What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[btcbunny]

Many people in america think  that United States government insiders played a part in the attacks, or may have known the attacks were imminent, and did nothing to alert others or stop them. Some within the movement who argue that insiders within the United States government were directly responsible for the September 11 attacks often allege that the attacks were planned and executed in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to war in the Middle East, and, by extension, as a means of consolidating and extending the power of the Bush Administration. but it was a very sad thing which has happend to america many people lost there lives many lost there close ones nearly 3000 people died... Goverments should do something about all this to make sure that this kind of incident never take place again in the future

[1714626456]

1714626456

[1714626456]

1714626456

[1714626456]

1714626456

[1714626456]

1714626456

[Spendulus]

Yes, I did explain how PE is translated into sideways motion.  Twice.  It's possible you missed it or I did not state it clearly.   I'll be happy to state it again, or just pull the explanation from a book and link to it.

Here's a third attempt, though.  A long time ago, building designers created "arches" and used them.  Think Roman era.  But balancing tension and compression forces wasn't understood.  A simple circular arch in stone would cause failure, and at the points of failure, the stones would be thrown out sideways.  The arch that balanced tension and compression was later figured out.  Now in the WTC case, you will agree that there was careful and sophisticated balancing of forces.  But when they started to come down, that balancing ceased to exist.  Of course pieces would be thrown out sideways. 

At the tail end of the WTC towers' fall all the PE is translated into some or all of four things.  Heat, a bigger hole in the ground, sideways motion, and/or fractured materials.

How do we know this?  Because the PE does not exist anymore.  It's gone.  One of the easiest of these four factors to understand is sideways motion, because in any movement of a group of junk toward the ground, sideways motion occurs.  You accept that.  You just have a problem with the 21 meters per second.  Is that correct?  If it was nominal, you would shrug it off.  

However, equations exist for the size and shape of piles of rubble.   Civil engineer stuff.  "If we put 500 dump trucks of stuff over there, how big will it be around the base?"
You have posted yourself illustrations of the size and extent of the debris of the twin towers.  You've admitted it went out laterally to the extent of 500-600 feet.  To me this is just part of the necessary dissipation of the potential energy.  A quick google search indicates the PE of one WTC tower's fall to be > 150 tons of TNT...

But there's just something about a 4 ton piece of steel going out six hundred feet that  bothers you.  

Why?

No, you didn't. Additionally this is your first attempt at explaining this mechanism. Up until now you just claimed the force was sufficient to throw the 4-ton sections 600 feet sideways without explaining HOW that occurred. Your excuse is still as absurd as ever. Again it is nothing more than a baseless theory to deflect away from examination of the physics of the problem. The WTC towers were not composed of arches, and it is not a horizontal structure like a bridge. Nothing you have said so far explains how these 4-ton sections ended up hundreds of feet away from the towers in EVERY direction. You are not explaining any physical mechanism, just making extremely generalized claims of what you claim could have happened. Your theories are not consistent with a collapse no matter how much you thrash and flail.

 You also still haven't explained how exactly the towers could collapse at free fall speed equivalent to there being no resistance to the fall, consistent with a controlled demolition, but not a collapse.....

Nobody claimed "the WTC towers were composed of arches <<blah blah blah>>

The basics of structural analysis is statics and dynamics.  Statics covers bridges, arches and such things as the framework of a building.  It explains how loads are transferred between points.  You asked about sideways loads.  Even an improperly designed house roof can generate sideways loads, and collapse.  Roof trusses solve that. 

It is not possible to understand statics and claim there is no sideways load on a structure even two stories high, only that it is contained within frameworks by tension on some members, and compression on others.  Break the right part, you certainly will see things flying outwards.  The actual energy in these members under tension or under compression is quite easy to calculate.  For something like a skyscraper, they are going to be huge numbers. 

Frankly one thing that's rather baffling is that you'd like to assert "controlled demolition" but then the building would have collapsed inward.  But at the same time you're saying it exploded outwards.  So which is it?  Or is your theory just incompetant ninja demolition experts? 

So first you have incompetent terrorists that can't down the buildings with their planes, followed by incompetent demolition guys, and then followed by incompetent explosives guys?  Really?


 You also still haven't explained how exactly the towers could collapse at free fall speed...

Actually I did answer this.  The seismic record doesn't even agree with your assertion.  Other 911 conspiracy theorists do not agree with it.  So what is it?  How do you prove the fall was at 9.8 meters per second (AGAINST the seismic record???), and with what accuracy and precision?

Please no "proof by youtube."   So what is it?  Is it "about free fall speed?  Exactly free fall speed?" 

[Spendulus]

These statements -

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.

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.

- are simply wrong.

Please review Newton's First Law.  An object does not require additional energy for each foot it goes further.  Consider a car.  If rolling, engine off, on a level surface, it only needs additional energy to overcome friction of moving bearings and air resistance.  

Air resistance can be disregarded for this case and size of an object.  If you disagree, we can calculate the effect of air resistance.  But it will be a small amount, an incremental amount.  Gravity, a downward force, does not prevent or hinder injection of a sideways force.

There is no such thing as a requirement for "an exponentially higher amount for every foot further it moves sideways."

Do you persist in this misunderstanding or agree with me?  If you still don't agree, then please simply show your work using the equations of motion and gravity.

Thanks.

[BADecker]

These statements -

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.

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.

- are simply wrong.

Please review Newton's First Law.  An object does not require additional energy for each foot it goes further.  Consider a car.  If rolling, engine off, on a level surface, it only needs additional energy to overcome friction of moving bearings and air resistance.  

