Discussion in '9/11' started by 911Defender, Oct 30, 2016.
That's usually what happens when someone gets caught lying AND is completely incorrect.
The 9/11 commission wasn't given this information or they knew and helped cover it up. This interview ceases to amaze me. I've watched it at least 20 times. This should've been nightly news for a year straight and yet...
Another thing, it should have been MSM reporters doing this interview in lieu of a couple guys that look like they work at Burger King. No offense to the two guys doing the interview.
That's true with many, many other issues. For example, the FBI kept 80,000+ pages of documents gathered from their PENTTBOM investigation hidden from the 9/11 Commission and Congress and lied when they told them they turned over everything.
The MSM is a bought and paid for tool of the US government, they don't do real reporting. It's the US version of Pravda.
You quoted and bolded this part of my post below:
Then you insinuate that you didn't make this claim by using the word "supposedly" and then asked for a link to it as proof:
So here is the link to forum page where you made this comment on 1/23/2014 at 10:24 PM:
Here is the actual quote where you make the claim I asked about above:
Now what psikey? Is this where you ignore me and run because you got caught lying and have been shown that your application of Newton's Law to a collision between two complex objects is ridiculous? Why in the past did you attribute Newton's 3rd law the tower's collapse and use that law to explain why the tower's collapse should have arrested, but now you're trying to weasel out of what you said in the past and say the you DIDN'T use Newton's Law to explain why. Is this change of heart because I finally got you to realize that Newton's 3rd Law cannot be used to explain impact reactions between two objects composed of many individual components and connections of varying degrees of strength?
Why the sudden change of stance from when you used Newton's 3rd Law to explain why the tower's collapse should have arrested (as quoted above) and now you saying you can't use Newton's 3rd Law for that?
Just an FYI.
It wasn't a "deliberate misinterpretation". You actually said what I said you did.
Let me point out what I think should be obvious to middle school students.
In general the LEVELS of the building had to get stronger and heavier down the building. But since the columns were about 36 feet long it is quite likely that some adjacent LEVELS were the same weight and strength. But the farther apart the LEVELS were the greater the variation would be.
So LEVEL 14, counting from the top, might have been identical to level 15 and crush each other equally. LEVEL 13 may not have been much different from 16. But as the LEVELS got farther and farther apart in their positions of construction what had to happen? How different were 12 and 17, 11 and 18, 10 and 19? So eventually 1 would be matched against 28 if they did destroy equally but that could not happen because once the collision started LEVELS had to get unequal.
But Newton's Law is about equal FORCE. Stronger LEVELS would take more FORCE than weaker LEVELS. So unequal destruction in terms of height would still be equal in terms of FORCE.
So where did I say there would be one to one destruction over 14 LEVELS? But even if there were one to one destruction it was 90 LEVELS against 15 levels. Somewhere I said that even if the falling mass did 3 to 1 destruction that would still leave 40+ LEVELS standing.
Proceed to misinterpret away. Haven't I been saying the LEVELS had to vary all along? But the entire 9/11 Affair is the result of so many dummies not being able to see the obvious.
There can be no scientific analysis of 9/11 without accurate distribution of steel and concrete data.
Haven't been keeping up with this thread, but psik is right in terms of the building getting stronger further down the building. But this strength is designed to hold a static load, not a dynamic one. Also factor into account that the force acting on the bottom of the building is not constant. The collapsing portion of the building gain speed the entire way down, therefore the force it was producing also increase.
Yeah it probably melted.
Like the truth movement
I agree that the building was designed to hold a static load, not a dynamic one. However I do not agree that the collapse would gain speed all of the way down.
Destroying the structure designed to hold the static load would require energy. The only source of energy is the kinetic energy of the falling mass. Therefore the falling mass would slow down as it destroyed the intact structure below the impact zone.
So why hasn't this been tested experimentally in FIFTEEN YEARS? No matter what the truth was it should have been resolved unequivocally by 1/1/2003. But no matter what the truth is the engineering schools will look silly if they do experiments now, especially if collapse was impossible.
You're making the assuming that the falling mass was landing on the load bearing elements of the tower. It was not. It was mostly landing on the floors, not the columns. You can't treat the towers like a solid mass.
