99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Fact: the WTCs were designed to take multiple impacts from Boeing 707s

the building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it...I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jet-liners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid and the jet plane is just the pencil puncturing that screen netting

--WTC construction manager

That is just his opinion - and remember, he had nothing to do with the construction of the WTC

one commercial airplane hitting both towers made them collapse completely at nearly free-fall speed.

That is a lie, they did not collapse at nearly free fall speed

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by -PLB-

 

That is why I use the term "noticeable". We know that the collapse slowed down because there is direct evidence for that.

Yet you did not provide us with this evidence or even explain what this evidence is, you just say there's evidence and move on. The only evidence about the tower slowing down is the evidence that contradicts that concept. The top section did not slow down because by using a simple graphing program, plotting points at equal intervals shows that the buildings acceleration remained constant during the supposed moment of contact.

There is a lot of video evidence and there seismographic evidence. And a constant acceleration is not in conflict with the "official explanation", like I explained above.

No that video has it comptely right. It demonstrates how an object of a certain material falling onto other objects of the same material decelerates when it makes contact, and destroys itself in a manner that is concurrent with the Netwon's third law of motion. You can't trump physics with some poor analysis of the buildings design and the interaction between the floors during the collapse. If the top section hit the bottom section, it would slow down and destroy itself as it destroyed the bottom. That is physics. Those are facts backed up by experimentation and evidence.

No, that is not physics. The WTC building were not at all constructed like those blocks in that video. The top and lower section do not behave like blocks. The involved physics are therefore also different.

reply to post by esdad71

You do not understand. The videos with the gravitational collapse are incomplete. You are comparing two charts where one shows the entire collapse and the other does not. This skews the results that are shown. Of course they look different as one shows the continued collapse and one stops when the WTC hits the lower floors. This makes them worthless.

No you do not understand, the point of comparing the WTC with the gravitational collapse is pretty clear. The top section of the building becomes independent of the bottom section, and is falling towards the earth with the only force acting on it being gravity. The measurements taken from that buildings collapse show what happens when a falling body comes into contact with a static body that once supported it. Compare that to WTC; the top section of the building becomes independent of the bottom section, and is falling towards the earth with the only force acting on it being gravity. The measurements taken from the WTC shows what happens when a falling body does not come into a static body that once supported it. If it came into contact with it a deceleration would be present, not to mention the top section would destroy itself as it destroys the bottom section.

Mass is not irrelevant and you are not calculating the velocity correctly. Really? You are quoting Sir Issac but only apply one law where there are multiple calculations that would need to be completed to show the collapse that day. Physics do not prove the official story false. I mean, they fell right? So what the hell are you implying. That on one day in September the laws of physics were suspended because I sure as hell saw those towers fall. This circular argument you present makes no sense either.

Physics does prove the official story false and I've explained exactly how it does. Yes the towers fell, and I'm implying that the fall of the towers according to the official story is impossible, and my implication is backed up by physics, experimentation, facts, and evidence. I'm not using a circular argument, I'm using simple concepts taken from high school physics to prove how the official story of how the towers collapsed is impossible.

--If the top section collided with the bottom section ensuing in a crush-down collapse, the top section would slow when it makes contact. Newtons first law of motion: An object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force. The top section of the tower was in motion, and coming into contact with the bottom section applied an outside force to it. Since this outside force acts in the opposite direction of the top sections path, that would cause it to decelerate. This deceleration is nonexistant, meaning that the top section did not come into contact with the bottom section when it should have. Do you understand that? The official story is inconsistent with physics making it impossible.

A jolt is not needed either. Sorry, in school this was referred to as surge so I had to check some references on it. I think the term in physics you may be looking for is shock.

Yes a momentary deceleration is needed when the top section collides with the bottom section. Experimentation confirms this concept. You need to back up what you say with experiments, facts, physics, and evidence, and you have not done this. You just make statements with nothing to back them up.

The only force acting on the upper floors is not gravity alone. The Mass and stored energy released that then grew as it collapsed is what happened and this can be shown by Sir Issac. The building is created to use the entire structure to distribute the weight and support evenly.

No you're wrong, the only force acting on the top section while it is falling is gravity. What other forces are acting on it if not just gravity? Mass and stored energy are not forces, they are mass and stored energy.

Again,you are trying to use the videos that were posted to 'show' the jolt. Since the videos and charts are incomplete this will never be accurate.

You do not understand the purpose of the videos and graphs, and they are indeed complete. The purpose is to measure what happens during the moment that a free-falling section of a building comes into contact with a lower section that is static. The video posted of the gravity driven collapse shows what happens to the top portion of the buildings acceleration when it comes into contact with the bottom section. The video posted of the gravity driven WTC collapse shows that when the top portion of the building comes into contact with the bottom section, it does not slow, meaning that it did not come into contact with the bottom section. What is so hard to understand about this simple concept?

