What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That sound fair?  If not, changes?

There you go, shifting the goal posts again. So the OFFICIAL RECORDS aren't good enough for you? Very convenient you don't even wish to comment on WTC 7, why talk about a subject you have no counter argument to? Why not just refuse to address any facts about these events when they don't fit your narrative bias?

You can argue until you are blue in the face, but you are arguing against THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. Explosives are required to reach free fall speeds with a building coming down, this is A FACT. There is nothing to debate about it. Wake the fuck up, stop your flailing, you are wrong. Deal with it.

I eagerly await for your new goal posts as well as your next disingenuous verbal gymnastic performance. Just don't forget to stretch, you wouldn't want to strain yourself with the massive amounts of bullshit you are spouting.

[1714649610]

1714649610

[1714649610]

1714649610

[1714649610]

1714649610

[Spendulus]

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

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

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

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

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

That sound fair?  If not, changes?

There you go, shifting the goal posts again. So the OFFICIAL RECORDS aren't good enough for you? Very convenient you don't even wish to comment on WTC 7, why talk about a subject you have no counter argument to? Why not just refuse to address any facts about these events when they don't fit your narrative bias?

You can argue until you are blue in the face, but you are arguing against THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. Explosives are required to reach free fall speeds with a building coming down, this is A FACT. There is nothing to debate about it. Wake the fuck up, stop your flailing, you are wrong. Deal with it.

I eagerly await for your new goal posts as well as your next disingenuous verbal gymnastic performance. Just don't forget to stretch, you wouldn't want to strain yourself with the massive amounts of bullshit you are spouting.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The simple question posted is whether this is the argument you'd like to to defeat and that you believe or want to defend.  I have no idea what "OFFICIAL RECORDS" say.

So the premise then is a 10 second fall plus or minus 0.8 seconds?  Then you would argue that these numbers are impossible without explosives being added to the PE of the buildings?

I invited you to change it if it did not reflect what you believe.  If explosives are required to reach free fall speeds, we'll establish that.  Or not.

[vokain]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-21/cia-accidentally-destroyed-6700-page-torture-report-snowden-calls-bullshit

“I worked @CIA. I wrote the Emergency Destruction Plan for Geneva. When CIA destroys something, it’s never a mistake.”

Food for thought.

[BADecker]

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

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

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

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

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

That sound fair?  If not, changes?

There you go, shifting the goal posts again. So the OFFICIAL RECORDS aren't good enough for you? Very convenient you don't even wish to comment on WTC 7, why talk about a subject you have no counter argument to? Why not just refuse to address any facts about these events when they don't fit your narrative bias?

You can argue until you are blue in the face, but you are arguing against THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. Explosives are required to reach free fall speeds with a building coming down, this is A FACT. There is nothing to debate about it. Wake the fuck up, stop your flailing, you are wrong. Deal with it.

I eagerly await for your new goal posts as well as your next disingenuous verbal gymnastic performance. Just don't forget to stretch, you wouldn't want to strain yourself with the massive amounts of bullshit you are spouting.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The simple question posted is whether this is the argument you'd like to to defeat and that you believe or want to defend.  I have no idea what "OFFICIAL RECORDS" say.

So the premise then is a 10 second fall plus or minus 0.8 seconds?  Then you would argue that these numbers are impossible without explosives being added to the PE of the buildings?

I invited you to change it if it did not reflect what you believe.  If explosives are required to reach free fall speeds, we'll establish that.  Or not.

The fall speed has to do with how connected the parts were. The question revolves around connected beams and girders vs. disconnected beams and girders.

Would there be any difference in fall speed if the beams and girders were disconnected ahead of time by explosives vs. if they became disconnected by a pancake "crash?" Seems logical that there would be a difference.

If there would be this difference, how do we calculate how big the difference might be?

[Spendulus]

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

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

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

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

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

That sound fair?  If not, changes?

There you go, shifting the goal posts again. So the OFFICIAL RECORDS aren't good enough for you? Very convenient you don't even wish to comment on WTC 7, why talk about a subject you have no counter argument to? Why not just refuse to address any facts about these events when they don't fit your narrative bias?

You can argue until you are blue in the face, but you are arguing against THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. Explosives are required to reach free fall speeds with a building coming down, this is A FACT. There is nothing to debate about it. Wake the fuck up, stop your flailing, you are wrong. Deal with it.

I eagerly await for your new goal posts as well as your next disingenuous verbal gymnastic performance. Just don't forget to stretch, you wouldn't want to strain yourself with the massive amounts of bullshit you are spouting.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The simple question posted is whether this is the argument you'd like to to defeat and that you believe or want to defend.  I have no idea what "OFFICIAL RECORDS" say.

So the premise then is a 10 second fall plus or minus 0.8 seconds?  Then you would argue that these numbers are impossible without explosives being added to the PE of the buildings?

I invited you to change it if it did not reflect what you believe.  If explosives are required to reach free fall speeds, we'll establish that.  Or not.

