Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

911 inside job - for what?


redhen

Recommended Posts

The upper block disintegrates and drops a few floors before the lower block even starts to move.

Evidence that the lower block provided resistance until something else removed the resistance from the lower block.

Let's take a look.

[media=]

[/media]

Looking at the video, the lower block was unable to stop the downward movement of the mass of the upper block and in the absence of bomb explosions. And, it is very clear in the video that WTC1 is not falling at free fall speed.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why they don't pull the building higher up is simply because it won't collapse.

Looking at WTC1 and WTC2, their collapse was initiated above the half-way point, which simply proves that you are incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does prove a good point. Most truthers are willing to believe anything that supports their cause without checking facts or proper beforehand.

Not saying all truther are like that, however...

Good point. But I'm not talking about the easily misled, I'm talking about Skyeagle that should know better by Indroducing bull **** into the conversation. The one thing I like about this site is the high brow conversations (arguments) that go on here. By posting evedince like that puts Sky in the realm of a three year old rather than an adult. He prefers misdirection and lies as evidence for his case. By reposting a video like this is disingenuous and adds nothing to the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point. But I'm not talking about the easily misled, I'm talking about Skyeagle that should know better by Indroducing bull **** into the conversation. The one thing I like about this site is the high brow conversations (arguments) that go on here. By posting evedince like that puts Sky in the realm of a three year old rather than an adult. He prefers misdirection and lies as evidence for his case. By reposting a video like this is disingenuous and adds nothing to the discussion.

Well, I have challenged skeptics and truthers alike, to challenge the evidence, but let's face the facts, I expect them to do their homework beforehand and if they don't, I will enlighten them, and the Cleveland Airport and United 93 report is just one prime example of many and I can list other examples if you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I have challenged skeptics and truthers alike, to challenge the evidence, but let's face the facts, I expect them to do their homework beforehand and if they don't, I will enlighten them, and the Cleveland Airport and United 93 report is just one prime example of many and I can list other examples if you like.

Don't be a jack ass. You know exactly what I'm talking about. You've been found intentinoly distorting "eveidence" in your favor. I've found you out myself. For you, you have to post a "disclaimed" vid by the official story people. This is where you want to go. Shows how far down you want to drag the conversation. You've never actualy had an opnion.... you've only had articles and videos.

Your reasoning comes from the "media labled" "correct for consumption" by officialdom. And when those fail you, you attempt to twist words and humilate anyone that offers a differant opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know exactly what I'm talking about. You've been found intentinoly distorting "eveidence" in your favor. I've found you out myself. For you, you have to post a "disclaimed" vid by the official story people. This is where you want to go. Shows how far down you want to drag the conversation. You've never actualy had an opnion.... you've only had articles and videos.

As I have said before, it takes knowledge to know when the 'hold 'me,' and when the 'throw 'em.' So, my challenge remains, so would you care to accept my challenge, one-on-one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have said before, it takes knowledge to know when the 'hold 'me,' and when the 'throw 'em.' So, my challenge remains, so would you care to accept my challenge, one-on-one?

I just knew you were Kenny Rogers! You are definatly an "Island in the stream"! :yes:

As far as the challange... do you have anything to offer that isn't "cut and paste"? If not... than no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just knew you were Kenny Rogers!

That pretty much sums it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That pretty much sums it up.

Rather than argue all night long with you, I'll say goodnight Gambler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than argue all night long with you, I'll say goodnight Gambler.

Good night!! See you tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you are taking a static example which shows the obvious – that different force/load exists at different levels of a building, which the building is designed to hold up of course – and applying it to a dynamic ‘crush’ situation which is entirely different again. In this case the lowermost level of debris isn’t necessarily moving downward until the moment the upper block exerts force on that structure and therefore suffers an equal and opposite force. In other words, the debris isn’t falling within the tower footprint, it is driven down by momentum of the upper block and this is the specific force which overloads the lower structure. If the upper block provides the force to overload the lower structure then the upper block sustains an equal and opposite force.

All your talk is further trumped by the three physical observations here which show the upper block deteriorated.

