Well no. The phrase "over and over again" suggests multiple times. How can that confuse you? To clarify, as you seem to need it for simple stuff, doing this tit-for-tat posting gets tedious very quickly. Bob, you just repeated the same daft error you previously made. YOU haven't provide the analysis. NOT the video. YOU. Is that clear enough? If you expect someone to watch a 2hr video then it is good decorum to give a little informed insight and analysis. "Here look at this" doesn't quite do the trick. Uhuh. Nope. Nope. So you do have an idiotic demolition theory! Good old "common sense", a substitute for reality used by truthers. And of course many more that say it's hogwash. Hogwash again. Eyewitnesses (or ear witnesses) who hear loud noises during this event have no claim for accuracy to determine what they are hearing. Exploding refrigerators, air-con machines, gas cannisters etc. etc. a whole barrage of possibilities. But in the world of the 911 truther, it is firm evidence of explosives! Seen it, heard it all before. The same point applies. Arm waving at its finest. Just ignore the big report which you definitely did not read. Your definition of "refuted" is not what you think it is. No, I explained to you why I haven't watched it. I await your informed analysis for why you think it so wonderful. No. It could be because you haven't explained why it is so wonderful and informative that I should spend two hours - when past experience tells me it is going to be truther hogwash. I haven't cited Bazant and you are just waving those arms again. Explain exactly why the math YOU cite is better than the math I cited. Are you looking in the mirror? Explain in detail what is wrong with the two papers I provided. You claim I have "no clue what they are trying to peddle" so show me all the clues YOU have that I don't know about. Once again, VITAL data mentioned in that paper is basically informed guesswork. My comprehension is fine. "the global "gravitational progressive collapse" of the twin towers on 9/11 at unimpeded 2/3 free fall" - You can either have free fall or its impeded. You can't have both. I am speaking for myself, I'm not regurgitating anything, nothing has been fed to me and you have not even come close to proving anything that occurred was impossible. Your "common sense" is a little overstated. Have you looked at Dunning-Kruger? Certainly not you Bob! Do you think YOU are convincing anyone? Do you? At the moment, one of psiky's posts piqued my interest and then you butted in guns-a-blazing. You're not doing a very good job Bob. Nope, just responding to clueless physics claims. The big chunk falling. It's not gibberish, it really was a big chunk of building impacting each floor. No. I'm explaining a gigantic chunk of mass crashing through each floor. Nice strawman though. Well mainly because the specific dialog related to the collapse of the WTC1. Did that confuse you? No it just seems like magic to you, if you don't understand physics it can be quite daunting. No Bob, let me drag one of your quotes up: I guess reading comprehension is not one of your skills. And as for explosive forces, that is what happens with colossal temperatures being generated and extremely high kinetic force collisions. The truther video is that which you promote and once again not watched because I await your informed analysis for why you think it so wonderful. Because it's good manners and shows you know what the guy is talking about. I'm guessing you haven't a single clue what he is saying and support it because it's from team AE911. So you haven't actually done a single thing to verify it. I'll watch it later tomorrow if you stop bleating about it like a big baby. Is that a deal? Again with the arm waving: "Yet leaving behind an approximately 600 ft "spire" consisting of part of the core of the tower " Are you saying that 600ft was left, is that your claim? Answer please. Intricate scientific detail that you don't actually understand. How do you know the "intricate details" are accurate and why are the intricate details in my cited papers not accurate. Be specific here Bob, you sure sound convinced. I'd hate it to be because it was "common sense". Uhuh, well both my papers refute your papers, they both make perfect sense scientifically and intuition is nothing to do with any of it! Leaning yes, moving horizontally not so much. This is where you learn the mechanics of gravity instead of making noise about things you don't understand. Ok Bob, explain using your best physics why a leaning object doesn't fall straight down as shown in numerous images. Explain why an object with virtually zero horizontal travel falls outside of its own footprint. I understand perfectly about the top portion. I don't understand what you know! I asked you to clarify exactly what you are saying and you choose to play your silly games and then say.... So, try to answer the simple question: Are you saying the top section of the building turned to dust? No, for the reasons given in the next sentence that you failed to quote! YOU have the burden of proof to explain why your miniscule number of mainly unqualified people from all around the world hold the power of argument over the millions who are not part of team AE911. They have NOT proven this at all. You do realize your opinion isn't some blanket generalization of accuracy? Surely you do! Your post contains 5 video links, 1 technical link and a pdf! You said "You can find literally hundreds of these here:" - clearly you aren't checking your own material and fire off your customary huffing and puffing response without checking. You ask a question then provide a ridiculous answer to it. Again you are the one with really problematic comprehension issues: You said "Who and how many among the alleged 2 million have actively disagreed, studied and/or written papers that refute any of the findings of those who actually did the research and contradicted the official story? " I informed you that the 2 million was not alleged! And you ignored this bit: Why should these people actively do this? Is this your dumb argument? "Hey look, none of the 99.99% has actively denied or examined this therefore....."! Nice dodge though, your tiny section of people, mainly unqualified supersede the silent majority because they are silent.
