# 9/11 Proof: Basic Physics. Can you handle it?



## PhysicsExist (Dec 15, 2010)

Have any of you heard about Mike Gravel?  He singlehandedly filibustered the Vietnam Draft, and read The Pentagon Papers for the public record.  You've probably heard of him.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQNzvb7r2f0[/ame]

This is definitely suitable for the Politics section, considering his political influences in the past, his political resume, and the political statements he is saying.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 15, 2010)

wrong forum, dipshit


----------



## Avatar4321 (Dec 16, 2010)

Seriously, you need to get off your political hobby and learn more about what's actually going on.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 16, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Seriously, you need to get off your political hobby and learn more about what's actually going on.



Im simply sharing the Press Conferences that the media does not show.  This is not a hobby, nor anything provocative. I just am providing intellectual people an avenue to look at alternative views of 9/11, especially since it's been in the news recently, and the BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ? campaign has just taken off.  Colorado Public Television just aired Loose Change An American Coup on Dec 4th.  It's better to be on the train while its still leaving the station, and having an open mind and taking off the blinders is the only way for you to get on before its too late.  You don't want this to all hit you at once when the mainstream media reports it, it will be too much....


----------



## editec (Dec 16, 2010)

He opposed the DRAFT?

Good for him.

Of course this means nothing as it pertains to 9-11, but thanks for bringing this guy to my attention.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 27, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f_hPtS7Lu4[/ame]

Mind boggling stuff. Visit their site at AE911Truth.org


----------



## Shooter (Dec 27, 2010)

This belongs in the Conspiracy Theory section.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 27, 2010)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCZrpAOpXq0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCZrpAOpXq0[/ame]


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 27, 2010)

KMPH-TV is a television station in Fresno, California broadcasting digitally on television channel 28, and is licensed to nearby Visalia. It is the Fresno-area affiliate of the Fox...


figures....


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 29, 2010)

Carbon Based Fires CANNOT melt steel, IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
2.25 seconds of free fall proves the fraud in the NIST report.

[ edited-no spamming-Meister
The truth is only getting stronger! I can only wait till the day this hits main stream media, that's when it is truly GAME OVER.

BuildingWhat.org


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Dec 29, 2010)

Umm...first...it didn't _melt_ the steel. 
Heat above 600 degrees creates a physical change in steel that weakens it.
The higher the temperature, the weaker steel gets. I think I knew this when I was 12.


Get over it.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 29, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Carbon Based Fires CANNOT melt steel, IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
> 2.25 seconds of free fall proves the fraud in the NIST report.
> 
> edited-no spamming-MeisterThe truth is only getting stronger! I can only wait till the day this hits main stream media, that's when it is truly GAME OVER.
> ...


 Good for him. Not everyone is an OCTASS --Official Conspiracy Theory Apologist Stupid Sheep


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 29, 2010)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Umm...first...it didn't _melt_ the steel.
> Heat above 600 degrees creates a physical change in steel that weakens it.
> The higher the temperature, the weaker steel gets. I think I knew this when I was 12.
> 
> ...



Steel does not melt until ~2700 Degrees.
600 Degrees is not even a FOURTH of that.
Your conclusion that 600 degrees could WEAKEN and cause a FULL and SUDDEN collapse of a 50 story sky scraper at FREE FALL ACCELERATION is only a slap in the face to YOURSELF.  That is such a disturbing statement I can't understand how you could think that's possible.

edited- no spamming-Meister
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zww9-AaIgrw[/ame]


----------



## daveman (Dec 29, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Carbon Based Fires CANNOT melt steel, IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.


Rosie O'Donnell, is that you?






Acetylene (systematic name: ethyne) is the chemical compound with the formula C2H2. *It is a hydrocarbon* and the simplest alkyne.​
Go be stupid somewhere else.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Dec 29, 2010)

Tell that to General Sherman.    All through GA there are still "Sherman's Neckties" where Union soldiers set steel rail over burning ties, and then ran them around trees.   They made all kinds of neat shapes with steel heated over wood.
















All that has to happen is that the integrity of the steel fails.  This starts to happen at 600*

This is how steel is processed at the mill.   You raise it over 1000*, then you form it.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 29, 2010)

Do you goes not know that difference between steel that has been MELTED, and steel that has been HEATED up to the temp it BENDS at?  There's a big difference between finding MOLTEN steel, then BENT steel.  WTC7, and the Towers had molten steel. Carbon based fires CANNOT melt steel into LIQUID STEEL  LIKE A FOUNDRY.  It can't do that unless it reaches temps of 2700+++++++++++++ Chairs, carpets, wood, people, jet fuel, THEY DO NOT GET THIS HOT.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM[/ame]

Stop trying to avoid the facts at hand and find some other reason and change physics so that your point is right.  Carbon fires do not melt steel, and buildings cannot free fall through the path of greatest resistance from an office fire. those are facts.


----------



## daveman (Dec 29, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Carbon based fires CANNOT melt steel.



You keep saying that.  You keep being wrong.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 29, 2010)

daveman said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Carbon based fires CANNOT melt steel.
> ...



Please direct me to where Physics allow for Carbon Based fires (Chairs, Paper, Carpets) can reach temps that melt steel into liquid?  They don't reach 2700 degrees, so they can't.  So why do you keep saying 'im wrong', when in reality, for steel to become a liquid metal, it needs to be heated up to 2700 degrees?  Paper and wood and jet fuel fires cannot do this.  I am not wrong, you are in DENIAL.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM[/ame]


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 29, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Umm...first...it didn't _melt_ the steel.
> ...


I believe he meant 600C, not F.  At that temperature, steel loses half it's strength and then rapidly loses the rest as temperatures climb.  You would think someone of your massive ego would know that.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> Your conclusion that 600 degrees could WEAKEN and cause a FULL and SUDDEN collapse of a 50 story sky scraper at FREE FALL ACCELERATION is only a slap in the face to YOURSELF.  That is such a disturbing statement I can't understand how you could think that's possible.


The fact you're too big an ignorant fuck to believe all 80+ columns had to be cut simultaniously yet there IS NO EXPLOSION to be heard means you questioning anyone else's intelligence is just downright silly.

BTW, what difference does it make if an NFL player joins your fucked up ignorant cause?  Is he an expert in engineering?  No.  Is he an expert in anything other than maybe football?  Doubtful.  So all he can offer is his opinion.  Opinions are like assholes.  Everyone's got one.  Yours smells like ass.


----------



## daveman (Dec 29, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



You said, "Carbon based fires CANNOT melt steel."  This is, of course, wrong.  Acetylene burns in air at 2,200° C to 2,400° C -- 3,992 degrees° F to 4,352° F.

Therefore, carbon-based fires CAN melt steel.  Stop repeating your fallacy.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 29, 2010)

daveman said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



WTC7 and the Towers were sprayed and filled with Acetylene Gas throughout the entire buildings then is your reason?  That is the most disturbing rebuttal I've witnessed from a level minded person.  

There is no Acetylene in those buildings, there is regular office fires and jet fuel fires.



> Acetylene is a colorless, combustible gas with a distinctive odor. When acetylene is liquefied, compressed, heated, or mixed with air, it becomes highly explosive



You're saying this was present throughout the WTC's?  You are that afraid of the TRUTH? Eeeee its worse than I thought for some people.

Address the facts of that day, dont make up different elements that were present that day in NYC.  MOLTEN STEEL CANNOT BE CREATED FROM FIRES CAUSED BY JET FUEL OR CARBON BASED FIRES FROM CHAIRS AND CARPETS, its impossible to liquify steel with these.

Stop playing games and address the facts.


----------



## daveman (Dec 29, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


I don't share your delusions.  I addressed the glaringly wrong fact you opened this thread with, and I shot it out of the saddle.  

You don't like it?  Too damn bad.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2010)

Still waiting for physical proof that *Steel* was melted that day. We've heard it from reporters and firemen, but no one has produced any of this molten steel. I see the cars that were smashed up, might have been some plastic melted but if the steel on those cars melted why do they still have things like tires and steering wheels?


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Dec 29, 2010)

I've not heard there was molten steel before.   The failure was because the buildings reached temperatures high enough so that the frame could not support the weight on top if it.

That said, how did we manufacture steel for hundreds of years, back to the days when it was first made, without carbon?

What was Carnegie using all that coal for?   Coal is carbon based, innit?


----------



## Patriot911 (Dec 29, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> Still waiting for physical proof that *Steel* was melted that day. We've heard it from reporters and firemen, but no one has produced any of this molten steel. I see the cars that were smashed up, might have been some plastic melted but if the steel on those cars melted why do they still have things like tires and steering wheels?



Truthtards like to pretend that any molten metal MUST be steel.  Anyone who mentions molten steel MUST be an absolute expert metalurgist who knows how to distinguish different molten metals on site according to these ignorant pricks.


----------



## daveman (Dec 29, 2010)

Patriot911 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for physical proof that *Steel* was melted that day. We've heard it from reporters and firemen, but no one has produced any of this molten steel. I see the cars that were smashed up, might have been some plastic melted but if the steel on those cars melted why do they still have things like tires and steering wheels?
> ...


And football players.  Don't forget the football players.  Because the NFL gives its players classes in metallurgy and thermodynamics.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 29, 2010)

Pay no attention to the coal behind the dripping steel.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 29, 2010)

Rat in the Hat said:


> Pay no attention to the coal behind the dripping steel.



http://www.youtube.com/ae911truth#p/u/12/kJwE65Y32Y4

U.S. Government lied about molten steel found at Ground Zero after 9/11 | 9-11 News | World for 9-11 Truth | W9T.org


----------



## daveman (Dec 29, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> If your rebuttal to the fact that Carbon Based fires CANNOT melt steel into liquid, is that IT CAN, WITH Acetylene.  If that is your case, then please explain how this is a logical explanation for the WTC melted beams and molten steel? _Acetylene is a colorless, combustible gas with a distinctive odor. When acetylene is liquefied, compressed, heated, or mixed with air, it becomes highly explosive_
> 
> Why would you suggest this product is present in the WTC's?
> 
> Man up to your claim.


I never claimed acetylene was present.  That was the voices in your head.

You shouldn't listen to them.  They're not very reliable.


PhysicsExist said:


> Visit the sites and enlighten yourself.  The level of denial you're in will only get worse if you continue.  and you dont wanna sound/look like DiveCon.


Better to sound like DiveCon than Rosie I do believe that its the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel" O'Donnell, there, nutcase.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 29, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Pay no attention to the coal behind the dripping steel.
> ...



OK, Rosie.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Dec 29, 2010)

What I can't figure is why the dufuses are so intent that something other than large aircraft weighing many tons containing thousands of gallons of Kerosine crashing and burning into these buildings were not the proximate cause of their collapse.    Something else had to be responsible.   any weird straw they can grab has to be more responsible than what we actually saw.

The whole issue of 9-11 was not the collapse of the buildings.   The issue of 9-11 was the hijacking of four aircraft and the use of them as missiles.  The Pentagon still stands, as does whatever target flight 93 was going to hit.   The structural collapse is not the issue.

If the buildings had not collapsed, there would still be over 3000 casualties from the assault.   There would still be four hijacked airliners, and all the people who died in those events.

The issue is not why aren't the buildings still standing.    The issue is who highjacked the aircraft.   And that is what we need to deal with.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 29, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> > Umm...first...it didn't _melt_ the steel.
> ...



excellent,well said.the OCTA'S always ignore the fact that it wasnt even hot enough to melt a melt a marshmellow.let alone weaken the steel. they obviously slept through science classes cause they would know the black smoke omitting indicated it was oxygen starved which is why in the pics you see that lady with her hand on the steel cause its not hot at all.the other thing the OCTA"s cant get around is that the tapes that were released,you hear the firefighters saying the fires arent serious at all and should be put out very shortly before the bombs went off and brought the towers down.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 29, 2010)

daveman said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Carbon Based Fires CANNOT melt steel, IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
> ...



thats what you do an excellent job around here doing in this section on this topic Dunceman. you might want to take your own advise.


----------



## daveman (Dec 29, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


Do you agree with the moron in the OP when he says "Carbon Based Fires CANNOT melt steel, IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE"?

Because, you know, I proved that's wrong.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > Pay no attention to the coal behind the dripping steel.
> ...



Your video lies on many levels.....


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2010)

Tell us again how long it took Building 7 to fall.


This is important because Mr Mark Stepnoski (of whom I had great respect as a Member of the great Dallas Cowboys) Seems to not know the facts.

"Building Number 7 didn't get hit by a plane and it went straight down in six and a half seconds. "
http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071104/FOOTBALL04/711040515/-1/FOOTBALL}

6 1/2 seconds? Really? And you base a whole thread on his knowledge?


----------



## candycorn (Dec 29, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Carbon Based Fires CANNOT melt steel, IT IS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
> 2.25 seconds of free fall proves the fraud in the NIST report.
> 
> edited-no spamming-Meister The truth is only getting stronger! I can only wait till the day this hits main stream media, that's when it is truly GAME OVER.
> ...



So we can look forward to you stating this on PF and AWE in a few days CD?  

Whose Mark Stepnosky?  A football player...and you think this makes a case stronger?


----------



## Obamerican (Dec 29, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > iamwhatiseem said:
> ...


Thanks for proving, ONCE AGAIN, that you're a fucking idiot. Shut the fuck up, shit stain.


----------



## Mini 14 (Dec 29, 2010)

On a somewhat related note, Mike Tyson says OJ was innocent.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 29, 2010)

they pick apart and find little tiny discrepancies in our posts and ignore the facts and try and change the subject lol

Carbon Based fires (carpets, wood, paper) cannot reach the temp to MELT STEEL INTO LIQUID.  In turn they respond to this with YOU ARE A LIAR BECAUSE WELDING USING CARBON BASED GASES THAT COUNT AS CARBON BASED FIREZ.

How about you address the facts about how there is no material that could cause an office fire to reach 2700 degrees in those buildings, so how is molten steel and molten concrete found throughout the rubble? 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbkl81qwEMA[/ame]

Freefall for 2.25 seconds is impossible through the path of greatest resistance, unless that resistance is NOT THERE.  How do you remove 8 floors (100+ feet) of structural steel building?  It's wider than a football field, office fires could NOT and DID NOT melt/buckle 8 floors and cause a freefall collapse. It is impossible, why do you over look this fact?  You instead say Carbon Based Fires could melt steel, but only provide a welding gas as your carbon based fuel. Disturbing rebuttals and effort when you are seeking the 'truth'.  You'd think the person would try to actually know the facts before speaking about how Carbon Based Fires of carpet and paper could melt steel and cause free fall acceleration LOL


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Dec 30, 2010)

But no one is saying steel melted into liquid but you guys.

And carbon based fuels are all we have ever had to melt steel for a thousand years.   Did the Damascenes use Florine to make their swords?     Are you seriously suggesting that?


Here is a chart of various metals melting points.  

Aluminum melts at 660*.   I am sure there was a lot of aluminum in the towers.  Maybe lots of zinc and brass.    I don't know if they used much nickel, but it has a low melting point.    The only really high melting point metal in the list is tungsten at 3000 degrees.

The whole argument about the steels is they gave up structural integrity. The portion of the towers beneath the fires was crunched by the weight of the upper stories.

People who have a clue, think people without clues trying to out guess the folks who know are demented.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 30, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> But no one is saying steel melted into liquid but you guys.
> 
> And carbon based fuels are all we have ever had to melt steel for a thousand years.   Did the Damascenes use Florine to make their swords?     Are you seriously suggesting that?
> 
> ...


 You seem to put some thought into your reply, you don't call people names etc I can respect that even though we have our differences. With that said,
 The melted/molten steel is a reference to what was lingering under all 3 buildings for 3 months, look it up it has never happened before, and it is said could only occur by the use of highly incendiary devices.  But what gets me about the collapses is that the buildings fell so symmetrical, as though all the critical points of the weight bearing connections let go in a controlled fashion. I know heat distorts steel and metals, I've worked with torches and did some welding for a living, but the thinking goes, if the heat distorted the crucial points of the building, how did it get to all the critical points, when the same amount of heat  placed on one end of a beam, can not transfer itself with the same intensity to these other points! 
Bottom line is that all the buildings displayed almost all the characteristics of a CD, which caused many many people to become suspicious. This could all be put to rest if not for the unwillingness of the government to conduct a new investigation with both sides bringing in everything and everyone forward to testify. The 9-11 commission members have even said they were stonewalled. How can people have confidence with them saying that? But you are also correct in stating what I did in my thread. That even if the buildings would not have collapsed, there was still a severe breach in security, and warnings ignored, which then brings up a whole other can of worms.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Dec 30, 2010)

daveman said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


 C'mon man that is ridiculous LOL, What the OP is merely trying to point out is that awareness is being generated about WTC 7, and is encouraged by more people wanting to know more. You don't have to be an expert to see with your own eyes, and read for yourself that there is a lot left out of the "official account of events".


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 30, 2010)

yeah, fire cant cause steel to lose its structural integrity

Bridge collapses after tanker accident - Bing Videos

oops
how did THAT happen?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 30, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> But no one is saying steel melted into liquid but you guys.
> 
> And carbon based fuels are all we have ever had to melt steel for a thousand years.   Did the Damascenes use Florine to make their swords?     Are you seriously suggesting that?
> 
> ...


isnt nickel used to coat the drywall screws?


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Dec 30, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > But no one is saying steel melted into liquid but you guys.
> ...



You have a lot of continus cooking at high temperature (kerosene and the like, burning carpets, you have seen burning plastic, haven't you?  ) keeping the temperature at a high level for over an hour.

Also bear in mind that a huge number of supporting beams on at least one side (and a bunch more on a second side ) of both  buildings were broken.

YOur main issue is with two things.  One, is the symmetry of the collapse.    This is due to a common misunderstanding of how things fall down from watching too many paul Bunyan pictures.   A tree falls sideways because it can't go down.   There is more tree there.

In a building, most of what is inside is air.  Any object that falls will fall in  a strait trajectory being pulled by gravity from the center of the mass.  In the case of the world trade center, as each floor fails under the percussive slam of the floors above, it fails in sequence and the load continues in its direct path.  Each level only was constructed with a live load requirement of what was on that floor, not 20 stories of building ramming on it at once.

(remember here, in WTC 1 and 2 the girders were there to take the load from the upper levels down.  The runners from the center to the outside supported the live load of each floor. When the girders going up and down lost the load for the floors that failed, the top 20 stores became the live load for each floor in sequence as the buildings compacted.  Each floor broke in sequence as the connections from the runners to the girders were unable to handle the percussive load.)

WTC 7 had fires that raged continuously for 7 hours.   The supports lost a lot of strength due to that.  (Some numb nuts had the bright idea of storing large amounts of diesel fuel on the top floors to run generators up there.   When that broke loose and caught fire, that didn't help much either.)

WTC7 also had a huge amount of material scooped out by the crashing of WTC 1 and 2

Since the building is mostly air, when it collapsed, the failure would go strait down, rather than in a leaning tipping motion many imagine.    The whole structure was compromised and the whole thing let go from the bottom up, and the top went down as the bottom gave out beneath.
The issue with the fires is they caused expansion of the joists running from the center to the outside, and the joists were under continuous  heat for over an hour.   Thermal expansion caused the links to the supports to break, and caused the joists were unable to handle the load, and so they failed.  You had several different thermal failures working together, and the top 1/3 of the building just could not be held up any more and began compacting the lower 2/3.

This structure wasn't beam and girder like most previous construction.   There was no support except from the outside frame to the inside frame.

As for the insults, bear in mind folks have been arguing about this forever and the same silly stuff keeps getting put up and knocked over.    It is exasperating.  People who argue it get very angry at how truthers just won't learn  basic stuff.

Now with Occams razor, we slice up every alternative theory.    Running det cord through the buildings in the manner suggested by some would have resulted in thousands of guys running miles of cord through the structures.  It would have taken weeks of prep, and an army of demolition guys, and you thing folks would not have noticed.

Same thing with Thermite.  

Getting the thing to go in a controlled demo would require too many people to see what was going on and not notice or talk.   Or for that matter, ask questions.   Like why is all this laundry line running everywhere, and it is in the way, so I will just cut it so it won't bother me kind of problems.

Dynamite just won't work as an argument, nor will det cord, nor will thermite.

Continuous cooking, thermal failure and expansion and compression do work as explanations very well.   The explanation that requires less goofy things to happen is the more accurate explanation, as is the explanation that takes into account the principles of engineering, heat transfer, and strength of materials.


I have to admit this is the first time I have noticed the argument that there were streams of molten metals.    But there are several metals that melt at temperatures substantially below that that of the fires, and steel will fail at those temperature as well, especially under continuos application.


----------



## daveman (Dec 30, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> In turn they respond to this with YOU ARE A LIAR BECAUSE WELDING USING CARBON BASED GASES THAT COUNT AS CARBON BASED FIREZ.


