Indisputable Facts 9/11: Quite disturbing information

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sep 8, 2013
44
1
Castro Valley CA
#22
The falling mass grew bigger & bigger and bigger (kind of like an avalanche), that the new mass it picked up approached negligible, and yes, it approached free fall acceleration - simple laws of physics! :p
WTC 7 did not simply approach FREE FALL ACCELERATION, it attained it for 2.25 sec, also the mass pick up bit is from the lame excuse as to why the towers were completely destroyed, not just damaged but COMPLETELY DESTROYED.

& while we are about the physics, what % of the mass of an object is exerted against whatever is under a falling mass that is accelerating at 64% of the acceleration of gravity?
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2012
3,775
614
Louisville, Ky
#23
WTC 7 did not simply approach FREE FALL ACCELERATION, it attained it for 2.25 sec, also the mass pick up bit is from the lame excuse as to why the towers were completely destroyed, not just damaged but COMPLETELY DESTROYED.

& while we are about the physics, what % of the mass of an object is exerted against whatever is under a falling mass that is accelerating at 64% of the acceleration of gravity?
If the tower mass of 879, 683 lbs. is added to the equation r/qs-42.87 and equated to the minimal mass of the square root of the maximum mass of the bases of each foundational support....it is clear the towers were blown up by dolphins mutated by aliens from Jupiters moon Titan.


...duh....;)
 
Sep 8, 2013
44
1
Castro Valley CA
#24
If the tower mass of 879, 683 lbs. is added to the equation r/qs-42.87 and equated to the minimal mass of the square root of the maximum mass of the bases of each foundational support....it is clear the towers were blown up by dolphins mutated by aliens from Jupiters moon Titan.


...duh....;)
So the best you can do is to write some alleged humor....

Do tell ( & this is only high school level physics... )
what is the weight expressed upon the stuff below
a falling mass that is accelerating at 64% of the
acceleration of Gravity? Can you think about this at all?
 
Sep 8, 2013
44
1
Castro Valley CA
#25
Tall city buildings are essentially a "house of cards". There is no practical way to design enough safety margin in the strength of buildings for lower floors withstand upper floors crashing down.

There have been many cases, whereby a floor of a building under construction collapses. You NEVER see the collapse just stop there. You see a domino effect where floor after floor collapses after that.

It is time for you to quit drinking the Kool-Aid, and get real! :p
Please provide a link to a building collapse ( under construction ) where the building is completely & totally destroyed and results in mass quantities of pulverized material(?)

Also note that you did NOT address the 64% of the acceleration of gravity
comment from my last ... whats up with that?
 
Sep 8, 2013
44
1
Castro Valley CA
#26
I cannot comment on some unknown source's wild-ass estimate.
OR, you could get a copy of physics toolkit and
examine the video record yourself.

from looking at the video of either tower collapsing
do you see the uniformity in the descent?

Physical objects only do that when somebody makes it happen,
this is not like some random event triggered an unstoppable "collapse"
The only reason why the pulverization continued, there had to have
been an additional source of energy brought to bear on this structure.
I an not in a position to state if it was C4, Thermite, atom bombs... or?
but there obviously was an additional source of energy.
 
Oct 25, 2012
3,775
614
Louisville, Ky
#27
OR, you could get a copy of physics toolkit and
examine the video record yourself.

from looking at the video of either tower collapsing
do you see the uniformity in the descent?

Physical objects only do that when somebody makes it happen,
this is not like some random event triggered an unstoppable "collapse"
The only reason why the pulverization continued, there had to have
been an additional source of energy brought to bear on this structure.
I an not in a position to state if it was C4, Thermite, atom bombs... or?
but there obviously was an additional source of energy.
Obvious to you...for myself it is not.

Thus...conspiracy forum material.
 
Sep 8, 2013
44
1
Castro Valley CA
#30
Reality sucks...don't it.
obviously for the vast majority of citizens who
have been spoon-fed the official propaganda by the mainstream media,
You have evidence right in front of you, and you refuse to see it.

A! lets bust the emperor for indecent exposure!
 
Jan 29, 2010
172
26
Miami
#31
what if in the course of say driving only a few miles, you observed 3 cars on fire by the side of the road, and all on the same day, would you wonder WHY?
Some food for thought. The buildings were a maximum of only a few blocks from eachother, and two of them were over 1,000 ft tall. And the "3rd one" was hit by at least of them, seriously damaged and left to burn unfettered for several hours. Do you find it unusual that several buildings were virtually totaled because they were located adjacent to the WTC towers when they fell? Strange logic you have with your coincidences...

May I then focus upon the WTC towers and WTC7 note that these buildings were NOT just damaged as were other buildings in the same complex, but completely destroyed.
Did you not see WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6? The first two were partially crushed by the 1& 2 when they fell. That's considered a total loss. WTC 5 got completely engulfed in flames and experienced a serious internal collapse of the structure due to fire, and WTC6 had a gaping hole down to the basement level. If you're wondering why they weren't "totally collapsed" it's because their designs differed from the WTC 1, 2, and 7. Unless you figure out why the design differences are important you will never ever be educated on why different results played out for them and the other three buildings.