Sorry but in this response, I'm not going to waste my time nitpicking every response of yours, that would be an exercise in futility. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. Like I said, I'm here to post information that is not always readily available that shreds the official 9/11 fairy tale, mostly in scientific terms and to discuss these issues. You believe in the official 9/11 fairy tales? That's ok with me, so do tens of millions of other gullible people. I'll just respond to some of your nonsense as I see fit albeit also a waste of time. Nope, I don't expect any such thing, review it or don't, that's your call. There are over 150 documented accounts, mostly from first responders of hearing, seeing, feeling and being injured by explosions on 9/11. Not to mention the twin towers being demolished via massive explosions about every other floor or so top down as seen on multiple videos. You think these are "refrigerators, a/c's, soda bottles, balloons, etc." or anything and everything but the most obvious, explosives, it's quite ok with me, I don't care. Of course not but the documents you gave me the links to do cite Bazant, I guess you didn't read them and have no clue what his hypothesis is all about and why it's important. The "global gravitational collapse" is the official fairy tale, "at unimpeded free fall" is what it would be if it really was a "collapse" according to the official fairy tale. However, you are incorrect, you can have free fall (unimpeded, as in the case of WTC7) but you can't have an unimpeded accelerating collapse of any kind. But believe what you want, even if it violates basic laws of physics. There is no such thing as a "truther video". Cole explains in multiple ways why the WTC tower could not possibly globally collapse and also provides experiments to support his points. Watch it or don't, I don't care. Do you really think I give a rat's ass about your infantile "deal"? You originally posted: So I posted what you quoted me here yet you changed it to "600ft of the building". I don't need to "suggest" anything, the video speaks for itself. And a link to an entire thread where I posted hundreds of papers and videos, but don't bother, there's no point it's all "truther" crap, better to stick with liar crap.
As I said, not going through this crap over and over again. There's points in the above that are just useless(really cannot be bothered to correct) and you seem frightened to answer one particular question. Evaded the first reply, omitted the second. Yes or no will suffice. Do you claim that the top section of WTC1 turned to dust? No context assumptions, no games. Just answer it. There seems to be some weird assumption that it should have performed a comedic topple over.
What you see on video is what happened. You don't see it? Get a new pair of eyeglasses or don't, I certainly don't need to convince anyone of what can be seen on video by anyone who is not in denial. If it didn't turn to dust in mid-air that's exactly what should have happened in accordance with basic laws of physics, "comedic" or not. Physics doesn't do comedy. Er, don't watch this because it's a "truther video", not for you.
Unbelievable! I ask you a simple, dead simple question and you turn it into an idiotic comment about MY ability to see what is happening. I know and see what is happening but you said this! According to you it turned to dust! According to you its should have turned to dust! Since your position is vague it is difficult for me to refute or deny anything! Did the WTC1 top section turn to dust, yes or no? It does have comedic interpretations though, which is what you have provided, What a load of old hogwash. This jackass video ignores kinetic energy completely.