Air resistance can be disregarded for this case and size of an object.  If you disagree, we can calculate the effect of air resistance.  But it will be a small amount, an incremental amount.  Gravity, a downward force, does not prevent or hinder injection of a sideways force.

There is no such thing as a requirement for "an exponentially higher amount for every foot further it moves sideways."

Do you persist in this misunderstanding or agree with me?  If you still don't agree, then please simply show your work using the equations of motion and gravity.

Thanks.

Starting to get a little off-topic, aren't you? Your "stuff" might have a little to do with 9/11 in some ways, and it might be reasonably accurate in itself, but it doesn't take into account many other things regarding 9/11, that combined prove 9/11 to be an inside job.

The topic is about 9/11, not about a bunch of math, chemistry and physics that can never be shown to fit the 9/11 inside-job tragedy.

[Spendulus]

These statements -

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.

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.

- are simply wrong.

Please review Newton's First Law.  An object does not require additional energy for each foot it goes further.  Consider a car.  If rolling, engine off, on a level surface, it only needs additional energy to overcome friction of moving bearings and air resistance.  

Air resistance can be disregarded for this case and size of an object.  If you disagree, we can calculate the effect of air resistance.  But it will be a small amount, an incremental amount.  Gravity, a downward force, does not prevent or hinder injection of a sideways force.

There is no such thing as a requirement for "an exponentially higher amount for every foot further it moves sideways."

Do you persist in this misunderstanding or agree with me?  If you still don't agree, then please simply show your work using the equations of motion and gravity.

Thanks.

Starting to get a little off-topic, aren't you? Your "stuff" might have a little to do with 9/11 in some ways, and it might be reasonably accurate in itself, but it doesn't take into account many other things regarding 9/11, that combined prove 9/11 to be an inside job.

The topic is about 9/11, not about a bunch of math, chemistry and physics that can never be shown to fit the 9/11 inside-job tragedy.

I'm not the one claiming that a 4 ton chunk of steel moving sideways 600 feet positively proves controlled demolition eg explosives. 

I only debunked this claim that moving it 600 feet positively proves explosives.  It does not.

You are welcome or Tecshare is welcome to devise various theories that do not require this claim.

Myself I like the Galactic Energy Ray from Alpha Centauri theory.

[BADecker]

These statements -

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.

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.

- are simply wrong.

Please review Newton's First Law.  An object does not require additional energy for each foot it goes further.  Consider a car.  If rolling, engine off, on a level surface, it only needs additional energy to overcome friction of moving bearings and air resistance.  

Air resistance can be disregarded for this case and size of an object.  If you disagree, we can calculate the effect of air resistance.  But it will be a small amount, an incremental amount.  Gravity, a downward force, does not prevent or hinder injection of a sideways force.

There is no such thing as a requirement for "an exponentially higher amount for every foot further it moves sideways."

Do you persist in this misunderstanding or agree with me?  If you still don't agree, then please simply show your work using the equations of motion and gravity.

Thanks.

Starting to get a little off-topic, aren't you? Your "stuff" might have a little to do with 9/11 in some ways, and it might be reasonably accurate in itself, but it doesn't take into account many other things regarding 9/11, that combined prove 9/11 to be an inside job.

The topic is about 9/11, not about a bunch of math, chemistry and physics that can never be shown to fit the 9/11 inside-job tragedy.

I'm not the one claiming that a 4 ton chunk of steel moving sideways 600 feet positively proves controlled demolition eg explosives. 

I only debunked this claim that moving it 600 feet positively proves explosives.  It does not.

You are welcome or Tecshare is welcome to devise various theories that do not require this claim.

Myself I like the Galactic Energy Ray from Alpha Centauri theory.

I'm not the one claiming that a 4-ton chunk of steel moving sideways 600 feet positively proves controlled demolition eg explosives. And I'm not the one claiming that it doesn't. I'm the one showing that it is irrelevant to the inside-job idea, because there are way too many points not being discussed, some of which can't be discussed because they are unknowns.

I suppose that with a topic title like, "What do you think about 9/11 mystery?" one can really discuss all kinds of aspects of 9/11 without really being quite off topic. Yet the OP seems to indicate that the topic revolves around the idea that 9/11 may have been an inside job... at least that there are many unanswered questions.

[BADecker]

There was a Middle East king who had 3 ambassadors. He wanted to make one of them his prime minister. So he devised a test to find out which of the three was most qualified.

The king had the 3 guys sit down in a circle (triangle?) facing each other. Then he showed them 5 little stones in his hand. Two of the stones were black, and three of them where white.

Then the king walked around the 3 guys and placed a little white stone in the top-front of the turban of each. He positioned the stones where an ambassador could not see the stone in the top of his own turban, but the other two could see it easily. The king tucked the two black stones away in his robe without revealing which stones he had tucked away.

Then the king said, "The man who can tell me the color of the stone in his own turban can be my prime minister. But if you guess, and you guess wrong, it is off with your head. In addition, no cheating, or it is off with your head."

The guys sat and thought about it for a while. But finally one of the guys said, "I can't figure this out. I give up. It isn't worth guessing about." A short time later a second ambassador said essentially the same thing, and gave up, as well.

The third ambassador jumped up and said, "I have a white stone." He knew he had a white stone. He wasn't guessing. How did he know that he had a white stone?

There is a logical way to figure out how he knew that he had a white stone. It doesn't have anything to do with guessing, or with the idea that the other two guys gave up anyway. When you figure it out, apply that kind of reasoning to what we know about 9/11, and you will see that the official story is one of the worst conspiracy theories of all.

