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. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just WHY can't it be expected to?
     
  2. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because:
    A: all of the connections within the tower(s) are not perfectly uniform
    (being the work of human hands and therefore not perfectly uniform)
    B: the falling rubble from the upper part of the tower(s) can not be expected to be perfectly uniform in the force it applies to any given bit of the lower and as yet undamaged part of the tower(s).
     
  3. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lot of assuming going on there,bob..
     
  4. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    is it to be considered an assumption(?)
    that the work of human hands can not be relied upon to be perfectly uniform?

    and that the assumption of uniformity in the forces applied to the structure by a falling mass of rubble & pulverized material is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
     
  5. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're assuming,THAT I know.
     
  6. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That assumption bit cuts both ways, it is an assumption
    that the falling mass would apply a uniform enough force
    to the lower and as yet undamaged bit of the structure to
    insure "collapse" right down to ground level.
    What magic kept the mass of the "pile driver" centered on
    the tower, rather than slipping off to one side or another?
     
  7. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Gravity. It pulls straight down.
     
  8. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so was the south tower a case of gravity pulling straight down?
    You can't have it both ways, if this was strictly a gravity powered
    "collapse" then the tipping of the south tower, proves that any non-uniformity in the structure will cause asymmetrical "collapse"
    and that leads to dumping mass over the side of the tower thus
    stopping the action. This "collapse" as alleged by the official explanation is dependent on the building having a uniformity in the structure and also a uniformity in the forces applied by the falling rubble, because if either one were non-uniform, the other would have to compensate by being non-uniform in a manner that meshed with its polar opposite to produce the observed result.
    like somebody rolling snake-eyes 1,000,000 times.
     
  9. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Argument from Incredulity. You have been shown (using math and science) why the south tower tipped and the result.
     
  10. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And I submit to this forum, that "peer reviewed" papers that seek to support the official fiasco, are an injustice and indeed damage the whole academic process.
    The fact is that two towers "collapsing" down as did the twin towers, allegedly in response to airliner crashes but to have two skyscrapers
    "collapse" in the manner that was observed and its a great deal more
    than personal incredulity, what is the probability of having 2 skyscrapers completely destroyed in this manner? and then there is WTC7,
    and people insist that basically chaotic damage can produce the exact same result ( that is total destruction of the building ) as a controlled demolition. There is proper logic & reason to support the knowledge that WTC1, 2 & 7 were destroyed by Controlled Demolition.
     
  11. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Argument from incredulity. Where are the papers refuting the peer-reviewed findings?
     
  12. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    https://www.metabunk.org/attachment...l-to-reviewer-and-second-submission-pdf.4684/

    This is one of many rebuttals to Bazant ( etc.... )
    the official story is a FARCE, and I submit to this forum
    that it is damaging to the whole academic process to have
    a peer reviewed paper of this sort ( that is the Bazant fiasco )
    stand rather than be retracted by the author and corrections
    issued. How can anybody trust the peer review process if this
    is the sort of thing it produces?
     
  13. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Did you even bother to read your link?
     
  14. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Excellent. Your cited paper agrees with gravity driven collapse. Well done.
     
  15. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Point to a specific quote from the paper that supports your claim.
    what do you have?
     
  16. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You should really read it, you know ... since you posted it.
     
  17. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I did read it and YOU are depending on the lurkers to not read it and NOT get the INFORMATION contained therein, just like you posted totally bogus links to "reports" that had nothing to do with the investigation of ground zero for explosives and then had to admit that there is no report that indicates anybody actually tested for explosives at ground zero post 9/11/2001. I understand the tactics in use here, and I do NOT approve, this does NOT constitute proper debate, its more like psychological warfare and we all know that the real perpetrators of 9/11 are engaged in psychological warfare.
     
  18. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Quite the contrary: I encourage everyone to read it thoughtfully and thoroughly.
     
  19. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and of course come to their own conclusions as to the validity
    or not ..... of the bazant paper.
     
  20. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I say read it all, consult with experts on points you don't understand. Take it to real engineers, pilots and physicists. Ask them personally.
     
  21. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you have to take this issue to a professional engineer,
    what? do you not have eyes to see?
    We have been shown skyscrapers that simply disintegrate
    as if hit by some sort of science fiction movie super weapon,
    and we are expected to believe that these buildings simply
    "collapsed" in response to chaotic damage & fire.

    THINK ..... before it becomes ILLEGAL!
     
  22. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If I have something I am curious about I'll take it to an expert, of course. I won't invent 'magic space beams' in my head to explain what i don't understand. That approach is Neanderthal.
     
  23. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What did you observe about the destruction of WTC 1, 2?
    they both simply disintegrated, could have been blown up
    by explosives, or...... (?) whatever it was, it required engineering
    to make it happen like it did, skyscrapers are designed to stand,
    so why have 2 skyscrapers simply disintegrate as was observed?
     
  24. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because two passenger jets crashed into them, causing structural damage and igniting major fires across multiple floors, which compromised the integrity of the towers.
     
  25. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so what magic prevented the outcome as shown in post #23 in FEA regarding WTC1 ..... rather than the outcome that leads to total destruction of the skyscraper.
     

Share This Page