Topic: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? - page 29. (Read 54921 times)

What's "far away?"  Just like the assertion that the beam being found "far away" is taken to be some kind of "evidence."  It's not and there's nothing of an anomaly in the beam.  

I guess it's up to whoever makes the claim "bone fragments were found far away" to support his claim that somehow this is evidence or proof of explosives.  As I've already shown, the kinetic energy of position at 1000 feet alone is orders of magnitude higher than is required to move things a few hundred feet sideways.

A piece of debris from an aircraft colliding with a tower, if it continued forward at it's initial velocity for ten seconds would come to rest over a mile away. 

Many of the bone fragments found were like 1-2mm in size, these would decelerate quickly from the plane's velocity but would be moved by the wind.

So what exactly is "far away?"

I'm using the phrase "conical mound of debris" loosely.  Certainly, if you stood in the center of where the building was, it was the highest.  A hundred yards out, it's lower.  Three hundred yards out, just dust.  Here's what some guys said at the time.  (NY TImes, reporter to firefighter)



Debris was incredible, how much of it was across the street. You couldn't even tell the street from the sidewalk. It didn't look like a big pile at first, but you realized it later on because it was a gradual outlaying of material. It gradually increased in height as you went along, so it was like climbing a hill, you really don't know how high you are until you are up there.

Q. The perception wasn't real till you saw firemen standing on the pile. You could barely see them.

A. Barely see them.

Q. Then you have a perception of the mass that was there.

A. How deep it was. And how high it is. I mean you were actually standing sometimes 15, 20 stories up. It wasn't that much of a fall, because there was a lot of material along the way. -Firefighter Fred Marsilla nytimes.com

As in, if 9/11 was a demolition and explosives were used that caused the bone fragments to be thrown far away, are there videos showcasing said explosions? Or would kinetic energy from the plane colliding with the building be enough to do so?

Maybe you can clarify exactly what you are asking for. Frankly, physics proves it regardless of how you interpret the video.

Are there videos showing an explosive force capable of ejecting bone fragments that far away?

Unfortunately for your argument there was no "conical mound of debris". As I explained earlier one of the shocking facts noted by cleanup crews was the LACK of a taller debris pile. The debris field was wide but not tall consistent with explosives. FFS bone fragments of victims were still being found years later on distant rooftops. Collapses don't pulverize human bone and send it flying either.

One of the relatively few things that bother me about the thermate/nano-thermite hypothesis is that the nano-thermite which was discovered in all of the dust is quite reactive.  In terms of stability, it is vastly different from high explosives which require another high explosive to initiate a detonation.  It would be excedingly dangerious to have the stuff imbeded in the quantity which seems necessary to so thorougly pulverize the reinforced concreate and create the turbidity flows which were documented.  Crashing any aircraft into the buildings which were rigged would have been a risky moment.  If it went wrong, however, the public would probably be just as inclined to buy a story about planes packed with explosives as they were with the pankake one or those stories which followed.

It does seem clear that much of the footage of the jet liners crashing into the buildings was phony.  I would entertain the thought that there were no aircraft at all.  One of the bits of footage I've seen seemed to show the initial damage imediately following the crash supposedly documented by the French dudes being light and the Wile E Coyote pattern being carved in in the seconds following the impact.

Anyway, the troublesome aspects of my current strongest hypothesis (thermate/nano-thermite) pale compared to the problems associated with the 'official conspiricy theory' which I am supposed to be believing.

Let me restate more clearly.

Energy required to set 4 ton steel section moving at 21meters per second
8 pounds of TNT, 40,000 joules from your link

Potential energy of that 4 ton steel section at 1000 feet
24,000,000 joules

That is JUST THE POTENTIAL ENERGY IN THAT BEAM FRAGMENT.

Now, given the distribution of debris from the towers' fall, the position of the beam fragment is within the normal distribution.  It is "within the conical mound of debris," although more or less the outer part of it.

I should be gentle with you. It's difficult for you or anyone to eat crow. So, relax. I am sure you are a great person, even though you have overextended yourself this time.



EDIT: The planes were probably almost empty of fuel. The black clouds of smoke in the crashes, were premature setting off of the planted explosives... set off by the crashing planes, of course.

This is reasonable since there were no black, billowing clouds of smoke in B-7, since there were no crashes there.   

We aren't talking about bowling balls and feet. Again we are talking about the LAWS of physics. If the force is sufficient enough to crush the progressively stronger floors below it, it is strong enough to crush the "pile driver" at minimum in the equivalent amount of time as it crushes the floors below, eventually leaving crushed debris as the only remaining downward force. As a result this means that the "pile driver" effect is dissipated with every floor it crushes below it because it does not act with a unified downward force and falls to the side or is otherwise dissipated interacting with itself. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Again you are just denying the laws of physics while providing no actual reasoning, just providing sad examples of bowling balls and feet while you play word gymnastics to try to make it sound like you have some logic behind your point. Physics trumps word gymnastics.




