What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[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.

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.

Liar.  It's the easiest thing in the world to "rebut" an argument presented in an absolute sense, such as Techshare does.  Or which you do.

EXPLOSIVES WERE NEEDED!!!!!

No, the potential energy of the fall alone was equal to over 100 TONS of explosive.

Rebutted.  

You are now officially the Bagdad Bob Badeker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXl1GkWWGmA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfAeMtcURg0

[1714771060]

1714771060

[1714771060]

1714771060

[1714771060]

1714771060

[1714771060]

1714771060

[1714771060]

1714771060

[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.

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.

Large enough?

More idiotic anti scientific, anti-physics gibberish.

Plug ISP = 50 into the equation, set Ms and Mf, and you will see the performance of a black powder rocket.

If you can't see what math or physics even does, then you are incompetent to even talk about 911.

Oh wait, I forgot.  It's the Evil Joes, isn't it?  In your mind.

[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.

Large enough?

More idiotic anti scientific, anti-physics gibberish.

Plug ISP = 50 into the equation, set Ms and Mf, and you will see the performance of a black powder rocket.

If you can't see what math or physics even does, then you are incompetent to even talk about 911.

Oh wait, I forgot.  It's the Evil Joes, isn't it?  In your mind.

Ho, ho, ho. You want to get away from 9/11, so I talk about bottle rockets. Then you distract from bottle rockets with a bunch of gibberish.

Build yourself a bottle rocket big enough so that it carries enough fuel to get to the moon, and watch it explode or crash or fizzle.

Same way, use 8th grade math, chemistry and physics to build an 8th grade Twin Towers, and fly 8th grade planes into them, and see if you even get off the ground.

I bet you still chase 8th grade girls, too.

[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.

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.

Large enough?

More idiotic anti scientific, anti-physics gibberish.

Plug ISP = 50 into the equation, set Ms and Mf, and you will see the performance of a black powder rocket.

If you can't see what math or physics even does, then you are incompetent to even talk about 911.

Oh wait, I forgot.  It's the Evil Joes, isn't it?  In your mind.

Ho, ho, ho. You want to get away from 9/11, so I talk about bottle rockets. Then you distract from bottle rockets with a bunch of gibberish.....

Argument from ridicule, ad hominem.  The last refuge of losers.

Please product some actual arguments for the twin towers atrocity that cannot be refuted by 8th grade chemistry, math and physics.  Otherwise, your 911 Truther arguments are basically, ridiculous.

So go watch those dumb ass movies on Youtube, and watch your asinine conspiracy linkys and come back with some argument that CAN'T be refuted with 8th grade stuff.

Your problem, not mine.

[Racey]

Article In Saudi Daily: U.S. Planned, Carried Out 9/11 Attacks – But Blames Others For Them

On the eve of President Obama's April 2016 visit to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Congress began debating the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), that would, inter alia, allow the families of victims of the September 11 attacks to sue the Saudi government for damages. Also in April 2016, the New York Times published that a 2002 congressional inquiry into the 9/11 attacks had found that Saudi officials living in the United States at the time had a hand in the plot. The commission's conclusions, said the paper, were specified in a report that has not been released publicly.[1]

 The JASTA bill, which was passed by the Senate on May 17, 2016, triggered fury in Saudi Arabia, expressed both in statements by the Saudi foreign minister and in scathing attacks on the U.S. in the Saudi press.[2] On April 28, 2016, the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat published an exceptionally harsh article on this topic by Saudi legal expert Katib Al-Shammari, who argued that the U.S. itself had planned and carried out 9/11, while placing the blame on a shifting series of others – first Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, then Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and now Saudi Arabia.

He wrote that American threats to reveal documents that supposedly point to Saudi involvement in 9/11 are part of standard U.S. policy of exposing archival documents to use as leverage against various countries – which he calls "victory by means of archives."
Following are excerpts from Al-Shammari's article:[3]

 "Those who follow American policy see that it is built upon the principle of advance planning and future probabilities. This is because it occasionally presents a certain topic to a country that it does not wish [to bring up] at that time but [that it is] reserving in its archives as an ace to play [at a later date] in order to pressure that country. Anyone revisiting... [statements by] George H.W. Bush regarding Operation Desert Storm might find that he acknowledged that the U.S. Army could have invaded Iraq in the 1990s, but that [the Americans] had preferred to keep Saddam Hussein around as a bargaining chip for [use against] other Gulf states. However, once the Shi'ite wave began to advance, the Americans wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, since they no longer saw him as an ace up their sleeve.