Acetylene is a hydrocarbon.  This is irrefutable.  You only make yourself look even stupider, if possible, when you try.


----------



## daveman (Dec 30, 2010)

Mr. Jones said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...


You see, that's horseshit.  You moron troofers will accept anyone who shares your delusions...but dismiss that those who don't because they don't have degrees.

Speaking of being dismissed...you are.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 30, 2010)

daveman said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


hell they reject all facts in favor of their paranoid delusions


----------



## daveman (Dec 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Jones said:
> ...


In case of a discrepancy between reality and a troofer...reality is wrong.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 30, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

The same guy claiming welding gas melted the steel beams probably accepts the NIST model for WTC7 collapse as well, right?







It's downright embarrassing to accept this model and investigation as the truth.  open your eyes, close your mouths, and think.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 30, 2010)

Who was the NFL Great?


If he wasn't a Steeler, his opinion on the melting of the steel means nothing

If he was a former Jet, he could tell you all about the planes


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 30, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3phr8mwU-24[/ame]

Jaw dropping, it has begun.  2011 is going to be insane.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 30, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded
> 
> The same guy claiming welding gas melted the steel beams probably accepts the NIST model for WTC7 collapse as well, right?
> 
> ...


NO ONE CLAIMED that you pathetic moron
sheeeesh
you guys never get analogies


btw, that frame work doesnt include the outside walls
which is another thing you fucking morons never understand


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Dec 30, 2010)

He knows football..  Does he know elemental physics?    His wiki article states he attended the University of Pittsburgh.   Doesn't say what his major was, or if he completed college.   I would guess his major field of study was the cheerleaders though.

I yield to him in his knowledge of football.    But he is just one more US citizen with one more opinion when it comes to what happened that day.

I am more inclined listen to someone with a PHD in engineering than a guy with super bowl rings in this discussion.    But when it comes to playing football, I think he would be the better person to listen to than the guy with the PhD in Engineering.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 30, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> I am more inclined listen to someone with a PHD in engineering than a guy with super bowl rings in this discussion.    But when it comes to playing football, I think he would be the better person to listen to than the guy with the PhD in Engineering.



I see you don't accept supporters of the cause unless they are 'smart' enough to know what they're talking about.  This should satisfy you then.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23n0Vr_A1TQ&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFM_36jvDiA[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc[/ame]

Sign the Petition

Mark Stepnoski is a supporter and contributer.  Not a scientist.  He states that.  But you dont need to be a scientist to use your eyeballs and read facts. 

Those videos should satisfy whatever doubt you have left, if it doesn't you are on your own, DENIAL is one of the worst habits to keep up.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded
> ...



This guy just said that.  The people who stand behind this person, and help promote the fallacies he claims, should be ashamed to call themselves Human.

Sign the Petition

You can't handle the truth AT ALL.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 30, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


no, it you that cant handle the truth
you fucking moronic idiot
'and stop your fucking SPAMMING


----------



## daveman (Dec 30, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> The same guy claiming welding gas melted the steel beams...


Nobody's done that here, you dishonest moron.

If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Dec 30, 2010)

For WTC7...

two problems with your movie.   It only shows the top 10 floors, not what is going on the east side or on the bottom.

also the fires went on for seven hours with no cooling from fire suppression systems.    The collapse  came from three different structural failures due to long term heating.

1) Thermal expansion of the metal.  This broke apart the concrete on the metal, pushed supports apart, warped the beams, and snapped the connections.

2)  weakening of the metal's ability to support the load.   At the observed temperatures steel looses 70% of its strength. 



A model is  just a simulation.  but works from known behaviors.  You have weak metal loosing connections, spreading, warping, the building will fall down.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 30, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded
> 
> The same guy claiming welding gas melted the steel beams probably accepts the NIST model for WTC7 collapse as well, right?
> 
> ...



You are attempting to compare the facade to the internal skeleton of the building.. That dog don't hunt.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 30, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded
> ...


as i already told him
hes clearly too fucking stupid to understand


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 30, 2010)

SFC Ollie said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded
> ...



If you really think that is a logical explanation for this model, that it's just the 'skeleton' of the building, not the facade, you are blind, because that it is impossible.  Wake up and stop playing games.  Carbon Based fires in an office building do not reach 2700 degrees to melt and create molten steel.  Carbon Based fires cannot symmetrically burn 8 floors and simultaneously blow out each support beam.  Wake up.  2.25 seconds of free fall means the floors were blown out at the exact same time. wake up.  The NIST MODEL is ILLOGICAL, WRONG, and downright EMBARRASSING.  for you to say 'its not showing the facade, only the internal skeleton" really shows your thinking ability.  You guys need to stop playing this disgusting game.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 30, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


you are too fucking stupid to get it
its not showing the facade at all
that wasnt what they were looking at it was the structural steel they were looking at
its clear from the images, if you actually know what you are looking at


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Dec 30, 2010)

We need to write down 100000000000 times that THE STEEL DID NOT MELT and he still won't  get it.

Maybe other metals there might have melted, but the steel failed, it did not melt.

those who know other languages might try typing it out in Hebrew, Russian, german , French, Korean, Farsi, Japanese, Armenian, Turkish, Greek, Spanish, Italian, Serbo Croatian, Xhosa, Mandarin, Portuguese.... just in case he doesn't understand english.    The Steel did not melt.

Yeesh.


----------



## eots (Dec 30, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> He knows football..  Does he know elemental physics?    His wiki article states he attended the University of Pittsburgh.   Doesn't say what his major was, or if he completed college.   I would guess his major field of study was the cheerleaders though.
> 
> I yield to him in his knowledge of football.    But he is just one more US citizen with one more opinion when it comes to what happened that day.
> 
> I am more inclined listen to someone with a PHD in engineering than a guy with super bowl rings in this discussion.    But when it comes to playing football, I think he would be the better person to listen to than the guy with the PhD in Engineering.



well there is some validity to your statement but you should keep in mind that your entire knowledge of the NIST report could fit on the end of a pin


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Dec 30, 2010)

What would be more impressive would be Richard Feynman on the importance of the forward pass in football.


----------



## eots (Dec 30, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> What would be more impressive would be Richard Feynman on the importance of the forward pass in football.



or you on being inane


----------



## eots (Dec 30, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> We need to write down 100000000000 times that THE STEEL DID NOT MELT and he still won't  get it.
> 
> Maybe other metals there might have melted, but the steel failed, it did not melt.
> 
> ...



so FEMA the first responders and steel workers on site lied ? and how does this speak to the issue that according to NIST there is zero evidence in forensic testing  of  temperatures anywhere near those required for failure


----------



## slackjawed (Dec 30, 2010)

Why use a lowly football player of dubious forensic skills to defend your point when you have a world leader on your side?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...werful-911-truther-in-the-known-universe.html


Shit, bring out the big guns if you got them. 


Besides, how credible can someone who makes a living taking head injuries be?


----------



## eots (Dec 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



So why did the entire external structures progressively collapsing within the building not create a incredible noise ,massive amounts of dust, broken windows failure of portions of the facade ?


----------



## eots (Dec 30, 2010)

you forgot the German minister of defense who could arguably be more powerful in reality and also the leader of the Japanese opposition part...and when it come to intellectual power and experience then citing top level NASA engineers like Deets or Robert Bowman would be much more powerful ..don't  you think ?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 30, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


dipshit, because the structural steel gave way
sheeesh you are an idiot


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 30, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > I am more inclined listen to someone with a PHD in engineering than a guy with super bowl rings in this discussion.    But when it comes to playing football, I think he would be the better person to listen to than the guy with the PhD in Engineering.
> ...



Ignoring the facts and videos and just talking nonsense instead.  The world needs less of you kinds of people, why are they all on Forums? Because of the anonymity they have.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 30, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> We need to write down 100000000000 times that THE STEEL DID NOT MELT and he still won't  get it.
> 
> Maybe other metals there might have melted, but the steel failed, it did not melt.
> 
> ...



It didnt?











This is NOT aluminum. 

It didn't?






It didn't?

QUOTE OF FEMA: 





> *Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.*



It didn't?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E[/ame]

*What else can I do but show you the facts over and over until what?  Address these points, or do not post a response.  It's embarrassing.*

If you want to apologize I will gladly accept your apology.  This is not a joke, I take this 9/11 fraud seriously.  We have soldiers over seas, I have friends overseas, we have spent trillions over there, we have effected millions, we have enabled TSA, DHS, the Patriot Act....We have be duped, and you are only holding the truth back by stating fallacies.  Respond to the facts, stop playing these games...ACKNOWLEDGE steel that melt from FIRES that CANNOT melt it.  ACKNOWLEDGE FREEFALL acceleration during wtc7 collapse, ACKNOWLEDGE the videos and architects and physics.  Take off the blinders.

Happy New Year. 2011 is ours.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 30, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



You are yet to prove that there was as much as a single droplet of molten steel.


----------



## eots (Dec 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



silently ?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 30, 2010)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


clearly not from explosives


----------



## Mad Scientist (Dec 30, 2010)

The NIST video of building seven does make you think. I mean, why did they edit out the penthouse collapsing?

One second it's there, next it's gone. Who di dat an wha hoppen? 

Disclaimer: I never played football professionally but when I did I always remembered to wear my helmet.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 31, 2010)

Stepnoski is a Cowboy and understands roping and wrasslin cows

You need to talk to a Steeler like Terry Bradshaw for the physics of steel structures


----------



## slackjawed (Dec 31, 2010)

eots said:


> you forgot the German minister of defense who could arguably be more powerful in reality and also the leader of the Japanese opposition part...and when it come to intellectual power and experience then citing top level NASA engineers like Deets or Robert Bowman would be much more powerful ..don't  you think ?



I suppose one could argue that. However; I feel that adjernutjob is more powerful because he is able to threaten the west and Israel and be taken seriously.

I would grant you that his "intellectual power" is pretty tiny. But then that seems to be the norm for twoofers. before you post another dumbass youtube quoting 45 engineers and architects claiming bush did 911, I would offer that i spent over 25 years working in the engineering field. I can honestly say that architects are usually the most dense, egotistical dumbasses to draw a paycheck. Engineers can be just as dumb, especially if they never leave their office and get out to look at the real world. 

The term "educated fool" is not just a meaningless pair of words.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 31, 2010)

Can I get a link showing Stepnoski is an NFL great ?
He is not in the HOF


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Dec 31, 2010)

Also he was an offensive lineman.    Not a quarterback.

Linemen aren't known for being intellectual giants.

Or football players in general.    There has been nothing like Moe Berg in professional football.


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 31, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> Also he was an offensive lineman.    Not a quarterback.
> 
> Linemen aren't known for being intellectual giants.
> 
> Or football players in general.    There has been nothing like Moe Berg in professional football.



Moe Berg the spy?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 31, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

After watching the video and listening to the *facts* presented through *basic physics* and video analysis, what is your take?

Can you handle it?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Dec 31, 2010)

they cant.Havent you learned YET that they wont watch a video that proves the official version wrong? you are trying to reason with Bush dupes who slept through science classes obviously.they dont have a clue about the laws of physics.


----------



## Obamerican (Dec 31, 2010)

9/11 inside job said:


> they cant.Havent you learned YET that they wont watch a video that proves the official version wrong? you are trying to reason with Bush dupes who slept through science classes obviously.they dont have a clue about the laws of physics.


You were never in science class, you fucking moron.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 31, 2010)

Obamerican, care to address the topic at hand, or are you just going to deflect from it and avoid the video?  The truth hurts I know, but you shouldn't be fearful of it...

Respond to the video analysis.  What do you think now that these basic physics were shown to you?


----------



## Obamerican (Dec 31, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3phr8mwU-24
> 
> Jaw dropping, it has begun.  2011 is going to be insane.


Jaw dropping???? You're an idiot.

*HEY LOOK!!!!!!! A PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYER BELIEVES IN MY VERSION OF PHYSICAL SCIENCE!!!! LOOK MOM!!!!!!*


----------



## Obamerican (Dec 31, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Obamerican, care to address the topic at hand, or are you just going to deflect from it and avoid the video?  The truth hurts I know, but you shouldn't be fearful of it...
> 
> Respond to the video analysis.  What do you think now that these basic physics were shown to you?


I watched the Kingdome brought down in person and have seen countless videos of controlled demolitions. The two WTC towers do not fit the criteria for a CD.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 31, 2010)

Obamerican said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican, care to address the topic at hand, or are you just going to deflect from it and avoid the video?  The truth hurts I know, but you shouldn't be fearful of it...
> ...



F**king Disturbing.

Knowing the basic physics shown and proven in this video, how did the video analysis prove Controlled Demolition?  Care to address the facts and take off the blinders?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 31, 2010)

Obamerican said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3phr8mwU-24
> ...



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgZNzrZr3fI[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9mbotpeuJM[/ame]


----------



## rightwinger (Dec 31, 2010)

Stepnoski, Ventura, Rosie O'Donnell, Charlie Sheen..........


----------



## Obamerican (Dec 31, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


Both WTC's collapsed, yes COLLAPSED, due to their unique design. Show me another building in the world that was built where the outside walls are held in place by TRUSSES!!!


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Dec 31, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> > Also he was an offensive lineman.    Not a quarterback.
> ...



That one.

From the wiki


> A graduate of Princeton University and Columbia Law School, Berg spoke several languages and regularly read 10 newspapers a day. His reputation was fueled by his successful appearances as a contestant on the radio quiz show Information, Please! in which he answered questions about the derivation of words and names from Greek and Latin, historical events in Europe and the Far East, and ongoing international conferences.
> 
> As a spy working for the government of the United States, Berg traveled to Yugoslavia to gather intelligence on resistance groups the U.S. government was considering supporting. He was then sent on a mission to Italy, where he interviewed various physicists concerning the German nuclear program.





> Herb Hunter arranged for a group of All-Stars, including Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Earl Averill, Charlie Gehringer, Jimmie Foxx and Lefty Gomez, to tour Japan playing exhibitions against a Japanese all-star team. Despite the fact that Berg was a mediocre, third-string catcher, he was invited at the last minute to make the trip. Among the items Berg took with him to Japan were a 16-mm Bell and Howell movie camera and a letter from MovietoneNews, a New York City newsreel production company with which Berg had contracted to film the sights of his trip. When the team arrived in Japan, he gave a welcome speech in Japanese and also addressed the legislature.
> On November 29, 1934, while the rest of the team was playing in Omiya, Berg went to Saint Luke's Hospital in Tsukiji, ostensibly to visit the daughter of American ambassador Joseph Grew. Instead, Berg sneaked onto the roof of the hospital, one of the tallest buildings in Tokyo, and filmed the city and harbor with his movie camera. He never did see the ambassador's daughter. Back at home, the Indians gave him his unconditional release. Berg continued on to the Philippines, Korea and Moscow.[29]


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 31, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Stepnoski, Ventura, Rosie O'Donnell, Charlie Sheen..........



Actors Rosie O'Donnell & Charlie Sheen
NFL Player Mark Stepnoski
You seemed to forget (on purpose)
Senator Mike Gravel, 
Governor Ventura,
Democratic Party of Japan lawmaker Yukihisa Fujita
German Defense Minister Andreas Von Buelow

I could add more.  This pretty much sums up how you are just a nuisance to these topics, and are fearful of the truth.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 31, 2010)

Obamerican said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...



Once again:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

After watching the video and listening to the *facts* presented through *basic physics* and video analysis, what is your take?

Can you handle it?


Care to address the FACTS that PROVE it was NOT a COLLAPSE which you KEEP FALSELY stating?  Wouldn't you actually want to know what you were talking about?  Physics prove your view is 100% incorrect.  The collapse theory is impossible.  

This video proves CD.  Watch it, stop being afraid.  I thought you could handle it considering you're so sure of yourself and the 9/11 story from the Govt.

 Debate these points if you're so sure that "_The two WTC towers do not fit the criteria for a CD"_

I don't think you're man enough to stand up for that statement.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 31, 2010)

thats nothing but more of your paranoid delusions


----------



## Queen (Dec 31, 2010)

I thought you freaks believed those puffs of smoke were bombs inside the building. LOL!


----------



## Intense (Dec 31, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> thats nothing but more of your paranoid delusions



Not buying the Sale item here. 12 floors + 12 floors = 24 floors coming down on the rest, compounding speed, weight, and mass, as it drops. The types of structures in the comparison are dissimilar too. Two of the same types of structures are what should be compared here. You would be better off researching design flaws with WTC design. There were many. There were strong arguments against building it in the first place.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 31, 2010)

Intense said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > thats nothing but more of your paranoid delusions
> ...


exactly


----------



## Obamerican (Dec 31, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


The building in the video where they use hydraulics to collapse the center section is not even built like the WTC!!

Once again, name another building built like the WTC!!


----------



## eots (Dec 31, 2010)

Intense said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > thats nothing but more of your paranoid delusions
> ...



nonsense..what building codes have made changed as a resullt of the collapse of any of the three buildings ?


----------



## Obamerican (Dec 31, 2010)

eots said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


What in the hell does that even mean?


----------



## eots (Dec 31, 2010)

Queen said:


> I thought you freaks believed those puffs of smoke were bombs inside the building. LOL!



Why do you even speak when you have no clue ?...I have no doubt you are another one of these that does not even know the basics of the offical investigations  you blindly support


----------



## hortysir (Dec 31, 2010)

Asking AGAIN;
How many steel-structured buildings have been collapsed by burning jet fuel that would determine that it's physically impossible for one to collapse in this manner?


----------



## eots (Dec 31, 2010)

hortysir said:


> Asking AGAIN;
> How many steel-structured buildings have been collapsed by burning jet fuel that would determine that it's physically impossible for one to collapse in this manner?



kerosene fuel does not burn at high temperature it just sounds dramatic to say "jet fuel" and no jet hit wtc 7


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 31, 2010)

eots said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Asking AGAIN;
> ...


sure it cant
National Geographic TV Debunks 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Monday | NewsBusters.org


----------



## Intense (Dec 31, 2010)

eots said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...






Construction began in 1966 and cost an estimated $1.5 billion. One World Trade Center was ready for its first tenants in late 1970, though the upper stories were not completed until 1972; Two World Trade Center was finished in 1973. Excavation to bedrock 70 feet below produced the material for the Battery Park City landfill project in the Hudson River. *When complete, the Center met with mixed reviews,* but at 1,368 and 1,362 feet and 110 stories each, the twin towers were the world's tallest, and largest, buildings until the Sears Tower surpassed them both in 1974.

The World Trade Center: Statistics and History




Overcome by emotion, he silently showed more of the now-familiar images from that days aftermath. In a soft voice, he began to talk about the comparative blast power of the two planes fuel loads. The Oklahoma City bomb that destroyed the federal building, for example, was the equivalent of 192 liters of jet fuel. The Boeing 767 that hit the first tower was estimated to be carrying 45,600 liters of fuel.

"A lot of people have told me, You should have used more concrete in the structure," Robertson said. (A concrete-and-steel frame is believed to be more fire-resistant.) He showed a chart plotting the strength-versus-temperature-performance of steel and concrete. At the incendiary levels that raged in the towers, the two materials differ little in performance.

Original WTC Engineer




You might like to study this.

Chapter 2 - The WTC Report.


----------



## hortysir (Dec 31, 2010)

eots said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Asking AGAIN;
> ...


So that's "none".

The point is, to you and your paranoid friends, that there is no precedent for this kind of event and no feasible way to reenact it to make the unequivocal determination that it is impossible.


----------



## Intense (Dec 31, 2010)

eots said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Asking AGAIN;
> ...




The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began. 



After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure. 

The report clarifies a number of widely debated issues concerning the collapse, particularly the role of the building's many diesel fuel tanks and the importance of structural damage from falling WTC 1 debris. Both of those factors have been cited by investigators as possibly contributing to the collapse; the 2006 Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts mentions both hypotheses. However, the final NIST report downplays both scenarios, concluding that the diesel fuel stored in tanks (and intended to power backup generators) did not burn long enough or hot enough to account for structural failures. And, while debris damage to WTC 7's southern exterior was considerable (and initiated the destructive fires), the collapse originated in the northeast portion of the building. In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires." 

The report determines that the actual culprit in the collapse was the combustion of ordinary building furnishings: "These uncontrolled fires had characteristics similar to those that have occurred previously in tall buildings." If the sprinkler system in WTC 7 had been working, it is likely that "the fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented." *The report also suggests that current engineering standards for coping with fire-induced thermal expansion need to be re-examined, particularly for buildings like WTC 7 that have long, unsupported floor spans. A key factor in the collapse, NIST concluded, was the failure of structural "connections that were designed to resist gravity loads, but not thermally induced lateral loads." According to Sunder: "For the first time we have shown that fire can induce a progressive collapse." *

Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse. 

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics


----------



## hortysir (Dec 31, 2010)

Popular Mechanics??
pfft....