You admit that the forces can be different at different levels in a static situation, but deny that this is possible in the dynamic situation of the collapse. Neither you nor Stundie can see that the force between the bottom of the debris layer and the top of the lower block isn't the same as that between the top of the debris layer and the bottom of the upper block. This is an amazing blind spot for anyone who claims to understand the physics of the situation. If the two forces are the same, as you think, then there is no net force on the debris layer, an absurd idea, nothing to hold it up in the static case, nothing to retard its fall in the dynamic case. If the debris layer is falling freely, it will outrun the top block which is manifestly falling at less than freefall. Thus by you own argument, the debris layer is hitting the lower block and out of contact with the upper block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just knew you were Kenny Rogers! You are definatly an "Island in the stream"! :yes:

As far as the challange... do you have anything to offer that isn't "cut and paste"? If not... than no.

Regardless if its cut and paste directly from a children's book...how does that invalidate its assertion?

If I were to post a physics based paper by Ryan Mackey from NASA on the collapse of the twin towers proving that the collapse was entire within the realm of physics. Would you say "well he works for NASA, who is run by the government, therefore shouldn't be trusted!"

Is that how you validate statements? If so, then arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is incorrect to refer to Blender simulations as simply a cartoon. The program uses Bullet physics software which incorporates collision detection and gravity.

How about asking what is doesn't incorporate, like the detailed physical response of the building structure? Can you see a single case of anything bending in that simulation? It all either stays rigid or breaks completely. Blender is for computer games, not for the real world.

Incidentally, you are still confusing Bazant's conservative case with the actual collapse. You pick random quotes from his papers, but you don't actually understand any of it. I've repeatedly asked you to point out exactly where in his equations you think he ignores Newton's Second Law, and you can't, because he doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's take a look.

[media=]

[/media]

Looking at the video, the lower block was unable to stop the downward movement of the mass of the upper block and in the absence of bomb explosions.

Patently false as I have shown how the upper block was disintegrating before the collapse of the lower block.

And, it is very clear in the video that WTC1 is not falling at free fall speed.

I never said it did and I do not care what the CTer Devil who sits on your shoulder and creates arguments says that twofer think it fell at free fall speed.

It didn't and I never claimed it. Again you imagine arguments and points which I have not made to make it look like you have a point.

Again another, irrelevant, pointless and moronic post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You admit that the forces can be different at different levels in a static situation, but deny that this is possible in the dynamic situation of the collapse.

Neither you nor Stundie can see that the force between the bottom of the debris layer and the top of the lower block isn't the same as that between the top of the debris layer and the bottom of the upper block.

Sorry for butting in, I said and agreed that the force between the bottom of the debris layer and the top of the lower block isn't the same as that between the top of the debris layer and the bottom of the upper block. Did I not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patently false as I have shown how the upper block was disintegrating before the collapse of the lower block.

That doesn't work either because in one video, simply confirms that I was right on the money in regards to the failure of the lower block to arrest the dynamic mass of the upper block. Simple laws of physics at work, you understand!

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong again....

1-67.gif

It just confirms that the mass of the dynamic upper block was too much for the static lower block to arrest. Simple laws of physics at work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just confirms that the mass of the dynamic upper block was too much for the static lower block to arrest. Simple laws of physics at work.

How does it confirm the mass of the dynamic upper block was too much for the static lower block to arrest, when it shows the total opposite?? :blink: lol

1-67.gif

It was obviously not too much for the static lower block to arrest, because in these frames showing the first movements, there the static lower block arrests it.

Fact and evidence which shows you again, you are wrong and more importantly deluded. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give it a rest Stundie !If you cannot see with your own three eyes that when the structure failed from the INTENSE FIRES and the Mass above the Weakened areas and then Gravity took over ,You NEed to Return to School !

Not to Step on your opinion,but Sky`s Right Everyone that understands the physics,and Actual Proof ! Real Actual Proof !

