What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[Spendulus]

Former athlete and sportscaster David Icke has proposed that a race of reptilian, shape-shifting extraterrestrials is bent on world domination and subjugating the human race to slavery.

 Icke attributes a number of world catastrophes to the aliens, including 9/11.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#Antisemitism_in_conspiracy_theories

IT'S THE REPTILIAN SHAPE-SHIFTERS!

 What does David Icke have to do with me? David Icke doesn't speak for me
....

What does he have to you?  It's simple, I find his explanation genuinely amusing.  Yours I just find totally illogical and implausible.  Feel free to correct it if I have it wrong; keep in mind that you have NEVER actually stated your theories.  Here's as best as I can figure it your version of a Truther nut-ball theory about 911.

Unknown persons driving jets into towers as a cover story.  Jets cause minimal damage to towers.

Secret ninjas at placing explosives all over the place in the buildings for a controlled demolition, then totally screwing it up and getting a completely uncontrolled demolition.

Thousands of people are kept quiet or killed to keep them quiet and not one of them has talked.



It's not a very good theory really.  I guess thought it's good enough for Muslim propaganda since anyone that already hates the US will believe such garbage.  Hey, for some of the dumber ones it's likely good enough to get them to strap on their suicide vests and go for the 72 virgins.

[BADecker]

....
It has been 14 years, 8 months, and 12 days since the Neocon Zionist monsters in the United States along with their partners in the crime, the Saudis and Israeli Mossad orchestrated the 9/11 false flag operation that murdered nearly 3,000 innocents. Just a few smoking guns of their heinous crimes ....

I'm actually glad, Badecker, that you have came out of the closet as the simple, rabid Jew Hater that you are. 

Doesn't it feel good to not have to hide your hate?

Notice how Spendy lies, and uses incomplete quotes, simply to distract from the fact that 9/11 was an inside job? I expect that he can do even more along these lines. Let's watch and see how far from the truth he can get.

[Spendulus]

....
It has been 14 years, 8 months, and 12 days since the Neocon Zionist monsters in the United States along with their partners in the crime, the Saudis and Israeli Mossad orchestrated the 9/11 false flag operation that murdered nearly 3,000 innocents. Just a few smoking guns of their heinous crimes ....

I'm actually glad, Badecker, that you have came out of the closet as the simple, rabid Jew Hater that you are.  

Doesn't it feel good to not have to hide your hate?

Notice how Spendy lies, and uses incomplete quotes, simply to distract from the fact that 9/11 was an inside job? I expect that he can do even more along these lines. Let's watch and see how far from the truth he can get.

Go ahead and explain your theory about how Jews were responsible for 911, don't let me be the one to misquote you.   While you are at it, please explain how after the Evil Jooooeees did 911, why did nobody rat on them and collect that cool 1 Billion dollar payoff for a rat.  

Otherwise, stop bearing false witness against your neighbors, as your book instructs.  Or go ahead and bear false witness, the Muslim propagandists you support must be really laughing at your antics.

[BADecker]

....
It has been 14 years, 8 months, and 12 days since the Neocon Zionist monsters in the United States along with their partners in the crime, the Saudis and Israeli Mossad orchestrated the 9/11 false flag operation that murdered nearly 3,000 innocents. Just a few smoking guns of their heinous crimes ....

I'm actually glad, Badecker, that you have came out of the closet as the simple, rabid Jew Hater that you are.  

Doesn't it feel good to not have to hide your hate?

Notice how Spendy lies, and uses incomplete quotes, simply to distract from the fact that 9/11 was an inside job? I expect that he can do even more along these lines. Let's watch and see how far from the truth he can get.

Go ahead and explain your theory about how Jews were responsible for 911, don't let me be the one to misquote you.   While you are at it, please explain how after the Evil Jooooeees did 911, why did nobody rat on them and collect that cool 1 Billion dollar payoff for a rat.  

Otherwise, stop bearing false witness against your neighbors, as your book instructs.  Or go ahead and bear false witness, the Muslim propagandists you support must be really laughing at your antics.

In the face of the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job...

Go ahead and explain your theory about how Arabs were responsible for 9/11, don't let me be the one to misquote you.   While you are at it, please explain how after the Evil Arabs did 9/11, why did everybody including the media rat on them and collect nothing for ratting.

Otherwise, stop bearing false witness against your neighbors, as your book instructs.  Or go ahead and bear false witness, the Jewish propagandists you support must be really laughing at your antics.