The fall speed has to do with how connected the parts were. The question revolves around connected beams and girders vs. disconnected beams and girders.

Would there be any difference in fall speed if the beams and girders were disconnected ahead of time by explosives vs. if they became disconnected by a pancake "crash?" Seems logical that there would be a difference.

If there would be this difference, how do we calculate how big the difference might be?

There's likely a classical problem in engineering to be seen here.  It's an issue where the cause and effect you are seeking to find is much smaller than the errors in measurement.  For example if you are looking for a difference of 0.1 second, and the error in measurement is + or - 0.8 seconds, then you cannot make a statement about the 0.1.  If on the other hand the cause and effect is 2.0 seconds or 3.0, then regardless of the 0.8 second measurement, you can make a statement.

I'm picking those numbers strictly out of the air to answer your question. 

Also, note that the above formulation does not address the "initial cause."  I refer there to the initial cause of collapse.  We are (as I understand it) discussing the presence or absence of a continuing string of explosives used to create a higher than natural fall speed of the tower. 

[BADecker]

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

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

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

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

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

That sound fair?  If not, changes?

There you go, shifting the goal posts again. So the OFFICIAL RECORDS aren't good enough for you? Very convenient you don't even wish to comment on WTC 7, why talk about a subject you have no counter argument to? Why not just refuse to address any facts about these events when they don't fit your narrative bias?

You can argue until you are blue in the face, but you are arguing against THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. Explosives are required to reach free fall speeds with a building coming down, this is A FACT. There is nothing to debate about it. Wake the fuck up, stop your flailing, you are wrong. Deal with it.

I eagerly await for your new goal posts as well as your next disingenuous verbal gymnastic performance. Just don't forget to stretch, you wouldn't want to strain yourself with the massive amounts of bullshit you are spouting.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The simple question posted is whether this is the argument you'd like to to defeat and that you believe or want to defend.  I have no idea what "OFFICIAL RECORDS" say.

So the premise then is a 10 second fall plus or minus 0.8 seconds?  Then you would argue that these numbers are impossible without explosives being added to the PE of the buildings?

I invited you to change it if it did not reflect what you believe.  If explosives are required to reach free fall speeds, we'll establish that.  Or not.

The fall speed has to do with how connected the parts were. The question revolves around connected beams and girders vs. disconnected beams and girders.

Would there be any difference in fall speed if the beams and girders were disconnected ahead of time by explosives vs. if they became disconnected by a pancake "crash?" Seems logical that there would be a difference.

If there would be this difference, how do we calculate how big the difference might be?

There's likely a classical problem in engineering to be seen here.  It's an issue where the cause and effect you are seeking to find is much smaller than the errors in measurement.  For example if you are looking for a difference of 0.1 second, and the error in measurement is + or - 0.8 seconds, then you cannot make a statement about the 0.1.  If on the other hand the cause and effect is 2.0 seconds or 3.0, then regardless of the 0.8 second measurement, you can make a statement.

I'm picking those numbers strictly out of the air to answer your question. 

Also, note that the above formulation does not address the "initial cause."  I refer there to the initial cause of collapse.  We are (as I understand it) discussing the presence or absence of a continuing string of explosives used to create a higher than natural fall speed of the tower. 

If I happened to be talking about that at all, it was by accident.

No initial cause necessary. Simply the difference in near free fall speed with a collapse pancake style vs. a collapse after an explosive dismemberment.

Do we really have a pancake example? There must be examples in demolition where dismemberment has been used.

If the only pancake examples we have are the Towers, we don't have enough information other than hypothesis and theory.

Totally unscientific to suggest that the pancake without demolition was what happened, unless we can find other examples of it happening to other buildings in a very similar way.

TECSHARE was simply saying this, but using more words.

[Spendulus]

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

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

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

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

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

That sound fair?  If not, changes?

There you go, shifting the goal posts again. So the OFFICIAL RECORDS aren't good enough for you? Very convenient you don't even wish to comment on WTC 7, why talk about a subject you have no counter argument to? Why not just refuse to address any facts about these events when they don't fit your narrative bias?

You can argue until you are blue in the face, but you are arguing against THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. Explosives are required to reach free fall speeds with a building coming down, this is A FACT. There is nothing to debate about it. Wake the fuck up, stop your flailing, you are wrong. Deal with it.

I eagerly await for your new goal posts as well as your next disingenuous verbal gymnastic performance. Just don't forget to stretch, you wouldn't want to strain yourself with the massive amounts of bullshit you are spouting.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The simple question posted is whether this is the argument you'd like to to defeat and that you believe or want to defend.  I have no idea what "OFFICIAL RECORDS" say.

So the premise then is a 10 second fall plus or minus 0.8 seconds?  Then you would argue that these numbers are impossible without explosives being added to the PE of the buildings?

I invited you to change it if it did not reflect what you believe.  If explosives are required to reach free fall speeds, we'll establish that.  Or not.