"September 11 is one of winning cards in the American archives, because all the wise people in the world who are experts on American policy and who analyze the images and the videos [of 9/11] agree unanimously that what happened in the [Twin] Towers was a purely American action, planned and carried out within the U.S. Proof of this is the sequence of continuous explosions that dramatically ripped through both buildings... Expert structural engineers demolished them with explosives, while the planes crashing [into them] only gave the green light for the detonation – they were not the reason for the collapse. But the U.S. still spreads blame in all directions. [This policy] can be dubbed 'victory by means of archives.'
"On September 11, the U.S. attained several victories at the same time, that [even] the hawks [who were at that time] in the White House could not have imagined.

Some of them can be enumerated as follows:



"1.   The U.S. created, in public opinion, an obscure enemy – terrorism – which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes, and also became the sole motivation for any dirty operation that American politicians and military figures desire to carry out in any country. [The] terrorism [label] was applied to Muslims, and specifically to Saudi Arabia.

"2.   Utilizing this incident [9/11], the U.S. launched a new age of global armament. Everyone wanted to acquire all kinds of weapons to defend themselves and at the same time battle the obscure enemy, terrorism – [even though] up to this very moment we do not know the essence of this terrorism of which the U.S. speaks, except [to say that] that it is Islamic...

"3.   The U.S. made the American people choose from two bad options: either live peacefully [but] remain exposed to the danger of death [by terrorism] at any moment, or starve in safety, because [the country's budget will be spent on sending] the Marines even as far as Mars to defend you.

 "Lo and behold, today, we see these archives revealed before us: A New York court accuses the Iranian regime of responsibility for 9/11, and we [also] see a bill [in Congress] accusing Saudi Arabia of being behind it [sic]. This is after the previous Iraqi regime was accused of being behind it. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were also blamed for it, and we do not know who [will be blamed] tomorrow! But [whoever it is], we will not be surprised at all, since this is the essence of how the American archives, that are civilized and respect freedoms and democracy, operate.

"The nature of the U.S. is that it cannot exist without an enemy... [For example,] after a period during which it did not fight anyone [i.e. following World War II], the U.S. created a new kind of war – the Cold War... Then, when the Soviet era ended, after we Muslims helped the religions and fought Communism on their [the Americans'] behalf, they began to see Muslims as their new enemy! The U.S. saw a need for creating a new enemy – and planned, organized, and carried this out [i.e. blamed Muslims for terrorism]. This will never end until it [the U.S.] accomplishes the goals it has set for itself.

"So why not let these achievements be credited to the American administration, while insurance companies pay for the damages, whether domestic or foreign? This, my dear Arab and Muslim, is the policy of the American archives."

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/9202.htm

[Spendulus]

Article In Saudi Daily: U.S. Planned, Carried Out 9/11 Attacks – But Blames Others For Them

On the eve of President Obama's April 2016 visit to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Congress began debating the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), that would, inter alia, allow the families of victims of the September 11 attacks to sue the Saudi government for damages. Also in April 2016, the New York Times published that a 2002 congressional inquiry into the 9/11 attacks had found that Saudi officials living in the United States at the time had a hand in the plot. The commission's conclusions, said the paper, were specified in a report that has not been released publicly.[1]

 The JASTA bill, which was passed by the Senate on May 17, 2016, triggered fury in Saudi Arabia, expressed both in statements by the Saudi foreign minister and in scathing attacks on the U.S. in the Saudi press.[2] On April 28, 2016, the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat published an exceptionally harsh article on this topic by Saudi legal expert Katib Al-Shammari, who argued that the U.S. itself had planned and carried out 9/11....

