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

#2266    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 24 May 2013 - 09:34 PM

View PostStundie, on 24 May 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

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, 24 May 2013 - 10:07 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2267    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,563 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 May 2013 - 10:07 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 24 May 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

That doesn't work either....snip
Wrong again....

Posted Image

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

#2268    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 24 May 2013 - 10:09 PM

View PostStundie, on 24 May 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

Wrong again....

Posted Image

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.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2269    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,563 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 May 2013 - 10:21 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 24 May 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

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

Posted Image

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

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

#2270    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,847 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 24 May 2013 - 10:57 PM

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

This is a Work in Progress!

#2271    W Tell

W Tell

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 May 2013 - 02:17 AM

View PostRaptorBites, on 24 May 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

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.


#2272    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 25 May 2013 - 04:47 AM

View PostW Tell, on 25 May 2013 - 02:17 AM, said:

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.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2273    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 25 May 2013 - 05:30 AM

View PostStundie, on 24 May 2013 - 10:21 PM, said:

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.

Posted Image



Posted Image


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?!

Posted Image

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.

Posted Image

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.

Posted Image

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2274    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,892 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 25 May 2013 - 12:26 PM

View PostStundie, on 24 May 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

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, 25 May 2013 - 12:26 PM.

"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- )

#2275    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,557 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 25 May 2013 - 01:06 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 25 May 2013 - 04:47 AM, said:

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.


#2276    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 25 May 2013 - 02:48 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 25 May 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

It can also be useful when presenting misinformation and deception,.....

And that is exactly what 911 truthers have been doing since the 911 attacks. After all, look what happened to their claim of United 93, which was a B-757, had landed at Cleveland Airport, which was later determined, was Delta 1989, which was a B-767. That is typical of the way things have been going for 911 truthers since then.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2277    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,847 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 25 May 2013 - 04:25 PM

THe Wheels on this Buss just Keep going Round and Round eah, Sky ? I wonder what part of Facts, and physical proof,and Physics they dont get?
WTC2 came down due to more weight above the damage zone as the Laws of physics demand. THen WTC 1 after ! less weight above the damage zone and Hinc "WHERE THE "F" DO THESE PEOPLE GET OFF ?"
Can they not understand the Real World? :no: justDONTEATUS

This is a Work in Progress!

#2278    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 25 May 2013 - 06:06 PM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 25 May 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

THe Wheels on this Buss just Keep going Round and Round eah, Sky ? I wonder what part of Facts, and physical proof,and Physics they dont get?
WTC2 came down due to more weight above the damage zone as the Laws of physics demand. THen WTC 1 after ! less weight above the damage zone and Hinc "WHERE THE "F" DO THESE PEOPLE GET OFF ?"
Can they not understand the Real World? :no: justDONTEATUS

I have said in the past that 911 conspiracy theories are "ignorant-based." That was apparent in their attempt to portray molten aluminum as steel and it is apparent they have never heard nor FELT  the blast wave from a real bomb, and it seems they missed the reports of aluminum flowing from the corner of WTC2.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2279    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,847 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 25 May 2013 - 07:56 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 25 May 2013 - 06:06 PM, said:

I have said in the past that 911 conspiracy theories are "ignorant-based." That was apparent in their attempt to portray molten aluminum as steel and it is apparent they have never heard nor FELT  the blast wave from a real bomb, and it seems they missed the reports of aluminum flowing from the corner of WTC2.
On top of all that IS the Actual Facts ! Mass+ Failure of Support xMass squared + Gravity= Humpty Dumpty Came Falling Down! THats as close to THe real physics as it Gets !

This is a Work in Progress!

#2280    W Tell

W Tell

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts
  • Joined:18 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 25 May 2013 - 11:54 PM

View PostW Tell, on 25 May 2013 - 02:17 AM, said:

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.

To prove my point...

View Postskyeagle409, on 25 May 2013 - 06:06 PM, said:

I have said in the past that 911 conspiracy theories are "ignorant-based." That was apparent in their attempt to portray molten aluminum as steel and it is apparent they have never heard nor FELT  the blast wave from a real bomb, and it seems they missed the reports of aluminum flowing from the corner of WTC2.

Way to go Sky. I couldn't have shown a better example of what I'm talking about.

You and I (and many others) have had this debate before. Just by the properties of aluminum a picture and a vid show that it wasn't.

Nor can I show it was steel. I admit that, but it's the most plausable if we're talking molten metal.

But here you are calling people "ignorant based" on something you've been put down on many times before.... because you've read a report.

You have your own story and you "have" to stick with it. If one part of that story doesn't fit you'd have to take a better look at the rest of it. For the record, I don't think many of the small things discussed here make or break a given case. Both sides are comprised of these points. But you have a single track mind when it comes to evidence.  

(Please refrain from posting a string of pics were you can't tell the differance between molten steel and aluminum..... again.)





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users