Topic: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? - page 30. (Read 54943 times)

Actually, odds is all there is. I don't mean the odds in chemical reactions, or the odds in math. I mean the odds that the chemical reactions and the math that you stress apply to 9/11. The reason? Because there were all kinds of other activities going on that you don't take into account in your chemistry and math application.

Name one? Nobody knows what amount of the fuel was on board the planes. Nobody knows what percent of fuel was boiled off before it could burn. Everyone can see that the almost perfect collapses, if they happened because of the fuel, would have had to have the perfect amount of fuel added to the absolute correct places in the Towers, or the Towers would have toppled well outside of their footprints.

These simple points make all your math and chemistry irrelevant, except if it is applied to explosives already placed in the buildings.

Illuminati written all over 9/11.

It's simple problem of the exponential increase in kinetic energy from t=0, weakened by a factor for the resistance.  So if free fall was V = m * T^2, the proposition of "resistance" would lead us to calculate the possible range of that resistance, and we might have V = m * T^1.7 or 1.9, or whatever. 

But these are huge numbers for the energies, regardless of exactly what that exponent is. 

Oh, and there is no such thing as "odds" here.  There seem to be two lines of thought among conspiracy theorists.   First there is the belief that the initial structural failure could not have occurred without "additional assistance" such as thermite or explosives.  Second there is a belief that the downward pancaking of the towers must have been accompanied by additional explosives or thermite, such as charges on each floor or something of that sort.

In my opinion the first is a valid question, and should be explored and answered.  We can do that pretty easily.   Also in my opinion, the second is way over in batshit crazy land.   

Nor are you taking into account many other factors that show that buildings like these can not fall in free fall style as they did, without some critically timed detonations going off inside to make them fall that way.

If we wanted to use odds, it couldn't happen with one building. Three buildings in the same day equals demolition equals an inside job.

This argument...
4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.


...asserts that if X is the speed of the fall of an object in air, then a building collapse should be X - Y speed.  Where Y is resistance by the part of the building below the section falling on it.

This argument is flawed in it's premises, it's approach, and in it's conclusion.

The "free fall speed" is V = 32 ft * time^2/seconds.

Roughly in the first second, an object moves 32 feet.  In the second second, 64 feet, and so on.

I'm not seeing support for #4 either in the video of the towers collapse, the seismic records, or in the math and structural stuff.....

Okay, here we go.

A dirt mound, say one created by dump trucks, has a side angle of slope related to the type of material.  But very broadly, a mound is about three times in diameter as it is tall.  A building collapsing would create a mound of some such proportions.

Reports of the 911 trajedy were that standing on top of the debris mound, a person was 15-20 stories up.  Also that the mounds extended out 400-500 feet.  So basically about 200 feet up and 800 feet in diameter.  There's the "conical mound of debris."  

Now, all of this debris has converted its potential energy it had when up in the sky into kinetic energy as it fell down, and sideways, and then again it became potential energy when it came to rest on the ground.  The sideways movement occurs in EVERY CASE where material is deposited on the ground under the force of gravity.

Good so far?  If not let me know.

So I conjecture that something "unusual" would be something that was far outside the natural debris mound.  For example, if our dump truck dumped a load of sand in our front yard, but one part of the offload was mysteriously thirty feet to the side.

But we don't have that here, do we?  The beams that are "hundreds of feet sideways" are within what we would expect for the debris field's size and distribution.

I can show the equations for the (theoretical) conical mound but realized that the actual physical size of the debris mound is in agreement, so no reason to.

Does that make sense?  If not why and how.  Maybe there's something I'm not getting.  But I'm not getting how a thing found 400-500 feet away is "unusual" and how it requires another explanation outside and beyond PE --> KE.

I believe my explanation covers both the velocity and the zero tilt issues. 

Huh?

Velocity is simply from KE = 1/2 * M * V^2

I'm waiting for you to say that the tower beams and girders weren't attached, which is my point. The explosives detached them.

Particles of dumped dirt aren't attached to each other like steel beams and girders in buildings. Why do you want to sound so foolish?

Good luck with that. Happy hunting on "debunking" sites so you don't have to have any actual thoughts of your own.

No I will get to it.

Again, you just conveniently ignore the velocity of the 4 ton girders. This was not a fluke where some how just one made it that far. There were MULTIPLE 4-ton girders hundreds of feet from the towers. Additionally considering there was ZERO TILT when the buildings went down right into their footprints, your entire argument about it some how magically being moved sideways is fallacious.

Okay thanks.  Those are the assertions then.

Just trying to be sure I have your objection to #3 (and the other issues) correct.  Does A vs B accurately describe this?

Because my answer is that the "propelling force" is PE --> KE, and that is about 1.2 x 10^7 joule, clearly sufficient energy.  PE is not "pointed downward."

Another way to look at this is to think about piles of dirt.  If we dump dirt out of trucks, over and over, it will form a mound with a ratio between the height and the diameter.  IIRC usually about 1:3.  

So what is "unusual about" pieces of debris being found 300-600 feet from a 1300 tower's fall?

2500 feet away, you would definitely have my interest....

Do you understand your arguments properly? So far all your arguments just consist of what if ninjas, what if roller coasters, what if the laws of physics don't apply. Do you have anything substantive here to respond with or just continual tu quoque fallacies?



1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to damage the structures.
(What are you retarded or just purposely trying to waste my time to hope I will get tired of your bullshit and go away? Of course they damaged the structure)

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 structural failure.

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.  

The majority of the fuel was burned off at impact (see giant fireball and burn speed of jet fuel) as the fuel is stored in the wings. Even if every drop made it inside, it would still not be enough. The other materials in the building all met strict fire codes in order to prevent making fires worse. Additionally the fires did not burn for nearly long enough or hot enough to sufficiently weaken the structure.


3.  The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel 4 ton sections of steel beams hundreds of feet.

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 falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.

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

Either it was free fall speed and explosives were used to clear the resistance before impact was made, or the impacts happen and create readily visible and measurable deceleration preventing free fall speed. The plane impact has absolutely nothing to do with it.

A  TNT, etc required to move those beams.
B  TNT not required to move those beams.

TNT is not required, some type of explosive is required. TNT was only used as a measurement of force required to move a 4-ton mass at the measured velocity of 21 m/s.

I asked if I understood your arguments properly.  Here is how I think they work, again.

So do these summarize your position on why the airplanes-into-buildings is insufficient to explain the events which occurred?

1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to damage 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 structural failure.

3.  The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel 4 ton sections of steel beams hundreds of feet.

4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.

I post this just to clarify that the respective arguments are what they are.

A  TNT, etc required to move those beams.
B  TNT not required to move those beams.

Your argument was that the beams were ejected by the plane impact. Of course the beams are moving sideways, they were ejected with explosive force. What is the point of stating the obvious? The velocity of their lateral movement can be measured and you do not get that lateral velocity with "tilting" or "falling". I don't see any roller coaster rails, sorry. Recheck your brain stem please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2odi5nszWKc#t=3m6s