Not according to me, according to the video and according to reality. I never said that. Quit inventing what I posted (like you deliberately twisted what I said about the 600 ft "spire" into 600 ft of the building phony one). I don't care if you believe my "position" is "vague" or what you believe you need to do, not my problem. Of course, it's now a "jackass video", what happened to "truther video"? You need to change up your childish insults for variety's sake because you can't handle reality (i.e. FACTS)? The video (or reality) doesn't change whether you believe it "ignores kinetic energy" or not. It also ignores Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy son, I'm so sorry.
Hilarious, 22 years and you still don't know how the damn building fell? So his video suggests it all turned to dust huh? And you say "reality" confirms this? 9-11 Research: South Tower Collapse (wtc7.net) The three photographs show the South Tower at about 2.7, 3.7, and 4 seconds after the top started to fall. WHY is this significant? Because of the truly daft claims about the fizzix that the building should topple when clearly it didn't. OMG - I literally just quoted it! You said: "If it didn't turn to dust in mid-air that's exactly what should have happened in accordance with basic laws of physics, "comedic" or not. I said: "According to you its should have turned to dust!" This is rather pathetic Bob, here was my first quote: I've never heard anyone suggest that the remains were "600 ft" high. Is that what you are claiming? When I subsequently referred to it as 600 feet of the building it was OBVIOUS what I meant. But hey, this is what you do on a regular basis - twist crap out of context and play these silly games. It is a ridiculous claim to suggest that the remains/spire was 600 feet high. Do you even watch your own video? It subsequently collapsed! It wasn't "left behind" at all! You said "Yet leaving behind an approximately 600 ft "spire" consisting of part of the core of the tower" Show me in your useless video where he factored in the kinetic energy of the fall - you can throw your toys out of the pram again, but you simply don't understand why your video is a crock of crap. Pathetic. It ignores the fundamental force involved and you not only didn't notice, you don't understand its significance and from that comment don't care.
Nice dodge Bob, you said they turned to dust. All this soapbox preaching, with acquired sarcasm and deflection has brought you precisely nowhere. You still don't know what you are talking about. The tower didn't need to "correct itself", basic physics. No horizontal motion of note and the point of tilt at a fulcrum, orders of magnitude too weak to alter the angle. Somewhere along this 2 decade path, surely you could have taken time out to brush up on your inadequate physics knowledge? Once again with the physics failures. Not impressive. You put kinetic energy in quotes, I truly hope you did that for emphasis. I'd hate it to be because you were ignorant enough to deny its significance. Nice dodge again Bob. Twenty years and you're getting better at it. Of course it's a typo, the word was clearly meant to be "it" and labelling it a "grammatical perversion" is truly bizarre. Your pathetic grammar police routine is scraping the bottom of a barrel of failure here. Not very impressive. That looks like you are trying to goad me Bob, it's been 50 years since someone called me that. And making yourself clear? You said that it turned to dust and then you said if it didn't turn to dust it should have. That's as clear as mud, Bob. A crazy deforming of the text implying something completely different to the meaning. She died 20 years ago and try not to be so petty, you've a tendency to do this when you make one of your screw ups. Are you feeling alright Bob, your own video labels it "Stage 4 Falling core". As I said did you even watch the damn thing yourself?
THIS is the link you pointed me to: The NIST 9/11 Scam Exposed in All Its Glory | PoliticalForum.com - Forum for US and Intl Politics Click it and show me exactly where there is a link to "an entire thread" and "hundreds of papers". Your knee-jerk response is letting you down, now give me the correct link if you would be so kind.
