Were the laws of thermodynamics broken on 9/11 in addition to the laws of physics?

Discussion in '9/11' started by Munkle, Feb 9, 2019.

  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,698
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    several others reported the same
    please do minimal due diligence to the subject before posting so I dont have to correct everything you post.
    You do not know any such thing. Even criminal organization nist disagrees with you.
    Please.... that does not prove the premise
    Patently false. Come on man.
    Ridiculous, that does not mean the base is capable of moving enough to damage anything, since you feel it does I await your 'credible' citation.
    Yeh so did several other building that were demolished, so what?
    demolish the structural integrity of the core of course.
    Doesnt mean anything, again do due diligence and study shaped charge.
    False there was a HUGE cavity blown into the bedrock
    False, let me fix that for you, you have one person on the "gubmint record' because the gubmint ignored everyone else.
    There is in fact evidence of white hot something that regardless of the material is hot enough to slice through steel like butter.
    Dont need steel, white hot liquifies most if not ALL metals.
    Please be serious and do your due diligence, controlled demolition accomplishes the same using molten steel.
    The physical evidence has nothing to do with 'conspiracy' please learn to properly distinguish between the 2
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2019
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What they did do is described below:

    18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3): US Code - Section 1001: Statements or entries generally

    (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any
    matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
    judicial branch of the Government of the United States,
    knowingly
    and willfully –


    (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the
    same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
    statement or entry
    ;

    shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years
    or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as
    defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or
    both.


    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/47/1001
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  3. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    7,567
    Likes Received:
    2,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The laws of physics are all fake in order for the elite to prop up the myth of the round earth, and keep the population from knowing the earth is flat. However when the government tried to fake 9/11, the fake events didn't follow those fake laws of physics. 9/11 is an example of the illuminati reptilian elite messing up.
     
  4. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You were standing by the tree in that wind and saw the straw go into the tree?

    ROFL

    Did this exhaustive research contain data on the distribution of steel down the building? Care to provide a link? It could not be exhaustive without that data and I don't think you understand the physics if you don't expect to have it.

    People are still modelling the Tacoma Narrows bridge after almost 80 years:

    The Collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge


    Tacoma Narrows Bridge Model


    Tacoma Narrows Bridge Aeroelastic FSI Simulation


    Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse simulation


    3D Bridge Model Simulation


    Using ANSYS Fluid-Structure Interaction to understand the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcLg6C_WlHg
    Published on Nov 7, 2018 Famous in Australia

    Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse case study
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXJ6CVBt8xk

    CFD Simulation of Flutter (Tacoma Bridge)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzvFxF5LrRA

    Tacoma Bridge Model Test 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlW4bnxxMLY

    Aerostatic Flutter at Tacoma Narrows Bridge
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQwNMc19vFw

    Tacoma Narrows Bridge Model, Long Walkthrough
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6FKoPZURZo

    Where is the first collapse model of the north tower by an engineering school?
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  5. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I just love that logical analysis.

    Airplanes with 10,000 gallons of fuel fly into buildings doing at least 400 mph. What is the speed of the jet fuel?

    If burning jet fuel can fall 1,000 feet down an elevator shaft not more than 25 ft wide what does the horizontal velocity have to be?

    As the airliner's fuel tanks get shredded by the steel columns and the fuel gets scattered in random directions it will no doubt lose some of that velocity but it must still have some to reach the elevator shaft. How long does it take kerosene traveling at 50 mph to cross a 25 foot elevator shaft. So at best you will have some burning fuel flowing down the walls of the shaft. How fast would it flow? Would it all burn away before it went down 1000 ft?

    So somehow explosions in the basement must be rationalized for airliner fuel to have caused them.

    How did some of the fuel know to stop at the lobby and the rest to go to the basements? There were 6 basement levels. If it could fall down the shaft what would the speed be at the lobby? Can kerosene count real fast or read the lobby sign. Why would they paint a Lobby sign inside an elevator shaft? ROFL
     
    Eleuthera and Bob0627 like this.
  6. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    William Rodriguez embellished his story as time went on. When he first described what he experienced the day of 9/11 he said:
    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.24.html

    So William went from "a rumble like someone moving furniture in a massiveg way" to "an explosion that threw him upwards, clean off the floor...".
    https://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/last-man-out-on-911-makes-shocking-disclosures/
     
    l4zarus likes this.
  7. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    From the events of 9/11 from explosives or nukes? Do your due diligence so we don't have to correct you.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2019
  8. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Explosives don't cause "burns" and "skin to hang off".
     
  9. Spooky

    Spooky Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    28,298
    Likes Received:
    11,155
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fact is that we don't know the physics of everything yet so because we can't explain something people automatically jump to conspiracy.

    Now I am the biggest conspiracy person on this site and you need a lot more going on for a conspiracy to be legit then 9/11 and a building falling down.

    First of all you have to explain the motivation for it. Was it go to war?

    If so then why in the world would you pick such an extraordinarily complicated false flag, one that has a thousand chances of being discovered as a hoax when something much simpler would have sufficed?