Tell me what would be needed for the videos and charts to be complete in measuring what happens to the top section of the building when it contacts the bottom section? How would extending the measurements, well past the moment that the top and bottom section collide, further validate or invalidate the concept of a "jolt" when they make contact?

As far as some of you thinking the design did not come into play in the collapse do not understand how unique this structure was and was designed for maximum office space so the tube in tube design allows for less columns from the interior to the exterior of the structure. It gives an open air feeling. Most buildings are not designed like this for better structural stability.

This is completely irrelavent, the top section is made of the same material as the bottom section, so when they come into contact the top section would decelerate, and then the top section would destroy itself as it destroys the bottom section which would be consistent with Newtons third law of motion.

This is physics backed up by countless experiments and facts. You are arguing against physics which is an argument that cannot be won and will only make you look foolish.

reply to post by TupacShakur

Fact: the WTCs were designed to take multiple impacts from Boeing 707s

Do you really want to get into the history of engineers saying/designing something...only to be proven tragically wrong? Tacoma Narrows Bridge, the Titanic, the suspended walkways at the Hyatt in Kansas City...hell, this thread has several examples of demolition engineers whose demolitions didnt quite work out the way they were supposed to.

So, forgive me if I dont buy into every claim made by an engineer.

reply to post by -PLB-
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/313856aeec18.jpg[/atsimg]

There is a lot of video evidence and there seismographic evidence. And a constant acceleration is not in conflict with the "official explanation", like I explained above.

Again, no evidence to back up your claims, just statements. You have to explain how that video and seismographic evidence backs up what you're saying, just saying there's evidence is meaningless. You didn't explain anything that convinced me that the towers collapse can defy the laws of physics, as nothing can convince me of that. The laws of physics cannot be broken because you want them to fit your ideal perception of how the tower fell, you can't shape the laws of physics to fit you beliefs, instead you shape your beliefs to match the laws of physics.

No, that is not physics. The WTC building were not at all constructed like those blocks in that video. The top and lower section do not behave like blocks. The involved physics are therefore also different.

"the involved physics are different" --Now THAT is funny. Physics cannot be different for one object compared to another object, they apply to every object regardless of its composition, mass, material, etc. The physics are exactly the same for every object and any other thought is irrational and slaps modern science in the face.

"The WTC building were not at all constructed like those blocks in that video."
You're right, but it's the concept that's important. The top section of the tower is made of the same steel and concrete as the bottom section, just like the top cinderblock is made of the same material as the bottom section of cinderblocks. So when the top cinderblock hits the bottom cinderblocks, newtons first and third laws are illustrated by the cinderblock decelerating, and by the top block destroying itself as it destroys the bottom block which is consistent with the equal and opposite law. When you look at the tower on the other hand, the top section of steel and concrete does not decelerate when it hits the bottom section of steel and concrete. To further the official storys impossibility, the top section destroys the bottom section but the bottom section does not destroy the top section, defying the equal and opposite law.

reply to post by vipertech0596

Do you really want to get into the history of engineers saying/designing something...only to be proven tragically wrong? Tacoma Narrows Bridge, the Titanic, the suspended walkways at the Hyatt in Kansas City...hell, this thread has several examples of demolition engineers whose demolitions didnt quite work out the way they were supposed to.

So, forgive me if I dont buy into every claim made by an engineer.

Think what you want, the official story is impossible regardless of whether or not those engineers are correct.

reply to post by esdad71

It is not about providing evidence, it is about showing where it is incorrect or incomplete. We have showed that but you will not accept it. I explained that the graphs cannot be compared because one is not complete. Why do you believe something that is incomplete?

Providing evidence to back up your claims is absolutely the most imporant thing. And what are you talking about, you haven't shown me anything! All you've done is refuted the laws of physics and provided a pseudoscientific analysis of how you think the laws of physics would be altered to match your perception of the towers collapse. Should I accept that? Should I just accept the idea of bending the laws of physics to match your beliefs?

I have shown you how the official story is impossible, but you will not accept it. The graphs are complete; the point of the graphs is to compare the moment that the top section of both buildings impacts the bottom section of both buildings. Maybe from your unintelligent perspective, since the graph of the first building spans almost across the whore duration of the collapse since the building is smaller, you think the only way that the graph of the WTC would be complete is if it also spans across the entire collapse.

The point of the video is to illustrate what happens during the moment of contact, so the videos are complete as it contains both buildings moment of impact (or in the case of the WTC the supposed moment of impact because as I've proven to you using physics, facts, and evidence taken from experimentation, the top section never impacted the bottom section)

reply to post by TupacShakur


Um, no, the official story ISNT impossible. It is only your unwillingness to accept reality that makes you think it is.

reply to post by vipertech0596

Um, no, the official story ISNT impossible. It is only your unwillingness to accept reality that makes you think it is.