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 31, 2010)

Are you citing popular mechanics? Holy shit.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 31, 2010)

PhysicsExist said:


> Are you citing popular mechanics? Holy shit.


its better than any of the BULLSHIT you post


----------



## PhysicsExist (Dec 31, 2010)

The video is using Physics in 1 gravity driven demolition and Physics in WTC Tower collapses and comparing them.  He proves with PHYSICS that the top floor did not PILE DRIVE and GRAVITATIONALLY crush the bottom part of the Towers, because 1: It is physically impossible, 2: there is no jolt (required by physics) and 3: there is acceleration.  Grasp basic physics before responding with such bunk.  

You don't even realize how ignorant it sounds to debate someone who is using Physics, and then you cite POPULAR MECHANICS as your rebuttal is just EMBARRASSING to your credibility on this topic

What language do you need to understand physics prove this was a Controlled Demolition?

Take. Off. the. Blinders.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkXeNawHFFo[/ame]


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Dec 31, 2010)

Plain and simple physics:

Things expand when they are heated

Metals loose strength when they are heated.

The beams expanded because of the heat

The beams were no longer able to support the active load of the floor because of the heat.






This has been the word of science since Archemedis.

Give it a rest


----------



## eots (Dec 31, 2010)

Baruch Menachem said:


> Plain and simple physics:
> 
> Things expand when they are heated
> 
> ...



NO kidding.. Einstein !.. and believe it or not  these properties of steel are  _common knowledge_ to those who build skyscrapers and that  has all been accounted for with large redundancy factors built in so a child with a pack of matches doesn't accidentally bring down a skyscraper


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Dec 31, 2010)

You build for normal range plus a bit.

You don't build for really weird and bizzare.

I know these engineers built for large temperature ranges... You look at any large structure there are all kinds of expansion joints and the like.

The article said the NIST said there should be a re think of building codes based on this.  This wide of a single beam with no space to give in these conditions mean that this is going to be a problem in the future.

But, the did not build it for a condition where there was no way to cool the fires down for 7 hours.    They didn't assume that all the water mains would be broken.   The code assumed that if there were a fiere, the NYFD would be hosing it down in short order.


----------



## daveman (Dec 31, 2010)

hortysir said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...


On the contrary.  This exhaustive experiment proved that fire cannot weaken a steel structure sufficiently to allow it to collapse.


----------



## Queen (Dec 31, 2010)

eots said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > I thought you freaks believed those puffs of smoke were bombs inside the building. LOL!
> ...



Believe me, I have a clue. LOL. Here's my clue.


----------



## eots (Dec 31, 2010)

Queen said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Queen said:
> ...



I'm sure that accurately represents what you are capable of bringing to most any intelligent discussion


----------



## Obamerican (Dec 31, 2010)

eots said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


 Your hat fucking sucks rats ass.


----------



## eots (Dec 31, 2010)

Obamerican said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Queen said:
> ...



was... I JUST DEBWUNKED ?


----------



## eots (Dec 31, 2010)

*HERE WE WILL DUMB IT DOWN FOR YOU*
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkqgs68A6a8[/ame]


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Dec 31, 2010)

Obamerican said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Queen said:
> ...



I wouldn't let that hat suck my ass.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Dec 31, 2010)

Obamerican said:


> Both WTC's collapsed, yes COLLAPSED, due to their unique design. Show me another building in the world that was built where the outside walls are held in place by TRUSSES!!!



Trusses are irrelevant to the conservation of momentum.

The building accelerated down TOO FAST.  More than 50% of gravitational acceleration.

Here is a gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo[/ame]

But after NINE YEARS our engineering schools are not demanding to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level.  How could a computer simulation be done without that information?  How could they be constructed if that wasn't figured out before they dug the hole for the foundation?

The nation that put men on the Moon can't solve a grade school physics problem.  PATHETIC!

psik


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 1, 2011)

psikeyhackr said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > F**king Disturbing.
> ...



Trusses are irrelevant to the conservation of momentum.

The building accelerated down TOO FAST.  More than 50% of gravitational acceleration.

Here is a gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo[/ame]

But after NINE YEARS our engineering schools are not demanding to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level.  How could a computer simulation be done without that information?  How could they be constructed if that wasn't figured out before they dug the hole for the foundation?

The nation that put men on the Moon can't solve a grade school physics problem.  PATHETIC!

psik[/QUOTE]Learn how to do an accurate quote.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 1, 2011)

psikeyhackr said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > Both WTC's collapsed, yes COLLAPSED, due to their unique design. Show me another building in the world that was built where the outside walls are held in place by TRUSSES!!!
> ...



 I'm glad you accept reality, and not the Governments fallacies.

Basic physics prove Controlled Demolition.  The Video analysis of Freefall in WTC7, and the tilt of the one tower and gravitational acceleration through the path of greatest resistance in the towers collapse.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 1, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> psikeyhackr said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...


he doesnt accept reality, and neither do you
both of you believe your paranoid delusions


----------



## whitehall (Jan 1, 2011)

The 9-11 commission was designed the same way as every other federal government commission including the Warren Commission to investigate the JFK assassination. The principal motivation of a federal inbvestigation commission is to deflect criticism of the federal government. It's not a search for the truth. Look at the members of the 9-11 commission. Clinton's assistant attorney general, Jamie Garelic should have been called to testify about her memo instructing the FBI not to cooperate with the CIA. Instead she was a member of the commission appointed to inform Clinton of proceedings and deflect criticism of the Clinton administration. We know the Towers were hit by planes. We saw the videos. In order for some sort of government conspiracy there had to be cooperation between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration or else the Clinton Administration acted alone in planning and enacting an elaborate plan which included a bunch of demented Jihad terrorists who went to flight school during the Clinton administration. That scenario don't work on any level. The dirty little secret is that Clinton ignored the Jihad terror for both of his terms while he was diddling pretty camp followers. His his administration was criminally neglegent in protecting the US.


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 1, 2011)

daveman said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


The Windsor Tower collapsed from fire.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 1, 2011)

I recognize the voice in that first video. How many different theories is this guy going to make videos about before he decides which one he actually believes?


----------



## daveman (Jan 1, 2011)

Muhammed said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...


I know.  I'm mocking the Troofers, because, hey, they're _begging_ for mockery.


----------



## Jeremy (Jan 1, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8&feature=player_embedded
> 
> After watching the video and listening to the *facts* presented through *basic physics* and video analysis, what is your take?
> 
> Can you handle it?



I think everyone just misunderstood what PhysicsExists was trying to say. 

Let me translate for everyone....


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2011)

Muhammed said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



the Windsor tower never collapsed wtf are talking about


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2011)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8[/ame]


----------



## hortysir (Jan 1, 2011)

eots said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Several of the floors did collapse. Just not the entire structure.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Myths - Madrid/Windsor Tower


----------



## Liability (Jan 1, 2011)

*Both* of the only two buildings in the world to ever be built like the twin towers fell in a very similar way under the conditions (plane strikes, uncontrolled raging fires, weakened trusses, floors hung on those trusses supporting the outer walls, etc., etc., etc.) and there is no other basis for valid comparison.

Much of the claimed circumstances for the collapse of both buildings made by troofers are simply untrue.

For example, the lying troofers claim that the buildings fell at free fall speeds.  They did not.

Discussing logic, facts, physics or anything else related to the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers with these dishonest Troofers has always been quite pointless.


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2011)

hortysir said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



pieces of a structure failing and a 47 flr skyscraper completely collapsing are two very different things


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 1, 2011)

eots said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


and you also ignore the DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2011)

[





> QUOTE=Liability;3153479]*Both* of the only two buildings in the world to ever be built like the twin towers fell in a very similar way under the conditions (plane strikes, uncontrolled raging fires, weakened trusses, floors hung on those trusses supporting the outer walls, etc., etc., etc.) and there is no other basis for valid comparison.



wtc 7 was not hit by a plane



> Much of the claimed circumstances for the collapse of both buildings made by troofers are simply untrue.
> 
> For example, the lying troofers claim that the buildings fell at free fall speeds.  They did not.



NIST admits free-fall for a portion of the collapse



> Discussing logic, facts, physics or anything else related to the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers with these dishonest Troofers has always been quite pointless.



dishonesty is pretending the windosor tower collapsed or there was no free fall admitted by NIST


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 1, 2011)

eots said:


> [
> 
> 
> 
> ...


dipshit, he never said a thing about WTC7 in that post


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



show me where building codes have been changed as a result of the 9/11  collapses


----------



## Liability (Jan 1, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



FROM that very link:  





> This fire is one of the fires Conspiracy theorist like to point to when talking about high raise office fires. This fire lasted 26 hours. But what they don't tell you is that the first collapse happened only 2 hours and 30 minutes after the fire began. *But why didn't the building fall completely?* It was on fire for 26 hours. *The answer is very simple. The building were constructed very differently than the WTC.* Reinforced concrete was used in the core and under the 17th floor. Below are detailed descriptions of how the Madrid tower was constructed and the reason for it not collapsing...









Damn sure LOOKS like a partial collapse.

And then there's THIS:






Yeah.  That IS a partial COLLAPSE.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 1, 2011)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you keep asking that as if it actually MEANS something
it doesnt


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2011)

Liability said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


----------



## Liability (Jan 1, 2011)

WTC7 had a HUGE hole knocked out of it and the raging fires did the rest.

So, the "question," pointlessly asked by id-eots remains a matter of some mild interest, for reasons id-eots doesn't consider.  Yes.  What *about* WTC7?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 1, 2011)

Liability said:


> WTC7 had a HUGE hole knocked out of it and the raging fires did the rest.
> 
> So, the "question," pointlessly asked by id-eots remains a matter of some mild interest, for reasons id-eots doesn't consider.  Yes.  What *about* WTC7?


he will counter with "but but but NIST said...."


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2011)

Liability said:


> WTC7 had a HUGE hole knocked out of it and the raging fires did the rest.
> 
> So, the "question," pointlessly asked by id-eots remains a matter of some mild interest, for reasons id-eots doesn't consider.  Yes.  What *about* WTC7?



So you are in disagreement with NISTs findings that damage played no signifgent role in the collapse and it was a primarly due to fire ?


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WTC7 had a HUGE hole knocked out of it and the raging fires did the rest.
> ...



Yes how ignorant of me to ciite the findings of the official report...this usually
offends the _diveconspiracy _theorist that do not "give a rats ass" about any official reports and their findings


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 1, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WTC7 had a HUGE hole knocked out of it and the raging fires did the rest.
> ...





eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WTC7 had a HUGE hole knocked out of it and the raging fires did the rest.
> ...


LOL did i call it or what?


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 1, 2011)

eots said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


The Windsor tower collapsed. What do you suppose caused that collapse?


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



yes ...good job a pointing out your own willful ignorance


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2011)

Muhammed said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



if you are a complete moron I suppose the word partial makes no difference but clearly to engineers and all those who died in the collapses the difference is highly significant


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 1, 2011)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


you mean your own stupidity and paranoid delusions


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



citing NIST is a paranoid delusion ?


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 1, 2011)

eots said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


A "partial" collapse is still a collapse. What do you suppose caused the collapse of that part?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 1, 2011)

Muhammed said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


fire


----------



## Liability (Jan 1, 2011)

The NIST report does not make that exact claimed conclusion.  It does make the tentative conclusion, but that's hardly the same thing especially considering how they originally didn't even grasp how much of the building had been so extensively wrecked from the debris of the collapsing Towers



> The 7 WTC investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers."[39]
> 
> In its progress report, NIST released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA.


 7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  (I hate wiki, but it does serve a purpose as a point of departure, only.)  

The ACTUAL "conclusions" from the NIST report are found HERE (starting at p. 89 of 130 and listed under section 4.2):  http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2011)

Liability said:


> The NIST report does not make that exact claimed conclusion.  It does make the tentative conclusion, but that's hardly the same thing especially considering how they originally didn't even grasp how much of the building had been so extensively wrecked from the debris of the collapsing Towers
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*Why don't you try citing the NIST final report Iinstead of wikki then ?*


*Even without the structural damage*, WTC 7 would have collapsed from the fires that the debris initiated. The growth and spread of the lower-floor fires due to the loss of water supply to the sprinklers from the city mains was enough to initiate the collapse of the entire building due to buckling of a critical column in the northeast region of the building.



"column 79 the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse*would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris *of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors. The investigation team concluded that the columns failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events"


NIST and the World Trade Center


----------



## Liability (Jan 1, 2011)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > The NIST report does not make that exact claimed conclusion.  It does make the tentative conclusion, but that's hardly the same thing especially considering how they originally didn't even grasp how much of the building had been so extensively wrecked from the debris of the collapsing Towers
> ...



I provided the link to the actual conclusions from the pdf version of the actual NIST report, and from that version I could not copy and paste.  So, I directed folks to the precise page.  Get over yourself, id-eots.

And the conclusions of NIST are not universally agreed upon.  certainly you troofers disagree with many of their findings when it suits your petty purposes.

More of the building was blown away then they originally knew.  Fires BURN better when they have ready access to an air supply and with the kind of massive hole (not even including structural damage), the fires that raged unchecked for hours got all the air they needed.

You are free to draw your own conclusions, but yours are unpersuasive.

For your moron theory to be true, effectively ALL of the support columns would have had to have been blown up and that would have entailed doing it pretty much at the same time.  And it would have required a SHITload of explosives all being properly wired and ready to blow without any of the folks who worked in that 47 story building "noticing" that people were wiring it to blow.  Fucking ridiculous.  You lousy scumbag dishonest id-eot troofers will try to peddle ANYTHING.  

Tell us, stupid, what does the NIST report say about the notion that the building got explosively rigged to blow?  I mean as long as you place such high stock in their findings and all.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 1, 2011)

Muhammed said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...



Are you comparing the Windsor tower, which burned for over a DAY, and only had a partial collapse of its upper floors?  What world do you live in to have to comfort your reality with that bunk?  WTC Towers were 100 stories, when the collapsed, there was *ONLY THREE STORIES* of RUBBLE. where did it all go?  It was vaporized with explosives.

When the towers fell, they showed no jolt and gravitationally accelerated though the path of greatest resistance.  Impossible.

WTC7 was not hit by a plane, collapses at FREE FALL. proves demolition.  No other way to remove 8 floors of structural steel.  Windsor tower took 26 hours to just burn partially, WTC7 burned 5x less longer and collapsed FASTER than a REAL LIFE DEMOLITION ever has.  

NIST report has been debunked and proven to be a farce by the Citizens.  since Nov 2008 the NIST report has proven 9/11 has been covered up, and thats why 1,400 architects and engineers have been steadily educating the public about the fallacies in the Govt's reports.

Physics do not lie, your eyes do not lie, but the government does.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 1, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you lie


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2011)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 1, 2011)

the NIST also said no evidence of explosives in the buildings


now you will disagree with NIST
how selective you use them


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> the NIST also said no evidence of explosives in the buildings
> 
> 
> now you will disagree with NIST
> how selective you use them



and they also coincide no forensic testing of any kind for the reasons I just cited and I do not find these reasons  inaccurate and insufficient


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 1, 2011)

eots said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > the NIST also said no evidence of explosives in the buildings
> ...



why do you respond to the DiveCon bot?


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> the NIST also said no evidence of explosives in the buildings
> 
> 
> now you will disagree with NIST
> how selective you use them




DIVECON thinks
POPULAR MECHANICS got it RIGHT
and NIST got it
WRONG LOL


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



He is a useful tool in showing the ignorance of debwunkers and keeping 9/11 threads active and in the mass consciousness


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 1, 2011)

eots said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



He is a useful tool, I agree.


----------



## Liability (Jan 1, 2011)

eots said:


> * * * *
> 
> 
> *They say they discounted it as implausible because the minim charge required would be "as loud a shot gun blast a half mile away in an urban setting or as loud as speakers at a rock concert" ....(whatever that means) and that no such sounds were heard or reported,(which is untrue) ..so they investigated that scenario no further...furthermore NIST used the loudest possible explosives possible and took no sound damping into consideration*






You can't even handle the extremely simple QUOTE function.  The idea that you can grasp anything of what NIST has to say is too ridiculous on its face to even discuss.  

Let's simplify things for you, you fucking id-eot.

However "loud" the sound might be, *how much* of the theoretical "explosive" do you maintain would be minimally required to blow the support structures of the WTC7 building pretty much simultaneously to accomplish the alleged Controlled Demolition you lunatics fantasize about?

Nobody noticed?

The AMOUNT of wiring that had to be rigged to make that thing go "boom" and fall down pretty much simultaneously?  How much of that?  How many fucking MILES of det cord would be required?  

Nobody noticed?

It all had to be coordinated with the obviously PLANNED 9/11/2001 jet liner hijackings and their crashes into the Twin Towers.  So aside from planting the explosives (invisibly) and stringing the det cords (invisibly), they also had to coordinate with the mutants who stole the planes and "drove" them into adjacent office towers.

How many fucking people are IN on this massive conspiracy you lunatics project?  

 NOBODY in a conspiracy of that unfathomable size and complexity has broken the secrecy?

Our God-forsaken government can't even keep military and diplomatic cables from assholes like Julian Assange and WikieLeaks,  But, the guys involved in this treasonous plot are powerful enough and secret enough  to compel absolute secrecy of a conspiracy of this unbelievable size?

And you're fucking serious?

The utterly irresponsible "charges" you make are baseless enough.  But for you guys to make these moronic claims without addressing ALL that would HAVE to be "true" in order for your particular lunatic brand of "conspiracy theory" to be even marginally POSSIBLE is a display of pure cowardice on your part.


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2011)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...



What part of column 79 don't you get simple Simon ?.. one column


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 1, 2011)

Liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...



I dont understand how the level of "DIFFICULTY" determines whether or not something was able to be done.  In real investigations this is the last type of practice they do.  But you are suggesting its the main premise to the 9/11 question.  This is the last thing the people afraid of the truth use; that it is 'too hard' to keep it all a secret and 'somebody would of seen all the wiring and bombs' and that the 'govt is too stupid to do this' etc etc.  Classic case of denial.  

You can use your 'assumptions' such as these, but then you go right back around and IGNORE Newtonian Physics?  You IGNORE the videos that prove Control Demolition, you IGNORE the facts that prove there is a coverup, you IGNORE the facts that prove a reinvestigation is required.  You need to realize how naive you sound when posting responses with such loose credibility, it makes you look scared.

WTC7 collapses in freefall for 2.25 seconds = Proves Controlled Demolition
WTC Tower tilted, then stopped, and then fell at gravitational acceleration = Proves Controlled Demolition
WTC Towers were vaporized into 3 stories of rubble = Proves Controlled Demolition
WTC dust has explosive residues and unexploded Nanothermite chips.
www.firefightersfor911truth.org


----------



## eots (Jan 1, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Indeed the debwunkers soon resort to the assumption filled narrative of the world of  bungling governments and secrets that can not be kept.. when science and scientific method fail them


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

eots said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


you're a fucking moron thats why i respond to you


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


you are also a fucking moron


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

*Messed up the key part to the topic title lol, new thread here.*
http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/148712-you-cannot-get-2-800of-degrees-with-any-hydrocarbon-fire.html


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

A lot of people cannot grasp this:

*You can melt steel inside of a blast furnace, BECAUSE YOU HAVE PURE Oxygen.
Pure Oxygen Enviorment allows you to get to 3,000oC. 

In air, you have 1/3rd of the Oxygen you would normally have.

You have to heat up molecules of Nitrogen & others in order to get a hydrocarbon based fire to reach steel's melting point. 

You can only get 1/3rd of the temp needed to melt steel OUTSIDE of a blast furnace, BECAUSE the OXYGEN in the AIR is NOT enough.

You can only get to 1,800oF Degrees in a carbon based fire inside of a building. 
Reason: because you need to heat up the OTHER molecules, but DO not have the oxygen to do so, because AIR only consists of 1/3rd Oxygen.*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_QWk2fFUzw[/ame]


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> A lot of people cannot grasp this:
> 
> *You can melt steel inside of a blast furnace, BECAUSE YOU HAVE PURE Oxygen.
> Pure Oxygen Enviorment allows you to get to 3,000oC.
> ...



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEhDZN0RFjw&feature=rec-exp_fresh+div-1f-46-HM[/ame]


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> *Messed up the key part to the topic title lol, new thread here.*
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/148712-you-cannot-get-2-800of-degrees-with-any-hydrocarbon-fire.html



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEhDZN0RFjw&feature=rec-exp_fresh+div-1f-46-HM[/ame]


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 2, 2011)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYzIbOYaSy8[/ame]


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 2, 2011)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9HY1XHqjYA&feature=more_related[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

holy shit this guy is fucking DUMB


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> A lot of people cannot grasp this:
> 
> *You can melt steel inside of a blast furnace, BECAUSE YOU HAVE PURE Oxygen.
> Pure Oxygen Enviorment allows you to get to 3,000oC.
> ...