My post about your grammatical error was deleted. So to try to avoid the forum police, let's just say as diplomatically as I can that it seems to me you don't know the difference between "its" and "it's" and that you don't know how and when to use quotation marks so I assumed the "s" in "its" was a typo and I misinterpreted what you wrote as a result. It's difficult to have a discussion with someone whose post is unclear due to grammatical failure. Now to the relevant point (more for the discussion record than for your benefit). What you believe happened (as assessed from your posts): The twin towers suffered a pancake collapse. WTC7? I don't know because so far you stayed out of that discussion (as "so what"). The pancake collapse was long abandoned by NIST and just about everyone else because the evidence clearly shows that didn't happen. What Bazant claims and what is NIST's and the official party line: The smaller top section of the tower crushed the massive and much larger lower portion as it descended, then when it reached the bottom at the point where the upper section matched the remaining lower section, the lower portion crushed the intact top portion. This is of course fairy tale nonsense which is easily disproved via evidence and science (especially physics, notably Newton's 3rd Law of Motion). That's the first major problem with Bazant's hypothesis. The Szamboti/MacQueen and Schneider papers as well as Cole, Chandler, Angle and many others proved the Bazant hypothesis to be utter nonsense. In the case of Schneider, his mathematical hypothesis is based on an assumption that Bazant's claim about the crush down phase is correct. He mathematically concluded that if that happened the "collapse" would have been arrested within 2 seconds. That's the second major problem with Bazant's hypothesis. Reality: Reality is that the top smaller section of both the North and South Towers separated from the rest of the respective towers due to a massive explosion, then disappeared into the dust cloud while the remainder of the building was blown apart about every other floor or so in a destructive wave sequence accelerating at about 2/3 G (apparently to try to make it look like a collapse). What the photos you posted show is that the top section of the South Tower started leaning radically in one direction and the time sequence of the 3 photos shows it leaning further with time. So elementary physics (notably Newton's First Law of Motion) would have it that it would continue in that direction and fall to the side, not straighten itself out and crush the lower section. That's the third major problem with Bazant's hypothesis (there are many more I won't go into more detail here). Chandler shows in the video the top of the North Tower descending but obviously NOT crushing the lower section as it descends, but instead turning to dust. And at the same time shows the antenna descending before the roof line which indicates the core is being destroyed first. And as it descends it also begins to lean radically in one direction similar to the South Tower. I don't need to click it I know exactly what I posted in the majority of that thread. It's you who needs to go through the thread and find the hundreds of papers and videos I posted the links to within the body of that thread, including the very papers and videos that support what I posted above. That is of course if you have any interest other than to dismiss every single paper and video as "truther" whatever you want to use as an excuse to dismiss it all. Like I said, I don't care, it's obvious you already have the official 9/11 fairy tale planted in your brain as your truth and anything and everything that contradicts it is "truther" or "jackass" or whatever label is appropriate to your mentality.
Grammar police piffle - I couldn't give a rat's ass what anything "seems" to you - I am more than aware of what the difference is between both. You contradicted yourself and don't have the balls to admit it. Blatant and undeniable. You said it turned to dust and then you said it should have turned to dust, Your assessment is a load of hogwash. Did they? I'm fairly sure the large section blasted through each floor sending thousands of tons of debris down. I have discussed it on other threads before, a decade ago. It's like everything to do with this stupid conspiracy theory, a waste of time to argue. You baited me in to this and I wish I'd just ignored you. Well you brought the damn thing up! The troofer fizzix. I've had enough of this crap - I gave you papers explaining the motion and the maths and you think your papers are better. Whatever. And once again we get Bob's school for diplomacy and failure. You said THIS! "You can find literally hundreds of these here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-nist-9-11-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/" No, there are not hundreds of links there IN THAT LINK. Makes me wonder whether you know what the word "there" means.
So then you described what is essentially a pancake collapse but claim you believe Bazant's discredited hypothesis. Ok whatever floats your official 9/11 fairy tale boat. I'm ok with your confusion. You show you don't even understand Newton's First Law of Motion so much for any "explanation" from you. Any papers that support or defend Bazant's hypothesis don't make any sense either in terms of physics, math or common sense. And as explained one of the papers you provided a link to fails to acknowledge that in the Cardington (and Broadgate) experiments, the structures failed to collapse yet cites a "learning experience" from Cardington. The question is WTF? BTW, I haven't written any papers so they're not mine and neither have you. You have a nasty habit of falsely attributing videos, papers and even over 3,600 architects and engineers to me when none of these are mine. You even decided they are all unqualified despite not knowing who they are. But I suppose you believe you are more qualified than they are, despite your anonymity and lack of credentials. I'm not sure if this is comedy or something else, I'm guessing the latter. There are hundreds of links and videos in the entire body of the thread (605 posts as of this post - not all mine of course), that's quite obvious. But for you there aren't any because you'll never bother to click on any of them, it's much better to believe what you want and stick your head in the sand about anything that contradicts your worldview. I'm also ok with that.