Applying the laws of physics to something is accepting reality by the textbook. Thinking that a 12 story section of a bulding can crush a 50+ story section of a building without itself being crushed in the process defies Newtons third law. Believing in something that defies physics actually shows your unwillingness to accept reality. That's all it takes, just that one detail to prove that the official story is impossible. Add to that the fact that the top 12 floors did not decelerate when coming into contact with the remaining 50+ floors, defying Newtons first law of motion, and you have 2 out of the 3 laws of motion broken by the official story.

You believe in a story that breaks two of Netwons three fundamental laws of motion, and you say I'm unwilling to accept reality? Irony-- she's a real b****.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Again, no evidence to back up your claims, just statements. You have to explain how that video and seismographic evidence backs up what you're saying, just saying there's evidence is meaningless. You didn't explain anything that convinced me that the towers collapse can defy the laws of physics, as nothing can convince me of that. The laws of physics cannot be broken because you want them to fit your ideal perception of how the tower fell, you can't shape the laws of physics to fit you beliefs, instead you shape your beliefs to match the laws of physics.

I can explain that, but it seems a bit obvious to me. The video and seismographic evidence shows that the collapse time is about 13-14 seconds. If there was no resistance, the collapse time would be about 8.5 seconds. And I am not saying that any law of physics was defied.

"the involved physics are different" --Now THAT is funny. Physics cannot be different for one object compared to another object, they apply to every object regardless of its composition, mass, material, etc. The physics are exactly the same for every object and any other thought is irrational and slaps modern science in the face.

Have it your way, the physics are applied differently. Try to put a bit more effort in receptive reading.

You're right, but it's the concept that's important. The top section of the tower is made of the same steel and concrete as the bottom section, just like the top cinderblock is made of the same material as the bottom section of cinderblocks. So when the top cinderblock hits the bottom cinderblocks, newtons first and third laws are illustrated by the cinderblock decelerating, and by the top block destroying itself as it destroys the bottom block which is consistent with the equal and opposite law.

So you are saying that when two object of the same material collide with each other, regardless of what they are made of and how they are constructed, the same will happen? Two Skippy balls smashing into each other have the same effect as two cars?

Of course not, and you know it. You know very well that the result is highly dependent on both the materials and design of the objects, as well as the collision speed. And the results can be completely different. You know very well that your are not talking about physics here. This is not how physics work.

When you look at the tower on the other hand, the top section of steel and concrete does not decelerate when it hits the bottom section of steel and concrete. To further the official storys impossibility, the top section destroys the bottom section but the bottom section does not destroy the top section, defying the equal and opposite law.

It does decelerate, and no, "equal and opposite law" does not prevent the building from collapsing. If you like I can explain it in more detail, but you will have to ask for it.

reply to post by TupacShakur


I am tired of telling you what is needed when I am showing you what is incorrect. This is a true joke, I did what you asked and this is tiring. Thought maybe your eyes could be opened that what you are listening to is spreading misinformation. If one part of a video is false why should the rest be true? It is not as shown.

You can quote Newtons laws as much as you like but if you do not know how they are applied you sound ignorant.

reply to post by -PLB-

I can explain that, but it seems a bit obvious to me. The video and seismographic evidence shows that the collapse time is about 13-14 seconds. If there was no resistance, the collapse time would be about 8.5 seconds. And I am not saying that any law of physics was defied.

Funny, NIST said the collapse took about ten seconds. The calculation for a pure pancake collapse of 110 stories with each floor pulverizing to get out of the way is 96 seconds. Every time the top section hits a floor it would lose speed, not gain speed.

This article uses some basic physics to explain why the towers collapse at free-fall speed wasn't exactly 9.2 seconds. That 9.2 seconds free-fall measurement applies to ideal conditions, meaning a vacuum, and since air resistance was at play that slowed the collapse time.

So you are saying that when two object of the same material collide with each other, regardless of what they are made of and how they are constructed, the same will happen? Two Skippy balls smashing into each other have the same effect as two cars?

Exactly, two objects of similar material regardless of the mass will impose an equal force on one another. If the top section of the tower provides enough force on the bottom section to destroy it, the bottom section will provide an equal and opposite amount of force to destroy the top section. Now with pool balls or balloons they obviously don't destroy each other, but the force exerted by object A on object B is matched by an equal and opposite force that objet B exerts on object A.

Of course not, and you know it. You know very well that the result is highly dependent on both the materials and design of the objects, as well as the collision speed. And the results can be completely different. You know very well that your are not talking about physics here. This is not how physics work.

