What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[Spendulus]

....
3. So your argument is the plane impact made multiple 4-ton girders fly in several directions at once, some of which were not even in the direction of the plane's momentum? Of all of the hundreds of videos of the impacts, do you see even one that shows anything like a girder flying out of the impact hole?

The 4-ton girders landined hundreds of feet from their placement in the towers requiring the ejecting force of explosions for this distance of lateral movement. This is not up for debate, this is a matter of the laws of physics. They could not have been thrown this distance from the towers from a collapse. This information comes directly from the FEMA reports.
......

Requires ejecting force of explosions?

Could not have been thrown this distance from a collapse?

Sez WHO?  Some youtube video?  Bull.

I can't see anything out of the ordinary about a debris field half the height of a tower after it's collapse.  Maybe a third the height.  In either case you have "girders hundreds of feet away."  Where exactly is some "ejecting force" required?  And for WHAT?  If explosives were used to bring the tower down those were precision charges, the exact type that would never blow something far away.   

Seriously, that makes no sense.

Let me put it like this.  Suppose a beam from near the top of the tower had an initial sideways velocity of 30 feet per second.  It's going to hit the ground 300 feet away after a 10 second fall.  All it needs to do to get the 30 fps velocity is get hit by another piece of junk, and leave the collision at a sideways angle.  With the "stair stepping" collapse, that's what happened - all that stuff from above was hitting the stuff below.

Please explain where it is a NECESSARY conclusion that beams were launched out by explosives.

Please explain what your idea of a "normal" debris field for a 1300 foot tower should be and how this is different.  At 3:17 in your video it clearly shows portions of the side with the columns falling pretty far away.  When a building 1300 feet high the perimeter of which is steel columns falls, shouldn't some of those fall sideways?  If one stayed intact to the ground - example only - it's tip would be 1300 feet away.  Please explain what is unusual about debris landing "several hundred feet away."

I will handle the other points shortly, short on time right now, lol...

[1714056007]

1714056007

[1714056007]

1714056007

[TECSHARE]

....
3. So your argument is the plane impact made multiple 4-ton girders fly in several directions at once, some of which were not even in the direction of the plane's momentum? Of all of the hundreds of videos of the impacts, do you see even one that shows anything like a girder flying out of the impact hole?

The 4-ton girders landined hundreds of feet from their placement in the towers requiring the ejecting force of explosions for this distance of lateral movement. This is not up for debate, this is a matter of the laws of physics. They could not have been thrown this distance from the towers from a collapse. This information comes directly from the FEMA reports.
......

Requires ejecting force of explosions?

Could not have been thrown this distance from a collapse?

Sez WHO?  Some youtube video?  Bull.

I can't see anything out of the ordinary about a debris field half the height of a tower after it's collapse.  Maybe a third the height.  In either case you have "girders hundreds of feet away."  Where exactly is some "ejecting force" required?  And for WHAT?  If explosives were used to bring the tower down those were precision charges, the exact type that would never blow something far away.  

Seriously, that makes no sense.

Let me put it like this.  Suppose a beam from near the top of the tower had an initial sideways velocity of 30 feet per second.  It's going to hit the ground 300 feet away after a 10 second fall.  All it needs to do to get the 30 fps velocity is get hit by another piece of junk, and leave the collision at a sideways angle.  With the "stair stepping" collapse, that's what happened - all that stuff from above was hitting the stuff below.

Please explain where it is a NECESSARY conclusion that beams were launched out by explosives.

Please explain what your idea of a "normal" debris field for a 1300 foot tower should be and how this is different.  At 3:17 in your video it clearly shows portions of the side with the columns falling pretty far away.  When a building 1300 feet high the perimeter of which is steel columns falls, shouldn't some of those fall sideways?  If one stayed intact to the ground - example only - it's tip would be 1300 feet away.  Please explain what is unusual about debris landing "several hundred feet away."

I will handle the other points shortly, short on time right now, lol...

