You seem to be trying to sway those few people who don't watch the videos. A plausible scenario is put forward at the 3:25:45 time mark of the first video in post #247. Viewers... Watch the analysis of the part about the squibs at the 3:55:10 time mark of the same video. It show that they are not just air. I'm just a layman so my opinions aren't going to make or break any theories. I'm just pointing them out. The viewers who take the time to watch the videos can listen to your analyses and come to their own conclusions.
Meh! Swaying people who don't want to sit through 5hrs of biased crap that makes zero attempt at objective observation! What manner of person are you that you cannot put this in your own words, forcing someone to watch this stupid video!? You hopelessly missed my point and instead chose to suggest that elevator renovation was the means to do all this ludicrous amount of work! These people are doing something that will cause the deaths of thousands of US citizens. You just assume that this bullshit scenario can find a team of demolitions experts who are all psychopaths! How the hell do you figure that!? It shows some other buildings being demolished with dozens and dozens of MASSIVE ejections just for what is essentially a small building in comparison! The WTC had tiny air ejections and they were most certainly not uniform like actual controlled demolitions. That is your catch-phrase! Every subject, every thread. And no, you are not just a layman because you never once make any attempt to educate yourself to a standard that even understands the subject.
If you say so, I have a much different opinion and I stand by it. I have no clue what "operating like a 911-truther" is but I'm glad your personal lack of understanding and education aren't your first over-riding instincts, whatever that means to you. Yeah I can tell. You have your own personal physics which is similar to NIST's physics from what I gather from your posts, the rest of us use Newtonian physics. I don't have any "3rd law crush down/crush up nonsense" or "gullible beliefs", speak to Bazant and NIST about that. Bazant invented it and NIST ran with it. The debris field is the result of massive explosions globally destroying both towers and WTC7 of course. The rest of your questions don't make any sense with respect to the controlled demolition of the towers. If you asked those questions, you know nothing about physics, at least not Newtonian physics, maybe Betamax101 physics. There is no picture of the top of either tower that shows either one "pile driving" into the rest of the respective towers. Both disappear into dust. Further, there's no evidence of such a thing taking place. Then again, there wouldn't be in a controlled demolition. I'm so sorry, you're right. Under other circumstances I would have ignored all your posts but I'm using them to expose the 9/11 fairy tale for what it is. That was and always has been my objective in this section of the forum. Newton's third law doesn't actually do anything, it's just one specific natural law discovered by Newton and used to make sense of how our Universe operates. I'm sorry it doesn't jive with Betamax101 physics. Your god has nothing to do with this discussion. You actually said "millions of simultaneous collisions in this collapse". There was no collapse, it was a controlled demolition, that is quite obvious. In a controlled demolition of such a structure in the manner it was destroyed, it is fully expected that massive amounts of debris would be hurled in all directions, including multi-ton structural components. All the videos and the resulting evidence clearly show that to be true. I don't think anything is actually "falling" in the sense of an actual collapse. What's delusional is that you believe 3 massive towers collapsed on 9/11. But I guess Betamax101 physics makes you believe that. Talk about silly claims. Maybe not when using Betamax101 physics but when using the scientific method, everything that can be modeled should be modeled to try to ascertain whether something is possible or impossible as the case may be. Hmmm let's see, should I go by what real credentialed and verifiable experts explain in scientific terms using Newtonian physics or should go by what some anonymous poster using Betamax101 physics says? It's a tough decision. You mean what you're trying really hard to feed me? You're right and you're wrong. What you're trying to feed me makes no sense but I completely understand why. The only 2 sources you provided besides yourself are those that agree with the discredited Bazant theory. Neither of these are credible nor do they provide models that support their respective plagiarized theories. You're the only one who knows and understands Betamax101 physics. If I were you, I would stop trying to "educate" anyone on fairy tales. Because you don't have any? I have credentials too. I'm a brain surgeon and rocket scientist, not to mention a famous soccer player. What you don't believe me? Not at all, I listed quite a few and I could list many more if you would like. Hmmm let's see, the topic of this thread is called "Thoughtless WTC Conclusions". So you're saying WTC7 is not part of the World Trade Center? You probably did give me too much material so please go back to sleep, I wouldn't want you to knock yourself out. I don't think I want to go there. Of course, why not 2 billion plus? And you got this from what survey? Over more than a decade AE911Truth has conducted many seminars worldwide to many audiences consisting of architects and engineers. The vast majority of their audience never even heard about the destruction of WTC7 and have no clue about the details of the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11. But you think all these "2 million plus" read my posts? Well I don't want to quantify the exact nature of your lack of understanding, that would be a total waste of time for me. But if you don't mind (or even if you do), I will use excerpts from your posts as I see fit.