[benedictonathan]

Whatever the current explanation was would be I think the only explanation accepted. Unless new evidence would suggest otherwise.

:-(

[BADecker]

Whatever the current explanation was would be I think the only explanation accepted. Unless new evidence would suggest otherwise.

:-(

Sounds good, until you realize that the official story doesn't make any sense.

[BTC_ISTANBUL]

9/11 was a higly complexed and well planned terrorist attack.Any way can somebody tell me how many legs does a stable table own?

[Spendulus]

Whatever the current explanation was would be I think the only explanation accepted. Unless new evidence would suggest otherwise.

:-(

Sounds good, until you realize that the official story doesn't make any sense.

If the stories you come up with that you think make sense don't make any sense, then why should any one trust your opinion of official stories not making sense?

Meanwhile you fall lock stock and barrel for anyone's claim the Evil Jews did the job.

That's idiotic, buddy.

[Spendulus]

Hard to judge. He's stubborn enough. Of course, that could only be because it's a free forum, and he is attempting to build or sharpen his skills. It's the other characters that I question even more... the ones who jump in with a line or two against inside job, but don't have anything meaningful to say. Seems like they simply want to use up space to push the facts that we write up into the realm of the forgotten. After all, many forum readers jump to the last post in a topic, and barely look at what came before. But Spendy does this, as well.

No, I am fairly certain. I have gone up against the real McCoy plenty of times and he falls way short. The vast majority of his "arguments" aren't even challenging. Just divert divert divert. Of course what is left when you have no argument?  

Both you are mistaken in thinking someone's listening to you or caring what you write on the Internet.  They are not.  The few who may can easily go to Wikipedia and find more interesting writeups of 911 Trutherism than you guys present.  And of the actual 911 events and the engineering analysis.

Oh, wait.  I forgot. 

No doubt Wikipedia is part of your thousands-of-person-conspiracy-theory.

[BADecker]

Hard to judge. He's stubborn enough. Of course, that could only be because it's a free forum, and he is attempting to build or sharpen his skills. It's the other characters that I question even more... the ones who jump in with a line or two against inside job, but don't have anything meaningful to say. Seems like they simply want to use up space to push the facts that we write up into the realm of the forgotten. After all, many forum readers jump to the last post in a topic, and barely look at what came before. But Spendy does this, as well.

No, I am fairly certain. I have gone up against the real McCoy plenty of times and he falls way short. The vast majority of his "arguments" aren't even challenging. Just divert divert divert. Of course what is left when you have no argument?  

Both you are mistaken in thinking someone's listening to you or caring what you write on the Internet.  They are not.  The few who may can easily go to Wikipedia and find more interesting writeups of 911 Trutherism than you guys present.  And of the actual 911 events and the engineering analysis.

Oh, wait.  I forgot. 

No doubt Wikipedia is part of your thousands-of-person-conspiracy-theory.

You are so mixed up.

Look at George W. Bush. His hair turned silver white, right? Does he like that color? Wouldn't it be easy for him to color his hair brown like it used to be? What? Do you think he is an honest humble guy?

He needed the money he made off the 9/11 inside job to pay for his youthfulness. His hair is brown, still, because he is taking youth shots. He colors it silver white to make people think that he is getting old, and that he is simply an honest, humble, everyday "Joe."

9/11 was an inside job so GWB could get paid to be able to afford the youth shots to stay young.

You are so far off it is pathetic.

[TECSHARE]

Actually, you asked if I considered a hurricane a static load.  Your words-

As far as your point about 2000% over engineering being a static load, please tell me, what do you call wind shear? Is the fact that the building was designed to stay standing in a hurricane a static load?

Then you've got a couple little problems with your claim about "let's use the official report."  Here are your words -

I never even debated the .8 seconds. You can have it, not that it helps your argument other than providing another distraction. Lets use the official report which states 10 seconds which IS STILL FREE FALL SPEED. Your talk about the "margin of error" again is just more word salad to attempt to sound like you have an argument.

No, it's your problem to show what your margin of error is in the quoted "10 seconds."  

What I see is a huge dust cloud covering up precise measurements and a seismic record that goes on and on and on.  So you want 0.8 seconds, fine.  Then you've got "Something close to free fall," don't you?  Because "Something between 10 and 10.8 seconds" is not "exactly free fall." 

Anyway, do you even have a clue as to what the time for "free fall" of this structure would have been?   Because I sure don't.  Let's look at another "official report."