Wrong, refer to Newtons third law of motion to clarify your clouded view of physics.

It does decelerate, and no, "equal and opposite law" does not prevent the building from collapsing. If you like I can explain it in more detail, but you will have to ask for it.

No it does not decelerate! You are lying dude, that video is proof that it does not decelerate when it makes contact. Where is your proof that it decelerates? What are you basing this statement off of if you just watched a video showing that it does not decelerate when it should make contact?

And the equal and opposite law says that if the top 12 floors began to crush the bottom section, the bottom section would simultaneously crush the top section. Arguing against that basic high school physics concept is hilariously ignorant.

reply to post by esdad71

I am tired of telling you what is needed when I am showing you what is incorrect. This is a true joke, I did what you asked and this is tiring. Thought maybe your eyes could be opened that what you are listening to is spreading misinformation. If one part of a video is false why should the rest be true? It is not as shown.

The video is not false, I asked you to explain how the video was incomplete and you didn't. How is the video false? The purpose of both videos is to demonstrate how the top sections of the building react when they make contact with the bottom section, and both videos graph the points that the building should hit the bottom section. The gravity driven collapse decelerates when it it supposed to make contact with the bottom section, and the WTC accelerates when it is supposed to decelerate as a result of coming into contact with the bottom. That is impossible, but your fanatical mind creates a delusional reality where the laws of physics do not apply, and instead your beliefs play out and trump the laws of physics which in reality cannot be trumped by beliefs.

You can quote Newtons laws as much as you like but if you do not know how they are applied you sound ignorant.

I understand exactly how they are applied because they're extremely simple! This is high school physics dude, if you don't understand these basic concepts, such as the cut-and-dry "equal and opposite law" that leaves no room for debate, then you sound ignorant. These three laws of motion are probably the simplest concepts in all of physics, and if you can't understand how they are applied then you need to go back to high school.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Funny, NIST said the collapse took about ten seconds. The calculation for a pure pancake collapse of 110 stories with each floor pulverizing to get out of the way is 96 seconds. Every time the top section hits a floor it would lose speed, not gain speed.

So you do not think that the collapse would arrest? That is at least a start.

Exactly, two objects of similar material regardless of the mass will impose an equal force on one another. If the top section of the tower provides enough force on the bottom section to destroy it, the bottom section will provide an equal and opposite amount of force to destroy the top section. Now with pool balls or balloons they obviously don't destroy each other, but the force exerted by object A on object B is matched by an equal and opposite force that objet B exerts on object A.

Now you need to stop looking at the top and lower section of the building as object A and object B, but as two collections of many objects which interact in very complex ways with each other.

Wrong, refer to Newtons third law of motion to clarify your clouded view of physics.

This is not at all just about newtons laws of motion. The strength of the material and the way it was designed all play a role. It is not just object A and object B following the laws of motion. That is a completely flawed interpretation.

No it does not decelerate! You are lying dude, that video is proof that it does not decelerate when it makes contact. Where is your proof that it decelerates? What are you basing this statement off of if you just watched a video showing that it does not decelerate when it should make contact?

I am not lying, I am just expressing myself incorrectly. What I mean is that it is slowed down, but because of the acceleration as result of gravity the net motion is acceleration.

And the equal and opposite law says that if the top 12 floors began to crush the bottom section, the bottom section would simultaneously crush the top section. Arguing against that basic high school physics concept is hilariously ignorant.

No it is not ignorance. I will repeat a multiple choice question for you I posted in another thread:

The top section falls on the lower part, and both the floor in the top and lower section fails. After that they keep falling, including the top section. Now the next floor comes. On it falls the 2 failed floors plus the top section. The question is, which floor has the highest probability to fail:

1) the floor in the lower part that has 2 failed floor + the top section falling on it.
2) the floor in the top section that only has the top section itself above it.
3) both floors have equal probability of failing.

reply to post by -PLB-

Now you need to stop looking at the top and lower section of the building as object A and object B, but as two collections of many objects which interact in very complex ways with each other.

No that's exactly what it is, it doesn't matter how big it is and what it's made of, the top section is one object, and the bottom section is another object. They collide and interact, then if the top section produces enough force to crush the bottom section, the bottom section will also provide an equal and opposite amount of force to crush the top section.

This is not at all just about newtons laws of motion. The strength of the material and the way it was designed all play a role. It is not just object A and object B following the laws of motion. That is a completely flawed interpretation.

No that's a completely legitimate interpretation, because that's what the laws of motion describe; objects in motion. The strength of the material is irrelavent because if the top material is strong enough to crush the bottom, since the bottom is made of the same material than it should react in an equal and opposite manner crushing the top section as well.

