911 Loose Change-- ? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

stickyfingerz · 07-25-2008, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Perfect symetry in a so-called pancake collapse of steel structured buildings just isn't possible - especially three times in a row, with regular fuel fires, for the first (three) times in history.

Unless all the beams were somehow heated at smelter temperatures for about 2 or three hours?

An hour. The "fires" burned for an hour. And then 70 stories came straight down as if they were jello.

Please. Plus, watching them that day, you could see they were blowing shit out hundreds of yards. There's no collapse there.

Here this is simple. Have you ever played Jenga?

The plane pulled out about 4 pieces 1/4 down from the top. JENGA! See what happens when a floor and a half of outer and inner support beams give way and an ungodly amount of weight drops 15 feet onto the floor below. The next floor gives way, another 13 to 15 feet all that weight drops, then the next, then the next. The center supports gave a nice kind of guide and they broke off as it all slid. Pancaking.

50 loose brained documentaries..

MediaGuy · 07-25-2008, 07:12 AM

I wooden block game for kids meant to fall down can't compare to 100-storey steel frame structures meant to take airplane crashes.

Besides, the pancake collapse was abandoned as the official theory since it was too unlikely and there was too much post-destruction footage showing there was no stack, no evidence of pancaking.

Now the official conspiracy claim is that the fires softened the steel which led to the collapses. My question is how fire in about ten stories near the top of the towers lead to global softening of every girder and column right to the bottom of both buildings, evenly and symetrically, so that they flowed smoothly to the ground.

Martin · 07-25-2008, 07:27 AM

Secondary Explosions. Short videos, watch them.

Also I keep going back to building 7. How did that building fall?

Kevsh · 07-25-2008, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin

Also I keep going back to building 7. How did that building fall?

Really, don't get sucked into this. Every tiny detail of 9/11 has been argued to death, there's nothing new. Those that believe it was a conspiracy aren't going to change their minds now and neither are those who believe the official story.

Just give it a rest.

SpacemanSpiff · 07-25-2008, 07:45 AM

911 conspiracy theorists are kind of like religious zealots. They sincerely believe what they're saying, while the rest of the rational world wonders how in the hell they come up with that crap.

Or maybe they just like yanking your chain. Makes a lot more sense.

stickyfingerz · 07-25-2008, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

I wooden block game for kids meant to fall down can't compare to 100-storey steel frame structures meant to take airplane crashes.

Besides, the pancake collapse was abandoned as the official theory since it was too unlikely and there was too much post-destruction footage showing there was no stack, no evidence of pancaking.

Now the official conspiracy claim is that the fires softened the steel which led to the collapses. My question is how fire in about ten stories near the top of the towers lead to global softening of every girder and column right to the bottom of both buildings, evenly and symetrically, so that they flowed smoothly to the ground.

You aren't going to get this. Didnt matter if the floors below were made of titanium. Once that much mass starts to crash towards earth nothing is going to stop it.

pornguy · 07-25-2008, 07:50 AM

I have never even seen it.

cykoe6 · 07-25-2008, 07:50 AM

The troofers believe with religious fervor any piece of evidence no matter how outlandish that supports their ridiculous theories and they dismiss the mountains of evidence which disprove their beliefs as "propaganda"..... and then they have the gall to refer to all non-believers as "sheep." Lets just hope that they don't breed.

SpacemanSpiff · 07-25-2008, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cykoe6

The troofers believe with religious fervor any piece of evidence no matter how outlandish that supports their ridiculous theories and they dismiss the mountains of evidence which disprove their beliefs as "propaganda"..... and then they have the gall to refer to all non-believers as "sheep." Lets just hope that they don't breed.

They won't. Didn't you know that reproduction is just a clever scheme by the military/industrial complex to maintain the supply of "sheep" to feed their ravenous appetite for taxpayers, voters, soldiers......

Martin · 07-25-2008, 08:05 AM

Check the date of the speech. Listen to what he's saying. Look into his eyes. These people are for real.

