Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
yeah, anyone that doesnt believe your bullshit is an agentTheres one more troll you need to stop listening to the posts of Editec.Ditzcon.Him,CandyCornboy and Slackass posters are the three biggest ones here even worse than agent Fizz.
see.
When the claims/evidence come from NIST that support your beliefs, you can post it as fact and everyone believes in it.
Yet when information is posted from NIST that goes against what you believe, it's bullshit.
I get it now.
except he didnt say that, dipshit
see.
When the claims/evidence come from NIST that support your beliefs, you can post it as fact and everyone believes in it.
Yet when information is posted from NIST that goes against what you believe, it's bullshit.
I get it now.
I see.
When the claims/evidence come from NIST goes against your belifes
it's bullshit.
yet when information is posted from NIST that that support what you believe,
you can post it as fact and everyone believes in it.
I get it now.
except he didnt say that, dipshitsee.
When the claims/evidence come from NIST that support your beliefs, you can post it as fact and everyone believes in it.
Yet when information is posted from NIST that goes against what you believe, it's bullshit.
I get it now.
I see.
When the claims/evidence come from NIST goes against your belifes
it's bullshit.
yet when information is posted from NIST that that support what you believe,
you can post it as fact and everyone believes in it.
I get it now.
Even if there was some weakening of the steel, then the top of the tree would topple over off of the resistance of the many VERTICAL columns that run from bedrock to the top floor.
The Anti-Truths(Anti-Christs?) posting hard swaying votes against a new investigation ignore this.
Why does Richard Gage get so ridiculed by the masses like Galileo was?
That's what stupid sheeple do when the messenger brings information that questions the very core of their beliefs....even to the point of calling them conspiracy kooks, nutjobs etc and perhaps even escalating to the point where the masses of sheeple lock up the messengers.....only to find out years later what the truth is.
I just try and save the masses of sheeple in society from this shame in hopes they simply ask for a new investigation to clear up the many disturbing descrepencies...
Bingo.according to the laws of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years,the top tier of the tower that had the antenna SHOULD have toppled over sideways.In the photos you can that it begins to tilt over but then gets pulled back in magically as it begins to collapse due to the explosives bringing it down. acording to the 9/11 apologist like fizz,the laws of physics that scientists have gone by for thoussands of years no longer apply anymore and the 9/11 commission is right,priceless,i love it.
Even if there was some weakening of the steel, then the top of the tree would topple over off of the resistance of the many VERTICAL columns that run from bedrock to the top floor.
The Anti-Truths(Anti-Christs?) posting hard swaying votes against a new investigation ignore this.
Why does Richard Gage get so ridiculed by the masses like Galileo was?
That's what stupid sheeple do when the messenger brings information that questions the very core of their beliefs....even to the point of calling them conspiracy kooks, nutjobs etc and perhaps even escalating to the point where the masses of sheeple lock up the messengers.....only to find out years later what the truth is.
I just try and save the masses of sheeple in society from this shame in hopes they simply ask for a new investigation to clear up the many disturbing descrepencies...
Bingo.
I wonder what it is like to be laugh at? Share?
two points to clarify:Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
NIST theorizes that there was a decreased acceleration in the unseen portion of the collapse
Even if there was some weakening of the steel, then the top of the tree would topple over off of the resistance of the many VERTICAL columns that run from bedrock to the top floor.
The Anti-Truths(Anti-Christs?) posting hard swaying votes against a new investigation ignore this.
Why does Richard Gage get so ridiculed by the masses like Galileo was?
That's what stupid sheeple do when the messenger brings information that questions the very core of their beliefs....even to the point of calling them conspiracy kooks, nutjobs etc and perhaps even escalating to the point where the masses of sheeple lock up the messengers.....only to find out years later what the truth is.
I just try and save the masses of sheeple in society from this shame in hopes they simply ask for a new investigation to clear up the many disturbing descrepencies...
Bingo.
I wonder what it is like to be laugh at? Share?
wonder what its like to be an idiot.share?Bingo.
I wonder what it is like to be laugh at? Share?
To be laugh at ?..lol...I don't know please do share
Why don't you build a structure exactly like the WTC and do a controlled demolition of it to prove your point. If it bothers you that much, wouldn't it be worth it to know if what you're saying holds water?
No.. NIST needs to make a scale model light it on fire and watch it not collapse
The "free-fall" theory is a fallacy.
