What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[TECSHARE]

He is not a good enough shill to be a professional. Probably just a freelance ideologue.

[1714136961]

1714136961

[1714136961]

1714136961

[BADecker]

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

[TECSHARE]

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

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

[kryptqnick]

May be there is nobody left to tell the truth. And yet I think that it wasn't a government operation, because I suppose if it was there wouls for sure appear smb to tell about it. Not just because of wanting to let people know the truth but more because people just can't keep secrets

[BADecker]

May be there is nobody left to tell the truth. And yet I think that it wasn't a government operation, because I suppose if it was there wouls for sure appear smb to tell about it. Not just because of wanting to let people know the truth but more because people just can't keep secrets

TECSHARE's little list of dead people - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1385160.msg14946602#msg14946602.

[Spendulus]

....

Again, let me explain how conspiracies are kept quiet.
.....

That's all you got?

Not very much.

Nothing that explains why nobody came forward for the huge prize.

You are in denial of reality.  Conspiracies cannot be kept quiet indefinitely.  Used to be easier than now.

[BADecker]

....

Again, let me explain how conspiracies are kept quiet.
.....

That's all you got?

Not very much.

Nothing that explains why nobody came forward for the huge prize.

You are in denial of reality.  Conspiracies cannot be kept quiet indefinitely.  Used to be easier than now.

LOL! You are so humorous. 

Here TECHSHARE is, explaining how the 9/11 conspiracy is revealing itself to us in dozens of ways. And you make the remark to him that, "Conspiracies cannot be kept quiet indefinitely," like HE is the one denying the conspiracy... while you, yourself, continually attempting to deny the conspiracy.

LOL!

[TECSHARE]

....

Again, let me explain how conspiracies are kept quiet.
.....

That's all you got?

Not very much.

Nothing that explains why nobody came forward for the huge prize.

You are in denial of reality.  Conspiracies cannot be kept quiet indefinitely.  Used to be easier than now.

Said the man with a 3 sentence reply to pages of information. What fucking prize? Who is paying for this mythical prize? How do you spend it if your brains are splattered? No, it hasn't gotten harder to hide conspiracies, the strategies for hiding them have just changed. They used to try to hide the information, now they just bury it in a mountain of bullshit information (much like you are attempting to do here in this thread). Needle in a haystack strategy. No, most conspiracies can't be kept indefinitely, that is why there are only a handful of willfully ignorant people like you remaining. I know you spend a lot of time trying to ignore it, but evidence HAS been being exposed in the decade and a half since 9/11. People like you are now the minority. Enjoy ninja boy.

[Spendulus]

....

Again, let me explain how conspiracies are kept quiet.
.....

That's all you got?

Not very much.

Nothing that explains why nobody came forward for the huge prize.

You are in denial of reality.  Conspiracies cannot be kept quiet indefinitely.  Used to be easier than now.

Said the man with a 3 sentence reply to pages of information. What fucking prize? Who is paying for this mythical prize? How do you spend it if your brains are splattered? No, it hasn't gotten harder to hide conspiracies, the strategies for hiding them have just changed. They used to try to hide the information, now they just bury it in a mountain of bullshit information (much like you are attempting to do here in this thread). Needle in a haystack strategy. No, most conspiracies can't be kept indefinitely, that is why there are only a handful of willfully ignorant people like you remaining. I know you spend a lot of time trying to ignore it, but evidence HAS been being exposed in the decade and a half since 9/11. People like you are now the minority. Enjoy ninja boy.

So, a couple of crap movies come out, and a few guys get hypnotized by them, and repeat their mantras.  That's all you are doing here.  By the way here's a pretty good debunking of a lot of the TRUTHER claims.  

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

You said this -

The fact is the buildings WERE EXTREMELY OVER ENGINEERED. They were able to withstand 2000% of its own load.

Sorry, that's not at all impressive.  That's a static load.  Rather than being proof they could not fall it's proof there was no way around them falling.  I wonder if you have any clue how it changes with a dynamic load?  A hundred times is easy to have occur.  Just doodling with some numbers here, I find there is no way that the towers could not have collapsed, if they had an initial event that caused an upper rigid section to fall even ten feet.  It is no different than putting a bowling ball on your foot.  You can do that, no problem.  But try dropping the ball from just two or three feet.

