Remembering 9/11

[basketcase]

Yes, the top 1/4 of a building pancaked and pulverized without any loss of energy to opposing forces all the way down, you certainly understand Newton's 3rd Law. ...

Even though you will once again ignore this as you did before but your pathetically grade-school 'analysis' of Newton 3 is massively flawed. The building was not made up of a stack of rigid masses. If it was then you'd be on track. Instead the building was made of mostly empty space with thousands of structural members pinned together. Essentially the only thing that would be able to provide resistance would be the connecting pins. As the building started to collapse, the exterior fell outwards meaning the pins connecting the structure to the lower sections would begin failing even before the mass above hit it. The outside portions of the building would face minimal resistance because the floors below were falling away from underneath.

Watching the videos also make it quite obvious that the buildings did not collapse at free fall. You can see pieces of the building falling at actual free-fall passing by the rest of the buildings as they collapsed.

 

[Jubee]

I looked into this a little more.

A few points I found. The first image is of a cooling duct; the second a cooling assembly. You aren't comparing apples to apples, because image 2 is part of image 1.
If you take a close look at the photo, you can see the 'cooling duct assembly' inside the 'cooling duct.' Note the holes in the ring in the 'cooling duct'.

Second; engines go through a lot of re-configurations, and in this case, the engine was approved over time with help from NASA. New technology parts would be made to fit older engines and vice versa, to extend existing engine life. When they re-built old engines they could use newer technology, and if the parts could be used on older and newer engines, it would be easier to get parts. So, you really can't confirm this engine was not used on this 757.

You did read this link I provided early, thoroughly, correct? Read it over and over, until you realize the author was meticulous in questioning the engine used and the planes that hit the Towers.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/34o4y0/911_engine_that_shot_out_of_the_south_tower_was/

 

[Jubee]

Would you stop making things up! Even your buddy Supercharge is using more accurate information, even though he doesn't understand it.

Basic math calculates the free fall time of the top floor of the building in a vacuum as approximately 9.2 seconds. But the building was not in a vacuum and the collapse happened many floors from the top so the free fall time would be closer to 8 seconds (most experts say on 7.8 to 8.4). The tower fell in ~12-15 seconds as proved by the videos. Math and computer models confirm these estimates.

FREE FALL MEANS ZERO RESISTANCE. These buildings had resistance, well over 70% of the remaining floors below the "points of impact". Adding an extra second or two or three, does not give these miraculous events that day a pass for Newton's Laws. lol

Don't let the science kick you guys on the way ("log") out.

 

[Jubee]

Um, the access points? You know, where people entering the buildings need to be identified?

Right, the military with the biggest budget in the world has cameras only pointing to "access points", forget everywhere else. LOL
Nice try, try again.

 

[Jubee]

I am REALLY getting tired of you - either you are a fool because you quote laws you don't understand, or you are a jerk and this is only about prodding people. You keep using Newton's 3rd law of motion as your proof of something being amiss with 9/11. But, you can't look at Newton's laws individually, all 3 can apply in a dynamic system. In this case:

1) Newton's 3rd law applies when the building was at equilibrium before the plane crashed. Key forces acting on the building are equal and in opposite directions (balanced). The gravitational (potential) energy of the building is pushing down - the structure of the building is sufficient to carry that load to the ground - and the ground pushes up with equal force.

I'll refer you to a video to keep this very simple for you, verbiage with "key forces" is simply smoke and mirrors, it's very simple and hence, we'll go to video.
starts at 21:05 but the science lesson for you will be at 21:10

The rest of your post is just jumbled, exasperated crap in point 1 with your "key forces".
Keep It Simple Stupid.

Plane hits. DONE.

Top 15 floors, meet lower 15 floors. Newton's 3rd law - DONE.

Magically, the rest of the building collapses? Physics says you would be incorrect.

 

[Jubee]

Each floor is independently 'hung' off of supports, and those supports are only designed to carry the weight of one floor.

If one or more floors from above pancake and put weight on the floor structure below, the support - only designed to carry its own floor - will fail. The entire floor doesn't fail, only the supports holding it up.

So, lets assume a floor weighs 10,000 lbs. Its hung in the structure with supports designed to carry 10,000 lbs. Now, put another floor's weight on it, by placing it on gently or have it crashing down, the supports will break and fail because its support connections are designed to carry 10,000 lbs, not 20,000 lbs.

Now, as the building collapses, you have to take the accumulated weight of the floors coming down....plus the weight of the roof structure, which is approximately the same weight as a floor.

Another way to look at it......pick up as much weight as you can and hold it. Now, add the same amount of weight on top of what you are holding. What happens?

