911 The facts and the proof only.

reply to post by ANOK


The physics even prove the No.1 factoid belongs at No.1. Not to mention the image PLB gave link for.

Tango

Silliness is just an opinion and if one image or video exists on the NET/WEB ,that could be tampered with,
toss them all.

However, I'm going to delete no two, in the hope of unrestraining some possibilities for the OS.

In real world physics we have multiple failure modes.

Tension, Compression, Shear, Bending, Torsion

Why is it that Truther Physics is limited to only one failure mode, the one they call crushing ?

Why is a shear failure considered impossible with Truther Physics ?

Originally posted by tangonine

the downward acceleration was 9.8 m/s. What's the mass of 10 stories of concrete?

I don't understand the point of your question.

It doesn't matter what the mass of 10 stories of concrete is. You still have a smaller mass falling on a larger mass. Whatever force is being applied by the top floors, will also equally be applied by the bottom floors.

Lets just make it simple for a minute and say the floors weight 10lbs each. 95 floors would weigh 950lbs, 15 floors would weigh 150lbs. Try dropping 150lbs on 950lbs. Especially when that 950lbs is designed to hold more than twice that weight (safety factor).

Lets see if you understand, answer this question...

1. While driving down the road, a firefly strikes the windshield of a bus and makes a quite obvious mess in front of the face of the driver. This is a clear case of Newton's third law of motion. The firefly hit the bus and the bus hits the firefly. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the firefly or the force on the bus?

I have asked this simple question to many OSers, and not one has answered the question. This tells me that they know the answer, and they know the answer contradicts their claims. If not they would be all over it. How about you OSer, are you going to be honest in this debate, or will you ignore it also?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by dpd11
You mean, like the evidence that when you suddenly drop a giant chunk of a building that weighs thousands of tons down onto the rest of the building, the remaining portion can't absorb the impact and a cascading failure occurs? You mean evidence like that? Evidence that every kid has experienced by the time he's two, with building blocks? lol

Yeah, I agree... It obviously doesn't matter how good the evidence is.

That isn't evidence, it's a baseless assumption.

If you drop building blocks on building blocks they don't crush themselves into oblivion.

That 'giant chunk of a building' had an even more giant chunk of building underneath it. 95 is a 'huger' chunk than 15. Equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws prove that it could not completely collapse, something that every kid learns once they take classes in basic physics, and progress beyond 'building blocks'.

I love how basic physics that little kids are taught, is a "baseless assumption". But all the other nutty claims made here are supposedly "the truth". lol

Take tens of thousands of tons of building blocks and glue them together into a structure. Now suspend them 20' above another structure made out of building blocks all glued together. Now suddenly drop the upper chunk down onto the bottom one. Tens of thousands of tons of mass slamming into the other portion of blocks. What do you think is going to happen to those blocks? What, do you actually think that kind of mass is just going to bounce right off? Do the same thing with automobiles... or cardboard... or fruit baskets... It doesn't matter what it is. Tens of thousands of tons of ANYTHING suddenly dropped on a structure, will demolish it. A structure is not meant to absorb the impact of something that has a mass of tens of thousands of tons. If life worked that way, we could go driving around in cars made out of styrofoam and just crash into each other whenever we want. Obviously that's not how physics work. Nudge a car into a parked car and hit the accelerator. Nothing much will get damaged. Now get a running start and hit it going 20 mph. What happens? Gee, both cars are constructed the same way... They both have equal strength... Why would they get damaged?

Seriously... This is basic grade school stuff.

reply to post by tangonine

Sure. Your #2. It reeks of a massive media conspiracy that doesn't exist. You think every news network on the planet and all the private video of the attacks was a hoax? please.

There were four mainstream stations broadcasting the "live" footage. That would require four producers to be "Company Assets". Not a massive media hoax involving thousands; four. Everyone else just repeats what they're told. Sound familiar?

I say again, unlike you I have provided evidence to back up all my claims.

In their own words:

In the second half of the 20th century, the burgeoning American media was co-opted by something called Operation Mockingbird, the CIA's subversion of the free press in America. Frank Wisner, who ran the project in the 1940s and 1950s for the Agency, once famously said that the American media was like his own "...personal Wurlitzer; I can play any tune I want on it and America will follow along."

