Gravity is very predictable.. You know the towers were not knocked over ... the spine was cut and they fell down.. You don't know squat about physics.
During WW2 the crews that remained in Saudi Arabia (ARAMCO) kept thermite on the shelf in the bachelor quarters to sabotage the oil wells in the event that Plan Orient came to fruition .... I am not well versed in how it works.
Question 4 U if an object is descending at 64% of the acceleration of gravity how much of its weight is it expressing upon whatever is under it? Physics?..........
100% of the weight is expressing itself on objects below. Your question is flawed: you seem to be equating mass and weight. They are not the same thing.
Mass & weight are different to be sure, and the weight is a function of the acceleration and the mass is constant, now with that taken care of.... WHY do you think you should see the total catastrophic destruction of each and every level and the mass descends at constant acceleration? Not only in the volume of destruction, but in the consistency of destruction.
This boils down to you saying it isn't controlled demolition and I'm saying that it is, and of the available evidence on the subject, I'm betting on the average reader of this forum to get it and KNOW that WTC1, 2 & 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition.
Do you believe that something descending at 64% of g isn't expressing 36% of its weight upon whatever is under it? and if so .... WHY?
It hasn't lost any of its weight. ... and its Mass is being multiplied in force expressed by the acceleration of the decent.
There was a youtube video where this character attempted to demonstrate the physics involved and only succeeded in making a fool of himself.... the video is as follows: the character holds up an iron weight and drops it on a basic bathroom scale and it of course destroys the scale, and he then states, see falling stuff has a lot of energy! Wonderful but the demonstration proves nothing with regards to the WTC towers "collapse" you see the wave of demolition is seen to proceed down the tower for 50 to 60 stories at constant acceleration, at that rate of acceleration ( just like in the Vomit comet ) the mass only expresses 36% of its WEIGHT against whatever is under it. The ONLY time you get that massive discharge of energy is when the moving mass either stops or at least slows down.
Perhaps you didn't notice my comment: "No it is not obvious. What is obvious it the collapses looked like explosives. Truthers have used this to exploit uninformed people with crackpot theories like thermite. You are ignoring this point: "Why didn't the thermite all flash up when exposed to the fires in the WTC?" As Brent Blanchard stated: "Thermite doesn't work horizontally, it works vertically. You can't cause thermite to cut horizontally through steel." "Thermite also burns very hot but very slow and it's uncontrolled. When you see tests for thermite you often see it burning on a steel plate, it creates a lot of fire and reaction, but none of these reactions were seen in the Twin Towers. " Jonathan Cole, like most truther leaders, is a fraud. If he's done any research about how thermite works, he knows he's lying. " Interesting you bring up the possibility of a "trick video". I believe Steven Jones set a precedent with a "trick photo". Even without deliberate trickery, you ignored what Brent Blanchard specifically said: "You can't cause thermite to cut horizontally through steel". Cole has to try multiple times, with increasingly jury-ridged and improbable contraptions, to get the thermite to cut horizontally, basically making a shaped charge to aim it. The video, tedious to watch, actually debunks itself: if you need steel containers of thermite attached to each supporting column in a way that is ten times more complicated than RDX, there is no way in hell the towers could be prepped to be demolished with thermite without anyone noticing. The man has to WELD containers of thermite to the beam. Note, Cole's "research" is based directly on the work of Steven Jones and the rest of the Bentham Paper fraudsters. Oh, and I want that 14 mins of my life back.
This statement constitutes fraud by an "expert" because it can be demonstrated that yes you can cut horizontally through steel with thermite. any incredulity about HOW it may have been done, does not negate what was done. BTW: I do not have it defined and do not consider it a critical bit of the discussion to nail down what was used to bring down the towers & 7, its a given that an additional source of energy + engineering had to have been at work on the buildings to cause the "collapse" events as observed. also, I really don't care if the SLA was responsible, lets address the facts of what was done first. OK? ........
and the infestation of debunkers and political shills on the forums since you can even cut out curvilinear patterns with it! and the evidence is the molten stuff left behind!
Do people still push this thermite fantasy? That has long been debunked as poor science (Millette & others). Why won't Harritt & Jones release their samples for independent examination? What are they afraid of? Thermite was originally proposed because there was a lack of sound to support 9/11 truth's original theory, so they switched to thermite as an option because it was relatively silent, but that too is just an attempt to patch an already flawed theory. The amount of thermite required is huge and the logistics of implementing such an illogical operation really make the proposal quite implausible. But then, that is a consistent feature of all 9/11 truth's half-baked ramblings.
Free-fall was observed on the NW corner for 2.25 seconds at the approx. the 12.5 second mark in the collapse sequence. Chandler claimed there was "an instantaneous and protracted period of free-fall which is not the case on both counts. How does free-fall at the 12.5 second mark in the collapse suggest a controlled demolition?
Simple, in order to achieve the free fall acceleration + the straight down motion while the building keeps its shape as it falls, involves having ALL of the support removed from under the falling mass and ALL at the same time, if it wasn't removed all at the same time, the building would have tilted or deformed as it fell.
No, you missed the point. Free-fall was only observed at the 12.5 second mark for 2.25 seconds, and Chandler claimed there was an 'instantaneous' (note that word) and 'protracted' (note that word) period of free-fall which is incorrect according to the graph. Do you acknowledge that? But it wasn't 'instantaneous', nor was it 'protracted', therefore his claim is questionable. Now let's address this snippet: "..in order to achieve the free fall acceleration + the straight down motion while the building keeps its shape as it falls, involves having ALL of the support removed from under the falling mass and ALL at the same time, if it wasn't removed all at the same time, the building would have tilted or deformed as it fell." Obviously you are confusing the collapse of the curtain wall with the total collapse. By the time free-fall was observed most of the building was destroyed, and it was only observed in the NW corner momentarily, so that would suggest it was the product of random events occurring within the building and not the product of a CD. If there was a CD as some believe, don't you feel the phenomena would have been observed somewhat nearer to the initiation point as opposed to 12.5 seconds into the progress of the collapse, also observed somewhat 'uniformly' as opposed to a localised event. One question, have you observed free-fall in other controlled demolitions?
One does not have to have observed the specific phenomenon before to understand the implications in physical science. The fact of free fall acceleration clearly indicates that the falling mass ( in this case many tons of material ) has no support at all under it and is not crushing or pushing anything on the way down it is only falling and to accomplish this straight down "collapse" with the falling mass keeping its shape, requires that all of the support be removed all at the same time. Therefore it was an engineered event not the product of "office fires".
No bob. Free fall does not mean controlled demolition. Here's a building collapsing at free fall with no demolitions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6kNqSonQo8 Evidence needs to be provided if twoofers ever want to prove any of the buildings on 9/11 were a controlled demolition. Real evidence, not "it looks like a demolition", but proper evidence there were bombs in those buildings, who put them there, who paid for them, what floors etc documents, video, audio, paper trail, that is what you need. That is where 9/11 twoof has failed for years.
In the case of that building show in the video, was there a certified analysis of the material to know for certain that explosives were not used? To address the NIST quote " This is consistent with the structural analysis model, witch showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above." However, the clear indication here of the free fall, is the fact that the falling mass is not having to crush, bend, or push anything, it is ONLY falling. Therefore the total removal of structure from under the falling mass and all at the same time is the ONLY solution that fits the criteria.