Says FUCKING PHYSICS. Gravity doesn't pull 4-ton beams 600 feet sideways, I don't care how a collapse happens. Gravity is exclusively a downward force. In fact to get this lateral movement you have to fight against gravity. Maybe if the whole building tilted over and fell, but it didn't, it went straight down into its own footprint, which by the way is pretty much impossible without a controlled demolition. If that were not the case, why do controlled demolitions have to be so perfectly timed in order to make them fall correctly to prevent such tilting? Additionally the velocity of the lateral ejections can clearly be measured from video of the event, PROVING that the reaching those velocities with multi-ton objects would REQUIRE explosive force.

Try doing the calculation for the energy required yourself: http://www.1728.org/energy.htm

Using the MINIMUM meters per second velocity assuming the beam came directly from the impact zone, 21 m/s, and the mass of the girder at 4 tons, the required force is equivalent to 2.1e-4 TONS of TNT! That is the MINIMUM VALUES. If the beam came from the middle of the building, at 30 m/s, the required force would be 4.3e-4 TONS of TNT. Tell me some more about how explosive force is not required.

There is no conjecturing your way out of this one. 4-ton beams don't just magically get 30fps lateral movement. The amount of energy required to move a 4-ton object 600 feet laterally at a measurable velocity is not up for debate. You are arguing against the laws of physics, not a Youtube video.

Again I am presenting you with facts of physics which can be clearly observed and measured from the video. All you have to argue with is stories about ninjas and magical self flinging 4-ton beams. Your lame attempts at refuting these physical facts are pathetic.

[BADecker]

....
3. So your argument is the plane impact made multiple 4-ton girders fly in several directions at once, some of which were not even in the direction of the plane's momentum? Of all of the hundreds of videos of the impacts, do you see even one that shows anything like a girder flying out of the impact hole?

The 4-ton girders landined hundreds of feet from their placement in the towers requiring the ejecting force of explosions for this distance of lateral movement. This is not up for debate, this is a matter of the laws of physics. They could not have been thrown this distance from the towers from a collapse. This information comes directly from the FEMA reports.
......

Requires ejecting force of explosions?

Could not have been thrown this distance from a collapse?

Sez WHO?  Some youtube video?  Bull.

I can't see anything out of the ordinary about a debris field half the height of a tower after it's collapse.  Maybe a third the height.  In either case you have "girders hundreds of feet away."  Where exactly is some "ejecting force" required?  And for WHAT?  If explosives were used to bring the tower down those were precision charges, the exact type that would never blow something far away.   

Seriously, that makes no sense.

Let me put it like this.  Suppose a beam from near the top of the tower had an initial sideways velocity of 30 feet per second.  It's going to hit the ground 300 feet away after a 10 second fall.  All it needs to do to get the 30 fps velocity is get hit by another piece of junk, and leave the collision at a sideways angle.  With the "stair stepping" collapse, that's what happened - all that stuff from above was hitting the stuff below.

Please explain where it is a NECESSARY conclusion that beams were launched out by explosives.

Please explain what your idea of a "normal" debris field for a 1300 foot tower should be and how this is different.  At 3:17 in your video it clearly shows portions of the side with the columns falling pretty far away.  When a building 1300 feet high the perimeter of which is steel columns falls, shouldn't some of those fall sideways?  If one stayed intact to the ground - example only - it's tip would be 1300 feet away.  Please explain what is unusual about debris landing "several hundred feet away."

I will handle the other points shortly, short on time right now, lol...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2odi5nszWKc#t=3m6s

[Spendulus]

Says FUCKING PHYSICS. Gravity doesn't pull 4-ton beams 600 feet sideways, I don't care how a collapse happens. Gravity is exclusively a downward force. In fact to get this lateral movement you have to fight against gravity. Maybe if the whole building tilted over and fell, but it didn't, it went straight down into its own footprint, which by the way is pretty much impossible without a controlled demolition. If that were not the case, why do controlled demolitions have to be so perfectly timed in order to make them fall correctly to prevent such tilting? Additionally the velocity of the lateral ejections can clearly be measured from video of the event, PROVING that the reaching those velocities with multi-ton objects would REQUIRE explosive force.