The technical information on the building collapse is in the NIST reports.  The NIST FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) site has the pertinent information.

    The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds.


So what the heck is your "10 seconds" claiming?  That's when the entire mass of the WTC hit the ground?  When the first piece of junk hit the ground?  When the last piece hit the ground? 

That is interesting, because these are your exact words, stated before the above quote I might add.

Is a hurricane a static load?  Have you ever been in a hurricane?  Even been separated by one pane of glass from a full blown hurricane?  I have.  I was stuck for four miserable days in a hotel with no power in Kowloon.  Yes, I would call it a static load in the horizontal direction, unless some dynamic oscillations set up in the building structure.  The load presented was remarkably constant over the duration.
Want to argue that one?  Go ahead.

Funny, you can't even seem to keep your own lies straight.


I already repeatedly stated I am using the number of 10 seconds from The 9/11 Commission Report. Is the official report too "conspiratorial" for you now? The number of 9.2 seconds is from independent video analysis. The .8 seconds is not "a margin of error", because it is the difference between the independent analysis and the official 9/11 report. I am already using the highest number of the two, so no, 10.8 seconds is not the upper end of the claimed "margin of error", 10 seconds is. Are you trying to say that the official report was not accurate? I am not talking about some random guy on youtube analyzing it, this is the official government analysis. Do you think they were not accurate in their proclamation of a 10 second fall time? We have already been over this several times but you really want to milk it for every second of distraction you can get from it even though I am not even attempting to debate the 9.2 second time vs the 10 second time. On top of that you feel like seeing if you can word salad your way into adding another .8 seconds. Sorry, that is not how it works.

Not that you bothered to read it, but I already sourced the final NIST report which admitted free fall speeds in building 7. As far as towers 1 and 2, NIST HAS NO OFFICIAL EXPLANATION of how the towers fell, only a collection of assumptions. Assumptions based on "dry labed" models that have widely been disputed for lack of accuracy completely dismissing things like the core support structure in their models. Additionally your quote from the NIST F.A.Q. says nothing about free fall speeds, it says what their interpretation of the seismic record is. Nice attempt at misdirection.

You are the one supporting the official narrative, not me. I only used numbers out of The 9/11 Commission Report so that it would not simply be used by you as another source of distraction from the violation of the laws of physics that had to have happened even based on these numbers for the official narrative to be true.


Since you are so insistent that the seismic records corroborate the official narrative, lets take a look at them shall we?

The First Building's fall:





The Second Building's fall:



Source

That sure looks an awful lot like a 10 second duration to me.



Furthermore the seismic records also show lots of other discrepancies from the official reports, including more undeniable physical evidence of explosives:

The following are excerpts from a report by Dr. André Rousseau. He is a Doctor of Geophysics and Geology, a former researcher in the French National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS), who has published 50 papers on the relationships between the characteristics of progressive mechanical waves and geology. Dr. Rousseau is an expert on measurement of acoustic waves.

This report can be found here.


"EXPLOSIONS THE SOURCE OF 9/11 SEISMIC WAVEFORMS
A subterranean explosion might not be heard, but the ground would shake and initiate a series of waves (body and surface waves). If we distinctly hear an explosion, it is either aerial, which does not give a seismic signal, or it is subaerial, in which case surface waves could be generated. The seismic wave data provided by Palisades prove the occurrence of surface waves radiating outward from the World Trade Center. In addition, witnesses reported hearing explosions very close to the times at which planes struck the Towers and when they collapsed (see particularly MacQueen, 2006).

Given these two types of evidence we can affirm that subaerial explosions occurred close to the base of the Towers almost or quite simultaneously with the crashes into the Towers by the planes. The sound coming from these explosions would have been mixed with the sounds generated by the impacts of the planes. The explosion at the base of WTC1 was heard and reported by William Rodriquez (Spingola, 2005).

