Topic: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? - page 24. (Read 54921 times)

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The simple question posted is whether this is the argument you'd like to to defeat and that you believe or want to defend.  I have no idea what "OFFICIAL RECORDS" say.

So the premise then is a 10 second fall plus or minus 0.8 seconds?  Then you would argue that these numbers are impossible without explosives being added to the PE of the buildings?

I invited you to change it if it did not reflect what you believe.  If explosives are required to reach free fall speeds, we'll establish that.  Or not.

There you go, shifting the goal posts again. So the OFFICIAL RECORDS aren't good enough for you? Very convenient you don't even wish to comment on WTC 7, why talk about a subject you have no counter argument to? Why not just refuse to address any facts about these events when they don't fit your narrative bias?

You can argue until you are blue in the face, but you are arguing against THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. Explosives are required to reach free fall speeds with a building coming down, this is A FACT. There is nothing to debate about it. Wake the fuck up, stop your flailing, you are wrong. Deal with it.

I eagerly await for your new goal posts as well as your next disingenuous verbal gymnastic performance. Just don't forget to stretch, you wouldn't want to strain yourself with the massive amounts of bullshit you are spouting.

Far less fantasy than Big Bang Theory, or that the official 9/11 story is near truth.

That's one hell of a fantasy world, buddy.

Here's a much better one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSGuBNopzBw

God probably chuckled at your joke that was slightly against Him. But we do not know this for sure.

My response to your joke was meant to be a "propitiation" for your joke, so that if God became angry at you for joking foolishly about Him, He might not add it to your batch of sins for which you will be punished in Hell, if you go that direction... or for which you will lose glory in Heaven if you go that direction.

So, thank me.

Well, you said you speak for yourself, so there is no way for me to figure out what your argument is except just to ask, right? 

For a number of reasons I like a seismic record better than the video.  I stated my inability to accurately calculate the fall time from the video given the huge amounts of smoke and dust, whatever.  Actually, an acoustic record would also be interesting.

So the premise then is a 10 second fall plus or minus 0.8 seconds?  Then you would argue that these numbers are impossible without explosives being added to the PE of the buildings?  (by the way, I don't see any reason to segue into WTC 7, very different dynamics there.)

So this issue is concerned strictly with events AFTER the collapse beings.  Let's say 1 second after some unknown type of structural failure.

I would argue is that these premises do not NECESSARILY lead to the conclusion that explosives caused the subsequent events, and that the immense potential energy of the structure is SUFFICIENT to explain the fall rates, after some reasonable consideration for air resistance and a range of resistance or slowing-down from the floors below.

That sound fair?  If not, changes?

I have already stated my claim clearly, several times. I don't need to argue about the seismic record and only mentioned it because you did, and the length of the seismic signal is shorter than free fall speeds. The buildings can clearly be seen from the moment of initiation to the moment they stop, there are about a thousand different angles to choose from. The view is especially clear with WTC 7. I noticed you had zero comment about NIST admitting free fall speeds as well. I guess even the official report is not good enough for you now?


How about the official 9/11 commission report which states it took 10 seconds for the first tower to collapse?

"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel  inside,  as  well  a  number  of  individuals—both  first responders and civilians—in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets"

Page 305 The 9/11 Commission Report

That number good enough for you hoss? I don't agree with it, but for the sake of argument lets use 10 seconds since it keeps you from endlessly diverting the debate with conjecture.

This number alone matches the profile of free fall speeds and does not account for air resistance nor the resistance of the increasingly stronger floors supposedly collapsing below it which would reduce the momentum of the collapse. At this point this is proof that it was not a collapse, because there HAS TO BE resistance from the air AND the structure below.

THE ONLY WAY the building could have fallen this fast is WITH EXPLOSIVE FORCE removing the resistance of the structure. I don't need to provide any more calculations for you to endlessly dither about to distract from this point, because this is proof in its own right. THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE states that the building fell within 0.8 seconds of free fall speed as calculated from WITHIN A VACUUM. 0.8 seconds is not anywhere close to enough time to account for air resistance let alone the resistance of crushing the structures below, even if Newton's third law did not prove that to be impossible. 0.8 seconds IS NOWHERE NEAR enough time to account for this discrepancy.