1. Explain in exact detail how you deduced that. And Bob, cease with your huffing and puffing. Trufer circular reasoning. Only in the world of "911-truth" must all buildings behave in the same fashion. You persist with this idiotic pedantry knowing full well (at least I think you do!) that the use of your/yours relates to your use of it in reference. If you genuinely think that is what I am doing, referring to used references by using "your", then your reading and comprehension is utterly dire. Nope, not all of them. Can you not read properly now? The architects have no relevant qualification to assess structural issues of high-rise buildings and with engineering this too is a very specialized field. But once again, in your world of complete failure a) all the 3600 believe exactly the same as you b) are all perfectly qualified c) none of them have reconsidered their position d) none of the 2.1 million who haven't signed the petition disagree with it. Meh! Back at you! I suppose you think your tiny number supersede the 99.99% who haven't signed the petition! Neither, it's your useless guesswork and very poor comprehension. 2. Estimate how many of your 3600 are qualified to assess the collapse of a skyscraper.. Another Bob foul up. You said they were all in the link given, now you want me to scour your posts looking for things because you say so. You're still bleating on about it so if you want me to view some of them, post your best 2 or 3. Or not, I don't care either way.
Nope. I posted the Szamboti paper and the Cole video which were also posted in the NIST Scam thread and you refused to read the paper and watch the video so why would I want you to do anything you don't want to do? It's not my job nor is it in my interest to educate anyone who obviously doesn't want to be educated (i.e. one who dismisses anything and everything that contradicts his/her worldview by using insulting labels, among other things). I tried to have a discussion with you but it's obviously an exercise in futility. You believe 3 massive buildings dropped in their own shoes at free fall and near free fall because 2 planes crashed into 2 of them? It's ok with me. Ditto.
Nice dodge Bob, that's what you do best! So far you've bloviated about me not knowing physics when really I do. When asked to explain you ignored this. You insist all your papers are correct and mine are wrong but this is based on your personal preference. Nowhere do you explain specifically why. When asked to explain why I hadn't a clue and for you to provide the clues YOU had, you ignored this. You were asked, just above, how many of your 3600 are qualified to give informed opinion about skyscrapers collapsing - no reply. You refused point blank to give insight on a 2hr video. You got ridiculously petty over a typo and made some absurd guff about its and it's. You got all petty about references because I referred to them as yours(your references!). That's not true Bob, you're making that up. I haven't refused to read anything. You HAVEN'T read either of the two papers I gave you, you see Bazant referenced and all of a sudden "bingo", crazy circular logic kicks in and they suddenly aren't credible. I watched it in bits, I never refused to watch it, I asked for some simple commentary on why! It's very much not something you are capable of either. Nice statement Bob, but labelling trufer videos as "trufer videos" reflects their usually, very poor content. My worldview needs more than idiotic observations and poor physics for it to be changed. No you didn't. You just play your word games and evasion tactics. You made your mind up without understanding any of the actual physics - it's you who cannot be educated or have their worldview altered. It's not a matter of belief Bob. But if you want to believe the views of a fringe community who are generally regarded as cranks...it's ok with me.