Phoenix · 07-25-2008, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevsh

Really, don't get sucked into this. Every tiny detail of 9/11 has been argued to death, there's nothing new. Those that believe it was a conspiracy aren't going to change their minds now and neither are those who believe the official story.

Just give it a rest.

and thus the perfect hoax

man how can i get in on the money train with the next one

MediaGuy · 07-25-2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

You aren't going to get this. Didnt matter if the floors below were made of titanium. Once that much mass starts to crash towards earth nothing is going to stop it.

Not stop it, but slowed it down. Offered some resistance. There was zero resistance. The top part that started going down had four times its mass and and conserved energy in its path. It's not like it was raised a thousand feet in the air and dropped; it had no velocity.

Even if the lower seventy floors were made of glass they couldn't have fallen so fast.

Remember the laws of motion and path of least resistance principle from science class?

Buildings can't "collapse" that way. It's physically impossible. Not without a little help.

;)

Dirty F · 07-25-2008, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Not stop it, but slowed it down. Offered some resistance. There was zero resistance.

Take a look at the footage you dumb fuck. The debris is falling down faster than the building itself.

Dirty F · 07-25-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Buildings can't "collapse" that way. It's physically impossible. Not without a little help.

Where did you here about that? On some retarded internet docu maybe?
Youre an imbecile. You really are.

klaze · 07-25-2008, 11:27 AM

If this was a massive planned conspiracy I give them props for keeping everyone involved quiet.

Thousands of people know what happened and have not told anyone.

God damn some dude can't even steal 1mill from a company and keep the accountant quiet...

Martin · 07-25-2008, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Take a look at the footage you dumb fuck. The debris is falling down faster than the building itself.

Yes, talk to Frank on these matters. He very educated in this feild.

You don't have to be as smart as Frank though to know that when a building is on fire it just disinagrates too nothing.

Dirty F · 07-25-2008, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin

Yes, talk to Frank on these matters. He very educated in this feild.

You don't have to be as smart as Frank though to know that when a building is on fire it just disinagrates too nothing.

Here we go again..the fire theory. A plane crashed into it you fucking dumb fucking moron! Fucking amazing how dumb you people can get. Talking about experts. You leave out the fucking plane and blame a fire. Dumb imbecile.

cykoe6 · 07-25-2008, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Take a look at the footage you dumb fuck. The debris is falling down faster than the building itself.

Frank no amount of logic or evidence will convince a troofer that his quasi-religious beliefs are wrong. There is no help for these people other than a lobotomy and a padded room.

klaze · 07-25-2008, 11:37 AM

The middle of the building was on fire with a constant supply of JET FUEL! a fucking swimming pool of jet fuel!

This wasn't no 2nd floor house fire...

MediaGuy · 07-25-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Take a look at the footage you dumb fuck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Youre an imbecile. You really are.

You add such spice to the debate.

Chill out, if you don't want to respond with some semi-reasoned argument, why bother?

I've seen the footage. Thousand foot building. Ten, fifteen seconds? That's 10 stories a second. Faster than falling through air, practically.

And lots of that debris you're talking about, yes. Most of that ejected, flung with force, up and/or away sideways from the building. That's not collapse behaviour.

And I've seen demolitions, and collapses, with my own beady eyes. And you don't have to be an expert to see it makes no sense to have three buildings fall virtually the same way on the same day all with different initiating events.

One, I could buy it. Three? I don't.

MediaGuy · 07-25-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by klaze

The middle of the building was on fire with a constant supply of JET FUEL! a fucking swimming pool of jet fuel!

This wasn't no 2nd floor house fire...

Actually not so.

Most of the jet fuel burned off in minutes. What was left was burning carpets and desks and chairs.

In the second crash actually most of the fuel fireballed outside the building.

I'm not a truther but I'm a doubter of the bullshit conspiracy theory the government gave us which most people believe like religious fundamentalist zealots.

Martin · 07-25-2008, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Here we go again..the fire theory. A plane crashed into it you fucking dumb fucking moron! Fucking amazing how dumb you people can get. Talking about experts. You leave out the fucking plane and blame a fire. Dumb imbecile.

It's funny watching Frank blow a gasket over this shit.