The problem is that you seem to ignore these realities in chasing the option you want to believe in.

At the same time, you seem to actually believe a conspiracy can be kept quiet when hundreds or thousands of people were complicit.  But an insurance company isn't eager to pay out 4B in cash.  They'll do anything they can to find a way around it, and they'd just love to find someone who talked and who showed there was insurance fraud.  But you'd claim every last one of them stayed quiet.  Pretty laughable.

All in all, this sure sounds like your line is one of Islamic propaganda and active Muslim disinformation to the West.  Make the US the evil one, make the Muslims nothing but harmless victims.  Sure, buddy.  There's some evidence to the contrary of that equation -

www.thereligionofpeace.com

[BADecker]

At the same time, you seem to actually believe a conspiracy can be kept quiet when hundreds or thousands of people were complicit.  But an insurance company isn't eager to pay out 4B in cash.  They'll do anything they can to find a way around it, and they'd just love to find someone who talked and who showed there was insurance fraud.  But you'd claim every last one of them stayed quiet.  Pretty laughable.

Here you go again, exaggerating the truth.

Almost all of the people involved were simply following orders. They weren't "complicit." Many of them came forward, later, once they realized their unwitting part in helping to bring the Towers down. Many of these were "bumped off" for coming forward. The handful that were fully aware of what was going on have either remained quiet, or have been assassinated... some of them assassinated even though they remained quiet.

[TECSHARE]

....

Again, let me explain how conspiracies are kept quiet.
.....

That's all you got?

Not very much.

Nothing that explains why nobody came forward for the huge prize.

You are in denial of reality.  Conspiracies cannot be kept quiet indefinitely.  Used to be easier than now.

Said the man with a 3 sentence reply to pages of information. What fucking prize? Who is paying for this mythical prize? How do you spend it if your brains are splattered? No, it hasn't gotten harder to hide conspiracies, the strategies for hiding them have just changed. They used to try to hide the information, now they just bury it in a mountain of bullshit information (much like you are attempting to do here in this thread). Needle in a haystack strategy. No, most conspiracies can't be kept indefinitely, that is why there are only a handful of willfully ignorant people like you remaining. I know you spend a lot of time trying to ignore it, but evidence HAS been being exposed in the decade and a half since 9/11. People like you are now the minority. Enjoy ninja boy.

So, a couple of crap movies come out, and a few guys get hypnotized by them, and repeat their mantras.  That's all you are doing here.  By the way here's a pretty good debunking of a lot of the TRUTHER claims.  

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

You said this -

The fact is the buildings WERE EXTREMELY OVER ENGINEERED. They were able to withstand 2000% of its own load.

Sorry, that's not at all impressive.  That's a static load.  Rather than being proof they could not fall it's proof there was no way around them falling.  I wonder if you have any clue how it changes with a dynamic load?  A hundred times is easy to have occur.  Just doodling with some numbers here, I find there is no way that the towers could not have collapsed, if they had an initial event that caused an upper rigid section to fall even ten feet.  It is no different than putting a bowling ball on your foot.  You can do that, no problem.  But try dropping the ball from just two or three feet.

The problem is that you seem to ignore these realities in chasing the option you want to believe in.

At the same time, you seem to actually believe a conspiracy can be kept quiet when hundreds or thousands of people were complicit.  But an insurance company isn't eager to pay out 4B in cash.  They'll do anything they can to find a way around it, and they'd just love to find someone who talked and who showed there was insurance fraud.  But you'd claim every last one of them stayed quiet.  Pretty laughable.

All in all, this sure sounds like your line is one of Islamic propaganda and active Muslim disinformation to the West.  Make the US the evil one, make the Muslims nothing but harmless victims.  Sure, buddy.  There's some evidence to the contrary of that equation -

www.thereligionofpeace.com

Oh, so some aholes put up a website with more word salad just like you practice and that is proof huh? Clearly no one has EVER lied on the internet! I noticed there is no math or anything close to a scientific examination on that site, just more semantic gymnastics like you are so fond of to distract from the facts.