Yeah whatever Bob, this pathetic tit-for-tat is going nowhere. As for you using "Newtonian physics", we both know you haven't got any real understanding Yes you do Bob. That is your entire claim. Total nonsense! The tower gave way, clearly and the weakened floors below would have immediately joined the falling mass. So right from the start, the third law impact is not in full force exchange! One of the most pathetic evasions I think I have ever encountered. With a wave of the arm you dismiss provably relevant questions! You are genuinely afraid to be wrong Bob, I just proved it. You have had 20 years of soap-box mentality and lack ANY proper objectivity. 1. Is there a debris field being created by impacts? - YES, it is impossible (even more so with the disproven crush up/down claim) for there not to be debris between the towers. 2. Is it striking the lower section first? - YES, the debris field is below the level of the descending block, it is impossible for it not to be striking first. 3. Is it significantly weakening the level it impacts - YES, the debris field consists of all the horizontal and vertical metal supports (not ejected outwards) striking the next floor down. It is utterly ridiculous to deny this. 4. Is it compacting and growing? - YES, it is impossible for this field not to grow in mass with each floor breaking up. Resistance to each collision MUST compact it. 5. Can the upper section absorb some impact force by decelerating? - YES and clearly this is what occurs! 6. Does each floor being struck need just enough force to destabilize it? - YES, mind-numbingly obvious. The floor strength holding it in equilibrium is nowhere near the total force to pulverize it. Once released from its equilibrium state, gravity acts on it. 7. Can the floor being struck give more reactive force than the force to destabilize it? YES, but to a large extent mainly irrelevant. The floor cannot possibly push up with more force than that needed to break it(gravity takes care of things after this), but the reactive force is being directed firstly at the compacted debris field and then the leading corner of the tilted upper building. I am actually lost for words here, such absurd denial when the images already provided show exactly that! Complete garbage conclusions. Firstly, controlled demolitions endeavour to minimalize ANY ejected material for public safety so that is just absurd. Secondly, to eject multi-ton structural components requires explosive power that is absurdly over the top and would produce audible shockwaves. Research paper analyzing the explosives needed to eject massive steel structures. "Plugging in plausible values for real existing explosives, the height from which WTC wall panels might have originated, and a range of maximum observed distances, we find that roughly 10 kg of explosives are needed to propel 1 ton of steel thusly. Since the steel pieces found at distances from the towers weighed at least 2.75 tons, but may have weighed twice or more, and since any such explosive propulsion would have been less than 100% energy-efficient, it can be estimated that minimum charge sizes of 30 to 100 kg are realistic. The gas velocities of the explosion are found to be several times the speed of sound, which would create shockwaves. Such events, occurring 300 to 400 meters above Ground Zero, would have resulted in extremely loud, highly brisant explosion sounds, created at collapse initiation or early into the collapse (before the top had descended too far down for ejections to fly laterally this far). Nothing even remotely suggesting such blasts was heard or recorded on 9/11/2001. It is thus extremely unlikely, if not outright impossible, that wall panels found ca. 600 feet away from the tower footprints were thrown there as a result of lateral ejection by explosive charges. This conclusion is independent of the type of explosive material" And sadly for you, that actually disproves the use of explosives. Or are you just going to ignore that paper as well! I've ignored the rest of your bloviating rant.
Hey viewers... Start watching this video at the 51:45 time mark. ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 911 TRUTH (full unreleased version) Nobody who takes the time to look at what those experts explain will continue thinking that no explosives had been pre-planted in the towers.
Sorry Scott but you are wrong. There are at least 2 examples just in this thread who will prove you wrong. You are not going to convince anyone who to this day spends any amount of time defending the absurd official 9/11 fairy tale made for children. That's even IF they even bother to review the evidence, science, expert opinion and have any reasonable amount of common sense. They actually believe and will even tell you they know better than the experts who have done the research, experiments and written peer reviewed papers. But for the rest of us, keep posting whatever you find that's relevant.
