Galileo/Newton agree-- 9/11 was an inside job!

[zombiess]

The conspiracy discussions always crack me up.

So many people on here that don't know how to shave with a razor. A good brand to try is Occam's.

HAARP = Weather Dominator (Collect all the pieces!)
Moon Landing = Done in Hollywood
AIDS = not caused by HIV
Vaccinations = causes Autism
UFO's = Aliens, eek! my anus!

I'm beginning to think there is a conspiracy of conspiracies... shit, now I'm in the club

 

[Hillhater]

?.....Why did the debris provide resistance but the steel framed highrise building did not?

..because the load bearing strength of a steel and concrete rubble pile is many times greater than the shear strength of the limited number of the steel clips securing the floor joist to the vertical steel columns .

..... The videos of the collapse shows that it fell symmetrically through the path of greatest resistance at free fall. Can you all understand now how important that is?

It could only fall vertically. Because there were no other significant forces acting on the building other than gravity.
The " resistance" path was trivial compared to the forces in play...
Once the top 20 stories (100,000 tonnes ?). , was set free by the failure and buckling of the structure at floor 80/81 ... Then you simply had a 100,000 tonne impact hammer working its way down the building.
This has all been worked through many times, and even the original designers agree there were fundamental flaws in the structural design, compounded by poor choice and application of materials.
Remember these buildings were unique in structure and scale anywhere in the world, let alone the events that initiated their destruction.

 

[Punx0r]

What I mean is that you seem to be working very hard to be a contrarian while ADMITTEDLY not reviewing the information given ---which puts your assertions in question and serves as proof that your opinions are based upon assumption and not based in fact.

So you have read the two (and only two) sources I provided for you? They'll take you less than half the time to review as one of the many youtube diatribes posted in this thread and answer all the "points" you've raised:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories

Once you understand the nature of the construction of these buildings and the "basic physics" of the forces they were subjected to, you will understand. You won't have to resort to pseudoscience to try to explain the things you observe.

@marty let's focus on steel-framed highrises. Can you find one more example? I can find several which burned hotter and longer.

Please do post these examples of high-rises of comparable in terms of size, construction and impact/fire sustained.

Also try calculating the speed of the building at the end of the 5.4 second period, using their 40% slower than freefall calculation.

I'll admit I don't think I can. For shame Please show me your working so I can learn. I remind you that the data you've provided is starting velocity = 0, acceleration time = 5.4, rate variable and largely unknown, final velocity unknown, aerodynamic properties unknown.

Gravity is the primary force buildings are built to withstand. Free fall acceleration means that no resistance to gravity was met. The videos of the collapse shows that it fell symmetrically through the path of greatest resistance at free fall.

I'll help you out here with a couple of quotes from one of the references I linked above:

given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t, but wind load, rather than the gravity load, dominated the design. The building is a huge sail that must resist a 225 km/h hurricane. It was designed to resist a wind load of 2 kPa—a total of lateral load of 5,000 t.

I think I might now understand your confusion. You think that a structure capable of supporting its weight couldn't possible disintegrate useless under the same weight in a collapse. This is unfortunately true for two reasons: dynamic loadings caused by one part falling and impacting another greatly exceed the static load the structure was designed to bear. Also, materials are often stronger when loaded in one direction than another. You can explore this by carefully standing on an upright empty aluminium drinking can. It should bear your weight when loaded vertically, unless you're really heavy. Then get an assistant to dent the side of the can whilst you're stood on it. You find the structure that previously withstood a high gravity load will collapse, offering almost no vertical support and you will descend at near freefall until the can crumples into a semi-solid mass.

 

[Punx0r]

Hillhater, you beat me to it and put it more concisely, too

I do think a lot of the "it can't happen like that" comes from not being able to appreciate the immense scale of the building and the forces involved in its collapse. It's hard to imagine how immense steel and concrete columns, which we'd normally think of as infinitely rigid can be bent like noodles or splintered like matchsticks under the almost unimaginable force of such an enormous falling mass. The falling part doesn't need to be strong or rigid to impart huge damage to the rest of the structure, just be heavy and moving - its inertia makes it almost unstoppable.