The employees of the Secret Service, whose offices were in WTC7 wholly separated
from WTC1, noticed this event:

“On September 11, like any other morning, most of the Secret Service employees were either settling into their offices or still making their way to work. Others were about to attend meetings to prepare for the upcoming meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. At 8:48 a.m. their offices in Building 7 shook and the lights flickered. Most of them stopped for a quick moment but quickly returned to their work” (Congressional Record, 107th Congress (2001-2002). As a simple impact against a tower cannot be transmitted to a separated building, an explosion was the likely source of the shock in the offices." pg. 7-8


"The local magnitudes (ML) that the LDEO seismologists calculated from the surface waves gave results that consolidate our analysis. They were higher than 2 on the Richter scale for the waves emitted at the moments of the collapses. It is impossible to get such a magnitude from the falling of the building debris alone, especially falling over a duration of ten seconds. Even if an entire Tower had been compacted into a tight ball, it would have necessitated a higher speed than could be caused by the Earth's gravity to even approach such a magnitude. Moreover, we must note that the magnitude attributed to the subterranean explosion at the WTC1 is ML=2.3 -- comparable to the earthquake that hit New York on January 17, 2001 (ML =2.4) -- while the magnitude coming from the WTC2 explosion is ML=2.1, thus weaker. This disparity is consistent with the explosions described in this study and is particularly appreciable given the logarithmic scale used to designate event magnitudes. Given that the Twin Towers were of similar height and mass, the falling debris from the collapsing Towers should have generated similar magnitudes, if they were indeed the sources of the waves." pg. 9

"CONCLUSION
Near the times of the planes' impacts into the Twin Towers and during their collapses, as well as during the collapse of WTC7, seismic waves were generated. To the degree that (1) seismic waves are created only by brief impulses and (2) low frequencies are associated with energy of a magnitude that is comparable to a seismic event, the waves recorded at Palisades and analyzed by LDEO undeniably have an explosive origin. Even if the planes' impacts and the fall of the debris from the Towers onto the ground could have generated seismic waves, their magnitude would have been insufficient to be recorded 34 km away and should have been very similar in the two cases to one another. As we have shown, they were not.

The types and magnitudes of the seismic signals show significant differences. The greatest differences occur in their propagation speeds, even though their paths were essentially identical under identical conditions. This difference is physically unexplained in the interpretation of the events offered by the LDEO researchers, the 9/11 Commission and NIST. Therefore, we must question their calculations of wave propagation speeds based on their assumption that the wave origins are shown on the video images of impacts and collapses. We can only conclude that the wave sources were independently detonated explosives at other times, thus accounting for the variable discrepancies for
each wave origin in relation to the videos." pg. 10

"There is a factor of ten between the power of the explosions at the time of the plane impacts on the Twin Towers (as well as at the time of the collapse of WTC7) and the strength of those more powerful explosions at the times of their collapses, the subterranean explosion under WTC1 being the one that transmitted the most energy to the ground. " pg 11





As usual I am the one providing all of the sources, science, and math. You are providing assumption, denial, speculation, allegories about bowling balls, ninjas, lizard people, and space rays.

[BADecker]

Hard to judge. He's stubborn enough. Of course, that could only be because it's a free forum, and he is attempting to build or sharpen his skills. It's the other characters that I question even more... the ones who jump in with a line or two against inside job, but don't have anything meaningful to say. Seems like they simply want to use up space to push the facts that we write up into the realm of the forgotten. After all, many forum readers jump to the last post in a topic, and barely look at what came before. But Spendy does this, as well.

No, I am fairly certain. I have gone up against the real McCoy plenty of times and he falls way short. The vast majority of his "arguments" aren't even challenging. Just divert divert divert. Of course what is left when you have no argument?  

Both you are mistaken in thinking someone's listening to you or caring what you write on the Internet.  They are not.  The few who may can easily go to Wikipedia and find more interesting writeups of 911 Trutherism than you guys present.  And of the actual 911 events and the engineering analysis.

Oh, wait.  I forgot. 

No doubt Wikipedia is part of your thousands-of-person-conspiracy-theory.

You are so mixed up.

Look at George W. Bush. His hair turned silver white, right? Does he like that color? Wouldn't it be easy for him to color his hair brown like it used to be? What? Do you think he is an honest humble guy?

He needed the money he made off the 9/11 inside job to pay for his youthfulness. His hair is brown, still, because he is taking youth shots. He colors it silver white to make people think that he is getting old, and that he is simply an honest, humble, everyday "Joe."

9/11 was an inside job so GWB could get paid to be able to afford the youth shots to stay young.

You are so far off it is pathetic.

Wow! After hours and hours I still couldn't get anybody to bite on this one.   

[BADecker]

BOMBSHELL REPORT: Saudis Hit Back: "The U.S. Blew Up World Trade Center To Create War On Terror."