[protokol]

There was a Middle East king who had 3 ambassadors. He wanted to make one of them his prime minister. So he devised a test to find out which of the three was most qualified.

The king had the 3 guys sit down in a circle (triangle?) facing each other. Then he showed them 5 little stones in his hand. Two of the stones were black, and three of them where white.

Then the king walked around the 3 guys and placed a little white stone in the top-front of the turban of each. He positioned the stones where an ambassador could not see the stone in the top of his own turban, but the other two could see it easily. The king tucked the two black stones away in his robe without revealing which stones he had tucked away.

Then the king said, "The man who can tell me the color of the stone in his own turban can be my prime minister. But if you guess, and you guess wrong, it is off with your head. In addition, no cheating, or it is off with your head."

The guys sat and thought about it for a while. But finally one of the guys said, "I can't figure this out. I give up. It isn't worth guessing about." A short time later a second ambassador said essentially the same thing, and gave up, as well.

The third ambassador jumped up and said, "I have a white stone." He knew he had a white stone. He wasn't guessing. How did he know that he had a white stone?

There is a logical way to figure out how he knew that he had a white stone. It doesn't have anything to do with guessing, or with the idea that the other two guys gave up anyway. When you figure it out, apply that kind of reasoning to what we know about 9/11, and you will see that the official story is one of the worst conspiracy theories of all.

So the first guy thinks that if he has a black stone, then guy number 2 would know that if he also has a black stone guy number 3 would have said "I have a white stone". But he doesn't. The same applies to guy number 3 - if he had a black stone as well as guy number 1, then number 2 would have shouted out.

Because both guy number 2 and number 3 give up, he concludes that he must have a white stone. If he was the only guy with the black stone, one of the other guys could have worked out that their stones was white because neither claimed to have the white stone.

I think this is a solution, but I think that it does depend on the 2 guys giving up, I don't see how the logic problem is solvable without the 2 guys giving up. I also don't see how this applies to the topic.

Here's one for you:

Two 9/11 conspiracy theorists die in a plane crash, reach the afterlife and come face to face with God, who tells them:

"You may enter heaven my children"

So one of the conspiracy theorists asks God "Before we go, there's one thing we'd like to ask you..."

"Go ahead my child, what do you wish to know?"

"Well, who was actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks?"

God replies, "It was the muslim extremists, Al Quaeda and Osama bin Laden of course, they hijacked planes and caused the whole atrocity!"

One conspiracy theorist turns to the other and says:

"Shit man, this conspiracy goes way higher up than we realized!"

[mindrust]

It seems the US is preparing to blame Saudi's for the attack nowadays. It has been 7-8 years since the last economic crisis and the  best method to get out of economic crisis is creating wars, liberating middle east countries and steal their shit.

Will the US liberate Saudi Arabia next? What do you think?

I think they were going to liberate Iran but Iran isn't a helpless child. They probably have real nuclear missiles and Russia won't just watch while Iran is getting occupied.

So i think the US decided to mess with his own pawn instead of Russia's pawn. It is just cheaper

[xht]

It seems the US is preparing to blame Saudi's for the attack nowadays. It has been 7-8 years since the last economic crisis and the  best method to get out of economic crisis is creating wars, liberating middle east countries and steal their shit.

Will the US liberate Saudi Arabia next? What do you think?

I think they were going to liberate Iran but Iran isn't a helpless child. They probably have real nuclear missiles and Russia won't just watch while Iran is getting occupied.

So i think the US decided to mess with his own pawn instead of Russia's pawn. It is just cheaper

No one blame saudi in this case, this is still in investigation. i think we will never know who is behind of this tragedy.

[Spendulus]

There was a Middle East king who had 3 ambassadors. ....When you figure it out, apply that kind of reasoning to what we know about 9/11, and you will see that the official story is one of the worst conspiracy theories of all.

So it was a Middle East king that did 911?

Lol...

[BADecker]

There was a Middle East king who had 3 ambassadors. He wanted to make one of them his prime minister. So he devised a test to find out which of the three was most qualified.

The king had the 3 guys sit down in a circle (triangle?) facing each other. Then he showed them 5 little stones in his hand. Two of the stones were black, and three of them where white.

Then the king walked around the 3 guys and placed a little white stone in the top-front of the turban of each. He positioned the stones where an ambassador could not see the stone in the top of his own turban, but the other two could see it easily. The king tucked the two black stones away in his robe without revealing which stones he had tucked away.

Then the king said, "The man who can tell me the color of the stone in his own turban can be my prime minister. But if you guess, and you guess wrong, it is off with your head. In addition, no cheating, or it is off with your head."

The guys sat and thought about it for a while. But finally one of the guys said, "I can't figure this out. I give up. It isn't worth guessing about." A short time later a second ambassador said essentially the same thing, and gave up, as well.

The third ambassador jumped up and said, "I have a white stone." He knew he had a white stone. He wasn't guessing. How did he know that he had a white stone?

There is a logical way to figure out how he knew that he had a white stone. It doesn't have anything to do with guessing, or with the idea that the other two guys gave up anyway. When you figure it out, apply that kind of reasoning to what we know about 9/11, and you will see that the official story is one of the worst conspiracy theories of all.

So the first guy thinks that if he has a black stone, then guy number 2 would know that if he also has a black stone guy number 3 would have said "I have a white stone". But he doesn't. The same applies to guy number 3 - if he had a black stone as well as guy number 1, then number 2 would have shouted out.

Because both guy number 2 and number 3 give up, he concludes that he must have a white stone. If he was the only guy with the black stone, one of the other guys could have worked out that their stones was white because neither claimed to have the white stone.