 

[Danny Mayes]

Hillhater, you beat me to it and put it more concisely, too

I do think a lot of the "it can't happen like that" comes from not being able to appreciate the immense scale of the building and the forces involved in its collapse. It's hard to imagine how immense steel and concrete columns, which we'd normally think of as infinitely rigid can be bent like noodles or splintered like matchsticks under the almost unimaginable force of such an enormous falling mass. The falling part doesn't need to be strong or rigid to impart huge damage to the rest of the structure, just be heavy and moving - its inertia makes it almost unstoppable.

I agree Punx0r!

So how come all that falling mass did not show up on the seismic data?

 

[zombiess]

So the WTC wasn't attacked by a bunch of religous zealots? It was the US Govt?

But why would the US Govt do this?

 

[Chalo]

Why did they have the 342 page USA PATRIOT Act ready to go immediately after the attack, as if it was waiting for the event?

 

[Arlo1]

So the WTC wasn't attacked by a bunch of religous zealots? It was the US Govt?

But why would the US Govt do this?

As mentioned by Our good friend Luke.

If you look at released freedom of information documents from the US government, you find many types of approved contingency plans to kill plane loads of Americans or boat loads of Americans for the purpose of starting wars to go invade and kill more people.

If they have been OK with killing planes and boats of innocent folks clear from 50 years back, why would a few iconic buildings not be seen as equally good or better to trade in exchange for pseudo-justifying continued perpetual war-mongering?

We have a 100% corporatism government. The shareholder profits of the war-monger industry > American lives.

It doesn't matter long-term though, the US government is in the conclusion stages of the Tytler cycle and inevitably will collapse on it's own corrupt soon enough.

Zombies and others as I have said I did not see what happened behind closed doors leading up to this or what happened in person on that day either. But I would bet the farm on this 9/11 was caused by oil if the us gov did it them self's or not.
The crap from the videos of 9/11 looks extremely suspicious you can't tell me you don't think something seems fishy. There is uber amounts of evidence supporting this as a self inflicted thing to gain more support for more war. Look at the numbers or what oil and all the war machine providers make world wide from this!

 

[Punx0r]

eTrike, you just keep repeating (parroting) the same points that have already been addressed in earlier discussion . Stating something over and over doesn't make it true.

What does Newton's third law say about that? We've already given examples of all of this, comparing the collapse to known demolition, free fall is proof that zero resistance occurred, foreknowledge of collapse, eyewitness testimony, video with scientific method applied to both hypotheses, etc.

Leaving aside calculations of freefall, you seem to have a fundamental ignorance of what an explosive controlled demolition is. It's a controlled *collapse*. The structure is weakened, then explosives are used to knock out the remaining supports in a few key locations. Then building then collapses under its own weight. You seem to think that an explosive demolition involves exploding the structure on every floor, to effectively pulverise the building in mid air and allowing the remains to freefall to earth! Such a demolition is not only totally unnecessary I suspect it's unprecedented. The shear quantity of explosive required would be nuts.

1. Free fall acceleration occurred. This is huge! That means zero resistance(!)--the rest of the time was near free fall. Feel free to solve the math above, google will help you and enough information has been given to calculate, courtesy of Punxor.

I did ask for your working. I strongly suspect you can't do it. Nor can you evaluate someone else's mathematical proof.

2. Fires have never before or since brought down a steel framed high rise.

Collapse of steel-framed buildings during fire is no uncommon. Your point isn't proof of anything, because a comparable event hasn't happened to a comparable building. Another 10-second Google ("high rise steel building collapse by fire" search revealed the following: http://debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

"This is why it's the first time in history these buildings fell as they did. It's the first time in history buildings constructed like this collapsed."