It has been 14 years, 8 months, and 12 days since the Neocon Zionist monsters in the United States along with their partners in the crime, the Saudis and Israeli Mossad orchestrated the 9/11 false flag operation that murdered nearly 3,000 innocents. Just a few smoking guns of their heinous crimes include the free fall collapse of world trade center building 7, the statistical impossibility of the BBC reporting about it 25 minutes too early and Lucky Larry's multi-billion dollar insurance payout for "acts of terror."

The litany of evidence of the NWO's dastardly deeds on 9/11 has been documented, catalogued and readied for trials. The true culprits have been identified. And if you want the exact names and details there is no better video to watch than this one: 9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections and Details Exposed

What remains is for these evil men to be brought to justice and tried for their crimes against American law, the Constitution and humanity. We have long hoped that the day would come when these sinister evil doers would start turning on each other and the truth would begin spilling out.

Read more at http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/bombshell-report-saudis-hit-back-the-u-s-blew-up-world-trade-center-to-create-war-on-terror_05242016

[BADecker]

Former 9/11 Commissioner Won't Rule Out Saudi Royal Family Foreknowledge of 9/11 Plot

A former member of the 9/11 Commission on Tuesday left open the possibility that the Saudi royal family knew about the 9/11 terror plot before it happened.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., asked members of the panel at a House Foreign Relations subcommittee hearing to raise their hands in response to this question:

“How many of you there believe that the royal family of Saudi Arabia did not know and was unaware that there was a terrorist plot being implemented that would result in a historic terrorist attack in the United States, in the lead-up to 9/11?”

Two of the four panelists raised their hands, but Tim Roemer, 9/11 Commission member and a former congressman from Indiana, did not. Neither did Simon Henderson, director of the Gulf and Energy Policy Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrmye6oaWH0


Read more at https://theintercept.com/2016/05/25/former-911-commissioner-wont-rule-out-saudi-royal-family-foreknowledge-of-911-plot/

[Spendulus]

Actually, you asked if I considered a hurricane a static load.  Your words-

As far as your point about 2000% over engineering being a static load, please tell me, what do you call wind shear? Is the fact that the building was designed to stay standing in a hurricane a static load?

Then you've got a couple little problems with your claim about "let's use the official report."  Here are your words -

I never even debated the .8 seconds. You can have it, not that it helps your argument other than providing another distraction. Lets use the official report which states 10 seconds which IS STILL FREE FALL SPEED. Your talk about the "margin of error" again is just more word salad to attempt to sound like you have an argument.

No, it's your problem to show what your margin of error is in the quoted "10 seconds."  

What I see is a huge dust cloud covering up precise measurements and a seismic record that goes on and on and on.  So you want 0.8 seconds, fine.  Then you've got "Something close to free fall," don't you?  Because "Something between 10 and 10.8 seconds" is not "exactly free fall."  

Anyway, do you even have a clue as to what the time for "free fall" of this structure would have been?   Because I sure don't.  Let's look at another "official report."

The technical information on the building collapse is in the NIST reports.  The NIST FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) site has the pertinent information.

    The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds.


So what the heck is your "10 seconds" claiming?  That's when the entire mass of the WTC hit the ground?  When the first piece of junk hit the ground?  When the last piece hit the ground?  

That is interesting, because these are your exact words, stated before the above quote I might add.

Is a hurricane a static load?  Have you ever been in a hurricane?  Even been separated by one pane of glass from a full blown hurricane?  I have.  I was stuck for four miserable days in a hotel with no power in Kowloon.  Yes, I would call it a static load in the horizontal direction, unless some dynamic oscillations set up in the building structure.  The load presented was remarkably constant over the duration.
Want to argue that one?  Go ahead.

Funny, you can't even seem to keep your own lies straight.


I already repeatedly stated I am using the number of 10 seconds from The 9/11 Commission Report. Is the official report too "conspiratorial" for you now? The number of 9.2 seconds is from independent video analysis. The .8 seconds is not "a margin of error", because it is the difference between the independent analysis and the official 9/11 report.....

Not that you bothered to read it, but I already sourced the final NIST report which admitted free fall speeds in building 7. As far as towers 1 and 2, NIST HAS NO OFFICIAL EXPLANATION of how the towers fell, only a collection of assumptions. Assumptions based on "dry labed" models that have widely been disputed for lack of accuracy completely dismissing things like the core support structure in their models. Additionally your quote from the NIST F.A.Q. says nothing about free fall speeds, it says what their interpretation of the seismic record is. Nice attempt at misdirection.