In the 1970s, CIA director William Colby admitted, "The CIA owns assets at every major media outlet in America, TV networks, newspapers, publishing houses, and magazines."

In a 1977 Rolling Stone article, Carl Bernstein estimated that there were hundreds, perhaps thousands, of CIA-friendly assets at all the major TV networks, newspapers and periodicals in America.

We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false. -- William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by waypastvne


Refer to fact No. 1

So far the facts are . Update

1.The core columns were compromised.

2. The demolition of the twin towers had been previously planned in the late 80's. (yank)

This is where we stand . Note : Any images or videos submitted from either side will be looked upon with great scrutiny.

I did say either side. Now I will shower.

Be back soon.




:

Originally posted by waypastvne
In real world physics we have multiple failure modes.

Tension, Compression, Shear, Bending, Torsion

That is true.

Why is it that Truther Physics is limited to only one failure mode, the one they call crushing ?

That is not true.

Why is a shear failure considered impossible with Truther Physics ?

That is not true.

Whatever the failure was the actual collapse was floors dropping on floors, causing them to be crushed and ejected. The mechanism of failure has nothing to do with how colliding objects react, as explained by the laws of motion. Even IF all the trusses, bolts, welds etc., failed you still have just concrete and steel floor pans crushing themselves, and 15 floors can not crush 95 floors.

You should stop trying to assume what people are saying, and actually go learn something so you KNOW what they're saying.

The Naudet Video was a staged propaganda piece, as proven by Leslie Raphael. This means members of the OEM, Mayor's office, FDNY and the NYPD must have been involved.

Also, according to research by Ed Heidner and others, this rabbit hole goes much deeper than most folks can imagine:

“This report contends that not only were the buildings targets, but that specific offices within each building were the designated targets. These offices unknowingly held information which if exposed, subsequently would expose a national security secret of unimaginable magnitude. Protecting that secret was the motivation for the September 11th attacks. This report is about that national security secret: its origins and impact. The intent of the report is to provide a context for understanding the events of September 11th rather than to define exactly what happened that day. Initially, it is difficult to see a pattern to the destruction of September 11th other than the total destruction of the World Trade Center, a segment of the Pentagon, four commercial aircraft and the loss of 2,993 lives. However, if the perceived objective of the attack is re-defined from its commonly suggested ‘symbolic’ designation as either ‘a terrorist attack’ or a ‘new Pearl Harbor,’ and one begins by looking at it as purely a crime with specific objectives (as opposed to a political action), there is a compelling logic to the pattern of destruction. This article provides research into the early claims by Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham and Karl Schwarz that the September 11th attacks were meant as a cover-up for financial crimes being investigated by the Office of Naval Intelligence(ONI), whose offices in the Pentagon were destroyed on September 11th.

After six years of research, this report presents corroborating evidence which supports their claims, and proposes a new rationale for the September 11th attacks. In doing so, many of the anomalies – or inconvenient facts surrounding this event - take on a meaning that is consistent with the claims of Eastman et al. The hypothesis of this report is: the attacks of September 11th were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which ‘unknown’ western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas. The attacks of September 11th also served to derail multiple Federal investigations away from crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation. In doing so, the attacks were justified under the cardinal rule of intelligence: “protect your resources” and consistent with a modus operandi of sacrificing lives for a greater cause. The case for detailed targeting of the attacks begins with analysis of the attack on the Pentagon. After one concludes that the targeting of the ONI office in the Pentagon was not random – and that information is presented later. – one then must ask: is it possible that the planes that hit the World Trade Center, and the bombs reported by various witnesses to have been set off inside the buildings 1, 6 and 7 and the basement of the Towers, were deliberately located to support the execution of a crime of mind-boggling proportions? In considering that question, a pattern emerges. For the crimes alleged by Eastman, Flocco, Durham and Schwarz to be successful, the vault in the basement of the World Trade Center, and its contents - less than a billion in gold, but hundreds of billions of dollars of government securities - had to be destroyed. A critical mass of brokers from the major government security brokerages in the Twin Towers had to be eliminated to create chaos in the government securities market. A situation needed to be created wherein $240 billion dollars of covert securities could be electronically “cleared” without anyone asking questions- which happened when the Federal Reserve declared an emergency and invoked its“ emergency powers.” that very afternoon.

