Does Newton's Laws of Motion prove or disprove the official

>>8435846
>All three of the collapses seem inconsistent with the above.
In what way?

File: abyguN8.jpg (103KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 500x375px

>>8435851
Well considering the height of the impact zone where the damage would of occurred, I have trouble seeing how the top section of roughly 15-20 floors could give in and proceed to plummet through 70-80 floors. it is especially concerning when you consider the support systems, designed to with stand three times the weight of the tower were destroyed in this floor-based collapse. Isn't the section of building several floors below impact zone considered healthy and undamaged structure? How did its support for the weight it held for decades before this event suddenly fail?

>>8435846
OP you seem to not or misunderstand the balancing forces of the Normal Force and the Force exerted on the towers by the earth via Gravity.

>>8435857
That's a structural engineering question not a question of the fundamental laws of Newtonian mechanics...

File: 5334.gif (4MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 640x480px

>>8435860
Well in regards to building 7 I have to disagree. It experienced 2.6 seconds of free-fall according to the official investigation (source: http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610 page: 44)

This means the building and its steel structure passed through minimum 15 floors with 0 resistance from below, violating the third law. How could this occur without the use of explosives?

>>8435858
My knowledge on the many forces of nature is rather fundamental which is why I bring this topic to this board.

My immediate thought however is that gravity is a force these buildings have always dealt with. It simply baffles me to see a smaller section of building at the top of its structure pass through a significantly larger portion of the building, obliterating everything between it and the ground through the path of greatest resistance.

It's with this issue I wondered if /sci/ could maybe shed some light

God tier bait

>>8435867
My apologies
A quick correction on this post

>passed through a minimum 8 floors

>>8435867
uhhh because wtc 7 wasn't destoyed by a bomb (and high impact) in the top floors, but by structural damage from the nearby towers collapsing?

>>8435874
yeah, this guy has been practicing for a while

>>8435884
I understand the assumption of it's collapse but such a claim does not negate the resistance it should of experience. A building passing through 8 floors as if they are not there at all is a profound phenomenon

>>8435874
>>8435889
I assure you this post has been made out of scientific concern. If you believe that the science behind the official story is sound please do share your reasons

>>8435904
> structure weakens everywhere
> surprised when it fails everywhere
Uhh okay

>>8435911

I'm not surprised at the fact it fell so much as I'm surprised by the way it fell.

Free-fall is the fastest any object can possibly travel when the only force applied to it is gravity. For this to occur for 8 floors of a collapse means that 8 floors of the building disassembled itself evenly across all supports at the exact same time. This can be done with an explosion but this can not be done by asymmetrical damage from falling debris and it can not be done with fire.

>>8435846
The real question is that can the jet fuel really melt steel beams?

>>8435846
You're assuming that the building must fail from top to bottom incrementally?

>>8435884
>structural damage from falling debris
>building is standing up solidly, looks largely intact
>building then falls uniformly like a curtain dropping, at near free-fall speed

wow. that sure was a lot of massive internal structural damage that managed to weaken ALL of those large steel beams in such a way that they all failed symmetrically and nearly simultaneously, yet the vast expanse of the buildings facade wasnt damage, even windows were not blown out.

Its like you turn your fucking brain off because you read an article in Popular Mechanics that said basic physics were debunked.

File: image.jpg (30KB, 287x356px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 287x356px

OP here

>>8435961
Especially considering picture related

>>8435994
I don't believe 20 floors of building can fall through 80 floors of building, resulting in a massive pile of dust and mangled support systems.
Maybe if 20 floors fell through 20 floors of if the top section fell to the side but not all the way through cold hard undamaged steel

>>8436001
I know it can be frustrating but try to relax my friend. 5 years ago I would of been arguing the same thing yet hear I am today, the author of this thread.
In order for me to fully consider the possibility I first had to let go of my old perspective on the world and replace it with a less desirable one. In my opinion this alone is enough to make someone shut themself off from the possibility of an alternate event

>>8436033
im not the most knowledgeable about this kinda stuff but- if we assume that the top 20 floors could fall for some height and gain some momentum, then when they impact the floors still standing theyd impart a pretty large force onto them due to the change in momentum in both objects. this force of such a huge mass of metal falling onto weakened metal would probably be much much larger than the lower floors were rated to endure, because they wouldnt expect large forces over very short durations. a quick estimate says that the top floors would be moving at 20m/s when they hit the rest of the building. the top floors weighed around 9*10^7kg. thats a huge momentum to impart to the buildings and it is easily concievable that the force far exceeded the force that they normally resisted

>>8436047
> it is easily conceivable that the force far exceeded the force that they normally resisted

absolutely, no doubt about it. However, again looking at Newtons Laws

> When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

Meaning any force that the lower half would of endured, the top half would of also received. So if this force was enough to reduce 80 floors to powder, should it have not reduced the top 20 to powder first leaving nothing behind to push down with.

It also seems to me due to a number of experiments I have witnessed through videos. No matter what materials you use and what height you drop from, an object that is roughly 20% the mass of it's 80% counterpart can not plummet through to the bottom, and rightly so. The maths just doesn't add up

File: 47485.jpg (977KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

977KB, 1280x960px

>>8435846

>>8436027
>I don't believe
Nobody gives a fuck. Your beliefs don't matter.

>>8436058
>should it have not reduced the top 20 to powder first leaving nothing behind to push down with
I agree that the top 20 floors should become a powder, but that mass is still present. a kilogram of steel and a kilogram of steel powder still impart the same force, right?
>experiments on videos
whilst scale models can be useful, they do have the limitations of the fact that an objects ability to hold weight is dependant upon its cross sectional area but its weight itself is dependant upon volume and hence one scales quadratically and the other scales cubically. id be very interested if you could link a video that takes into account those factors

File: Screenshot_2016-10-25-09-43-17.jpg (969KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

969KB, 1440x2560px

Read this. It's from my architectural engineering textbook.

>>8436360

Textbooks will always support the mainstream thought and beliefs and not the objective truth

>>8436412
no, because textbooks write opinion instead of fact
>thinking this on sci
>even being on sci with this type of mindset
pls, go be dumb somewhere else

Does Hubble's law prove or disprove the grassy knoll?

>>8436412
Brainlet detected. Go take a mechanics of materials class and come back when you're not completely retarded

>>8436027
The force of the upper floors falling on top of the floors beneath them is going to weaken the structural support of those floors which in turn will fail and impact an even greater force on the floors beneath them due to the growing mass of falling material, etc.

>>8435867
I'm really gonna have to start saving my own post because I'm tired of trying to explain Building 7 over and over and over.

Basically what happened is this
>fires go on for hours, sprinkler systems fails
>Thermal expansion causes a floor collapse
>One of the pillars now completely unsupported and collapses
>other pillars now have to support that weight + already weakened by fires
>domino effect of pillars collapsing
>Building 7 Pretty much a hollow outer shell at this point
>Outer shell collapses neatly in on itself

Since it was pretty much an outer shell it hardly had any resistance.

>>8436673
>>8435867
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus
Your gif is incredible deceitful, here if the full footage. You can see the penthouse collapses a full 4 seconds before the rest of the building.
The penthouse was directly above that pillar that collapsed first.

+ no sounds of explosions whatsoever.

File: nuke.jpg (57KB, 780x498px)

57KB, 780x498px

>>8435857
Micronukes buried in granite holes below the basements of 1 and 2. The towers funneled the blast with the tops falling in and more or less disintegrating, why there was hardly any debris and why what was left was quickly shipped to China on the slow boat to cool down, not be scrutinized. Removing evidence from a crime scene is just one of many laws broken that day aside from physical laws that don't jive with the official conspiracy theory. WTC 7 was the real stroke of genius though because a 10 year old could tell you that was a classical controlled demo thus drawing attention away from the nuking of towers 1,2 and probably 6.

It was basically a deep state, shadow government, military, corporate, church, fascist coup, many of the top level perps are heavily into the occult and were bound by extreme blood oaths so a top down conspiracy like that not too hard to imagine, easy than the ridiculous official narrative. The big lie just like Hitler said, similarities to the Reichstag fire - Enabling act...dark future.

>>8435846
Newtons laws don't disprove that a plane cause it to crash. Politics does. US is a corrupt nation that needed to hold off an economic collapse for a couple years so it could be blamed on the next president. So they blew it up to go to war. And of course they blew up the stock market, it was to prevent it from blowing itself up

Actually i do see the collapse as improbably but possible. But i am tired of talking about it

OP here. Thank you everyone for this civil debate.

>>8436188
I'm sorry if this belief offends you, I only ask you explain why you disagree.

>>8436300
Indeed the mass is present but as can be seen in the footage this mass is spread outwards across a wide distance and begins to fall alongside the collapse rather than assisting the collapse. Even if we assumed the mass held its form and concentrated it's force downward onto the rest of the structure. Newton's third law expresses that
a deceleration should occur from the resistance received from each consecutive floor and this deceleration should eventually lead to a halt.

I also assume you meant concrete dust rather than steel dust

>>8436360
I am aware that the damage from the plane is what supposedly initiated the collapse. My issue is not with the initiation but with the collapse itself, the sequential floor by floor failures do not add up with Newtons Laws of Motion

>>8436656
>an even greater force
Remember that the third law requires that force be distributed in the opposite direction as well. This is why a deceleration is always observed when a scenario such as this is recreated. This growing mass is not coming from the falling structure alone but also from the resisting structure

These floor by floor collapse hypothesis are also unable to account for the buildings central support columns disappearing into the rubble. This support is a free standing structure on its own and should remain if floors are being stripped from their connections

>>8436673
>>8436693

That's exactly NISTs explanation and they built a model to demonstrate this effect. They never released the data from that model which has to be the most unscientific approach I have ever seen. Their model, however, shows this "outer shell" losing its shape as is expected if it's central support and inner contents were to collapse and fail. This however does not occur within the footage

>>8436300
Sorry I forgot to address your request. A down scaled model of the trade centre collapse was never produced in the investigations believe it or not. I have one video that I can show but I'm at work at the moment so the rest will have to wait. These are by no means accurate models but they do show what I have come to expect from the affects of newtons law.

https://youtu.be/TJNzaMRsN00

There was an article at one point of an anti-conspiracist wanting to reconstruct and recreate the World Trade Center disaster to scale so he could disprove the conspiracies. I personally am in full support of the idea and am confident that experiment would show very different results in numerous areas than what occurred on the day

>>8437161
What's it like knowing that you'll be a truther over the next terrorist attack as well?