I think this is a solution, but I think that it does depend on the 2 guys giving up, I don't see how the logic problem is solvable without the 2 guys giving up. I also don't see how this applies to the topic.

Here's one for you:

Two 9/11 conspiracy theorists die in a plane crash, reach the afterlife and come face to face with God, who tells them:

"You may enter heaven my children"

So one of the conspiracy theorists asks God "Before we go, there's one thing we'd like to ask you..."

"Go ahead my child, what do you wish to know?"

"Well, who was actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks?"

God replies, "It was the muslim extremists, Al Quaeda and Osama bin Laden of course, they hijacked planes and caused the whole atrocity!"

One conspiracy theorist turns to the other and says:

"Shit man, this conspiracy goes way higher up than we realized!"

From 2 Corinthians 11:14

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

The conspiracy theorists didn't make it to Heaven at all.

[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.....

Nobody claimed "the WTC towers were composed of arches <<blah blah blah>>

The basics of structural analysis is statics and dynamics.  Statics covers bridges, arches and such things as the framework of a building.  It explains how loads are transferred between points.  You asked about sideways loads.  Even an improperly designed house roof can generate sideways loads, and collapse.  Roof trusses solve that.  

It is not possible to understand statics and claim there is no sideways load on a structure even two stories high, only that it is contained within frameworks by tension on some members, and compression on others.  Break the right part, you certainly will see things flying outwards.  The actual energy in these members under tension or under compression is quite easy to calculate.  For something like a skyscraper, they are going to be huge numbers.  

Frankly one thing that's rather baffling is that you'd like to assert "controlled demolition" but then the building would have collapsed inward.  But at the same time you're saying it exploded outwards.  So which is it?  Or is your theory just incompetant ninja demolition experts?  

So first you have incompetent terrorists that can't down the buildings with their planes, followed by incompetent demolition guys, and then followed by incompetent explosives guys?  Really?


 You also still haven't explained how exactly the towers could collapse at free fall speed...

Actually I did answer this.  The seismic record doesn't even agree with your assertion.  Other 911 conspiracy theorists do not agree with it.  So what is it?  How do you prove the fall was at 9.8 meters per second (AGAINST the seismic record???), and with what accuracy and precision?

Please no "proof by youtube."   So what is it?  Is it "about free fall speed?  Exactly free fall speed?"  

By "basic" you mean generalized, nonspecific, and nonapplicable.  It doesn't explain anything. You are just making claims about a general concept without explaining exactly what happened. It is convenient you declare that you do not have to detail any physical actions in specific that created this repeating effect in all directions around the building with such consistency. Roofs don't fly 600 feet sideways, sorry. Again you are just making proclamations and claims without ANY BACKING whatsoever. I have provided PAGES of sources, calculations, documented physical evidence and other references. You have nothing but empty claims and assertions.

Frankly one thing that's rather baffling is that you'd like to assert "controlled demolition" but then the building would have collapsed inward.  But at the same time you're saying it exploded outwards.  So which is it?  Or is your theory just incompetant ninja demolition experts?  

So first you have incompetent terrorists that can't down the buildings with their planes, followed by incompetent demolition guys, and then followed by incompetent explosives guys?  Really?

The building did collapse inward, right into its own footprint. Not once but THREE TIMES, at free fall speeds. The statistical odds of this happening 3 times with a collapse are FUCKING ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely, IE IMPOSSIBLE. Here you go again with your ninjas, I thought we established your belittling shaming tactics aren't effective on me and only serve to make you look the bigger fool. Oh well, fool on dancing boy.

As far as your assertion that controlled demolitions don't have ejections, you might just want to double check on that one. Even in regular building implosions they deploy netting around the building to catch ejections, and also create a large exclusion area around the building for safety. Some times even that is not enough. Usually ejections are mitigated for safety reasons, but considering this attack was designed to kill thousands of people, safety was not exactly a high priority was it? Additionally the term "implosion" is a misnomer. It employs explosives to cause the structure to collapse upon itself. It doesn't physically suck in air, so your argument here is nothing more than the usual semantic gymnastics in a pathetic attempt to justify your own nonsense.

Actually I did answer this.  The seismic record doesn't even agree with your assertion.  Other 911 conspiracy theorists do not agree with it.  So what is it?  How do you prove the fall was at 9.8 meters per second (AGAINST the seismic record???), and with what accuracy and precision?

Please no "proof by youtube."   So what is it?  Is it "about free fall speed?  Exactly free fall speed?"  

Actually, no. You didn't. You made claims about pile drivers and crushing forces which I quickly was able to disprove based on Newtons 3rd law, demonstrating it would be impossible for 12 floors above to crush the ENTIRE building below before it was destroyed itself. I never brought the seismic record into this, you did. I don't give a fuck what "other conspiracy theorists" agree with. I represent and speak for my self, not anyone else, and they don't represent me either. I am not attempting to prove the speed of the fall of the building with the seismic record, this is your claim not mine. It is proven by the hundreds of videos publicly documenting the speed of the fall which can easily be charted with quite a bit of accuracy as I have already shown. Considering that the evidence of the free fall speed is video, it is rather convenient you dismiss "proof by youtube" now isn't it? Perhaps you want to prohibit "proof by internet", or "proof by physics" next to make absolutely sure there is no way to present physical evidence which conflicts with your own confirmation bias?

How about the final version of the NIST official report where they are forced to admit free fall speeds of WTC 7?

"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face.  This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s."