Have a good weekend Franky.

TheSenator · 07-25-2008, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Not stop it, but slowed it down. Offered some resistance. There was zero resistance. The top part that started going down had four times its mass and and conserved energy in its path. It's not like it was raised a thousand feet in the air and dropped; it had no velocity.

Even if the lower seventy floors were made of glass they couldn't have fallen so fast.

Remember the laws of motion and path of least resistance principle from science class?

Buildings can't "collapse" that way. It's physically impossible. Not without a little help.

;)

Watch it at 6:00 minutes

MediaGuy · 07-25-2008, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSenator

Watch it at 6:00 minutes

Ok, cool they actually debate the Popular Mechanics guys... but what's your point?

Was it a good debate? What's the whole URL?

:D

MediaGuy · 07-25-2008, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevsh

Really, don't get sucked into this. Every tiny detail of 9/11 has been argued to death, there's nothing new. Those that believe it was a conspiracy aren't going to change their minds now and neither are those who believe the official story.

Just give it a rest.

You, sir, are a pooper.

:D

MediaGuy · 07-25-2008, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cykoe6

The troofers believe with religious fervor any piece of evidence no matter how outlandish that supports their ridiculous theories and they dismiss the mountains of evidence which disprove their beliefs as "propaganda"..... and then they have the gall to refer to all non-believers as "sheep." Lets just hope that they don't breed.

Dude, there's no mountain of evidence that supports the governement theory. There's actually little to NO evidence for their claims.

There's scientific and eyewitness proof that supports controlled demolition.

I don't believe in the fucked up spaceray theories. In fact I don't believe in any theory. I just know what I saw. A building destruction.

I don't know "who" dunnit and that's not the point.

Post your mountains. I still have nothing convincing.

MediaGuy · 07-25-2008, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevsh

Really, don't get sucked into this. Every tiny detail of 9/11 has been argued to death, there's nothing new. Those that believe it was a conspiracy aren't going to change their minds now and neither are those who believe the official story.

Just give it a rest.

Oh, you, you're a pooper!

I haven't actually seen real discussion here about this, just freaks freaking and nay-sayers scoffing and boffing.

:D

moeloubani · 07-25-2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Dude, there's no mountain of evidence that supports the governement theory. There's actually little to NO evidence for their claims.

There's scientific and eyewitness proof that supports controlled demolition.

I don't believe in the fucked up spaceray theories. In fact I don't believe in any theory. I just know what I saw. A building destruction.

I don't know "who" dunnit and that's not the point.

Post your mountains. I still have nothing convincing.

Dude, like Dirty F said, planes hit the building man. Planes! That's crazy dude, and no matter what kind of structural engineer you are, you can't build a building that can withstand a direct hit from a missile that big (yes, a plane loaded with fuel traveling that fast might as well have been a missile.)

What do you expect the buildings to do? Just sit there? If they wanted to use the controlled demolition thing then why not just do what happened at the first WTC attack and set off a bomb at the base of the building, where damaging enough supports is guaranteed to lead to a collapse. Furthermore, why even bother with a straight up and down demolition if you're trying to fool people. Wouldn't it make more logic to have the collapse act the same as your everyday collapse?

Come on man, there is a huge difference between impossible and improbable. However improbable it might be that the planes made the building crash, sometimes shit that isn't supposed to happen but can happen, happens. That's just the way things are.

MediaGuy · 07-25-2008, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moeloubani

Dude, like Dirty F said, planes hit the building man. Planes! That's crazy dude, and no matter what kind of structural engineer you are, you can't build a building that can withstand a direct hit from a missile that big (yes, a plane loaded with fuel traveling that fast might as well have been a missile.)

If you do your research, yes those buildings were made to take more than a plane, and in fact had stabilized with little or no structural damage except to the localized impact area. There was no physical reason for them to collapse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moeloubani

What do you expect the buildings to do? Just sit there? If they wanted to use the controlled demolition thing then why not just do what happened at the first WTC attack and set off a bomb at the base of the building, where damaging enough supports is guaranteed to lead to a collapse. Furthermore, why even bother with a straight up and down demolition if you're trying to fool people. Wouldn't it make more logic to have the collapse act the same as your everyday collapse?