>>8437161
>My issue is not with the initiation but with the collapse itself, the sequential floor by floor failures do not add up with Newtons Laws of Motion
Well there's your issue, you are arguing with a strawman:

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

"NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."

>>8436412
If you don't believe physics and evidence, what will you believe?

>>8437245
I mentioned the pancake theory because it seemed popular within this thread. The NIST investigation addresses an initiation of the collapse it then assumes that the action described within this initiation is enough to conclude a scenario of a total collapse. So yes they do deny pancake theory and I agree with that. What they don't do is replace it with a new theory or any explanation at all. This "investigation" does not outline what is occurring through out the duration of the collapse in any way and this is why me and many other would like a new investigation.

>>8437245
Not to mention the text book segment you attached before describes the event as a pancake collapse

>>8437227
Well to be honest with you out of all the terrorist attacks that have occurred this is the only one I've had trouble believing.

I feel I should also mention that the concept of the official story violating laws of physics is not a concept unfamiliar among more profesional members of science

Europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf

>>8437304
>you attached
Not me.

>>8437295
The quote above explains the collapse. The perimeter colums failed and the floors dragged them inwards.

>>8437326
Why?

>>8437363

That explains how it started, it even refers to it as an initiation. It does not explain how this initiation dismantled 80 floors of undamaged structure below

>>8437367
Because as I've stated in many posts including the OP it doesn't match with newtons laws of motion that the top 20% portion of the building was able to obliterate the bottom 80%. The collapse that occurred in conjunction with the official account is impossible to replicate.

If you disagree I would be more than happy to see your application of the laws of motion fitted to this scenario

>>8437326
Wew, you should dig deeper if you dare. Consider what synthetic terror has manifested so far, everyone in the west is now living in a surveillance state, Constitutions that took centuries to establish destroyed and in many places the risk of being indefinitely detained without counsel or charges. Maybe even tortured. Bali bombing, 7/7, the original WTC bombing, Oklahoma...these are all very suspicious. It is clear a totalitarian tiptoe is underway and chances are it will be far too late when called out for what it is and it will take far more blood to be set free again. History repeats.

>>8437561
I have my theories on many happenings in the world but no reason to believe anything until I've done research on those matters to support or disprove my theories. For the sake of this thread however I'd mostly like to focus on the collapse of these towers. It seems nature itself has been disproving the official narrative and we as a society are very slowly starting to listen

>>8437359
My apologies, it can be hard to identify specific anons sometimes :)

>>8436700
If this is satire it is excellent and hilarious

If it is serious then I weep for humanity

>>8437499
There is no physical issue with how the collapse carried through the entire building. The issue is that the sequential process could not have started the collapse. The collapse began with a large portion of the building's structure being weakened by fire. Once this large portion failed the rest of the building could not stop the falling mass. You can't just use the third law as a rule of thumb. You have to actually do the math. And NIST already did the math.

From the same webpage I posted earlier:

"The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass."

"In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass."

>>8437592
Well there is someone named Judy who spread a bunch of disinfo about 'energy weapons' but all the signs point to small nuclear detonations in the granite bases of both 1 and 2 and probably 6. Go ahead and research away, radiation at the scene, pulverized debris, seismographs that match, assorted cancers showing up in almost every first responder many of whom are dead now, shiat - even the mushroom cloud, all you have to do is believe your eyes. Why would the debris be flung so far out like that from a simple collapse? The science is fairly advanced now since the above ground test ban decades ago all tests are underground, they can also make nukes as small as 10Kt, that is only 10,000 tonnes of TNT so the blast radius in a granite base would be about 100m wide.


>>8437618
Can you elaborate? Civilians have been getting nuked since the invention of nuclear weapons. First the massive testing in both the US and Russia, then the Japs, then Kosovo and the ME with DU weaponry and the Afghan today. No need to weep, on the bright side, the asbestos towers had to come down, tenancy was plummeting and they would have stood for 1000 years. No demolition company would even look at that job, in fact Controlled Demolition Inc. who did the cleanup said it couldn't even be done safely.

>>8437651
>the entire building
7 buildings! Brick shithouses actually, concrete, asbestos and iron taken out by 2 aluminum planes half loaded with kerosene. The official theory or those who defend it say pieces of 1 and 2 took out the other 4 buildings but take a closer look, WTC 6 for example also had a large smoldering crater in the basement - a pile of melted molten goo!

I have no problem with the complex being taken out like that, the price tag unacceptable though. We could be paying for the next 1000 years or more.

File: image.jpg (59KB, 672x296px)

59KB, 672x296px

>>8437651

If NIST has done the math than they should show it so that it can be critiqued but they don't. Instead they give you the paragraphs that you have quoted and ask that you trust them. There are no experiments and there is no data, they only provide you with their word and a computer model that also has no data released. Those paragraphs also talk of the buildings as if the were just floors held up by the outer structure not taking into account that there is a completely free standing network of dense steel going all the way through the centre of this building. If the floors were stripped from this support due to a "build up of mass" then this central support should remain. I use quotations around the term "build up of mass" as it is an absurd thing for NIST to say when video footage from literally every angle shows this buildup being shot across the streets of New York, some of it even shooting upward. You can't have a gravity based collapse where steel member are traveling in the opposite direction of said gravity.

>>8438059
>and a computer model
That is only for building 7 mind you. For the twin towers they only give you their word

>>8435846
Why not request that /sci/ sets aside a brief 7 minutes to consider the following

https://youtu.be/iiwpj7aa9c8

>>8438059
Not only is the math shown in the reports, they even explain it in the first question of this faq:

https://www.nist.gov/pba/nist-federal-building-and-fire-safety-investigation-world-trade-center-disaster-answers-faqs

>Those paragraphs also talk of the buildings as if the were just floors held up by the outer structure not taking into account that there is a completely free standing network of dense steel going all the way through the centre of this building.
This shows you don't even understand what you're arguing against. The core is the first part that was critically damaged by fire and the impact of the plane, leaving more of the load on the perimeter columns. The perimeter columns would have saved the building if not for the trusses connecting the interior columns to the perimeter. When these trusses sagged they pulled the perimeter inward causing the entire system to fail.

>I use quotations around the term "build up of mass" as it is an absurd thing for NIST to say when video footage from literally every angle shows this buildup being shot across the streets of New York, some of it even shooting upward.
Have you ever thrown a large object, such as a piece of cardboard onto a dusty floor? Go look at what happens.

>You can't have a gravity based collapse where steel member are traveling in the opposite direction of said gravity.
Of course you can, that's what Newton's laws predict. Any downward impact of a large force is going to impart a large amount of momentum to relatively small objects, sending them flying outward and upward in all directions.

>>8438059
Do you know what potential energy is?
Each tower had about 115 Tons of TNT worth of potential energy. That's enough to catapult away some debris.

File: Catapults.jpg (72KB, 618x324px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 618x324px

>>8438544
>catapult away some debris
There were no catapults involved though according to the official conspiracy theory. There are pictures showing many massive girders being ejected sideways up to 100m which defies simple gravity. A collapse would cause some air pressure buildup underneath the falling material but there seems to be another major force acting upwards as the tops fall into what appears to be nothing! The lower 2/3rds of 1 and 2 seemingly vaporize in an instant!

If the official line was true there would have been 2 small mountains of debris, instead smoldering holes and most of the material was pulverized into microscopic dust including the steel girders making up the frame...just vanished from a collapse? In fact if the official theory were correct there would be two large towers standing with some charred holes in them, then what? The WTC complex had to be removed as asbestos removal was unfeasible - the buildings were smothered in the stuff, the solution appears to have been orchestrated by elements within the US military.

File: laff.jpg (16KB, 236x284px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 236x284px

>>8438771
>There were no catapults involved though

Since the towers fell at near free-fall speeds, it is impossible to conclude it collapsed under its own weight, ie, what the media tells us happened.

It was a controlled demolition

>>8439039
Just how slow does something fall when it collapses under its own weight, in your mind? Does it have to fall down like a feather?

File: image.jpg (27KB, 432x340px)

27KB, 432x340px

>>8438321
You don't know how building cores work my friend. If the core is damaged all the way up on the 80-90th floor there is absolutely no reason why it should disassemble in its undamaged sections below. This is why controlled demolition requires explosives throughout an entire structure length. If you only blew out the top of a building the rest is not just going to follow suit. Picture related doesn't look like bent steel to me. It looks like sliced steel that was once molten, dripping from the slice

Yes if I throw an object at a dusty floor the mass involved with that dust is picked up and moved. What are you even suggesting with this?

Newtons law states that any action has a positive or negative reaction. Your talking about steel girdes bouncing of a surface that has downward momentum.

This scenario of an objects top 20% mass destroying its remaining 80% mass is a first in history. You can not replicate it under any circumstance. That top 20% should of been destroyed at the same rate as the next 20% that came below it but this simply did not happen. Can show me any incident outside of 9/11 where damage at the top of an object can destroy and dismember that entire object through out its whole length? Bombs at the top of buildings have never done this, missiles hitting the tops of buildings have never done this, nothing has ever done this.

>>8438864
You know what he's saying and he made some good points. Why not try and address them instead of mocking him like a teenager who has run out of points to make

>>8439061
It needs resistance. 110 stories falling short of a second the speed of gravity is a feat only achievable in controlled demolition. It has never been recorded elsewhere that's for sure

>>8435857
But there was also a plane in it

You keep saying that Newton's laws tell us things they don't, you may have arrived at a conclusion based on the laws, in which case you should probably explain them.

