Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
Followers 6

# 911 inside job - for what?

## 4,457 posts in this topic

I've already told you several times, but here goes again:

Telling me this....

"The forces are different because the debris layer has mass, which means gravity acts downwards on it."

Is not a coherent sentence when you fail to explain how this force is different??

You say that the forces on the upper and lower blocks should be the same. However, once a debris layer forms, the upper and lower blocks are no longer in direct contact.
Of course they are not in direct contact, the debris is in contact with both the upper and lower blocks when they collide.
In this situation, the force on the upper block is the same as the force on the top of the debris layer.
Right. So the energy is distributed equally between the upper block and the debris. The top layer of the debris is connect to lower layer of the debris, so why you separate the two is strange but I'm all ears...lol
The force on the lower block is the same as the force on the bottom of the debris layer.
So if the force of the upper block is the same as the force on the top debris and the force on the lower block is the same as the force on the bottom of the debris layer.

Then I am still right am I not? lol In that the energy/force is distributed equally then??

The two forces on the blocks are can only be the same if there is no net force on the debris layer, ie if the debris layer is in free fall.
Now this is where you get all NWO physics. So what you are NOW doing is contradicting what you said above. lol

You argument is that the force on the two blocks is the same, but they are NOW not the same because the debris layer isn't in free fall? lol Are you sure this is the argument you want to defend?? lol

However, the lower block is providing resistance so the debris layer is not in free fall.
Of course the debris is not going to be in free fall if it is met with the resistance of the lower block.
Therefore the force on the lower block is greater than the force on the upper block, by the amount of force required to prevent the debris layer falling freely.
WHHOA! There!! lol

The force is still the same, if the debris hits the lower block, it will resists as the energy transferred between the lower block and the debris, which means that the lower portion has enough resistance to survive. Then when the top block comes down on the debris, the energy is still transferred equally because the debris as mass and therefore will act as a conduit between the upper and lower block.

So by saying that the forces are equal, you are ignoring the debris layer.
I am not ignoring the debris. What I am doing is ignoring your silly claim until you can substantiate it...lol

"The forces are different because the debris layer has mass, which means gravity acts downwards on it."

What are these forces called? Surely there must be a name for it if it defies newton's law of physics. lol

Or is this where NWO physics comes in because physics is easier to invent and imagine than the possibility of a conspiracy??

Edited by Stundie

##### Share on other sites

Of course they are not in direct contact, the debris is in contact with both the upper and lower blocks when they collide.

Dear me, you have got a lot of learning to do, no wonder you don't understand my argument if your grasp of physics is that poor.

Shall we try a static case, that would be simpler. Picture three blocks piled vertically. By Newton's Second Law, there is a force between the middle and top block, acting equally on them and in opposite directions. Similarly for the force between the middle and bottom block.

The force between the middle and top blocks is the weight of the top block. The force between the bottom and middle blocks is the weight of the top and middle blocks. The two forces on the middle block are different, there is a net force on the middle block equal to its weight.

Can you understand all that? If you can't agree with that, there is no point in taking this to a more complicated dynamic case.

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

Why isn't anyone checking over the facts that a group of scientist have put forth in their discovery ? They found evidence of a substance . Why would anyone ignore literal facts ?

Why would building 7 just fall down ? What about the reasearch and discovery from the grounds around there. . Will the scientist ever be permitted to testify ?

Why it is now unlawful to invesigate 911 ? Is it because of scientist such as Dr. Harrit who can provide facts and evidence ,which he already discovered and obtained ? Is that the real reason why no one is permitted to invesigate 911 anylonger?

Why haven't the media invited these chemist , these scientist, on their station ? I haven't seen one of them on mainstream media , not on fox ,not on cnn , or nbc, or abc, not on cbs I have seen one interview on bbc though they did try and disinform him .Thankfully Dr. Harrit 's honesty, and scientific knowledge kept that from happening...

.

Why do "indenial theorist " want for everyone to simply believe the original conspiracy theory that the media , politicians, and those whom these individuals are in the pockets of want for you to believe. Believe them , even when they tell you that the air there was safe to breath .

Dr. Niels Harrit, Associate Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen,

was conducted by Michael Rudin of the BBC. Excellent interview.