At the first basement attack they blew the thing too far from any central support columns; and even then blowing one wouldn't have led to a collapse.

And they did try to make it seem as a "normal" collapse because of the plane impacts, but those can't be cause for collapse...

Quote:

Originally Posted by moeloubani

Come on man, there is a huge difference between impossible and improbable. However improbable it might be that the planes made the building crash, sometimes shit that isn't supposed to happen but can happen, happens. That's just the way things are.

Ok, with one building that would wash. With THREE? and totally different causes? And aluminum plane impacts on floor # 75 0r 80 won't weaken floor #60, 50 20 or blow out the lobby. There's some "weirdness" that's acceptable, but that three or four planes can fly out of range and not be intercepted for HOURS, that three buildings hit by two planes can all smoothly flow to the ground without apparent reason, is beyond the realm of being "just the way things are."

:D

moeloubani · 07-25-2008, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

If you do your research, yes those buildings were made to take more than a plane, and in fact had stabilized with little or no structural damage except to the localized impact area. There was no physical reason for them to collapse.

At the first basement attack they blew the thing too far from any central support columns; and even then blowing one wouldn't have led to a collapse.

And they did try to make it seem as a "normal" collapse because of the plane impacts, but those can't be cause for collapse...

Ok, with one building that would wash. With THREE? and totally different causes? And aluminum plane impacts on floor # 75 0r 80 won't weaken floor #60, 50 20 or blow out the lobby. There's some "weirdness" that's acceptable, but that three or four planes can fly out of range and not be intercepted for HOURS, that three buildings hit by two planes can all smoothly flow to the ground without apparent reason, is beyond the realm of being "just the way things are."

:D

You seem to think unlikely = impossible when, in reality, it doesn't. However unlikely it is, it is still possible. You know how likely it is that from a single cell something can form as complex as humans? That is WAY WAY WAY more unlikely than a few buildings collapsing yet here I am, proving you wrong.

:D

2MuchMark · 07-25-2008, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Loose change is the biggest piece of shit docu you can find on the internet. Its full of made up "facts" and biased "facts" and left out evidence which would prove stuff the creator of the movie couldnt use. Any person who uses this movie for facts is a total fucking retard.

DirtyF, I have not seen this movie yet but I do not give it much credit as there have been several versions of the same movie released byt the filmakers as they have found the need to keep updating their "Facts".

While I may not believe everything reported on the news to us about 9/11, alot of people tend to go way overboard connecting ideas absent of hard facts with other similar ideas until a conspiracy theory is born. People like this settle on these ideas instead of doing any real investigating or taking the time to learn enough real science, physics or engineering, and then scream cover-up when those ideas do not receive attention in the media or are otherwise dismissed.

MediaGuy · 07-25-2008, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moeloubani

You seem to think unlikely = impossible when, in reality, it doesn't. However unlikely it is, it is still possible. You know how likely it is that from a single cell something can form as complex as humans? That is WAY WAY WAY more unlikely than a few buildings collapsing yet here I am, proving you wrong.

:D

Oh hahah not bad.... problem is with the documentation and scientific backup of your claim.

You see there's nothing to back up what the 9/11 Comission claimed.

You have scientific back up for your claim about humanity whether or not you know it.

"Unlikeliness" isn't the only base for what I state about those buildings...

But still, as a gambler, what would you say are the odds all three of those buildings could fall the same way on the same day, being also that they were the first in known history to do so?

2MuchMark · 07-25-2008, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

A fucking plane hit those 2 towers! Dont you fucking get it? A plane! A plane destroyed a few floors! Stop crying about how just a fire brought a building down. One floor collapses finally and the top of the building drops on the other floors and it pancakes down. How hard is that to fucking understand you fucking retard boy.

DirtyF: You are wasting your time arguing with Greg on this point. He and I have spent many after-work evenings discussing these points.