That's the sort of anti-US propaganda I'm talking about.  Make the Muslim the victim, the US the Great Satan.  Yeah right.   Of course it's only a very small part of the propaganda countries like Saudi Arabia feed to their helpless subjects.

[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.....

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.

"don't know or comprehend static vs dynamic load"

Sorry but no, you don't get to speak for me. Can you explain to me exactly how a 2000% STATIC load would suddenly appear in a building? Are they loading heavy machinery via a teleporter or a black hole? What purpose would designing a structure only to withstand your so called static loads serve when any load applied to it would be dynamic considering the building is constantly in motion from the wind? Lets address where this number of 2000% engineering redundancy came from.

"live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." -John Skilling, Chief structural engineer of the World Trade Center from "How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings", ENR, 4/2/1964

LIVE LOADS. LIVE = DYNAMIC. Not static. Additionally this is ONLY the perimeter columns, not the entire building. Maybe you can tell me about how hurricanes are static loads some more to keep avoiding the fact that you have no argument.


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

What? What the fuck is this? I provide physical evidence, demonstrate the claimed violation of the laws of physics, provide testimony from experts in the towers construction and others, You talk about bowling balls and now it is inescapable? Hey, since you think you have all the proof you need, why not claim the 1 million Euros offered here?


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

I think you are feigning some serious reading comprehension issues in order to try to weasel in the facade of an argument here. "THE INITIAL PUSH" is what is required to be larger the further the distance the object is to travel. This is not debatable, just like if you have a bullet of a set mass you need to add more powder to it to get it to travel further. If you are arguing against this fact then you are beyond retarded and I am not wasting another second on your retardation on this point, feigned or not.





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

Gravity causes freely falling objects to increase their speed by about 9.81 m/s² at sea level. The height of the roof line of WTC 1 is 1,368 ft or 417.0 m.

t = √ 2d/g  

d = distance (417m), t = time (solving for time), g = rate of acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s²)  so:

t = 9.22 seconds, which is in precise correlation with the video analysis provided earlier.

Note, this does not even account for air resistance let alone the resistance of any of the structure below it which would increase the fall time significantly more than the .8 seconds differential between this free fall in vacuum and the official report time of 10 seconds.


Newton's third law says that when objects interact, they always exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Therefore, while an object is falling, if it exerts any force on objects in its path, those objects must push back, slowing the fall. If an object is observed to be in freefall, we can conclude that nothing in the path exerts a force to slow it down, and by Newton's third law, the falling object cannot be pushing on anything else either.



Since you are a fan of the NIST F.A.Q., lets take a closer look at it.

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

Note the official story from NIST is that WTC 2 fell in 9 seconds, 0.2 seconds FASTER THAN FREE FALL SPEED





Yes, an expert Dr. in the field of geophysics and acoustics is crazy, and you know more than him, just like you know more than the chief structural engineer of the towers    

Were you not just saying something about ad hominem attacks being the last refuge of losers?

Conveniently your little excuse allows you to just dismiss all of the physical evidence he presents, and hey why not throw out the actual seismic data too simply because he referenced it while you are at it. As far as the charts, you have a pair of eyeballs, try using them instead of using your constant tactic of dithering so you never have to admit your failed argument and can eventually just drop the point when I produce even more physical evidence. You are the one that argued that the seismic data corroborated your argument, why don't you show me? He who claims proves, and I have been proving the fuck out of everything I have stated while you just proclaim you are correct without an iota of supporting evidence or references, only proclamations of righteousness.


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

The only problem with your "explanation is all of that momentum is a result of gravity according to your argument. Gravity pulls downwards, not up or laterally.

Newton's second law: “Change of motion is proportional to the force applied, and take place along the straight line the force acts.”

IE, a collapsing building doesn't shoot 4 ton sections of steel framework 600 feet laterally without other forces acting upon it.







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

There are plenty of people speaking out, and a lot of them ended up dead. If anyone is trying to keep a lid on something here it is you.
Tell me, how do companies create multi-billion dollar research projects if the secrecy of the project is not possible? How was the Manhattan project completed in secrecy? As I explained through a combination of compartmentalization, self interest, threats of repercussions, and flat out murder this is quite possible. BTW, you still haven't explained who is offering that billion dollar payout for people to come forward about it.