>>8439074
He was expressing that he thought what he said was funny, and as far as I can tell he was trying to be funny. I understand this kind emotion based interaction between two people can be hard for some on /sci/ to understand.

>>8439127
Not sure who you are referring to but what has been said incorrectly about Newtons Law?

File: theories.jpg (134KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1280x720px

>>8439134
It was me and it was supposed to be funny. How can you even look at something like the great events of 11 of 9 without a joke or two but the subject has fascinated me for years. There is a lot of cognitive dissonance involved especially in the older crowd, that such a big lie could be thrown out there and gobbled right up without any serious indigestion by the masses. That shit only went down in the history books and as such the current enlightened generation could never be so easily swindled?

Anyway, it was some Russian nuclear dood on the internets who threw the micronuke theory out there originally or I never would have considered it myself, not mine but it makes the most sense to me with WTC 7 just being a classic controlled demo to wrap things up at the end of that fateful day destroying any evidence of malfeasance. It was apparently command and control for the entire operation with most floors occupied by assorted spook shops, think tanks and FEMA type outfits.

Of course this is all moot, the flight path was in place before the event, there will be no serious investigation and any threat to the 'system' will be quickly silenced as their is simply too much at stake now. The war on terra - a war on a transient verb - is a multi trillion dollar biz now!

>>8439068
>If the core is damaged all the way up on the 80-90th floor there is absolutely no reason why it should disassemble in its undamaged sections below.
The building above it smashing into it with an enormous momentum is "absolutely no reason"? Is your delusional mind incapable of grasping this simple point?

>This is why controlled demolition requires explosives throughout an entire structure length.
WRONG. The reason it requires explosives throughout is so that all parts of the building fall at the same time instead of having pieces impacting each other, which spreads debris around, which is exactly what happened with the WTC.

>Picture related doesn't look like bent steel to me. It looks like sliced steel that was once molten, dripping from the slice
You're absolutely correct. It's steel that was cut with a blowtorch during cleanup:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySHgiUxnLC0

>Yes if I throw an object at a dusty floor the mass involved with that dust is picked up and moved. What are you even suggesting with this?
I'm suggesting that a downward impact can send mass flying by imparting force to the air which then pushes debris away. This is what happens when you throw a piece of cardboard onto a dusty floor. It also sends mass flying by imparting momentum directly to it and then the debris bounces off the surface below.

>Your talking about steel girdes bouncing of a surface that has downward momentum.
What else does it bounce off of? Use your puny little brain for a second.

>This scenario of an objects top 20% mass destroying its remaining 80% mass is a first in history.
A bullet obviously can't kill you since it's less than 1% of your mass. Go shoot yourself.

>>8439068
>That top 20% should of been destroyed at the same rate as the next 20% that came below it but this simply did not happen.
The mass does not get destroyed you moron, only the structure does. Let's go over this again retard:

1. The top of the building's structure failed.
2. The mass of the top part of the building fell onto the floor immediately below it.
3. This crushed the floor's structure
4. Go back to 2 until there are no floors left.

>Can show me any incident outside of 9/11 where damage at the top of an object can destroy and dismember that entire object through out its whole length?
Can you show me a building with the same structure as the WTC that was damaged in the same way? No? Then shut the fuck up.

>>8435857
This has nothing to do with physical laws and everything to do with the design of the building.
15-20 floors of mass is all you need to pancake the rest of the floors. And then you might ask,
>but what about the core and the perimeter columns? they can't pancake
you're absolutely right, they can't pancake
and they didn't pancake
literally only the floors collapsed, it's like peeling the leaves off a branch by clenching your fist around it and sliding it down. The perimeter columns fell after the floors pancaked because of severe damage and no support.
The core didn't collapse until the rest of the building had finished collapsing, then it fell apart like an unsupported bundle of sticks.

>>8435867
You're misinterpreting the collapse. The thing that's free-falling isn't the building, it's the outer shell. The inside has already collapsed by the time the shell starts to fall. You can see the penthouse cave in meaning the entire column below it gave away, seconds before the shell starts to fall.

>>8436001
read second paragraph
>>8436027
read first paragraph, also that pic shows molten aluminium from the plane debris bunched up in that corner

>>8436058
where's this powder thing coming from? if you look at images of ground zero there's heaps of intact columns there. And concrete is known to crack into clouds of dust upon impact, that's what concrete does. Also, read first paragraph.

File: wtc2core.jpg (34KB, 485x700px)

34KB, 485x700px

>>8439556
the core survived the collapse
>>8439068
the core survived the collapse
>>8439039
wrong, they did not freefall
south tower fell in 15 seconds and north tower fell in 20 seconds
freefall is 9.2 seconds
the collapse wave traveling down the building had a constant speed, no acceleration

>>8438321
>When these trusses sagged they pulled the perimeter inward causing the entire system to fail.
In the impact zone, yes. But the core below the impact zone survived the collapse.

File: molten_steel.jpg (48KB, 605x434px)

48KB, 605x434px

>>8439556

Try and remain calm, there is no reason insults

>The building above it smashing into it with an enormous momentum is "absolutely no reason"?
The building above it is less than 20% the mass of the building below it. Like I have said, it is impossible that 20% mass can destroy its 80% counterpart. This isn't a conspiracy this is an equation that forms the fabric of our reality. Prove me wrong by all means

> Is your delusional mind incapable of grasping this simple point?
Considering the physical impossibility of it, yes, that is why I made the thread

>The reason it requires explosives throughout is so that all parts of the building fall at the same time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJDX9V_pPV8
That's what happens when explosives fail to go off in controlled demo. The core is interlocking steel joined together to act as a thick post that the rest of the building is supported by. You cant destroy the top of a metal post and expect the rest to just shatter.

>You're absolutely correct. It's steel that was cut with a blowtorch during cleanup
Potentially. What about pic related?

>I'm suggesting that a downward impact can send mass flying
I know. That's my point. The mass was no longer on top of the building pushing it down like you originally claimed

>What else does it bounce off of?
My point is that 2 objects that are falling due to gravity would not have the energy to propel upwards. If one collided with the other a deceleration would certainly occur. Something that is falling down being struck by something else that is also falling down is not going to then result in bouncing upward

>A bullet obviously can't kill you since it's less than 1% of your mass
What even is this. We aren't talking about the building dying, we are talking about it being pulverized. With that in mind I resume my original argument and state that a bullet would not be able to pulverise me into dust.

Don't get so worked up about this please. I'm not trying to upset you

File: images.jpg (8KB, 254x198px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 254x198px

>>8439614
>15-20 floors of mass is all you need to pancake the rest of the floors.
Only the official investigation itself says a pancake did not occur.
The core is designed to withstand tremendously more weight than it every carried. It is also designed as a grid system so that an isolated incident in one are is not going to affect other areas.

>The perimeter columns fell after the floors pancaked because of severe damage and no support.

Floors stripping off the core is not going to remove its support. The core supports the floors not the other way around

>then it fell apart like an unsupported bundle of sticks.
and this is in my opinion the biggest issue with this entire topic. People are not giving this steel structure enough credit. Steel structures are intense when it comes to strength. In WW2, Warsaw Poland, a building known as the prudential building was a steel supported structure that was bombarded with over 1000 artillery strikes. This rid the building of all of its contents, floors included. This building still stands today. The demolition of a steel structure is an extremely precise process that requires careful placement of explosives. Its extremely expensive and goes wrong all the time. The thought of a plane and gravity being all that is required to demolish two of the biggest steel structures ever built is an absurdity. The thought of fire alone to demolish WTC7 as is outlined in the official investigation is a blatant lie.

>WTC7
The inside can not collapse simultaneously across the entirety of the building due to natural causes. It isn't glass that just shatters, this is steel. These are supports that can hold significantly more than they ever actually do. I really can't stress this enough

>molten aluminium
Molten aluminium is picture related, it melts silver and begins the bubble as it reaches its boiling point. It never glows orange

File: nukehole.jpg (804KB, 804x611px) Image search: [Google]

804KB, 804x611px

>>8439944
>What about pic related?
It's certainly mysterious the molten debris underneath the rubble. It was found under WTC 1,2,3,5 and 6 accompanied by mysterious holes. Responders also starting hosing it down right away and it carried on for weeks.

These are the holes left by underground nuke testing and similar to pictures of the hole building 6 left. Also, there were large vaults underneath the complex, much gold. There was not even an effort to recover this? Why? I suspect because some people knew all valuables were removed prior to 9-11 and the vaults vaporized. There are so many anomalies with the official conspiracy theory that it soon becomes laughable and preposterous on so many levels, even more so with the strange Pentagon missile attack (a retrofitted A-4 under remote control and painted like an airliner), but don't feel bad about many peoples highly emotional response to any questioning of this. There is much nationalism and sunk cost bias built up. Many people have spent their entire lives believing what their military, media, monetary and spook systems tell them. In some ways I am really impressed by the entire operation, especially the rapid dismantlement of the entire complex through what appeared to be a couple of airliners. In reality, this would be like shooting a flaming arrow into a 300 foot Redwood and watching it collapse to ash an hour later. Unpossible.

>>8435846
Don't forget Newton's Fourth Law: Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

>>8439626
>the core survived the collapse
That is by no means survival. It stands for less then 10 seconds after its collapse. You have to understand that the core is like the buildings skeleton, It doesn't give in to the load it carries. Just the same as your skeleton

> north tower fell in 20 seconds
This is a gross over-estimation. Although they are difficult to calculate you can literally watch and count with a clock, you will fall well under 20 seconds. Do you have the source that told you this?

Here is a video of north tower https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYUx5zJ3yss

>>8439985
10 seconds, pretty much free fall, you even see an orange fireball erupt near the top to set it all off and the others below I am sure obscured by the ever expanding debris field.