I saw the same video that Greg and everyone else did. Those buildings FELL. No controlled demolition. The planes weakend it. The fuel burned and weakened the steel beams that remained. Hundeds of tons worth of the remaining floors SQUISHED the damaged floor, adding tons more which then SQUISHED The floor below that and so on. The combined weight plus the gaining momentum of all of that weight is what brought down the twin towers. No Dynamite required.

MediaGuy · 07-25-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

DirtyF: You are wasting your time arguing with Greg on this point. He and I have spent many after-work evenings discussing these points.

I saw the same video that Greg and everyone else did. Those buildings FELL. No controlled demolition. The planes weakend it. The fuel burned and weakened the steel beams that remained. Hundeds of tons worth of the remaining floors SQUISHED the damaged floor, adding tons more which then SQUISHED The floor below that and so on. The combined weight plus the gaining momentum of all of that weight is what brought down the twin towers. No Dynamite required.

Actually, in the allotted time, the fuel could not have weakened the steel columns and girders.

NIST has admitted that none of the temperatures in the buildings could have risen much above 650 degrees. Which is not even one-third enough to weaken steel, and which would require hours of exposure to cause softening (at much higher temps).

The Planes couldn't have damaged the structural integrity of the buildings because they were largely aluminum. The engines, made of titanium and other hard alloys, could have taken out some of the central columns. However, this is largeley and admittedly speculation on the part of NIST, and would not have engendered global collapse.

MediaGuy · 07-25-2008, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

DirtyF: You are wasting your time arguing with Greg on this point. He and I have spent many after-work evenings discussing these points.

I saw the same video that Greg and everyone else did. Those buildings FELL. No controlled demolition. The planes weakend it. The fuel burned and weakened the steel beams that remained. Hundeds of tons worth of the remaining floors SQUISHED the damaged floor, adding tons more which then SQUISHED The floor below that and so on. The combined weight plus the gaining momentum of all of that weight is what brought down the twin towers. No Dynamite required.

And actually you didn't see the same video I did because I know how you would interpret it, scientifically.

Plus, steel and concrete don't "squish" or expulse matter that way.

moeloubani · 07-25-2008, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Oh hahah not bad.... problem is with the documentation and scientific backup of your claim.

You see there's nothing to back up what the 9/11 Comission claimed.

You have scientific back up for your claim about humanity whether or not you know it.

"Unlikeliness" isn't the only base for what I state about those buildings...

But still, as a gambler, what would you say are the odds all three of those buildings could fall the same way on the same day, being also that they were the first in known history to do so?

1 in something, for the sake of argument lets say 1 in 15x10^50, an insanely huge number, and almost 0, but not quite.

but 1 happened, and its fucked up, but 1 happened.

dont listen to the idiots who talk about things like blast points like douche master in that video up above, grab a 2 litre can of pop, poke 50 holes in it, the blow in the top. air comes out at the top holes, but also out the bottom holes. now plug up some of the top holes like closed windows would be and youll see why there was never any blast points

also, the guys flying the plane must have had some deadly accuracy, to be able to hit the building, but just high enough that they don't detonate any of the explosives set up but at the same time to make it look like there was enough weight above them for it to crash down.

stickyfingerz · 07-25-2008, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Actually, in the allotted time, the fuel could not have weakened the steel columns and girders.

NIST has admitted that none of the temperatures in the buildings could have risen much above 650 degrees. Which is not even one-third enough to weaken steel, and which would require hours of exposure to cause softening (at much higher temps).

The Planes couldn't have damaged the structural integrity of the buildings because they were largely aluminum. The engines, made of titanium and other hard alloys, could have taken out some of the central columns. However, this is largeley and admittedly speculation on the part of NIST, and would not have engendered global collapse.

Ya tell that to all the trees they wind with soft objects put through the center after a tornado. I bet that piece of straw that went into the tree branch didn't seem so tough when it wasn't going 500 mph.

2MuchMark · 07-25-2008, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin

Yes, talk to Frank on these matters. He very educated in this feild.

You don't have to be as smart as Frank though to know that when a building is on fire it just disinagrates too nothing.