I am not an expert on this subject (neither are you), but the people I have sourced ARE. So far you haven't sourced jack shit, all you have are your empty claims.

[Spendulus]

Since you are a fan of the NIST F.A.Q., lets take a closer look at it.

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

Note the official story from NIST is that WTC 2 fell in 9 seconds, 0.2 seconds FASTER THAN FREE FALL SPEED

No, that's your distorted reading of the text.  You assume that the first exterior panels to strike the ground came from the very top of the tower.  Get real.  Please revise your math to include a variety of heights from which the first panels to hit the ground came from.

....
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

The only problem with your "explanation is all of that momentum is a result of gravity according to your argument. Gravity pulls downwards, not up or laterally.

Newton's second law: “Change of motion is proportional to the force applied, and take place along the straight line the force acts.”

IE, a collapsing building doesn't shoot 4 ton sections of steel framework 600 feet laterally without other forces acting upon it.

The force required is proportionally related to the distance, not exponentially related.  You were wrong, admit it and move on.

....As far as the charts, you have a pair of eyeballs, try using them instead of using your constant tactic of dithering so you never have to admit your failed argument .....

Okay, let's use eyeballs.  I take a small bag of flour outside, throw it up in the air.  It comes down, and goes splat.  Flour goes everywhere.  Hey, guess what?  There's sort of a cloud of white over where it landed.  Some of it went up, and some went sideways.  But you claim gravity only works downward?  Hmm....

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

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.

The First Building's fall:

Well?  Please show us on the seismic record, start and stop of "free fall greater than gravity," or whatever your claim is.  Show me where you PRECISELY DETERMINE fall time. 

By the way.  Yes, I am perfectly fine sticking with 8th grade physics, chemistry and math to refute your "Experts."  Bring them on.  Here's a challenge.  Show me one that requires 9th grade work to rebut their bat shit crazy Truthiness.

LOL...

[BADecker]

Since you are a fan of the NIST F.A.Q., lets take a closer look at it.

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

Note the official story from NIST is that WTC 2 fell in 9 seconds, 0.2 seconds FASTER THAN FREE FALL SPEED

No, that's your distorted reading of the text.  You assume that the first exterior panels to strike the ground came from the very top of the tower.  Get real.  Please revise your math to include a variety of heights from which the first panels to hit the ground came from.

....
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

The only problem with your "explanation is all of that momentum is a result of gravity according to your argument. Gravity pulls downwards, not up or laterally.

Newton's second law: “Change of motion is proportional to the force applied, and take place along the straight line the force acts.”

IE, a collapsing building doesn't shoot 4 ton sections of steel framework 600 feet laterally without other forces acting upon it.

The force required is proportionally related to the distance, not exponentially related.  You were wrong, admit it and move on.

....As far as the charts, you have a pair of eyeballs, try using them instead of using your constant tactic of dithering so you never have to admit your failed argument .....

Okay, let's use eyeballs.  I take a small bag of flour outside, throw it up in the air.  It comes down, and goes splat.  Flour goes everywhere.  Hey, guess what?  There's sort of a cloud of white over where it landed.  Some of it went up, and some went sideways.  But you claim gravity only works downward?  Hmm....

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

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.

The First Building's fall:

Well?  Please show us on the seismic record, start and stop of "free fall greater than gravity," or whatever your claim is.  Show me where you PRECISELY DETERMINE fall time. 

By the way.  Yes, I am perfectly fine sticking with 8th grade physics, chemistry and math to refute your "Experts."  Bring them on.  Here's a challenge.  Show me one that requires 9th grade work to rebut their bat shit crazy Truthiness.

LOL...

Nothing that refutes the 9/11 inside job here.   

[Spendulus]

Since you are a fan of the NIST F.A.Q., lets take a closer look at it.