Try doing the calculation for the energy required yourself: http://www.1728.org/energy.htm

Using the MINIMUM meters per second velocity assuming the beam came directly from the impact zone, 21 m/s, and the mass of the girder at 4 tons, the required force is equivalent to 2.1 TONS of TNT! That is the MINIMUM VALUES. If the beam came from the middle of the building, at 30 m/s, the required force would be 4.3 TONS of TNT. Tell me some more about how explosive force is not required.

There is no conjecturing your way out of this one. 4-ton beams don't just magically get 30fps lateral movement. The amount of energy required to move a 4-ton object 600 feet laterally at a measurable velocity is not up for debate. You are arguing against the laws of physics, not a Youtube video.

Again I am presenting you with facts of physics which can be clearly observed and measured from the video. All you have to argue with is stories about ninjas and magical self flinging 4-ton beams. Your lame attempts at refuting these physical facts are pathetic.

As I noted, the video itself shows a row of perimeter beams falling sideways.  

Please explain what your idea of a "normal" debris field for a 1300 foot tower should be and how this is different.  At 3:17 in your video it clearly shows portions of the side with the columns falling pretty far away.  


Gravity doesn't pull 4-ton beams 600 feet sideways, I don't care how a collapse happens. Gravity is exclusively a downward force. In fact to get this lateral movement you have to fight against gravity

Kinetic and potential energy are related.   Set KE=PE.   A mass stationary at 1000 feet altitude has a kinetic energy equivalent.  Basically it's HUGE.  PE certainly can be translated into other than vertical motion.  For example, roller coasters.

Recheck your work with the online calculator please.

[TECSHARE]

As I noted, the video itself shows a row of perimeter beams falling sideways. 

Please explain what your idea of a "normal" debris field for a 1300 foot tower should be and how this is different.  At 3:17 in your video it clearly shows portions of the side with the columns falling pretty far away. 


Gravity doesn't pull 4-ton beams 600 feet sideways, I don't care how a collapse happens. Gravity is exclusively a downward force. In fact to get this lateral movement you have to fight against gravity

Kinetic and potential energy are related.   Set KE=PE.   A mass stationary at 1000 feet altitude has a kinetic energy equivalent.  Basically it's HUGE.  PE certainly can be translated into other than vertical motion.  For example, roller coasters.

Recheck your work with the online calculator please.

Your argument was that the beams were ejected by the plane impact. Of course the beams are moving sideways, they were ejected with explosive force. What is the point of stating the obvious? The velocity of their lateral movement can be measured and you do not get that lateral velocity with "tilting" or "falling". I don't see any roller coaster rails, sorry. Recheck your brain stem please.

[BADecker]

Says FUCKING PHYSICS. Gravity doesn't pull 4-ton beams 600 feet sideways, I don't care how a collapse happens. Gravity is exclusively a downward force. In fact to get this lateral movement you have to fight against gravity. Maybe if the whole building tilted over and fell, but it didn't, it went straight down into its own footprint, which by the way is pretty much impossible without a controlled demolition. If that were not the case, why do controlled demolitions have to be so perfectly timed in order to make them fall correctly to prevent such tilting? Additionally the velocity of the lateral ejections can clearly be measured from video of the event, PROVING that the reaching those velocities with multi-ton objects would REQUIRE explosive force.

Try doing the calculation for the energy required yourself: http://www.1728.org/energy.htm

Using the MINIMUM meters per second velocity assuming the beam came directly from the impact zone, 21 m/s, and the mass of the girder at 4 tons, the required force is equivalent to 2.1 TONS of TNT! That is the MINIMUM VALUES. If the beam came from the middle of the building, at 30 m/s, the required force would be 4.3 TONS of TNT. Tell me some more about how explosive force is not required.