You are the one supporting the official narrative, not me. I only used numbers out of The 9/11 Commission Report so that it would not simply be used by you as another source of distraction from the violation of the laws of physics that had to have happened even based on these numbers for the official narrative to be true.


Since you are so insistent that the seismic records corroborate the official narrative, lets take a look at them shall we?

The First Building's fall:




The following are excerpts from a report by Dr. André Rousseau. He is a Doctor of Geophysics and Geology......

So I guess you concede that the 2000% is a static load.  Then you have to concede that the simple test case I showed with 120x weight is more than 20x....

Now let's talk about your seismic charts.  Can you kindly show me where the famous ten seconds begins and ends?   Thanks.

Dr. Rousseau is obviously bat shit crazy.  We've already established the TNT equivalent of one building's fall to be equal to more than 100 TONS OF TNT.  What more is needed?  Nothing more.  

I'm just not seeing how you get a precise number from the seismic charts.  They show exactly what I would expect to see, waveforms from a big pile of rubble forming.  Please show us how you read this chart to get your precise "free fall" speeds.  I'm not buying this garbage one bit.

So far you've showed you -

don't know or comprehend static vs dynamic load

were not aware that the dynamic load dwarfs the building's strength and made it inescapable they would fall

didn't have a clue that force to propel and object sideways was just the initial push, not "exponentially larger as you go further"

have no clue as to how to even measure "free fall velocity"

didn't have a clue that the potential energy of any object at 1000 feet was 500 times what would be required to move that object 600 feet sideways

Believe that the lid can be kept on a conspiracy with thousands of people involved

I don't think you are qualified or competent to discuss the mechanisms of failure of the Twin Towers.  Basically there is not one assertion you have made that checks out.  Not one.

[BADecker]

Actually, you asked if I considered a hurricane a static load.  Your words-

As far as your point about 2000% over engineering being a static load, please tell me, what do you call wind shear? Is the fact that the building was designed to stay standing in a hurricane a static load?

Then you've got a couple little problems with your claim about "let's use the official report."  Here are your words -

I never even debated the .8 seconds. You can have it, not that it helps your argument other than providing another distraction. Lets use the official report which states 10 seconds which IS STILL FREE FALL SPEED. Your talk about the "margin of error" again is just more word salad to attempt to sound like you have an argument.

No, it's your problem to show what your margin of error is in the quoted "10 seconds."  

What I see is a huge dust cloud covering up precise measurements and a seismic record that goes on and on and on.  So you want 0.8 seconds, fine.  Then you've got "Something close to free fall," don't you?  Because "Something between 10 and 10.8 seconds" is not "exactly free fall."  

Anyway, do you even have a clue as to what the time for "free fall" of this structure would have been?   Because I sure don't.  Let's look at another "official report."

The technical information on the building collapse is in the NIST reports.  The NIST FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) site has the pertinent information.

    The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds.


So what the heck is your "10 seconds" claiming?  That's when the entire mass of the WTC hit the ground?  When the first piece of junk hit the ground?  When the last piece hit the ground?  

That is interesting, because these are your exact words, stated before the above quote I might add.

Is a hurricane a static load?  Have you ever been in a hurricane?  Even been separated by one pane of glass from a full blown hurricane?  I have.  I was stuck for four miserable days in a hotel with no power in Kowloon.  Yes, I would call it a static load in the horizontal direction, unless some dynamic oscillations set up in the building structure.  The load presented was remarkably constant over the duration.
Want to argue that one?  Go ahead.

Funny, you can't even seem to keep your own lies straight.


I already repeatedly stated I am using the number of 10 seconds from The 9/11 Commission Report. Is the official report too "conspiratorial" for you now? The number of 9.2 seconds is from independent video analysis. The .8 seconds is not "a margin of error", because it is the difference between the independent analysis and the official 9/11 report.....

Not that you bothered to read it, but I already sourced the final NIST report which admitted free fall speeds in building 7. As far as towers 1 and 2, NIST HAS NO OFFICIAL EXPLANATION of how the towers fell, only a collection of assumptions. Assumptions based on "dry labed" models that have widely been disputed for lack of accuracy completely dismissing things like the core support structure in their models. Additionally your quote from the NIST F.A.Q. says nothing about free fall speeds, it says what their interpretation of the seismic record is. Nice attempt at misdirection.

You are the one supporting the official narrative, not me. I only used numbers out of The 9/11 Commission Report so that it would not simply be used by you as another source of distraction from the violation of the laws of physics that had to have happened even based on these numbers for the official narrative to be true.