Newton's 3rd law, honestly, read it until you clearly understand it.
If not, there's no helping you.
21:10

Where does the remaining energy come from when you have the top 10-15 floors meeting with forces the immediate 10-15 floors below, then what?
Understand after the top and bottom floors in equal amounts meet with equal force, there's no energy left.
That's it. [no "unique", "special", "amazing" forces]

 

[GPIDEAL]

Would you stop making things up! Even your buddy Supercharge is using more accurate information, even though he doesn't understand it.

Basic math calculates the free fall time of the top floor of the building in a vacuum as approximately 9.2 seconds. But the building was not in a vacuum and the collapse happened many floors from the top so the free fall time would be closer to 8 seconds (most experts say on 7.8 to 8.4). The tower fell in ~12-15 seconds as proved by the videos. Math and computer models confirm these estimates.

Jubee,

Promo said it for me. It was NOT free fall (12 to 15 seconds) because there WAS resistance, albeit NOT ZERO resistance as you and other controlled-demolition advocates claim.

 

[Jubee]

Even though you will once again ignore this as you did before but your pathetically grade-school 'analysis' of Newton 3 is massively flawed. The building was not made up of a stack of rigid masses. If it was then you'd be on track. Instead the building was made of mostly empty space with thousands of structural members pinned together. Essentially the only thing that would be able to provide resistance would be the connecting pins. As the building started to collapse, the exterior fell outwards meaning the pins connecting the structure to the lower sections would begin failing even before the mass above hit it. The outside portions of the building would face minimal resistance because the floors below were falling away from underneath.

Watching the videos also make it quite obvious that the buildings did not collapse at free fall. You can see pieces of the building falling at actual free-fall passing by the rest of the buildings as they collapsed.

I love this "unique" garbage, to give it some kind of pass when it comes to this special day that two buildings spit in the face of laws of physics. lol
You had exterior fall out and that was because the top floors met with equal resistance from the floors below, which would result in energy loss - hence the fall out. Ever see what happens when a you throw something at a wall? It meets with equal resistance, there's a reaction and then there's energy loss, not gain.

Watching the videos also make it quite obvious that the buildings did not collapse at free fall.

Not free fall, but a couple seconds faster than free fall, that's still pretty impressive for only 10-15 floors to do, to the 90 floors below, if you consider the Laws of Physics (namely Newton's Laws - 3rd especially) were at play.
Something had to aid the lessening of the resistance below the majority of the rest of the building.

 

[Jubee]

Jubee,

Promo said it for me. It was NOT free fall (12 to 15 seconds) because there WAS resistance, albeit NOT ZERO resistance as you and other controlled-demolition advocates claim.

Yeah, very little resistance that remaining majority of the building didn't seem to provide.

I love this "albeit NOT ZERO" resistance.
So this somehow gets a pass that, even though the top 10-15 floors (with its energy), would meet the immediate 10-15 floors (with its energy) below, after that, guess what? There's no more energy left, there's no "special/unique force" to push down on the remaining floors to cause a collapse, let alone a collapse at "(albeit) NOT ZERO resistance".

 

[Jubee]

Let's not even get into building 7 and its rate of fall without even being hit by a plane, but somehow, it falls at near free fall speed because of "random fires".

Gotta love the bullshit and the people that buy it, 15 years later.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Newton's 3rd law, honestly, read it until you clearly understand it.
If not, there's no helping you.
21:10

Where does the remaining energy come from when you have the top 10-15 floors meeting with forces the immediate 10-15 floors below, then what?
Understand after the top and bottom floors in equal amounts meet with equal force, there's no energy left.
That's it. [no "unique", "special", "amazing" forces]

I've jumped to various scenes of this hour long documentary. Lotsa of experts (I do know of Tony Szambotti who debunked the Jet Effect Bullshit Theory that tried to explain why JFK's head moved violently backward as a result of an alleged kill shot from the rear, when it could only be from the front).

But I see that they contradict each other.

For instance, they argue that steel beams were ejected out laterally, but that gravity doesn't work that way. Well, in controlled-demolitions, you see buildings collapse only vertically and onto themselves. So how can you conclude controlled-demolition?

What you really see is the peeling away of the exoskeleton by the top parts of the towers that were compromised, as they come crashing down. It's so obvious.

I'm sorry but I don't see evidence of a controlled demolition.

All these experts are underestimating the uniqueness of the building design and how it was the Achilles Heel of the WTC.

 

[Promo]

I'll refer you to a video to keep this very simple for you, verbiage with "key forces" is simply smoke and mirrors, it's very simple and hence, we'll go to video.
starts at 21:05 but the science lesson for you will be at 21:10

The rest of your post is just jumbled, exasperated crap in point 1 with your "key forces".
Keep It Simple Stupid.

Plane hits. DONE.

Top 15 floors, meet lower 15 floors. Newton's 3rd law - DONE.

Magically, the rest of the building collapses? Physics says you would be incorrect.

That video is a F*CKIN JOKE! You have ABSOLUTELY no idea what you are talking about.

Like I said before: New handle, same old person.