The ongoing Federal investigations into the crimes funded by those securities needed to be ended or disrupted by destroying evidence in Buildings 6, 7 and 1.

Finally, one has to understand and demonstrate the inconceivable: that $240 billion in covert, and possibly illegal government funding could have been and were created in September of 1991. Filling in the last piece of the puzzle requires understanding 50 years of history of key financial organizations in the United States, understanding how U.S. Intelligence became a key source of their off-balance sheet accounts, and why this was sanctioned by every President since Truman.

With that, a pattern of motivation is defined which allows government leaders and intelligence operatives to ‘rationalize’ a decision to cause the death 3,000 citizens.”

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In keeping with the above theme, recall that Don Rumsfeld admitted the Pentagon couldn't account for $2.3 Trillion (with a T), one day before September 11.
Source

By noon the next day, everyone had forgotten about it, and all the investigations and 39 of 40 investigators within the ONI, were dead.

Originally posted by dpd11
I love how basic physics that little kids are taught, is a "baseless assumption". But all the other nutty claims made here are supposedly "the truth". lol

Huh?

Take tens of thousands of tons of building blocks and glue them together into a structure. Now suspend them 20' above another structure made out of building blocks all glued together. Now suddenly drop the upper chunk down onto the bottom one. Tens of thousands of tons of mass slamming into the other portion of blocks. What do you think is going to happen to those blocks?What, do you actually think that kind of mass is just going to bounce right off? Do the same thing with automobiles... or cardboard... or fruit baskets... It doesn't matter what it is. Tens of thousands of tons of ANYTHING suddenly dropped on a structure, will demolish it. A structure is not meant to absorb the impact of something that has a mass of tens of thousands of tons. If life worked that way, we could go driving around in cars made out of styrofoam and just crash into each other whenever we want. Obviously that's not how physics work. Nudge a car into a parked car and hit the accelerator. Nothing much will get damaged. Now get a running start and hit it going 20 mph. What happens? Gee, both cars are constructed the same way... They both have equal strength... Why would they get damaged?

Seriously... This is basic grade school stuff.

Lol no that is not how it works.

It sounds dramatic when you say drop thousands of tones, but you keep ignoring equal opposite reaction in your layman attempts at explaining physics.

For example you car analogy. If you hit another car at 20mph, do you think the damage will only be increased on the car you hit? No, the damage is increased on BOTH cars, the forces are increased on BOTH objects, equal opposite reaction law. The forces on both objects is the SAME, velocity increases that force on BOTH objects.

This is the basic physics law that you OSers all keep getting wrong. Yes this IS basic high school physics.

Answer this question...

1. While driving down the road, a firefly strikes the windshield of a bus and makes a quite obvious mess in front of the face of the driver. This is a clear case of Newton's third law of motion. The firefly hit the bus and the bus hits the firefly. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the firefly or the force on the bus?

If you answer that correctly, you will have to admit I am right. Will you answer it?

reply to post by ANOK

If you answer that correctly, you will have to admit I am right. Will you answer it?

Don't forget to think of the bus driver as the core column.

So do we have a picture of one of the tires. From one of the flights. Nobody better try to say all of the tires burned
up either. So show a good picture of a tire or anything that proves that the planes actually hit the buildings. I can post a factoid for the OS. Anything ? What do I have to do beg?

reply to post by randyvs


Photos for the class to scrutinize.

Here we have a still from a video "Tina Cart" posted, a still from Richard Clark, and a still from Wolfgang Staehle. All from the same perspective, with Tina and Richard's stills matching, including the point of time they captured the bullet-fast 500 plus MPH object.

The background story is they all shared the same building and were all on the same roof, but the more realistic explanation is they all shared the same footage, but different filters:



Here is an example of Jules Naudet's "documentary" which was released in 2002. It contains footage from another Frenchman "amateur" named Luc Courchesne. Only problem is Luc's footage wasn't released until 2004, so how'd it end up on Jules' documentary two years earlier? Were they sharing the same roof, or were they just on the same team of propagandists?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e95727ff4c99.jpg[/atsimg]

Here's a still from the Courchesne footage, complete with the same rainbow effect and the same perspective, and close to the same point in time:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5b2566aa6c27.jpg[/atsimg]
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Yankee451


First thing is, I want to thank you, for your contributions to this thread Yank. Tip of the hat to Anok as well.