Well I actually did read all of your bloviating rant but at this point I choose to decline to respond in kind. Civilized responses from you only last for about 1 or 2 paragraphs and are likely unintentionally. You posted nothing new and worthwhile and intelligent for me to respond to but thanks for your effort anyway.
Yeah. I should have said, "No objective thinking people who take the time to look at what those experts explain will continue thinking that no explosives had been pre-planted in the towers.
That discounts you completely. You are not the least bit objective. You automatically side with anti-American garbage and no amount of reasoning or evidence will ever get you to review your position. The saying goes, "you cannot reason a person out of a position, they did not reason themselves into." If you'd stopped there, your post would have been probably the only accurate thing you've ever said on this forum. Your evasion is just what conspiracy-theorists do, it's what they are best at.
I'm going to take back 1/3 of the above (see highlighted), I stand by the other 2/3. So in response to the article (which is a worthwhile endeavor): The above paper is of course anonymous. The last paragraph says "We have derived a formula ..." but fails to identify who "we" is while at the same time quoting from multiple identified authors. One would think that whoever the author(s) is/are, he/she/they would at the very least proudly take credit for their work. By failing to do so, it's obvious he/she/they is/are not confident enough to want to be identified. It reminds me of a site that admits it's a "debunker" site and is filled chock full of articles with not one author listed. That's just one observation. "we find that roughly 10 kg of explosives are needed to propel 1 ton of steel thusly. Since the steel pieces found at distances from the towers weighed at least 2.75 tons, but may have weighed twice or more, and since any such explosive propulsion would have been less than 100% energy-efficient, it can be estimated that minimum charge sizes of 30 to 100 kg are realistic" So to reiterate, this article purports to explain that the amount and type of explosives required to propel "steel pieces" found at distances from the towers weighed at least 2.75 tons but may have weighed twice or more require roughly 30-100 kg of explosives at minimum. It does not deny that such a thing happened. It really can't because that is documented: See also https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-grand-jury-petition/exhibit-15-petition-1/ https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence...ought-us-the-twin-towers-explosive-demolition "It is thus extremely unlikely, if not outright impossible, that wall panels found ca. 600 feet away from the tower footprints were thrown there as a result of lateral ejection by explosive charges." So common sense dictates that if it takes that high a level of explosives to cause such a debris field how is it possible that a gravitational "collapse" could cause such a debris field? If that were true, it seems to me according to this anonymous study, gravitational collapses would cause much more severe damage than demolitions using explosives. Of course that makes zero sense. Then it goes on to deny "extremely loud, highly brisant explosion sounds" https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-grand-jury-petition/exhibit-03-petition-1/ (see Exhibits 03-04L) "which would create shockwaves" https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/lc-doj-grand-jury-petition/exhibit-08-petition-1/
It comes from member Oystein at Metabunk, but dismissing content as such because you don't know their credentials is rather pathetic Bob. Let me stop you right there Bob! This is an astonishingly unique event, with no precedent or comparable in incident. YOU don't get to apply your "common sense" as if it is more than a layman's uninformed opinion. Kinetic energy Bob. Just that. Not when it is performed correctly, whereby the charges force the structure to collapse inwards on itself. Which did not occur! Citing people very close to the collapse, as refutation of this is cherry-picking at its finest and most certainly not using that Bob-style common sense. You missed this bit, probably deliberately: "NIST has calculated that exploding a hypothetical 9 pound (4.5 kg) demolition charge in the core of Building 7 of the WTC would result in a shockwave with a sound level of 130 to 140 dB – 1 km away from the building15. Blasts from charges ~10 times that size at a height of 300 m or more would have been audible as very distinctive, very loud cracking sounds for many miles around and no doubt would have been heard on almost all sound recordings done within a mile of the WTC."