Sorry, but I didn't use documentaries to collect these FACTS about physics, additionally my sources come from many places, including the official reports themselves. You accusing me of basing my logic on documentaries does not argue against the points, it is just yet another distraction in a long string of distractions you hope will divert people away from the facts I presented.

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? Again this has nothing to do with the fact that the laws of physics do not allow for a building to fall at free fall speeds without explosives. Your foot and a bowling ball have nothing to do with massive towers. More deny, distract, and dismiss, no actual arguments of substance as usual.

You accuse me of denying reality when your only arguments rely on juvenile oversimplifications like dropping bowling balls on your foot while I have demonstrated with the laws of physics a complete collapse without explosives would be impossible. These aren't even just calculations with a margin of error, they are LAWS of physics. Laws are not malleable or prone to error, that is why they are called LAWS of physics.

I already refuted your claims about the insurance company payout, and your reply is to stick your fingers in your ears and say "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!".  People did speak out, and then they died.

I don't like Muslim extremism any more than you, but your argument is a logical fallacy. I don't have to support your fantasy narrative of 9/11 in order to be against Muslim extremism, nor does proving the official narrative is false provide any material support to Muslim extremism. The fact is I don't like when my country and its people are USED AS TOOLS against their knowledge to be the iron fist in a fight that was not even theirs until they were induced into it with this false narrative. The "War on Terror" did far more to GROW Muslim extremism than it did to fight it. In fact there is a lot of documentation pointing to the fact that Al-quaida and ISIS were funded and trained by the CIA and other US domestic agencies. This isn't even conspiracy theory, it is in the main stream news! So in short, you can take your pro-Israel at the cost of everyone else rhetoric and shove it right up your ass.

This is America, and Americans are tired of being used as the military to push globalist interests, and we sure as fuck aren't going to forget that thousands of our people were killed in a false flag and then sent to war over a lie just because you cry about Muslims.

Again, this is all just designed to distract from the facts and physical evidence and the fact that you have no replies to my retorts. Who is offering this magical billion dollar payout for speaking up about it, and I will ask you again for the 20th time, how do you explain the official narrative violating the laws of physics in MULTIPLE ways?

[Spendulus]

So, a couple of crap movies come out, and a few guys get hypnotized by them, and repeat their mantras.  That's all you are doing here.  By the way here's a pretty good debunking of a lot of the TRUTHER claims.  

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

You said this -

The fact is the buildings WERE EXTREMELY OVER ENGINEERED. They were able to withstand 2000% of its own load.

Sorry, that's not at all impressive.  That's a static load.  Rather than being proof they could not fall it's proof there was no way around them falling.  I wonder if you have any clue how it changes with a dynamic load?  A hundred times is easy to have occur.  Just doodling with some numbers here, I find there is no way that the towers could not have collapsed, if they had an initial event that caused an upper rigid section to fall even ten feet.  It is no different than putting a bowling ball on your foot.  You can do that, no problem.  But try dropping the ball from just two or three feet.

The problem is that you seem to ignore these realities in chasing the option you want to believe in.

Oh, so some aholes put up a website with more word salad just like you practice and that is proof huh? Clearly no one has EVER lied on the internet! I noticed there is no math or anything close to a scientific examination on that site, just more semantic gymnastics like you are so fond of to distract from the facts.

Sorry, but I didn't use documentaries to collect these FACTS about physics, additionally my sources come from many places, including the official reports themselves. You accusing me of basing my logic on documentaries does not argue against the points, it is just yet another distraction in a long string of distractions you hope will divert people away from the facts I presented.

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? Again this has nothing to do with the fact that the laws of physics do not allow for a building to fall at free fall speeds without explosives. Your foot and a bowling ball have nothing to do with massive towers. More deny, distract, and dismiss, no actual arguments of substance as usual.

You accuse me of denying reality when your only arguments rely on juvenile oversimplifications like dropping bowling balls on your foot while I have demonstrated with the laws of physics a complete collapse without explosives would be impossible.....

Respectfully, I am afraid that you have not done what you have said you have done.  You have not even approached it.  However, at any time you are welcome to show the physics calculations.  I invite you to. 

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. 

That has no relation to the case at hand.  I've actually already answered this twice, but apparently you didn't get it.  Yes, the example of the bowling ball is relevant.  What is the dynamic load presented by the ball, accelerated over 10 feet, and deaccelerated in the space of 1 inch by your foot?

