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

#2251    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,763 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 24 May 2013 - 01:43 AM

View PostStundie, on 23 May 2013 - 02:10 PM, said:

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.



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, 24 May 2013 - 01:44 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2252    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,763 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 24 May 2013 - 01:47 AM

View PostStundie, on 23 May 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

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.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2253    W Tell

W Tell

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 658 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 May 2013 - 02:58 AM

View PostRaptorBites, on 21 May 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

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.


#2254    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,763 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 24 May 2013 - 04:48 AM

View PostW Tell, on 24 May 2013 - 02:58 AM, said:

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.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2255    W Tell

W Tell

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 658 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 May 2013 - 05:13 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 24 May 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

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.


#2256    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,763 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 24 May 2013 - 05:17 AM

View PostW Tell, on 24 May 2013 - 05:13 AM, said:

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?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2257    W Tell

W Tell

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 658 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 May 2013 - 05:58 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 24 May 2013 - 05:17 AM, said:

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.


#2258    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,763 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 24 May 2013 - 06:02 AM

View PostW Tell, on 24 May 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

I just knew you were Kenny Rogers!

That pretty much sums it up.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2259    W Tell

W Tell

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 658 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 May 2013 - 06:19 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 24 May 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

That pretty much sums it up.

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


#2260    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,763 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 24 May 2013 - 06:26 AM

View PostW Tell, on 24 May 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

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

Good night!! See you tomorrow.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2261    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,966 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 24 May 2013 - 03:16 PM

View PostQ24, on 22 May 2013 - 10:42 PM, said:

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.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#2262    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 24 May 2013 - 03:52 PM

View PostW Tell, on 24 May 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

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.

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

#2263    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,966 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 24 May 2013 - 04:03 PM

View PostQ24, on 22 May 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:

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.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#2264    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:13 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 24 May 2013 - 01:43 AM, said:

Let's take a look.



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.

View Postskyeagle409, on 24 May 2013 - 01:43 AM, said:

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.

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

#2265    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:22 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 24 May 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

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?

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