Ah Beta is here trying his best to try to contradict multiple REAL experts, REAL eyewitnesses and REAL attorneys, all of whom have fully identified themselves. LOL, no wonder he failed to identify himself. How is that charlatan Mick West doing these days? I also haven't seen Gamolon in this forum in years, is he ok? LOL, of course, we'll just go with Betamax101 "common sense" because that overrides anyone else's common sense. For sure, kinetic energy should be used in warfare because it does a lot more damage than explosives and even works better in controlled demolitions, oh wait. Why didn't I think of that? No wonder you don't want me to use common sense. Yeah these 100+ EYEWITNESSES are all lying, you weren't there but you know better. I didn't miss anything, that was what NIST used as their phony excuse for failing to conduct a legitimate investigation in accordance with NFPA guidelines that they themselves helped develop as a standard for all fire investigations and published well before 9/11. Not to mention their failure to use the scientific method. I never miss NIST, especially not deliberately. I created an entire thread devoted to NIST's SCAM. Thanks for the comic response Beta but I think I'll go with REAL experts and evidence, including of course the testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses, not to mention good old plain COMMON SENSE. In any case I was really responding to the article in the first place.
Your usual "nah nah nah" style of posting. Your pathetic appeal to authority once more, where you fail to understand the 99.99% of these experts who dispute your nonsense. That's the nature of forums Bob, have YOU identified yourself? Please spare me your anonymous and irrelevant ad-hominem crap. HE identified himself, why don't you do likewise and go show him who's boss. But Bob, YOU are the one playing the common sense card. I stick to undeniable facts that you just deny with your "common sense" hogwash. That is an incredibly ignorant statement. It's quite clear you have no concept of what you are talking about - your common sense failures are quite ridiculous: https://www.justintools.com/unit-conversion/energy.php?k1=kilograms-of-TNT&k2=joules https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/kinetic-energy The WTC1 section estimated at 45,000 tons and close enough to free fall for first 2 seconds speed at that point estimated 19.6 metres per second. One kilogram of TNT is equal to 4.2 million joules. WTC1 7,841 million joules. Can you understand the power now Bob, or are you going to deny THIS as well! You had the cheek to suggest you were using Newtonian physics - you're not though are you!? Please Bob, you're starting so sound absurd now. I doubt any of them are lying and nobody said they were. These were close proximity. None of the videos picked up the necessary hundreds of demolition sounds that would be impossible to miss. Nobody a few hundred yards away heard a single one. Blah blah blah Bob. You didn't answer the point. Demolition charges invariably produce loud cracking sounds. Bringing down the WTC towers produced not one. Your experts ignore this incredibly obvious thing, as do you.
I understand your common sense now. I have 6 children, 3 grand-children and a great-grandchild on the way, so the terminology is quite familiar to me. Oystein at Metabunk? I checked the paper and I beg to differ, he didn't identify himself in that paper, you identified him. So I'm guessing you're a member of Metabunk. Does Mick hand out engineering degrees there? He's 99.99% by your personal survey? Sorry but I don't believe I ever discussed anything with that particular Metabunk member, so I think your poll result is off by more than 99.99999999%. Get a calculator because I don't think you have enough toes. I don't believe he works for me or that I work for him so why would I do that? More Betamax101 common sense? How old did you say you are?
You're very childish Bob. You have the audacity to claim others are failing at English comprehension. With you it's almost an art form! You, talking about the fully identified Mick West: "How is that charlatan Mick West doing these days? I also haven't seen Gamolon in this forum in years, is he ok?" Me, pointing that out: "Please spare me your anonymous and irrelevant ad-hominem crap. HE identified himself, why don't you do likewise and go show him who's boss." Why don't you pop out of your safe little space, identify who you are and your credentials then ask him yourself? More childish comprehension fail. You can't even understand that your appeal to authority ignores the 99.99% who haven't agreed with your nonsensical claim. This whole post is pathetic Bob. Show who's boss is a figure of speech that you childishly take literally. Go show him all your "common sense" hogwash. The irony. Hey Bob, how come you missed this bit? Did the 45,000 ton penny hit you on the head? That is an incredibly ignorant statement. It's quite clear you have no concept of what you are talking about - your common sense failures are quite ridiculous: https://www.justintools.com/unit-conversion/energy.php?k1=kilograms-of-TNT&k2=joules https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/kinetic-energy The WTC1 section estimated at 45,000 tons and close enough to free fall for first 2 seconds speed at that point estimated 19.6 metres per second. One kilogram of TNT is equal to 4.2 million joules. WTC1 is equal to 7,841 million joules. Can you understand the power now Bob, or are you going to deny THIS as well! You had the cheek to suggest you were using Newtonian physics - you're not though are you!?
