Confused Truther physics with regards to Aircraft & Building impacts.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

I do feel for the trap the conspiracy movement is in. If you explicitly say CD, then it irritates the nuke, laser, and dustification crowds.

The movement cannot concede contracting steel caused inward bowing initiated collapse of the towers. Jones, Gauge, Wood would be out of jobs. Then it makes it even more clear WTC 7 did not need CD for collapse initiation.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

You saw my quote that a 1kg bird hitting a 747 at take off speed could generate a 4.2 TON load and you wonder why 1000 TON floor slabs some falling from 1300 plus feet crushing boddies between them leave such small pieces YOU are the embodiment of my thresd title

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Zcustosmorum


I am from Scotland SO not my government also my first job was in the DESIGN/DRAWING office of a structural steelwork company so I do KNOW what I am talking about

Explain how the steel vaporized and blew away in the wind..like most of it too.

Steelman lol.

I also suggest you look up what vaporised means tell you what I will save you the bother it means turning something into a gas yet it could not turn sheet rock or the sprayed on fite protection into gas want to explain that

a reply to: wmd_2008

I was talking to a lady today about a show called designated survivor Kiefer Sutherland is in it. Although I've never watched it revolves around 911. Just want to say I like what you had to say here.

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
Or you can just observe the way the building was destroyed

Watch to the end of that clip for the slomo.

That looks very much like it started from where the damage was rather than the base...

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
Or you can just observe the way the building was destroyed

Watch to the end of that clip for the slomo.

That looks very much like it started from where the damage was rather than the base...

You know, every time I've seen the towers fall, and it's a lot, I could swear they're falling from the base (both of them).

Common sense to me says that the only collapse should have occurred from point of impact upward, and to be expected to believe that jet fuel (that which didn't burn up on impact) somehow miraculously made it down to ground level, where there it somehow magically ignited to such a degree, it managed to melt the base in almost perfect uniformity in order to initiate collapse, not just once but twice, is ludicrous.

In summary, and from someone who still remembers the events of the day, it stinks.

Your government and military lies

We clearly use different dictionaries

From one Scot to another, you are nothing but a haverer, sir

a reply to: wmd_2008

Sorry I skimmed...

Is the OP suggesting that the OS is correct because of some of the more fringe theories?

I postulate that the fringe theories themselves were the product of a project to create a smoke screen or to muddy the water...

The simple fact is that those buildings didn't collapse in a way that can be explained by the OS... the 911 issue is rather like a huge jigsaw puzzle where each piece of the puzzle on its own doesn't hold much information, but when you start to look at all the pieces together, then a picture starts to emerge that looks very different from the OS.

Main points are: -

1. 1) The time interval between buildings sustaining damage and collapse.
   
   
2. 2) The rate of the collapse.
   
   
3. 3) The precision required to hit both buildings perfectly.
   
   
4. 4) The wider military and institutional responses and actions
   
   
5. 5) Building 7
   
   
6. 6) The Shanksville Crater
   
   

These six things do not stand up under scrutiny when applying the OS.

Therefore there is room for speculation, though I agree this should be done in a scientific manor...

Korg.

a reply to: mrthumpy

Good to know I've got a fan

That looks very much like it started from where the damage was rather than the base...

Only because the building had started falling into it's footprint first, the impact and jet fuel does not account for that

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: mrthumpy

Good to know I've got a fan

That looks very much like it started from where the damage was rather than the base...

Only because the building had started falling into it's footprint first, the impact and jet fuel does not account for that

Wow. Fascinating response. Thanks!

a reply to: mrthumpy

I don't know for sure, but I'm going to assume that you accepted the official line, it is that acceptance which means your perception is automatically influenced and you're going to see what you want to see.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: mrthumpy

I don't know for sure, but I'm going to assume that you accepted the official line, it is that acceptance which means your perception is automatically influenced and you're going to see what you want to see.

No I just did what anyone else reading your claim about the towers collapsing from the base can do

a reply to: Korg Trinity

Ok give your reasons re points 1 & 2 first of all.