Since you are so insistent that the seismic records corroborate the official narrative, lets take a look at them shall we?

The First Building's fall:




The following are excerpts from a report by Dr. André Rousseau. He is a Doctor of Geophysics and Geology......

So I guess you concede that the 2000% is a static load.  Then you have to concede that the simple test case I showed with 120x weight is more than 20x....

Now let's talk about your seismic charts.  Can you kindly show me where the famous ten seconds begins and ends?   Thanks.

Dr. Rousseau is obviously bat shit crazy.  We've already established the TNT equivalent of one building's fall to be equal to more than 100 TONS OF TNT.  What more is needed?  Nothing more.  

I'm just not seeing how you get a precise number from the seismic charts.  They show exactly what I would expect to see, waveforms from a big pile of rubble forming.  Please show us how you read this chart to get your precise "free fall" speeds.  I'm not buying this garbage one bit.

So far you've showed you -

don't know or comprehend static vs dynamic load

were not aware that the dynamic load dwarfs the building's strength and made it inescapable they would fall

didn't have a clue that force to propel and object sideways was just the initial push, not "exponentially larger as you go further"

have no clue as to how to even measure "free fall velocity"

didn't have a clue that the potential energy of any object at 1000 feet was 500 times what would be required to move that object 600 feet sideways

Believe that the lid can be kept on a conspiracy with thousands of people involved

I don't think you are qualified or competent to discuss the mechanisms of failure of the Twin Towers.  Basically there is not one assertion you have made that checks out.  Not one.

It doesn't matter if TECSHARE is qualified or competent to discuss the failure of the Twin Towers or not. Why doesn't it matter? Because neither you or anyone else has produced enough information for anyone to come to a correct conclusion about exactly the way the Towers came down. However, like there are science theories that are more valid than other science theories, the official 9/11 story is way less valid than many other stories.

The fact that the official story was done by politicians rather than experts in the engineering field, shows that it was done through the use of Political Science. Political Science is the only science that can prove anything any which way. Why is this? Because part of Political Science includes using propaganda and lies.

[Spendulus]

....
It doesn't matter if TECSHARE is qualified or competent to discuss the failure of the Twin Towers or not. Why doesn't it matter? Because neither you or anyone else has produced enough information for anyone to come to a correct conclusion about exactly the way the Towers came down. However, like there are science theories that are more valid than other science theories, the official 9/11 story is way less valid than many other stories.

You'd have to start your little propaganda spiel by explaining exactly what it might be that you are calling the "official story."  Then you can go to explaining why Badecker's beliefs are more valid than anyone else's, even though you don't even know 8th grade physics, math or chemistry.

Oh, one more thing.  It certainly is ridiculously easy to show that the dynamic load of the towers falling is a sufficient cause of the collapse without invoking explosives or magical "nano powders."  I've done that.  It's also ridiculously easy to show that many other core beliefs of you and your Trufer friends are complete bullshit and do not withstand even a cursory examination.

You're just a guy that watched one or two badly researched propaganda movies and you're doing nothing but repeating crap from them.  That's it.  You aren't a crusader for truth, but the opposite.  A naive agent of disinformation and mis information for Muslim and Islamic terrorists.

[BADecker]

....
It doesn't matter if TECSHARE is qualified or competent to discuss the failure of the Twin Towers or not. Why doesn't it matter? Because neither you or anyone else has produced enough information for anyone to come to a correct conclusion about exactly the way the Towers came down. However, like there are science theories that are more valid than other science theories, the official 9/11 story is way less valid than many other stories.

You'd have to start your little propaganda spiel by explaining exactly what it might be that you are calling the "official story."  Then you can go to explaining why Badecker's beliefs are more valid than anyone else's, even though you don't even know 8th grade physics, math or chemistry.

Oh, one more thing.  It certainly is ridiculously easy to show that the dynamic load of the towers falling is a sufficient cause of the collapse without invoking explosives or magical "nano powders."  I've done that.  It's also ridiculously easy to show that many other core beliefs of you and your Trufer friends are complete bullshit and do not withstand even a cursory examination.

You're just a guy that watched one or two badly researched propaganda movies and you're doing nothing but repeating crap from them.  That's it.  You aren't a crusader for truth, but the opposite.  A naive agent of disinformation and mis information for Muslim and Islamic terrorists.

If you don't know where the official story resides yet, why are you even in this thread?