If Harriett et al is credible, then why was his group's published paper published by Bentham and not any reputable journal? Surely the thermite paper cannot withstand proper scrutiny by a journal that does not publish complete scientific garbage.

Here is a link on Bentham being exposed as frauds:

http://www.dailypaul.com/96081/bentham-publishing-exposed-for-the-frauds-they-are

Now, why did Harriett et al offer their paper to a per for peer review journal? Is it because they willingly knew their paper could not pass standard peer review? I would like to think so.

Now, as far as truther experts are concerned, are there any other experts that actually have research published by reputable journals? Take your time finding them Reann, I am sure it will take you a while...

##### Share on other sites

Ask the question as to why he brought up remote control in the first place.

One of my jobs for over 40 years was modifying airplanes, and more recently, military helicopters. I have read many false stories regarding so-called switched and modified aircraft that were spread over the Internet by 911 conspiracy websites. Much of what they have posted is impossible by aviation standards, but I suspect they are hoping that no one will notice.

It means much more than you think. There was no way that American Airlines and United Airlines would have allowed their aircraft to be grounded for many months in order for their aircraft to be illegally modified to fly under remote control and do so under the noses of airline mechanics and inspectors, and those of the FAA.

And remember, only a certain number of B-757-200 and B-767-200 series aircraft were built and all of those aircraft belonging to American Airlines and United Airlines have been accounted for and I have even posted their numbers on other threads to make my point very clear. Additionally, altitude flight data for each aircraft proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that none of those aircraft were flown under remote control, so in respect, we can definitely throw out remote controlled aircraft permanently.

Since folks at those 911 conspiracy websites were unable to decipher the meaning of the altitude flight data, they decided to concoct another unwarranted conspiracy and they did so out of pure ignorance of the fact's, which once again, is how unfounded conspiracy theories are hatched.

I'd say it's obvious why he brought up remote controlled planes. That was one of the things being heavily speculated about at the time among the 9/11 conspiracy crowd, and a good number of people who came to his presentation probably thought he'd talk about that angle, along with missiles being used instead of planes and other 9/11 conspiracy theories. Instead he talked about much more plausible things, namely the money trail.

Why do you assume the government would be using a stock plane out the American Airlines fleet? Again, I don't believe they were remote controlled planes, but that seems like an odd assumption.

Having said that, it does seem to me that any plane with an autopilot could be converted to remote controlled flight. It would be expensive, and you'd need quite an elaborate setup to control the thing, but it could be done.

Edited by MysticStrummer
1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

The US military has been flying drone aircraft since 1948. Like any other technology, they had to crawl before they could walk, but today they are fleet-footed. In 2001 they were running quite nicely, thanks very much.

##### Share on other sites

Its right in front of you, you just have to open your eyes.

Wrong on so many counts. lol

Yeah, right, and after more than 11 years, not one shred of evidence of a government 911 conspiracy.

##### Share on other sites

Dear me, you have got a lot of learning to do, no wonder you don't understand my argument if your grasp of physics is that poor.

I concur! It is very clear that he has no understanding of physics.

##### Share on other sites

I disagree with you. I had family there , first responders at the scene, so don't attempt to try and lie to me.

Brent Blanchard and members of his company were in fact, at ground zero. He is considered one of the top demolition experts in the world. He did in fact, confirm that no explosives were used.

Check it out.

'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths

Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions. In his report, Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in “several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn” on 9/11. He says they did not show the “spikes” that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.

Now, what was that you were saying?!

Edited by skyeagle409

##### Share on other sites

The US military has been flying drone aircraft since 1948. Like any other technology, they had to crawl before they could walk, but today they are fleet-footed. In 2001 they were running quite nicely, thanks very much.

I'd say it's obvious why he brought up remote controlled planes.

Apparently, he didn't understand why those aircraft could not have been modified to fly under remote control and not draw serious attention. One of my jobs was the modification of aircraft, large and small, including helicopters, and when I see someone claiming the aircraft were modified to fly under remote control, then that tells me they have no idea what they are talking about. In addition, the airlines would not have grounded those aircraft for many months in order to have them illegally modified to fly under remote control and do so under the noses of their mechanics and inspectors. The aircraft were not flown under remote control and all he had to do was to look at the altitude flight data chart to make that determination.