But then again a lady on the news tonight just said the THe Reason all the tornados are happing is due to all of our Launches into Space poking holes into our Atmosphere ! Now thats Some Logic ! :tu: justDONTEATUS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless if its cut and paste directly from a children's book...how does that invalidate its assertion?

If I were to post a physics based paper by Ryan Mackey from NASA on the collapse of the twin towers proving that the collapse was entire within the realm of physics. Would you say "well he works for NASA, who is run by the government, therefore shouldn't be trusted!"

Is that how you validate statements? If so, then arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall.

You're right to call me on that. I do sound like a brickwall.

I should have phrased it a bit differantly, but I thought it was a given that everyone knows he has a stock inventory of pat answers that have been debated over and over again. That gets old and the same material get's rehashed.

So, you're right that "cut and paste" can be acceptable in a discussion. But when it's used over and over and over again, always stemming the same argument that in one's person eyes they've won and in Sky's eyes he's won.... then no.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you're right that "cut and paste" can be acceptable in a discussion.

I see nothing wrong because it can be useful when presenting evidence, facts and references.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was obviously not too much for the static lower block to arrest, because in these frames showing the first movements, there the static lower block arrests it.

Fact and evidence which shows you again, you are wrong and more importantly deluded. lol

A single floor below the upper block could not support the weight of the mass of the upper block especially after the mass of the upper block began to fall.. As that mass fell upon a the next lower floor, that floor failed and became an addition to the mass of the upper block and when that additional mass fell upon the next lower floor, that floor failed and added to the mass of the upper block to where each floor below the collapse failed and added to the mass until the collapse was completed. Check out this diagram of the WTC tower. Each floor could only support a certain amount of weight before failure would occur and remember, steel truss tied the core with the parameter tube structure and supported the floors, which is very significant. When heated the truss would bow, which explains eyewitness accounts from the air and on the ground of buckling just prior to their collapse.

Look at this image and understand that this design in no way could have supported the mass of the upper block, hence when it failed it became an addition to the mass of the upper which commenced to smash through the lower floors, one floor at a time.

800px-Wtc_floor_truss_system.png

799px-Nist_sadek_slide14.png

The collapse of the WTC towers initiated where they were struck by the B-767s. Any explosives attached at those locations within the WTC towers would have been rendered ineffective by the fact that in order for them to be effective, they must be firmly attached to the steel columns, but as it was, the collisions were so violent that they dislodged fire protection from the steel structures which exposed them to the raging fires. Add to the fact there were no secondary explosions when the B-767s collided with the WTC towers, but on the other hand, what are the chances that explosives would have been planted at exactly the same location within the WTC towers where they were struck by those aircraft?

Answer: Not l likely at all, but then again, who in their right mind would have transported several truckloads of explosives all the way up to those upper levels anyway?!

800px-World_Trade_Center_9-11_Attacks_Illustration_with_Vertical_Impact_Locations.jpg

In this next image, you will notice that United 175 is pointing toward the exact location of the corner of WTC2 which is where the molten aluminum was seen flowing from within the building from the opposite side from where it collided with WTC2.

553px-World_Trade_Center_9-11_Attacks_Illustration_with_Bird%27s-eye_Impact_Locations.svg.png

Now, take a look at where some of the wreckage of United 175 exited from WTC2, which just happens to be the exact location where molten aluminum was observed flowing. Tons and tons of the aluminum airframe of United 175 remained within that corner of WTC2 where the aluminum airframe was exposed to temperatures high enough to melt aluminum but far too low to melt steel.

525px-World_Trade_Center%2C_NY_-_2001-09-11_-_Debris_Impact_Areas.svg.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for butting in, I said and agreed that the force between the bottom of the debris layer and the top of the lower block isn't the same as that between the top of the debris layer and the bottom of the upper block. Did I not?

That's not the message you've been posting. You've been claiming that the force on the upper block is the same as the force on the lower block, hence they should suffer equal damage. If you admit that the forces are different, you no longer have the symmetrical situation of equal damage. Edited by flyingswan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see nothing wrong because it can be useful when presenting evidence, facts and references.

It can also be useful when presenting misinformation and deception, as you've demonstrated a time or two here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.