The commentator of this video is making huge guesses and several obvious mistakes. It's clear that the commentator is also a troofer and is seeing what he wants to see without ever once using a critical eye or considering anything close to a scientific explanation. "Computer timed explosions" - sure...
"Perfectly Horizontal lines?" Even from this distance you can see that these lines are not PERFECTLY horizontal.. they are not even horizontal. The next time someone uses the word PERFECT or EXACT to describe this disaster they need to learn the words SCALE and ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE...

MediaGuy · 07-25-2008, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Ya tell that to all the trees they wind with soft objects put through the center after a tornado. I bet that piece of straw that went into the tree branch didn't seem so tough when it wasn't going 500 mph.

If I think I understand what you're saying here, fine; however, after the plane/s went into the building/s there were no signs of comprising structural instances. This is documented.

You're arguing that velocity made a difference in the structural response of the buildings to the planes (which is contradicted by the government study), and yet that zero velocity in the top section collapse still managed to desintegrate the structure.

Doesn't work for me yet.

2MuchMark · 07-25-2008, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

You add such spice to the debate.

I've seen the footage. Thousand foot building. Ten, fifteen seconds? That's 10 stories a second. Faster than falling through air, practically.

and

Originally Posted by MediaGuy
Not stop it, but slowed it down. Offered some resistance. There was zero resistance. The top part that started going down had four times its mass and and conserved energy in its path. It's not like it was raised a thousand feet in the air and dropped; it had no velocity.

Even if the lower seventy floors were made of glass they couldn't have fallen so fast.

Remember the laws of motion and path of least resistance principle from science class?

Buildings can't "collapse" that way. It's physically impossible. Not without a little help.

;)

Actually Greg you are making a wild assumption here. What would need to do is determine the terminal velocity of the building as it fell. Terminal Velocity is the downward force of gravity minus the upward force of drag. As each piece of the building gets stuck to the downward falling piece it will gain momentum until the amount of drag it hits on the way down stops the acceleration. This momentum is the limiting value of the acceleration process, since the effective forces on the body more and more closely balance each other as the terminal velocity is approached. And since there is more floors above crashing each floor below, terminal velocity is never reached until it hits the ground. Thats why everything including the ground floors are utterly destroyed.

MediaGuy · 07-25-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

The commentator of this video is making huge guesses and several obvious mistakes. It's clear that the commentator is also a troofer and is seeing what he wants to see without ever once using a critical eye or considering anything close to a scientific explanation. "Computer timed explosions" - sure...
"Perfectly Horizontal lines?" Even from this distance you can see that these lines are not PERFECTLY horizontal.. they are not even horizontal. The next time someone uses the word PERFECT or EXACT to describe this disaster they need to learn the words SCALE and ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE...

Yep he's using conjecture to interpret what we're seeing.

However the lines of destruction are pretty beautifully arrayed. And because they're destroying up to ten floors at a time and the flow and efflusion of such dramatic conversions (concrete to dust, etc) aren't purely "digital" if you want to call them that, it's still pretty astonishing to watch this destruction. I would have a hard time calling it "natural" or collapse.

:D

MediaGuy · 07-25-2008, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Actually Greg you are making a wild assumption here. What would need to do is determine the terminal velocity of the building as it fell. Terminal Velocity is the downward force of gravity minus the upward force of drag. As each piece of the building gets stuck to the downward falling piece it will gain momentum until the amount of drag it hits on the way down stops the acceleration. This momentum is the limiting value of the acceleration process, since the effective forces on the body more and more closely balance each other as the terminal velocity is approached. And since there is more floors above crashing each floor below, terminal velocity is never reached until it hits the ground. Thats why everything including the ground floors are utterly destroyed.

Ah you and your terminology.

Fine.

The assumption is not "wild" as you define it. And you're using "terminal velocity" as if the top part of the building was dropped from tens of thousands of feet above the remainder of the reportedly structurally sound four-fifths of the building. It wasn't.

Terminal velocity? OK. So one-fifth of the building (the top) lost support and began to cave. The other four-fifths evaporated under it's weight? Of course not.