The idea that a falling object encountering resistance must slow down is just plane wrong (excuse the pun). A falling object like the top of the twin towers would, and indeed did, continue to accelerate all the way to the ground, however you will find that the resistance it encountered did cause its rate of acceleration to decrease.
This is a good read:
The point is psikey is that you applied Newton's 3rd Law to your crappy model and then tried to use them both as an explanation as to WHY you thought the tower's total collapse was almost impossible. Now you're backpedaling and saying that you cannot use Newton's 3rd Law fort that purpose because it doesn't take into account strength of materials.
You screwed up.
Your model has nothing to do with the towers even though you try and pass it off as an example of WHY they couldn't have completely collapsed.
Keep going around in circles psikey...
This is exactly my point and why I have repeatedly told psikey that his crappy model cannot be used try and explain why the complete collapse of the towers was almost impossible. This is why he been going around in circles. Newton's 3rd Law, which he cites as a reason in conjunction with his "paper loops and washers model", cannot be used to explain how connected components of two complex objects will react in a collision.
As proclaimed by a proud member of the lie movement.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. - Joseph Goebbels
The biggest factor I find when truthers try and apply Newton's 3rd law is that they misunderstand a crucial part; Equal and opposite forces do not cancel each other.
If I punch a hole in a wall, I will probably end up with a broken hand. That's the action and reaction. Did they cancel? No, the wall still ended up with a hole in it. Same with the collapse of the towers, if the falling top mass encounters an equal and opposite force from the mass below, it wouldn't matter because the reaction does not cancel the action, it just leads to the pulverisation of both, which is exactly what we saw.
That is why I talk about LEVELS and not FLOORS.
You people who suffer from the pancaking FLOORS delusion ignore the core and the horizontal beams connecting the columns in the core. How did the core collapse on itself? But then you can't find any floor slabs in the debris to justify your claims.
Sure Dude! And there is a comment right at the top by someone called umbrarchist.
Like no kinetic energy (velocity) is lost destroying the components colliding with each other.
The core played little part in the collapse as the floors pancaked off them. That is why the core of both towers were still standing after a few seconds after the collapse had finished.
As for the floors, here is a picture from the basement levels below the WTC which shows floors pancaked on top of each other.
The point it there wasn't an equal and opposite force from the mass below......it was much greater mass...it makes a difference. If your conclusion was correct, all demolitions would be done by destroying the top floor first.....which isn't the case.
Of course there's no real life precedent, experiment or computer model that can show that a steel frame high rise can "collapse" completely in on itself from ANY cause (fire/damage/both) other than a well planned deliberately created one. In fact the Cardington and Broadgate office fire tests which were deliberately exaggerated never resulted in any collapse, never mind a global one that takes place in a matter of seconds.
OTOH, it is a well known fact that well planned and executed controlled demotions can obviously destroy buildings in on themselves in seconds and that even a failed CD cannot.
Furthermore, NIST (or any other official agency) never investigated the actual collapse of the twin towers by their own admission. So NIST's claim that the "collapse was inevitable" is an uninvestigated/unsupported claim (i.e. a scam made for the simple minded) that violates basic scientific (or any) investigation standards and NIST's own published (NFPA) fire investigation standards.
OK Bobby ... explain how the collapses started at the points of impact ... you seem to be an expert on controlled demolition ... so please, explain how this could have been planned and executed ... tell us "simple minded people" your theory ... cancel that, seeing you are an expert ... show us your data ...
I didn't state any theory (never mind "mine"), I stated only incontrovertible facts that even the simple minded should be able to understand.
Wait, what? Greater mass doesn't mean it will create more of a reaction.... I could punch a wall with 100 Newtons or I could punch a mountain with 100 Newtons, the reaction will still be 100 Newtons. The larger mass of what ever I am punching does not matter. The top section of a collapsing building will produce a force, it will be met with an equal reaction from the mass below, regardless of whether that mass is 2x the size or 100x the size of the mass above.
Actually, some demolition techniques use no explosives at all, they pull the middle of the building out let gravity do the rest.
So tell the NIST!
Experts are always right. Haven't you noticed?
NIST is right, pancaking of the floors was not the cause of the collapse initiation. That doesn't mean the floors didn't pancake after the collapse had initiated, to the contrary they quite obviously did. NIST was tasked to discover what caused the collapse to initiate. Once the collapse had initiated, NIST goes no further.
Separate names with a comma.