Stop ignoring the Facts, you are afraid.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

the only one ignoring facts is YOU

dipshit, you dont even know the ratio of O2 in the air
you even get THAT wrong


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> the only one ignoring facts is YOU
> 
> dipshit, you dont even know the ratio of O2 in the air
> you even get THAT wrong





PhysicsExist said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of people cannot grasp this:
> ...


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jan 2, 2011)

His understanding of Science is about the same level as the amount of oxygen in the air




At 10,000 feet.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

go away and come back when you actually have some FACTS


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > the only one ignoring facts is YOU
> ...


dipshit, what percentage of the air is Oxygen?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

Baruch Menachem said:


> His understanding of Science is about the same level as the amount of oxygen in the air
> 
> 
> 
> ...


hes an idiot
somehow he thinks air is 1/3rd O2


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



21% Oxygen, 78% Nitrogen, 1% Other

Oxygen makes up 1/3.7th of air.

*You can melt steel inside of a blast furnace, BECAUSE YOU HAVE PURE Oxygen.
Pure Oxygen Enviorment allows you to get to 3,000oC. 

In air, you have 1/3rd of the Oxygen you would normally have.

You have to heat up molecules of Nitrogen & others in order to get a hydrocarbon based fire to reach steel's melting point. 

You can only get 1/3rd of the temp needed to melt steel OUTSIDE of a blast furnace, BECAUSE the OXYGEN in the AIR is NOT enough.

You can only get to 1,800oF Degrees in a carbon based fire inside of a building. 
Reason: because you need to heat up the OTHER molecules, but DO not have the oxygen to do so, because AIR only consists of 1/3rd Oxygen.*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_QWk2fFUzw[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


sorry dipshit, but 1/3rd would be 33%
you are an idiot

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/molecular-mass-air-d_679.html


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



thanks for proving my point lol

only 1/3rd of the Oxygen needed to burn the other Molecules is there,
therefore carbon based fires cannot melt steel because only 1/3rd of the oxygen needed is there. 
to get carbon based fires to reach those temps to melt steel, and you need more than the 21% on oxygen that is provided in air. usually 3x the amount lol





> You can only get 1/3rd of the temp needed to melt steel OUTSIDE of a blast furnace, BECAUSE the OXYGEN in the AIR is NOT enough.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

wrong, you are an idiot and you dont know about either


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> wrong, you are an idiot and you dont know about either


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

wrong again, that is a collapse, not an explosion


----------



## westwall (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...






Congratulations, you have so completely discredited yourself as to have been rendered invisible.  For your information a simple house fire (pre flashover) can attain 2300 degrees.
This is without the wonderful fuel of Jet-A.



"There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C. 
The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature."


Temperatures in flames and fires


----------



## westwall (Jan 2, 2011)

*WRONG* as usual.  A simple house fire can attain 2300 degrees and that without Jet-A for an accelerant.


*FAIL*

"There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C. 
The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature."

Temperatures in flames and fires


----------



## Liability (Jan 2, 2011)

eots said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



But that's silly.  According to the NIST analysis, the building fell down sequentially.  That is, a part of it went, then the next, then the next in SEQUENCE.  But you Troofers INSIST that it all went down as one giant fucking unit as one would see in a Controlled Demolition.

So pick one.  Either the building went down in a SEQUENCED series of collapses OR it went down effectively as one controlled demolition drop.  Which one?

If you agree with NIST that it went down sequentially, then there's really no reason to disagree with them that it went down due (primarily) to the fire.  If you insist, however, that it went down as one unit (in effect a controlled demolition), then you disagree with NIST.

But *you* cite to NIST only when it suits you.

*Did* the entire building collapse essentially as one unit as in a controlled demolition *or didn't it*, you flaming asstard?


----------



## eots (Jan 2, 2011)

liability said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > liability said:
> ...



 Beyond question ..NIST concluded a single blast to column 79 would *initiate the collapse sequence*


----------



## Liability (Jan 2, 2011)

eots said:


> liability said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Beyond question, telling me what NIST said is not the answer to the question put to YOU.

Based on your broad & extensive knowledge of the facts, the evidence and of science in general and physics in particular, *do you AGREE* with NIST that WTC7 came down in a series of collapses, in sequence, *OR* do you maintain that (instead) it came down as essentially one whole unit as one would see in a controlled demolition?


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Stepnoski, Ventura, Rosie O'Donnell, Charlie Sheen..........
> ...



and of course the most powerful twoofer in the known universe.....president adjernutjob of IRAN!!!!!


----------



## eots (Jan 2, 2011)

NIST concluded that the failure of column 79 under any circumstance would initiate the collapse.....sequence


----------



## westwall (Jan 2, 2011)

daveman said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...







  That guy would make a PERFECT AGW scientist!


----------



## westwall (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...






Actually he insults effing morons!


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

westwall said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


no kidding, the moron claims Oxygen to be 1/3rd component of air, when pressed on it he changes it to 1/3.7, when i fact oxygen is just barely over 1/5th part


----------



## Liability (Jan 2, 2011)

eots said:


> NIST concluded that the failure of column 79 under any circumstance would initiate the collapse.....sequence




Again, nobody is asking for you to reiterate what NIST said, you fucking imbecile.

The question is whether or not you agree with their conclusion that it was a progressive collapse.  *IF* *you AGREE* with NIST that the start of the sequence was column 79, and that then the rest followed progressively, *THEN* you are denying that the building came down in the manner one would expect from a controlled demolition. 

So stop telling us what others maintain, dickwad.  Tell us, *based on what YOU observed*, did the building come down in a progressive collapse or did it all come down at one fucking time?

Pick one, douche bag.


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 2, 2011)

Here is yet another thread that proves both that we have a big problem with our public school system and that the twoofer morons do not have enough understanding of physics to build a house of cards......


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration._

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall?  NIST&#8217;s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object &#8220;has no structural components below it.&#8221;[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives.  If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST&#8217;s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7&#8217;s destruction, NIST&#8217;s claim contradicted &#8220;a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.&#8221;[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, &#8220;Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.&#8221;[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, &#8220;This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].&#8221;[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7&#8217;s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

&#8220;In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure.  None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building.  The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.&#8221;

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7&#8217;s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

&#8220;What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall.  Acceleration doesn&#8217;t build up gradually.  The graph [measuring the building&#8217;s descent] simply turns a corner.  The building went from full support to zero support instantly.&#8221;

Secondly:

&#8220;The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building&#8230; The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.&#8221;

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

&#8220;The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.&#8221;

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

REFERENCES

 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), &#8220;Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 &#8211; Draft for Public Comment,&#8221; Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008.  http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, &#8220;The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST&#8217;s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False,&#8221; GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009.  The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven

[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, &#8220;Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7,&#8221; Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 NIST and the World Trade Center

[vi] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]_


----------



## westwall (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration._
> 
> Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall?  NISTs lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object has no structural components below it.[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives.  If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.
> 
> ...


_




You made a claim that no fire can get hotter than 1800 degree's.  I posted a firefighting link that showed a regular house fire can attain 2300 degrees.  Care to address that mr. physics._


----------



## Douger (Jan 2, 2011)

I'm G8 welding certified/Homestead Air base/Turkey Point nuke plant.
Long ago..................
I B known duh troof.
BULLSHIT.
 mPYRE STYLE.
Ever heard of the NIKE site in SOFLO ?
I know. You idiots were jacking off to Sonny and Cher,


----------



## daveman (Jan 2, 2011)

westwall said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...


  His models are about as realistic.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

westwall said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



None of this has anything to do with finding Pools of Molten steel under the collapsed buildings.....?

To reach the temps WITH FIRE to create molten steel (2,800oF) you need pure oxygen.  Air only consists of 1/3rd the oxygen a blast furnace has, thus it cannot bypass a certain temp because it does not have the oxygen to fuel it.

*What does your post have to do with the fact that a Carbon Based fire comprised of paper/wood/carpet/drywall with only 'Air' as fuel impossibly reached 2800 degrees?*


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

LOL holy shit
since when is 21% even close to a third?

and btw, you don't need a blast furnace to "melt steel"


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

westwall said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration._
> ...


_

2,300 degrees is 500 degrees off from the point needed to create molten steel.

You can't freeze water at 532 degrees can you? 
You can't create molten liquid steel at 2,300 degrees can you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-with-any-hydrocarbon-fire-2.html#post3155323

Air only has 21% oxygen in it, that is a 3rd of what is needed to create 2,800 degrees with Fire._


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> LOL holy shit
> since when is 21% even close to a third?
> 
> and btw, you don't need a blast furnace to "melt steel"





> You cannot get 2,800oF* Degrees with any Hydrocarbon Fire
> 
> Air only has 21% oxygen in it, that is a 3rd of what is needed to create 2,800 degrees with Fire.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > LOL holy shit
> ...


you claimed "pure O2 was required for a blast furnace"
21% isnt 1/3rd
idiot


----------



## Liability (Jan 2, 2011)

You can believe me or you can believe your own lying eyes.

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall

When two objects are falling, and one object PASSES the other, the one doing the passing cannot (by the laws of physics) be going FASTER than the slower object if the slower object has achieved free fall speeds.

Ho hum.

And in case any of you dopey dishonest Troofers think that WTC TOWER alleged (but false) "free fall" is substantively different than the falsely claimed free fall of the WTC7, you need to do some more research.  

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > LOL holy shit
> ...


The molten steel story is pure crap because the people who said they saw it said it was molten ONE MONTH after 9/11. How much energy would it take to keep it molten for a month?


----------



## westwall (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


_




Who ever said you need to melt the steel?  Getting it a nice orange glow will weaken it to the point of failure.  Or didn't you learn that in physics 101?  Your whole argument is built on the fact that you have no experience in materials science.  

The question is not did the steel melt (why you folks insist on something that is unneccessary is beyond me) but if the steel has been exposed to enough heat for a long enough time will it lose its tensil strength which will lead to failure.  The answer is yes.  Take a welding class some time so you can see just what heat applied to steel will do.  You are so completely clueless its embarassing._


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

westwall said:


> *The question is not did the steel melt (why you folks insist on something that is unneccessary is beyond me)*






			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Baruch Menachem said:
> ...



You are now enlightened westwall.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

Liability said:


> You can believe me or you can believe your own lying eyes.
> 
> Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall
> 
> ...



How embarrassing can it get? You post videos that are HATED on youtube, 978 Likes 1108 Dislike and that are outdated from 2007.  Cmon man, you're not even trying, this is disgusting.  That video is a joke, shows nothing to disprove the truth.  

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT-po-tmJRc[/ame]

Freefall for 2.25 seconds is impossible in WTC7 unless explosives were used.
The demolition of the Twin Towers was done with Nanothermite.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > You can believe me or you can believe your own lying eyes.
> ...


dipshit, you must be totally wrong
look at all those red pips you got for rep


----------



## westwall (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > *The question is not did the steel melt (why you folks insist on something that is unneccessary is beyond me)*
> ...








No, I was not enlightened.  You seem to be ignorant of the fact  that high pressure combined with some heat will also weld things together.  As would happen with several hundred tons falling from a great height.  Or did you know that extreme cold will weld things together as well?  Or how about the fact that the vacuum of space will also weld things together?  Your ignorance is amazing.  How do you maintain it?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

Obamerican said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E[/ame]

These Firemen who witnessed this first hand are liars then?  Please address your slander.






Use your eyes man.


----------



## westwall (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > You can believe me or you can believe your own lying eyes.
> ...






well there have to be what?  a couple thousand of you?  All of you saying you hate it and voila!  You by your ownselves can make that a hated video!  In other words big deal!  If it is factually correct I could care less if Moses didn't like it.  It's still correct and conforms the physical laws of the universe we currently live in.


----------



## Liability (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > *The question is not did the steel melt (why you folks insist on something that is unneccessary is beyond me)*
> ...



No.  It didn't.  None of the items you posted establish that the steel melted.

It did, however, fail.  A lower temperature is required to make it fail.  

Sorry your severely incomplete grasp of physics does not permit you to understand that none of the things you posted in an effort to rebut the point serves that actual purpose.  

*A close up view of the "meteorite"* shows something very odd, you fucking imbecile:






  Source = http://www.debunking911.com/type.jpg  Great source.

Why is the image of the close-up of the "meteorite" of interest, Mr. Physicist?

Hm.  Famous novel should serve as a clue.  Farenhight 451.


----------



## Liability (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > *The question is not did the steel melt (why you folks insist on something that is unneccessary is beyond me)*
> ...



No.  It didn't.  None of the items you posted establish that the steel melted.

It did, however, fail.  A lower temperature is required to make it fail.  

Sorry your severely incomplete grasp of physics does not permit you to understand that none of the things you posted in an effort to rebut the point serves that actual purpose.  

*A close up view of the "meteorite"* shows something very odd, you fucking imbecile:






  Source = http://www.debunking911.com/type.jpg  Great source.

Why is the image of the close-up of the "meteorite" of interest, Mr. Physicist?

Hm.  Famous novel should serve as a clue.  Farenheit 451.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

Liability said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqNugYbZX7E[/ame]

*These Firemen who witnessed this first hand are liars then?*


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

westwall said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


which more explains how PAPER was part of that blob of material
had it been "molten steel" the paper would have burned away


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


no, not liars, but they are not metalurgists that would be able to tell the difference between molten steel and molten lead


----------



## Liability (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



What appeared to be "flowing" molten metal may or may not have been flowing molten metal.  A firefighter could be mistaken without lying.  And even if it were flowing molten metal, it need not have been molten iron.

But your idiot reply deliberately evades the debunking of your "meteorite" nonsense, of course.

Why would paper that burns at 451 degrees Farenhight be embedded, and still legible, therefore unburnt, if the metal within the meteorite had been so hot that it melted?

Either that metal never got that hot or we have magic paper that doesn't burn up to ashes at the temperature at which iron "melts."

Which is it, genius?


----------



## westwall (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...






Or molten aluminum.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJSDn5dgJc[/ame]

Care to address these FACTS you like to AVOID?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


and they werent talking about what you have a photo of either
but you arent honest enough to admit that


----------



## Liability (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



LOL!

A demand to answer crap that you think we are avoiding while, at the same time, YOU are avoiding the incontrovertible fact that your citation to that magic meteorite is hogwash.

We have proof of the most complex conspiracy in the history of complex conspiracies.   The conspirators conspired to make unburnable paper!


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


i'll address any FACT you actually post, when you actually post a fact


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

westwall said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


i know, but i used lead as having the lower melting point


----------



## westwall (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...









No but they don't know the difference between molten steel or molten aluminium.  There were tons of aluminium in that building and it melts at a very low 1220 degrees.  You may go away now.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

Liability said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?

Explosive Residues*
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:*

_[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material._

REFERENCES

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Bentham Open Access, 2009.  http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

NIST Collapse Model
*More than six years after starting its investigation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) issued its final report on Building 7 in November 2008.  The most important part of NISTs report was a collapse model that bore no resemblance to the observed collapse.  In Part 3 of NIST Finally Admits Freefall, Mr. Chandler explains the centrality of the model in NISTs investigation:*

_NISTs so-called investigation actually consists of finding a way to reproduce the mysterious collapse of the building using a computer model.  The assumption is that if the computer model can be made to reproduce the observed collapse pattern, that must be how it happened The very process of running the model until it produces the kind of results youre looking for is called selection bias.  If you think about it, NISTs methodology is explicitly based on selection bias.  Even if you can show what might have happened, it doesnt show what actually did happen._


*Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse.*






This is also apparent by watching the two video animations of NISTs collapse model and comparing them to video footage of the observed collapse.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded[/ame]



> The clearest discrepancy is the deformation of the external structure in the model, which does not occur in the observed collapse.  Mr. Chandler identifies a second glaring discrepancy, saying:
> 
> One fact we do know about NISTs model is it does not allow for free fall.  The best they could do is 5.4 seconds for the building to crumple down through 18 floors.  Crumpling absorbs energy, and that makes free fall impossible.  Theres nothing in the models we have been shown that even resemble a three-stage collapse with a free fall component.  After all, as Shyam Sunder put it himself, free fall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.  Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these dont happen instantaneously.
> 
> ...



REFERENCES

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]

NIST NCSTAR 1-9A, Global Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center Building 7 to Fires and Debris Impact Damage, Washington

Stop running away from the facts.  Do not fear the truth, it will set you free.


----------



## westwall (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...






Don't worry Al has a melting point 600 degrees below his "magic" number.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

westwall said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...


there were also a lot of batteries in that building
HUGE UPS backups type batteries


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 2, 2011)

I seem to melt steel very well with oxygen and Propane.

And my Plasma Torch does it well with an electric arc and compressed air.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

*Edited-No changing Quotes. *

ah back to the same spam bullshit


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:
			
		

> i'll address any FACT you actually post, when you actually post a fact




Reference: http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-physics-can-you-handle-it-8.html#post3156320

*Here are some FACTS I POSTED for you to ADDRESS, DiveCon.*



PhysicsExist said:


> BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?
> 
> Explosive Residues*
> Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:*
> ...



Care to address these like promised?


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jan 2, 2011)

I didn't realized that was flowing metal there.   I just thought it was fire in that picture.

OK, we have a series of metals that melt at various temperatures in that building.  It is a big structure fill of all kinds of things and there is a lot of stuff of fire.   We know that in order to make one metal melt you need a constant temperature over 3800 in a closed retort.   In order to make another metal melt, all you need is 600*.   We see open fires going in a structure, which is burning  around 1200-1300*.   We know it is not steel melting there.    The temperature is not high enough.   We know that in a structure full of all kinds of cool things, there are more than one metal.

One very good suggestion for other metals would be lead.   which has a low melting temperature, there were about 5lbs of lead in each Computer monitor and that building would be full of computer monitors which are mostly plastic that burns at high temperatures  (the controller cards) in addition to the low melting temperature metals.

So what you are probably seeing is lead.    There was a lot there, it melts way below the temperature of the fires, and it has a silver appearance that someone might confuse with steel.

As for mr Physics Exists, don't play with Occam's razor.  You will get cut.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Don't run DiveCon.


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 2, 2011)

In early america we used to use charcoal and air to melt iron in crude stone iron furnaces.


----------



## Liability (Jan 2, 2011)

Ok, PhysickExits:

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Molten Steel


----------



## westwall (Jan 2, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> In early america we used to use charcoal and air to melt iron in crude stone iron furnaces.






Yes but a bellows was used to get the temperature high enough.  mr. physiscs was specifically referencing a non bellows assisted burn.  Which is easily accomplished.


----------



## uscitizen (Jan 2, 2011)

westwall said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > In early america we used to use charcoal and air to melt iron in crude stone iron furnaces.
> ...



I am referring to non bellows use as well.

Today we picture smelters as giant contraptions spewing sparks hundreds of feet, but in colonial America a tiny smelter could be made no bigger than some backyard barbeque pits. The fundamental design required a chimney into which fuel could be poured, holes along the side to allow air into the fire box, and spickets at the bottom which could be opened up to draw off the molten iron into pre-made pathways in sand where pigs could be formed. 

To start the burn, a smelter required large amounts of charcoal -- made from burning wood into briquettes -- some crushed lime, and a large quantity of sorted raw iron ore. These fires would go on for several days sometimes and result in hundreds of rough iron bars, mysteriously known as pigs since medieval times. 

Early American Iron Smelting

I habve been to a couple of old still standing Iron furnaces in KY.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

Baruch Menachem said:


> In order to make another metal melt, all you need is 600*.



*Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).*

Molten Matters. 



> An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing a speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:
> 
> _As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running_.





> A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating:
> 
> _Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel_



*A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage:*


> I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat.



Fact: Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F)
Answer: Nanothermite

_Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude

&#8220;[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.&#8221;__

http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf_


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Don't run DiveCon.


who ran? dipshit


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jan 2, 2011)

an interesting article on the steelmaking process prior to Bessemer.  

Amazing what you can do with carbon and steel.


> The Catalan forge represented the first important metallurgical advance in iron smelting since classical times. The hearth was usually a slightly cup-shaped stone about thirty inches square, built up with stones at the front and on two sides to a height of three feet. Since the furnace was generally placed against a hillside the hill itself formed the back wall of the structure. A short distance above the hearth near the base of the front wall, was an opening for the admission of the nozzle, or tuyere, of the leather bellows. As furnaces grew a little taller and a stronger draft was needed, a flue was extended from the top of the furnace along the surface of the ground a short distance up the hill. The hearth was filled with charcoal to the level of the tuyere. On top of this layer, charcoal and iron ore were piled in two separate columns, the charcoal at the front of the furnace and the ore toward the back. A blast of air from the bellows caused the burning charcoal to give off hot carbon monoxide gas which combined with oxygen in the ore, reducing it to a pasty mass of iron, essentially free of slag. The lump of iron was removed from the hearth and hammered to compact the metal and to drive out any remaining cinders and slag. Afterwards it was beaten into bars which were marketed to the smiths. The furnaces preceding the Catalan forge were capable of producing only fifty pounds of iron at one time. The Catalan forge could yield 350 pounds of metal in a five-hour beat and for this reason assumed importance as a commercial producer.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Anyone here care to address the FACTS with rebuttals that have actual proof behind them?  Physics don't lie.  stop running.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jan 2, 2011)

But lead melts at 600*, and there were huge quantities of it on each floor.  Each computer monitor would have 5lbs of the stuff.