10 feet = 120 inches

10 feet at 9.8 fps^2 = 1 inch at 9.8*120 fps^2

No building, no steel column will withstand this crushing and shearing force.  Think of it as a 120x multiplier.   You claim the buildings were built to only withstand a 20x multipler.  Your problem is in your claim, not in my answer.

It's no different than when you claimed it took exponentially more force to move something 500 feet than 5 feet.  The answer is simply applying the law of physics.  The claim is then simply proven wrong.

If you read and believe people who say these things, why not invite them to this forum.  Just tell them there's this wacko guy that says 8th grade math chem and physics will refute their claims.  Makes no difference to me.

Meanwhile, how does it feel to be a repeater of Muslim propaganda?

[Spendulus]

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

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

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

IT'S THE REPTILIAN SHAPE-SHIFTERS!

[TECSHARE]

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

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

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

IT'S THE REPTILIAN SHAPE-SHIFTERS!

  What does David Icke have to do with me? David Icke doesn't speak for me, and this is you yet again grasping at straws to try to defame my point rather than counter it with logic. You are really struggling now aren't you?

So, a couple of crap movies come out, and a few guys get hypnotized by them, and repeat their mantras.  That's all you are doing here.  By the way here's a pretty good debunking of a lot of the TRUTHER claims. 

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

You said this -

The fact is the buildings WERE EXTREMELY OVER ENGINEERED. They were able to withstand 2000% of its own load.

Sorry, that's not at all impressive.  That's a static load.  Rather than being proof they could not fall it's proof there was no way around them falling.  I wonder if you have any clue how it changes with a dynamic load?  A hundred times is easy to have occur.  Just doodling with some numbers here, I find there is no way that the towers could not have collapsed, if they had an initial event that caused an upper rigid section to fall even ten feet.  It is no different than putting a bowling ball on your foot.  You can do that, no problem.  But try dropping the ball from just two or three feet.

The problem is that you seem to ignore these realities in chasing the option you want to believe in.

Oh, so some aholes put up a website with more word salad just like you practice and that is proof huh? Clearly no one has EVER lied on the internet! I noticed there is no math or anything close to a scientific examination on that site, just more semantic gymnastics like you are so fond of to distract from the facts.

Sorry, but I didn't use documentaries to collect these FACTS about physics, additionally my sources come from many places, including the official reports themselves. You accusing me of basing my logic on documentaries does not argue against the points, it is just yet another distraction in a long string of distractions you hope will divert people away from the facts I presented.

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? Again this has nothing to do with the fact that the laws of physics do not allow for a building to fall at free fall speeds without explosives. Your foot and a bowling ball have nothing to do with massive towers. More deny, distract, and dismiss, no actual arguments of substance as usual.

You accuse me of denying reality when your only arguments rely on juvenile oversimplifications like dropping bowling balls on your foot while I have demonstrated with the laws of physics a complete collapse without explosives would be impossible.....

Respectfully, I am afraid that you have not done what you have said you have done.  You have not even approached it.  However, at any time you are welcome to show the physics calculations.  I invite you to. 

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. 

That has no relation to the case at hand.  I've actually already answered this twice, but apparently you didn't get it.  Yes, the example of the bowling ball is relevant.  What is the dynamic load presented by the ball, accelerated over 10 feet, and deaccelerated in the space of 1 inch by your foot?

10 feet = 120 inches

10 feet at 9.8 fps^2 = 1 inch at 9.8*120 fps^2

No building, no steel column will withstand this crushing and shearing force.  Think of it as a 120x multiplier.   You claim the buildings were built to only withstand a 20x multipler.  Your problem is in your claim, not in my answer.

It's no different than when you claimed it took exponentially more force to move something 500 feet than 5 feet.  The answer is simply applying the law of physics.  The claim is then simply proven wrong.

If you read and believe people who say these things, why not invite them to this forum.  Just tell them there's this wacko guy that says 8th grade math chem and physics will refute their claims.  Makes no difference to me.

Meanwhile, how does it feel to be a repeater of Muslim propaganda?