So no point trying to discuss anything with this kind of mentality. Instead, I'll go over some real points (not for your benefit Beta, that would be a waste of time but for the record). This is Bazant's "pile driver" theory for both twin towers pictorially: Please note that Bazant came up with this literally only a couple of days after 9/11. According to Bazant 20% of the tower destroyed the remaining 80% uniformly and at about 2/3 G unimpeded acceleration (he never measured that rate of destruction but it was measured fairly accurately by others). So what's wrong with that picture? Plenty. This is a real picture (thanks Beta): So the top portion of the South Tower can be seen tilting radically. Can it destroy the lower portion in that manner while also tilting? It would have to right itself first somehow no? (see Bazant's drawing above) So what really happened to the South Tower? If one is to believe Bazant, the top portion must have righted itself somehow in order for Bazant to be correct. Is that possible? Well according to Newton's First Law: "An object at rest remains at rest, or if in motion, remains in motion at a constant velocity unless acted on by a net external force". So the top section was in motion tilting away from the South Tower. And in order to right itself (or something else), it would have to have been acted on by a net external force. What could have been that force? Of course there wasn't any that Bazant could explain and he didn't. So something else must have happened because either it righted itself and crushed the remainder of the tower or didn't. In other words it must have continued its tilt and fell off to the side, making it impossible to crush the remainder of the tower. But that didn't happen either because there is nothing in any video that shows it fell off to the side. And yet there is no possible force that could make such a huge structure right itself in mid-air. So according to all the videos, the top section subsequently disappeared into a huge dust cloud and was never seen again. Now what would make it do that and how is that reconciled in Bazant's world? Of course Bazant never explained that phenomenon. Then there's this other problem with Bazant's hypothesis: What the above is is a piece of the core remnant of the North Tower after the rest of it was "crushed?" (according to Bazant). It is approximately 60 stories high before it drops. Now how could that be if the top section is crushing the lower section? Could the "crushing" somehow work around the core section and leave a large piece of the core partly intact? Of course Bazant never addressed this problem or likely even knew about it. Then there's the overall problem with Bazant's hypothesis. Newton's Third Law says: "If an object A exerts a force on object B, then object B must exert a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction back on object A." So Object A would be the smaller top section of the tower and Object B would be the much larger lower portion of the tower. So how could Object A crush Object B without being crushed itself by the time it crushed a piece of Object B equal in size? The mathematician Ansgar Schneider explains in mathematical terms that of course it could not happen and that the alleged "collapse" would have rightly been arrested within 2 seconds. So NIST never actually analyzed the "collapse" of either twin tower and only noted in their report that "global collapse ensued" and used Bazant's hypothesis as their get out of jail free card. But both the impossible Bazant hypothesis and the NIST reports are held as part of the official 9/11 narrative to this day, almost 22 years later.
It doesn't have to be square on to carry enough kinetic energy to knock through the levels below it! By NOT being square on, ie. columns now misaligned it is now impacting on horizontal floor supports. It also means the leading corners will be absorbing nearly all the force. Newton’s third law applies to the external forces that act between interacting bodies within a closed system. It does not apply to the internal forces that cause any open-structured building to collapse. During any such collapse of a building, there will be very significant energy from elastic strain combined with all the gravitational potential energy being released, which is subsequently converted to heat / kinetic energy. There will be literally millions of simultaneous collisions in this collapse. In a closed system - if one object hits another object you will get an equal reactive force. The first collision will release all the mass of the lower floor to fall. Now we have the mass of that first broken floor falling, contacting the floor below BEFORE the falling upper section contacts it. It only needs to destabilize the support strength of that floor to its failure point. Right there is the actual third law - the force needed to destabilize critical support, at the point that any such impact occurs will impart the same force on the section of the upper building/debris field striking it. That is not the force that breaks up the building to dust though - gravity is now in play and millions of small collisions are occurring. Taking that further, with each progressive floor break, it becomes additional mass preceding the other section to hit the next floor, and onwards. After even 3-4 floors have broken, that enormous compacting debris field, a very large falling mass on its own will take care of a substantial part of the floor below, if not all of it - just before the top section itself strikes it. To clarify: the scenario of "crush-up" is making grossly inaccurate assumptions. It assumes that the force acting on the Upper floor (of the bottom section) is what is doing the crushing of the building, when all it needs to do is to strike with enough force to destabilize its support capacity - thus causing it to fall. It assumes and ignores that the compacted debris filed will be striking the next floor first. In short "crush-up" totally fails to incorporate all the extra mass/accumulating with each floor into the impact points. One more point which seems to have completely been ignored is that the lower portion of the building is rooted to the ground, whilst the upper portion can absorb some of the imparted force by deceleration.
Typo for grammar police: It assumes and ignores that the compacted debris filed will be striking the next floor first. Should read: It ignores that the compacted debris field will be striking the next floor first.