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

Note the official story from NIST is that WTC 2 fell in 9 seconds, 0.2 seconds FASTER THAN FREE FALL SPEED

No, that's your distorted reading of the text.  You assume that the first exterior panels to strike the ground came from the very top of the tower.  Get real.  Please revise your math to include a variety of heights from which the first panels to hit the ground came from.

....
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

The only problem with your "explanation is all of that momentum is a result of gravity according to your argument. Gravity pulls downwards, not up or laterally.

Newton's second law: “Change of motion is proportional to the force applied, and take place along the straight line the force acts.”

IE, a collapsing building doesn't shoot 4 ton sections of steel framework 600 feet laterally without other forces acting upon it.

The force required is proportionally related to the distance, not exponentially related.  You were wrong, admit it and move on.

....As far as the charts, you have a pair of eyeballs, try using them instead of using your constant tactic of dithering so you never have to admit your failed argument .....

Okay, let's use eyeballs.  I take a small bag of flour outside, throw it up in the air.  It comes down, and goes splat.  Flour goes everywhere.  Hey, guess what?  There's sort of a cloud of white over where it landed.  Some of it went up, and some went sideways.  But you claim gravity only works downward?  Hmm....

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

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.

The First Building's fall:

Well?  Please show us on the seismic record, start and stop of "free fall greater than gravity," or whatever your claim is.  Show me where you PRECISELY DETERMINE fall time.  

By the way.  Yes, I am perfectly fine sticking with 8th grade physics, chemistry and math to refute your "Experts."  Bring them on.  Here's a challenge.  Show me one that requires 9th grade work to rebut their bat shit crazy Truthiness.

LOL...

Nothing that refutes the 9/11 inside job here.    

Sure, buddy.  Just slide your story around so that it doesn't require explosives, or magical nano-thermite cast into the WTC concrete.  

Keep the lies flowing, so that the next Muslim terrorist is certain his people are the victims, and certain the Great Satan is the Great Satan.  A good, solid propaganda front doesn't need hard physics or solid facts.  Slide that story around, buddy.

[BADecker]

Nothing that refutes the 9/11 inside job here.    

Sure, buddy.  Just slide your story around so that it doesn't require explosives, or magical nano-thermite cast into the WTC concrete.  

Keep the lies flowing, so that the next Muslim terrorist is certain his people are the victims, and certain the Great Satan is the Great Satan.  A good, solid propaganda front doesn't need hard physics or solid facts.  Slide that story around, buddy.

Generally, I admire a guy who follows his own advice. But shouldn't you really wake up to the fact that 9/11 was an inside job?

[TECSHARE]

Since you are a fan of the NIST F.A.Q., lets take a closer look at it.

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

Note the official story from NIST is that WTC 2 fell in 9 seconds, 0.2 seconds FASTER THAN FREE FALL SPEED

No, that's your distorted reading of the text.  You assume that the first exterior panels to strike the ground came from the very top of the tower.  Get real.  Please revise your math to include a variety of heights from which the first panels to hit the ground came from.

....
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

The only problem with your "explanation is all of that momentum is a result of gravity according to your argument. Gravity pulls downwards, not up or laterally.

Newton's second law: “Change of motion is proportional to the force applied, and take place along the straight line the force acts.”

IE, a collapsing building doesn't shoot 4 ton sections of steel framework 600 feet laterally without other forces acting upon it.

The force required is proportionally related to the distance, not exponentially related.  You were wrong, admit it and move on.

....As far as the charts, you have a pair of eyeballs, try using them instead of using your constant tactic of dithering so you never have to admit your failed argument .....

Okay, let's use eyeballs.  I take a small bag of flour outside, throw it up in the air.  It comes down, and goes splat.  Flour goes everywhere.  Hey, guess what?  There's sort of a cloud of white over where it landed.  Some of it went up, and some went sideways.  But you claim gravity only works downward?  Hmm....

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

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.

The First Building's fall:

Well?  Please show us on the seismic record, start and stop of "free fall greater than gravity," or whatever your claim is.  Show me where you PRECISELY DETERMINE fall time. 

By the way.  Yes, I am perfectly fine sticking with 8th grade physics, chemistry and math to refute your "Experts."  Bring them on.  Here's a challenge.  Show me one that requires 9th grade work to rebut their bat shit crazy Truthiness.