Basically, there is no comparable event.

eTrike, I'm not sure if you refuse to examine the scientific and technical explanations or you just don't understand them. Many of the points you make are edging into "not even wrong" territory.

 

[Punx0r]

Any detractors understand free fall yet?

I suspect no one could ever quite understand it in the unique way you seem to.

Thanks Arlo and Chalo.

Congratulations, chaps, you win an invitation to eTrike's echo chamber

 

[ErnestoA]

Any detractors understand free fall yet?

I suspect no one could ever quite understand it in the unique way you seem to.

Thanks Arlo and Chalo.

Congratulations, chaps, you win an invitation to eTrike's echo chamber

I understand it. It's 8th grade physics.

I'm curious about the point of this post, and a large percentage of other posts I've seen from you lately, and a couple others with similar attitudes and low percentages of constructive/collaborative posts that for some reason, are allowed to stink up the forum with uninformed, closed minded, illogical combativeness.

Does it make you feel good to talk yourself into thinking you're smarter than some of the smartest, most logically minded, educated, and informed people on this board?
Do you like pot stirring?
Are you playing devil's advocate?
Are you a gov/corporate shill, out to derail discussions that could potentially expose the deviant behavior of your slave masters?
Are you just a negative, naysaying, contrarian in general?
Are you mad at your mother?

Why are you here?

If you're not aware of it, you're behaving like the high school dropout, fox news watching, "friend" with stinky feet that insists on taking his shoes off when sitting around the campfire with smarter, more educated friends, then gets hammered, and shouts over friendly, intelligent conversations until everyone else gives up and hits their tents.

Some people just aren't good at communication and social stuff but have other redeeming qualities so I'm not judging, just curious as to your motivations and trying to provide some constructive criticism.

 

[thewmatusmoloki]

Hilarious thread guys, thanks for the laughs.

If concise, clear, convincing and rational points are taken into consideration, then Punx0r wins................ easily.

I think we've found a new Morph999 in ErnestoA

 

[Punx0r]

Other posters have made much more precise, eloquent and concise points in this thread defending science than I have

I like the idea of me being part of the conspiracy, though. I'm not normally trusted with big secrets because of my fondness for sharing interesting stories.

ErnestoA, I'm flattered by your concern for my personality and your supportive comments about my probably having some redeeming features. I'm afraid I couldn't identify any comparisons between my character and your attempt at pop psychology, but I appreciate the effort. This apparent display of empathy is especially impressive considering prior admissions of your thought processes would indicate you are quite high on the psychopathic spectrum.

*hugs*

 

[ErnestoA]

I'm a really nice guy in "real life" that's had to result to becoming somewhat sociopathic because it's become not only necessary as a survival mechanism, but also as a way to "fit in" and not be a total outcast/hermit/martyr.

I really am just trying to help but no longer feel like it's necessary to be bashful about questioning behavior that I see as destructive, in particular when it may be being done unintentionally. Sometimes all it takes is insight for someone to voluntarily evolve and by posting, insight is what I attempt to share.

As far as the discussion goes, It's damn tempting to build a scale model or set up a jetfuel melting metal test, or better yet, scaled down DEW!

I think my input to this thread is complete at this point though.

 

[ErnestoA]

I think we've found a new Morph999 in ErnestoA

If Morph999 is a pill that wakes slave minded gov drones up, I'm a truck load of them.

 

[Punx0r]

eTrike, your post contains so many logical fallacies I won't even take the time to list them all.

I will say though, that we are still waiting for your workings on the physics that prove whatever it is you say they do. Just copy and paste from a website if you can't do it. Come on, let's lay down some of this "plain, reproducible, verifiable science" you talk about! Let's get technical!