The fall speed has to do with how connected the parts were. The question revolves around connected beams and girders vs. disconnected beams and girders.

Would there be any difference in fall speed if the beams and girders were disconnected ahead of time by explosives vs. if they became disconnected by a pancake "crash?" Seems logical that there would be a difference.

If there would be this difference, how do we calculate how big the difference might be?

There's likely a classical problem in engineering to be seen here.  It's an issue where the cause and effect you are seeking to find is much smaller than the errors in measurement.  For example if you are looking for a difference of 0.1 second, and the error in measurement is + or - 0.8 seconds, then you cannot make a statement about the 0.1.  If on the other hand the cause and effect is 2.0 seconds or 3.0, then regardless of the 0.8 second measurement, you can make a statement.

I'm picking those numbers strictly out of the air to answer your question. 

Also, note that the above formulation does not address the "initial cause."  I refer there to the initial cause of collapse.  We are (as I understand it) discussing the presence or absence of a continuing string of explosives used to create a higher than natural fall speed of the tower. 

If I happened to be talking about that at all, it was by accident.

No initial cause necessary. Simply the difference in near free fall speed with a collapse pancake style vs. a collapse after an explosive dismemberment.

Do we really have a pancake example? There must be examples in demolition where dismemberment has been used.

If the only pancake examples we have are the Towers, we don't have enough information other than hypothesis and theory.

Totally unscientific to suggest that the pancake without demolition was what happened, unless we can find other examples of it happening to other buildings in a very similar way.

TECSHARE was simply saying this, but using more words.

If Tecshare was saying the same thing you said, that's like saying a stopped clock is right twice a day, but without glasses you don't know what it says.

He can speak for himself.  No, we don't need to look at examples.  We can simply look at shear and tensile strengths of materials, and use standard engineering formulas.

[BADecker]

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

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

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

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

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

That sound fair?  If not, changes?

There you go, shifting the goal posts again. So the OFFICIAL RECORDS aren't good enough for you? Very convenient you don't even wish to comment on WTC 7, why talk about a subject you have no counter argument to? Why not just refuse to address any facts about these events when they don't fit your narrative bias?

You can argue until you are blue in the face, but you are arguing against THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. Explosives are required to reach free fall speeds with a building coming down, this is A FACT. There is nothing to debate about it. Wake the fuck up, stop your flailing, you are wrong. Deal with it.

I eagerly await for your new goal posts as well as your next disingenuous verbal gymnastic performance. Just don't forget to stretch, you wouldn't want to strain yourself with the massive amounts of bullshit you are spouting.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The simple question posted is whether this is the argument you'd like to to defeat and that you believe or want to defend.  I have no idea what "OFFICIAL RECORDS" say.

So the premise then is a 10 second fall plus or minus 0.8 seconds?  Then you would argue that these numbers are impossible without explosives being added to the PE of the buildings?

I invited you to change it if it did not reflect what you believe.  If explosives are required to reach free fall speeds, we'll establish that.  Or not.

The fall speed has to do with how connected the parts were. The question revolves around connected beams and girders vs. disconnected beams and girders.

Would there be any difference in fall speed if the beams and girders were disconnected ahead of time by explosives vs. if they became disconnected by a pancake "crash?" Seems logical that there would be a difference.

If there would be this difference, how do we calculate how big the difference might be?

There's likely a classical problem in engineering to be seen here.  It's an issue where the cause and effect you are seeking to find is much smaller than the errors in measurement.  For example if you are looking for a difference of 0.1 second, and the error in measurement is + or - 0.8 seconds, then you cannot make a statement about the 0.1.  If on the other hand the cause and effect is 2.0 seconds or 3.0, then regardless of the 0.8 second measurement, you can make a statement.

I'm picking those numbers strictly out of the air to answer your question. 

Also, note that the above formulation does not address the "initial cause."  I refer there to the initial cause of collapse.  We are (as I understand it) discussing the presence or absence of a continuing string of explosives used to create a higher than natural fall speed of the tower. 

If I happened to be talking about that at all, it was by accident.

No initial cause necessary. Simply the difference in near free fall speed with a collapse pancake style vs. a collapse after an explosive dismemberment.

Do we really have a pancake example? There must be examples in demolition where dismemberment has been used.

If the only pancake examples we have are the Towers, we don't have enough information other than hypothesis and theory.

Totally unscientific to suggest that the pancake without demolition was what happened, unless we can find other examples of it happening to other buildings in a very similar way.

TECSHARE was simply saying this, but using more words.

If Tecshare was saying the same thing you said, that's like saying a stopped clock is right twice a day, but without glasses you don't know what it says.

He can speak for himself.  No, we don't need to look at examples.  We can simply look at shear and tensile strengths of materials, and use standard engineering formulas.

Shear and tensile strength is the itty bitty start. The buildings sat there for years without a problem. Testing the buildings for shear and tensile strength at the time of the collapse is impossible. But it is necessary because of the many factors that might have contributed to the change in shear and tensile strength.