Ah a civilized post for a change. Refreshing. Your position is to defend the official 9/11 narrative complete with any excuse you can conjure up for events that make zero sense. Like I said, I'm ok with that. Unlike you who accepts what you're fed, I choose to question everything, especially given the source. “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.” - Albert Einstein That's nice but besides the fact that the top portion leaned radically, there's no evidence that it remained in one large piece as Bazant claims (and apparently you as well). In fact the video does not show it to be intact after a couple of seconds not to mention any piece of it sticking out of the dust cloud to the side as it allegedly destroyed the rest of the tower. That's one problem. You also defend this absurdity by claiming "millions of simultaneous collisions in this collapse". First without taking into account the video evidence showing massive amounts of debris being hurled in all directions, including multi-ton structural components. Second, if you drop a cement block on a solid object, it will very likely destroy or damage that object but if you take an amount of dust equal in weight to the cement block and drop it on the same object, do you really believe it will do the same amount of damage? So we're back to the pancake collapse theory which no one who matters support. Ok with me. 1. Have you modeled any of this? I ask because Jonathan Cole has and showed it's impossible. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is or how smart you are, if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong!" - Richard Feyman 2. How do you reconcile your personal theory with the evidence, mainly the "spire" remnant that you conveniently ignored? 3. How do you contradict Szamboti, Cole, Chandler and Schneider's papers and their many experiments (just to name a few)? Despite your claim that they are "fringe", "cranks" and/or "unqualified", they have verifiable credentials, do you? And we haven't yet discussed Dr. Leroy Hulsey's findings because that's about WTC7, something you relegated to "so what". What makes you not fringe, a crank and/or unqualified? Before you dismiss over 3,600 credentialed (and vetted) architects and engineers via childish name calling, you should at the very least show that you have reasonable standing to do so.
I take your lead. For once you posted something without your standard histrionics. Are you trying to goad me again Bob? I am defending nothing - I comment and observe based on my education and my research ability. I go wherever that takes me and modify my position according to new data. It's nothing whatsoever about agreeing with officialdom, it's formulating an opinion with observation, physics and using critical thinking. I don't actually operate like a "911-truther" because the incredulity through lack of understanding and education aren't my first and over-riding instincts. Same crap again and back to your usual provocation routine. I'm not accepting what I am fed! I use my own understanding to work out what is occuring. Unlike you, I totally understand the physics. You clearly do not and we both know it. Your gullible belief in this ridiculous 3rd law "crush down / crush-up" nonsense ignores the things pointed out to you. 1. Is there a debris field being created by impacts, yes or no!? 2. Is it striking the lower section first, yes or no? 3. Is it significantly weakening the level it impacts, yes or no? 4. Is it compacting and growing, yes or no? 5. Can the upper section absorb some impact force by decelerating, yes or no? 6. Does each floor being struck need just enough force to destabilize it, yes or no? 7. Can the floor being struck give more reactive force than the force to destabilize it, yes or no? If you answered no to any of those, you know nothing about physics. Are you yanking my chain! There's a whole load of big pictures just above showing that very thing. Are you still confused about it turning to dust/should have turned to dust!? The video taken from most directions is poor quality and the clouds of dust pretty much obscure everything. But those nice images just above, say you are talking crap. No it isnt. You're just arm-waving now. You ignored most of my post, especially the bits pointing out why Newton's 3rd law will not do what you so gullibly believe. My god , are you actually denying this? How many pieces of building do you figure are created from one level disintegrating! Nothing at all unexpected. Colossal kinetic energy, friction, random impacts of building structures - completely inevitable. Please tell me you aren't claiming all of it is hurled out. Is that what you think is falling from each floor? Really!? You think all that ironwork on each level is ejected sideways? That's delusion, if you do. Bullshit. You are deliberately mislabeling what occurred, because you just got your silly claim destroyed. The collapse was caused by a large part of the building sledgehammering through each floor, whilst accumulating debris that caused vast numbers of large and small collisions. This needs no model! I find it absurd that you stick to this crap that Jonathan Cole says when I just gave you all the reasons why it is wrong! You don't actually understand