Plus there were, as noted, UPS battery packs as well.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

Baruch Menachem said:


> But lead melts at 600*, and there were huge quantities of it on each floor.  Each computer monitor would have 5lbs of the stuff.
> 
> Plus there were, as noted, UPS battery packs as well.


there were HUGE UPS banks in the buildings
not just the small desktop ones


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

Baruch Menachem said:


> But lead melts at 600*, and there were huge quantities of it on each floor.  Each computer monitor would have 5lbs of the stuff.
> 
> Plus there were, as noted, UPS battery packs as well.



a quick GOOGLE search could answer this for us.  But you ARENT LOOKING FOR THE TRUTH, you're looking for something to COMFORT your reality that you DO NOT wish to leave from.  Stop being so afraid.

Molten Lead:





Molten Steel:





Now lets take a look at the molten liquid squirting out the side of the south tower.






9/11 Molten Liquid Evidence:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJSDn5dgJc&feature=player_embedded[/ame]


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Anyone here care to address the FACTS with rebuttals that have actual proof behind them?  Physics don't lie.  stop running.


as i have told another of your troofer morons, your paranoid delusions do not equal facts


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

molten aluminum


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone here care to address the FACTS with rebuttals that have actual proof behind them?  Physics don't lie.  stop running.
> ...



_Explosive Residues_
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

*[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.*

REFERENCES
_ Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Bentham Open Access, 2009.  http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf__

Address this Fact._


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jan 2, 2011)

If you see metal flowing from a fire that can't be over 1500, then you know it is not steel.

We concede your point.

Steel won't melt at that temperature.

Happy?

But the melting point of steel is not part of the story here.     The failure point of steel is.    Any amount of flowing metals (not steel) does not change the reality that steel will deform and loose its strength at temperature way below its melting point.

You are the only one who is arguing about steel melting.    It did not.  Whatever else is flowing, it is not steel.

Could be brass, copper, aluminum, take your pick.   But as you note, it is not steel.

Now we  have demonstrated that you can generate very high temperature fires using carbon materials over and over. You can melt steel with carbon.

Again and again.

The steel in the towers never melted.   It failed.    As have you


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> molten aluminum




Changing the metal everytime I post a fact you don't like.

for molten aluminum to look like that, it needs to be heated up to around 1900oF degrees.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > molten aluminum
> ...


hey, you were talking about molten metals
fuck off if you dont like it
btw, i never said that shit you are calling molten steel was lead
but that the building had a lot of lead in it and what those firemen saw could have been ANYTHING
but that stuff on the outside was likely aluminum that had ignited
you DO know the outer shell was covered with aluminum, right?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


_
thats NOT a fact
its more paranoid delusions_


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...








for molten aluminum to look like that, it needs to be heated up to around 1900oF degrees.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


_

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Care to address this fact?_


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


no, it doesnt


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


_
again, more paranoid delusions_


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Lets use our eyes: Heres an aluminum chart listing the colors obtained when aluminum is heated up to a certain temp.  Compare the pictures.  It's pretty easy to do.








for molten aluminum to look like that, it needs to be heated up to around 1000oC or 1900oF degrees.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


_

Everyone clap. _


----------



## candycorn (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


_

Theremite was not found at ground zero. Never has been, never will be._


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

Facts hurt.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-11-facts-divecons-challenge.html#post3156373


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


what part of the aluminum is BURNING don't you fucking get?


----------



## candycorn (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Lets use or brains.

Melted steel falling from the sky will kill people below when it lands. 

Nobody, not one person reported getting hit by a shower of melted steel while entering and exiting the buildings.

You're simply making shit up.


----------



## Ringel05 (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Facts hurt.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-11-facts-divecons-challenge.html#post3156373


There are no 9/11 discussions.  Simply relatively sane, reasonably (well mostly) and (a lot more than you) rational people dealing with you nut cases who are desperately grasping at your versions of "fact" (serious tongue in cheek).  
Now to be perfectly serious, find a shrink, seek help, the issues you have are treatable.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 2, 2011)

candycorn said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE[/ame]

You're a disgusting human being.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


no he isnt, he isnt a moronic troofer, like you are


----------



## candycorn (Jan 2, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Gee, CD, you cry worse now than you did when I exposed you 2 years back now.  Its hilarious watching you continue this charade; you fool nobody.


----------



## westwall (Jan 2, 2011)

Your poll is in error.  You are naming Dive Con as a troll.  That is clearly not possible.  The only troll in evidence is yourself.  Alter the poll or the only responder will be you.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

HOLY SHIT

another thread dedicated to me


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


_
dipshit, since none of what you posted as a fact is actually true, it is NOT a fact_


----------



## TheTraveller (Jan 3, 2011)

Maybe I'm missing something here. Why does it even matter? The buildings fell; even assuming the conspiracy theory is right, what good does it do to know about it?

I'm really not sold on the standard version of events on 9/11, but seriously - so what?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

TheTraveller said:


> Maybe I'm missing something here. Why does it even matter? The buildings fell; even assuming the conspiracy theory is right, what good does it do to know about it?
> 
> I'm really not sold on the standard version of events on 9/11, but seriously - so what?



I recommend starting here: Home and Away: Iraq and Afghanistan War Casualties - CNN.com

Every documented death of the wars in the middle east up to the very detail.  That's the 'so what?'

Or maybe take a look at the list of people dead from the events on 9/11:
List of Victims from Sept. 11, 2001 - September 11 | Terrorist Attacks | World Trade Center Attack - FOXNews.com

or you could even so far as use common sense and realize the whole decade has been a farce if 9/11 was a controlled demolition.  And you seem to not care...is this true?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

oh NOES he has more people here that DONT like him, he clearly has no credibility

well, thats what he says about non-troofer videos on youtube because more troofer morons dislike the video it makes the content of the video wrong


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


_

*These "facts" have been debunked repeatedly by showing that the measurement of the time it took the building to fall is NOT 2.25 seconds. The time it took to fall cannot be measured from a video-FACT! *The reason is that the fall starts before it can be seen in the video. Additionally the so-called "experts" you have quoted cherry picked the time they used knowing full well that they were using misleading data, and point to a video taken from outside the building to "prove' their point. 
The only thing they have proved is that as professionals they should be disciplined for malfeasance. As humans they should be charged with a fraud perpetrated on the weak-minded (and stupid)among the public As citizens they should be charged and tried for treason for perpetrating the fraud and supporting the claims of enemies of the USA, including but not limited to the president of iran._


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, &#8220;This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].&#8221;[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7&#8217;s free fall descent could have occurred.
BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - Free Fall Collapse

Why are you so ignorant?


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> oh NOES he has more people here that DONT like him, he clearly has no credibility
> 
> well, thats what he says about non-troofer videos on youtube because more troofer morons dislike the video it makes the content of the video wrong



Aint' that the truth! 

Remember, if it wasn't made by Alex Jones or his ilk, it just doesn't support the "truth' and is more than likely part of the conspiracy.(sarcasm intended)


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



So to be clear on your post;
You claim a conspiracy, and the government is behind it, yet want to use the government's iformation to make a case to support your delusions?


Holy fuck batman, what an ignorant troll you seem to be.


Bring it on you treasonous jerkweed, you look like you will be fun to play with.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



Free Fall Collapse
In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration._

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall?  NISTs lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object has no structural components below it.[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives.  If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NISTs initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7s destruction, NISTs claim contradicted a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure.  None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building.  The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall.  Acceleration doesnt build up gradually.  The graph [measuring the buildings descent] simply turns a corner.  The building went from full support to zero support instantly.

Secondly:

The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

REFERENCES

 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7  Draft for Public Comment, Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008.  http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NISTs Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False, GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009.  The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven

[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 NIST and the World Trade Center

[vi] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]_


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

The Survival of Conspiracy Kook Notions



One of the longest-lasting conspiracy notions in the United States is the belief that the United States Air Force shot down at least one flying saucer outside of Roswell, New Mexico, and recovered a number of alien bodies from the wreckage.



This amusing belief became established solely due to the United States needing to keep secret the actual Project Mogul balloon project being conducted which sought to monitor Soviet above-ground nuclear testing.  Because of the secrecy involved in the project, when the balsa wood, sheet plastic, flower-patterned adhesive tape, and balloon fragment remains from one secret flight were recovered near Roswell, the U. S. Government set the stage for conspiracy believers to adopt one of the more long-lasting, soundly debunked kook notions that survive up to today.



Conspiracy kooks who profess to believe that aliens from flying saucers were recovered from New Mexico utilize their belief as justification and as launching points for further unevidenced belief.  Indeed, in the old "X-Files" television series, Christ Carter -- the creator of the series -- had the show's writers depict this phenomena rather amusingly.



In "X-Files" a flying saucer conspiracy kook is captured trespassing on some government property while trying to collect evidence of whatever conspiracy was afoot.  As the individual is handcuffed and dragged away, the flying saucer kook yells, "Roswell!  Roswell!" which was very amusing.



At core in that obviously fantasy television series' depiction of flying saucer believers is the behavioral trait of connecting one's own predicament to grander, sinister, at times world-spanning conspiracies, all of which makes one's predicament not of one's own making.



Get pulled over for speeding three times this week?  It's a conspiracy, obviously, and not one's own fault for chronic speeding.  (In fact something much like this has been observed in the Usenet newsgroup alt.impeach.bush and on various web sites.  See "Secret Police[27]" for specifics.)



The ability of obvious flights of delusional fantasy to survive for decades certainly means that many of the profoundly and solidly debunked notions advocated by 911 conspiracy kooks will be with us far into the foreseeable futur


from"http://www.elmerfudd.us/kooks911.htm"


see, we can all find bullshit on the interwebs to support whatever we want.


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

more;
"To be sure Creationist cults "self-publish" and play pretend that they're scientists publishing in "peer-reviewed journals" more than 911 conspiracy kooks do, but Creationists have been around for some 10,000 years and have been publishing and playing pretend since before the advent of the printing press.



Like all other 911 conspiracy kooks, Jones employs all the usual unscientific notions and fatal logic fallacies.  He starts out from unevidenced notions -- such as the World Trade Center buildings falling at free fall speeds (see "Building 7"[26]) and then launches off into a description of the physics involved in such a free falling building, ignoring the fact that the buildings' collapse times are consistent with resisted falling.



Fellow conspiracy believers examine such logic fallacies, stumble through the physics offered, and believe that their unevidenced notions are thus proven beyond all doubt since the physics "agrees" with them.  The fact that the premise upon which the conspiracy kooks' efforts are predicated are false and debunks the belief at the start is ignored.



This is a very common behavioral trait among conspiracy believers.  They'll latch on to someone they want to believe is an authority because the person validates their unevidenced notions.  The fact that *ten thousand engineers and scientists dismiss Jones as a kook* is something that believers either don't notice, attribute to "the conspiracy," or pass off as "well, they don't know what we know."  The fact that physics and science is what doesn't agree with Jones and his fellow kooks is dismissed utterly."

from;
The Mindset of 911 Scholars for Truth and Other Conspiracy Kooks


I wish to state I am among the engineers who dismiss jones, and ALL of the twoofers on this board, as kooks.

That means you asswipe charading as PhysicsExist, you appear to be the most moronic and abrasive twoofer of all, as well as the dumbest.


Peddle your logical fallicies elsewhere, nobody is buying them here, except maybe 911nutjob and he is certifiably insane.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

hey slack, you stole my troofer moron
look at his sig
LOL


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

I saw, and took a quote from the idiot for my own dive!


Some of the 911 conspiracy kooks are profoundly insane, others are profoundly delusional, still others are merely laboring under their poor education and poor self-esteem, trying to improve their self images by pretending to be heroes.


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> hey slack, you stole my troofer moron
> look at his sig
> LOL



We will share him, he appears to have more than enough stupid to go around.......


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

Based on a Private message from physicsExistbut Idontunderstandit, He believes, that all the 1400 engineers listed in the ae911.org petition are real.

Check the list people, is "Mr. Garrison P.E. from Colorado an engineer you want to design your new wastewater treatment plant?
(hint- thats an actual listing from the petition)


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> based on a private message from physicsexistbut idontunderstandit, he believes, that all the 1400 engineers listed in the ae911.org petition are real.
> 
> Check the list people, is "mr. Garrison p.e. From colorado an engineer you want to design your new wastewater treatment plant?
> (hint- thats an actual listing from the petition)


lol


----------



## candycorn (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Facts hurt.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-11-facts-divecons-challenge.html#post3156373



Yeah, and the fact of the matter is that thermite was not found at ground zero.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2011)

Hell I'm still waiting for the audio evidence of the explosions and the explanation of the indestructible paper and unmelted rebar in the meteorite.


----------



## hortysir (Jan 3, 2011)

By definition, isn't "free fall" only possible with zero resistance underneath it?
With nothing slowing the path of descent?


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 3, 2011)

hortysir said:


> By definition, isn't "free fall" only possible with zero resistance underneath it?
> With nothing slowing the path of descent?



Exact free fall is only possible with zero resistance.  The NIST only had videos to measure acceleration, and that is not an excact science or means of measurement, so it wasn't "exact" free fall, but close.

With enough weight bearing down on lower structures, especailly with many of those internal structures already compromized due to fires and previous internal collapses before the main collapse, there wasn't much resistance to the overall collapse.  

Some will pretend the dynamic loads are no greater than the normal static loads and that every column would have to be cut simultaniously in order to reach free fall acceleration.  They ignore video and audio evidence that these explosions never happened.


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

facts simply do not fit into the twoofer narrative.


----------



## hortysir (Jan 3, 2011)

So nothing was in free fall.

Thanks.



Fail


----------



## Sallow (Jan 3, 2011)

DiveCon is no troll.

He lives in the fact based world. I may not agree with him..but he doesn't fudge facts.


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 3, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> I saw, and took a quote from the idiot for my own dive!
> 
> 
> Some of the 911 conspiracy kooks are profoundly insane, others are profoundly delusional, still others are merely laboring under their poor education and poor self-esteem, trying to improve their self images by pretending to be heroes.


For the most part thery are just lacking intelligence.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 3, 2011)

westwall said:


> Your poll is in error.  You are naming Dive Con as a troll.  That is clearly not possible.  The only troll in evidence is yourself.  Alter the poll or the only responder will be you.



your hysterical,actually he hit the nail right on the head.you have obviously never debated with divecunt,if you did,you would know this is how he constantly debates all the time. Physics will show something like the expert opinions of architects and engineers and post links of them talking and divecunt will reply with -you moron,it wasnt an inside job.Thats how he ALWAYS debates,which is why after when i first got here,after a week  just put the troll on ignore cause he simpley doesnt even try to debate.people like physics find that out immediately when they start discussing anything with him thats how he always debates.Biggest troll at USMB by far,second worst candyidiot.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 3, 2011)

Sallow said:


> DiveCon is no troll.
> 
> He lives in the fact based world. I may not agree with him..but he doesn't fudge facts.



you really need to stop showing off what a moron you are with your lies.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Facts hurt.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-11-facts-divecons-challenge.html#post3156373



they sure do,thats why all the Octas here only have  been able to do is fling childish insults at you cause they cant refute it so they have nothing left to do.


----------



## eots (Jan 3, 2011)

hortysir said:


> So nothing was in free fall.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> ...



there was an admitted 2.5 secs of free fall.


----------



## kwc57 (Jan 3, 2011)

Surely there are some conspiracy theory boards on the interwebs where these tin foil hat types can go have their little circle jerks by themselves and quit dirtying up serious boards.


----------



## eots (Jan 3, 2011)

Muhammed said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > I saw, and took a quote from the idiot for my own dive!
> ...



You have not made a single accurate statement yet


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 3, 2011)

TheTraveller said:


> Maybe I'm missing something here. Why does it even matter? The buildings fell; even assuming the conspiracy theory is right, what good does it do to know about it?
> 
> I'm really not sold on the standard version of events on 9/11, but seriously - so what?



thats actually a good point because yeah it doesnt do much good to know about it,nothing will ever be done about it in the real killers will never be brought to justice.not as long as we have this corrupt two party system we have of remocrats and demopublicans.till we get a third party president in office,nothing will be done about it so yeah your right,it really does no good knowing about it or spreading the word.


----------



## eots (Jan 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Hell I'm still waiting for the audio evidence of the explosions and the explanation of the indestructible paper and unmelted rebar in the meteorite.



I have seen hairs and paper stick to cooling welds


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Jan 3, 2011)

kwc57 said:


> Surely there are some conspiracy theory boards on the interwebs where these tin foil hat types can go have their little circle jerks by themselves and quit dirtying up serious boards.



you Bush dupes are the tin foil hatters.people like physics exist and myself dont have the logic that because corrupt government agencys and the corporate controlled media said it happened this way,that makes it automatically true and all these architiects and engineers and their field of experts doesnt mater.


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 3, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Surely there are some conspiracy theory boards on the interwebs where these tin foil hat types can go have their little circle jerks by themselves and quit dirtying up serious boards.
> ...



You mean the 0.053% of all Architects and Engineers in the US that pretend there is an issue, but they have no evidence for?  Those fuckheads?    Actually, I shouldn't say that.  A lot of the names at AE911 are faked as has been demonstrated repeatedly on this and other boards.  

You truthtards are a joke.  The very fact you have to ignore hard evidence to cling to your fantasies shows just how big of a joke you really are.


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 3, 2011)

eots said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Hell I'm still waiting for the audio evidence of the explosions and the explanation of the indestructible paper and unmelted rebar in the meteorite.
> ...



cooling welds do not equal molten steel as claimed.  The flash point of paper is 662F.  That means the paper would have spontaniously combusted long before it ever got close to molten steel.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 3, 2011)

"Truthtards"?

For pete's sake..

You guys are truly loony.


----------



## kwc57 (Jan 3, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Surely there are some conspiracy theory boards on the interwebs where these tin foil hat types can go have their little circle jerks by themselves and quit dirtying up serious boards.
> ...



Bush dupe?  That's rich!  I'm a libertarian.


----------



## eots (Jan 3, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



A weld is not molten metal ?...lol...it rapidly froms  a llight crust of slag that things can stick to


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

kwc57 said:


> Surely there are some conspiracy theory boards on the interwebs where these tin foil hat types can go have their little circle jerks by themselves and quit dirtying up serious boards.


this is a serious board?
really?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

Sallow said:


> "Truthtards"?
> 
> For pete's sake..
> 
> You guys are truly loony.


trooftards fits better
they clearly arent interested in "truth"


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

kwc57 said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...


in rimjob's pathetic world, anyone that doesnt buy into his delusions is a bush dupe


----------



## kwc57 (Jan 3, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > Surely there are some conspiracy theory boards on the interwebs where these tin foil hat types can go have their little circle jerks by themselves and quit dirtying up serious boards.
> ...



Welllll, no........but compared to tin foil hat conspiracy theories.........


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 3, 2011)

eots said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



You must have forgotten that key word cooling.  :roll:  Why can't truthtards be honest with ANYTHING they discuss?  Seriously.  So now we're suppose to pretend a cooling weld is comparable to a rather sizeable "pool" of what truthtards claim is molten steel as far as heat output?    Do you go around lighting matches and pretending because they don't weaken metal that an office fire can't?  Wait.... I've seen truthtards try that comparison.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...



I believe he is attempting to say that the paper got there after the metal supposedly was cooling down. I guess that's when someone stuck all that rebar in there too......


----------



## candycorn (Jan 3, 2011)

kwc57 said:


> Surely there are some conspiracy theory boards on the interwebs where these tin foil hat types can go have their little circle jerks by themselves and quit dirtying up serious boards.



You think it's bad here...go to War On You: News without Corporate Views and look at their forum.  Hell, even I look smart compared to those guys.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

kwc57 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...


point given 


LOL


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...





			
				DiveCon said:
			
		

> i'll address any FACT you actually post, when you actually post a fact




Reference: http://www.usmessageboard.com/consp...-physics-can-you-handle-it-8.html#post3156320

*Here are some FACTS I POSTED for you to ADDRESS, DiveCon.*



PhysicsExist said:


> BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?
> 
> Explosive Residues*
> Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:*
> ...



Care to address these like promised?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

hortysir said:


> So nothing was in free fall.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> ...


Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7s free fall descent could have occurred.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - Free Fall Collapse


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > kwc57 said:
> ...



Since there is a severe LACK of even ONE fact in this repetitive post, I can only assume that your just a treasonous little shill for the president of iran and the other enemies of the usa. Scum of the earth for short....


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > So nothing was in free fall.
> ...



I'll take gravity for 1000 chuck!


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Where is there no facts?


Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.

