What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[Spendulus]

......
....

My bad. I had though you were a propagandist. Now we are seeing that you are a "funny farm" resident.

If i understand your rants correctly, anyone who disagrees with you about the Jews being responsible for 911 is a pro US Government propagandist.  But wouldn't they really be a pro Jew propagandist?  Or is the US gov in on the thing with the Jews?

Anti-US propaganda in the Middle East and the Islamic world has been a constant reality for the last fifty years.  The "Great Satan," the Evil Jews, etc.  Aren't you just one more of these voices? 

Since all you want to do with your blabber is lead folks away from the truth that 9/11 was an inside job, almost anything you say is designed to, simply, blab.

Now, 'cause you can't seem to find any real facts in favor of your blabbing, you start to turn this 9/11 thing into a religious war between Jews and Arabs.

911 was part of radical Islam's war against "the West."  You brought up Jews, who are an enemy of radical Islam.  You are the one talking about "an inside job."

You are just repeating anti US propaganda.

Have fun on ignore.

[1714627064]

1714627064

[1714627064]

1714627064

[1714627064]

1714627064

[BADecker]

......
....

My bad. I had though you were a propagandist. Now we are seeing that you are a "funny farm" resident.

If i understand your rants correctly, anyone who disagrees with you about the Jews being responsible for 911 is a pro US Government propagandist.  But wouldn't they really be a pro Jew propagandist?  Or is the US gov in on the thing with the Jews?

Anti-US propaganda in the Middle East and the Islamic world has been a constant reality for the last fifty years.  The "Great Satan," the Evil Jews, etc.  Aren't you just one more of these voices? 

Since all you want to do with your blabber is lead folks away from the truth that 9/11 was an inside job, almost anything you say is designed to, simply, blab.

Now, 'cause you can't seem to find any real facts in favor of your blabbing, you start to turn this 9/11 thing into a religious war between Jews and Arabs.

911 was part of radical Islam's war against "the West."  You brought up Jews, who are an enemy of radical Islam.  You are the one talking about "an inside job."

You are just repeating anti US propaganda.

Have fun on ignore.

Somebody says "Jews" one time, and you jump right on it. Why? Because you don't have anything else. Forget it. You are only making yourself look sillier than you are.

Ignore, huh? Have fun with your head in the sand.

[Spendulus]

......
....

My bad. I had though you were a propagandist. Now we are seeing that you are a "funny farm" resident.

If i understand your rants correctly, anyone who disagrees with you about the Jews being responsible for 911 is a pro US Government propagandist.  But wouldn't they really be a pro Jew propagandist?  Or is the US gov in on the thing with the Jews?

Anti-US propaganda in the Middle East and the Islamic world has been a constant reality for the last fifty years.  The "Great Satan," the Evil Jews, etc.  Aren't you just one more of these voices?  

Since all you want to do with your blabber is lead folks away from the truth that 9/11 was an inside job, almost anything you say is designed to, simply, blab.

Now, 'cause you can't seem to find any real facts in favor of your blabbing, you start to turn this 9/11 thing into a religious war between Jews and Arabs.

911 was part of radical Islam's war against "the West."  You brought up Jews, who are an enemy of radical Islam.  You are the one talking about "an inside job."

You are just repeating anti US propaganda.

Have fun on ignore.

Somebody says "Jews" one time, and you jump right on it. Why? Because you don't have anything else. Forget it. You are only making yourself look sillier than you are.

Ignore, huh? Have fun with your head in the sand.

Your words.

One or two of them (Jews), and several other evil people as well, and maybe many evil people of many different nationalities. However, if Arab terrorists were involved, they were the least part of the problem.

Your words.  You are spouting anti-American lying propaganda produced by Muslims, and intended to cast them in a light as victims of a 911 conspiracy, instead of showing those very Muslims as the cause of the 911 terrorist attack.

[TECSHARE]

....
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.

[Spendulus]

....
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.

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_body

d = 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)

[jerowacik]

it is a very powerful inspiration. I'm not sure who was responsible. however, I believe is that doing this is the most evil people in this world.

[TECSHARE]

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_body

d = 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.

[Spendulus]

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_body

d = 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_motion
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.

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.)

[TECSHARE]

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_body

d = 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_motion
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.

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.

[Spendulus]

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_body

d = 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_motion
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.

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.

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...

[TECSHARE]

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.

[tommorisonwebdesign]

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

[TECSHARE]

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.

[Spendulus]

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.....

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?

[BADecker]

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.....

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?

Playing with math, physics and chemistry is fun. But they don't apply just like this to 9/11. Why not? Because there are multitudes of variables that are being left out of the conversation, including multitudes of unknowns.

[Spendulus]

...
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.

[BADecker]

...
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.

The only 9/11 refutable with 8th grade math, chemistry, and physics, is an 8th grade 9/11, which did not take place.

[corsaronero1969]

Yes, with only 1 little difference. 2 or 3 years ago, the U.S District Court determined that, based on documentary evidence, it was proven that the Iranian government had an active participation in the attacks.

http://iran911case.com/
A certain president has done all he could to avoid this being discussed publicly, the same way he's doing all that he can now to avoid Saudi Arabia's involvement being discussed (especially after the "offended" Saudis threatened to pull out 750 Billion USD they hold in the USA..).

[BADecker]

Yes, with only 1 little difference. 2 or 3 years ago, the U.S District Court determined that, based on documentary evidence, it was proven that the Iranian government had an active participation in the attacks.

http://iran911case.com/
A certain president has done all he could to avoid this being discussed publicly, the same way he's doing all that he can now to avoid Saudi Arabia's involvement being discussed (especially after the "offended" Saudis threatened to pull out 750 Billion USD they hold in the USA..).

If all the hidden 9/11 things ever become known, we will probably find that there were multitudes of reasons why it was done, and many, many people who made out big because of it.

[TECSHARE]

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.