And here I thought this was a discussion about "Thoughtless WTC Conclusions". I'm afraid you're way off topic and in violation of the rules of this forum. Isn't it obvious to you yet that I have no interest in any further serious discussion with you? Talk about common sense, I'm sorry but you lack a whole ton of it, and I'm not just talking about what happened on 9/11. Like I said early on in this "discussion", I have no interest in nor is it my job to try to convince you of anything. I don't give a rat's ass that you believe in 9/11 fairy tales, millions of others are just like you. The difference is they have no clue about what really happened on 9/11, most just go by the official US government party line and very few have actually done the research. It's been almost 22 years now and there's an entire population of adults who weren't even born or were just children when it happened. This is exactly what the objective is, hide as much as possible and hope it will just go away with time. You seem to be trying your damnedest to try to convince me of your nonsense. I knew 9/11 was not what we were fed about 3 years after it happened. Too much of the official story and the evidence just didn't make any sense. I've been posting everything I could find in various forums (I settled on this one years ago) to educate whoever wants to be educated. Those who don't or want to defend such a heinous mass murder and the ensuing and ongoing genocide are only adding to an incredible amount of damage not to mention fooling themselves. But there's nothing I can about that but continue to provide all the information I come across while I still can. You think you can change my mind? Please, go peddle your crap to whoever you think will buy this lunatic fantasy of yours. That said, if you come across something worth my while, I certainly can accommodate what you come up with as I see fit of course. You personally? No, I'm no longer interested in any serious discussion, sorry.
Bob, I guess it's just too much for you to take in that 7,800 million joules is the same explosive power as two TONS of TNT! That figure ignores the destructive power of the accumulated debris field. No wonder you've made a flounce post. And Bob, seriously, do you think I would waste my time trying to convince you of anything? I'm showing the people you're trying to influence how nonsensical your claims are.
so which is it Bob? Massive explosions or thermite? You have also claimed that these massive explosions took place on approximately every other floor … have you provided any evidence of this? Sorry but I was away for about a year and trying to get caught back up. Thanks in advance.
Explosions without a doubt, (nano-)thermite also according to experts and evidence. Other incendiaries? Who knows but very likely. Attorneys who have done the research and provided the overwhelming evidence call it dispositive, in other words a no-brainer. These were very sophisticated controlled demolitions. In fact, one could say they were perfectly planned and executed. I posted videos of what happens when controlled demolitions are not perfectly planned and executed. Need a refresher? Go back through the posts. Yeah the videos, they haven't changed for almost 22 years and have been posted in this forum multiple times over the years. Somehow I don't believe the videos will ever change, do you? Away from a computer or your cell phone? Sure, were you hibernating? Welcome back, go back to sleep.
WRONG Those videos were disproven and debunked years ago They provide no evidence as you claim There is no evidence from experts or anyone else of thermite or explosives That is settled and established fact
yeah, sorry to bother you Bob. I will check with Scott. I’m sure he would be happy to provide videos with timestamps showing these massive explosions on every other floor.
Scott can't provide any video with a timestamp since none are known to exist. But I assure you it happened on 9/11/2001, trust me on this. But if you don't believe me ask someone you trust. The video narrated by David Chandler called "North Tower Exploding" requires no timestamp to prove there were massive explosions about every other floor or so destroying the tower(s), just a pair of working eyeballs. When are going to take your next sabbatical from a computer and cell phone?
All anyone needs to know. There are no videos with recorded detonations. I'll pass. Don't get me wrong here Bob, but your assurance means nothing. It's not a measure of trust. No need. The physics works for what is seen, without any need for invisible explosives. How many people do you figure rigged the towers? How on Earth were they recruited to commit mass murder? I guess it's just too much for you to take in that 7,800 million joules is the same explosive power as two TONS of TNT! That figure ignores the destructive power of the accumulated debris field.
well thanks for pointing me in the right direction but that poorly narrated video does not show “massive explosions” … squibs? really? … and no sound to boot … it looks like a building collapsing under its own weight … please provide better evidence of massive explosions… btw … I’m not sure when my next sabbatical will be but probably soon and permanent.
Are you talking about the North Tower? Do you know the Conservation of Momentum equation off the top of your head? Do you know the weight of steel and concrete on each level? Did the amount of steel increase down the building. What did that do to the Yield Strength?