I already showed you calculations, not only from the speeds that the building was falling at demonstrating it fell at free fall conductive with the rate of gravity showing ZERO resistance which should have been there had it been a collapse without explosives, as well as the explosive forces required to propel multiple multi-ton sections of the building hundreds of yards from their original positions in all directions. You however ignore these facts to maintain your pretext of having an argument.


Sure, no problem. Since you have problems with definitions of basic English words here is the definition of STATIC:

Full Definition of static:

    1: exerting force by reason of weight alone without motion

    2: of or relating to bodies at rest or forces in equilibrium

    3: showing little change <a static population>

    4: characterized by a lack of movement, animation, or progression

    5: standing or fixed in one place :  stationary

None of these things are descriptive of a hurricane. I think you know this however and are playing your usual semantic games attempting to redefine words rather than admit your point has no merit.

No, a bowling ball has nothing to do with towers over a hundred stories tall, sorry. That is not a valid explanation let alone an even reasonable comparison, but since you bring up deceleration in your inadequate comparison, where is the deceleration in the towers as they fell? They fell at free fall speeds, and according to your crappy bowling ball comparison, impact results in deceleration, precluding the possibility that the towers impacted anything below as they fell, REQUIRING explosives in order to clear the supports before that impact could occur. You cant even make your half ass comparisons work for you. I have applied the laws of physics and proven you wrong, your continual denials of this does not change the fact that it happened, it is only a pathetic attempt to distract from it. I know in your mind this is all about Muslims, and "we can't let the Muslims win", but this has absolutely zero to do with the laws of physics, which is why you have to keep invoking Muslim extremism in order to distract from these facts.

[Spendulus]

....
I already showed you calculations, not only from the speeds that the building was falling at demonstrating it fell at free fall conductive with the rate of gravity showing ZERO resistance which should have been there had it been a collapse without explosives, as well as the explosive forces required to propel multiple multi-ton sections of the building hundreds of yards from their original positions in all directions. You however ignore these facts to maintain your pretext of having an argument.


Sure, no problem. Since you have problems with definitions of basic English words here is the definition of STATIC:
....

No, we are discussion static and dynamic LOADS.  You really need to learn some science and engineering to discuss these things without being corrected all the time.  From Wikipedia-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_dynamics

The distinction is made between the dynamic and the static analysis on the basis of whether the applied action has enough acceleration in comparison to the structure's natural frequency. If a load is applied sufficiently slowly, the inertia forces (Newton's first law of motion) can be ignored and the analysis can be simplified as static analysis. Structural dynamics, therefore, is a type of structural analysis which covers the behavior of structures subjected to dynamic (actions having high acceleration) loading. Dynamic loads include people, wind, waves, traffic, earthquakes, and blasts. Any structure can be subjected to dynamic loading. Dynamic analysis can be used to find dynamic displacements, time history, and modal analysis.

A dynamic analysis is also related to the inertia forces developed by a structure when it is excited by means of dynamic loads applied suddenly (e.g., wind blasts, explosion, earthquake).

A static load is one which varies very slowly. A dynamic load is one which changes with time fairly quickly in comparison to the structure's natural frequency.

Oh, and NO, you did not and have not "I already showed you calculations, not only from the speeds that the building was falling at demonstrating it fell at free fall conductive with the rate of gravity showing ZERO resistance."

You see, suppose that the bowling ball fell from 1000 feet, and every 10 feet there was a large piece of paper that it smashed through.  You'd have to have a very precise measuring device to notice any difference at all in the rate of fall.  Now assume that instead of paper, it smashed through .25" plywood every ten feet.  Might be able to measure that resistance.  With very precise instruments.  

In the case at hand, you'd like to claim that 0.8 seconds is the margin of error.  But a margin of error does not mean "zero resistance," does it?  Zero resistance is total, absolute nonsense.  Well, which is it?  Zero resistance or some resistance that accumulated to somewhere between 0 and 0.8 seconds resistance to the fall?

Make up your mind, dude.



Potential Energy released in WTC event  :  about 100 tons of TNT

Nobody needs your explanations of secret Ninjas placing explosives to bring those towers down.

[BADecker]

<>

Oh, and NO, you did not and have not "I already showed you calculations, not only from the speeds that the building was falling at demonstrating it fell at free fall conductive with the rate of gravity showing ZERO resistance."