REFERENCES

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Fu...mite_paper.pdf


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



one twoofer writing down his delusional bullshit and having another twoofer "peer review it" is not the stuff facts are made of little boy.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


those are nothing but paranoid delusions, there was NO explosive residue found
PERIOD

still waiting for you to post a FACT


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...


NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7s free fall descent could have occurred.
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Care to address these facts, and stop saying they are truther lies?


----------



## boedicca (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Addressing foaming at the mouth conspiracy theories is a futile act.

Just frelling stating the obvious.


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



nope, they are twoofer lies. no facts, just lies. nothing to address here folks, go about your lives and business. no facts here


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

I guess i have fascist tendencies. I wish it wasn't so, but we all have our faults. 

I say that because if I was in charge i would either deport or execute twoofers on sight, depending on how much they amused me.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

&#8220;The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.&#8221;



slackjawed said:


> I guess i have fascist tendencies. I wish it wasn't so, but we all have our faults.
> 
> I say that because if I was in charge i would either deport or execute twoofers on sight, depending on how much they amused me.





slackjawed said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



Don't fear the truth.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> I guess i have fascist tendencies. I wish it wasn't so, but we all have our faults.
> 
> I say that because if I was in charge i would either deport or execute twoofers on sight, depending on how much they amused me.


the funny thing is, troofers never post facts
yet they claim they do
must be the paranoid delusions getting in the way


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 3, 2011)

There are only a few undisputed facts about 911.
1)19 muslim exteemists hijacked planes and crashed them into buildings
2) 2 buildings fell down and went "boom"
3) this is the reason we have sent tens of thousands of our troops into the mideast to hunt ragheads


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 3, 2011)

I think PE is an attention whore.  Why else start thread after thread with the same bullshit that has already been refuted?  Ignorant jackasses like PE prove lobotomies could only improve their cognative abilities.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> I think PE is an attention whore.  Why else start thread after thread with the same bullshit that has already been refuted?  Ignorant jackasses like PE prove lobotomies could only improve their cognative abilities.


Please Refute these facts, instead of posting fallacies

*NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, &#8220;This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].&#8221;[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7&#8217;s free fall descent could have occurred.
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.
*


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 3, 2011)

Please explain how one can clearly hear the collapse of WTC 7, but NO EXPLOSION(s) which you claim HAD to have happened.  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-WZpXiEKAo]Collapse WTC 7[/ame]

I have seen a controlled demolition from about a half mile away.  You couldn't HELP but hear the explosives.  Hell, you could FEEL the concussion.  Every video that has audio clearly shows the explosives are many times louder than the collapse itself.

Yet none of these people hear a thing other than the rumble from the collapse.  They don't look startled.  They just look.  You can't even hear the equivalent bang of a firecracker on the audio. 

HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE IF YOU CLAIM WTC 7 HAD TO BE DONE WITH HIGH EXPLOSIVES?

Thermite doesn't "cut" it.  Thermite can't cut horizontally, you would need TONS per column if you could cut horizontally, and it takes an unknown amount of time to work, thus making timing impossible.

So go ahead, PE.  Dazzle us with your explanation of how something you claim HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED, just flat out didn't.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> Please explain how one can clearly hear the collapse of WTC 7, but NO EXPLOSION(s) which you claim HAD to have happened.
> 
> Collapse WTC 7
> 
> ...



Let's look at the Facts, shall we.



			
				Craig Bartmer said:
			
		

> Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shits hitting the ground behind me.  And the whole time youre hearing, THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! So, I, I think I know an explosion when I hear it, you know?





			
				Kevin McPadden said:
			
		

> And, at the last few seconds, he took his hand off [the radio] and you heard 3-2-1, and he was just saying, Just run for your life, just run for your life.  And then it was like another two, three seconds, you heard explosions.  *Like BA-BOOOOOM!  And its like a distinct soundBA-BOOOOOM!*  And you felt a rumble in the ground, like, almost like you wanted to grab onto something.  That, to me, I knew that was an explosion.  There was no doubt in my mind.





			
				Peter DeMarco said:
			
		

> [T]here was a rumble.  The buildings top row of windows popped out.  Then all the windows on the thirty-ninth floor popped out.  Then the thirty-eighth floor.  Pop! Pop! Pop! was all you heard until the building sunk into a rising cloud of gray.





			
				First Year NYU Medical Student interviewed on 1010 Wins Radio only a few minutes after the buildings collapse said:
			
		

> We heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder.  Turned around, we were shocked to see that the building was  well, it looked like there was a shock wave ripping through building, and the windows all busted out.  It was horrifying.  And then, about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that.  And we saw the building collapse down all the way to the ground.



*The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.*

_Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building._

Sit down, Patriot911.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

another failing flail thread by PE


----------



## Jeremy (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> The collapse we see............."



Translation:


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

Jeremy said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > &#8220;The collapse we see............."
> ...



This is an explosion with explosives, not gravity.


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain how one can clearly hear the collapse of WTC 7, but NO EXPLOSION(s) which you claim HAD to have happened.
> ...


Yes.  Lets.  Then I can expose your complete and utter dishonesty.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> Craig Bartmer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Jeremy said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


WRONG, again


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 3, 2011)

PE is an attention whore.


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 3, 2011)

9/11 inside job said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Your poll is in error.  You are naming Dive Con as a troll.  That is clearly not possible.  The only troll in evidence is yourself.  Alter the poll or the only responder will be you.
> ...


Shut up, you little bitch. Post a link that shows where you debated DiveCon, you little cocksucker.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

Obamerican said:


> PE is an attention whore.


more accurate to say an alex jones dupe


----------



## candycorn (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The only undisputed fact is that your posts look like legal-ease from an Ambien ad.  I doubt anybody reads your crazy-assed posts.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Jan 3, 2011)

Ringel05 said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Facts hurt.
> ...



I for one doubt that is the case.    Maybe we should do a poll on it.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain how one can clearly hear the collapse of WTC 7, but NO EXPLOSION(s) which you claim HAD to have happened.
> ...


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...



yeah you can't handle the facts. it's disgraceful to see you respond to them with pictures and insults.  You had great parenting.


----------



## Rozman (Jan 3, 2011)

Obamerican said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...



It's unique design done this way in order to build these towers were it's undoing.Oh and it didn't help that two planes loaded with jet fuel flew into them....

Did I miss something that day when I saw the TV video replays over and over again and every year since.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...


 you gave a rats ass
LOL


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 3, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



It's all his delusions deserve.

And it is mine to give.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

Rozman said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Yes.  because you saw an explosions with Nanothermite and explosives, not a collapse.  Physics prove it was not a collapse due to fire+gravity.  

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgN080yySe0[/ame]

www.BuildingWhat.org
Fact.

And did you know 3 buildings fell that day? WTC7 was NOT hit by a plane.  It freefell for 2.25 seconds, it was demolished with explosives.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...



You're on ignore <plink!>


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...


dipshit, did you know 8 buildings were destroyed that day?
and several others badly damaged
and still only 2 were hit by planes


----------



## hortysir (Jan 3, 2011)

eots said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > So nothing was in free fall.
> ...


Admitted by whom?
You?

Whomever it was, they lied.
You don't get to redefine "free fall" to suit your conspiracy.

"Free fall" is to say with zero resistance. A crumbling column or a desk or a filing cabinet represent resistance.


Even the pressure of fire would pose some resistance.



If you want to believe that it was a "controlled demolition", that's your prerogative and I can *almost* understand why you might think that. At least that goes in line with a conspiracy theory.
But no amount of twisting will redefine "free fall".


unsub


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - Free Fall Collapse

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - Explosive Residues

Governments Explanation:





What really happened: 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

Stop being drones.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

hortysir said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



What are you talking about? USE YOUR EYES, READ THE FACTS. stop deflecting...

NIST CONCLUDES FREEFALL *AFTER BEING CONFRONTED BY AE911TRUTH*
&#8220;This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds]" - NIST THEMSELVES IN *THEIR REPORT*

What is your deal?  It's RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU. THE FACTS PROVE IT.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Rozman said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...



Really, what gutted Building 6?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Rozman said:
> ...



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsJQKpnkZ10[/ame]

You're gross for comparing this to WTC6.  Disturbing denial.  Wake up coward.


----------



## PixieStix (Jan 3, 2011)

Threads merged


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

sure thing, alex jones drone


----------



## PixieStix (Jan 3, 2011)

Threads merged


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 3, 2011)

PixieStix said:


> Threads merged



Damn Pixie, now he can only call me a coward half as much...


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - Free Fall Collapse
> 
> BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - Explosive Residues
> 
> ...



You can't even handle this basic fact and acknowledge it.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 3, 2011)

dipshit, you keep posting the same bullshit over and over


----------



## hortysir (Jan 3, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Let me type this real slow for you.

The NIST is full of shit.

Got it?

A parachuter free falls.
My pencil falling off my desk is in free fall until it hits the floor.

A floor of a building CANNOT....slower still C-A-N-N-O-T----F-R-E-E----F-A-L-L.

Supports can give way. Floors can collapse. Ceilings can cave.
That isn't free fall.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> PixieStix said:
> 
> 
> > Threads merged
> ...



You are a disgrace and a coward who cannot accept FACTS.

You deflect and hide because your are scared.

You act immature because you are afraid.

You are a joke until you accept freefall.  Freefall = Demolition 100% guaranteed. All you can do is cry and bitch about the facts, instead of rebuttal them.

*The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming *

Fact.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 3, 2011)

hortysir said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



THATS THE WHOLE POINT.  

FREEFALL CAN ONLY HAPPEN IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.  

WTC7 WAS THE MOST EFFICIENT DEMOLITION IN HISTORY, BECAUSE OF THE 2.25 SECONDS OF FREEFALL.

Use common SENSE!

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 |Please stand with the 9-11 families in calling for a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?



> The NIST is full of shit.
> 
> Got it?



Then wouldn't it be LEGALLY PROPER and COMMON SENSE to REINVESTIGATE if NIST is 'full of shit'?  3000 people were murdered.  we are in wars. we have affected millions.

You said it yourself.  NIST is full of shit.  

THATS WHY AE911TRUTH.ORG confronted them and made them ADMIT TO FREEFALL, which in turn PROVED controlled demolition.

Fact.


----------



## PixieStix (Jan 3, 2011)

Merged another.


----------



## Jeremy (Jan 3, 2011)

PixieStix said:


> Merged another.



Hope PhysicsExist doesn't give you carpal tunnel.

If so, I know a great doctor.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 4, 2011)

11 Remarkable Facts About 9/11
11 REMARKABLE FACTS ABOUT 9/11

1) *The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 *

_It is commonly known that the Twin Towers fell on 9/11, but did you know that a third World Trade Center high-rise building also fell that day? WTC Building 7, a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper located one block from the Twin Towers was not hit by any plane, but collapsed at 5:20 that evening, imploding in the exact manner of a professionally engineered demolition. It fell suddenly, straight down, at near freefall speed, and landed in a compact pile of rubble, barely damaging any of the surrounding buildings. These are but a few of eleven characteristics of Building 7's collapse that are consistent only with controlled demolitions. Further, the leaseholder of the three buildings, Larry Silverstein, said in 2002 on PBS that on the afternoon of 9/11 he suggested to the NYC fire department commander that they "pull" WTC 7. "Pull" is an industry term that means "demolish," but it normally takes a team of skilled people many weeks to design and implement large demolitions. Astonishingly, there is no mention of WTC Building 7's remarkable collapse in the 571-page 9/11 Commission Report._

2) *Fire has never  prior to or after 9/11  caused any steel frame building to collapse.* The sudden, vertical, explosive, and total collapse of the Twin Towers at near freefall speed can only be explained by controlled demolition.

3) The WTC steel, which if fully examined could have relvealed the effects of explosives, was quickly shipped overseas and melted down. *This was an unprecedented violation of federal crime scene laws.*

4) Whenever contact is lost with any airplane, fighter jets routinely take to the air to investigate. *This commonly occurs about 100 times per year in well under 20 minutes. But on 9/11 nearly two hours passed without any interception.*

5) The *Secret Service broke established protocols by allowing President Bush to remain in a well-publicized classroom* "photo op" long after it was known that the U.S. was under attack and he might well have been a target.

6) *Unidentified insiders made millions* on the stocks of American and United Airlines and those of other corporations that were likewise impacted by the attack. These "put option" bets were made just prior to 9/11.

7) There were warnings of the impending attacks from at least eleven other countries. Also prior to 9/11, insiders such as John Ashcroft, *top military officers, and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown were warned not to fly.*


8) In September of 2000, a group of neocon hawks, many of whom would become key officials in the Bush administration, wrote that their proposed massive military buildup would proceed slowly "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event  like a new Pearl Harbor."

9) Some of the alleged 9/11 "suicide hijackers" are still alive and well, according to the BBC and The Guardian. *At least five of the alleged hijackers may have trained at U.S. military bases, as reported in Newsweek and other sources.*

10) The Bush administration resisted the formation of the 9/11 Commission for 441 days. Similar investigations, such as those for Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination, and the space shuttle disasters, all started in about *one week.*

11) "The Jersey Girls"  four courageous 9/11 widows  finally forced the 9/11 Commission into existence and presented many questions, most of which were ignored. Under the leadership of Bush administration insider Philip Zelikow, the final report failed to address any of the evidence pointing to official complicity.

There are hundreds of additional facts that contradict the official story of 9/11. It is time for a truly independent investigation that addresses all the questions asked by the citizens' 9/11 Truth & Justice Movement.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ?

2.25 seconds of free fall in WTC7 proves controlled demolition.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> 11 Remarkable Facts About 9/11
> 11 REMARKABLE FACTS ABOUT 9/11
> 
> 1) *The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 *
> ...



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYzIbOYaSy8[/ame]


----------



## Liability (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> * * * *
> 
> 2.25 seconds of free fall in WTC7 proves controlled demolition.



Approximately 2.25 seconds of estimated free fall proves no such thing.  

Indeed, the capacity for anyone to have performed the kind of demolition *set-up* necessary for a controlled demolition is -- for all actual intents and purposes -- an impossibility.  It simply couldn't have happened and it just as clearly did not happen.

All troofers are fucking idiots.


----------



## Liability (Jan 4, 2011)

"The TOWERS fell at FREE FALL SPEED thereby proving without any doubt at all that they were taken down in a controlled demolition," exclaim the troofers.

Yet the dishonest idiot troofers can never quite explain how the debris out-paced the collapse if the collapse took place at free fall speed:


----------



## Jeremy (Jan 4, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYzIbOYaSy8


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 4, 2011)

Liability said:


> "The TOWERS fell at FREE FALL SPEED thereby proving without any doubt at all that they were taken down in a controlled demolition," exclaim the troofers.
> 
> Yet the dishonest idiot troofers can never quite explain how the debris out-paced the collapse if the collapse took place at free fall speed:



Ah man that's easy, don't you know that it was shot out by the explosives? Ask any of them they'll tell you..


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 4, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > "The TOWERS fell at FREE FALL SPEED thereby proving without any doubt at all that they were taken down in a controlled demolition," exclaim the troofers.
> ...



Out doesn't cut it.  The debris still beats the collapse event to the bottom.  The explosives shot out the debris and then secondary explosives blew it all DOWN.  Yeah.  That's the ticket!    Any minute now "Dr." Judy Woods will come out with an explanation involving a gravity machine and temporal distortions.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 4, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Hey, that's classified.


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Unless you work directly for Iran, your the lowest form of life on the North American Continent. In order to reach that state you must have been born to a whore who got knocked up by an insane criminal, and raised by them.

Your behavior is a disgrace to your bad parents, as well as to your country, unless of course your an Iranian.


----------



## Paulie (Jan 4, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



You keep fighting the good fight bro.  Just a few more posts and you'll have the movement defeated.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Are you comparing the Windsor tower, which burned for over a DAY, and only had a partial collapse of its upper floors?



That's a lie. The Windsor tower burned for 18-20 hours, not 26. The fire started at 23:00 and was declared out at 17:00 the next day. 



PhysicsExist said:


> WTC Towers were 100 stories, when the collapsed, there was *ONLY THREE STORIES* of RUBBLE. where did it all go?  It was vaporized with explosives.



More garbage from you. 3 stories? Did you include the 5 basement levels that filled with debris from the collapse or are you just counting above ground level? Are you counting the debris that fell around the perimeter of the towers, 300 feet away in all directions. I thought a controlled demolition stayed in it's own foot print?



PhysicsExist said:


> WTC7 was not hit by a plane, collapses at FREE FALL. proves demolition.  No other way to remove 8 floors of structural steel.



Blatantly incorrect. WTC7 did not collapse at free fall. 2.25 seconds of the total collapse was at free fall. Trying to be deceptive?



PhysicsExist said:


> Windsor tower took 26 hours to just burn partially, WTC7 burned 5x less longer and collapsed FASTER than a REAL LIFE DEMOLITION ever has.



You need to really get your facts straight as it makes you look like a complete fool when trying to prove things. The Windsor tower did NOT burn for 26 hours like you claim. It burned for 18 hours. 8 hours LESS than your garbage claim. The upper structure (floors) collapsed after 5 hours of the fire burning, not 26 like you make it seem. So fire can't structural steel components fail and collapse eh? You need to read.

Case Studies: Historical Fires: Windsor Tower Fire


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> When the towers fell, they showed no jolt and gravitationally accelerated though the path of greatest resistance.



Let's discuss this shall we? What structural component in the two towers provided this "greatest resistance"? If the upper third of the towers collapse down due to failed components, what horizontal components have to resist that weight coming down?






Are you telling me that you believe the truss seats or the damper connections shown above were supposed to resist the upper third of the tower coming down?

What structural components were supposed to provide resistance to the collapse?


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of people cannot grasp this:
> ...



Why do you use melted steel in your arguments?


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 4, 2011)

Paulie said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



LOL, that's funny! Hey I am keeping myself amused. It may not appear to be so, but if any of the twoofers showed up in person I would treat them as any guest. I bet a day fishing with eots on a boat, for example, would be a real hoot. I would talk to them the same way in person, and would expect them to do the same. Yes, I have invited eots and others, but they don't show up. I honestly don't think eots is into fishing, maybe when his kids get older he will take them fishing, because near as I can tell, he is a great dad.
I don't expect to "defeat" them, and would be willing to bet none of them expect to "defeat" me either.


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Freefall for 2.25 seconds is impossible in WTC7 unless explosives were used.



Interesting. So I can take a four column structure and place a 6 million ton block on top, heat those columns to failure, and that 6 million ton block WON'T fall at free fall? Those failed columns will still provide resistance?



PhysicsExist said:


> The demolition of the Twin Towers was done with Nanothermite.


I thought you said EXPLOSIVES vaporized the towers into 3 story rubble piles? Was it explosives or thermite?


----------



## Gamolon (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> A lot of people cannot grasp this:
> 
> *You can melt steel inside of a blast furnace, BECAUSE YOU HAVE PURE Oxygen.
> Pure Oxygen Enviorment allows you to get to 3,000oC.*


*

No you can't because a blast furnace is used to make pig iron, not steel. A basic oxygen furnace is used to make steel FROM the pig iron made via a blast furnace.

You need to do better research.*


----------



## candycorn (Jan 4, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



What do you think an afternoon trapped on a boat with Miller would be like?


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 4, 2011)

candycorn said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


LOL
one would clearly push the other out of the boat


well slack might be jumping out after a short time


----------



## Paulie (Jan 4, 2011)

candycorn said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



You would never have the balls to say to someone in person the shit you say to them on here.

I don't know anyone who insults people to their faces as much as you insult people on here, without them having been lumped the fuck up for it.


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 4, 2011)

Paulie said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



All I can tell you is thats the way it is. I invite you to the VFW in Eagar, AZ on any friday night. Nobody gets beat up, and the insults are at least as bad as those here.


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 4, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



I might jump out if it was miller. The fact is if it is my boat I might just make him walk the plank......


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 4, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


lol
my point being it would be enough to make you give up the boat just to be away from it


----------



## Paulie (Jan 4, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



That was directed at candycorn, but as long as you're being made the subject of this as well, I'll point out that you devote a majority of your time on here to insulting conspiracy theorists for being conspiracy theorists.  Something about them obviously touches a nerve with you, and I really can't wrap my mind around what it is, or why.  

The very thing you hate about them, you perpetuate by continually going tit for tat with them.

Every fucking post you make to them is counter-productive to your otherwise obvious desire for them to just shut up about their theories and go away.

You can say it's just entertainment, but I don't buy it.  I've watched these debates go on for years now.  People like you HATE conspiracy theorists.  

I'd hate to live a life where every damn day I'm so bothered by what someone I don't even know believes, that I feel the need to expend a significant portion of my energy to it for the purpose of coping.


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 4, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



LOL, I have to admit your probably right.

Although if miller went around this town saying some of the insane bullshit he says on here, and people found out he was from new england and wrote a book.......he likely wouldn't make it out of the lake anyway.