    I bet you if they tried to do 9/11 100 times that it works maybe once out of those tries, that's how complicated it was and how many people would have had to have known about it.

    They could have done a hundred different things and blamed Iraq for it that would have been justification for war and things that were far more likely to succeed.

    And all these people are not going to risk their careers and freedom and possibly their lives to set this up without a damn good reason.

    I'm sorry but making their corporate buddies make a few million more simply doesn't cut it.

    Nobody has yet given a logical reason for this conspiracy that I have ever heard.

    But please, feel free to fill us in.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Whether that's true or not is irrelevant to science and physics. Either it's sound scientifically and with respect to physics or it isn't and NIST's hypotheses are anything but sound in both cases. That has nothing to do with any conspiracy unless we're talking about NIST's conspiracy to commit scientific fraud of which there is ample evidence.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  11. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I ask you about the distribution of steel in a skyscraper and you proceed to blather about CONSPIRACY!

    We don't know why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. No one is claiming it is a conspiracy. But we try to obtain accurate data about it.

    The Twin Towers are a slightly different issue because they were man made and there are quite a few man made buildings around the world over 1,000 feet tall. So having accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings should not be a problem. But since that data does not seem to be available on the Twin Towers or any other skyscraper I can find I must admit that I find it a bit peculiar.

    Regardless of what caused the destruction of the towers there does seem to be significant obfuscation involved in solving the problem.
     
  12. Spooky

    Spooky Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    28,298
    Likes Received:
    11,155
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This post makes no sense.

    You assume we know and understand everything about physics, we don't and it's not irrelevant because obviously it applied in this instance.


    What more than likely occurred is something happened within all that stuff going on that we aren't even aware of.

    If you really want to see how silly your argument is take a second and Google "things that defy the laws of physics" and come back here and explain to us about your "physics" that we know all about.

    lol
     
  13. Spooky

    Spooky Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    28,298
    Likes Received:
    11,155
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That was exactly my point.
     
  14. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Are you implying that you have found the distribution of mass data?
     
  15. Spooky

    Spooky Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    28,298
    Likes Received:
    11,155
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope, not I, but the explanation is somewhere in there and it's something we haven't discovered yet.

    What's we know it we will go, "ahhh, that does make sense".
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To YOU.

    I made no such assumption nor did I imply it so the rest of the sentence is not only a non sequitur but an unsupported hypothesis on your part if you mean some mysterious unknown physics event happened on 9/11 besides the thousands of other convenient coincidences.

    Exactly and it wasn't what NIST claims it was because what they claim makes no scientific/physics sense and NIST certainly did NOT discover a new phenomenon as they also claim or you might believe occurred.

    That qualifies as an ad hominem because it's the argument YOU invented for me.

    Yeah I agree you are humorous.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2019
  17. Spooky

    Spooky Banned Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    28,298
    Likes Received:
    11,155
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I disagreed with those saying that the laws of physics doesn't support it.

    That is all.

    If you are not included in that grouping then it doesn't apply to you.

    Go make a paper airplane and figure out what makes it go to the end of the room when you throw it.

    Bye!
     
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The laws of physics do support what happened on 9/11. That has nothing to do with NIST's claims, which don't support the laws of physics.

    The rest of your post is a non sequitur.
     
  19. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    14,305
    Likes Received:
    2,947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Everyone knows that eyewitness accounts are the weakest and least reliable forms of evidence.
     
  20. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,797
    Likes Received:
    2,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It makes no sense to you because your knowledge base is not as sophisticated, not as specialized, as his. His post is highly informed by science and knowledge, your posts are informed by nonsensical propaganda. Big difference, and the reason it makes no sense to you.
     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  21. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Sounds like religion. Like when you "saw" the straw got into the tree.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2019
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That discussion took place a bunch of posts ago. So does that mean that in your opinion courts should never use eyewitness evidence for any reason?
     
  23. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    There was some online drama over this issue between a truther who claimed Rodriguez stole elements of another guy's story and the SLC blog that disputed this. It was never decisively settled AFAIK, but people familiar with Willie's tale can check it with Pablo Ortiz's memorial page:

    https://www.911memorial.org/blog/remembering-pablo-ortiz-hero-88th-floor

    "Ortiz led the charge on the 89th floor, guiding the group to a different exit and prying open a buckled doorframe that blocked that exit. Once the group was safely on their way down the stairs, Ortiz left them and continued on to help others."
     
  24. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    14,305
    Likes Received:
    2,947
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    of course they can use eyewitness accounts.

    If it is corroborated by other evidence.
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They will use eyewitness accounts even if it's not corroborated by other evidence. Rightfully or not many have been convicted on uncorroborated lone eyewitness accounts in the past. However in the case of this grand jury investigation, not only are there over 100 corroborating eyewitness accounts of explosions and dozens of corroborating eyewitness accounts of molten steel/iron/metal but these are corroborated by quite a bit of other evidence. So that makes your statement pretty much irrelevant.
     

Share This Page