You see, suppose that the bowling ball fell from 1000 feet, and every 10 feet there was a large piece of paper that it smashed through.  You'd have to have a very precise measuring device to notice any difference at all in the rate of fall.  Now assume that instead of paper, it smashed through .25" plywood every ten feet.  Might be able to measure that resistance.  With very precise instruments.  

In the case at hand, you'd like to claim that 0.8 seconds is the margin of error.  But a margin of error does not mean "zero resistance," does it?  Zero resistance is total, absolute nonsense.  Well, which is it?  Zero resistance or some resistance that accumulated to somewhere between 0 and 0.8 seconds resistance to the fall?

<>

Bowling ball? Paper or plywood resistance every 10 feet? MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  

Get real. We are talking about steel beams and girders. Steel beams and girders that are connected have so extremely much resistance that the Towers stood there for years and years.

Even if the fuel tanks of the planes were full, the amount of fuel that boiled off, would have made the remaining little bit that actually burned, to be useless with regard to weakening the buildings. And since the buildings were built to withstand the crashes... you aren't even talking about the fall of the Towers at all.

Look at the crash of the North Tower that tvbcof showed us. Mid air pulverisation doesn't have anything to do with free fall. And it doesn't have anything to do with jets crashing into buildings, or strength of steel and concrete structures, or even burning fuel. It has to do with very finely placed explosive decomposition.



Bowling ball? Paper or plywood resistance every 10 feet? MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  

[TECSHARE]

....
I already showed you calculations, not only from the speeds that the building was falling at demonstrating it fell at free fall conductive with the rate of gravity showing ZERO resistance which should have been there had it been a collapse without explosives, as well as the explosive forces required to propel multiple multi-ton sections of the building hundreds of yards from their original positions in all directions. You however ignore these facts to maintain your pretext of having an argument.


Sure, no problem. Since you have problems with definitions of basic English words here is the definition of STATIC:
....

No, we are discussion static and dynamic LOADS.  You really need to learn some science and engineering to discuss these things without being corrected all the time.  From Wikipedia-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_dynamics

The distinction is made between the dynamic and the static analysis on the basis of whether the applied action has enough acceleration in comparison to the structure's natural frequency. If a load is applied sufficiently slowly, the inertia forces (Newton's first law of motion) can be ignored and the analysis can be simplified as static analysis. Structural dynamics, therefore, is a type of structural analysis which covers the behavior of structures subjected to dynamic (actions having high acceleration) loading. Dynamic loads include people, wind, waves, traffic, earthquakes, and blasts. Any structure can be subjected to dynamic loading. Dynamic analysis can be used to find dynamic displacements, time history, and modal analysis.

A dynamic analysis is also related to the inertia forces developed by a structure when it is excited by means of dynamic loads applied suddenly (e.g., wind blasts, explosion, earthquake).

A static load is one which varies very slowly. A dynamic load is one which changes with time fairly quickly in comparison to the structure's natural frequency.

Oh, and NO, you did not and have not "I already showed you calculations, not only from the speeds that the building was falling at demonstrating it fell at free fall conductive with the rate of gravity showing ZERO resistance."

You see, suppose that the bowling ball fell from 1000 feet, and every 10 feet there was a large piece of paper that it smashed through.  You'd have to have a very precise measuring device to notice any difference at all in the rate of fall.  Now assume that instead of paper, it smashed through .25" plywood every ten feet.  Might be able to measure that resistance.  With very precise instruments.  

In the case at hand, you'd like to claim that 0.8 seconds is the margin of error.  But a margin of error does not mean "zero resistance," does it?  Zero resistance is total, absolute nonsense.  Well, which is it?  Zero resistance or some resistance that accumulated to somewhere between 0 and 0.8 seconds resistance to the fall?

Make up your mind, dude.



Potential Energy released in WTC event  :  about 100 tons of TNT

Nobody needs your explanations of secret Ninjas placing explosives to bring those towers down.