There is no conjecturing your way out of this one. 4-ton beams don't just magically get 30fps lateral movement. The amount of energy required to move a 4-ton object 600 feet laterally at a measurable velocity is not up for debate. You are arguing against the laws of physics, not a Youtube video.

Again I am presenting you with facts of physics which can be clearly observed and measured from the video. All you have to argue with is stories about ninjas and magical self flinging 4-ton beams. Your lame attempts at refuting these physical facts are pathetic.

As I noted, the video itself shows a row of perimeter beams falling sideways.  

Please explain what your idea of a "normal" debris field for a 1300 foot tower should be and how this is different.  At 3:17 in your video it clearly shows portions of the side with the columns falling pretty far away.  


[/u] Gravity doesn't pull 4-ton beams 600 feet sideways, I don't care how a collapse happens. Gravity is exclusively a downward force. In fact to get this lateral movement you have to fight against gravity

Kinetic and potential energy are related.   Set KE=PE.   A mass stationary at 1000 feet altitude has a kinetic energy equivalent.  Basically it's HUGE.  PE certainly can be translated into other than vertical motion.  For example, roller coasters.

Recheck your work with the online calculator please.

Come on. Didn't you watch my video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2odi5nszWKc#t=3m6s ?

All that sideways kinetic energy only happens if the parts aren't really attached, and are set up for a fall... like if there were explosives that broke the parts into pieces before the collapse started.    

[Spendulus]

As I noted, the video itself shows a row of perimeter beams falling sideways. 

Please explain what your idea of a "normal" debris field for a 1300 foot tower should be and how this is different.  At 3:17 in your video it clearly shows portions of the side with the columns falling pretty far away. 

Kinetic and potential energy are related.   Set KE=PE.   A mass stationary at 1000 feet altitude has a kinetic energy equivalent.  Basically it's HUGE.

Recheck your work with the online calculator please.

Your argument was that the beams were ejected by the plane impact. Of course the beams are moving sideways, they were ejected with explosive force. What is the point of stating the obvious? The velocity of their lateral movement can be measured and you do not get that lateral velocity with "tilting" or "falling". Recheck your brain stem please.

I asked if I understood your arguments properly.  Here is how I think they work, again.

So do these summarize your position on why the airplanes-into-buildings is insufficient to explain the events which occurred?

1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to damage 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 structural failure.

3.  The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel 4 ton sections of steel beams hundreds of feet.

4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.

I post this just to clarify that the respective arguments are what they are.

A  TNT, etc required to move those beams.
B  TNT not required to move those beams.

[TECSHARE]

As I noted, the video itself shows a row of perimeter beams falling sideways.  

Please explain what your idea of a "normal" debris field for a 1300 foot tower should be and how this is different.  At 3:17 in your video it clearly shows portions of the side with the columns falling pretty far away.  

Kinetic and potential energy are related.   Set KE=PE.   A mass stationary at 1000 feet altitude has a kinetic energy equivalent.  Basically it's HUGE.

Recheck your work with the online calculator please.

Your argument was that the beams were ejected by the plane impact. Of course the beams are moving sideways, they were ejected with explosive force. What is the point of stating the obvious? The velocity of their lateral movement can be measured and you do not get that lateral velocity with "tilting" or "falling". Recheck your brain stem please.

I asked if I understood your arguments properly.  Here is how I think they work, again.

So do these summarize your position on why the airplanes-into-buildings is insufficient to explain the events which occurred?

1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to damage 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 structural failure.

3.  The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel 4 ton sections of steel beams hundreds of feet.

4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.

I post this just to clarify that the respective arguments are what they are.

A  TNT, etc required to move those beams.
B  TNT not required to move those beams.

Do you understand your arguments properly? So far all your arguments just consist of what if ninjas, what if roller coasters, what if the laws of physics don't apply. Do you have anything substantive here to respond with or just continual tu quoque fallacies?