The Towers stood there for years. Putting a non-uniform hole in the side of each doesn't necessarily produce uniform pancake action. If you say it did, because that is the way the Towers came down, you are using circular referencing.

Crash factors alone were not enough to bring the buildings down. The buildings were built to take that kind of stress.

The next option is jet fuel. The amounts of fuel burned, and the amounts of fuel boiled away are unknowns. Even the amounts of fuel that the planes were carrying at the times of the crashes are estimations. In addition, it is almost near guesswork suggesting that the tower structures provided the "wind" necessary to burn the part of fuel that DID burned, with enough heat to cause any structural damage at all. Why? Because the Towers were designed to keep this kind of wind turbulence from happening.

Another option, explosives, makes the whole Tower destruction operation a sure thing. Why? Because it is used in demolition of buildings all over the place. Experience shows that we can almost produce any crash effect we want with demolition.

The major point against non-demolition of the Towers, is the uniformity of the crashes. With the sides of the buildings weakened as they were, there should have been more topple effect. Yet there was almost none, and the little there was magically corrected itself.

Let's go where the sure answer is - demolition - rather than seeking to guess that the way nature works in chemistry, math, and physics was the thing that produced the Tower crashes, especially in the light of the fact that we don't know which of these applies and to what extent.

[Spendulus]

Shear and tensile strength is the itty bitty start. The buildings sat there for years without a problem. Testing the buildings for shear and tensile strength at the time of the collapse is impossible. But it is necessary because of the many factors that might have contributed to the change in shear and tensile strength.

The Towers stood there for years. Putting a non-uniform hole in the side of each doesn't necessarily produce uniform pancake action. If you say it did, because that is the way the Towers came down, you are using circular referencing.

Crash factors alone were not enough to bring the buildings down. The buildings were built to take that kind of stress.

The next option is jet fuel. The amounts of fuel burned, and the amounts of fuel boiled away are unknowns. Even the amounts of fuel that the planes were carrying at the times of the crashes are estimations. In addition, it is almost near guesswork suggesting that the tower structures provided the "wind" necessary to burn the part of fuel that DID burned, with enough heat to cause any structural damage at all. Why? Because the Towers were designed to keep this kind of wind turbulence from happening.

Another option, explosives, makes the whole Tower destruction operation a sure thing. Why? Because it is used in demolition of buildings all over the place. Experience shows that we can almost produce any crash effect we want with demolition.

The major point against non-demolition of the Towers, is the uniformity of the crashes. With the sides of the buildings weakened as they were, there should have been more topple effect. Yet there was almost none, and the little there was magically corrected itself.

Let's go where the sure answer is - demolition - rather than seeking to guess that the way nature works in chemistry, math, and physics was the thing that produced the Tower crashes, especially in the light of the fact that we don't know which of these applies and to what extent.

Not one bit of what you have said is true.  What is true is what the math analysis says of each factor.  It is used as well to determine what a proposed demolition will and will not do.

These problems cannot be solved with glib words in sentences, they must be calculated.  However I do have a question for you on a subject dear to your heart.

If as you claimed it was true that the Evil Jew, Silverman, plotted to bring the towers down and collect billions from insurance companies.....

Why wasn't the plot uncovered?  Insurance companies have pretty darn good investigators and they  would have paid an informer $1B to save the 4B they paid out.  Why wasn't the plot you claim existed uncovered?  Is it because it wasn't there?

[TECSHARE]

There you go, shifting the goal posts again. So the OFFICIAL RECORDS aren't good enough for you? Very convenient you don't even wish to comment on WTC 7, why talk about a subject you have no counter argument to? Why not just refuse to address any facts about these events when they don't fit your narrative bias?

You can argue until you are blue in the face, but you are arguing against THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. Explosives are required to reach free fall speeds with a building coming down, this is A FACT. There is nothing to debate about it. Wake the fuck up, stop your flailing, you are wrong. Deal with it.

I eagerly await for your new goal posts as well as your next disingenuous verbal gymnastic performance. Just don't forget to stretch, you wouldn't want to strain yourself with the massive amounts of bullshit you are spouting.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The simple question posted is whether this is the argument you'd like to to defeat and that you believe or want to defend.  I have no idea what "OFFICIAL RECORDS" say.

So the premise then is a 10 second fall plus or minus 0.8 seconds?  Then you would argue that these numbers are impossible without explosives being added to the PE of the buildings?

I invited you to change it if it did not reflect what you believe.  If explosives are required to reach free fall speeds, we'll establish that.  Or not.

Then why don't you go take a look you lazy arrogant fuck? I handed it to you on a silver platter, all you had to do was scroll down to page 305. You are sitting here arguing with me and you don't even bother to check any of the sources? How much more disingenuous and presumptuous can you get? This proves you don't give a flying fuck about what really happened and are simply here to sell your version of the narrative at all costs.

The fall speed has to do with how connected the parts were. The question revolves around connected beams and girders vs. disconnected beams and girders.

