9/11 Truth for Dummies: Why Near-Free Fall Speed Was Impossible Without Explosives

Discussion in '9/11' started by Munkle, Mar 29, 2014.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and again you attempt to distract from
    the fact of the free fall acceleration.
    note that this is the critical piece of information.
    Free fall acceleration indicates that there is
    no resistance under the falling mass, therefore,
    it would all have to be removed all at the same time.
    This fact is something that the official story tellers
    would like to leave out, however it is part of the whole.
     
  2. Gatewood

    Gatewood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    47,624
    Likes Received:
    48,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sigh! Extreme heat weakens metal's tensile strength which is why blacksmiths use heat when working metals. So you have the bolts and structural supports of at least the one floor beneath the impact floor weakened and then you drop the above floor onto the supports structure weakened floor which then collapses on the next floor below carrying with that IMPACT the full weight not just of the two floors above but ALL of the floors above them as well, as the ENTIRE mass of the ENTIRE upper building has just dropped. Why is this so very difficult to comprehend? It's absolutely nothing more than basic physics. Were any of you to bother setting up HONEST experiments then you could confirm all this yourselves. What is the point of inventing unnecessary outside forces or events on what can easily be explained via applied physics?
     
  3. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First off, do you actually believe that I wear "Birkenstocks" & vote a straight "liberal" agenda?
    really?

    & on the subject of "HONEST" experiments,
    have you seen the work referenced on
    http://911speakout.org/ ?
    These guys are pretty much spot on,
    that is unless YOU can bring up something
    else in opposition to what has already been presented.

    Do you disagree with Johnathan Cole,
    and if so, can you produce the science to
    demonstrate your claim?

    Fact is, the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7
    can only be the result of an engineered demolition.

    can you even conceive of the odds of something
    of that sort happening the way it happened, by
    utter and complete CHANCE, roll the dice
    & what do you get?
     
  4. Gatewood

    Gatewood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    47,624
    Likes Received:
    48,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First, my signature is a nose tweak at most leftwingers, who nowadays do seem to fit that generic description, and I'm not going to change it just because I'm momentarily running crosswise with a Right of Center peer. Second, I stand by classical physics and the impossibility of pulling off a convincing fake of all those video shots of the planes impacting those two building and of the perfectly reasonable collapse of those two building afterwards. Just those two buildings, though, mind you.
     
  5. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And you and your cronies try to minimize the entire event into a 6 second timeframe to try an make it fit with your explosives garbage. The fact is, everything I stated above is indicative of structural weakening over time due to fire. What remained of the structure overloaded the lower, weakened/damage structure to a point that it provided virtually NO resistance.

    The fact that you don't understand structural engineering and therefore can't see why loads/stress/design would make the building collapse in the way it did is putting you in a position to except the only explanation you understand.
     
  6. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There was a time when a person
    entirely based on the color of his skin,
    could be counted as only 3/5 a person
    and this was embedded in the law of the land.
    It is now the 21rst century and it is thought
    by some, that humanity is enlightened and
    has ceased to believe outrageous things.

    However, the belief that the destruction
    of WTC 1, 2 & 7 were somehow the product
    of an attack involving hijacked airliners used
    as weapons .... well .... lets just consider the
    possibility that the official story is wrong.
     
  7. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe he is starting his clock a bit differently, in that he's only timing the accelerated collapse. Poofing, smoking and rumblings excluded.
     
  8. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So not the actual truth, just what he wants the truth to be. Got it. Keep up the good work, Boss.
     
  9. Gatewood

    Gatewood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    47,624
    Likes Received:
    48,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let's not.
     
  10. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And who is any person reading that garbage going to know that? On it's face, those statements imply that the the entire WTC7 building came down in 6.5 seconds or so.

    This is done on purpose in order to mislead the reader to think the entire collapse happened in 6.5 seconds which will add to the credibility of an explosives theoy.

    Pathetic and you know it.
     
  11. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Let me get this straight, you are saying "Let's not"
    to considering the official story of 9/11/2001 may
    be anything from simply flawed to maliciously fraudulent,
    and you say "Let's not"

    and "truthers" have been called closed.

    oh well
     
  12. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If 'basic physics' were applied throughout, the 9/11 fable would fall apart under 'its own weight' (kind of like the 'pancake theory' that NIST proudly proclaimed, and then retracted).

    - - - Updated - - -

    'Trust THEM' (maybe?).

    - - - Updated - - -



    That's just part of the ridicule and only one part of the tactics employed, my friend. Don't let them rattle you. :)
     
  13. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Perhaps it's done 'purposefully' to get the person to look, then dig, and then draw their own conclusions. Couldn't that be another possibility?
     
  14. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So you're suggesting he wrote misleading statements to get people to "dig into it"?

    :roll:
     
  15. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Should he just tell the truth?
     
  16. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, I'm suggesting that he draws some (rather logical, in my opinion) conclusions and I suspect he is encouraging other to do the same, on their own. I don't know for sure though, and I guess you'd have to ask him). The most 'misleading' information to date, is the original Kean commission garbage, IN MY OPINION.
     
  17. Stndown

    Stndown Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Non sequitur.

    That was an opinion, based on my own conclusions. Isn't that what's supposed to go on (at least in part) here?
     
  18. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gage's misleading, disinformation brochures are your opinion, now?

    Nice work, Boss.
     
  19. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How is putting bullet points into a brochure to hand out to people "coming to a logical conclusion"? When those brochures are handed out to complete strangers, some of which haven't even looked into the details, what do you think they're going to think after reading those bullet points I provided above?

    "Holy crap! WTC7 collapsed in under 6.5 seconds?!"

    Gage is doing that on purpose because if he put down the rest of the information like it really happened, he would lose the "shock and awe" value.
     
  20. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The fall time for WTC 1, 2 & 7
    is a debatable item, people want
    to start the clock on the fall, when
    the fires where first sited,(or?) this is why
    I prefer to look at the clearly definable
    bits, that is the free fall of WTC7 being
    one of them.

    note also, that professionals, that is the
    talking heads on TV, described the event
    as looking just like when an old building is
    intentionally destroyed.
     
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,385
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No it's NOT debatable. The only reason YOU say that is because you have only one "item" that supports your beliefs.

    The bottom line is that the WTC7 started to collapse when the east penthouse went down. There is NO question about that.
     
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,960
    Likes Received:
    1,908
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yeh gotta love fire that goes off like christmas tree lights all over the building in sequenced matching a demolition.

    [​IMG]


    so did you chart the demolition sequence yet?
     
  23. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What there is here,
    are arguments that alleged that the 2.25 sec of
    free-fall, being part of a larger event, then is not relevant
    to the whole, as the 2.25 sec was "taken out of context"
    and therefore doesn't mean what it means.

    What it really means, taken out of context or no,
    is that the observed falling mass, had zero resistance
    under it and that the resistance would have had to be
    removed all at once all at the same time.

    even if YOU don't get it, the facts are what they are.
     
  24. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    you don't know it had zero resistance,do you?
     
  25. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    RE: zero resistance, its true, the falling mass would have had to have
    no resistance other than air under it in order to achieve the rate of acceleration that was observed.
     

Share This Page