Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

911 inside job - for what?


  • Please log in to reply
4446 replies to this topic

#1996    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined:01 May 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Derbyshire UK

  • I'm everything you'll never want to be.

Posted 14 May 2013 - 04:51 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 14 May 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

So in terms of more common container sizes...what, maybe four medium-sized sport equipment bags full of gunpowder?   Used to launch three bound 12-foot railroad rails?

So the next question logically, would be how much force a collapsing building can exert on that piece of debris.  It would help to know exactly which piece of the building it was I suppose,   If it was load-bearing, and 90 feet of building was applying pressure from above, I imagine that provides a fair amount of force...

Galileo was imprisoned by the Church,
For exposing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
So in 1616 they already had control,
Of what they thought you and I were allowed to know.

#1997    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,232 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 May 2013 - 04:57 PM

View PostStundie, on 14 May 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

I ask you to expand. You say "Okay!"

Then you say "The expansion of compressed air as well." :blink:

For a better word, expulsion of compressed air.

Quote

So ricochet means the expansion of compressed air :blink: as well as what?

When a building collapses, objects are going to bang against one another and compressed air is going blast materials away from the building. Additionally, you can observe in the WTC videos where the collapse of the WTC buildings is encountering resistance.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1998    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,208 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 14 May 2013 - 06:26 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 14 May 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

<p>It wasn't the fire that did it, it was the collapse.  There was easily enough gravitational energy available to do this, far more than any conceivable demolition charges.  Just do the maths on the two and get back with your answer.

Another point to consider, there is an opinion on the conspiracist side that in a natural collapse the towers should have toppled over instead of falling straight down.  That would have left the tops of the towers some 400 metres away, or 500 metres of you count the antenna. So debris out to that sort of distance is what conspiracists predict from a natural collapse in one argument, but debris at lesser distances is evidence of explosives in another argument?

This is precisely my point!

Gage et al refuse to address the fact that gravity played a part in horizontal displacement of debris from 90 stories high.  Why do they purposefully ignore physics to support their highly erroneous conclusions?  It is because they work based on an appeal to authority position.  "We are engineering experts therefore you should listen to us".  When in reality, they practically dismiss any form of science that contradicts their theory.



No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1999    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 14 May 2013 - 07:25 PM

Raptor

Gravity played a role in the horizontal displacement of structural steel, eh?

Could you please give an example, perhaps an equation, any explanation at all regarding the horizontal component of gravity?

This question came up years ago at a different site than UM.  One poster measured the dimensions of the piece impaled--it was part of the exoskeleton--and arrived at an approximate mass.  Several thousand tons as I recall.  Then he calculated the force required to move that mass the several hundred feet that it had been propelled.  His calculations were expressed in joules, and it was a big number.

Imagine for a moment that the same piece of steel was on the street, on a trailer.  How much energy would be required to move that piece?  How much fuel would be consumed by a tractor pulling it?

Answer: way more than the horizontal component of gravity, for the simple reason that there IS NO horizontal component of gravity.  On this planet, the force of gravity works only in one direction, towards the center of the planet.

A recent illustration of this phenomenon, apologies if I'm being repetitious, was the fire in that Russian high rise a few months back, nicely videod by somebody.  The pieces that fell from the building, as predicted in high school physics class, fell straight to the ground.

Jetfuel & gravity do not have the power to drive multiton structures horizontally. :no:


#2000    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,232 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 May 2013 - 08:42 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 May 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

Jetfuel &amp; gravity do not have the power to drive multiton structures horizontally. :no:

Let's take a look at this video and you will notice just how far objects are ejected from a much smaller building than the WTC Towers in the absence of bomb explosions. In the video, check out the time line between 28-35 and watch objects as they are ejected away from the building.



Edited by skyeagle409, 14 May 2013 - 08:47 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2001    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:27 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 14 May 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

<p>It wasn't the fire that did it, it was the collapse.  There was easily enough gravitational energy available to do this, far more than any conceivable demolition charges.  Just do the maths on the two and get back with your answer.
The maths doesn't add up. You've got 2 parts of the building  where the energy is dissipated equally between them both of them but we are expected to believe that 17 floors stayed intact and manage to smash there way through 93 floors. Even though the video evidence doesn't show this and contradicts it by showing that the upper levels disintegrated before the lower portion starts to move.

View Postflyingswan, on 14 May 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

Another point to consider, there is an opinion on the conspiracist side that in a natural collapse the towers should have toppled over instead of falling straight down.  That would have left the tops of the towers some 400 metres away, or 500 metres of you count the antenna. So debris out to that sort of distance is what conspiracists predict from a natural collapse in one argument, but debris at lesser distances is evidence of explosives in another argument?
I do not know anything about this argument to be honest and I'm confused by it. Some of the upper portions might have toppled over, but not the whole thing. Taking what you think is the opinion on the CT side is kind of making a strawman and although I understand you are making a point for consideration, but it's not a point that makes sense, so I can't answer it, seeing as it's a point I have never made or argued. Well as far as I'm aware..lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2002    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,208 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:31 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 May 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

Raptor

Gravity played a role in the horizontal displacement of structural steel, eh?