Supercharge tried the same idiotic explanation and that got him laughed off this thread. So, where did the 30 floors of mass and energy go?

Simple is indeed for the stupid.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Yeah, very little resistance that remaining majority of the building didn't seem to provide.

I love this "albeit NOT ZERO" resistance.
So this somehow gets a pass that, even though the top 10-15 floors (with its energy), would meet the immediate 10-15 floors (with its energy) below, after that, guess what? There's no more energy left, there's no "special/unique force" to push down on the remaining floors to cause a collapse, let alone a collapse at "(albeit) NOT ZERO resistance".

You contradict yourself and forget the premise of your original argument.

You claim at free fall or near free fall, meaning little to zero resistance, because a controlled demolition speeds up the collapse.

However, this was not the case in the WTC collapse, ergo no controlled-demolition.

Furthermore, it was not a block falling on a block. It was like a heavy weight dropping and splitting apart or prying open the shell of a vertical channel to which were attached horizontal members that loosened away.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Let's not even get into building 7 and its rate of fall without even being hit by a plane, but somehow, it falls at near free fall speed because of "random fires".

Gotta love the bullshit and the people that buy it, 15 years later.

This silly comparison was debunked months ago here on Terb.

#1 - There is no sound. If you had sound, you'd hear waves of explosions for each controlled demolition on the right side images. That didn't occur with Building 7.

#2 - None of the buildings on the right sustained long fires and multi-storey damage from huge pieces of another building falling on them (I believe WTC 2 caused a 20 storey gash in WTC 7).

#3 - The video only shows one perspective of WTC 7. It doesn't show the bulge in it's structure prior to collapse which is evidence of structural failure from fire and impacts.

#4 - You can slightly see the explosives going off in the buildings (on various floors and the bases which are partially obscured) on the right side of the screen but not WTC 7.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I'll refer you to a video to keep this very simple for you, verbiage with "key forces" is simply smoke and mirrors, it's very simple and hence, we'll go to video.
starts at 21:05 but the science lesson for you will be at 21:10

The rest of your post is just jumbled, exasperated crap in point 1 with your "key forces".
Keep It Simple Stupid.

Plane hits. DONE.

Top 15 floors, meet lower 15 floors. Newton's 3rd law - DONE.

Magically, the rest of the building collapses? Physics says you would be incorrect.

The top floors didn't demolish unto themselves.

They appear as if they compress, but I think what really happened was that they crashed THROUGH the structure below as the exoskeleton gave way and expanded outward. That is the magic behind this progressive building failure.

 

[fuji]

FREE FALL MEANS ZERO RESISTANCE. These buildings had resistance, well over 70% of the remaining floors below the "points of impact". Adding an extra second or two or three, does not give these miraculous events that day a pass for Newton's Laws. lol

Don't let the science kick you guys on the way ("log") out.

Stop spamming us. You were wrong the first 20 times you made this claim, it's been explained to you how wrong you are, and how you totally fail at understanding gravity, Newton's laws, etc.

Spamming us a dozen more times isn't suddenly going to make you right. You're just becoming incredibly pathetic.

 

[fuji]

Let's not even get into building 7 and its rate of fall without even being hit by a plane, but somehow, it falls at near free fall speed because of "random fires".

Gotta love the bullshit and the people that buy it, 15 years later.

What a stupid fucking video. The building on the right is a compression based architecture. The building on the left is not. It's also a camera angle that intentionally obscured the lower portion of the building.

It's just ponderous that you continue spamming us -- is your goal to try and win the argument by wearing everybody out?????

 

[huckfinn]

You did read this link I provided early, thoroughly, correct? Read it over and over, until you realize the author was meticulous in questioning the engine used and the planes that hit the Towers.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/34o4y0/911_engine_that_shot_out_of_the_south_tower_was/

I did read it. But I have also read a lot of other material about those engines, their improvements, and how they would use new technology to improve older engines.

Lets suppose you are correct. Those engines weigh about 8000 lbs, so obviously cannot be moved easily. How did they move it there undetected at the moment of impact, because people would have noticed something that large sitting there had it been placed there earlier, or even after.

Second, if you are claiming it was another aircraft, how do you account for the 100s of eye witnesses identifying the plane that hit the tower? If they used another aircraft, where is the original aircraft and all the passengers?

 

[huckfinn]

Here is an article from Popular Mechanics that confirms much of what we have pointed out about explosions in the lobby, heat of the fire, etc.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5654/debunking-911-myths-planes/#windows

Of course, conspiracy theorists will say the text / publication was controlled by the government, or, the facts were skewed by government agencies.

This argument can go on forever. Neither side will convince the other.

 

[huckfinn]

Since you seem to know it all, any thoughts on the engine found at the "scene of the crime"? Considering the two planes that struck the buildings would not have used that particular engine?

So what would they gain by planting an engine at the scene?