If this was the case, then the bottom four-fifths of the structure should have stopped or slowed the top part's downward motion. Simple Newtonian law, here.

Terminal velocity is the action of one mass resisting to the force or velocity of another mass. Seeing as their was no velocity involved, the path of least resistance should have determined that the collapse would have stopped right there, or toppled into Manhattan and killed thousands more.

2MuchMark · 07-25-2008, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Yep he's using conjecture to interpret what we're seeing.

Actually, he's using conjecture to try to explain to us what HE is WANTING to see and to convince us that what he is seeing is real and absolute, and "true".

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

However the lines of destruction are pretty beautifully arrayed.

They are arrayed because the building itself is square. It is completely plausible to me that a fairly even downward force will create a fairly even outward burst of debris in a building that is made up of 4 sides of exactly the same length and width, with exactly the same windows on all sides, and probably the same amount of furniture.

(And by the way, the "probably same amount of furniture" lends itself nicely to the randomness of the "explosions" of air and other pressure pushing everything out those windows).

2MuchMark · 07-25-2008, 10:09 PM

Wait! Time for a commercial break.

Now, back to the show!

Snake Doctor · 07-25-2008, 10:30 PM

This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time.

How many of you, when lying on your deathbed, will say "I wish I'd convinced more people that 9/11 was (or wasn't) an inside job"

Then again, I'm a little high from a vicodin I took about an hour ago, so what I just typed may not make any sense at all.

MediaGuy · 07-25-2008, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

Actually, he's using conjecture to try to explain to us what HE is WANTING to see and to convince us that what he is seeing is real and absolute, and "true".

Just like many in this thread are...

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

They are arrayed because the building itself is square. It is completely plausible to me that a fairly even downward force will create a fairly even outward burst of debris in a building that is made up of 4 sides of exactly the same length and width, with exactly the same windows on all sides, and probably the same amount of furniture.

So if a "fairly even downward" force occurred three times in one day in three buildings with different initiating events, you'd just shut your yap and accept it?!?

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

(And by the way, the "probably same amount of furniture" lends itself nicely to the randomness of the "explosions" of air and other pressure pushing everything out those windows).

From structural analysis and conduction evaluation, these "pressure" events wouldn't have happened. The only area within the buildings' array that was non-pressurized were the elevator shafts.

Even if your squish theory were applicable it wouldn't have resulted in external air/dust extrusions.

Face it . I don't care who or what, but those buildings were literally blown up. Why is that so hard to accept?

moeloubani · 07-25-2008, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Just like many in this thread are...

So if a "fairly even downward" force occurred three times in one day in three buildings with different initiating events, you'd just shut your yap and accept it?!?

From structural analysis and conduction evaluation, these "pressure" events wouldn't have happened. The only area within the buildings' array that was non-pressurized were the elevator shafts.

Even if your squish theory were applicable it wouldn't have resulted in external air/dust extrusions.

Face it . I don't care who or what, but those buildings were literally blown up. Why is that so hard to accept?

So even though there is evidence to support otherwise, countless logical explanations, we're going to just believe your support-less claim because you said face it?

buzzy · 07-26-2008, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malicious Biz

Bin laden was prime suspect, that's how he "knew". Get it over it.

Yeah and the surge is working too

Dirty F · 07-26-2008, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

NIST has admitted that none of the temperatures in the buildings could have risen much above 650 degrees. Which is not even one-third enough to weaken steel, and which would require hours of exposure to cause softening (at much higher temps).

Thats the problem with simpletons like you. You get your "facts" from clowns just like you.

"All materials weaken with increasing temperature and steel is no exception. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300ºC and increases rapidly after 400ºC, by 550ºC steel retains about 60% of its room temperature yield strength."

You are a fucking retard. Sorry, i cant say it in a more polite way.

Dirty F · 07-26-2008, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

DirtyF: You are wasting your time arguing with Greg on this point. He and I have spent many after-work evenings discussing these points.