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

In order for there to be free fall speeds at ANY time in the "collapse" the resistant force of the support structure has to be COMPLETELY removed. In an actual collapse, the loss of energy as the floors impact each other results in the slowing of the momentum of the fall. This is not up for debate, it is a FACT.

Here is a detailed analysis of the NIST report demonstrating that there was in fact free fall speeds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCDpL4Ax7I


Lets review the calculations for free fall speeds:

So, as an object falls, it gives up potential energy for kinetic energy.

The equation for potential energy-

Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height


The equation for kinetic energy-

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared)


The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's the free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

or

2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)


Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity


Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.

Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.

The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies which encounter zero resistance, as in a vacuum. In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy. Anything which interferes with any falling object's downward progress will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance. Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.



A review of why the official story for the collapse is physically impossible, including a reference to your precious seismic data, which shows the length of the fall of the tower at 8.4 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxM2DHX_zsk


More analysis of the ejections from the towers demonstrating explosive arc consistent with explosives, and excluding collapse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7kGZ3XPEm4


I have provided pages and pages of reputable sources, calculations, witnesses, expert testimony, documented physical evidence, a lot even from official reports. Lets list everything I have provided so far to back my argument:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTa_XL_k8fY
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/646-faq-8-what-is-nanothermite-could-it-have-been-used-to-demolish-the-wtc-skyscrapers.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang
https://i.imgur.com/EOin4tE.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-forbes-interview.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratesec
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2016-featured-story-archive/bush-as-director-of-central-intelligence.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/gps-01k.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/img383.imageshack.us_img383_3036_moltenmetalpp1.jpg
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
http://censored.strategicbrains.com/Graphics/MoltenMetalSmokingGun/SpillingSteel2.jpg
http://censored.strategicbrains.com/Graphics/MoltenMetalSmokingGun/RedHotMetal.jpg
http://censored.strategicbrains.com/Graphics/MoltenMetalSmokingGun/ShovelPickingUpHotMetal2.jpg
http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/molten-steel-at-wtc-448x300.jpg
https://i711.photobucket.com/albums/ww114/peterene/pic89059.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elYw7MHf7GQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCAoJuDw2Ic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HMqx0m9DG4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK2TTl6LAnk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUsg6UUHFxs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtiCUUj0RwU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=913Am7ZScVM
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a022793skilling&scale=0#a022793skilling
http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forging_temperature
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cK2TTl6LAnk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS0wcajrgpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djwBCEmHrSE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne1FJBVkh4s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjmktbt-F_Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocljtvzQVMc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYSV2OxAvZE
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/sep/12/towers_built_to/
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/myPictures/impactreportsp2.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805074287/
http://www.911truth.org/ul-executive-speaks-out-on-wtc-study/
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm
http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/research/nfpa-reports/occupancies/oshighrise.pdf?la=en
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang
https://imgur.com/EOin4tE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjSd9wB55zk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8
https://youtu.be/U9nE372Ymc4?t=318
http://www.1728.org/energy.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/Exhibit_C.jpg
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/Exhibit_K.jpg
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/debris_field_sm.jpg
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/Exhibit_I.jpg
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk43/SPrestonUSA/SPUSA/Exhibit_F.jpg
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022369711000308
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAD8HlrLZg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1Fye_H1wIM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd70TwKS3qo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8QCQudNEtY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc1ql4TfCZw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt8PMLTmcng
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex
https://web.archive.org/web/20131022123450/http://newamericancentury.org/
http://wayback.archive.org/web/20020923154604/http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
https://www.aclu.org/infographic/surveillance-under-patriot-act
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/martial_law_made_easy.html
https://www.aclu.org/fix-fisa-end-warrantless-wiretapping
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr5005
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.j.res.00064:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:s.01510:
https://www.unodc.org/pdf/publications/afg_opium_survey_2002.pdf
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants1.html
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants2.html
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants5.html
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants6.html
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants7.html
https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805076824/
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/07/09/the-price-of-oil
https://web.archive.org/web/20070331031508/http:/www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/27904/Ground_Zero_for_the_Secret_Service.html?detectflash=false&
https://web.archive.org/web/20020911154453/http://www.thestreet.com/markets/matthewgoldstein/10041194.html
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/11/18/evidence-for-informed-trading-on-the-attacks-of-september-11/
https://web.archive.org/web/20010918033937/http://www.nylawyer.com/news/01/09/091701e.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/25/nyregion/25TOWE.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20011130225259/http://www.nylawyer.com/news/01/09/091701e.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm


I have documented MEANS, MOTIVE, and OPPORTUNITY.


Your contribution to this debate-

Denials
Unsubstantiated claims
Conjecture
Allegories about objects in orbit and bridges
Ninjas
A Galactic Energy Ray from Alpha Centauri

[Spendulus]

....I represent and speak for my self, not anyone else, and they don't represent me either. I am not attempting to prove the speed of the fall of the building with the seismic record, this is your claim not mine. It is proven by the hundreds of videos publicly documenting the speed of the fall which can easily be charted with quite a bit of accuracy as I have already shown. Considering that the evidence of the free fall speed is video....
Lets review the calculations for free fall speeds:

So, as an object falls, it gives up potential energy for kinetic energy.

Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared)

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall....
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)
Time = 9.2

....to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec...

The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies which encounter zero resistance, as in a vacuum. In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy.

Anything which interferes with any falling object's downward progress will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance. Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.