LOL...

Deny laws of physics, talk about 8th grade physics, make personal attacks. I am seeing a pattern here.

[Spendulus]

Since you are a fan of the NIST F.A.Q., lets take a closer look at it.

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

Note the official story from NIST is that WTC 2 fell in 9 seconds, 0.2 seconds FASTER THAN FREE FALL SPEED

No, that's your distorted reading of the text.  You assume that the first exterior panels to strike the ground came from the very top of the tower.  Get real.  Please revise your math to include a variety of heights from which the first panels to hit the ground came from.

....
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

The only problem with your "explanation is all of that momentum is a result of gravity according to your argument. Gravity pulls downwards, not up or laterally.

Newton's second law: “Change of motion is proportional to the force applied, and take place along the straight line the force acts.”

IE, a collapsing building doesn't shoot 4 ton sections of steel framework 600 feet laterally without other forces acting upon it.

The force required is proportionally related to the distance, not exponentially related.  You were wrong, admit it and move on.

....As far as the charts, you have a pair of eyeballs, try using them instead of using your constant tactic of dithering so you never have to admit your failed argument .....

Okay, let's use eyeballs.  I take a small bag of flour outside, throw it up in the air.  It comes down, and goes splat.  Flour goes everywhere.  Hey, guess what?  There's sort of a cloud of white over where it landed.  Some of it went up, and some went sideways.  But you claim gravity only works downward?  Hmm....

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

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.

The First Building's fall:

Well?  Please show us on the seismic record, start and stop of "free fall greater than gravity," or whatever your claim is.  Show me where you PRECISELY DETERMINE fall time. 

By the way.  Yes, I am perfectly fine sticking with 8th grade physics, chemistry and math to refute your "Experts."  Bring them on.  Here's a challenge.  Show me one that requires 9th grade work to rebut their bat shit crazy Truthiness.

LOL...

Deny laws of physics, talk about 8th grade physics, make personal attacks. I am seeing a pattern here.

Help me out a bit here.  I said ...

"Please show us on the seismic record, start and stop of "free fall greater than gravity," or whatever your claim is.  Show me where you PRECISELY DETERMINE fall time.  "

Just do it, please.

[TECSHARE]

Help me out a bit here.  I said ...

"Please show us on the seismic record, start and stop of "free fall greater than gravity," or whatever your claim is.  Show me where you PRECISELY DETERMINE fall time.  "

Just do it, please.

As soon as you:

1- Explain how the seismic record supports YOUR argument. After all you were the first one to bring it up claiming it supported your argument. He who claims proves. Pointing this burden of proof back at me without explaining your own point is a logical fallacy.

2- Explain the precise mechanism that makes the force of gravity transfer laterally to throw 4 ton hunks of steel 600 feet sideways multiple times in every direction, as well as propel debris in an upward arc in violation of Newtons first law of motion by violating the forces of inertia and gravity.

3- Explain how two 110 story buildings fall at a rate of speed that demonstrates little to no resistance from thousands of supports designed with thousands of percent of redundancy thru the path of most resistance.

4- Explain how building 7, according to NIST itself fell at free fall speeds for over 2 seconds REQUIRING the synchronous removal of ALL support structures in those levels in order to be possible for any frame of time.

5- Explain who is offering this billion dollar payout for talking about the coordination of the attacks.

6- Explain how about 12 stories of a building was able to crush the other 98 stories completely to the ground without itself being destroyed, and how a similar effect could be repeated again in the other tower in violation of Newton's 3rd law of motion.

7- Explain how a hurricane is a "static load"

8- Explain how kerosene fires could weaken the steel structures enough to cause a complete collapse of both towers in spite of not being even capable of reaching sufficient temperatures to do this let alone long enough burn times to do so EVEN IF they did (which they didn't).

9- Explain how planes could impart sufficient kinetic energy to completely collapse the structures in spite of them being specifically designed to be able to withstand this exact scenario.

10- Explain how temperatures in the 800-1000 Kelvin range were created in the debris pile 5 days after the attack as measured by NASA satellites.


