it collapsed the 12 floors beneath it, leaving nothing solid to act as a "pile driver" to crush the remaining floors below it.

This is not true.  When the top section moves as one piece down just one floor, it is acting as a dynamic, not a static load.  As the top 20-30 floors is moving as one section, it's internal stresses balance each other out.

Yes the floors were progressively stronger as you go down.  But that's nothing compared to the momentum from above.  

Here is a simple example.  A bowling ball weighs 10 lb, and rolls off a table 48" high onto your foot.  Once it hits your foot it dissipates it's energy in 0.25 inches.  The force on your foot is -

F = 48/.25 * 10 = 1920 pounds.  Your foot is crushed.  

Once the pile driver effect starts it can't be stopped.  

Except for one minor detail. There was no heat from burning fuel that was hot enough to weaken the structure symmetrically enough that it would fall directly into its own footprint. The fact of people walking around in the damaged section of the building shows this.

If the little bit of heat from the burning fuel did any damage, the damage would have been........

That's #2.  I'm on #3 and #4 currently.  Here are Tecshare's assertions.  We'll get to #1 and #2.

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.  

3.  The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel multiple 4 ton steel beams hundreds of feet laterally at the readily observable velocities demonstrated.

4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings cannot coexist with a building collapse due to the resistant force created at the building impacts the lower levels of itself.

I should be gentle with you. It's difficult for you or anyone to eat crow. So, relax. I am sure you are a great person, even though you have overextended yourself this time.



EDIT: The planes were probably almost empty of fuel. The black clouds of smoke in the crashes, were premature setting off of the planted explosives... set off by the crashing planes, of course.

This is reasonable since there were no black, billowing clouds of smoke in B-7, since there were no crashes there.   

[Spendulus]

That's 4.3 x 0.0001 x 2000 lb/ton = 8.6 lb of explosive (EQUAL TO 40,000 joules).  

But PE = mgh, mass gravity height,

E= 8000 lb * 32 ft/sec^2 * 1000 = 2.4 * 10^7 joules.

40,000 joules from your explosives
24,000,000 joules of  PE, potential energy

So again, isn't the PE explanation a SUFFICIENT one?
Why is the explosives explanation a NECESSARY one?

As you can see, there are trying enormous amounts of energy in a tall building's collapse.  A cartwheeling 40' section of an I beam certainly can deflect a 4 ton section of an I beam hundreds of feet sideways.  Or it slides sideways on a rubble heap.  Or a section of the perimeter columns tilts over like on a pivot (which IS SEEN in the video) and imparts energy.  

There are several problems with your logic. First of all you are taking the entire energy force of the building (I assume, you still haven't explained where you get your numbers from), and claiming all of it is available to some how fling these multi-ton objects laterally. The calculation I provided was for ONE single 4-ton girder....

Let me restate more clearly.

Energy required to set 4 ton steel section moving at 21meters per second
8 pounds of TNT, 40,000 joules from your link

Potential energy of that 4 ton steel section at 1000 feet
24,000,000 joules

That is JUST THE POTENTIAL ENERGY IN THAT BEAM FRAGMENT.

Now, given the distribution of debris from the towers' fall, the position of the beam fragment is within the normal distribution.  It is "within the conical mound of debris," although more or less the outer part of it.

[tvbcof]

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.  It would be excedingly dangerious to have the stuff imbeded in the quantity which seems necessary to so thorougly pulverize the reinforced concreate and create the turbidity flows which were documented.  Crashing any aircraft into the buildings which were rigged would have been a risky moment.  If it went wrong, however, the public would probably be just as inclined to buy a story about planes packed with explosives as they were with the pankake one or those stories which followed.

It does seem clear that much of the footage of the jet liners crashing into the buildings was phony.  I would entertain the thought that there were no aircraft at all.  One of the bits of footage I've seen seemed to show the initial damage imediately following the crash supposedly documented by the French dudes being light and the Wile E Coyote pattern being carved in in the seconds following the impact.