1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to damage the structures.
(What are you retarded or just purposely trying to waste my time to hope I will get tired of your bullshit and go away? Of course they damaged the structure)

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 structural failure.

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.  

The majority of the fuel was burned off at impact (see giant fireball and burn speed of jet fuel) as the fuel is stored in the wings. Even if every drop made it inside, it would still not be enough. The other materials in the building all met strict fire codes in order to prevent making fires worse. Additionally the fires did not burn for nearly long enough or hot enough to sufficiently weaken the structure.


3.  The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel 4 ton sections of steel beams hundreds of feet.

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 falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.

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

Either it was free fall speed and explosives were used to clear the resistance before impact was made, or the impacts happen and create readily visible and measurable deceleration preventing free fall speed. The plane impact has absolutely nothing to do with it.

A  TNT, etc required to move those beams.
B  TNT not required to move those beams.

TNT is not required, some type of explosive is required. TNT was only used as a measurement of force required to move a 4-ton mass at the measured velocity of 21 m/s.

[Spendulus]

As I noted, the video itself shows a row of perimeter beams falling sideways.  

Please explain what your idea of a "normal" debris field for a 1300 foot tower should be and how this is different.  At 3:17 in your video it clearly shows portions of the side with the columns falling pretty far away.  

Kinetic and potential energy are related.   Set KE=PE.   A mass stationary at 1000 feet altitude has a kinetic energy equivalent.  Basically it's HUGE.

Recheck your work with the online calculator please.

Your argument was that the beams were ejected by the plane impact. Of course the beams are moving sideways, they were ejected with explosive force. What is the point of stating the obvious? The velocity of their lateral movement can be measured and you do not get that lateral velocity with "tilting" or "falling". Recheck your brain stem please.

I asked if I understood your arguments properly.  Here is how I think they work, again.

So do these summarize your position on why the airplanes-into-buildings is insufficient to explain the events which occurred?

1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to damage 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 structural failure.

3.  The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel 4 ton sections of steel beams hundreds of feet.

4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.

I post this just to clarify that the respective arguments are what they are.

A  TNT, etc required to move those beams.
B  TNT not required to move those beams.

Do you understand your arguments properly? So far all your arguments just consist of what if ninjas, what if roller coasters, what if the laws of physics don't apply. Do you have anything substantive here to respond with or just continual tu quoque fallacies?

Just trying to be sure I have your objection to #3 (and the other issues) correct.  Does A vs B accurately describe this?

Because my answer is that the "propelling force" is PE --> KE, and that is about 1.2 x 10^7 joule, clearly sufficient energy.  PE is not "pointed downward."

Another way to look at this is to think about piles of dirt.  If we dump dirt out of trucks, over and over, it will form a mound with a ratio between the height and the diameter.  IIRC usually about 1:3.  

So what is "unusual about" pieces of debris being found 300-600 feet from a 1300 tower's fall?

2500 feet away, you would definitely have my interest....

[Spendulus]

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.  

The majority of the fuel was burned off at impact (see giant fireball and burn speed of jet fuel) as the fuel is stored in the wings. The other materials in the building all met strict fire codes in order to prevent making fires worse. Additionally the fires did not burn for nearly long enough or hot enough to sufficiently weaken the structure.

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.

Either it was free fall speed and explosives were used to clear the resistance before impact was made, or the impacts happen and create readily visible and measurable deceleration preventing free fall speed. The plane impact has absolutely nothing to do with it.

TNT is not required, some type of explosive is required. TNT was only used as a measurement of force required to move a 4-ton mass at the measured velocity of 21 m/s.

Okay thanks.  Those are the assertions then.

[TECSHARE]

Again, you just conveniently ignore the velocity of the 4 ton girders. This was not a fluke where some how just one made it that far. There were MULTIPLE 4-ton girders hundreds of feet from the towers. Additionally considering there was ZERO TILT when the buildings went down right into their footprints, your entire argument about it some how magically being moved sideways is fallacious.