BTW, I am not conceding anything. I am not talking about the explosive ejection force required to move the 4-ton steel sections 600 feet laterally simply because I am too busy deconstructing your endless piles of baseless bullshit designed to distract from that point.

Once again, you provide no countering evidence of your own, but simply rely on denials, conjecture, and sewing implausible doubt with no factual basis behind your assertions. Maybe your ninja friends can explain this to you.

Wat?

I just told you they did. This post I'm writing right now has just as much integrity as the bible. They are both things written by men.

So you're saying that "God" in my joke is actually satan? How do you know? And why didn't the conspiracy theorists go to heaven? Aren't you going to heaven?

More to the point, did I get your logic question right, and wtf does it have to do with 9/11? Also did you get the joke? Good, right?

So let me ask again.  What exactly is your claim?  Can you just state it in seconds and please provide a margin of error.  Because I just looked at the seismic record again and I'm just scratching my head wondering where you get not just a certain number, but a number so certain that you can proceed to the claim "Ah HAH!  Explosives!"  And I looked at the videos but there is so much dust and crap in the air around the buildings, I don't think I could state the exact number except maybe plus or minus a couple of seconds.

All that needs be done to account for resistance to the downward motion is to introduce a term for that.  Examples -

D = 1/2 D * T^(2-TERM)

or perhaps

D = (1/2 D * T^2) - c*D where c is a constant

and so forth.  Easy and well understood in ballistics and aerodynamic.  

So which is it?  An aerodynamic drag or a drag from the building struts being sheared?  Do you have a calculation for those factors and terms or just the assertions?

And somehow you know this with a degree of precision that enables you to pronounce "Explosives had to be used!"   Sorry, this isn't clear at all.  I think it's clear there is no such certainty.  But let's hear it.

By the way, are you ready to concede the point that exponentially higher forces are required to move an object successive distances sideways?  I notice you don't seem to want to continue talking about that?

From 2 Corinthians 11:14
The conspiracy theorists didn't make it to Heaven at all.

So it was a Middle East king that did 911?

Lol...

No one blame saudi in this case, this is still in investigation. i think we will never know who is behind of this tragedy.

It seems the US is preparing to blame Saudi's for the attack nowadays. It has been 7-8 years since the last economic crisis and the  best method to get out of economic crisis is creating wars, liberating middle east countries and steal their shit.

Will the US liberate Saudi Arabia next? What do you think?

I think they were going to liberate Iran but Iran isn't a helpless child. They probably have real nuclear missiles and Russia won't just watch while Iran is getting occupied.

So i think the US decided to mess with his own pawn instead of Russia's pawn. It is just cheaper

So the first guy thinks that if he has a black stone, then guy number 2 would know that if he also has a black stone guy number 3 would have said "I have a white stone". But he doesn't. The same applies to guy number 3 - if he had a black stone as well as guy number 1, then number 2 would have shouted out.

Because both guy number 2 and number 3 give up, he concludes that he must have a white stone. If he was the only guy with the black stone, one of the other guys could have worked out that their stones was white because neither claimed to have the white stone.

I think this is a solution, but I think that it does depend on the 2 guys giving up, I don't see how the logic problem is solvable without the 2 guys giving up. I also don't see how this applies to the topic.

Here's one for you:

Two 9/11 conspiracy theorists die in a plane crash, reach the afterlife and come face to face with God, who tells them:

"You may enter heaven my children"

So one of the conspiracy theorists asks God "Before we go, there's one thing we'd like to ask you..."

"Go ahead my child, what do you wish to know?"

"Well, who was actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks?"

God replies, "It was the muslim extremists, Al Quaeda and Osama bin Laden of course, they hijacked planes and caused the whole atrocity!"