I don't think a controlled demolition would look much different and this was the conundrum. There was no way it would have been allowed without evacuating the joint for 10 blocks around. If they tried to disassemble the complex piece by piece it would have taken years and been even more expensive. The complex had reached end of life and something had to be done and I believe this opportunity was taken advantage of for the simple reason there were no other options. In summary obviously no physical laws were broken here and everything appears to have gone off without too much blowback. The tinfoil alternate conspiracy theories were contained for the most part, perhaps after the corrupt shadow government and deep state currently running the show are long gone the topic can be scrutinized again, maybe not but history is rewritten everyday anyway.

>>8440017
>I don't think a controlled demolition would look much different

In its effectiveness to bring down a structure no but in the sense of what's occurring it's not a method you would ever see in practical use. Usually they use cutter charges to break as many connections as they need, leaving the building standing, but disconnected, with its own pressure holding it in place. Then depending on the size of the structure they use two or three larger explosions to knock the cut connections out of place and have the structure fall to the ground.
The end result is essentially what you see happen to building 7.

The towers on the other hand were floor by floor explosions from the top to bottom in an attempt to make it look like a floor by floor collapse. The reason you'd never normally see this in controlled demo is because of the outward destructive spray of debris that it shoots in all directions would greatly increase the chance of damaging surrounding structures. On close inspection you can see the squibs, puffs of smoke that shoot out very fast below the trail of destruction. A clear indicator that controlled demolition is taking place.

Some people try to say that its air pressure knocking out a window or the floors collapsing ahead of the rest. The problem with this is that many windows on that building would of been shattered by the plane leaving no possibility of air busting a window and if the floors were collapsing ahead of the rest you would expect dust as thick in density and as gray in colour as the other floor collapses occurring higher up. My step brother worked in demolition for ten years. He's the one that got me to look into 9/11 and his boss is the one that showed him building 7. Apparently building 7 causes a bit of talk amongst demo experts because of how neat its collapse was. His boss said this so called natural collapse is an A+ Example of what they aim to achieve when they spend weeks and months planning to bring a building down

>>8435846
>physics
>prove or disprove
Lrn2physics fgt pls

>>8439985
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

File: wp_wtc29.jpg (25KB, 486x640px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 486x640px

>>8440017
> you even see an orange fireball erupt near the top
that's the flames in the floor completely filled with fire in this pic bursting out from the air pressure

File: htchar1.gif (32KB, 355x397px)

32KB, 355x397px

>>8439968
> Molten aluminium is picture related, it melts silver and begins the bubble as it reaches its boiling point. It never glows orange
Wrong.
Fires in the south tower reached ~1000 deg C
Enough to glow orange.

>>8440432
In order for it to stay orange it has to maintain that temperature. Dropping through the air for as little as 1 sec is enough to cool it down and re-solidify it.
The substance pouring from the tower maintained an orange glow for the duration of its fall. The molten steel found at ground zero remained orange for up to three weeks

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cxFXFkN6FaI

>>8441064
Cooling is partially a function of amount of substance. A tub of boiling water will take a lot longer to cool off than a thimble of boiling water. Your statement is meaningless without considering the sheer mass involved and makes me suspect you don't actually have much experience performing basic physics calculations.

>>8440421
Rosie was talking about wtc7 in that interview. Beside the point 14.5 seconds doesn't excuse much considering a natural collapse usually occurss over a duration of hours and never leads to a total collapse. So no the towers them self did not come down directly on free fall but they are the fastest buildings to collapse outside of controlled demolition and they are in the lead by an outrageously huge margin. Especially considering their size

>>8441077
You use a lot of superlatives in your arguments. Do you have any actual data on how the WTC collapse was the "fastest ever" outside of controlled demolition.

>>8441077
>Rosie was talking about wtc7 in that interview.
Freefall for the twin towers is 9 seconds though? Just like she said. And the video proves her wrong.

>Beside the point 14.5 seconds doesn't excuse much considering a natural collapse usually occurss over a duration of hours and never leads to a total collapse.
too many assumptions here
there's nothing natural about this collapse by the way, a plane damaged the support and the fire weakened the rest, this is a collapse caused by human involvement
The towers would likely not collapse for anything natural like a hurricane or an earthquake, and fires would never reach this level without a kickstarter like a plane packed with jet fuel
This type of collapse cannot happen over several hours
When the top part of the building completely detaches from the bottom part, which it did, there's no way to not suffer total collapse. The same thing would happen with the new one world trade center standing today. Remove one floor and the building will suffer total collapse.

>So no the towers them self did not come down directly on free fall but they are the fastest buildings to collapse
You're right, their collapse was very fast, because of their size and weight

>Especially considering their size
That's the opposite of what someone should expect. The larger the building is, the easier it is for it to collapse.

>>8435846
Not trying to be mean but in follow up posts whoever is backing ops idea, whether or not it is op, has a severe lacking in understanding of fundemental newtonian physics. The laws are being applied incorrectly or assumptions/arguments are made which are entirely unrelated to proper physics or the three laws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA>>8437161


>>8437161
Newtons laws of motion work great in a vaccuum, this is real life. First you are forgetting entirely about momentum. Second there is a big difference between the strength of a building to hold a stationary weight vs an impacting weight.

>Remember that the third law requires that force be distributed in the opposite direction as well.
A very good example of how you really dont understand the three laws. You are applying the concept very much incorrectly.

You're forgetting potential energy, and more importantly the idea that the building was designed to hold a stationary object in the vertical position. The second the first collaspe hit the floor below it that immense for was also applied laterally to the building, something the building was never designed to withstand.

>>8441116
And when you use newtons third law it means things like the earth moved a little towards the towers as the towers fell to earth. Equal and opposite gravitational forces. Impacts are much more complicated than a loose and incorrect use of the third law in a very non-perfect system.

>>8435846
To truly be convinced you're incorrect you need to take a semester or two of physics, and it is impractical to educate you as such on a forum.

File: debris.jpg (61KB, 470x411px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 470x411px

>>8440207
The building 7 collapse by design or not turned into the perfect red herring for the alternate conspiracy theory crowd drawing attention away from 1 and 2 which is why this thread is a little different and far more interesting. Two near identical collapses of enormous towers all riding on some questionable 'official' theories. The ironic part is these 2 collapses were replayed ad nauseam driving home the shock value but not so much the critical thinking.

>>8440426
Fireballs aside the most astonishing thing is the size of the debris field from these towers supposedly falling under the weight of gravity alone. This I think is what OP has a problem with, there are forces unaccounted for best explained by explosives. This may also explain the fractionally slower than free fall speed, upward and outward forces combined with the weight of the structure itself, most of which seemingly is pulverized instead of collapsing into an enormous heap. Assorted theories come up to explain this, that the concrete was rotten or defective and thus turned to dust, that the floors self pulverized each other on the way down but these seem questionable.

>>8441137
Air pressure...

>>8436033
>In my opinion this alone is enough to make someone shut themself off from the possibility of an alternate event

This right here is near the entirety of what keeps the 'official story' from being completely rejected. I once had a friend whom after several discussions and showing him various evidence said, " I don't want to believe the government was responsible for 9/11"

It's clear to anyone with an objective mindset this is the case.

File: airpressure.jpg (137KB, 930x619px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 930x619px

>>8441163
I don't think air pressure from a pancake theory alone can eject 10,000 lb steel girders horizontally hundreds of feet. It looks more like a collapsing volcano eruption than gravitational collapse.

>>8441177
You have to be very clear on this, elements within the government but also the media, military, monetary and spook systems. People high up with top down control and compartmentalization. Any government has good people and bad people. The disinformation and gatekeepers when flustered point to "government" but that may be exactly what they want to dismantle as well, say in favor of a theocracy? The one common denominator across all these spheres though, the only thing that could tie all of these people together, is the occult. It flies under the flag of religion, usually Abrahamic or Masonic in nature. Again there are good religious people and bad , confused or suppressed religious people. At the higher levels their blood oaths supersede any civil oath by the wording alone, just check out the oaths of the first 3 degrees of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry for example, or the Jesuit oaths. That in itself is a science of social control. People seem to balk at the idea of such an enormous conspiracy regarding 9/11. Seems to me that was the easy part, many higher ups probably more than willing to exercise some power. Wouldn't have even required thousands, perhaps a hundred or so, the rest would have flowed naturally by their armies of enablers...the holy oil crusades, the technocratic Inquisition. You can see the appeal to the base so to speak.

>>8441498
>I don't think
"I don't think" isn't good enough.
Yes, air pressure from the floors pancaking can push the perimeter columns pretty far.

>>8435961
Was it chinese steel

>>8435857
The tower was built to be ablevto lose 2 floors, it lost a lot more

The fire did not melt the steel beams but heated them enough to cause them to bend and then just fail under the pressure

Now for the mathy part

Our gravity holds 9.81 newtons, this causes an accellaration of 9.81m/s/s

The the total force the support was made to hold was then

3 x 9.81 x [building's mass]

But the buidling fell distance of over 3 meters

Causing it to accellarate due to gravity to a speed of over 9.81 x 3 m/s

Causing it to crash into the support with a higher energy
([more than 3] x 9.81 x [building's mass])
Which the support was not designed to hold

>>8435961
It doesn't need to, the beams will weaken due to heat, bend, then fail.

All without melting

File: pancakes.jpg (125KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 700x467px

>>8441779
>Yes, air pressure from the floors pancaking can push the perimeter columns pretty far.
>pretty far
That is hardly good enough. I doubt NIST and their army of drone engineers even bothered to come up with computations on that one but even if they did cook some books they wouldn't pass a simple smell test.

You know they tried to put Henry Kissinger in charge of the investigation at first and only after being forced by relatives of victims in the towers. I forget the names of the men finally put in charge of the whitewash but I doubt it was an easy task for them to basically publish an enormous lie under their names.

>>8441913
No it was Pittsburgh steel smothered in asbestos. It was only shipped to China for unknown reasons for final recycling. My suspicion is because it was all hot, as in contaminated with radiation. Asbestos not only acts as a fire retardant but adds to the structural strength. The towers would have stood for a thousand years or more. They were built when quality actually meant something, just shortsighted with the asbestos everywhere.