[Spendulus]

Again, you just conveniently ignore the velocity of the 4 ton girders.

No I will get to it.

[TECSHARE]

Again, you just conveniently ignore the velocity of the 4 ton girders.

No I will get to it.

Good luck with that. Happy hunting on "debunking" sites so you don't have to have any actual thoughts of your own.

[BADecker]

As I noted, the video itself shows a row of perimeter beams falling sideways.  

Please explain what your idea of a "normal" debris field for a 1300 foot tower should be and how this is different.  At 3:17 in your video it clearly shows portions of the side with the columns falling pretty far away.  

Kinetic and potential energy are related.   Set KE=PE.   A mass stationary at 1000 feet altitude has a kinetic energy equivalent.  Basically it's HUGE.

Recheck your work with the online calculator please.

Your argument was that the beams were ejected by the plane impact. Of course the beams are moving sideways, they were ejected with explosive force. What is the point of stating the obvious? The velocity of their lateral movement can be measured and you do not get that lateral velocity with "tilting" or "falling". Recheck your brain stem please.

I asked if I understood your arguments properly.  Here is how I think they work, again.

So do these summarize your position on why the airplanes-into-buildings is insufficient to explain the events which occurred?

1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to damage 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 structural failure.

3.  The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel 4 ton sections of steel beams hundreds of feet.

4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.

I post this just to clarify that the respective arguments are what they are.

A  TNT, etc required to move those beams.
B  TNT not required to move those beams.

Do you understand your arguments properly? So far all your arguments just consist of what if ninjas, what if roller coasters, what if the laws of physics don't apply. Do you have anything substantive here to respond with or just continual tu quoque fallacies?

Just trying to be sure I have your objection to #3 (and the other issues) correct.  Does A vs B accurately describe this?

Because my answer is that the "propelling force" is PE --> KE, and that is about 1.2 x 10^7 joule, clearly sufficient energy.  PE is not "pointed downward."

Another way to look at this is to think about piles of dirt.  If we dump dirt out of trucks, over and over, it will form a mound with a ratio between the height and the diameter.  IIRC usually about 1:3.  

So what is "unusual about" pieces of debris being found 300-600 feet from a 1300 tower's fall?

2500 feet away, you would definitely have my interest....

Particles of dumped dirt aren't attached to each other like steel beams and girders in buildings. Why do you want to sound so foolish?

[BADecker]

Particles of dumped dirt aren't attached to each other like steel beams and girders in buildings. Why do you want to sound so foolish?

I'm waiting for you to say that the tower beams and girders weren't attached, which is my point. The explosives detached them.

[Spendulus]

Again, you just conveniently ignore the velocity of the 4 ton girders.

No I will get to it.

Good luck with that. Happy hunting on "debunking" sites so you don't have to have any actual thoughts of your own.

Huh?

Velocity is simply from KE = 1/2 * M * V^2

[Spendulus]

Again, you just conveniently ignore the velocity of the 4 ton girders. This was not a fluke where some how just one made it that far. There were MULTIPLE 4-ton girders hundreds of feet from the towers. Additionally considering there was ZERO TILT when the buildings went down right into their footprints, your entire argument about it some how magically being moved sideways is fallacious.

Okay, here we go.

A dirt mound, say one created by dump trucks, has a side angle of slope related to the type of material.  But very broadly, a mound is about three times in diameter as it is tall.  A building collapsing would create a mound of some such proportions.

Reports of the 911 trajedy were that standing on top of the debris mound, a person was 15-20 stories up.  Also that the mounds extended out 400-500 feet.  So basically about 200 feet up and 800 feet in diameter.  There's the "conical mound of debris."  

Now, all of this debris has converted its potential energy it had when up in the sky into kinetic energy as it fell down, and sideways, and then again it became potential energy when it came to rest on the ground.  The sideways movement occurs in EVERY CASE where material is deposited on the ground under the force of gravity.

Good so far?  If not let me know.