That cinderblock video is a clear demonstration of Newtons laws of motion in action:
Now as we can both see the cinderblock on the top is made of the same material as the cinderblocks on the bottom. With the WTCs, the top section of floors is made of the same steel and concrete as the bottom section of floors, right? So why does Newtons third law of motion apply to the cinderblocks which are made of the same material but not the WTC sections which are also made of the same material? Do some computers, desks, and chairs completely throw physics out the window and open up a new realm of science where the regular concepts do not apply?

The top section falls on the lower part, and both the floor in the top and lower section fails. After that they keep falling, including the top section. Now the next floor comes. On it falls the 2 failed floors plus the top section. The question is, which floor has the highest probability to fail:

1) the floor in the lower part that has 2 failed floor + the top section falling on it.
2) the floor in the top section that only has the top section itself above it.
3) both floors have equal probability of failing.

I choose 3), The bottom floor of the top section would obliterate itself as the top floor of the bottom section is simultaneously obliterated in congruence with Netwon's third law of motion.

If you're going to keep pushing the idea that an object of a certain material free-falling can destroy an object below it made of similar material without destroying itself, you need to provide some experimental confirmation to back that up. Wild speculation that defies the laws of physics needs evidence to back it up, your word that the laws of physics can be defied just because you think that's how it works isn't good enough.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
I choose 3), The bottom floor of the top section would obliterate itself as the top floor of the bottom section is simultaneously obliterated in congruence with Netwon's third law of motion.

It all basically all comes down to this. You are claiming that a floor that has to endure more mass (=greater force) has an equal probability to fail as a floor which has to endure less mass (=smaller force). That is just wrong. That is not how the laws of motion work. The floor resisting the greatest mass will fail first. And after that the next floor will have to resist 3 floors plus the top section. The one after that 4 floor plus the top section and so on. As the number of collapsed floors increase, the force on the lower floors increase, and the force on the top section decreases.

If you're going to keep pushing the idea that an object of a certain material free-falling can destroy an object below it made of similar material without destroying itself, you need to provide some experimental confirmation to back that up. Wild speculation that defies the laws of physics needs evidence to back it up, your word that the laws of physics can be defied just because you think that's how it works isn't good enough.

It is not wild speculation, it is perfectly supported by the laws of physics. You can even show this using pretty simple maths. I do not know of a physical experiment that confirms it though, so I can't help you there.

reply to post by -PLB-

It all basically all comes down to this. You are claiming that a floor that has to endure more mass (=greater force) has an equal probability to fail as a floor which has to endure less mass (=smaller force). That is just wrong. That is not how the laws of motion work. The floor resisting the greatest mass will fail first. And after that the next floor will have to resist 3 floors plus the top section. The one after that 4 floor plus the top section and so on. As the number of collapsed floors increase, the force on the lower floors increase, and the force on the top section decreases.

You're just describing the pancaking effect which I've told you would take 90 seconds to pulverize every floor in the manner that it did. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b98f5b85db25.jpg[/atsimg]
Besides, notice anything wrong with this animation of how the pancaking effect went down?:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/349fbe35017c.jpg[/atsimg]
The steel columns are still there. For the tower to fall as rapidly as it did, nearly free-fall speed, the steel columns would have to have been already taken out, resulting in little resistance. What could have done this? Thermite? Well there are nano-thermite chips, iron microspheres, molten metal, and a tower that nearly free-falls to back that idea up. Plus the airplanes struck the towers with different masses, at different angles, traveling at different speeds, and containing different amounts of jet fuel, yet both towers collapsed in the exact same way; the first time in history that a steel skyscraper has collapsed from fire damage, and there were three that collapsed in the exact same nearly free-fall manner, all leased by the same guy Larry Silverstein. Nothing about that seems sketchy to you?

Regardless of any of that, it's impossible that the top section crushes the bottom section which is made of the same material like a berry without decelerating. That is impossible, it's never before been done, it's never been recreated in experimentation, and it never will be because it's impossible. Do some experiments around your house, get some wood blocks, cardboard boxes, legos, whatever you need, and test it out. 100 times out of 100 the thing that's free-falling will decelerate as it makes contact with the bottom.

You can't just say that something defies the laws of physics, provide no evidence for this other than a pseudoscientic pancake theory which would take well over 10 seconds (Around 90 seconds) and say there's no experimental confirmation to back it up. Should I just trust the government which has lied to the people and committed false flag attacks before? No way dude, I want experiments, mathematics, evidence, and facts to back up the pancake theory. The only paper that I'm aware of that attempted to explain the collapse of the towers was Bazants paper that went against Newtons 3rd law of motion, so it's impossible.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fa7739f07fb5.jpg[/atsimg]Epic fail.