a single thing you're being fed, just so long as it backs up your 20 year quest! I "conveniently ignored" nothing, because there is nothing inconvenient about a section not falling immediately! Particularly more strengthened areas lower down. But fall it did, with Cole suggesting the column was cut when it is simply where it meets the horizontal supports. Oh I see, we're going with the "hey look over here" method and "my sources are more credible than yours"! I don't give a crap what these people claim or whether I "contradict" them or not. I know and understand the physics involved and I appear to have failed in the simple process of educating you on this. Once again, the claim of "crush down/crush up" via Newton's 3rd law is flawed in the extreme: 1. The upper section can absorb impacts through deceleration. 2. The lower section is struck from copious steadily accumulating amounts of steel debris BEFORE the lower part of the top section impacts. 3. Each impact only needs to destabilize the floor enough for it to fall, NOT to crush it entirely - the numerous impacts resulting do that. Once the floor starts falling it adds to the debris field. Oh Bob are you really doing the appeal to authority on me? Whilst rejecting the opposing authority! I have credentials but I'm not in the least bit interested in verifying them with somebody like you. To what end for starters, since you reject the work of many with significant credentials already! Off topic on this thread to begin with, since in general the twin towers are the discussion. I've given you way more time than your quest deserves. My belief doesn't extend to batshit And again, good old Bob is appealing to his small authority, getting indignant because I don't share their beliefs(and I do mean plural) whilst dismissing the consensus of 2 million plus, equally credentialed people, who don't agree with him! Answer the questions Bob, be brave. I want to quantify the exact nature of your lack of understanding.
There's a lot of good info here. September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor (FULL DOCUMENTARY) 5 HOURS The section on the towers starts at the 2:29:45 time mark. The fact that the towers fell at near freefall speed clinches it for me (3:16:46 time mark). It gets interesting at the 3:25:10 time mark. Squibs are discussed at the 3:55:10 time mark. There's more good info here. ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 911 TRUTH (full unreleased version) I'm sold on the theory of controlled demolition.
No there isn't. You come into this thread and dump a 10 year-old 5hr video on it, no analyses, no detailed explanation. No it doesn't. Wrong timestamp. The fact? You need to have a word with Bob about this! Why does it? It talks total crap about the bowing floor trusses being unable to pull the edges in. Then makes this absurd claim about the core collapsing from explosives because of a slight detected motion of the antenna. Pictorial images show the upper section falling as a solid mass - totally disproving this junk claim. No they aren't. The claim suggests these compressed air releases are explosives. Discussion involves also looking at explanations not steeped in foolish conspiracy claims. Nowhere in that whole video is this done. No there isn't. You come into this thread and dump a 5hr video on it, no analyses, no detailed explanation, then follow up with a 2hr plus one, with also no analyses or detailed explanation. Just above are a couple of posts refuting the basic premise of the arguments you present, using simple and easily understood physics. Break a habit and just once, offer detailed counter explanation. I have no doubt that your stock reply will be some form of evasion, diversion and probably another "hey, look at my other video". See if you can accurately assess how much credibility and weight your opinion on this carries, then lower it by a factor of 100. The number of people involved to invisibly place this vast amount of explosive charges is ridiculous, people who quite happily know they will be murdering thousands of fellow Americans!
Sorry. It's 2:39:45. Sometimes I drink too much coffee. I was just thinking something similar about you. The viewers can watch the videos and read your analyses of them and come to their own conclusions.
Unlike you, I back up my opinion with more than YouTube videos. I said " Break a habit and just once, offer detailed counter explanation. I have no doubt that your stock reply will be some form of evasion, diversion and probably another "hey, look at my other video"." And all you do is your standard evasion, complete with your cut and paste spam about the viewers. You don't actually understand any of it. Just so long as it's another anti-US conspiracy, you wear it like a badge of honor! The number of people involved to invisibly place this vast amount of explosive charges is ridiculous, people who quite happily know they will be murdering thousands of fellow Americans! Are you afraid to comment on things as obvious as that? The squibs are compressed air. Why not if you disagree? The upper section clearly intact disproves the claim you just linked to. Proven. Where is your response. You aren't interested in anything that obviously disproves your fixed belief!