That was one of the things being heavily speculated about at the time among the 9/11 conspiracy crowd, and a good number of people who came to his presentation probably thought he'd talk about that angle, along with missiles being used instead of planes and other 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Missiles are easily ruled out with radar data alone and remember, you still have to account for the passengers and crew of those aircraft if you claim the aircraft were switched.

Instead he talked about much more plausible things, namely the money trail.

There are those within the 911 truther movement who seem to think that \$2.3 trillion was missing from the Pentagon, however, they were unaware of the rest of the story. Had they done their homework, they would have determined that the money wasn't missing at all, instead, they created another unfounded conspiracy theory.

Why do you assume the government would be using a stock plane out the American Airlines fleet?

A stock plane? You have to remember, there were only a certain number of B-757-200 and B-767-200 series aircraft built and all are accounted for. In fact, I have even posted B-767 and B-757 fleet histories and add to the fact that American Airlines and United Airlines have confirmed the loss of their aircraft and they said nothing of so-called, "stock planes.".

Having said that, it does seem to me that any plane with an autopilot could be converted to remote controlled flight. It would be expensive, and you'd need quite an elaborate setup to control the thing, but it could be done.

First of all, you would have to redesign the control system of the B-767s and the B-757s and that takes a large facility, a lot of engineering and tech data, special equipment, tools, and lots of people and money, which means that a very long and traceable paper trail will be generated. In addition, the pilot in the cockpit can easily override the autopilot.

##### Share on other sites

Why isn't anyone checking over the facts that a group of scientist have put forth in their discovery ? They found evidence of a substance .

No they didn't!

Why would building 7 just fall down ?

The result of fire, which was evident when WTC7 buckled before it collapsed as was the case with the WTC towers.

##### Share on other sites

Wait ! What about all the Families that had people on the Planes ? Were they made up out of the Fogg ? These C.T`s have not a foot to stand on

It happened just as it`s been proven to Happen. Two Jet Airliners with people and Souls All Lost What part of the Truth do they not Get?

##### Share on other sites

Dear me, you have got a lot of learning to do, no wonder you don't understand my argument if your grasp of physics is that poor.

I think we will find when you abandon this for my so called lack of understanding and grasp of physics, that its not my understanding that is the problem, it's your explanation/argument, it will fall apart as it did when Newtons Bit tried to explain it. But we will see.
Shall we try a static case, that would be simpler. Picture three blocks piled vertically. By Newton's Second Law, there is a force between the middle and top block, acting equally on them and in opposite directions. Similarly for the force between the middle and bottom block.

The force between the middle and top blocks is the weight of the top block. The force between the bottom and middle blocks is the weight of the top and middle blocks. The two forces on the middle block are different, there is a net force on the middle block equal to its weight.

Can you understand all that? If you can't agree with that, there is no point in taking this to a more complicated dynamic case.

lol Yes! Jesus Christ....

Now are you going to explain how these net force come into play with your theory of how an upper block and a cushion of debris which on one side is soft and fluffy guiding the upper portions downward in a floaty manner, while on the other side, is like a jack hammer pounding the lower much stronger block into oblivion?

Or are you going to patronise us by stating the obvious again?? lol

##### Share on other sites

Yeah, right, and after more than 11 years, not one shred of evidence of a government 911 conspiracy.

There is evidence and the reason you keep repeating that there is no evidence of a conspiracy, is because there is evidence. If you say it enough times, you will convince yourself. If you honestly believed that there is no evidence, you wouldn't be here on this thread. lol

##### Share on other sites

Brent Blanchard and members of his company were in fact, at ground zero.

Of course he was...lol
He is considered one of the top demolition experts in the world.
So his website says even though he has never demolished a building.

He did in fact, confirm that no explosives were used.

Check it out.

I'll take my word from experts who have real life experience in demolishing buildings and not just attending them. lol

Check it out. Facts and Evidence...lol

John Suffoletta: Journeymen Operating Engineer

I have worked in the construction and demolition industry for 23 years. I run heavy equipment and help in the planning of demolition of building and factories around the country and in Buffalo, NY. I know what it takes to bring a building down, I am a 20 year member of local #17 of the Operating Engineers and often work for a national demolition company. I have worked at several nuclear facilities around the country including Connecticut Yankee, West Valley Demonstration Project and Rocky Flats."