The top section slamming into the bottom section would not speed it up, that would slow it down. Don't believe me? Feel free to test it out for yourself, but it's already been tested in that cinderblock experiment and proven to be impossible. There are no possible conditions that could be set up in which an object of a certain material free-falling collides with another object of the same material and accelerates when it makes contact rather than decelerating, that is outrageously impossible.

It is not wild speculation, it is perfectly supported by the laws of physics. You can even show this using pretty simple maths. I do not know of a physical experiment that confirms it though, so I can't help you there.

Yeah I'll get right on using simple "maths" to back up your theory . Without experimental confirmation, wild speculation is exactly what it is, and despite your beliefs, it does defy two of Newtons three laws and you have not said anything to convince me otherwise. Why? Because the laws of physics are not to be f***** with, and it is not supported by the laws of physics but contradicted. I've shown how the 1st and 3rd law are broken using data, experimentation, facts, and evidence, and all you've done is said things. Back up what you say with evidence or else you won't be taken seriously.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
You're just describing the pancaking effect which I've told you would take 90 seconds to pulverize every floor in the manner that it did.

No it is not. Your pancake theory ignores the mass of the top section.

The steel columns are still there. For the tower to fall as rapidly as it did, nearly free-fall speed, the steel columns would have to have been already taken out, resulting in little resistance.

No they didn't. The columns didn't need to fail, and there is a lot of evidence many didn't. Most columns simply broke off at point there were connected to each other.

What could have done this? Thermite? Well there are nano-thermite chips, iron microspheres, molten metal, and a tower that nearly free-falls to back that idea up.

There is no evidence for nano-thermite, there are just a bunch of crazy people who made up a story. Iron micro spheres have plenty of other perfectly reasonable explanations. Molten metal is to be expected at the temperatures reached.

Plus the airplanes struck the towers with different masses, at different angles, traveling at different speeds, and containing different amounts of jet fuel, yet both towers collapsed in the exact same way; the first time in history that a steel skyscraper has collapsed from fire damage, and there were three that collapsed in the exact same nearly free-fall manner, all leased by the same guy Larry Silverstein. Nothing about that seems sketchy to you?

The first time in the world that 2 similar jet liners flew into 2 similar skyscrapers. The effect I would expect to see would be similar for both skyscrapers and it would be something I never saw before.

Regardless of any of that, it's impossible that the top section crushes the bottom section which is made of the same material like a berry without decelerating. That is impossible, it's never before been done, it's never been recreated in experimentation, and it never will be because it's impossible. Do some experiments around your house, get some wood blocks, cardboard boxes, legos, whatever you need, and test it out. 100 times out of 100 the thing that's free-falling will decelerate as it makes contact with the bottom.

It is not impossible and I just explained you how. Repeating it is impossible does not make it so.

You can't just say that something defies the laws of physics

So far you are the only one saying this.

provide no evidence for this other than a pseudoscientic pancake theory which would take well over 10 seconds (Around 90 seconds) and say there's no experimental confirmation to back it up. Should I just trust the government which has lied to the people and committed false flag attacks before? No way dude, I want experiments, mathematics, evidence, and facts to back up the pancake theory. The only paper that I'm aware of that attempted to explain the collapse of the towers was Bazants paper that went against Newtons 3rd law of motion, so it's impossible.

It did not went against Newtons 3rd law of motion. If you believe it does, point me to published work that points this out. Rational people do not believe something just because some conspiracy guy on the internet says so.

The top section slamming into the bottom section would not speed it up, that would slow it down. Don't believe me? Feel free to test it out for yourself, but it's already been tested in that cinderblock experiment and proven to be impossible. There are no possible conditions that could be set up in which an object of a certain material free-falling collides with another object of the same material and accelerates when it makes contact rather than decelerating, that is outrageously impossible.

Ignorance is not an argument. Just because you can not think of a condition where it is possible it doesn't mean that it is impossible.

Yeah I'll get right on using simple "maths" to back up your theory

. Without experimental confirmation, wild speculation is exactly what it is, and despite your beliefs, it does defy two of Newtons three laws and you have not said anything to convince me otherwise. Why? Because the laws of physics are not to be f***** with, and it is not supported by the laws of physics but contradicted. I've shown how the 1st and 3rd law are broken using data, experimentation, facts, and evidence, and all you've done is said things. Back up what you say with evidence or else you won't be taken seriously.

Why? Because you are closed minded and base you position on irrational believe. You were told that the 1st and 3rd law is broken by some conspiracy guy with a Youtube video on the internet, and now you are repeating him because what he says fits your presupposition.

As long as you hold on to your over simplistic object A hits object B view, you will not be going to understand what really happened. You have to let go of this believe.

reply to post by -PLB-

No it is not. Your pancake theory ignores the mass of the top section.

I don't have a pancake theory, I have a controlled demolition theory backed up by physical evidence.