There are several problems with your logic. First of all you are taking the entire energy force of the building (I assume, you still haven't explained where you get your numbers from), and claiming all of it is available to some how fling these multi-ton objects laterally. The calculation I provided was for ONE single 4-ton girder, and you are attempting to use the entire crushing force of the building as an energy source in comparison claiming it is not very much. Multiplied thousands of times to account for the fact that this force does not just act on one single girder, your comparison dwindles. Additionally the buildings were not a perfectly engineered projectile launcher, it was an open space with giant gaps for air pressure to flow out of, meaning that this force had to be MUCH larger in order to act with such pressure against the fact that there was not an airtight seal acting only upon a single girder. Your argument reminds be a lot of gun control freaks who try to compare US and UK gun crimes stats without correcting for population and claiming this is a valid comparison.

The second gaping hole in your logic, is that all of that energy is directed DOWNWARDS by gravity, not laterally. The rubble heap was not tall enough to account for your "sliding" theory, and even if the girder was "cartwheeling", a massive force still had to act upon it to send it flying. Describing a different type of movement of the object does not explain away the amounts of energy required to send it on this path. Again, Newtons 3rd law states every action has an equal and opposite reaction, hence that free falling "cartweeling 40' section" would absorb the impact of the 4-ton girder, it does not account for some "unexplained" propelling force away from it, it is not attached to anything providing sufficient resistance or force to make it magically fly laterally. Even if by some miracle this were true, you still need to account for the massive lateral force provided by that 40" section, which would require EVEN MORE lateral force! In effect you are arguing against your own point. Again your argument has no substance, it basically just consists of deny deny deny, and hey look over here!

That's #2.  I'm on #3 and #4 currently.  Here are Tecshare's assertions.  We'll get to #1 and #2.

1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to collapse the structures.

2.  Fire fueled by the fuel in the planes and other material in the towers could not have softened the steel structures enough to cause complete structural failure. 

3.  The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel multiple 4 ton steel beams hundreds of feet laterally at the readily observable velocities demonstrated.

4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings cannot coexist with a building collapse due to the resistant force created at the building impacts the lower levels of itself.

Except for one minor detail. There was no heat from burning fuel that was hot enough to weaken the structure symmetrically enough that it would fall directly into its own footprint. The fact of people walking around in the damaged section of the building shows this.

If the little bit of heat from the burning fuel did any damage, the damage would have been minor, or would at worst have caused a topple, but more than like would have caused a tipping or a sag.

The only way that the symmetrical fall at near gravitational rates could have happened would be through demolition.

This is not true.  When the top section moves as one piece down just one floor, it is acting as a dynamic, not a static load.  As one moving section, it's internal stresses balance each other out.

Yes the floors were progressively stronger as you go down.  But that's nothing compared to the momentum from above. 

Here is a simple example.  A bowling ball weighs 10 lb, and rolls off a table 48" high onto your foot.  Once it hits your foot it dissipates it's energy in 0.25 inches.  The force on your foot is -

F = 48/.25 * 10 = 1920 pounds.  Your foot is crushed.   

Once the pile driver effect starts it can't be stopped. 

That's 4.3 x 0.0001 x 2000 lb/ton = 8.6 lb of explosive (EQUAL TO 40,000 joules).  

But PE = mgh, mass gravity height,

E= 8000 lb * 32 ft/sec^2 * 1000 = 2.4 * 10^7 joules.

40,000 joules from your explosives
24,000,000 joules of  PE, potential energy

So again, isn't the PE explanation a SUFFICIENT one?
Why is the explosives explanation a NECESSARY one?

As you can see, there are trying enormous amounts of energy in a tall building's collapse.  A cartwheeling 40' section of an I beam certainly can deflect a 4 ton section of an I beam hundreds of feet sideways.  Or it slides sideways on a rubble heap.  Or a section of the perimeter columns tilts over like on a pivot (which IS SEEN in the video) and imparts energy. 

It doesn't matter if he denies it until his face turns blue, or why he does so. As you said this is educating third parties by demonstrating the official narrative is counter to the laws of physics as well as demonstrating his weak arguments against these facts.

Anyone else here wonder if Spendus knows damn good and well that 9/11 was a false flag but is 'trolling'?

I mean, if it wasn't for the stuff he peddles, we would not be researching and/or communicating and this thread would be dead and forgotton.  Keeping it alive with all of the devistating points that the rest of us are making is probably going some distance toward informing those who've not put much time into researching things for themselves.

It's only after the vapor fuel is mixed in proper quantities with air that it burns. Percents unknown.

It's only after fuel is in vapor form that it DOES burn.