Also, the webpage you just linked states right at the top "the rest of the building collapsed mostly into its footprint in about 7 seconds — near free-fall speed.". Yet one of the few things we agree on is that the time of collapse was 5.4 seconds and complete freefall would have been 3.9 seconds. This isn't an insignificant mistake when the "authors" are claiming to have determined the building fell at freefall velocity.

a couple others with similar attitudes and low percentages of constructive/collaborative posts that for some reason, are allowed to stink up the forum with uninformed, closed minded, illogical combativeness.

Translation: constructive/collaborative = ones that confirm my opinions. Uninformed, closed minded, illogical combative = ones that refute my opinions

Does it make you feel good to talk yourself into thinking you're smarter than some of the smartest, most logically minded, educated, and informed people on this board?

By chance, do the "most logically minded, educated and informed people on this board" happen to be the ones who agree with you?

And no, it doesn't make me feel good. It makes me genuinely sad. I understand that people will hold varying theories in situations where good information is lacking, like exactly what was going on in the heads of those at the top of the Government/Military/Intelligence services before and after this attack. That's understandable uncertainty. But you guys go far beyond that, into paranoia and pseudo-science. It makes me question my assumptions about other people - to think that they are fundamentally different to me. Not in a personality or character way, but different brain physiology and that no matter how hard I try I will never understand the way they think, because it is physically impossible for me to do so. Much like homosexuals, the devoutly religious or pacifists.

To eTrike and ErnestoA, I would be genuinely interested to know your opinions on the following events:

Moon landings
JFK assassination
Alien visitors
Pearl Harbour attack

Just briefly. I've made some unintended assumptions about you both and would like to challenge them.

 

[ErnestoA]

I'd rather pound my balls flat with a pancaked highrise floor than attempt to engage in any kind of meaningful conversation with a person that's displayed the willful ignorance and poor communication skills that you so frequently display.

I'll leave it at this. Governments are the biggest terrorists on the planet so I wouldn't put any heinous act or cover up past them.

 

[Arlo1]

Moon landings I think this really happened
JFK assassination I think this happened and for what? him trying to pull out of a war?..... Weird how that links up to something like 9/11
Alien visitors If the governments are covering this up there are doing a much better job than anything else they cover up!
Pearl Harbour attack Don't know a lot about this.... I might read up on it one day.

Just briefly. I've made some unintended assumptions about you both and would like to challenge them.

 

[nutnspecial]

I would be genuinely interested to know your opinions on the following events:

Moon landings
JFK assassination
Alien visitors
Pearl Harbour attack

Just briefly. I've made some unintended assumptions about you both and would like to challenge them.

When it becomes obvious to me (as it has long before in this thread) that people are just trying to augment the argument for arguments' sake, i think it's time to do some ignoring. These people may be either dumb, devious, delirious;
but one thing's for sure, it's never a good idea to argue with a fool, because onlookers might not be able to tell the difference!

 

[Punx0r]

Ah, I understand you know, eTrike. You have modified your original argument from "the building fell at freefall velocity" to "it took longer than freefall, but freefall velocity was briefly obtained during a small portion of the collapse". How this is supposed to support your claim of the building being exploded mid-air I don't know. That would suggest freefall for the entire collapse (until hitting the rubble pile), as you originally claimed.

You have already been given the answers and the links to calculate the physics and basic science for yourself. Check back a page or two for two tutorials. A 10-second google will give you options as well. If you need help, feel free to ask in a separate thread or gain some semblance of curious humility--it isn't shameful. What is shameful is ignoring the laws of nature even when you find the proof for yourself.

Oh, yes, I saw that physics page earlier. I already admitted I couldn't do the maths with the information you gave and asked you to show me. What more could an opened-minded person do but ask you to tell me how it is? I have in the past had to calculate acceleration and velocity of an object in freefall including air resistance (it's a first order differential equation, IIRC), but I can't determine the intermediate steps from "F = MA" to "governmentdidit!".

Your entire argument seems to be based on incredulity driven by an ignorance of technical matters. When looking at evidence for the "official" version of events, do you find yourself saying "I just can't believe it happened like that"?