No they didn't. The columns didn't need to fail, and there is a lot of evidence many didn't. Most columns simply broke off at point there were connected to each other.

The steel columns definitely needed to fail, a skyscraper cannot collapse without the very steel structure that supports it first being compromised.

There is no evidence for nano-thermite, there are just a bunch of crazy people who made up a story. Iron micro spheres have plenty of other perfectly reasonable explanations. Molten metal is to be expected at the temperatures reached.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b89ce02f92b4.jpg[/atsimg]
"There is no evidence for nano-thermite, there are just a bunch of crazy people who made up a story" Wow, talk about being in denial. There is so much evidence that I just got nauseaous at your claim:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/59151789bd41.jpg[/atsimg]
Check it out for yourself.

Also the formation of molten metal at the temperatures that jet fuel fires produce is impossible.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ff6eb14e1a60.jpg[/atsimg]

So we have nano-thermite chips in the dust sample, iron microspheres in the dust sample, molten metal seen dripping from the tower and seen by dozens in the debris as well as photographed several times, and three towers that collapse at free-fall speed. Themite can produce all of those things; jet fuel cannot. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5725cf5f5a77.jpg[/atsimg]

The first time in the world that 2 similar jet liners flew into 2 similar skyscrapers. The effect I would expect to see would be similar for both skyscrapers and it would be something I never saw before.

Fair enough, but what about WTC7? It was the farthest building from the WTCs in that complex, yet some falling debris and a few minor fires inside caused it to collapse at free-fall speed? That's impossible, especially considering that there have been dozens of fires inside of skyscapers which were MUCH more severe that those of WTC7, yet on 9/11 three skyscrapers collapsed from fire damage (two from jet fuel, one from ordinary fire) in a manner with no historical precedent other than controlled demolitions.

It is not impossible and I just explained you how. Repeating it is impossible does not make it so.

No you didn't explain it, I've explained to you that the collapse of the towers defies Newtons 1st and 3rd law of motion, and my claim is backed up by data taken from video evidence. You haven't explained how the impossible is possible, you just talked about the pancake theory. There was no momentary deceleration when the top section should have hit the bottom section to begin your pancake collapse, meaning that it didn't hit the bottom section and it was already falling before the top section had a chance to hit it. Plus the top section cannot produce the force necessary to destroy the bottom section without the bottom section also destroying the top section in congruence with Newtons 3rd law. You haven't adequately explained how 2 of the 3 fundamental laws of motion can be broken to fit your ideal perception of the towers collapse, and you won't be able to because nothing can break the laws of physics. Repeating that it's impossible doesn't make it so, I agree, proving that it's impossible using concepts of physics, facts, evidence, and data taken from experimental confirmation makes it so.

It did not went against Newtons 3rd law of motion. If you believe it does, point me to published work that points this out. Rational people do not believe something just because some conspiracy guy on the internet says so.

Yeah I believe it because it's a physics concept, and it's backed up by experimentation.
The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis

Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics

Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC1

Discussion of "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers In New York" by Zdenek Bazant, Zia-Liang Le, Frank Greening, and David Benson"

Ignorance is not an argument. Just because you can not think of a condition where it is possible it doesn't mean that it is impossible.

OK then how about you replicate the conditions? Find me an experiment that has been done in which a falling object collides with a static object of the same material and speeds up as it makes contact.

Why? Because you are closed minded and base you position on irrational believe. You were told that the 1st and 3rd law is broken by some conspiracy guy with a Youtube video on the internet, and now you are repeating him because what he says fits your presupposition.

As long as you hold on to your over simplistic object A hits object B view, you will not be going to understand what really happened. You have to let go of this believe.

Dude I'm majoring in Physics, I have a good enough understanding to see how high school physics concepts are applied to situations, and if you've graduated from high school so should you. And like I've said this is backed up from experimentation, the pancake theory has never been replicated experimentally. "Some conspiracy guy" sure makes him sound like some fat kid sitting in a basement thinking up crazy theories, but David Chandler is actually a Physics professor who knows his stuff.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
I don't have a pancake theory, I have a controlled demolition theory backed up by physical evidence.

So you understand why that graph and those 90 seconds are irrelevant for the "official" explanation?

The steel columns definitely needed to fail, a skyscraper cannot collapse without the very steel structure that supports it first being compromised.

Sure, at initiation the columns failed. After that they didn't need to fail. All that needed to fail are the truss connections. The supporting columns could simply be left unsupported and pushed and fall over. That is in fact what we see happening in videos.

"There is no evidence for nano-thermite, there are just a bunch of crazy people who made up a story" Wow, talk about being in denial. There is so much evidence that I just got nauseaous at your claim:

Jones is a crackpot who believes Jesus went to America and thinks he created an over unity energy device. Yes, he believes he defied one of the most fundamental laws of physics. His work is not accepted in the scientific community, and he found nothing that disproves his chips were just paint.