I saw the same video that Greg and everyone else did. Those buildings FELL. No controlled demolition. The planes weakend it. The fuel burned and weakened the steel beams that remained. Hundeds of tons worth of the remaining floors SQUISHED the damaged floor, adding tons more which then SQUISHED The floor below that and so on. The combined weight plus the gaining momentum of all of that weight is what brought down the twin towers. No Dynamite required.

Its that simple.

Also there are sound recordings, which i heard on tv and which are public of a guy who was involved on a high level with the wtc towers, who knew a lot about its structure etc. After the plane hit it he went up to those levels to see if he could rescue people. You hear him saying in that recording (hes on the phone with a ground crew) that hes afraid that the building might collapse because of the huge damage.

And then stupid pricks like Mediaguy come here with their "evidence" saying there wasnt much damage..

07-25-2008, 07:12 AM	#52
MediaGuy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Montrealquebecanada Posts: 5,500	I wooden block game for kids meant to fall down can't compare to 100-storey steel frame structures meant to take airplane crashes. Besides, the pancake collapse was abandoned as the official theory since it was too unlikely and there was too much post-destruction footage showing there was no stack, no evidence of pancaking. Now the official conspiracy claim is that the fires softened the steel which led to the collapses. My question is how fire in about ten stories near the top of the towers lead to global softening of every girder and column right to the bottom of both buildings, evenly and symetrically, so that they flowed smoothly to the ground. __________________ YOU Are Industry News! Press Releases: pr[at]payoutmag.com Facebook: Payout Magazine! Facebook: MIKEB! ICQ: 248843947 Skype: Mediaguy1

07-25-2008, 07:27 AM	#53
Martin "Assassins" Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: At home Posts: 17,277	Secondary Explosions. Short videos, watch them. Also I keep going back to building 7. How did that building fall? __________________

07-25-2008, 07:45 AM	#55
SpacemanSpiff Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: 5th and main Posts: 230	911 conspiracy theorists are kind of like religious zealots. They sincerely believe what they're saying, while the rest of the rational world wonders how in the hell they come up with that crap. Or maybe they just like yanking your chain. Makes a lot more sense. __________________ Freepicssex.com - Submit Your Free Sites

07-25-2008, 07:50 AM	#57
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	I have never even seen it. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

07-25-2008, 07:50 AM	#58
cykoe6 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vegas Posts: 4,499	The troofers believe with religious fervor any piece of evidence no matter how outlandish that supports their ridiculous theories and they dismiss the mountains of evidence which disprove their beliefs as "propaganda"..... and then they have the gall to refer to all non-believers as "sheep." Lets just hope that they don't breed. __________________ бабки, шлюхи, сила

07-25-2008, 08:05 AM	#60
Martin "Assassins" Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: At home Posts: 17,277	Check the date of the speech. Listen to what he's saying. Look into his eyes. These people are for real. __________________

07-25-2008, 11:27 AM	#65
klaze So Fucking Banned Join Date: May 2008 Location: Adult Marketing Mecca Posts: 2,167	If this was a massive planned conspiracy I give them props for keeping everyone involved quiet. Thousands of people know what happened and have not told anyone. God damn some dude can't even steal 1mill from a company and keep the accountant quiet...

07-25-2008, 11:37 AM	#69
klaze So Fucking Banned Join Date: May 2008 Location: Adult Marketing Mecca Posts: 2,167	The middle of the building was on fire with a constant supply of JET FUEL! a fucking swimming pool of jet fuel! This wasn't no 2nd floor house fire...

07-25-2008, 10:09 PM	#94
2MuchMark Videochat Solutions Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Canada Posts: 49,038	Wait! Time for a commercial break. Now, back to the show! __________________ Custom Coding \| Videochat Solutions \| Age Verification \| IT Help & Support www.2Much.net

07-25-2008, 10:30 PM	#95
Snake Doctor I'm Lenny2 Bitch Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: On top of my soapbox Posts: 13,449	This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time. How many of you, when lying on your deathbed, will say "I wish I'd convinced more people that 9/11 was (or wasn't) an inside job" Then again, I'm a little high from a vicodin I took about an hour ago, so what I just typed may not make any sense at all. __________________ sig too big