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.

[TECSHARE]

That's 4.3 x 0.0001 x 2000 lb/ton = 8.6 lb of explosive (EQUAL TO 40,000 joules).  

But PE = mgh, mass gravity height,

E= 8000 lb * 32 ft/sec^2 * 1000 = 2.4 * 10^7 joules.

40,000 joules from your explosives
24,000,000 joules of  PE, potential energy

So again, isn't the PE explanation a SUFFICIENT one?
Why is the explosives explanation a NECESSARY one?

As you can see, there are trying enormous amounts of energy in a tall building's collapse.  A cartwheeling 40' section of an I beam certainly can deflect a 4 ton section of an I beam hundreds of feet sideways.  Or it slides sideways on a rubble heap.  Or a section of the perimeter columns tilts over like on a pivot (which IS SEEN in the video) and imparts energy.  

There are several problems with your logic. First of all you are taking the entire energy force of the building (I assume, you still haven't explained where you get your numbers from), and claiming all of it is available to some how fling these multi-ton objects laterally. The calculation I provided was for ONE single 4-ton girder....

Let me restate more clearly.

Energy required to set 4 ton steel section moving at 21meters per second
8 pounds of TNT, 40,000 joules from your link

Potential energy of that 4 ton steel section at 1000 feet
24,000,000 joules

That is JUST THE POTENTIAL ENERGY IN THAT BEAM FRAGMENT.

Now, given the distribution of debris from the towers' fall, the position of the beam fragment is within the normal distribution.  It is "within the conical mound of debris," although more or less the outer part of it.

Unfortunately for your argument there was no "conical mound of debris". As I explained earlier one of the shocking facts noted by cleanup crews was the LACK of a taller debris pile. The debris field was wide but not tall consistent with explosives. FFS bone fragments of victims were still being found years later on distant rooftops. Collapses don't pulverize human bone and send it flying either.

[vokain]

That's 4.3 x 0.0001 x 2000 lb/ton = 8.6 lb of explosive (EQUAL TO 40,000 joules).  

But PE = mgh, mass gravity height,

E= 8000 lb * 32 ft/sec^2 * 1000 = 2.4 * 10^7 joules.

40,000 joules from your explosives
24,000,000 joules of  PE, potential energy

So again, isn't the PE explanation a SUFFICIENT one?
Why is the explosives explanation a NECESSARY one?

As you can see, there are trying enormous amounts of energy in a tall building's collapse.  A cartwheeling 40' section of an I beam certainly can deflect a 4 ton section of an I beam hundreds of feet sideways.  Or it slides sideways on a rubble heap.  Or a section of the perimeter columns tilts over like on a pivot (which IS SEEN in the video) and imparts energy.  

There are several problems with your logic. First of all you are taking the entire energy force of the building (I assume, you still haven't explained where you get your numbers from), and claiming all of it is available to some how fling these multi-ton objects laterally. The calculation I provided was for ONE single 4-ton girder....

Let me restate more clearly.

Energy required to set 4 ton steel section moving at 21meters per second
8 pounds of TNT, 40,000 joules from your link

Potential energy of that 4 ton steel section at 1000 feet
24,000,000 joules

That is JUST THE POTENTIAL ENERGY IN THAT BEAM FRAGMENT.

Now, given the distribution of debris from the towers' fall, the position of the beam fragment is within the normal distribution.  It is "within the conical mound of debris," although more or less the outer part of it.

Unfortunately for your argument there was no "conical mound of debris". As I explained earlier one of the shocking facts noted by cleanup crews was the LACK of a taller debris pile. The debris field was wide but not tall consistent with explosives. FFS bone fragments of victims were still being found years later on distant rooftops. Collapses don't pulverize human bone and send it flying either.

Are there videos showing an explosive force capable of ejecting bone fragments that far away?

[TECSHARE]

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.

[vokain]

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?