----------



## slackjawed (Jan 4, 2011)

Paulie said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



Actually I don't hate conspiracy theorists as a rule, and they don't bother me they amuse me-most of the time.

In the winter i get so damn bored I have to find something to do. The livestock is off the mountain in and in my pasture, hunting season is over. It's too damn cold to hike lately. The snow on the mountain is too deep to ride, so I amuse myself tormenting twoofers.

I do engage in amusing and heated discussions with my buddies in town. Bill Cooper came from my town, I knew him. Conspiracy theorists are all over this area. They might be nuts, but when I need them they are there for me, and likewise me for them. 

Again, I invite you to our VFW on fri nights, unless there is a band, thats what the whole bar is talking about-conspiracy theories.

On New Years eve, Travis Walton was there and entertained us with his UFO stories.....as long as we bought him flat tire ales...


----------



## Paulie (Jan 4, 2011)

slackjawed said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



I lived in CO for a while.  I never liked Fat Tire.

I also spent some time in AZ, and can't imagine there not being something interesting to do at any time.  

Weed is cheap there.  Go smoke a joint and do something productive for crying out loud.


----------



## Liability (Jan 4, 2011)

Paulie said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



Because getting wasted on some rope is clearly associated with productivity....


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 4, 2011)

Paulie said:


> That was directed at candycorn, but as long as you're being made the subject of this as well, I'll point out that you devote a majority of your time on here to insulting conspiracy theorists for being conspiracy theorists. Something about them obviously touches a nerve with you, and I really can't wrap my mind around what it is, or why.
> 
> The very thing you hate about them, you perpetuate by continually going tit for tat with them.
> 
> ...


I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I have a LOT of contempt for conspiracy theorists who insist on ignoring evidence that disproves their theories.  I call them truthtards, but they are called by various other names.  Why shouldn't I insult them when they use the deaths of 3000 Americans to push an anti-<fill in bad guy here> agenda? 

Contempt doesn't equal hate, though.  I don't hate truthtards.  I don't wish evil upon them or anything like that.  Do I wish they would shut up?  No.  I don't believe in stifling free speech.  I do believe if a person is going to take an ignorant position that they should be prepared to receive a raftload of shit for it, though.  

Regardless, I don't write here or anywhere else to try and convince truthtards of anything.  Convincing truthtards their theories are bullshit isn't possible because I firmly believe truthtards know and understand their theories are bullshit.  To truthtards, though, the truth never seems to get in the way of pushing the agenda.  

So instead of trying to actually convince them of anything, I expose their silly theories and lies for people who like to read these forums.  Without someone to defend the truth as defined by the evidence, lies can take root.  In all honesty, though, there have been some truthtards that have seen the light and decided their boogieman of choice wasn't really behind 9/11.  When that happens, all is forgiven and apologies are given.

Now, if you're a conspiracy theorist who likes to debate but looks at all the evidence, that doesn't make you a truthtard.  I've had debates with conspiracy theorists who were willing to look at all the evidence, not just the evidence that backed up their theories.  There was no need for name calling or getting ugly.  

BTW, truthtards don't go away simply because everyone ignores them.  They just start spamming other forum areas until they get the attention they desire.

As for balls, I've confronted infowars supporters several times at tea party gatherings and I've pretty much stated there what I state here.  They didn't want to get into it.    Even they know their bullshit sucks and can't really stand up to real time debate.  Without conspiracy sites to tell them what they think, they are fairly incapable of real time debate.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 4, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > That was directed at candycorn, but as long as you're being made the subject of this as well, I'll point out that you devote a majority of your time on here to insulting conspiracy theorists for being conspiracy theorists. Something about them obviously touches a nerve with you, and I really can't wrap my mind around what it is, or why.
> ...



And then you get these little worms like this "PhysicsExist" character who makes up excuses to call people a coward because we don't believe his bullshit...  BTW where is the little worm today?


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 4, 2011)

How many times do i have to Post facts and for you to ignore them and say they are excuses?

OPEN YOUR MIND.

Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:_

&#8220;[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.&#8221;

REFERENCES

 Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, &#8220;Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,&#8221; Bentham Open Access, 2009.  http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf
*THIS IS A FACT
*

NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, &#8220;This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].

*THIS IS A FACT*

&#8220;The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.&#8221;

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

STOP AVOIDING THE FACTS._


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 4, 2011)

http://buildingwhat.org/destruction-of-evidence/

Destruction of Evidence
Article 205 of the New York Penal Code, § 205.50 Hindering Prosecution:_

&#8220;[A] person &#8216;renders criminal assistance&#8217; when, with intent to prevent, hinder or delay the discovery or apprehension of&#8230;a person he knows or believes has committed a crime&#8230;he&#8230;suppresses, by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction, any physical evidence which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such person or in the lodging of a criminal charge against him;&#8221;

OFFICIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM THE WTC

Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2002:[ii]
&#8220;In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT Team)], a significant amount of steel debris&#8212;including most of the steel from the upper floors&#8212;was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel&#8212;including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns&#8212;were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract.&#8221;

Joseph Crowley, U.S. Congressman, 7th District, New York:[iii]
&#8220;[T]here is so much that has been lost in these last six months that we can never go back and retrieve.  And that is not only unfortunate, it is borderline criminal.&#8221;

Jonathan Barnett, PhD, FEMA BPAT Investigator:[iv]
&#8220;Normally when you have a structural failure, you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item &#8211; photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is in the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element.  We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7.&#8221;

CONTROL OF THE WTC CLEANUP

In the aftermath of the attacks, protocol for disaster cleanup and investigations was not followed.  According to the New York Times:[v]

&#8220;In other disasters, FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies have played a more central role in making decisions about cleanup and investigations. But from the start, they found that New York had a degree of engineering and construction expertise unlike any they had encountered.

&#8220;&#8216;They wanted to do a lot of things on their own,&#8217; said Charles Hess, who is in charge of civil emergency management for the Army Corps.&#8221;

New York City&#8217;s Department of Design and Construction (DDC) took control of the site as a result of Mayor Giuliani&#8217;s &#8220;back-room decision to scrap the organization charts, to finesse the city&#8217;s own Office of Emergency Management (OEM), and to allow the DDC to proceed&#8221;:[vi]

&#8220;[T]here was a shift in power in their direction that was never quite formalized and, indeed, was unjustified by bureaucratic logic or political considerations.  The City&#8217;s official and secret emergency plans, written before the attack, called for the Department of Sanitation to clean up after a building collapse.  A woman involved in writing the latest versions &#8211; a midlevel official in the OEM &#8211; mentioned to one of the contractors a week after the Trade Center collapse that she still did not quite know what the DDC was.&#8221;

DDC Deputy Commissioner Michael Burton showed complete disregard for the need to preserve the evidence:[vii]

&#8220;Burton, who had become the effective czar for the cleanup job, had made it clear that he cared very little about engineering subtleties like the question of why the towers first stood, then collapsed on September 11.  &#8216;We know why they fell,&#8217; he said.  &#8216;Because they flew two planes into the towers.&#8217;  But he was deeply immersed in the details of hauling steel out of the debris pile.&#8221;

By September 28, 2001, 130,000 tons of debris had already been removed from the site,[viii] in what one journalist with unrestricted access to the site called, &#8220;the most aggressive possible schedule of demolition and debris removal.&#8221;[ix]

THE DECISION TO DESTROY THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

According to New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton:[x]

&#8220;[O]fficials at the Department of Design and Construction, including Michael Burton, had decided to ship virtually all of the steel to scrap yards, where it would be cut up, shipped away, and melted down for reuse before it was inspected&#8230; Burton cleared the decision with Richard Tomasetti of Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers.  Months later, Tomasetti would say that had he known the direction that investigations into the disaster would take, he would have adopted a different stance.  But the decision to quickly melt down the trade center steel had been made.&#8221; [Underline added for emphasis]

However, Mr. Tomasetti&#8217;s alleged ignorance of the need to save the steel is questionable given his knowledge of engineering investigations, and given that his business partner, Charles Thornton, was a lead member on the team of engineers initially assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) to investigate the cause of the collapses.  The ASCE team, which later became the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), reportedly requested early on that the steel be saved.  According to Times reporters Glanz and Lipton:[xi]

&#8220;[O]n September 28, the New York Times learned that the city was recycling the steel.  When the Times contacted Kenneth R. Holden, commissioner of the Department of Design and Construction, he said that no one from the investigative team had asked him to keep or inspect the steel.  The ASCE, it turned out, had faxed a request, but to the wrong fax machine.  Late that afternoon, after reporters shuttled the correct fax number to the ASCE, Holden said that a request had finally reached him.&#8221;

By September 28, the DDC is publicly known to have been aware of the BPAT&#8217;s request for the steel to be saved, however, the decision to recycle the steel stood.

Mayor Giuliani &#8211; previously a U.S. Attorney &#8211; and the DDC had to be fully aware of the illegality of destroying physical evidence prior to their decision to recycle the steel.  Their refusal to desist from recycling the steel when asked by the investigative team to do so &#8211; still less than three weeks into the cleanup effort, with hundreds of thousands of tons of steel still salvageable, and relatively negligible revenue from selling the steel &#8211; raises serious questions about the intent of their actions.

THE CONTINUED DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE DESPITE PUBLIC OUTCRY

In the months that followed, the city ignored mounting calls from the public to halt its recycling of the steel.  According to Times reporters Glanz and Lipton:[xii]

&#8220;The decision to go on with the recycling program fueled outrage among the victims&#8217; families.  On December 14, nearly three months after the program had been disclosed, Sally Regenhard was standing in a drizzle outside City Hall protesting the recycling decision.  Her son, Christian, a firefighter, had died in the towers&#8217; collapse.  &#8216;We&#8217;re here today to call for a stop to the destruction of evidence, composed mainly of steel,&#8217; she said.&#8221;

The outcry was echoed by prominent voices in the fire-engineering community.  Fire Engineering editor Bill Manning wrote on January 1, 2002:[xiii]

&#8220;For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap.  Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on a slow boat to China, never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.  Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history.  I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing for the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall&#8230; As things stand now and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.&#8221;

Calls to halt the recycling fell on deaf ears.  According to Times reporters Glanz and Lipton:[xiv]

&#8220;Officials in the mayor&#8217;s office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three-day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation.  &#8216;The city considered it reasonable to have recovered structural steel recycled,&#8217; said Matthew G. Monahan, a spokesman for the city&#8217;s Department of Design and Construction, which is in charge of debris removal at the site.&#8221;

Why didn&#8217;t the city simply stop recycling the steel?  The outright refusal of city officials to desist from recycling the steel again raises serious questions about the intent of their actions.

REFERENCES

 New York Penal &#8211; Article 205, §205.5 Hindering Prosecution.  New York Penal - Article 205 - § 205.50 Hindering Prosecution; Definition of Term - New York Attorney Resources - New York Laws

[ii] Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2002. p.14.  Learning From 9/11--Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center

[iii] Ibid. p. 185.

[iv] The History Channel, Modern Marvels: Engineering Disasters 13, 2004. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgCoV7phKa8[/ame]

[v] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, New York Times, &#8220;Experts Urge Broader Inquiry in Towers&#8217; Fall,&#8221; December 25, 2001. The Towers - Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers' Fall - NYTimes.com

[vi] William Langewiesche, &#8220;American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center,&#8221; New York, NY: North Point Press, 2002, p. 66, 118.

[vii] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, &#8220;City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center,&#8221; New York, NY: Times Book, Henry Holt and Company, 2003, p.299.

[viii] David Sapsted, The Daily Telegraph, &#8220;250 Tons of Scrap Stolen from Ruins,&#8221; September 28, 2001. Telegraph | News

[ix] William Langewiesche, &#8220;American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center,&#8221; New York, NY: North Point Press, 2002, p. 146.

[x] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, &#8220;City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center,&#8221; New York, NY: Times Book, Henry Holt and Company, 2003, p.330.

[xi] Ibid. p.331.

[xii] Ibid. p.332.

[xiii] Bill Manning, Fire Engineering, &#8220;$elling Out The Investigation,&#8221; January 1, 2002. $ELLING OUT THE INVESTIGATION - Fire Engineering

[xiv] James Glanz and Eric Lipton, New York Times, &#8220;Experts Urge Broader Inquiry in Towers&#8217; Fall,&#8221; December 25, 2001. The Towers - Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers' Fall - NYTimes.com_


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> How many times do i have to Post facts and for you to ignore them and say they are excuses?
> 
> OPEN YOUR MIND.
> 
> ...


_

It is a FACT you are full of bullshit and refuse to look at the FACTS!  When are you going to stop avoiding the facts and explain how massive explosions didn't register on audio, yet one can clearly hear the collapse.

It is YOUR claim all the columns had to be cut simultaniously, so you can take your claims of "active thermitic compound" and shove them straight up your ass.  Thermitic compounds work through heat.  You can't cut with heat quickly.  Period.  That is another FACT you will ignore in your quest to be the greatest truthtard ever.  And if you can't cut with heat quickly, that leaves high explosives; the kind used by controlled demolitions crews the world over.  They cut with pressure and can do so in milliseconds.  Perfect for timing the destruction of columns to bring down a building like they want instead of randomly.

But the same high pressure wave that cuts steel can also be heard for miles.  Many such pressure waves are going to be heard as a VERY loud explosion.  

Yet we hear nothing but the collapse.

Every audio tape of every controlled demolition I have seen has the explosions from the demolition MANY TIMES louder than the collapse.  

Yet we hear nothing but the collapse.

The sound couldn't be muffled by the collapse.  The explosives have to go off BEFORE the collapse.

Yet we hear nothing but the collapse.

You have two witnesses who claim to hear explosions, but there are contradicting witnesses who clearly didn't hear explosives.  Witnesses can lie.  Witnesses can be mistaken.  Witnesses will always be trumped by hard evidence such as audio tapes.

Yet we hear nothing but the collapse.

Why?  Because there were no explosives going off in WTC 7.  That is a FACT.  There is ZERO EVIDENCE of explosives.  That is a FACT.  A reporter with a clear view of WTC 7 from only a few blocks away doesn't capture anything even as loud as a firecracker.  That is a FACT.  And you can't even claim the audio was messed with because you also have the reaction of the people.  When people hear an explosion, they react.  When people hear something unusual like the deep rumble of a building collapsing, they look around.  What did all the people do?  They looked around.  They didn't jump.  They didn't startle.  They looked.  That is a FACT.

So take your own advice and stop avoiding the facts.  We both know you can't explain the complete absence of sound.  We both know your theory is absolutely worthless without being able to explain the video and the complete lack of evidence of what you claim HAD to happen.

Sucks to be a truthtard these days!_


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> How many times do i have to Post facts and for you to ignore them and say they are excuses?
> 
> OPEN YOUR MIND.
> 
> ...


_

Same old arguments.

Problem is it took them 5 years to find this so called explosive residue.....

And the top of the building did not remain intact and uncrumpled, the penthouse was the first thing to go. 

You may now attempt to fit those facts into your Bullshit._


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 4, 2011)

Blatant lies as have been exposed time and time again.  I guess stupid pieces of shit like PE think if he tells his pathetic lies enough that someone might believe them.    Not when he can't even explain why there is no sound of a massive explosion mere blocks from WTC 7 when the collapse is clearly audible.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 4, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > How many times do i have to Post facts and for you to ignore them and say they are excuses?
> ...


_

It took the govt until Nov 2008 to release their fake report.  And you're worried that it took 5 years to find explosives?  Shouldn't it be they should NEVER find explosives?

Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site.  In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.

REFERENCES

 Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Bentham Open Access, 2009.  http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

You cannot address these facts because you are in denial._


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 4, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> Blatant lies as have been exposed time and time again.  I guess stupid pieces of shit like PE think if he tells his pathetic lies enough that someone might believe them.    Not when he can't even explain why there is no sound of a massive explosion mere blocks from WTC 7 when the collapse is clearly audible.



*Destruction of Evidence
Article 205 of the New York Penal Code, § 205.50 Hindering Prosecution:*

&#8220;[A] person &#8216;renders criminal assistance&#8217; when, with intent to prevent, hinder or delay the discovery or apprehension of&#8230;a person he knows or believes has committed a crime&#8230;he&#8230;suppresses, by any act of concealment, alteration or destruction, any physical evidence which might aid in the discovery or apprehension of such person or in the lodging of a criminal charge against him;&#8221;

OFFICIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM THE WTC

*Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, March 6, 2002:[ii]
&#8220;In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT Team)], a significant amount of steel debris&#8212;including most of the steel from the upper floors&#8212;was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel&#8212;including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns&#8212;were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract.&#8221;*
http://buildingwhat.org/destruction-of-evidence/

Don't avoid the facts, you are a distraction Patriot 911


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


_

And in 7 years, (Nearly 10 now) the primary and only official investigators found no evidence of explosives. Now what about the penthouse? Sort of throws your top of the building remaining intact out the window don't it._


----------



## candycorn (Jan 4, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> Blatant lies as have been exposed time and time again.  I guess stupid pieces of shit like PE think if he tells his pathetic lies enough that someone might believe them.    Not when he can't even explain why there is no sound of a massive explosion mere blocks from WTC 7 when the collapse is clearly audible.



It is the twoofer's only hope, repeat the lies over and over and hope some of it sticks.  I personally think that is what happened with these "85 videos" that supposedly have been confiscated.  

I still haven't seen any admission of  possession of the videos or credible proof otherwise.  

I think it was just repeated long enough and loud enough to be "accepted".


----------



## psikeyhackr (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> 11 REMARKABLE FACTS ABOUT 9/11
> 
> 1) *The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 *
> 2) *Fire has never  prior to or after 9/11  caused any steel frame building to collapse.*
> ...



Number 4 thru 7 are unimportant to the obvious absurdity of 9/11

Collapse time estimates for WTC 1 & 2 are from 8.4 to 11 seconds which was specified in a podcast on PBS by Dr. Sunder of the NIST.

Create a computer program for the collapse time of 109 masses floating magically in the air with no supports and have the masses fall when struck from above and accelerate due to the conservation of momentum and the computed collapse time is about 12 seconds.  So any supports strong enough to support the masses could only slow the collapse further.

People claiming to know physics should have been all over the phenomenon of 9/11 like white on rice.

After NINE YEARS this issue involves our engineering schools even more than the people who did it.  For all practical purposes they are accomplices after the fact.  How can they claim to know how to teach people to design skyscrapers if they won't bring up the subject of the distributions of steel and concrete in the WTC and how it would have to affect any collapse.

But I asked Richard Gage about that in Chicago in May of 2008.  He got a shocked look on his face and gave the LAME excuse of the NIST not releasing accurate blue prints.  Gravity works the same way all over the planet.  It is gravity and wind loading that determines how the steel would have to be distributed and whatever safety factor is incorporated into the building.  So Gage and his buddies should have been able to come up with reasonably good numbers even without blueprints.

So it is too late for this simple physics to keep a lot of people from looking like fools.  All they can do is keep people from understanding the simple physics by pretending it is so difficult.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo[/ame]

So when is an engineering school going to build a model that can collapse completely?

The Truth Movement just concentrates on too much irrelevant junk.  The physics does not care who did it.  But the physics can tell if it is IMPOSSIBLE for airliners to have done it.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.

psik


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 4, 2011)

psikeyhackr said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > 11 REMARKABLE FACTS ABOUT 9/11
> ...



All I talk about is physics, and occasionally post another thread that shows corroborating evidence to go along with the Physics that prove WTC7 needs to be reinvestigated.

BuildingWhat? - Building 7 | Stand with the 911 families demanding a NEW Building 7 investigation - What is Building 7 ? is exactly the type of movement that avoids theories and ONLY sticks to Facts.  Such as the FACT of freefall in WTC7

*NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds]*
_The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building._

They ignore these facts, and only obscure and create problems.  The people who deny the facts are in denial, and some even actually are cowardly enough to say the facts are "fake".


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 4, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> psikeyhackr said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Penthouse, nuff said.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 4, 2011)

psikeyhackr said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > 11 REMARKABLE FACTS ABOUT 9/11
> ...



Don't be silly,

The truth movement itself  IS irrelevant junk.  Look at #9; obviously none of the hijackers are alive yet somehow you--a member of the truth movement-doesn't call out your fellow twoofer.  

See, that is the problem with you shitbrained dumbasses; obvious garbage posted right before your eyes; you don't dare call him on it.  

Let me guess, the media--the same one that hounded Diana Spencer to her death, photographed people in the casket, flies helicopters over weddings, are now being respectful, cordial, and allowing these hijackers their privacy?  Are you fucking kidding me?  

Not one of the twoofer smut-sites has even interviewed them.