You demand accountability for my statements over and over again (which I have been providing) yet repeatedly gloss over and just ignore anything that does not confirm your own bias. Convenient you do not have to provide any evidence in response to these points. In your mind denial is evidence enough.

[Spendulus]

A reminder, here are the four initial questions of which we are still discussing #3 and #4.  I'm not going into #1 and #2 until these two are concluded.  

1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to collapse the structures.

2.  Fire fueled by the fuel in the planes and other material in the towers could not have softened the steel structures enough to cause complete structural failure.

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

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

You asked what are "my claims."

For #3, I reply that the 100-150 TONS of TNT equivalent in the PE of the structure are SUFFICIENT, and no other explanation is NEEDED.  

For #4, I reply that the PE of the structure is SUFFICIENT, and no other explanation is NEEDED.

It's pretty simple.  You seem to believe on both points, "INSUFFICIENT," and "another explanation IS NEEDED."

On the seismic record -
Well, all I've done is ask how the heck the seismic record supports anything you say about a 10 second fall?  I looked at it, and I'm just not seeing where to put the zero and the ten second mark.  Do I just get to pick anywhere?  Is there a place that supports your claim?

On the beams -
As for the beams being moved out, you introduced a chart that showed the extent of the debris field, and the beams are within it.  So I'm not seeing what's "unusual."  Is it that they were big and heavy?  How big should the debris field have been to be "natural?"

[BADecker]

A reminder, here are the four initial questions of which we are still discussing #3 and #4.  I'm not going into #1 and #2 until these two are concluded.  

1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to collapse the structures.

2.  Fire fueled by the fuel in the planes and other material in the towers could not have softened the steel structures enough to cause complete structural failure.

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

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

You asked what are "my claims."

For #3, I reply that the 100-150 TONS of TNT equivalent in the PE of the structure are SUFFICIENT, and no other explanation is NEEDED.  

For #4, I reply that the PE of the structure is SUFFICIENT, and no other explanation is NEEDED.

It's pretty simple.  You seem to believe on both points, "INSUFFICIENT," and "another explanation IS NEEDED."

On the seismic record -
Well, all I've done is ask how the heck the seismic record supports anything you say about a 10 second fall?  I looked at it, and I'm just not seeing where to put the zero and the ten second mark.  Do I just get to pick anywhere?  Is there a place that supports your claim?

On the beams -
As for the beams being moved out, you introduced a chart that showed the extent of the debris field, and the beams are within it.  So I'm not seeing what's "unusual."  Is it that they were big and heavy?  How big should the debris field have been to be "natural?"

Just wanted to thank you again for your non-answers. Sometimes it is a little difficult getting folks to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Then you come along and support the inside job idea by not refuting anything that has to do with the inside job idea. So, thanks for your support - support that the Towers didn't have after the demolition explosives did their job.

[Spendulus]

A reminder, here are the four initial questions of which we are still discussing #3 and #4.  I'm not going into #1 and #2 until these two are concluded.  

1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to collapse the structures.

2.  Fire fueled by the fuel in the planes and other material in the towers could not have softened the steel structures enough to cause complete structural failure.

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

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

You asked what are "my claims."

For #3, I reply that the 100-150 TONS of TNT equivalent in the PE of the structure are SUFFICIENT, and no other explanation is NEEDED.  

For #4, I reply that the PE of the structure is SUFFICIENT, and no other explanation is NEEDED.

It's pretty simple.  You seem to believe on both points, "INSUFFICIENT," and "another explanation IS NEEDED."

On the seismic record -
Well, all I've done is ask how the heck the seismic record supports anything you say about a 10 second fall?  I looked at it, and I'm just not seeing where to put the zero and the ten second mark.  Do I just get to pick anywhere?  Is there a place that supports your claim?

On the beams -
As for the beams being moved out, you introduced a chart that showed the extent of the debris field, and the beams are within it.  So I'm not seeing what's "unusual."  Is it that they were big and heavy?  How big should the debris field have been to be "natural?"