Eighth grade physics, math and chemistry again? Why are you continually trying to use a bottle-rocket to go to the moon? Just because a few of the principles hold true in, both, bottle rockets and moon shots... or are you really trying to do this?

Starting to see that you are close to 100% propaganda. I am noticing more and more in your "debate" with TECSHARE, that very few of the things that you (not TECSHARE) talk about really have anything to do with 9/11. What are you even doing in this thread, if not to propagandize anybody who looks?

Are you simply having fun? Are you stuck in stubborn mode? Are you a paid propagandist? Are you simply practicing for a job as a lobbyist?

I'm not really looking for an answer. At this stage, couldn't trust anything that you say.

[Spendulus]

.....

If you don't know where the official story resides yet, why are you even in this thread?

Eighth grade physics, math and chemistry again? Why are you continually trying to use a bottle-rocket to go to the moon? Just because a few of the principles hold true in, both, bottle rockets and moon shots... or are you really trying to do this?
.....

Unfortunately for you...

Delta V = ISP * g * ln(Ms/Mf)

... governs both bottle rockets and moon shots.

Yes, what I am doing is showing how many, IF NOT ALL of the 911 Truther arguments "Based on laws of physics" can be disproven with 8th grade physics, math, etc.

That's it, buddy.

That's how bad and how idiotic the "science" behind your "beliefs" is.  It's bat shit crazy.  Since we're staying on the 8th grade let's look at your ideas about keeping the lid on a conspiracy.  The typical middle school in the USA has about 750 students - and that's 7th, 8th, and 9th grade.  Probably for your Grand Conspiracy Theory, included the Evil Joes and the US Government, you'd have 2250 people or so involved (including all the Ninjas to place explosives at night).

That's 3 US Middle Schools full of people.  And according to your bat shit crazy views, that ocean of baboons is going to keep quiet about their secret for 15 years?

That's crazy talk, buddy.

There's no way you can keep those people from talking.

The basic problem you have is that regardless of how bad you think the "OFFICIAL STORY" is, the stories you come up with are FAR WORSE.  You're just a guy that watched one or two badly researched propaganda movies and you're doing nothing but repeating crap from them.  That's it.  You aren't a crusader for truth, but the opposite.  A naive agent of disinformation and mis information for Muslim and Islamic terrorists.

[BADecker]

.....

If you don't know where the official story resides yet, why are you even in this thread?

Eighth grade physics, math and chemistry again? Why are you continually trying to use a bottle-rocket to go to the moon? Just because a few of the principles hold true in, both, bottle rockets and moon shots... or are you really trying to do this?
.....

Unfortunately for you...

Delta V = ISP * g * ln(Ms/Mf)

... governs both bottle rockets and moon shots.

Wow! I had totally thought you wouldn't say something like this.

Notice that I said, "Just because a few of the principles hold true in, both, bottle rockets and moon shots..." If you ever build a bottle rocket to scale large enough so that it could reach the moon, let me know. I wanna watch the blast-off... from a distance, with binoculars, of course.

Yes, what I am doing is showing how many, IF NOT ALL of the 911 Truther arguments "Based on laws of physics" can be disproven with 8th grade physics, math, etc.

That's it, buddy.

That's how bad and how idiotic the "science" behind your "beliefs" is.  It's bat shit crazy.  Since we're staying on the 8th grade let's look at your ideas about keeping the lid on a conspiracy.  The typical middle school in the USA has about 750 students - and that's 7th, 8th, and 9th grade.  Probably for your Grand Conspiracy Theory, included the Evil Joes and the US Government, you'd have 2250 people or so involved (including all the Ninjas to place explosives at night).

That's 3 US Middle Schools full of people.  And according to your bat shit crazy views, that ocean of baboons is going to keep quiet about their secret for 15 years?

That's crazy talk, buddy.

There's no way you can keep those people from talking.

The basic problem you have is that regardless of how bad you think the "OFFICIAL STORY" is, the stories you come up with are FAR WORSE.  You're just a guy that watched one or two badly researched propaganda movies and you're doing nothing but repeating crap from them.  That's it.  You aren't a crusader for truth, but the opposite.  A naive agent of disinformation and mis information for Muslim and Islamic terrorists.

The problem with you is, all you can do is SAY that you are showing how the official story is truth. Other than to SAY that you are rebutting, you haven't rebutted anything.

That's okay, though. All your talk simply helps to show that 9/11 was an inside job.