Would there be any difference in fall speed if the beams and girders were disconnected ahead of time by explosives vs. if they became disconnected by a pancake "crash?" Seems logical that there would be a difference.

If there would be this difference, how do we calculate how big the difference might be?

There's likely a classical problem in engineering to be seen here.  It's an issue where the cause and effect you are seeking to find is much smaller than the errors in measurement.  For example if you are looking for a difference of 0.1 second, and the error in measurement is + or - 0.8 seconds, then you cannot make a statement about the 0.1.  If on the other hand the cause and effect is 2.0 seconds or 3.0, then regardless of the 0.8 second measurement, you can make a statement.

I'm picking those numbers strictly out of the air to answer your question.  

Also, note that the above formulation does not address the "initial cause."  I refer there to the initial cause of collapse.  We are (as I understand it) discussing the presence or absence of a continuing string of explosives used to create a higher than natural fall speed of the tower.  

The problem with your logic is estimates I have seen are around the ONE MINUTE range for a total pancake collapse to happen for a building of that height, so .8 seconds is negligible. Again, you are simply using this as an opportunity to divert from the subject matter and create more dithering rather than address the points presented by arguing tertiary issues.

Does every point need to be repeated in each post in order to fit with your seemingly goldfish sized memory? Pretty sure we have been clear that explosives were used. You however are relying on allegories about bridges, objects in orbit, space rays, and ninjas.

If Tecshare was saying the same thing you said, that's like saying a stopped clock is right twice a day, but without glasses you don't know what it says.

He can speak for himself.  No, we don't need to look at examples.  We can simply look at shear and tensile strengths of materials, and use standard engineering formulas.

I can speak for myself, and I would appreciate it if you did not try to make my points for me Badecker. I Choose specific points and paths of discussion carefully in order to prevent diversion of the debate by this obvious shill, what you are doing is just giving him more endless unprovable topics to argue about in order to pretend his arguments have merit.

No we don't need to look at sheer and tensile strengths of materials, because under the conditions and speed of the fall, it would appear that there is ZERO sheer strength and ZERO strength of the materials, because the building falls through them WITHOUT RESISTANCE. The ONLY WAY that happens is if they are BLOWN out of the way with explosives before the falling sections make contact. There is nothing more to debate about it. This is check and mate. Your desire to discuss tertiary engineering issues of which none of us including you are experts is simply an act of distraction from this very salient and damning point to your bullshit narrative.

[Spendulus]

....
No we don't need to look at sheer and tensile strengths of materials, because under the conditions and speed of the fall, it would appear that there is ZERO sheer strength and ZERO strength of the materials, because the building falls through them WITHOUT RESISTANCE. The ONLY WAY that happens is if they are BLOWN out of the way with explosives before the falling sections make contact. There is nothing more to debate about it. This is check and mate. Your desire to discuss tertiary engineering issues of which none of us including you are experts is simply an act of distraction from this very salient and damning point to your bullshit narrative.

I would disagree with that.  Yes some materials can fall through others virtually without resistence under the right conditions.  Depends on several factors.  For example, if I put a 1/4" piece of steel between two vices, and hit it with a heavy axe, there is negligible slowdown of the axe going through the material because it is sheared.  If every floor individually buckled and warped and collapsed individually, that would mean that shear point had not been reached.  Possibly the first floor to collapse was a buckling and bending motion, then all subsequent floors' structural members sheared apart.

Shearing is fast; bending and buckling is slow.  Which was it?  Well, in the videos do we see slow bending and buckling?  No?  Then structural members were sheared.  But the question is how.  Explosives would have sheered them, so could have the immense weight from above falling down.  However, if the momentum of the falling structure was insufficient to create the shearing forces, then it's necessary to look for another cause.

That's why I asked if you are good with 10 seconds plus or minus 0.8.  I'm not arguing or agreeing with some report, so there's no reason for me to go look at it.  I asked what your number was.

Give me that and I'll look at it.  

[tvbcof]

I can speak for myself, and I would appreciate it if you did not try to make my points for me Badecker. I Choose specific points and paths of discussion carefully in order to prevent diversion of the debate by this obvious shill, what you are doing is just giving him more endless unprovable topics to argue about in order to pretend his arguments have merit.

No we don't need to look at sheer and tensile strengths of materials, because under the conditions and speed of the fall, it would appear that there is ZERO sheer strength and ZERO strength of the materials, because the building falls through them WITHOUT RESISTANCE. The ONLY WAY that happens is if they are BLOWN out of the way with explosives before the falling sections make contact. There is nothing more to debate about it. This is check and mate. Your desire to discuss tertiary engineering issues of which none of us including you are experts is simply an act of distraction from this very salient and damning point to your bullshit narrative.

Note how Spendulus like to have it two ways.  First, the potential energy due gravity was responsible for the launching upwards and outwards of multi-ton steel members, the pulverization of steel reinforced concrete, etc, etc.  Second, he does not believe that the transfer of energy would arrest the acceleration of the collapse.  But, ya know...eight grade physics...