One conspiracy theorist turns to the other and says:

"Shit man, this conspiracy goes way higher up than we realized!"

There was a Middle East king who had 3 ambassadors. He wanted to make one of them his prime minister. So he devised a test to find out which of the three was most qualified.

The king had the 3 guys sit down in a circle (triangle?) facing each other. Then he showed them 5 little stones in his hand. Two of the stones were black, and three of them where white.

Then the king walked around the 3 guys and placed a little white stone in the top-front of the turban of each. He positioned the stones where an ambassador could not see the stone in the top of his own turban, but the other two could see it easily. The king tucked the two black stones away in his robe without revealing which stones he had tucked away.

Then the king said, "The man who can tell me the color of the stone in his own turban can be my prime minister. But if you guess, and you guess wrong, it is off with your head. In addition, no cheating, or it is off with your head."

The guys sat and thought about it for a while. But finally one of the guys said, "I can't figure this out. I give up. It isn't worth guessing about." A short time later a second ambassador said essentially the same thing, and gave up, as well.

The third ambassador jumped up and said, "I have a white stone." He knew he had a white stone. He wasn't guessing. How did he know that he had a white stone?

There is a logical way to figure out how he knew that he had a white stone. It doesn't have anything to do with guessing, or with the idea that the other two guys gave up anyway. When you figure it out, apply that kind of reasoning to what we know about 9/11, and you will see that the official story is one of the worst conspiracy theories of all.

I'm not the one claiming that a 4-ton chunk of steel moving sideways 600 feet positively proves controlled demolition eg explosives. And I'm not the one claiming that it doesn't. I'm the one showing that it is irrelevant to the inside-job idea, because there are way too many points not being discussed, some of which can't be discussed because they are unknowns.

I suppose that with a topic title like, "What do you think about 9/11 mystery?" one can really discuss all kinds of aspects of 9/11 without really being quite off topic. Yet the OP seems to indicate that the topic revolves around the idea that 9/11 may have been an inside job... at least that there are many unanswered questions.

I'm not the one claiming that a 4 ton chunk of steel moving sideways 600 feet positively proves controlled demolition eg explosives. 

I only debunked this claim that moving it 600 feet positively proves explosives.  It does not.

You are welcome or Tecshare is welcome to devise various theories that do not require this claim.

Myself I like the Galactic Energy Ray from Alpha Centauri theory.

Starting to get a little off-topic, aren't you? Your "stuff" might have a little to do with 9/11 in some ways, and it might be reasonably accurate in itself, but it doesn't take into account many other things regarding 9/11, that combined prove 9/11 to be an inside job.

The topic is about 9/11, not about a bunch of math, chemistry and physics that can never be shown to fit the 9/11 inside-job tragedy.

These statements -

With every foot you extend the lateral movement, you are requiring MORE FORCE to eject it. You are acting like the difference between moving a 4 ton section of steel 5 feet and moving it 600 feet is a moot point. It is not, every foot that 4-ton object goes requires exponential amounts more of energy to move it.

Again, this beam is just "given sideways motion" as if by some magical unexplained force. Also I never said the distance or time was exponentially higher, I said the FORCE REQUIRED to do so is exponentially higher, meaning we have a set height, therefore to eject this 4-ton object AGAINST THE FORCES FOR GRAVITY and air resistance, from its former state of rest, requires more energy for every foot further it is to travel.

- are simply wrong.

Please review Newton's First Law.  An object does not require additional energy for each foot it goes further.  Consider a car.  If rolling, engine off, on a level surface, it only needs additional energy to overcome friction of moving bearings and air resistance.  

Air resistance can be disregarded for this case and size of an object.  If you disagree, we can calculate the effect of air resistance.  But it will be a small amount, an incremental amount.  Gravity, a downward force, does not prevent or hinder injection of a sideways force.

There is no such thing as a requirement for "an exponentially higher amount for every foot further it moves sideways."

Do you persist in this misunderstanding or agree with me?  If you still don't agree, then please simply show your work using the equations of motion and gravity.

Thanks.