Also the formation of molten metal at the temperatures that jet fuel fires produce is impossible.

There was not just jet feul in those buildings. There were all kind of chemicals.

So we have nano-thermite chips in the dust sample, iron microspheres in the dust sample, molten metal seen dripping from the tower and seen by dozens in the debris as well as photographed several times, and three towers that collapse at free-fall speed. Themite can produce all of those things; jet fuel cannot.

False dichotomy. It is not either thermite or jet fuel. If jet fuel is not the explanation it in no way makes thermite more likely.

Fair enough, but what about WTC7? It was the farthest building from the WTCs in that complex, yet some falling debris and a few minor fires inside caused it to collapse at free-fall speed? That's impossible, especially considering that there have been dozens of fires inside of skyscapers which were MUCH more severe that those of WTC7, yet on 9/11 three skyscrapers collapsed from fire damage (two from jet fuel, one from ordinary fire) in a manner with no historical precedent other than controlled demolitions.

WTC7 collapsed in a completely different manner, as I would expect. You are making an argument from ignorace. Just because you do not understand how WTC7 collapsed without explosives doesn't mean it can't happen.

No you didn't explain it, I've explained to you that the collapse of the towers defies Newtons 1st and 3rd law of motion, and my claim is backed up by data taken from video evidence. You haven't explained how the impossible is possible, you just talked about the pancake theory.

I have explained it. You can't threat the top and lower section as two blocks, like in that video. That is just not how it is in reality, therefore that model is flawed.

There was no momentary deceleration when the top section should have hit the bottom section to begin your pancake collapse, meaning that it didn't hit the bottom section and it was already falling before the top section had a chance to hit it.

I already explained that several times. 1) there is no requirement in the "official" explanation for the floor to impact at one moment in time. It can easily happen over a longer period, where one part of a floor is already collapsed while another part is not. In fact, the collapse can happen over more than one floor at once. 2) the resistance offered by the floors is nowhere near the resistance offered by the supporting columns.

Ignoring those points do not make them go away.

Plus the top section cannot produce the force necessary to destroy the bottom section without the bottom section also destroying the top section in congruence with Newtons 3rd law. You haven't adequately explained how 2 of the 3 fundamental laws of motion can be broken to fit your ideal perception of the towers collapse, and you won't be able to because nothing can break the laws of physics. Repeating that it's impossible doesn't make it so, I agree, proving that it's impossible using concepts of physics, facts, evidence, and data taken from experimental confirmation makes it so.

I have explained this, and I tried to do this with my multiple choice question. You choose that a floor that has to endure more mass has an equal chance of failing as a floor that has to endure less mass. Your understanding of physics is fundamentally flawed. I will change the question and add values to demonstrate how absurd your answer is.

Lets assume that the weight of 1 floor is 3kt

The top section is 15 floors (45kt) high and falls on the lower part, both the floor in the top and lower section fails. After that they keep falling, including the top section. After a while the collapse reached 5 floors down. We assume that previously both the lower and upper floor failed, as per your suggestion. The question is, which floor has the highest probability to fail:

1) the floor in the lower part that has 10 failed floor (30kt) + the top section (30kt) = 60kt falling on it.
2) the floor in the top section that only has the top section itself above it (30kt).
3) both floors have equal probability of failing.

Please answer that you think that the floor that has the largest mass to endure will fail first. And I know mass ejected/fell away, but I try to make the question as simple as possible. Once we agree on the answer we can add other factors if you like.

Yeah I believe it because it's a physics concept, and it's backed up by experimentation.
The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis

Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics

Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC1

Discussion of "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers In New York" by Zdenek Bazant, Zia-Liang Le, Frank Greening, and David Benson"

You do realize that those papers are published in a very biased journal, and are not accepted by the scientific community? That is not science, it is opinion.

OK then how about you replicate the conditions? Find me an experiment that has been done in which a falling object collides with a static object of the same material and speeds up as it makes contact.

Besides the twin towers I can't really think of an example. Just because something is not common means that it is impossible. The physics are well known, its do not predict it is impossible.

Dude I'm majoring in Physics, I have a good enough understanding to see how high school physics concepts are applied to situations, and if you've graduated from high school so should you. And like I've said this is backed up from experimentation, the pancake theory has never been replicated experimentally. "Some conspiracy guy" sure makes him sound like some fat kid sitting in a basement thinking up crazy theories, but David Chandler is actually a Physics professor who knows his stuff.

David Chandler is not a physics professor, but a teacher. He does not have his work published in a respected journal and his work is not accepted in the scientific community. He is just a guy on the internet who is wrong.