[Spendulus]

I can speak for myself, and I would appreciate it if you did not try to make my points for me Badecker. I Choose specific points and paths of discussion carefully in order to prevent diversion of the debate by this obvious shill, what you are doing is just giving him more endless unprovable topics to argue about in order to pretend his arguments have merit.

No we don't need to look at sheer and tensile strengths of materials, because under the conditions and speed of the fall, it would appear that there is ZERO sheer strength and ZERO strength of the materials, because the building falls through them WITHOUT RESISTANCE. The ONLY WAY that happens is if they are BLOWN out of the way with explosives before the falling sections make contact. There is nothing more to debate about it. This is check and mate. Your desire to discuss tertiary engineering issues of which none of us including you are experts is simply an act of distraction from this very salient and damning point to your bullshit narrative.

Note how Spendulus like to have it two ways.  First, the potential energy due gravity was responsible for the launching upwards and outwards of multi-ton steel members, the pulverization of steel reinforced concrete, etc, etc.  Second, he does not believe that the transfer of energy would arrest the acceleration of the collapse.  But, ya know...eight grade physics...

That's not quite accurate.  I noted four ways PE could transfer, and I noted by the final of the collapse, PE would be zero, all of it having been transferred.  I don't think either Tecshare or myself has ever mentioned "upwards and outwards," only "outwards."

As for "arresting the acceleration of the collapse," I'm only trying to get it clear what the claim is as to the extent of arresting, before applying some formulas to it.

[BADecker]

Shear and tensile strength is the itty bitty start. The buildings sat there for years without a problem. Testing the buildings for shear and tensile strength at the time of the collapse is impossible. But it is necessary because of the many factors that might have contributed to the change in shear and tensile strength.

The Towers stood there for years. Putting a non-uniform hole in the side of each doesn't necessarily produce uniform pancake action. If you say it did, because that is the way the Towers came down, you are using circular referencing.

Crash factors alone were not enough to bring the buildings down. The buildings were built to take that kind of stress.

The next option is jet fuel. The amounts of fuel burned, and the amounts of fuel boiled away are unknowns. Even the amounts of fuel that the planes were carrying at the times of the crashes are estimations. In addition, it is almost near guesswork suggesting that the tower structures provided the "wind" necessary to burn the part of fuel that DID burned, with enough heat to cause any structural damage at all. Why? Because the Towers were designed to keep this kind of wind turbulence from happening.

Another option, explosives, makes the whole Tower destruction operation a sure thing. Why? Because it is used in demolition of buildings all over the place. Experience shows that we can almost produce any crash effect we want with demolition.

The major point against non-demolition of the Towers, is the uniformity of the crashes. With the sides of the buildings weakened as they were, there should have been more topple effect. Yet there was almost none, and the little there was magically corrected itself.

Let's go where the sure answer is - demolition - rather than seeking to guess that the way nature works in chemistry, math, and physics was the thing that produced the Tower crashes, especially in the light of the fact that we don't know which of these applies and to what extent.

Not one bit of what you have said is true.  What is true is what the math analysis says of each factor.  It is used as well to determine what a proposed demolition will and will not do.

Every last bit of what I say is the same that you say except from a different direction. Let the factors be calculated.

These problems cannot be solved with glib words in sentences, they must be calculated. 

So, calculate the things that you can calculate. And, of course, you can't calculate the things you can't calculate.

You can't calculate most of the things in the official 9/11 story, because there isn't enough information to calculate them. But you can calculate the demolition aspect, because many people know the factors of demolition.

The answer to this calculating is, we see how demolition could have brought the buildings down. But we don't see how anything else could have, because we don't have enough information about anything else.

However I do have a question for you on a subject dear to your heart.

If as you claimed it was true that the Evil Jew, Silverman, plotted to bring the towers down and collect billions from insurance companies.....

Why wasn't the plot uncovered?  Insurance companies have pretty darn good investigators and they  would have paid an informer $1B to save the 4B they paid out.  Why wasn't the plot you claim existed uncovered?  Is it because it wasn't there?

No, it's because there are many things that play into the picture, and we simply don't see what they are. Consider the following article, and realize that there are activities that are never publicly known entirely, but impact the public in many ways.


Something Stunning Is Taking Place Off The Coast Of Singapore

Back in November, when the world-record crude inventory glut was still in its early innings, we showed what we then thought was a disturbing image of dozens of oil tankers on anchor near the US oil hub of Galveston, TX, unwilling to unload their cargo at what the owners of the oil thought was too low prices.

Little did we know that just a few months later this seemingly unprecedented sight of clustered VLCCs would be a daily occurrence as oil producers, concerned by Cushing hitting its operating capacity, would take advantage of oil curve contango to store their oil offshore indefinitely.

However, while the "parking lot" off Galveston has since normalized, something shocking has emerged and continued to grow half way around the world, just off the coat of Singapore. This.