>>8441966
I really don't understand the "path of greatest resistance" meme. It takes a shitload of force to rotate something as massive as the upper section of the tower; so for most of the material, downward is indeed the path of least resistance.

>>8439068
>This scenario of an objects top 20% mass destroying its remaining 80% mass is a first in history.

This this this. This is what absolutely kills me. If the official story of the collapse of 9/11 is so easily expressed and explained with words, why isn't there a single experiment that displays such a result. It's madness that societies can witness such a catastrophe, receive an opinionated explanation and then be done with it. Case closed cause a selection of individuals said so. If someone recreated this collapse in any form I doubt OP would of even started this thread but no one has. I challenge anyone to show an instance where this impossibility has ever occurred. Please, I will stand corrected the second it is put forward

>>8442000
You have no idea the seriousness that statement holds. Please view my post here
>>8442240
Demonstrate how this makes sense in any way

>>8441966
>That is hardly good enough.
how? the distance it's being thrown out in that pic is consistent with what's possible

>>8442240
read the fucking thread, retard
step out of your echo chamber

File: 1477530525819.gif (3MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x281px

OK, assuming it was an "inside job", where's the burden of proof for that?

>>8441077
>they are the fastest buildings to collapse outside of controlled demolition
What are the rankings of the other contenders for that category?

File: fantasy.jpg (36KB, 600x450px)

36KB, 600x450px

>>8442240
I think that's how the perps got away with so much because there was only one WTC. They could peddle all sorts of one off unique theories specific to WTC.

Basically WTC 1 and 2 were made out to be houses of cards rotten to the core and just ready to almost collapse into dust on their own someday.

>>8442667
The burden of proof came with the stalled and finally forced half ass "investigation" of how the towers crumbled to dust. People are merely questioning it and left to come up with their own more plausible theories is all that is going on here. I suppose it is natural to defend an "official" theory as that is after all, the path of least resistance.

>>8442758
read the fucking thread before writing more bullshit like this

>>8442758
>People are merely questioning it and left to come up with their own more plausible theories
Lay out a single theory that's more plausible. How the hell did they lay the charges when people were working in the building?

>>8443115
You see. This is where those who have researched can inform of the many weird happenings such as the two day power down the weekend before 9/11, the countless disruptive evacuations the weeks prior to 9/11 and the constant elevator maintenance also on the lead up to 9/11. Once those who have researched lay these facts out, those who have not researched announce that these claims are wrong and made up, despite the fact they have avoided research. It's this denial and ignorance that keep the official story alive and well.
This is only in regards to the possibility of explosives but the same applies for the 767s well exceeding their VMOs throughout their flight path and the fact that 9 of the 19 hijackers came forward and announced they are in fact alive and had nothing to do with the event. Despite acknowledging this, it seems the FBI had no reason to update the investigation or change the list.

>>8442666
If you are saying that in regards to posts like this
>>8439568
Then I'm afraid you have absoloutley no idea what your talking about. That post describes an impossible scenario. You can't prove an impossible scenario occurred just by describing how it would work in your imagination. That is not science and it never will be. You need the models and experiments that demonstrate such a feat before you can expect anyone to take it seriously

>>8439968
>Only the official investigation itself says a pancake did not occur.
No, it says the collapse was not initiated by a pancake effect. What initiated the collapse was the failure of the core and perimeter columns holding up the part of the building above the impact. That entire top part falling onto the floor below then started the pancaking of each floor.

>The core is designed to withstand tremendously more weight than it every carried.
...when it's not severely weakened by the impact of a plane and jet fuel fire, yes. This appears to be very common among truthers, you can't seem to keep track of more than one detail at a time. This leads to faulty reasoning that ignores the plurality of factors that lead to an outcome.

>Floors stripping off the core is not going to remove its support. The core supports the floors not the other way around
The perimeter columns were not the core. The perimeter columns were the outside of the building. They were connected to the core by trusses which support the floor. When theses trusses sagged, they pulled the perimeter columns inward, causing them to collapse. It's not because they had no support.

>WTC7
>The inside can not collapse simultaneously across the entirety of the building due to natural causes.
The inside did not collapse simultaneously. It had been weakening for hours from falling debris and fire. Firefighters knew it was going to collapse because its sides were bulging and they could hear it creaking. The east side collapsed almost a minute before the rest of the building did.

File: blast6-640x554.jpg (66KB, 640x554px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 640x554px

>>8443214
There are far too many anomalies to even keep track of now and actually many people are still looking into it! If the next false flag gains even more scrutiny is just may prevent a dreaded WW3 with civilians being primary targets as per the evolution of war of the centuries. It was in fact a lesser known Bushling (Marvin) who took over control of WTC security a few weeks prior to 9/11.

WTC 1 and 2 wouldn't require a complete demolition wire job of course, 7 looks like a classical demolition. There are people out there who have investigated the mininuke scenario far more than the last time I looked into it and the evidence really piles up for a nuke job on civilians here. In fact evidence points to many mini-micro nukes being used in various locations since the 90's. These were apparently being sourced from a discontinued line of American Davey Crockett artillery warheads that went missing, possibly distributed through the Bush-Cheney gang to various countries and regimes including North Korea. Sweet dreams!

>>8439944
>Like I have said, it is impossible that 20% mass can destroy its 80% counterpart.
Like I said, if this is true you should be fine shooting yourself since a bullet is less than 1% of your mass. You keep repeating arguments that I've already debunked and refusing to respond to them. Again: the amount of mass relative to the rest of the building is utterly irrelevant, for one because it's momentum that actually matters, and two because 20% of the mass did not destroy 80%. 20% destroyed 1% of the mass (the floor below it), then 21% destroyed 1%, then 22% destroyed 1%, etc.

>Considering the physical impossibility of it, yes, that is why I made the thread
How is it physically impossible? Show me the math or fuck off.

>That's what happens when explosives fail to go off in controlled demo.
Your video shows the top of the building not falling to the ground at all. Again, the point is for every part of the building to fall at the same time.

>The core is interlocking steel joined together to act as a thick post that the rest of the building is supported by. You cant destroy the top of a metal post and expect the rest to just shatter.
The core could not withstand the massive kinetic energy of the falling part of the building. However, the lower part of the core did stand for a few seconds after the rest of the building fell around it. So only the top of the core shattered upon impact. The rest shattered after the debris fell past it. I still haven't seen any physical reason why a massive amount of force can't shatter the core, just vague analogies. That's all you have. Where's the physics that you claimed to have on your side?

>Potentially. What about pic related?
What about it?

>The mass was no longer on top of the building pushing it down like you originally claimed
Huh? Do you think all the mass was shot off to the sides?

>>8439944
>My point is that 2 objects that are falling due to gravity would not have the energy to propel upwards.
So bouncing a ball is impossible? Wow, I can't believe how someone could be this stupid. Any large downward force will send debris flying in all directions, including up, because of air being pushed away and because of deflection. If you deny this you are simply denying reality.

>If one collided with the other a deceleration would certainly occur.
A deceleration did occur. But it's negligible. Like how much deceleration a car would suffer if it drove into a toothpick.

>Something that is falling down being struck by something else that is also falling down is not going to then result in bouncing upward
You are seriously dense. The impact imparted kinetic energy to the air which then pushed debris outward. It imparted kinetic energy to debris which then bounced off the building below. What direction they were moving in prior is utterly irrelevant.

>What even is this. We aren't talking about the building dying, we are talking about it being pulverized.
Yes, that's why it's an analogy. Do you understand what that is? It being pulverized was caused by a chain reaction, just as a bullet causes death from a chain reaction. I was not instantaneously pulverized from a perfect transfer of energy. Your argument is like saying that a bullet cannot kill you because it does not have enough energy to instantaneously pulverize you. Nothing was instantaneously destroyed. But even if we disregard this you have not shown that 20% of the mass could not destroy 80% of the mass. This is not something that cannot be shown, as the amount of damage is dependent on kinetic energy, not mass. I look forward to your proof that 20% of the mass could not start the chain reaction of each floor being pulverized one by one, each time gaining momentum as the gravitational potential energy of each floor was transferred to kinetic energy as it fell. Until then, fuck off.

File: me laughing.jpg (150KB, 640x480px)

150KB, 640x480px

>when /pol/ attempts to /sci/post
L M A O
M
A
O

>>8435846
Considering Engineers and Physicists all learn these laws in their first semester, I highly doubt they by themsleves are sufficient for solving this problem. Many more variables that need to be considered that these laws leave ambiguous, such as the temperature at which steal beams melt.

>>8441177
"A lie told often enough becomes truth"

>>8443560
More like
>when an anon respects /sci/'s ability to answer scientific questions, but instead gets fucking laughing gorrila

>>8443515
>>8443541
Dude are you trolling? Please don't tell me your being serious with half the shit your saying hahaha

>>8443605
Trolling, shilling or under b&
We can only geuss

File: WTC.jpg (71KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 400x600px

Well as plane to see in the videos, much of the jet fuel - kerosene - burns up quickly in a large fireball, a lot of it outside the perimeter of the building. The fires can be treated as any office building fire as far as temperature goes. This leaves the structural damage to consider. Aluminum airliners full of composite materials, some metal and plastics flying full speed into an iron grid coated and reinforced by cement. The footage clearly indicates what was obliterated, the airliners.

So the official theory goes something like, the fires melted the beams and this caused the top undamaged section to suddenly plummet free fall speed through the rest of structure to the ground. Yeah!

Sometimes I think it would fun if I were a multi-billionaire to build a completely accurate, fully-furnished duplicate of one of the original WTC buildings, and then fly a freshly-fueled commercial passenger aircraft into it, (via remote control, of course) for shits and giggles, and more importantly, for science.

Then, I would film the whole thing, and see how it burned, and how/if it would collapse.

But even then, people would claim that my building and airplane must have something fundamentally different about them, preventing them from imploding and collapsing exactly like the original 2001 event.

Great thread, though.