A review of why the official story for the collapse is physically impossible, including a reference to your precious seismic data, which shows the length of the fall of the tower at 8.4 seconds....(youtube linky)

So let me ask again.  What exactly is your claim?  Can you just state it in seconds and please provide a margin of error.  Because I just looked at the seismic record again and I'm just scratching my head wondering where you get not just a certain number, but a number so certain that you can proceed to the claim "Ah HAH!  Explosives!"  And I looked at the videos but there is so much dust and crap in the air around the buildings, I don't think I could state the exact number except maybe plus or minus a couple of seconds.

All that needs be done to account for resistance to the downward motion is to introduce a term for that.  Examples -

D = 1/2 D * T^(2-TERM)

or perhaps

D = (1/2 D * T^2) - c*D where c is a constant

and so forth.  Easy and well understood in ballistics and aerodynamic.  

So which is it?  An aerodynamic drag or a drag from the building struts being sheared?  Do you have a calculation for those factors and terms or just the assertions?

And somehow you know this with a degree of precision that enables you to pronounce "Explosives had to be used!"   Sorry, this isn't clear at all.  I think it's clear there is no such certainty.  But let's hear it.

By the way, are you ready to concede the point that exponentially higher forces are required to move an object successive distances sideways?  I notice you don't seem to want to continue talking about that?

[protokol]

There was a Middle East king who had 3 ambassadors. He wanted to make one of them his prime minister. So he devised a test to find out which of the three was most qualified.

The king had the 3 guys sit down in a circle (triangle?) facing each other. Then he showed them 5 little stones in his hand. Two of the stones were black, and three of them where white.

Then the king walked around the 3 guys and placed a little white stone in the top-front of the turban of each. He positioned the stones where an ambassador could not see the stone in the top of his own turban, but the other two could see it easily. The king tucked the two black stones away in his robe without revealing which stones he had tucked away.

Then the king said, "The man who can tell me the color of the stone in his own turban can be my prime minister. But if you guess, and you guess wrong, it is off with your head. In addition, no cheating, or it is off with your head."

The guys sat and thought about it for a while. But finally one of the guys said, "I can't figure this out. I give up. It isn't worth guessing about." A short time later a second ambassador said essentially the same thing, and gave up, as well.

The third ambassador jumped up and said, "I have a white stone." He knew he had a white stone. He wasn't guessing. How did he know that he had a white stone?

There is a logical way to figure out how he knew that he had a white stone. It doesn't have anything to do with guessing, or with the idea that the other two guys gave up anyway. When you figure it out, apply that kind of reasoning to what we know about 9/11, and you will see that the official story is one of the worst conspiracy theories of all.

So the first guy thinks that if he has a black stone, then guy number 2 would know that if he also has a black stone guy number 3 would have said "I have a white stone". But he doesn't. The same applies to guy number 3 - if he had a black stone as well as guy number 1, then number 2 would have shouted out.

Because both guy number 2 and number 3 give up, he concludes that he must have a white stone. If he was the only guy with the black stone, one of the other guys could have worked out that their stones was white because neither claimed to have the white stone.

I think this is a solution, but I think that it does depend on the 2 guys giving up, I don't see how the logic problem is solvable without the 2 guys giving up. I also don't see how this applies to the topic.

Here's one for you:

Two 9/11 conspiracy theorists die in a plane crash, reach the afterlife and come face to face with God, who tells them:

"You may enter heaven my children"

So one of the conspiracy theorists asks God "Before we go, there's one thing we'd like to ask you..."

"Go ahead my child, what do you wish to know?"

"Well, who was actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks?"

God replies, "It was the muslim extremists, Al Quaeda and Osama bin Laden of course, they hijacked planes and caused the whole atrocity!"

One conspiracy theorist turns to the other and says:

"Shit man, this conspiracy goes way higher up than we realized!"

From 2 Corinthians 11:14

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

The conspiracy theorists didn't make it to Heaven at all.

Wat?

I just told you they did. This post I'm writing right now has just as much integrity as the bible. They are both things written by men.

So you're saying that "God" in my joke is actually satan? How do you know? And why didn't the conspiracy theorists go to heaven? Aren't you going to heaven?

More to the point, did I get your logic question right, and wtf does it have to do with 9/11? Also did you get the joke? Good, right?

[TECSHARE]

....I represent and speak for my self, not anyone else, and they don't represent me either. I am not attempting to prove the speed of the fall of the building with the seismic record, this is your claim not mine. It is proven by the hundreds of videos publicly documenting the speed of the fall which can easily be charted with quite a bit of accuracy as I have already shown. Considering that the evidence of the free fall speed is video....
Lets review the calculations for free fall speeds:

So, as an object falls, it gives up potential energy for kinetic energy.

Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared)

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall....
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)
Time = 9.2

....to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec...

The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies which encounter zero resistance, as in a vacuum. In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy.

Anything which interferes with any falling object's downward progress will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance. Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.

A review of why the official story for the collapse is physically impossible, including a reference to your precious seismic data, which shows the length of the fall of the tower at 8.4 seconds....(youtube linky)

So let me ask again.  What exactly is your claim?  Can you just state it in seconds and please provide a margin of error.  Because I just looked at the seismic record again and I'm just scratching my head wondering where you get not just a certain number, but a number so certain that you can proceed to the claim "Ah HAH!  Explosives!"  And I looked at the videos but there is so much dust and crap in the air around the buildings, I don't think I could state the exact number except maybe plus or minus a couple of seconds.

All that needs be done to account for resistance to the downward motion is to introduce a term for that.  Examples -

D = 1/2 D * T^(2-TERM)

or perhaps

D = (1/2 D * T^2) - c*D where c is a constant

and so forth.  Easy and well understood in ballistics and aerodynamic.  