The red dots show ships either at anchor or barely moving, either oil tankers or cargo, which have made the Straits of Malacca, one of the world's most important shipping lanes which carries about a quarter of all seaborne oil primarily from the Persian Gulf headed to China, into a "bumper to bumper" parking lots of ships with tens of millions of barrels in combustible cargo.

Read more at http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-20/something-stunning-taking-place-coast-singapore.


----------


The point is, we are now much more aware of things that are going on around us, because the 9/11 inside job has kicked us into looking more. But we still don't know all the whys and wherefores.

So, get your head out of the sand, and see that there is a whole lot going on behind the scenes regarding 9/11 inside job than anyone can explain, except for the inside perpetrators, that is.

[Spendulus]

However I do have a question for you on a subject dear to your heart.

If as you claimed it was true that the Evil Jew, Silverman, plotted to bring the towers down and collect billions from insurance companies.....

Why wasn't the plot uncovered?  Insurance companies have pretty darn good investigators and they  would have paid an informer $1B to save the 4B they paid out.  Why wasn't the plot you claim existed uncovered?  Is it because it wasn't there?

No, it's because there are many things that play into the picture, and we simply don't see what they are. Consider the following article, and realize that there are activities that are never publicly known entirely, but impact the public in many ways.
.....
.....

No, now that makes no sense.

Straight up now.  Why wasn't the plot by the Evil Jew discovered?

Why didn't someone leak it?  They would have been able to negotiate a billion dollar fee.

[BADecker]

However I do have a question for you on a subject dear to your heart.

If as you claimed it was true that the Evil Jew, Silverman, plotted to bring the towers down and collect billions from insurance companies.....

Why wasn't the plot uncovered?  Insurance companies have pretty darn good investigators and they  would have paid an informer $1B to save the 4B they paid out.  Why wasn't the plot you claim existed uncovered?  Is it because it wasn't there?

No, it's because there are many things that play into the picture, and we simply don't see what they are. Consider the following article, and realize that there are activities that are never publicly known entirely, but impact the public in many ways.
.....
.....

No, now that makes no sense.

Straight up now.  Why wasn't the plot by the Evil Jew discovered?

Why didn't someone leak it?  They would have been able to negotiate a billion dollar fee.

I like the part about, "Why didn't someone leak it?" If we knew the answer to this question, we could actually start to find the inside-job people.



EDIT: Actually though, the way you keep on bringing up the idea that the Jews did it, you look like you are trying to tell us that they did it, without being too obvious that you are saying such.

[Spendulus]

However I do have a question for you on a subject dear to your heart.

If as you claimed it was true that the Evil Jew, Silverman, plotted to bring the towers down and collect billions from insurance companies.....

Why wasn't the plot uncovered?  Insurance companies have pretty darn good investigators and they  would have paid an informer $1B to save the 4B they paid out.  Why wasn't the plot you claim existed uncovered?  Is it because it wasn't there?

No, it's because there are many things that play into the picture, and we simply don't see what they are. Consider the following article, and realize that there are activities that are never publicly known entirely, but impact the public in many ways.
.....
.....

No, now that makes no sense.

Straight up now.  Why wasn't the plot by the Evil Jew discovered?

Why didn't someone leak it?  They would have been able to negotiate a billion dollar fee.

I like the part about, "Why didn't someone leak it?" If we knew the answer to this question, we could actually start to find the inside-job people.



EDIT: Actually though, the way you keep on bringing up the idea that the Jews did it, you look like you are trying to tell us that they did it, without being too obvious that you are saying such.

No, that's your conspiracy theory.  Silverman.

So you don't have an answer then?  Because I don't think it's credible that out of hundreds of people involved in some hypothetical plot on 911, that one or two wouldn't have turned informant for a cool billion dollars.

Nope.  Not credible at all.

[BADecker]

However I do have a question for you on a subject dear to your heart.

If as you claimed it was true that the Evil Jew, Silverman, plotted to bring the towers down and collect billions from insurance companies.....

Why wasn't the plot uncovered?  Insurance companies have pretty darn good investigators and they  would have paid an informer $1B to save the 4B they paid out.  Why wasn't the plot you claim existed uncovered?  Is it because it wasn't there?

No, it's because there are many things that play into the picture, and we simply don't see what they are. Consider the following article, and realize that there are activities that are never publicly known entirely, but impact the public in many ways.
.....
.....

No, now that makes no sense.

Straight up now.  Why wasn't the plot by the Evil Jew discovered?

Why didn't someone leak it?  They would have been able to negotiate a billion dollar fee.

I like the part about, "Why didn't someone leak it?" If we knew the answer to this question, we could actually start to find the inside-job people.



EDIT: Actually though, the way you keep on bringing up the idea that the Jews did it, you look like you are trying to tell us that they did it, without being too obvious that you are saying such.

No, that's your conspiracy theory.  Silverman.