Secondly I'm going to be very patient and leave what was fact No.2 out. although nothing of images or vids can be trusted there may be some we can agree upon after some close scrutiny. It's tuff just trying to be fair in all of this.

But your point is definetly of the up most in consideration to the facts..

reply to post by randyvs


No problem, thanks for clarifying.

I was just offering them as examples of questionable photographs and videos to reinforce how little they can be trusted.

A question an OSer never answers is why would any single image be fraudulent?

The Naudet film is still used as evidence, often with the "firefighters" spoken lines in the film used as "testimony" by OSers.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by dpd11
I love how basic physics that little kids are taught, is a "baseless assumption". But all the other nutty claims made here are supposedly "the truth". lol

Huh?

Take tens of thousands of tons of building blocks and glue them together into a structure. Now suspend them 20' above another structure made out of building blocks all glued together. Now suddenly drop the upper chunk down onto the bottom one. Tens of thousands of tons of mass slamming into the other portion of blocks. What do you think is going to happen to those blocks?What, do you actually think that kind of mass is just going to bounce right off? Do the same thing with automobiles... or cardboard... or fruit baskets... It doesn't matter what it is. Tens of thousands of tons of ANYTHING suddenly dropped on a structure, will demolish it. A structure is not meant to absorb the impact of something that has a mass of tens of thousands of tons. If life worked that way, we could go driving around in cars made out of styrofoam and just crash into each other whenever we want. Obviously that's not how physics work. Nudge a car into a parked car and hit the accelerator. Nothing much will get damaged. Now get a running start and hit it going 20 mph. What happens? Gee, both cars are constructed the same way... They both have equal strength... Why would they get damaged?

Seriously... This is basic grade school stuff.

Lol no that is not how it works.

It sounds dramatic when you say drop thousands of tones, but you keep ignoring equal opposite reaction in your layman attempts at explaining physics.

For example you car analogy. If you hit another car at 20mph, do you think the damage will only be increased on the car you hit? No, the damage is increased on BOTH cars, the forces are increased on BOTH objects, equal opposite reaction law. The forces on both objects is the SAME, velocity increases that force on BOTH objects.

This is the basic physics law that you OSers all keep getting wrong. Yes this IS basic high school physics.

Answer this question...

1. While driving down the road, a firefly strikes the windshield of a bus and makes a quite obvious mess in front of the face of the driver. This is a clear case of Newton's third law of motion. The firefly hit the bus and the bus hits the firefly. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the firefly or the force on the bus?

If you answer that correctly, you will have to admit I am right. Will you answer it?

edit on 8/19/2011 by ANOK because: typo

What's an OSer? Sorry, that's a new label for me. It's always nice to be assigned a new label though. I know assigning a label to people always helps to try and discredit them, so we're moving right along on schedule.

Sorry, but your question makes no sense. What does a bug hitting a windshield have to do with anything?

Dropping a structure that weighs tens of thousands of tons on another structure is not dramatic? OK, if you say so. What exactly is "dramatic" then, in your mind?

Yes, both cars are damaged... Just like both sections of the building were mostly destroyed. Except for some chunks at the top, because they did not have enough mass piling down on top of them to completely destroy them, nor some sections on the outside perimeter of the bottoms, which is where the steel is thickest.

Like I said... Thousands of Engineers around the world have zero problem with any of this. Every other Engineer I have spoken with on the subject is completely baffled as to how anybody in their right mind can't understand this. I had a half hour conversation with someone that runs a demolition company that has imploded dozens of buildings... He laughed when we talked about some of the claims people have made. Anybody who knows how buildings are imploded, finds the claims people have made absolutely ridiculous. How many people who work in this field day in and day out, have to say the whole thing is absurd, before it sinks in? People need to ask themselves; what is it about this subject that makes me want to believe nutty claims on websites and radio shows, over the overwhelming majority of professionals out there.

But I'm curious... Why don't you tell me all about what you think 'really happened'.

reply to post by dpd11


Looking for your contribution to the facts or some kind of proof. How about it?