So which is it?  An aerodynamic drag or a drag from the building struts being sheared?  Do you have a calculation for those factors and terms or just the assertions?

And somehow you know this with a degree of precision that enables you to pronounce "Explosives had to be used!"   Sorry, this isn't clear at all.  I think it's clear there is no such certainty.  But let's hear it.

By the way, are you ready to concede the point that exponentially higher forces are required to move an object successive distances sideways?  I notice you don't seem to want to continue talking about that?

I have already stated my claim clearly, several times. I don't need to argue about the seismic record and only mentioned it because you did, and the length of the seismic signal is shorter than free fall speeds. The buildings can clearly be seen from the moment of initiation to the moment they stop, there are about a thousand different angles to choose from. The view is especially clear with WTC 7. I noticed you had zero comment about NIST admitting free fall speeds as well. I guess even the official report is not good enough for you now?


How about the official 9/11 commission report which states it took 10 seconds for the first tower to collapse?

"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel  inside,  as  well  a  number  of  individuals—both  first responders and civilians—in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets"

Page 305 The 9/11 Commission Report

That number good enough for you hoss? I don't agree with it, but for the sake of argument lets use 10 seconds since it keeps you from endlessly diverting the debate with conjecture.

This number alone matches the profile of free fall speeds and does not account for air resistance nor the resistance of the increasingly stronger floors supposedly collapsing below it which would reduce the momentum of the collapse. At this point this is proof that it was not a collapse, because there HAS TO BE resistance from the air AND the structure below.

THE ONLY WAY the building could have fallen this fast is WITH EXPLOSIVE FORCE removing the resistance of the structure. I don't need to provide any more calculations for you to endlessly dither about to distract from this point, because this is proof in its own right. THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE states that the building fell within 0.8 seconds of free fall speed as calculated from WITHIN A VACUUM. 0.8 seconds is not anywhere close to enough time to account for air resistance let alone the resistance of crushing the structures below, even if Newton's third law did not prove that to be impossible. 0.8 seconds IS NOWHERE NEAR enough time to account for this discrepancy.

BTW, I am not conceding anything. I am not talking about the explosive ejection force required to move the 4-ton steel sections 600 feet laterally simply because I am too busy deconstructing your endless piles of baseless bullshit designed to distract from that point.

Once again, you provide no countering evidence of your own, but simply rely on denials, conjecture, and sewing implausible doubt with no factual basis behind your assertions. Maybe your ninja friends can explain this to you.

[Spendulus]

....I represent and speak for my self, not anyone else, and they don't represent me either. I am not attempting to prove the speed of the fall of the building with the seismic record, this is your claim not mine. It is proven by the hundreds of videos publicly documenting the speed of the fall which can easily be charted with quite a bit of accuracy as I have already shown. Considering that the evidence of the free fall speed is video....
Lets review the calculations for free fall speeds:

So, as an object falls, it gives up potential energy for kinetic energy.

Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared)

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall....
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)
Time = 9.2

....to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec...

The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies which encounter zero resistance, as in a vacuum. In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy.

Anything which interferes with any falling object's downward progress will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance. Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.

A review of why the official story for the collapse is physically impossible, including a reference to your precious seismic data, which shows the length of the fall of the tower at 8.4 seconds....(youtube linky)

So let me ask again.  What exactly is your claim?  Can you just state it in seconds and please provide a margin of error.  Because I just looked at the seismic record again and I'm just scratching my head wondering where you get not just a certain number, but a number so certain that you can proceed to the claim "Ah HAH!  Explosives!"  And I looked at the videos but there is so much dust and crap in the air around the buildings, I don't think I could state the exact number except maybe plus or minus a couple of seconds.

All that needs be done to account for resistance to the downward motion is to introduce a term for that.  Examples -

D = 1/2 D * T^(2-TERM)

or perhaps

D = (1/2 D * T^2) - c*D where c is a constant

and so forth.  Easy and well understood in ballistics and aerodynamic.  

So which is it?  An aerodynamic drag or a drag from the building struts being sheared?  Do you have a calculation for those factors and terms or just the assertions?

And somehow you know this with a degree of precision that enables you to pronounce "Explosives had to be used!"   Sorry, this isn't clear at all.  I think it's clear there is no such certainty.  But let's hear it.

By the way, are you ready to concede the point that exponentially higher forces are required to move an object successive distances sideways?  I notice you don't seem to want to continue talking about that?

I have already stated my claim clearly, several times. I don't need to argue about the seismic record and only mentioned it because you did, and the length of the seismic signal is shorter than free fall speeds. The buildings can clearly be seen from the moment of initiation to the moment they stop, there are about a thousand different angles to choose from. The view is especially clear with WTC 7. I noticed you had zero comment about NIST admitting free fall speeds as well. I guess even the official report is not good enough for you now?

....for the sake of argument lets use 10 seconds.... number alone matches the profile of free fall speeds and does not account for air resistance nor the resistance of the increasingly stronger floors supposedly collapsing below it which would reduce the momentum of the collapse. At this point this is proof that it was not a collapse, because there HAS TO BE resistance from the air AND the structure below.

THE ONLY WAY the building could have fallen this fast is WITH EXPLOSIVE FORCE removing the resistance of the structure. I don't need to provide any more calculations for you to endlessly dither about to distract from this point, because this is proof in its own right. THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE states that the building fell within 0.8 seconds of free fall speed as calculated from WITHIN A VACUUM. 0.8 seconds is not anywhere close to enough time to account for air resistance let alone the resistance of crushing the structures below, even if Newton's third law did not prove that to be impossible. 0.8 seconds IS NOWHERE NEAR enough time to account for this discrepancy.