So you don't have an answer then?  Because I don't think it's credible that out of hundreds of people involved in some hypothetical plot on 911, that one or two wouldn't have turned informant for a cool billion dollars.

Nope.  Not credible at all.

What is INCREDIBLE is that someone with your seeming intelligence constantly denies the inside job obviousness.

Here's the brief answer to the question of 9/11-inside-job:

So, calculate the things that you can calculate. And, of course, you can't calculate the things you can't calculate.

You can't calculate most of the things in the official 9/11 story, because there isn't enough information to calculate them. But you can calculate the demolition aspect, because many people know the factors of demolition.

The answer to this calculating is, we see how demolition could have brought the buildings down. But we don't see how anything else could have, because we don't have enough information about anything else.

[tvbcof]

I can speak for myself, and I would appreciate it if you did not try to make my points for me Badecker. I Choose specific points and paths of discussion carefully in order to prevent diversion of the debate by this obvious shill, what you are doing is just giving him more endless unprovable topics to argue about in order to pretend his arguments have merit.

No we don't need to look at sheer and tensile strengths of materials, because under the conditions and speed of the fall, it would appear that there is ZERO sheer strength and ZERO strength of the materials, because the building falls through them WITHOUT RESISTANCE. The ONLY WAY that happens is if they are BLOWN out of the way with explosives before the falling sections make contact. There is nothing more to debate about it. This is check and mate. Your desire to discuss tertiary engineering issues of which none of us including you are experts is simply an act of distraction from this very salient and damning point to your bullshit narrative.

Note how Spendulus like to have it two ways.  First, the potential energy due gravity was responsible for the launching upwards and outwards of multi-ton steel members, the pulverization of steel reinforced concrete, etc, etc.  Second, he does not believe that the transfer of energy would arrest the acceleration of the collapse.  But, ya know...eight grade physics...

That's not quite accurate.  I noted four ways PE could transfer, and I noted by the final of the collapse, PE would be zero, all of it having been transferred.  I don't think either Tecshare or myself has ever mentioned "upwards and outwards," only "outwards."

Free-fall release of potential energy results in a well know acceleration.  Any tapping of this energy (e.g., ripping apart steel structual members or pulverizing steel reinforced concrete mid-air) would necessarily arrest this free-fall acceleration to some degree.

My intuitive sense is that given the structural design of this particular building the collapse would be fully arrested with a fair part of the building standing, some of which would have shed the floor pans and outer framework which would be more likely to sluff off with at most a tiny few forcefull ejections of smallish bare members.)

The above if several stories above and below the impact site simply vanished.  In an increasingly plastic collapse such as that which the 'fires did it' people try to argue, the top would simply fall off due to the asymmetries.  Probably again partially stripping some of the floor pans on one side.  We would also see deflection of the tower building due to the polar moment of the clearly tipping upper section.  This would either be to great for the structure to sustain in which case it would topple laterally, or it would not and we would see the lower level standing.

Somewhere along the line I ran across some pretty good footage detailing the various 'upward' trajectories.  Cannot see it now, but in less focused footage plenty of interesting trajectories, accelerations, and mid-air pulverizations are noticed:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

Of course there are a lot of interesting stills as well:



Anyway, for the sake of argument, let's say that there were zero incidents of debris moving past normal to the fall vector (e.g., upward of horizontal).  The energy input needed as impulse to create the lateral velocity noted are more interesting and significant than that needed to create an upward vector from a normal one.  Again, all of these energy sinks and others rob from that available to accelerate the structure on it's collapse path.

As for "arresting the acceleration of the collapse," I'm only trying to get it clear what the claim is as to the extent of arresting, before applying some formulas to it.

This has been quantified from a very early time in the independent analysis.  In looking around, I see a presentation which I'd not yet run across which is interesting:

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

This kind of illustrates the mental simulation of the behavior I intuited for such a collapse.  I think it is fair to say that my intuition on such things us above par having spent time taking down buildings as an occupation (albeit exclusively large wooden ones for salvage purposes) and having training level exposure to demolishing various kinds of structures using explosives.

---

Just for fun, here's the kinds of techniques one can use to gauge quantitatively some energetic activities on sort of an order-of-magnitude scale:

1) How much energy is available in a reinforced concrete floor panel due to PE-gravity?  A) How much diesel does a crane use to lift it to it's place.

2) How much energy is necessary to pulverize said concrete floor panel?  A) How much diesel does a jack-hammer use in doing the job?

---

On intuitive thoughts, let's consider the aluminum aircraft parts parsing the steel box columns.  What happens when we intersect 1/13" thick aluminum skin with the 1.5" thick steel box structures at:

 1) 1 m/s
 2) speed of sound
 3) in a ccomputer animation probably done by some failing grad student who wanted a degree and a goobmint job.

[Spendulus]

What is INCREDIBLE is that someone with your seeming intelligence constantly denies the inside job obviousness.

SO FOR A BILLION DOLLARS, NOBODY WOULD TALK?

Wow.  They must have been really dedicated.