Could you please give an example, perhaps an equation, any explanation at all regarding the horizontal component of gravity?

This question came up years ago at a different site than UM.  One poster measured the dimensions of the piece impaled--it was part of the exoskeleton--and arrived at an approximate mass.  Several thousand tons as I recall.  Then he calculated the force required to move that mass the several hundred feet that it had been propelled.  His calculations were expressed in joules, and it was a big number.

Imagine for a moment that the same piece of steel was on the street, on a trailer.  How much energy would be required to move that piece?  How much fuel would be consumed by a tractor pulling it?

Answer: way more than the horizontal component of gravity, for the simple reason that there IS NO horizontal component of gravity.  On this planet, the force of gravity works only in one direction, towards the center of the planet.

A recent illustration of this phenomenon, apologies if I'm being repetitious, was the fire in that Russian high rise a few months back, nicely videod by somebody.  The pieces that fell from the building, as predicted in high school physics class, fell straight to the ground.

Jetfuel & gravity do not have the power to drive multiton structures horizontally. :no:

At what point did I say gravity has a horizontal component?

Before you happily misconstrued my statement perhaps it would be wise to reread what I stated several times.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#2003    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,776 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:35 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 14 May 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

Let's take a look at this video and you will notice just how far objects are ejected from a much smaller building than the WTC Towers in the absence of bomb explosions. In the video, check out the time line between 28-35 and watch objects as they are ejected away from the building.



Why do you keep showing this video of a deliberate collapse as proof that buildings collapse in certain ways? Surely a deliberate collapse video should be avoided when discussing videos of buildings that collapsed as a result of fire and damage?

I think i know the answer... There is no footage of a building collapsing from fire or damage that mimics the WTC's


#2004    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,232 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:41 PM

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 14 May 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

Why do you keep showing this video of a deliberate collapse as proof that buildings collapse in certain ways? Surely a deliberate collapse video should be avoided when discussing videos of buildings that collapsed as a result of fire and damage?

I think i know the answer... There is no footage of a building collapsing from fire or damage that mimics the WTC's

There's a message in that video that has been largely ignored which excludes explosives and focuses on similarities on what was seen as the WTC buildings collapsed.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2005    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:49 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 14 May 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

For a better word, expulsion of compressed air.
So it's not an expansion, it's expulsion for a toofie smackdown...lol

Thanks for expanding on that point. lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 14 May 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

When a building collapses, objects are going to bang against one another and compressed air is going blast materials away from the building. Additionally, you can observe in the WTC videos where the collapse of the WTC buildings is encountering resistance.
When 2 objects hit each other and ricochet, it causes compressed air? lol

Are you serious??...lol You are aren't you....hahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

I'm sorry but this debunking invents new phenomenon all the time, more inventive than those laser beam troofers. lol Shall we call it Compressed Air Debunking or better known as CAD. lol You CAD-ders?? lol

Again, you highlight and state the obvious in that objects will bang against one another, yeah I think we can all agree on that point, even in a controlled demolition there would be objects which will bang against one another. But then....

You then invent this new phenomenon and tell us this will magically create compressed air by ricocheting objects banging against one another?

Please expand about this phenomenon create compressed air and how it forms?

I'm sure the NIST would like to hear from you and you can show them where you observed where the collapse of the WTC buildings is encountering resistance.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2006    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:57 PM

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 14 May 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

I think i know the answer... There is no footage of a building collapsing from fire or damage that mimics the WTC's
Oh noes!! You have invited Sky to now spam you with pictures of a toy factory, an over pass and some other structure which collapsed from fires. lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#2007    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,232 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:58 PM

View PostStundie, on 14 May 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

So it's not an expansion, it's expulsion for a toofie smackdown...

Thanks for expanding on that point.

It was all very simple to understand in the first place.

Quote

When 2 objects hit each other and ricochet, it causes compressed air?

You have definitely missed the point and you are not paying attention.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2008    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,232 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 May 2013 - 09:59 PM

View PostStundie, on 14 May 2013 - 09:57 PM, said:

Oh noes!! You have invited Sky to now spam you with pictures of a toy factory, an over pass and some other structure which collapsed from fires. lol

Apparently, there are those who have failed to understand the importance of what those videos and photos depict.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2009    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,232 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 May 2013 - 10:01 PM

View PostStundie, on 14 May 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

I'm sure the NIST would like to hear from you and you can show them where you observed where the collapse of the WTC buildings is encountering resistance.

Speaking of NIST;

Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially. These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor.

Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.

http://www.nist.gov/...s_wtctowers.cfm

Stepping back to section 6.


6. What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns.

This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 May 2013 - 10:06 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2010    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 May 2013 - 10:25 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 14 May 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

It was all very simple to understand in the first place.
Why of course it is so simple to understand......lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 14 May 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

You have definitely missed the point and you are not paying attention.
So what is the point I have missed exactly?? lol

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users