In a report by the NIST they say "total collapse was inevitable
after collapse initiation ..." izat so? WHY should total collapse
be inevitable? Who sez and what do they have to back that statement?
Because the towers were not designed to handle a dynamic load of the magnitude they experienced once the structure was sufficiently destabilized to initiate collapse. Buildings, 3,4,5, and 6 were shorter and had proportionally larger footprints compared to 1, 2, and 7, they didn't have the same failure mechanisms either due to their design differences. None had 30 stories being supported by a damaged floor area.

So tell me... do you even show an ounce of skepticism? I'm not talking about doubting the NIST or so called "official story", do you even cross check the sources you "think" are better? Doesn't look like it. It's very arrogant of people to comment on skepticism when they themselves exhibit that very behaviour.


The justification for saying that it had to be CD is quite simple really, you see ... WTC7 descended for
2.25 sec at free fall acceleration. the ONLY way you are
going to get free fall acceleration, is by NOT having any resistance
under the falling mass.
Do explain... how does free fall acceleration prove the presence of explosives and other tools that would have been used in a CD? Let's take you claim at face value, do you have any pictorial evidence of damage to the buildings that show damages that could be linked to explosives? I belive the answer to that will be "no".

Now do U C?
I guess I'll be one of those "shills" you like to refer to. I prefer to run with reality and legitimate, competent design/engineering knowledge, not the above


OR, you could get a copy of physics toolkit and
examine the video record yourself.

from looking at the video of either tower collapsing
do you see the uniformity in the descent?

Physical objects only do that when somebody makes it happen,
this is not like some random event triggered an unstoppable "collapse"
It wasn't "random" at all... people flew planes into buildings intending to bring them both down by smashing out the supports. They hoped it would be immediate to cause the most amount of casualties possible. This can be inferred by the fact that the second plane aimed lower on tower #2, because the more load that is held by a weakened structure, the more vulnerable it is to critical failure. And guess what? The building that got hit lower 30 minutes after the first tower was hit, fell an hour earlier. That's not much of a coincidence, it shows that one building was in more immediate distress than the other
 
Last edited:
Likes: 1 person
Sep 9, 2013
34
3
Michigan
#32
And so you have a dilemma when evidence contradicts public opinion. You call this so called "official story" a lie that only the fearful follow, yet offer no substance to back it up. I'm open to new evidence, but anything suggesting "holograms, no-planes, or controlled demolition" are off the table, because all theories thus far related to those have been nothing but snake oil
The "evidence" you've offered to back that up is no more substantial than the OP's. You say you're open to new evidence, then proceed to limit the presentation of that evidence. If you're not willing to follow the investigation wherever it leads, you're not willing to know the truth.

But that's ok. Some people just can't handle the truth--and they know it. They will devise defense mechanisms to shield themselves from uncomfortable realizations of the truth, and that's important for the protection of their precariously balanced psyches. The last thing we need is someone going off the deep end because he can't live with the realization that the vast majority of the world's population lives out its lives without the kingly benefit of indoor plumbing!

Preconceptions will limit your perceptions. If your reasoning powers max out at "building fell down; gravity makes things fall down; therefore gravity made building fall down", then this topic may not be accessible to you.
 
Sep 9, 2013
34
3
Michigan
#33
The falling mass grew bigger & bigger and bigger (kind of like an avalanche), that the new mass it picked up approached negligible, and yes, it approached free fall acceleration - simple laws of physics! :p
Please, tell me you're a goof ball who just appears as a blithering idiot.:unsure:
 
Sep 8, 2013
44
1
Castro Valley CA
#35
Please, tell me you're a goof ball who just appears as a blithering idiot.:unsure:
Meanwhile back at the subject at hand....

Why should it be considered credible,
that a 110 story building could "collapse"
in a manner that includes the pulverization
of mass quantities of building materials.
+ the ejection at high speed, of chunks of
building steel weighing in at many tons and
these ejections sent some bits at least 400 ft from the tower.
and includes complete & total destruction of said tower(s)

Planet Earth..... we have a problem here!
 
Sep 9, 2013
34
3
Michigan
#36
two words



conspiracy forum
You can actually make a sentence with two words, if one is a subject and the other a verb.

If I'm supposed to read between the lines, I have to disagree that "conspiracy forum" should be license to abuse rationality and common courtesy.

Perhaps we need a "juvenile forum".
 
Sep 9, 2013
34
3
Michigan
#38
Yes, seriously! We got my mother's ashes the other day, and they looked very much pulverized, even though they only were exposed to extreme heat for 3 or 4 hours. :p
Too bad about your mother. But, "pulverize" is just not the appropriate term for the action of heat upon inorganic matter--unless you're a poet, in which case youi can do anything you want with words, since communication isn't the point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Discussions