>>8443649
Mate if you could just get a commercial 767 to fly at the speed and altitude of the planes that hit the WTC. That alone would be enough for people to see how bullshit the official story is. No buildings required

>>8443658
>767 to fly at the speed and altitude
Please tell me more. I am unfamiliar with this crucial detail. Was the 767 flying below stall speed or something?

>>8443664
They travelled at nearly 100mph over their VMO which is the maximum operating speed. VMO changes depending on altitude due to the thickness of air pressure. When an airplane goes over vmo by a little bit it should for the most part be ok. For an airplane to exceed its VMO by 100mph means the wings would flutter so much that it is very likely that they would receive considerable damage that would lead to a lack of control and eventually a crash.

The plane that flew into the south tower did not appear to be a plane who's wings were fluttering, in fact it looked very sturdy and confident with its direction. Planes that are that size and can achieve that speed at that altitude exist however a commercial 767 is not one of them, not by a long shot. Like countless eye-witness report on camera, it looks more like a military plane to me

>>8443684
>Like countless eye-witness report on camera, it looks more like a military plane to me

Gotcha. Yes, I've seen the videos which call into question what sort of aircraft it actually was, and that there may have been external fuel tanks added to it (unlike any known commercial passenger aircraft), which would create the extra spectacular superheat required to light the world on fire.

It's a shame that all the video footage of the impacts is all so decidedly low-quality and ambiguous. We don't even have anything quite at zapruder film levels of clarity to see what was really going on.

File: 657463.jpg (336KB, 857x878px)

336KB, 857x878px

>>8443693
Low quality can only hide so much but certainly hinders a persons ability to identify something. Once you know what you are looking at however, It starts to become much more clear

>>8443696
What is the plane in the upper pic?
a 767 does have similar dual jet engine design, although some have a wingtip flare, which that one clearly doesn't.

>>8443684
So many anomalies with the flights alone.
There are rumors that whatever flew into the Pentagon was a retrofitted remotely controlled A-4 Skyhawk painted like an airliner, some military types came to that conclusion after cleaning up the rubbish. All those flights normally would have been intercepted quickly after deviation as has happened many times before - war games simulating planes flying into buildings took all interceptors far far away adding a huge element of confusion all the easier to take advantage of. Cheney in a command and control bunker personally telling some operator to stand down. Many of the passengers appeared to have been synthetic, did not exist in real life. Flights were at most half full, unheard of for those routes even back then. The hole in the ground in Pennsylvania was not the site of an airliner crash...and more. I think many troublemakers were assassinated that day however. Real people called into meetings in the towers above the impact points but rumors were flying the day previous with the put options on AA - some traced back to CIA directors and many WTC workers calling in sick...I mean that vast a conspiracy people are going to talk.

Don't mean to derail the thread but everything taken into consideration, especially post 9/11 - Patriot Act and war mongering, it is safe to say, the "big lie" flew like a pig that day.

>>8443704
The top plane is a military 767, the Boeing KC 767 or the Boeing KC-46 Pegasus which is developed from the KC 767. This plane is used for in-flight refuelling of fighter jets

It can have a cruise speed of up to 530mph and max speed of 570mph and is designed to withstand significantly harsher conditions than its commercial cousin can.

>>8443515

Europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf

You need to do more research friend. Start from page 21

>>8443855
You need to do more research if you think that this collection of stale truther memes in a "news" magazine hasn't been debunked over and over again.

http://www.snopes.com/journal-endorses-911-conspiracy-theory/

>>8444533
>Alex Kasprak is a freelance science writer into space, fossils, deep time, and obscure historic events that in some way involve a modicum of science. Based in Los Angeles, he is the real-life basis for that kid Dr. Grant scares with a velociraptor claw in the beginning of Jurassic Park.

That's your author. Your putting his work over a physicist with a Ph.D. And over ten publications, a man with a Ph.D. In civil engineering and a man with a Ph.D. In mechanical engineering.

Snopes.com is a website focussed on addressing urban legends not physics and engineering.

You need to pick your sources a little better mate. If you believe the authors of the publication I posted aren't professionals speaking out then exactly what would it take for you to consider the other side of this argument?

>>8435846
>jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel beams
true. but! jet fuel does burn hot enough to cause the structural integrity of steel to become more viscous, and less rigid, hence, weaker, under a shear, and/or a compression force, both of which were experienced when a fucking airplane crashes into the building.

the steel isn't going to turn into melty goop, but it is going to bend, and it is going to twist. when that happens it can't do the job it was supposed to do, which is supporting the weight of an enormous sky scraper, so it collapses.

conspiracy theorists are questioning, that's fine, but they're finding the incorrect answers. you can't just replace what yo udon't know with magic, or what you feel should be the truth, you need to investigate more broadly and more thoroughly. usually this involves going back to first principles, such as the properties of matter.

File: 1476929725056.jpg (205KB, 960x1280px)

205KB, 960x1280px

>>8445396
he's right you know

>>8445390
>Your putting his work over a physicist with a Ph.D.
It's not his work, these claims were debunked over a decade ago by experts. Not to mention that his credentials are utterly irrelevant if what he says is so clearly wrong that anyone can see it.

>Snopes.com is a website focussed on addressing urban legends not physics and engineering.
The claims propagated in the article you posted are urban legends.

>If you believe the authors of the publication I posted aren't professionals speaking out then exactly what would it take for you to consider the other side of this argument?
There are no arguments presented in the article that require any particular expertise to understand, verify, or debunk. But if you believe that I should only consider the words of experts, feel free to show me your expert credentials. Or you could actually reply to the arguments presented when you are finished whining about the sources.

>>8445413
If it's not his work and these claims were debunked decades ago by experts why don't you just show us the publication made by these supposed experts. Why discredit your argument by linking me to an article littered with pop-up adds and a nobody author?

I don't have any expert credentials that's why I linked you to an article written by people who do. That's what research is dude. Do you have an engineering or physics Ph.D.?

Assuming your the guy who's been green texting everyone's post, just from reading what you have written, your not the kind of guy who is serious about having a real debate because you are too focussed on being right irrespective of what the truth may or may not be. You also talk to other people in an elitist way because you immediatley class them as stupid solely based on their topic.

Hell you basically told one guy the buildings collapsed from the plane the same way you'd be killed by a bullet. Those two scenarios have nothing to do with one another, they don't relate. Compare a building collapse to a building collapse if you want to be scientific. If you can't see the massive difference between the concept of a building collapse and the concept of life then unfortunately you are someone who is impossible to debate with and that isn't because anything you say holds any validity, it's because you refuse to be wrong.

So sorry to disappoint you but I will not be debating with you. Not until you calm down a little and stop being so mad

>>8445488
>If it's not his work and these claims were debunked decades ago by experts why don't you just show us the publication made by these supposed experts.
Here you go:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160509103948/http://www.debunking911.com/civil.htm

and if you want the definitive experts' conclusions:

https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation

>Why discredit your argument by linking me to an article littered with pop-up adds and a nobody author?
How is it discredited by either? Is your argument discredited because you are a nobody posting on 4chan? Your lack of self awareness is stunning.

>I don't have any expert credentials that's why I linked you to an article written by people who do. That's what research is dude.
It's not research. It's not published in a peer-reviewed journal. And again, their alleged expertise is irrelevant since they make such massively flawed arguments. Someone who says 1=2 then they're wrong. If they're a mathematician they're still wrong. You can't come up with a coherent argument so instead you are focusing on the source rather than the substance. But I already posted several expert sources that debunk Jones' quackery, so you have no excuses to make anymore.

>Assuming your the guy who's been green texting everyone's post, just from reading what you have written, your not the kind of guy who is serious about having a real debate because you are too focussed on being right irrespective of what the truth may or may not be.
Yet this is the second substanceless post you've made in which you completely ignore the fact that every single argument you've made has been refuted. Hilarious.

>>8445396
I think you missing the point, the steel below the impact points did in fact turn into melty goop, it did not bed and twist, it was seemingly instantaneously melted, vaporized. The debris that made it to ground level was only from the sections above impact, this fell into and onto a large crater. The floors and walls were a cement asbestos mix and those too were pulverized into microscopic dust.
The stats regarding the victims are rather startling too, several hundreds went unidentified as there was simple nothing left of them, many were blown into more than 2000 pieces. Only a few hundred were found intact out of thousands. The fires underneath, the melty goo or more precisely the molten steel remained molten for months afterward. That was no office fire, no. There is also footage for your viewing pleasure of fire fighters radiation detectors chirping wildly as they responded. Many have died of assorted blood cancers and radiation like sickness since.

>>8445488
>Hell you basically told one guy the buildings collapsed from the plane the same way you'd be killed by a bullet. Those two scenarios have nothing to do with one another, they don't relate.
I explained exactly how they relate. Truthers like to strawman the mainstream explanation of the collapse as an instantaneous transfer of force that pulverized the building. This is evident in the argument that "20% of the mass cannot destroy 80% of the mass" and similar memes. In reality, the collapse was a chain reaction of events that are all very simple to understand, just as a bullet does not kill you by an instantaneous transfer of force but by the chain reaction it starts from the damage it causes. Despite your attempt to take it out of context, the analogy makes sense as a response to this strawman.

>If you can't see the massive difference between the concept of a building collapse and the concept of life then unfortunately you are someone who is impossible to debate with and that isn't because anything you say holds any validity, it's because you refuse to be wrong.
Do you understand what an analogy is? When you make an analogy between two things you are not saying they are the same in every respect, you are highlighting a relevant similarity.

>So sorry to disappoint you but I will not be debating with you.
Then why all these posts? You won't debate but you will whine about sources and complain that you can't understand a simple analogy. The reality is you want to debate but you have no substantive response. You lose.