Regarding your appeal to authority, Gibson's Law states:

For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD

Also, Anonymous:

No one has yet come up with a conspiracy theory so batshit crazy they couldn't find at least one expert to support it

ErnestoA, I think it is for the best that you've opted to withdraw your input to this thread. It will give you more time to encourage the mentally ill in other threads

 

[Punx0r]

Nutspecial, perhaps you are right: If these people are so divorced from reality and reason they believe in space-based super weapons destroying skyscrapers or other huge paranoid conspiracies we should just leave them to their tinfoil hats.

 

[Arlo1]

Nutspecial, perhaps you are right: If these people are so divorced from reality and reason they believe in space-based super weapons destroying skyscrapers or other huge paranoid conspiracies we should just leave them to their tinfoil hats.

The fact Luke can give you real examples of the US government planning attacks on its own people to create a false flag attack just like this and the fact something like JFK can happen and you still wont even question 9/11 means there is something wrong with the way you see things.
People can show you any kind of evidence they like but you have your mind made up before looking at it so it doesn't matter as you wont even read/watch the evidence anyways!

Have fun following your "leader" until the day they feel the need to put a knife in your back just for self advancement.

 

[ErnestoA]

Nutspecial, perhaps you are right: If these people are so divorced from reality and reason they believe in space-based super weapons destroying skyscrapers or other huge paranoid conspiracies we should just leave them to their tinfoil hats.

The fact Luke can give you real examples of the US government planning attacks on its own people to create a false flag attack just like this and the fact something like JFK can happen and you still wont even question 9/11 means there is something wrong with the way you see things.
People can show you any kind of evidence they like but you have your mind made up before looking at it so it doesn't matter as you wont even read/watch the evidence anyways!

Have fun following your "leader" until the day they feel the need to put a knife in your back just for self advancement.

Well said!

Also PunXor, the comment about "encouraging the mentally ill" was just uncalled for. frocking creep. I hate to break it to you, but you've shown beyond a doubt that you're the one who's mentally ill, but in a willfully ignorant and combative way, not in an eccentric, peaceful, and creative way.

BTW, just so others know, JFK got shot because he was trying to get dollars backed by real value again, which would mean that the elite couldn't just print money whenever they needed it. http://orwelltoday.com/jfkdollaramerican.shtml

FOIA docs show that the gov knew about Pearl Harbor in advance and did nothing. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408

There is as much evidence showing that we didn't land on the moon as there is that suggests we did so who knows. http://listverse.com/2012/12/28/10-reasons-the-moon-landings-could-be-a-hoax/

And to think that we're the only intelligent life around is the dumbest and most egotistical thing I can imagine. I've seen UFO's and entities that we haven't identified as terrestrial so there's something out there.
http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/canadas-former-defence-minister-claims-that-aliens-are-real

 

[nutnspecial]

Lol, don't you guys see what punxr did there? A little punking imo .

imo it's best to let peeps like that take their 'tinfoil hat' poke and just go. Otherwise we end up with derailing destractive detractive back and forth, instead of constructive discussion on the thread topic and friendly divergences.

From the first page the goal has obviously been to go off topic with moon landing etc.
See the pattern, the method, the motive?

This thread will be here for countless others to potentially hear that little whisper 'look deeper'.
Kudos- and that said, what a colorful thread.

 

[arkmundi]

The fact Luke can give you real examples of the US government planning attacks on its own people to create a false flag attack ... 9/11... JFK got shot because ... the gov knew about Pearl Harbor in advance and did nothing... evidence showing that we didn't land on the moon .... UFO's and entities that we haven't identified as terrestrial so there's something out there.....

Hahaha hahaHAAHHAAA haaaaa... I get great amusement value from reading this stuff. I too love great stories... just see my post for July viewing in Great TV Shows!. Part of the dilemma of the modern virtual world we've created is the people are having a harder and harder time differentiating between reality and science fiction.