I am 100% sure the official story is a planned made up fantasy! There is no way any of those buildings fell because of fires, it would take a lot bigger fires and a lot more time to drop one of those buildings -- like "days" not hours then when they did fall they would have dropped and contorted, not imploded. This was a planned demolition in all aspects, the planes were just a nice diversion from the "truth" and that is what these people fear the most!

Now, what was that you were saying?!

Is that your guy with no experience confirms there was no explosive, my guy with real experience confirms there was explosives.

##### Share on other sites

Of course he was...

No he didn't! And, he got certain facts all wrong. Ask him what the significance of finding no barium nitrate means, and then, you will see what I mean.

Check it out. Facts and Evidence..

John Suffoletta: Journeymen Operating Engineer

I have worked in the construction and demolition industry for 23 years. I run heavy equipment and help in the planning of demolition of building and factories around the country and in Buffalo, NY. I know what it takes to bring a building down, I am a 20 year member of local #17 of the Operating Engineers and often work for a national demolition company. I have worked at several nuclear facilities around the country including Connecticut Yankee, West Valley Demonstration Project and Rocky Flats."[/qute]

With no evidence of explosives on video, nor on audio nor detected by seismic monitors and no evidence of explosives found, he has no case either.

I am 100% sure the official story is a planned made up fantasy!

With no evidence to back that up, he has no case.

There is no way any of those buildings fell because of fires, it would take a lot bigger fires and a lot more time to drop one of those buildings -- like "days" not hours then when they did fall they would have dropped and contorted, not imploded. This was a planned demolition in all aspects, the planes were just a nice diversion from the "truth" and that is what these people fear the most!

He failed to take into consideration that temperatures of 1500 degrees can weaken steel in relatively short period of time, now why wasn't he aware of that fact?

...

Is that your guy with no experience confirms there was no explosive, my guy with real experience confirms there was explosives.

It is of no surprise to me why demolition experts and firefights, architects and civil engineers disagree with him as well and why firefighters have onfirmed that fire, not explosives was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings, so the fact remains, you have no evidence of explosives, which simply that means that you have no case.

.

##### Share on other sites

There is evidence and the reason you keep repeating that there is no evidence of a conspiracy, is because there is evidence. If you say it enough times, you will convince yourself. If you honestly believed that there is no evidence, you wouldn't be here on this thread.

After more than 11 years, where is the evidence? The investigative reporters with major news agencies didn't uncover explosive evidence either.

##### Share on other sites

Check it out. Facts and Evidence...lol

John Suffoletta: Journeymen Operating Engineer

I have worked in the construction and demolition industry for 23 years. I run heavy equipment and help in the planning of demolition of building and factories around the country and in Buffalo, NY. I know what it takes to bring a building down, I am a 20 year member of local #17 of the Operating Engineers and often work for a national demolition company. I have worked at several nuclear facilities around the country including Connecticut Yankee, West Valley Demonstration Project and Rocky Flats."

I am 100% sure the official story is a planned made up fantasy! There is no way any of those buildings fell because of fires, it would take a lot bigger fires and a lot more time to drop one of those buildings -- like "days" not hours then when they did fall they would have dropped and contorted, not imploded. This was a planned demolition in all aspects, the planes were just a nice diversion from the "truth" and that is what these people fear the most!

Is that your guy with no experience confirms there was no explosive, my guy with real experience confirms there was explosives.

Hahaha! That's a good one, Stundie, "facts and evidence". You sure have an odd definition of 'confirms' if you are offering up the opinion of this 'journeyman' (snicker) 'operating engineer' who has 'helped' (lol) in the planning of demolitions and 'often' (LOL!) works for a demolition company, who also apparently moonlights as a psychologist who we can trust to correctly ascertain what people 'fear' (Bwaahahaha!) the most. What incredibly high standards you do have for who qualifies as an expert....