>>8445538
>I think you missing the point, the steel below the impact points did in fact turn into melty goop
[citation needed]

>There is also footage for your viewing pleasure of fire fighters radiation detectors chirping wildly as they responded
I doubt it. You're probably confusing the chirping of PASS devices with Geiger counters. Geiger counters are not meant to be loud. PASS devices are meant to be heard over long distances so that injured firefighters can be rescued.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PASS_device

>Many have died of assorted blood cancers and radiation like sickness since.
Because of large amounts of carcinogenic chemicals that were released into the air during the collapse. No evidence of radioactive material.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2011-197/pdfs/2011-197.pdf

When are you bumbling truthers going to employ some real skepticism and quit presenting your half-baked intuition as facts?

>>8445549
Your analogy is baseless

The bullet does not turn the body to mush. The top 20% of the building turned the 80% to mush. That's what his point was.
To keep talking about death as if it has anything to do with mass disassembling is benine. The body parts are still connected and there is only one area of the body affected therefore you have not demonstrated a small percentage of mass can obliterate a larger percentage.
The mass remains intact, the body is not a pile of dust and bones
>you are highlighting a relevant similarity
There is no similarity

If it's a win you need so bad you can have it. Just remember me when the truth about this event is fully revealed ok :)

>>8445580
>The bullet does not turn the body to mush. The top 20% of the building turned the 80% to mush.
No it didn't. The 20% was simply the first part to collapse. As it smashed into each floor, each floor's mass was added to it. Its momentum grew as the mass of each floor fell. It's a chain reaction, not an instantaneous transfer of force. A bullet does not kill you from an instantaneous transfer of force, it kills you from the chain reaction it causes. Now, do you admit that the mainstream explanation is that the building collapsed from a chain reaction? If yes, then you should admit the analogy is valid. If not, then you are arguing against a strawman.

>To keep talking about death as if it has anything to do with mass disassembling is benine.
I already explained the similarity. Instead of responding to the similarity you pointed out an irrelevant difference. You are dense.

>>8445592
All the guy wanted was an example of a collapse just like you described that has occurred outside the events of 9/11. The point is you aren't providing that, you can only give analogies.

If you can show us an example i think we'd be good. It can be instant or over time. We don't want your personal explanation, we want an example from reality.

>>8435884
alleged by fire

>>8445573
>[citation needed]
You cannot google 'molten steel WTC'?
http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/
This page seems to cover the denial by NIST of molten steel despite evidence to the contrary, even from other government agencies as well as firefighter and professional testimonials!
This also indicates temperatures above 2000 degrees C which rules out jet fuel as the only ingredient. By the magnitude of steel vaporized it points to nukes.

I stand corrected those probably were the PASS devices chirping wildly as many firefighters were killed at that point. As far as the radiation and evidence for nukes goes this page goes into detail but not too technical. From my understanding many of the parameters of nuclear devices are steerable and the government testing and sampling wasn't done until several days after the fact, also they were looking for asbestos contamination primarily.
https://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/

>No evidence of radioactive material
Yes there is plenty, see above, the US gov data on the samplings is linked in there. We are not talking a predominance of lung cancers from breathing in the magical WTC pixie dust, these are multiple forms of cancers and assorted tumors. Not many people who were close or worked long hours at the site immediately after are around anymore, they along with their stories buried. Actually, when all factors are taken into account there is only one plausible theory, that two and likely more nuclear devices were detonated, probably below ground and shaped upwards that day.

I don't think these discussions have anything to do with reopening 9/11 for a real investigation and make accountable those who were complicit or assisted in the cover up of the largest mass murder in US history, or bringing victims back. More to just keep a critical eye on future events is all, perhaps reread and reexamine history as well. The world may not be as we are told.

>>8445538
>vaporized
no it didn't. it's all still there. why do you thikn they had to shovel shit away?

what is smoke, my dude?

>>8445396
you know, this board, and indeed tihs website is a place for satire only, not fact. don't be so serious

>>8445681
>This page seems to cover the denial by NIST of molten steel despite evidence to the contrary, even from other government agencies as well as firefighter and professional testimonials!
What it actually does is take quotes out of context to distort their meaning. The first piece of "evidence" it gives is a New York Times article that suggests holes in steel columns are the "deepest mystery". It ignores that the article it quotes from gives an explanation of that mystery:
"A preliminary analysis of the steel at Worcester Polytechnic Institute using electron microscopes suggests that sulfur released during the fires -- no one knows from where -- may have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures."

Then it moves on to the long debunked spherical iron particles meme. What it neglects to mention is that this tells us absolutely nothing about the temperature of the fires because you can create such particles with ANY fire as long as the source of iron is thin. Here's a video of how to make iron spheres with a BIC lighter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ9wSD4Hcys

Then it gives testimonials of people who assumed any molten metal they saw was steel. But you can't visually identify molten metal as steel.

So let's review:

1. Selective quote mining
2. Faulty science
3. Mistaken testimony that requires evidence

Yup, typical truther argument.

>>8445681
>Actually, when all factors are taken into account there is only one plausible theory, that two and likely more nuclear devices were detonated, probably below ground and shaped upwards that day.
Here's your own beloved Steven E. Jones debunking the micronukes meme:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

>>8445645
>All the guy wanted was an example of a collapse just like you described that has occurred outside the events of 9/11.
No, he simply said that the scenario of an object's top 20% of mass destroying it's remaining 80% is unprecedented. Either this refers to the instant pulverization of 80% of an object by 20% of its mass, which may be unprecedented but is irrelevant since that is not what happened to the WTC. Or it refers to what actually happened in WTC, a chain reaction started with a relatively small amount of mass, which is indeed something that occurs ALL THE TIME.

>If you can show us an example i think we'd be good. It can be instant or over time. We don't want your personal explanation, we want an example from reality.
The fact that the event itself is unique - a building like the WTC has never suffered damage in the same way the WTC did and thus it suffered a unique result - does not mean that the explanation for it is extraordinary. It's simple physics. Your attempt to dictate the goalposts of the debate by setting an irrelevant standard that cannot be reached is disgusting. You have no argument, and you know it.

>>8446111
>ALL THE TIME
>unique result
Which one is it man, show us it happening. I've not been able to find an experiment or event that replicates the results of the towers. All you need to do is show me

>>8446111

http://www.intropsych.com/ch01_psychology_and_science/importance_of_replication.html

>Researchers typically are willing to provide details of their procedures to a scientist planning a replication, If a replication fails, the original findings are cast into doubt

A key factor in explaining why more than half of Americans doubt the official story

>>8446560
>Which one is it man, show us it happening.
I understand it's hard for retarded people to understand what other people are saying, but come on, you can't be this dense. The physics underlying the collapse is fundamental and can be seen every day. The collapse itself was unique.

>I've not been able to find an experiment or event that replicates the results of the towers.
What, really? You haven't been able to find someone who built a multimillion dollar skyscraper in order to destroy it? Wow. Well I guess then 9/11 was an inside job.

>>8446583
Not everything can feasibly be replicated you massive retard. You don't need to replicate the collapse to understand it, since it can be explained with simple physics. You lost the debate, get over it.

>>8446583
So where are the experiments that replicate a building getting demolished by "micronukes" and "nanothermite"?

>>8446861
I was reading up a bit on that the other night. Apparently this was how the WTC towers 1 and 2 were designed to be demolished from the start. About the time of their construction all new sky scrapers were being built without specific load bearing supports, the entire design was load bearing, every girder was load bearing. This was because of the move from pure concrete foundations and structure to iron and steel reinforced or almost pure steel structure like the WTC with very little if any concrete providing support. This design cannot be demolished by conventional classical demolition of just blowing out some key supporting pillars. To get the go ahead for construction the builders had to provide a conceptual demolition scenario and apparently the solution was a shaped nuclear blast straight up guided by bedrock and the building itself, in the case of WTC 1 and 2 the stairwells and elevator shafts in the central core. This creates a blast pit for guiding the energy and also vaporizes the structure. Radioactive contamination is minimized as is debris except for the massive quantity of microscopic dust.

If you think about it, how did they plan on dismantling the things to begin with? Piece by piece seems unlikely as does conventional demolition as newer high rises simply to not crumble into a neat pile, too much steel.

Here is the page after being removed from wiki.
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Nuclear_Demolition

>>8446931
>To get the go ahead for construction the builders had to provide a conceptual demolition scenario and apparently the solution was a shaped nuclear blast straight up guided by bedrock and the building itself, in the case of WTC 1 and 2 the stairwells and elevator shafts in the central core.
Bullshit, prove it or fuck off.

>>8446945
I don't really care if you believe it or not but Controlled Demolition Inc. who did the WTC cleanup was the company that proposed the method, I am sure with "only in an emergency" clause when the original build permit was filed. It is no coincidence this shell corp has no vanished from the face of earth now. Like Blackwater Inc. that went crusading in Iraq right after 9/11 soon fragmented into 1000 different LLC's.

It was just casual reading, I wasn't book marking crap and writing a novel on it, you can be sure there is enough documentation in NY building codes to fill a library though, dismantlement of a structure is also in there. So a heads up, apparently the Sears tower in Chicago may go the same way some day!

>>8447039
>I don't really care if you believe it or not but Controlled Demolition Inc. who did the WTC cleanup was the company that proposed the method, I am sure with "only in an emergency" clause when the original build permit was filed.
Bullshit, prove it or fuck off.

>>8446931
>>8447039
Liar.

>>8446853
Relax dude why are you so mad.

I understand there are no experiments demonstrating a perfect replication of 9/11. I want an experiment demonstrating its physics which you say occurs every day. Surely there is a video somewhere if it occurs so frequently

This is at thermite experiment demonstrating its effectiveness with melting/cutting steel

https://youtu.be/5d5iIoCiI8g

Here is a video demonstrating why the physics of gravity don't apply and instead suggests the physics of explosives

https://youtu.be/TJNzaMRsN00

I don't have a video for mini nukes. I haven't looked into it and personally believe it sounds rather far-fetched. Until I've researched it I can't back its claims.

I predict you will mention how these experiments use different materials but like you have said

>Not everything can feasibly be replicated

I agree with this claim and although this experiments uses the incorrect materials it demonstrates the 20% 80% as its mass is relative to itself.