Just wanted to thank you again for your non-answers. Sometimes it is a little difficult getting folks to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Then you come along and support the inside job idea by not refuting anything that has to do with the inside job idea. So, thanks for your support - support that the Towers didn't have after the demolition explosives did their job.

I just looked up "911 crackpots" and found this cool article "Six really stupid 9/11 conspiracies debunked in about six seconds."

YEA, YOUR IDEAS ARE IN IT.  Damn, I didn't think they were that stupid but I guess I was wrong (but that's the first time in this thread I've been wrong.)

http://www.news.com.au/world/six-really-stupid-911-conspiracies-debunked-in-about-six-seconds/story-fndir2ev-1226717737311

YEA, your ideas are pathetic mindless repeating of junk in bad movies.  Here's another debunking.  The poor quality of the ideas is in the fact that they can be so easily debunked.

http://www.investingadvicewatchdog.com/911-lies.html

Keep it up, but remember it's pitiful and you're just getting laughed at.

[tvbcof]

...and nobody would open their mouths, eh?

https://youtu.be/7gwcQjDhZtI?t=1m53s

RIP Aaron Russo

[BADecker]

A reminder, here are the four initial questions of which we are still discussing #3 and #4.  I'm not going into #1 and #2 until these two are concluded.  

1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to collapse the structures.

2.  Fire fueled by the fuel in the planes and other material in the towers could not have softened the steel structures enough to cause complete structural failure.

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

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

You asked what are "my claims."

For #3, I reply that the 100-150 TONS of TNT equivalent in the PE of the structure are SUFFICIENT, and no other explanation is NEEDED.  

For #4, I reply that the PE of the structure is SUFFICIENT, and no other explanation is NEEDED.

It's pretty simple.  You seem to believe on both points, "INSUFFICIENT," and "another explanation IS NEEDED."

On the seismic record -
Well, all I've done is ask how the heck the seismic record supports anything you say about a 10 second fall?  I looked at it, and I'm just not seeing where to put the zero and the ten second mark.  Do I just get to pick anywhere?  Is there a place that supports your claim?

On the beams -
As for the beams being moved out, you introduced a chart that showed the extent of the debris field, and the beams are within it.  So I'm not seeing what's "unusual."  Is it that they were big and heavy?  How big should the debris field have been to be "natural?"

Just wanted to thank you again for your non-answers. Sometimes it is a little difficult getting folks to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Then you come along and support the inside job idea by not refuting anything that has to do with the inside job idea. So, thanks for your support - support that the Towers didn't have after the demolition explosives did their job.

I just looked up "911 crackpots" and found this cool article "Six really stupid 9/11 conspiracies debunked in about six seconds."

YEA, YOUR IDEAS ARE IN IT.  Damn, I didn't think they were that stupid but I guess I was wrong (but that's the first time in this thread I've been wrong.)

http://www.news.com.au/world/six-really-stupid-911-conspiracies-debunked-in-about-six-seconds/story-fndir2ev-1226717737311

YEA, your ideas are pathetic mindless repeating of junk in bad movies.  Here's another debunking.  The poor quality of the ideas is in the fact that they can be so easily debunked.

http://www.investingadvicewatchdog.com/911-lies.html

Keep it up, but remember it's pitiful and you're just getting laughed at.

Looked at the sites you presented. All of this debunking has been debunked long ago. In fact, most of it is stuff you would show to someone who hasn't thought about it much, and is starting to look at the idea that 9/11 WAS an inside job, for the first time.

You just keep digging yourself in deeper. Perhaps you dug yourself in so deep that they shipped you out with the rest of the Tower material, just so you couldn't be examined, too... psychologically I mean.

[Spendulus]

....
Looked at the sites you presented. All of this debunking has been debunked long ago.

Then bring the proofs right into this thread.  Because so far you have not . "Proofs" that have been brought in have turned out to be the opposite.

"Beams tossed" which don't even go outside the debris field, "Faster than free fall" which isn't supported by the facts presented and which isn't on the seismic record, "nano thermite" which is paint, "Evil Jews" which is total bullshit.

Really, the arguments presented are pathetic.  They'd get you and "F" in 8th grade physics.  Seriously.