Yank
I have never seen those before. They're some perfect examples that made it fact in the first place. I don't know if this thread has scared them all off or whats up ? Lack of interest maybe?

reply to post by randyvs

I don't know if this thread has scared them all off or whats up ?

I get that alot, from both the OSers and the Official Truthers.

I'm not saying...I'm just saying....they bluster for a while and then they scatter like cockroaches.

Plus, I don't have a life for much of the year...don't watch TV, live and work on computers at home. I have an edge of accessibilty which I hope will help overcome their edge of numbers.

But it could just be my charming personality.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by dpd11

 

Looking for your contribution to the facts or some kind of proof. How about it?

Yank
I have never seen those before. They're some perfect examples that made it fact in the first place. I don't know if this thread has scared them all off or whats up ? Lack of interest maybe?

edit on 19-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

And by "facts", you basically mean anything pro conspiracy, I guess. Facts... like anything proving that people sacrificed themselves by flying planes into a specific floor on a building, so that thousands of tons of explosives that were secretly placed in the building without a single person noticing, were then exploded, leveling the entire building, yet leaving zero evidence of explosions... in a conspiracy that would involve thousands of people around the world, willingly working to kill thousands of their own countrymen, in the hopes of creating an excuse to start a conflict in countries that have caused us nothing but grief since then? No sorry, I don't have any facts to prove that.

Here's some facts I do have though... Tons of aviation fuel will allow a fire to burn much hotter, and for a much longer period of time, then the building was ever designed to withstand.... thereby burning off the ablative material on the steel structural pieces that would normally be enough to protect the building in a standard fire, which then leaves those structural steel pieces unprotected from the heat, so they then start warping. Once they start warping, they will deform under the stress of all the weight above them on the remaining undamaged structure, to the point where the steel in that section eventually collapses, allowing thousands of tons of mass to come crashing down onto the remaining structure and impacting, starting a cascade failure effect. As the failure continues down, it is collapsing each floor onto itself, and because the remainder of the undamaged floors are still positively charged with air, that air is pushed out the weakest part of the structure, which is the external windows... which in effect, is basically an explosion of sorts. So therefore, there is the visual effect of an explosion as that air is rapidly pushed out, along with any of the lighter debris. The forces at work are extreme, and no different than other catastrophic forces, such as earthquakes, tornados and floods. That's why you can have situations during something like a high level tornado, where numerous cars are pulled in and never found again... Not even the engine blocks remain. They are basically pounded into pieces by the impacts of objects slamming together with tremendous force. There's probably a lot of people that can't believe that either, but it happens.

So there's some facts of how a massive structure of that weight and size collapses, and why it looks the way it does. But I'm sure that won't make it on the list. There's no such thing as "undeniable proof', because on here... 10 thousand professionals that make a living doing this stuff could all say the same thing, and one person will come along and just say "that's not true and you're stupid for thinking it is". And there goes the 'fact'. And I'm sure this will be no exception.

reply to post by dpd11


First thing I'm going to say is, in no way are you stupid for posting any part of what is in your reply. K?

I can definetly understand, how you could be led to believe. that the fires were hot enough. However, I can again as an iroworker. Who has used a cutting torch, on structural steel of the exact same combined elements, that were present in the steel, used in the towers. That it was not even close to hot enough, to even begin to compromise even the slightest piece of steel. I doubt the fires were hot enough to compromise, even any of the break metal used there in. In my experience with these components ? If I were going to call anything a fact in what you mentioned, well, I'm sure you can see where I'm going here.

There's no way I can give you that one based on what I know to be the facts of day to day employment in a trade
that qualifies me to say my piece.

I know how it looks but I can't go against something I have lived everyday of my life for 25 years.

reply to post by dpd11

in a conspiracy that would involve thousands of people around the world, willingly working to kill thousands of their own countrymen

I'll bite...either they're psychotic (they are), or they're both psychotic and they recruited those other folks under the ruse that no one would die.

Don't brush it off...there were no bodies in the WTC, remember? Firefighters said they'd turned to dust, they couldn't find any bodies, and even the rescue dogs were getting depressed from not finding anyone, so people were hidiing in the rubble for the dogs to find.

There are no "leaked" images of bodies? Where are they? In our "War Pornography" society, no one has volumes of dead bodies and body parts?