If you could just provide 1 video of an experiment like this that backs your claim we will be one step further in this debate. The experiment can use any material it desires as long as it's relative.

And please for the sake of your own argument lay off on the insults. Children kick and scream when they are losing. If your not a child and you don't believe you are losing, then there is no reason to stoop to that level.

>>8446931
Just read the info in your link. That's an interesting concept but I have never heard of something such as a nuclear demolition. I will look into its use throughout history and see if I can verify its existence. It will certainly be one of the most bizarre things I've ever looked up. Are you so certain it exists and it isn't just a concept?

>>8447409
>This is at thermite experiment demonstrating its effectiveness with melting/cutting steel
NIST did several experiments on how fire weakens steel columns.

>Here is a video demonstrating why the physics of gravity don't apply and instead suggests the physics of explosives
The experiments are flawed and scale models don't apply. The first experiment shows floors pancaking while the exterior stands and supports the floors. But that is not at all what we observed with the WTC. The perimeter columns fell with the rest of the building (and actually hit the ground several seconds before the core. The second experiment is a joke as it has no similarity to the structure of the WTC. The core columns are way too big relative to the rest of the building and the plastic pieces don't even superficially mimic the perimeter columns.

>I agree with this claim and although this experiments uses the incorrect materials it demonstrates the 20% 80% as its mass is relative to itself.
As I already explained, the 20%/80% meme is nonsense. You have failed to respond to the fact that the collapse is a chain reaction involving momentum, not 20% of the mass destroying 80%.

>If you could just provide 1 video of an experiment like this that backs your claim we will be one step further in this debate.
Experiments like this are fundamentally flawed because there is no way to replicate the effects of the fire in a way that scales with the building. So you are once again dictating a flawed goalpost. If you actually cared about the truth rather than being presented a video that superficially looks like a building falling down, then you would attempt to argue against the evidence and reasoning present in the NIST report. But you can't. So you ignore that the NIST report exists and pretend like youtube videos of faulty scale models are equivalent evidence.

>And please for the sake of your own argument lay off on the insults.
I will stop insulting you when you stop making retarded comments

>>8447698
Like any self respecting individual I do not gobble up the nonsense that is the NIST report. Much like yourself they have shown 0 experiments and only describe what occurs like their opinion matters. If they did experiments they should show them, not talk about them but show them like every scientist that has come before them. Displaying your experiments is what separates your statements from fact and opinion. There's not a single scientist that supports there findings, especially considering they did not release their models and data to be peer reviewed which is again unheard of in the scientific fields.

>the Core columns are way to big

They are and he explained how he did that to stop the building from falling to the side, his core does nothing other than keep it vertical, the floors are not connected to it at all. With out them his top section would of fallen to the side, because that is the path of least resistance.

>you have failed to respond
No I have responded countless times, you don't like it so you dodge it. You have two experiments from me defending my point of view. Just because you say they are flawed does not mean they are. I am yet to receive one from you

>Experiments like this are flawed because you can't replicate

Like you have said its not feasible to replicate the event to scale. Just because it's near impossible to replicate the event that doesn't excuse anybody from the fact they should be able to replicate the result. If it's using physics that checks out its chain reaction sequence should be observable elsewhere like you have continuously told me it is. Still waiting to see this

>I will stop insulting you when you stop making retarded comments

Spoken like a true child

If your just going to resume giving me your pointless and flawed explanations rather than showing me how this works in reality I'm afraid I'm going to have to retire from this debate. I never wanted to get involved in the first place yet here we are.

>>8448240
>my crappy YouTube "experiment" is legitimate
>the NIST report is nonsense and they did no experiments
OK I can there is no point in arguing with you since you are delusional.

>Just because you say they are flawed does not mean they are.
I didn't just say they are flawed I explained how they are flawed. You only reasoned to one party of the criticism and ignored the rest. I have responded to every single argument you've made, you hypocrite. You are living in an alternate reality.

>Just because it's near impossible to replicate the event that doesn't excuse anybody from the fact they should be able to replicate the result.
I really can't tell if you are trolling. No one could be this stupid. It being impossible is not an excuse???

>If your just going to resume giving me your pointless and flawed explanations rather than showing me how this works in reality
You haven't pointed out a single flaw in my explanation our that given by the NIST report. Take your meds you delusional narcissist.

>>8447409

Stop taking the footage at face value. At least the planes were CGI:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPKq2K2dh6k

>>8435846
>tries to explain complex architectural engineering with basic high school physics
This is your problem OP.

>>8448259
>>8448282
>>8448302
Do I detect samefagging?

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-31 at 23.29.32.png (49KB, 790x282px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 790x282px

>>8448337
This is (you) right now.

>>8448302
>>8448349
SAMEFAG DETECTED1!!

>>8447464
Well that is a brief outline of concept authored by a nuclear tech from Russia who from what I gather got tired of reading about 9/11 conspiracy theories, in particular theories like Directed Energy Weapons and he suspected the propagators to be shills to distract and to avoid at all costs the mentioning of nuclear demolition. The ramifications of even considering nuclear removal of the WTC would be tremendous and would outrage not only Americans but the entire world leading to a demand for further investigation.

From what I can tell the notion is real and originally intended for emergency purposes only for structures not prone to classic demolition methods, this would include dams, bridges and anything basically very large and made of steel or reinforced steel in concrete.

The science of underground nukes is very refined now as well since the above ground test ban was passed many years ago. I highly doubt nukes are residing in these structures but sounds plausible that a location could be found to plant in short order if that need ever arose.

The interesting think about that particular article is it does not mention WTC, conspiracies or anything of the like, just the notion of nuclear demolition but was removed from wiki nonetheless. Wiki I believe is not what it appears to be and perhaps good for anything that is not even remotely controversial.

>>8448259
>I have responded to every single argument you've made

no you haven't. That post was your last chance to show me a video demonstrating the physics you claim occurred on 9/11

>you haven't pointed out a single flaw in NISTs report

They did not release a single experiement for peer review. Their paper was not released to an open forum for peer review. I have said this numerous times. That is not scientific report, it is a political document

>It being impossible is not an excuse??
You said it occurs everyday for crying out loud stop dodging the request and show me where this occurs on any day. I am already aware that you won't because you haven't done it the past 4-5 times I asked you too and I'm over this dead end debate to be quite honest.

>insults and anger
Predictable behaviour of someone who is a sore loser :)

Have a good life sir, I wish you well

>>8448414
>no you haven't.
Name a single argument you've made I haven't responded to.

>That post was your last chance to show me a video demonstrating the physics you claim occurred on 9/11
Why would I need to show you a video? Again you are dictating idiotic goalposts that aren't even standards of proof, they're just forms. You have no substance.

>They did not release a single experiement for peer review. Their paper was not released to an open forum for peer review. I have said this numerous times. That is not scientific report, it is a political document
Reports mandated by federal law are generally not published or peer reviewed. Are you going to ever address the substance of the report or are you just going to keep attacking its form?

>You said it occurs everyday for crying out loud stop dodging the request and show me where this occurs on any day.
I said the physics underlying the collapse occurs every day you LIAR. I said the event itself has never occurred and cannot be replicated.

Once again you fail to respond with any substance, you attempt to shift the goalposts to irrelevancies, and you lie. Only someone who has no argument would resort to these tactics. You lost and you know it.

Peer reviewed research that supports the mainstream theory of collapse:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014102961300432X
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613004380
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029611004007
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613002824
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X14001400
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X05001525
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X13003076
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X13000369
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000432
http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/structural-response-of-tall-buildings-to-multiple-floor-fires(fc11ff4e-f9e1-47ba-92fb-da1c4cadf722).html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473099000272
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167473010000810
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29IS.1943-555X.0000028
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29215
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171%28401%2937
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28418%29
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%291084-0680%282008%2913%3A2%2893%29
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/89250793/safe-sustainable-tall-buildings-state-art
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/40753%28171%29136
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%2969
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29144
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=165759
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412848.222

>>8448467
Continued:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29208
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2245944
http://rpsonline.com.sg/proceedings/9789810771379/html/102.xml
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/h347k6271362654w/
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282004%2918%3A2%2879%29
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28336%29
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9445%282008%29134%3A11%281717%29
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29248
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29247
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000172
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28309%29
http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?271799
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29142
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29124
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29322
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290733-9399%282005%29131%3A6%28557%29
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41016%28314%29234
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29310
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29181
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29138
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000279
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41130%28369%29143

>>8448469
Continued:
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412367.022
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29224
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784413357.079
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41142%28396%2953
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.1943-5509.0000248
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41171%28401%29254
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000256
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000446
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29ST.1943-541X.0000443
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%290887-3828%282006%2920%3A4%28307%29
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/41031%28341%29203
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029613000801
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/82475620/mitigation-progressive-collapse-multi-storey-buildings
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141029606004974
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143974X07001459


>b-b-but m-m-muh YOUTUBES!!!!!111

File: obedience.jpg (89KB, 774x1024px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 774x1024px

>>8448467
>the mainstream theory of collapse
Hardly anymore and the official conspiracy theory will only become more unbelievable over time. This is for the simple fact that people when given an opportunity to explore the details surrounding the official conspiracy theory and exercise some common sense, they will find much more plausible theories. Even more importantly, it is only with hindsight, the agendas carried out after the fact, the official line becomes all the more unbelievable, an obvious attempt at damage control and white wash. History repeats, it's just hard to see sometimes when it happens on your watch is all.

I will concede if it wasn't for the state of the internets in 2001 and beyond and the outrageous actions of what can only be called a US shadow government or deep state populated with "intelligence" types post 9/11, the official conspiracy theory would have never been doubted the way it is today. Every single one of these threads, all the alternative theory pages out there convince more and more people it is for their own best interest to question what they were told regarding the WTC and its removal.

>>8448561
>the NIST report isn't peer reviewed
>OK here's peer reviewed research supporting it
>It's all a gubberment cunspeeracy, wake up sheeple!

Yup typical tinfoil retard. No evidence that can't be ignored.