So I conjecture that something "unusual" would be something that was far outside the natural debris mound.  For example, if our dump truck dumped a load of sand in our front yard, but one part of the offload was mysteriously thirty feet to the side.

But we don't have that here, do we?  The beams that are "hundreds of feet sideways" are within what we would expect for the debris field's size and distribution.

I can show the equations for the (theoretical) conical mound but realized that the actual physical size of the debris mound is in agreement, so no reason to.

Does that make sense?  If not why and how.  Maybe there's something I'm not getting.  But I'm not getting how a thing found 400-500 feet away is "unusual" and how it requires another explanation outside and beyond PE --> KE.

Again, you just conveniently ignore the velocity of the 4 ton girders. This was not a fluke where some how just one made it that far. There were MULTIPLE 4-ton girders hundreds of feet from the towers. Additionally considering there was ZERO TILT when the buildings went down right into their footprints, your entire argument about it some how magically being moved sideways is fallacious.

I believe my explanation covers both the velocity and the zero tilt issues. 

[Spendulus]

This argument...
4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.


...asserts that if X is the speed of the fall of an object in air, then a building collapse should be X - Y speed.  Where Y is resistance by the part of the building below the section falling on it.

This argument is flawed in it's premises, it's approach, and in it's conclusion.

The "free fall speed" is V = 32 ft * time^2/seconds.

Roughly in the first second, an object moves 32 feet.  In the second second, 64 feet, and so on.

I'm not seeing support for #4 either in the video of the towers collapse, the seismic records, or in the math and structural stuff.....

[BADecker]

This argument...
4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.


...asserts that if X is the speed of the fall of an object in air, then a building collapse should be X - Y speed.  Where Y is resistance by the part of the building below the section falling on it.

This argument is flawed in it's premises, it's approach, and in it's conclusion.

The "free fall speed" is V = 32 ft * time^2/seconds.

Roughly in the first second, an object moves 32 feet.  In the second second, 64 feet, and so on.

I'm not seeing support for #4 either in the video of the towers collapse, the seismic records, or in the math and structural stuff.....

Nor are you taking into account many other factors that show that buildings like these can not fall in free fall style as they did, without some critically timed detonations going off inside to make them fall that way.

If we wanted to use odds, it couldn't happen with one building. Three buildings in the same day equals demolition equals an inside job.

[Spendulus]

This argument...
4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.


...asserts that if X is the speed of the fall of an object in air, then a building collapse should be X - Y speed.  Where Y is resistance by the part of the building below the section falling on it.

This argument is flawed in it's premises, it's approach, and in it's conclusion.

The "free fall speed" is V = 32 ft * time^2/seconds.

Roughly in the first second, an object moves 32 feet.  In the second second, 64 feet, and so on.

I'm not seeing support for #4 either in the video of the towers collapse, the seismic records, or in the math and structural stuff.....

Nor are you taking into account many other factors that show that buildings like these can not fall in free fall style as they did, without some critically timed detonations going off inside to make them fall that way.

If we wanted to use odds, it couldn't happen with one building. Three buildings in the same day equals demolition equals an inside job.

It's simple problem of the exponential increase in kinetic energy from t=0, weakened by a factor for the resistance.  So if free fall was V = m * T^2, the proposition of "resistance" would lead us to calculate the possible range of that resistance, and we might have V = m * T^1.7 or 1.9, or whatever. 

But these are huge numbers for the energies, regardless of exactly what that exponent is. 

Oh, and there is no such thing as "odds" here.  There seem to be two lines of thought among conspiracy theorists.   First there is the belief that the initial structural failure could not have occurred without "additional assistance" such as thermite or explosives.  Second there is a belief that the downward pancaking of the towers must have been accompanied by additional explosives or thermite, such as charges on each floor or something of that sort.

In my opinion the first is a valid question, and should be explored and answered.  We can do that pretty easily.   Also in my opinion, the second is way over in batshit crazy land.