BTW, I am not conceding anything. I am not talking about the explosive ejection force required to move the 4-ton steel sections 600 feet laterally simply because I am too busy deconstructing your endless piles of baseless bullshit designed to distract from that point.

Once again, you provide no countering evidence of your own...

Well, you said you speak for yourself, so there is no way for me to figure out what your argument is except just to ask, right? 

For a number of reasons I like a seismic record better than the video.  I stated my inability to accurately calculate the fall time from the video given the huge amounts of smoke and dust, whatever.  Actually, an acoustic record would also be interesting.

So the premise then is a 10 second fall plus or minus 0.8 seconds?  Then you would argue that these numbers are impossible without explosives being added to the PE of the buildings?  (by the way, I don't see any reason to segue into WTC 7, very different dynamics there.)

So this issue is concerned strictly with events AFTER the collapse beings.  Let's say 1 second after some unknown type of structural failure.

I would argue is that these premises do not NECESSARILY lead to the conclusion that explosives caused the subsequent events, and that the immense potential energy of the structure is SUFFICIENT to explain the fall rates, after some reasonable consideration for air resistance and a range of resistance or slowing-down from the floors below.

That sound fair?  If not, changes?

[BADecker]

There was a Middle East king who had 3 ambassadors. He wanted to make one of them his prime minister. So he devised a test to find out which of the three was most qualified.

The king had the 3 guys sit down in a circle (triangle?) facing each other. Then he showed them 5 little stones in his hand. Two of the stones were black, and three of them where white.

Then the king walked around the 3 guys and placed a little white stone in the top-front of the turban of each. He positioned the stones where an ambassador could not see the stone in the top of his own turban, but the other two could see it easily. The king tucked the two black stones away in his robe without revealing which stones he had tucked away.

Then the king said, "The man who can tell me the color of the stone in his own turban can be my prime minister. But if you guess, and you guess wrong, it is off with your head. In addition, no cheating, or it is off with your head."

The guys sat and thought about it for a while. But finally one of the guys said, "I can't figure this out. I give up. It isn't worth guessing about." A short time later a second ambassador said essentially the same thing, and gave up, as well.

The third ambassador jumped up and said, "I have a white stone." He knew he had a white stone. He wasn't guessing. How did he know that he had a white stone?

There is a logical way to figure out how he knew that he had a white stone. It doesn't have anything to do with guessing, or with the idea that the other two guys gave up anyway. When you figure it out, apply that kind of reasoning to what we know about 9/11, and you will see that the official story is one of the worst conspiracy theories of all.

So the first guy thinks that if he has a black stone, then guy number 2 would know that if he also has a black stone guy number 3 would have said "I have a white stone". But he doesn't. The same applies to guy number 3 - if he had a black stone as well as guy number 1, then number 2 would have shouted out.

Because both guy number 2 and number 3 give up, he concludes that he must have a white stone. If he was the only guy with the black stone, one of the other guys could have worked out that their stones was white because neither claimed to have the white stone.

I think this is a solution, but I think that it does depend on the 2 guys giving up, I don't see how the logic problem is solvable without the 2 guys giving up. I also don't see how this applies to the topic.

Here's one for you:

Two 9/11 conspiracy theorists die in a plane crash, reach the afterlife and come face to face with God, who tells them:

"You may enter heaven my children"

So one of the conspiracy theorists asks God "Before we go, there's one thing we'd like to ask you..."

"Go ahead my child, what do you wish to know?"

"Well, who was actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks?"

God replies, "It was the muslim extremists, Al Quaeda and Osama bin Laden of course, they hijacked planes and caused the whole atrocity!"

One conspiracy theorist turns to the other and says:

"Shit man, this conspiracy goes way higher up than we realized!"

From 2 Corinthians 11:14

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

The conspiracy theorists didn't make it to Heaven at all.

Wat?

I just told you they did. This post I'm writing right now has just as much integrity as the bible. They are both things written by men.

So you're saying that "God" in my joke is actually satan? How do you know? And why didn't the conspiracy theorists go to heaven? Aren't you going to heaven?

More to the point, did I get your logic question right, and wtf does it have to do with 9/11? Also did you get the joke? Good, right?

God probably chuckled at your joke that was slightly against Him. But we do not know this for sure.

My response to your joke was meant to be a "propitiation" for your joke, so that if God became angry at you for joking foolishly about Him, He might not add it to your batch of sins for which you will be punished in Hell, if you go that direction... or for which you will lose glory in Heaven if you go that direction.

So, thank me.

[Spendulus]

God probably chuckled at your joke that was slightly against Him. But we do not know this for sure.

My response to your joke was meant to be a "propitiation" for your joke, so that if God became angry at you for joking foolishly about Him, He might not add it to your batch of sins for which you will be punished in Hell, if you go that direction... or for which you will lose glory in Heaven if you go that direction.

So, thank me.

That's one hell of a fantasy world, buddy.

Here's a much better one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSGuBNopzBw

[BADecker]

God probably chuckled at your joke that was slightly against Him. But we do not know this for sure.

My response to your joke was meant to be a "propitiation" for your joke, so that if God became angry at you for joking foolishly about Him, He might not add it to your batch of sins for which you will be punished in Hell, if you go that direction... or for which you will lose glory in Heaven if you go that direction.

So, thank me.

That's one hell of a fantasy world, buddy.

Here's a much better one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSGuBNopzBw

Far less fantasy than Big Bang Theory, or that the official 9/11 story is near truth.