Yet  you accept it; a total lie told right to your face and you take it.  That is why you and your movement is a joke.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 4, 2011)

candycorn said:


> psikeyhackr said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...


you'd think at least Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura would have them on


----------



## candycorn (Jan 4, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > psikeyhackr said:
> ...



Creative Dreams / PE always does this; pretends its all about "physics" then it becomes this full fledged crap-fest.  Always has, always will; on 3 boards now.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 4, 2011)

candycorn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


naw, PE isnt a sock
but he is posting the same delusional BS
but then every troofer tends to post like that


----------



## candycorn (Jan 4, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Time will tell.  What is very telling is this:

Powerful new video coming out from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth 12/23/10

Powerful new video coming out from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - Political Forum 12/23/10

http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/147540-45-experts-ae911truth.html 12/22/10

All threads have almost the same exact quote at the beginning of the post.  

He did the same thing with "this is an orange" 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-romper-room/146421-this-is-an-orange-2.html#post3091389

Too many coincidences; posting of the same stuff under different names.  Its probably not a surprise that he did the same thing on AWE eventually admitting to having 4 socks....THEN creating a fifth one to come on and say, "Whats the big deal".  

Its a parlor game, I know,  but there isn't much real debate about 9/11 anymore so it's a way to amuse myself.


----------



## Paulie (Jan 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > slackjawed said:
> ...



You're already a fucking loser if a weed buzz is keeping you from accomplishing something.


----------



## Liability (Jan 5, 2011)

Paulie said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



Of course.  Marijuana use is clearly associated with increased productivity.  Every stoner knows this.


----------



## Meister (Jan 5, 2011)

merged


----------



## Paulie (Jan 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



If you've never smoked weed before you probably ought to shut the fuck up for the sole reason that you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about.

If you have smoked weed before, and you still think someone can't possibly be productive with it, then you're obviously one of those losers I was talking about.

Either way though, I think you're a fucking faggot


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 5, 2011)

So weed doesn't affect the way people act? Damn, I wonder what................... Naw just couldn't be....


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 5, 2011)

Paulie said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


Paulie, having WORKED with people i knew were potheads, i can say for a certainty, they are some of the LEAST productive people i have worked with


----------



## Paulie (Jan 5, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> So weed doesn't affect the way people act? Damn, I wonder what................... Naw just couldn't be....



Who claimed it doesn't affect the way people act?

It's a mind altering substance, just like alcohol is.  My only claim about it so far in this thread is that it doesn't automatically lower productivity.  I don't claim that it DOESN'T lower productivity, just that it's not a guaranteed outcome of smoking it.  If you can't puff a bowl and still go clean your house, it's not the weed's fault, it's YOU.


----------



## Paulie (Jan 5, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I used to be a pothead dive, and I showed up to work stoned, stayed stoned all day, and continued getting stoned into the night.  I gave an honest day's work, paid my bills, and handled my business.

When I wanted to relax, I relaxed.  When I needed to get things done, I got them done.  Personal responsibility doesn't change just because you smoked a joint.

Blaming the weed is a cop out.  I don't really care to continue this debate, least of all in this thread.


----------



## Liability (Jan 5, 2011)

Paulie said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



Hey douche bag:

Yeah Paulie, that's you, you fucking idiot pussy.  

I noted that there is an association between the use of some rope and the lowering of productivity, you mental midget.  I did not suggest that it's a universal truth, either, you moron.

I also said nothing about whether or not I have ever indulged.

I *know* you're a faggot.    Aint no question about it.  But no; You're uneducated guess about me is wrong.  

So get back to sucking cock somewhere, quiff-y, okay?  Good.


----------



## Liability (Jan 5, 2011)

Paulie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



Then shut the fuck up you idiot.  Christ on a cracker.  That's not a difficult solution, you fucking moron.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 5, 2011)

Paulie said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


and how much more productive could you have been if you werent stoned?


----------



## Paulie (Jan 5, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I don't know, how much more productive could I be on a day when I didn't get a good night's sleep?  Or missed breakfast that morning?

Shit, I don't know.  There's any number of reasons why someone might not have as productive a day as they could that don't have to relate to smoking weed.

I've probably had days where I got more done when stoned than a day when I was sober, had a good night's sleep, and ate a good breakfast, too.

It's a state of mind.  If you want to be productive on a given day, you will be.  

I remember a couple years back we used to work side jobs in the evenings and someone would run out and grab a case of beer around 6pm and we'd all toss back about 4 or 5 while we worked.  I probably got more done than normal on those nights.  I'm sure you could make the same case against alcohol and productivity.  As far as weed, it heightens your senses, and for a lot of things it actually tends to help you focus and pay more attention to detail.

Of course there's always going to be the lazy days when smoking a joint just makes you want to be more lazy.  But that's not the weed, that's your state of mind at that moment.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 5, 2011)

Liability said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



What kind of parents raised you?  You have an embarrassing personality.

_A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST&#8217;s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7&#8217;s destruction, NIST&#8217;s claim contradicted &#8220;a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.&#8221;[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, &#8220;Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.&#8221;[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, &#8220;This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].&#8221;[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7&#8217;s free fall descent could have occurred._


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 5, 2011)

still waiting on PE to man up and answer if he supports the concrete core hoax of goof-o-phera?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...



First off someones parents are none of your business.
Secondly, The video footage you keep repeating does not show us what was or had already happened to the inner structure of the building. It only shows the facade. But you know that.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 5, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



It does matter who someone's parents were if they are acting like a child that was never raised with any parental guidance.  I can call him out on that all I want, because he is an immature disgrace to these forums, and for you to associate yourself with him, and his stance, is utterly disgusting.  

Not to mention you're a coward for not accepting 2.25 seconds of freefall in WTC7, which proves controlled demolition.  Physics prove it, the nanothermite proves it, the video proves it, nist proves it, AE911truth proves it.  WTC7 was a controlled demolition 110% guaranteed.  But you are too afraid to address the facts, and instead deflect and avoid them.  Classic case of *denial*.  Classic case of being a *coward.*
http://buildingwhat.org/free-fall-collapse/

* A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST&#8217;s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7&#8217;s destruction, NIST&#8217;s claim contradicted &#8220;a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.&#8221;[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, &#8220;Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.&#8221;

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, &#8220;This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].&#8221;[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7&#8217;s free fall descent could have occurred.*
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 5, 2011)

still waiting on PE to man up and address the concrete core hoax
'


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> It does matter who someone's parents were if they are acting like a child that was never raised with any parental guidance.  I can call him out on that all I want, because he is an immature disgrace to these forums, and for you to associate yourself with him, and his stance, is utterly disgusting.
> 
> Not to mention you're a coward for not accepting 2.25 seconds of freefall in WTC7, which proves controlled demolition.  Physics prove it, the nanothermite proves it, the video proves it, nist proves it, AE911truth proves it.  WTC7 was a controlled demolition 110% guaranteed.  But you are too afraid to address the facts, and instead deflect and avoid them.  Classic case of *denial*.  Classic case of being a *coward.*
> 
> ...


Yet supertruthtard PE can't explain why nobody can hear the supposed explosives going off.

All the bitching in the world about there HAVING to be explosives doesn't mean dick if you can clearly prove there were no explosives.  It means, pure and simple, that you are dead wrong, PE.  You can't refute the facts and they directly prove your theory is nothing but a steaming mass of horse shit.  

And since you've run from every other demand you man up about the video, I fully expect you to run like the little bitch you are and pretend the videos that prove no explosions are just myths like the boogiemen you dream up on a regular basis.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 5, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > It does matter who someone's parents were if they are acting like a child that was never raised with any parental guidance.  I can call him out on that all I want, because he is an immature disgrace to these forums, and for you to associate yourself with him, and his stance, is utterly disgusting.
> ...



What in the world are you talking about? WTC7 freefell for 2.25 seconds on video, admitted by NIST, as forced by AE911truth.org.  This Free fall PROVES it was a controlled demolition.  

Why are you so ignorant?
*Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.*


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 5, 2011)

DiveCon said:


> still waiting on PE to man up and address the concrete core hoax
> '


'


----------



## Liability (Jan 5, 2011)

Troofer scum like PhysicLaxative CITE to NIST when it suits their filthy agenda, but scoff at NIST when it suits their agenda.

To be clear, ALL that the NIST folks COULD do was to ESTIMATE the speed at which the building fell.  The ability of the NIST folks (or any actual scientist) to do the calculations as accurately as possible was impeded by factors beyond their control.   The POINT, however, remains that the conclusion of 2.25 seconds worth of "free fall" is and always was (of necessity) an estimate.

And none of this answers the questions which Troofers insist on ducking.

With no ACTUAL evidence of any explosions or explosives, how on earth did the massive number of conspirators manage to pull this off?


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 5, 2011)

PissExcrement is a classic example of a psychotic individual that is confused as to why no one believes what HE THINKS is the truth. The proof of his mental instability is the constant reposting of the same false information over and over. Thinks of it as someone with their hands over their ears and their eyes closed tight whispering, "there are no voices, there are no voices".

Pity him. I'm sure there was abuse in his childhood.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 5, 2011)

Obamerican said:


> PissExcrement is a classic example of a psychotic individual that is confused as to why no one believes what HE THINKS is the truth. The proof of his mental instability is the constant reposting of the same false information over and over. Thinks of it as someone with their hands over their ears and their eyes closed tight whispering, "there are no voices, there are no voices".
> 
> Pity him. I'm sure there was abuse in his childhood.



I'll say it over and over again until you guys accept the FACTS.
FREEFALL for 2.25 seconds in WTC7 IS ONLY POSSIBLE with explosives.  YOU CANNOT have a natural collapse with FREEFALL.  it is NOT possible

You wonder why I post this over and over, *ITS BECAUSE YOU IGNORE IT.*

_Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall?  NIST&#8217;s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object &#8220;has no structural components below it.&#8221;[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives.  If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST&#8217;s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7&#8217;s destruction, NIST&#8217;s claim contradicted &#8220;a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.&#8221;[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, &#8220;Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.&#8221;[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, &#8220;This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].&#8221;[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7&#8217;s free fall descent could have occurred._
AND THEN
PHYSICS TELL US THAT


> Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.



Why do you avoid these facts?


----------



## daveman (Jan 5, 2011)

Paulie said:


> If you've never smoked weed before you probably ought to shut the fuck up for the sole reason that you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about.
> 
> If you have smoked weed before, and you still think someone can't possibly be productive with it, then you're obviously one of those losers I was talking about.
> 
> Either way though, I think you're a fucking faggot


----------



## daveman (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > PissExcrement is a classic example of a psychotic individual that is confused as to why no one believes what HE THINKS is the truth. The proof of his mental instability is the constant reposting of the same false information over and over. Thinks of it as someone with their hands over their ears and their eyes closed tight whispering, "there are no voices, there are no voices".
> ...








Sooo...how's that hissy fit working out for you?


----------



## Obamerican (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > PissExcrement is a classic example of a psychotic individual that is confused as to why no one believes what HE THINKS is the truth. The proof of his mental instability is the constant reposting of the same false information over and over. Thinks of it as someone with their hands over their ears and their eyes closed tight whispering, "there are no voices, there are no voices".
> ...


Let me see if I can dumb this down low enough for you, asshole. We know you post the same shit over and over because we READ THE WORDS. That's how we know it's the SAME SHIT.

PissExcrement, you are a hopeless fucking basket case. Get help, bitch.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > PissExcrement is a classic example of a psychotic individual that is confused as to why no one believes what HE THINKS is the truth. The proof of his mental instability is the constant reposting of the same false information over and over. Thinks of it as someone with their hands over their ears and their eyes closed tight whispering, "there are no voices, there are no voices".
> ...



So here we have another truther whose game plan is to post the same bullshit over, and over, and over thinking if he keeps repeating it long enough it will become the truth.

It's the same game plan as concrete boy.

Must be something in the California water (what little they're allowed to have because CA has to save a bait fish).


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 5, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...


now THAT i could agree with
it clearly is the same formula


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 5, 2011)

Obamerican said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...










> A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST&#8217;s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7&#8217;s destruction, NIST&#8217;s claim contradicted &#8220;a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.&#8221;[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, &#8220;Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.&#8221;[iv]
> 
> Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, &#8220;This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]

cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Why don't you respond to these facts first?



> This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent timecompared to the 3.9 second free fall timewas due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. *During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above.* In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.



Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

And I see your photo, and raise you one of mine.





Fiterman Hall 

And then, when you're done responding to that, maybe you can tell us how Christophera's concrete core fits in with your facts about the 9/11 Physics.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 5, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Obamerican said:
> ...



I usually just ignore you, but this is just TOO easy to pass up.

You mean THIS model? lol @ your cognitive dissonance.

*Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse:*





This is the type of 'evidence' you use to rebuttal the FACTS.  Gross.

2.25 seconds of freefall proves controlled demolition.  Wake up.

This is also apparent by watching the two video animations of NIST&#8217;s collapse model and comparing them to video footage of the observed collapse.

WTC 7 NIST MODEL VS. REALITY
*&#8220;NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let&#8217;s look at NIST&#8217;s model &#8211; except we can&#8217;t.  The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out the way they wanted.  If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools.  But NIST has not released the numbers.  All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce&#8230; The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don&#8217;t want their results checked.  In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.&#8221;*
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

You can't handle the facts. you instead cite sources that are fallacies.  Disgusting use of intellect.  You deserve no responses, but this time I made an exception because of how blatantly ignorant I was able to make you look for citing the Fake NIST model as your rebuttal to the fact that 2.25 seconds of free fall PROVES controlled demolition.


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


>


that photo right there shows you what direction the building fell
look how the facade is on TOP of the pile
thats the side you would see from the direction of that video you keep posting
that tells me that the building fell over in THAT direction


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Way to go, ASSHOLE!!!!  Just as I predicted, you're running away like a little bitch.  No explosion = no explosives.  Pure and simple.  You've been duped.  You've been hornswaggled.  You've been hoodwinked!  You've been shorn like a good little retarded sheeple who is too fucking stupid to pull his head out of his ass long enough to get a clean breath of air.

How does it feel to be such a tool?    Come back when you can address explosives that don't go bang.  Fucking loser.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 5, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...



MUSLIM MEN WITH BOXCUTTERS CANNOT SUSPEND THE LAWS OF PHYSICS! freefall for 2.25 seconds on video, admitted by nist, and forced by AE911truth PROVES controlled demolition.  not having explosions on camera perfectly does not prove anything.  You just run.

WTC7 Explosions
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2lp4d1GjzE&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIIF6P8zBG8[/ame]

Maybe if you did your own research before disrespecting the facts, you would actually get some respect.  You are disgusting. 

I bet you'll ignore the videos and facts.  You cannot handle the physics truth.  you cannot handle it. you just cant.

Free fall proves controlled demolition.  Period.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Why did you misquote me?


----------



## Patriot911 (Jan 5, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> MUSLIM MEN WITH BOXCUTTERS CANNOT SUSPEND THE LAWS OF PHYSICS! freefall for 2.25 seconds on video, admitted by nist, and forced by AE911truth PROVES controlled demolition.  not having explosions on camera perfectly does not prove anything.  You just run.


Perfectly?    Try not at all you fucking liar.  Not a bang.  Not even a little one.  YOU NEED TO HAVE EXPLOSIONS!  Instead you post liars who pretend they heard explosions so they can get attention.  How pathetic!  The proof is there on tape.  NO EXPLOSION, yet you can clearly hear the collapse.  Who gives a shit that a no name piece of shit like you claims 2.5 seconds of freefall HAS to prove explosives.  The FACTS show your "proof" is nothing but the wishful thinking of a retard with an inferiority complex.



			
				PhysicsExist said:
			
		

> Maybe if you did your own research before disrespecting the facts, you would actually get some respect.  You are disgusting.
> 
> I bet you'll ignore the videos and facts.  You cannot handle the physics truth.  you cannot handle it. you just cant.
> 
> Free fall proves controlled demolition.  Period.


I've done my research.  Free fall doesn't prove controlled demolition and it doesn't disprove controlled demolition.  Free fall simply means there wasn't enough resistance to measure given the disparity between the remaining structures and the now dynamic load of the rest of the building.  The FACT there is NO EVIDENCE of explosives including conclusive audio tapes simply shows you are more than willing to overlook any and all evidence that come between you and the theories you so desperately cling to.

PATHETIC!  Funny how you claim others can't handle the truth when you run like a little bitch from the truth time and time again.    I bet you got beat up a lot as a kid.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 6, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



By the way, dishonest quote modifier, why do your videos always start after the east penthouse has already collapsed? Are you trying to modify the timeline of the collapse sequence to fit your looney truther theory?

And as you'll notice, I put my quote back. No matter how much you hate it for blowing your stupid claims out of the water, you cannot erase the facts of the NIST report.

I really hate people from Santa Barbara. They seem to be completely disassociated from the truth, evidence, and logic.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 6, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > MUSLIM MEN WITH BOXCUTTERS CANNOT SUSPEND THE LAWS OF PHYSICS! freefall for 2.25 seconds on video, admitted by nist, and forced by AE911truth PROVES controlled demolition.  not having explosions on camera perfectly does not prove anything.  You just run.
> ...



And as further evidence that he can't handle the truth, when you do post it for him, he modifies your post to suit his false truther theory.

It's a well known truther gambit. When you're losing, try to change history to fit your needs.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 6, 2011)

I've posted this several times, and I have yet to see a single truther try to dispute any of it's truths. I wonder why???

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYzIbOYaSy8[/ame]

If there was anything to their claims, surely they could refute this YouTube video.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 6, 2011)

Patriot911 said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > MUSLIM MEN WITH BOXCUTTERS CANNOT SUSPEND THE LAWS OF PHYSICS! freefall for 2.25 seconds on video, admitted by nist, and forced by AE911truth PROVES controlled demolition.  not having explosions on camera perfectly does not prove anything.  You just run.
> ...



PE/CD reminds me of a quote I heard recently:



> "The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion."
> 
>  John Lawton


----------



## Liability (Jan 6, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Obamerican said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



Chandler may assert whatever he wishes, but the facts remain.  Nobody can actually measure the time frame of the alleged "free fall" for those 8 stories.

If I suspend an iron anvil exactly 8 stories above a two by four plank stretched between some supports on the bottom floor, and let the iron anvil drop to the floor, when it falls it will have to travel through the plank to hit the floor.  And the plank doesn't stand a chance.  It will splinter on impact like a bullet through tissue paper. 

Now, just like the tiniest marble actually pulls on the massive planet it might be orbiting by the physical laws of gravity, even if that pull is virtually unnoticeable, *so too* the plank will provide _some_ imperceptible resistance to the falling anvil before it hits the floor.  So, sure, you COULD say that the anvil didn't fall at free fall (for there was some technical resistance), but it would certainly *appear* to have fallen at free fall.

Now compound that.  Add smoke and distance between the building and your vantage point, and you can't even tell for sure when the collapse commenced.  Buildings and smoke obscure your view to the extent that you cannot even tell, for sure, when the collapse came to an end.  So, you use your best available evidence to compute when it started, when it finished and you come to your *approximation* for how long it took.  Key word?  APPROXIMATION.

The ridiculous nature of the proposition still gets evaded by the troofers, anyway.  How many fucking people had to have been "in" on this plot?  How on Earth could they have adequately wired the building in addition to placing the explosives ALL without being noticed by ANY of the guests, workers or personnel inside a 47 story tall big old boxy building?  Fucking ridiculous.


----------



## PhysicsExist (Jan 6, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> Patriot911 said:
> 
> 
> > PhysicsExist said:
> ...



I'll post this until you actually watch the videos and admit that Physics Existed on 9/11.  until you admit freefall proves demolition, you merit no response lol

_Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall?  NIST&#8217;s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object &#8220;has no structural components below it.&#8221;[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives.  If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST&#8217;s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7&#8217;s destruction, NIST&#8217;s claim contradicted &#8220;a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.&#8221;[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, &#8220;Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.&#8221;[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall.  According to NIST, &#8220;This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].&#8221;[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7&#8217;s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

&#8220;In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure.  None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building.  The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.&#8221;_

*&#8220;What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall.  Acceleration doesn&#8217;t build up gradually.  The graph [measuring the building&#8217;s descent] simply turns a corner.  The building went from full support to zero support instantly.&#8221;

Secondly:

&#8220;The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building&#8230; The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.&#8221;

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

&#8220;The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures.  All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.&#8221;

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall.  The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.*

cognitive dissonance


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 6, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> PhysicsExist said:
> 
> 
> > Patriot911 said:
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Jan 6, 2011)

PhysicsExist said:


> I'll post this until you actually watch the videos and admit that Physics Existed on 9/11


dipshit, prove no one has ever watched hose videos?
now, address my question

do you or do you not support the concrete core hoax as perpetrated by Goof-o-phera


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 6, 2011)

Wash, rinse, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, And repeat.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 6, 2011)

Anyone believe him yet?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 6, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Anyone believe him yet?



The only ones who believe him are the voices in his head.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Jan 6, 2011)

Rat in the Hat said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone believe him yet?
> ...



Wanna bet he repeats again?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Jan 6, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



I never bet against a sure thing.


----------



## candycorn (Jan 6, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Anyone believe him yet?


----------