##### Share on other sites

Wait ! What about all the Families that had people on the Planes ? Were they made up out of the Fogg ? These C.T`s have not a foot to stand on

It happened just as it`s been proven to Happen. Two Jet Airliners with people and Souls All Lost What part of the Truth do they not Get?

911 truthers don't think of important things like that, which is why they concoct unfounded conspiracy theories which have been debunked with true evidence time after time.

##### Share on other sites

."

I am 100% sure the official story is a planned made up fantasy! There is no way any of those buildings fell because of fires, it would take a lot bigger fires and a lot more time to drop one of those buildings -- like "days" not hours then when they did fall they would have dropped and contorted, not imploded. This was a planned demolition in all aspects,...

How many of those buildings were struck by a B-767? The steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain collapsed due to fire as has been the case in other steel-framed buildings.

the planes were just a nice diversion from the "truth" and that is what these

A pure Hollywood mindset considering that a number of countries around the world had also warned the United States that Muslim terrorist were going to attack America, and some of those warnings mentioned the use of aircraft in their attacks.

With those facts in hand, just consider yourself another duped victim.

Edited by skyeagle409

##### Share on other sites

Now are you going to explain how these net force come into play with your theory of how an upper block and a cushion of debris which on one side is soft and fluffy guiding the upper portions downward in a floaty manner, while on the other side, is like a jack hammer pounding the lower much stronger block into oblivion?

Well, what is happening here and remember, no explosive is used during this demolition process.

##### Share on other sites
After more than 11 years, where is the evidence?
In your world, there is no evidence because that is what you believe, but in the real world, there is plenty of evidence pointing to the possibility. Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't actually change anything, even after 11 years.

The investigative reporters with major news agencies didn't uncover explosive evidence either.

What a silly comment and of course, it highlights the lack of confidence that you have in the official story that you'll spout any ole crap to justify your shaky beliefs. lol

Do investigative reporters of major news agencies have access to the site to uncover explosive evidence?? Are investigative reporters of major news agencies trained or have the experience of uncovering evidence of explosives?

There all rhetorical questions of course and of course, you'll ignore it but I think you will find the answer is a resounding "No!". Making you statement both stupid, irrelevant and pointless.

2 people like this

##### Share on other sites

In your world, there is no evidence because that is what you believe,...

In the world of reality there is no evidence supporting 911 truthers. This is reality.

[media=]

[/media]

Do investigative reporters of major news agencies have access to the site to uncover explosive evidence?? Are investigative reporters of major news agencies trained or have the experience of uncovering evidence of explosives?

They know where the credible sources on explosives are located.

Edited by skyeagle409

##### Share on other sites

Now are you going to explain how these net force come into play with your theory of how an upper block and a cushion of debris which on one side is soft and fluffy guiding the upper portions downward in a floaty manner, while on the other side, is like a jack hammer pounding the lower much stronger block into oblivion?

I haven't the time today to go into detail, so I'll just ask you this:

If you're happy with the middle block having a greater force on the bottom than the top in the simple example, why can't you accept that the same applies to the debris layer, which is just the middle block compressed?

##### Share on other sites

I haven't the time today to go into detail, so I'll just ask you this:

If you're happy with the middle block having a greater force on the bottom than the top in the simple example, why can't you accept that the same applies to the debris layer, which is just the middle block compressed?

You are arguing something which I for the life of me can't fathom out as I am not arguing or have never suggested that the middle block or debris didn't have a greater force on the bottom than the top. lol

Unless you are suggesting in our simple example, that if we have 2 blocks, that the smaller upper block wouldn't have enough energy to overcome the lower block. But if we use 3 blocks, the 3rd block being a small amount of crushed and compressed debris at the top of the lower block, that the top block would magically have enough energy to overcome the lower block?

##### Share on other sites

Unless you are suggesting in our simple example, that if we have 2 blocks, that the smaller upper block wouldn't have enough energy to overcome the lower block. But if we use 3 blocks, the 3rd block being a small amount of crushed and compressed debris at the top of the lower block, that the top block would magically have enough energy to overcome the lower block?

You have failed to understand the laws of physics. so let's try it again. What technique is used in the Verinage demolition process? In other words, what does the upper block do to the lower block?

## Create an account

Register a new account