No, you are discussing something else every time I demolish your argument. When you have lost an argument you simply move the goal posts and claim you meant something else. I brought up the fact that the WTC towers were designed to withstand hurricanes. You called a hurricane static. I displayed the definition of static which has no relevance describing a hurricane, now suddenly you claim you were talking about "static loads" all along. Please, your attempts at misdirection are pathetic.

Suppose the laws of physics apply and the towers fell at free fall speed, faster than possible with any resistance from crushing the floors below, even if this wasn't in violation of Newton's 3rd law as well.

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.

It doesn't matter if the energy of the buildings falling was 20 megatons, they still will not fall at free fall speeds unless explosives are used to clear the supports and remove the resistance of the columns. As usual there is zero substance in your statements.

[BADecker]

TRUTH BOMB: THE SAUDIS TURN ON THE NEOCONS...

We've been waiting a long time for this. 5,368 days to be exact.

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

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

Read more at http://www.thedailysheeple.com/truth-bomb-the-saudis-turn-on-the-neocons-the-u-s-blew-up-world-trade-center-to-create-war-on-terror_052016.

[Spendulus]

....
I already showed you calculations, not only from the speeds that the building was falling at demonstrating it fell at free fall conductive with the rate of gravity showing ZERO resistance which should have been there had it been a collapse without explosives, as well as the explosive forces required to propel multiple multi-ton sections of the building hundreds of yards from their original positions in all directions. You however ignore these facts to maintain your pretext of having an argument.


Sure, no problem. Since you have problems with definitions of basic English words here is the definition of STATIC:
....

No, we are discussion static and dynamic LOADS.  You really need to learn some science and engineering to discuss these things without being corrected all the time.  From Wikipedia-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_dynamics

The distinction is made between the dynamic and the static analysis on the basis of whether the applied action has enough acceleration in comparison to the structure's natural frequency. If a load is applied sufficiently slowly, the inertia forces (Newton's first law of motion) can be ignored and the analysis can be simplified as static analysis. Structural dynamics, therefore, is a type of structural analysis which covers the behavior of structures subjected to dynamic (actions having high acceleration) loading. Dynamic loads include people, wind, waves, traffic, earthquakes, and blasts. Any structure can be subjected to dynamic loading. Dynamic analysis can be used to find dynamic displacements, time history, and modal analysis.

A dynamic analysis is also related to the inertia forces developed by a structure when it is excited by means of dynamic loads applied suddenly (e.g., wind blasts, explosion, earthquake).

A static load is one which varies very slowly. A dynamic load is one which changes with time fairly quickly in comparison to the structure's natural frequency.

Oh, and NO, you did not and have not "I already showed you calculations, not only from the speeds that the building was falling at demonstrating it fell at free fall conductive with the rate of gravity showing ZERO resistance."

You see, suppose that the bowling ball fell from 1000 feet, and every 10 feet there was a large piece of paper that it smashed through.  You'd have to have a very precise measuring device to notice any difference at all in the rate of fall.  Now assume that instead of paper, it smashed through .25" plywood every ten feet.  Might be able to measure that resistance.  With very precise instruments.  

In the case at hand, you'd like to claim that 0.8 seconds is the margin of error.  But a margin of error does not mean "zero resistance," does it?  Zero resistance is total, absolute nonsense.  Well, which is it?  Zero resistance or some resistance that accumulated to somewhere between 0 and 0.8 seconds resistance to the fall?

Make up your mind, dude.



Potential Energy released in WTC event  :  about 100 tons of TNT

Nobody needs your explanations of secret Ninjas placing explosives to bring those towers down.

No, you are discussing something else every time I demolish your argument. When you have lost an argument you simply move the goal posts and claim you meant something else. I brought up the fact that the WTC towers were designed to withstand hurricanes. You called a hurricane static. I displayed the definition of static which has no relevance describing a hurricane, now suddenly you claim you were talking about "static loads" all along. Please, your attempts at misdirection are pathetic.

Suppose the laws of physics apply and the towers fell at free fall speed, faster than possible with any resistance from crushing the floors below, even if this wasn't in violation of Newton's 3rd law as well.

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.

It doesn't matter if the energy of the buildings falling was 20 megatons, they still will not fall at free fall speeds unless explosives are used to clear the supports and remove the resistance of the columns. As usual there is zero substance in your statements.

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? 

[Spendulus]

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

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

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