I will give my answers to those.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Ok give your reasons re points 1 & 2 first of all.

I will give my answers to those.

Hold your horses there Gonzalez

You still haven't addressed my points or made any comment on the words of John Skilling I posted earlier.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Korg Trinity

Ok give your reasons re points 1 & 2 first of all.

I will give my answers to those.

Hold your horses there Gonzalez

You still haven't addressed my points or made any comment on the words of John Skilling I posted earlier.

In addition I might add that the OP has a few issues with comprehension... I would like to highlight the fact that I at no point stated my opinion or subscribed to any specific theory.

Simply that the OS does not stand up under scrutiny when addressing those six items.

If I had all the answers, I would be i'm sure dead right now.

Korg.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
Or you can just observe the way the building was destroyed

Watch to the end of that clip for the slomo.

That looks very much like it started from where the damage was rather than the base...

I agree unless they held the camera upside down sorry couldn't help it. I had to say it.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
Or you can just observe the way the building was destroyed

Watch to the end of that clip for the slomo.

That looks very much like it started from where the damage was rather than the base...

I agree unless they held the camera upside down sorry couldn't help it. I had to say it.

Depends on what you want to see apparently

a reply to: Korg Trinity


The first three points are easy as for the rest never got into the 911 stuff enough to know what your talking about.


but your first point the building held up as long as the damage it sustained couldn't be overcome by gravitational forces. Or in simle English it stayed up until the damage to the structure became to great.

point 2 The rate of collapse will be 9.81 meters (32.2 ft) per second every second minus any resistance on the way down. Dropping a ball off the twin towers would have taken it say 417 meter to the top . Means are object would take 9.23 seconds to hit the ground. I'm not sure the height the damage occurred but we could do the math and figure that out as well anything over that would be caused by the resistance from the building.


Point 3 I'm assuming you mean how hard would it be to hit the building? Wouldn't think it to be hard at all the building was a lot bigger than a runway and planes manage to hit that ok.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Korg Trinity


The first three points are easy as for the rest never got into the 911 stuff enough to know what your talking about.


but your first point the building held up as long as the damage it sustained couldn't be overcome by gravitational forces. Or in simle English it stayed up until the damage to the structure became to great.

point 2 The rate of collapse will be 9.81 meters (32.2 ft) per second every second minus any resistance on the way down. Dropping a ball off the twin towers would have taken it say 417 meter to the top . Means are object would take 9.23 seconds to hit the ground. I'm not sure the height the damage occurred but we could do the math and figure that out as well anything over that would be caused by the resistance from the building.


Point 3 I'm assuming you mean how hard would it be to hit the building? Wouldn't think it to be hard at all the building was a lot bigger than a runway and planes manage to hit that ok.

O.k. lets look at this...

Point one: - FACT - The South Tower of the World Trade Center collapses at 9:59 am, 56 minutes after the impact of Flight 175. The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 am, after burning for 102 minutes.

The OS has yet to explain how the entire building could entirely collapse after such a short length of time had passed since the damage was first sustained.

Point 2 - FACT - The South Tower collapsed according to Nist in around 11 seconds, and that the North tower collapsed in around 9 seconds....

There is much that could throw those values way off however and I acknowledge that. What is very very startling however is the fact that the collapse of both buildings underwent a period of acceleration... which I'm afraid cannot be answered by the OS.



Point 3 - Fact - All targets on 911 were struck with laser like precision.

It is startling to think that inexperienced pilots with little more than home computer flight sim and a single prop training could take the helm of such aircraft the size and sophistication as they did and strike all targets as accurately as they did.

There are many many many airline/military pilots with many thousands of hours of professional flight time that have said this was highly highly improbable if not entirely impossible.

But what makes this point particularly hard to swallow is the reasoning behind the lack of response from the military and agencies on that day... which is my point 4.


Korg.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

YOU haven't put anything of your own forward except conspiracy clichés like fire only being responsible you like others ignore the STUCTURAL DAMAGE

a reply to: Korg Trinity
Travelling home at the moment will answer your points later plus you seem to have poor quality lasers because the precision is not what you claim