It is incorrectly based on a fall time that is wrong. Nobody, NOBODY!, can tell you how long it took the buildings to fall. Observations from the outside, and especially from existing videos cannot "see" inside the buildings where the collapse actually started to occur, well before anyone could see it, except of course the poor souls that were trapped inside. (and they are unable to tell us when it started, they died)
Despite it not coming from the twoofer's beloved alex jones, this site does offer a VALID explanation. Until you take the time to analyze the calculations, as well as the assumptions that this analysis was based on, your opinion that this analysis is biased is unfounded.
If you believe it to be in error, show me the calculations that are wrong, until you can, your opinion is just that, an unfounded opinion.
The complete analysis here:
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall
with approval from the site, here it is:
"
Home
Arabs and Osama
First Time in History
The Fires
The Twin Towers
World Trade Cener 7
The Free Fall Fallacy
Molten Steel Explained
Sounds of Explosions
The Firemans Quotes
Civil Engineers Quotes
Peer Reviewed Paper
Professor Steven E Jones
Massive Conspriracy
The Real Conspiracy
Government Planning
The 911 Zogby Poll
Debunking 911 Links
The towers did not fall at or below free fall speeds…
In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.
Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.
Below is a more accurate graphic using a paper written by Dr. Frank Greening which can be found at: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
The paper takes the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave.
The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.
Below are calculations from a physics blogger...
When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.
Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t
Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.
Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. - Schneibster edited by Debunking 911
Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn't say that's the fall time. That was not its purpose. It's only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn't at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.
For more analysis of the building fall times, go to 911myths free fall page.
Please refer to Dr Frank Greening's paper for detailed calculations.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
Italian debunker shows us more than 16 seconds to collapse. That's almost twice free fall speed from the 110th floor.
One of the more absurd arguments is the idea that there was a "Pyroclastic flow" during the collapse. This is easily debunked. You will note not one person was poached at ground zero. Pyroclastic flows are a minimum of 100C, or 212F.
The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius. The flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill under gravity, their speed depending upon the gradient of the slope and the size of the flow.
Pyroclastic flow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not ONE person, even the ones trapped INSIDE the towers, complained of dusty air burning their skin. Trees were left green next to the towers. Paper floated around ground zero without being burned.
When I brought this up to one conspiracy theorist, he produced some photos showing burning cars and such. Yet I easily found photos which show their photo was being taken out of context.
Are the cars, papers and trees in this photo made of asbestos except for the ones on fire? If you think there was a pyroclastic flow and photos of fires at ground zero is your proof then that's exactly what you must think.
It's obvious that the collapse rained paper on fire and even hot steel which could easily explain the spotty fires. Unless the pyroclastic flow hopped from one place to another.
Critical thinking skills will tell the average person there was NO pyroclastic flow but since this was brought up by a "scholar," thinking seems to be optional.
What really makes this argument absurd is the amount of explosives needed to turn that much concrete into dust. (We are only talking about 10% of the total concrete in the building anyway. There was a massive amount of gypsum as well, which conspiracy theorists would like you to forget.) The argument is the pyroclastic flow (which there is no evidence of) was created by explosives. (Some have suggested an absurd amount of thermite) If the incredible amount of POTENTIAL ENERGY (Energy the building had just standing there due to the stored energy of lifting the steel into place.) which converted to Kinetic energy (as it collapsed) is not enough to create the dust cloud, then the assumption is explosives must have created it. How much? And why would they overload the building with powerful explosives? Why put more than would be needed to cut the steel? Why put enough to cut the steel AND create a pyro show? As you can see above, the collapse released enough energy to equal 272 TONS of TNT. Why wouldn't this amount of energy be enough to cut the steel connections AND create some dust as the floors impacted each other 110 times per building?
More on the pulverization of concrete
Another absurd straw man is that they say Greening is saying the collapse weakened the steel. Nowhere in Greening's paper does it say the collapse "weakened" the steel. The massive potential energy converted to kinetic energy in the collapse and was MORE than enough to destroy the connections. No "weakening" of steel needed. The only weakening was on the fire floors which had its fireproofing blown off. This has NOTHING to do with Greening's paper.
Reader contribution:
Just a few numbers that make 9/11 conspiracies nearly impossible:
J.L. Hudson’s in Detroit, Michigan, the tallest building ever razed, was 439 ft. (26 stories)
ImplosionWorld.com
WTC 7 was 570 ft. (47 stories) 1.3 times the height of the J.L. Hudson. 7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WTC 1/2 was 1,368 ft. (110 stories) 3.12 times the height of J.L. Hudson.
1 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, on 9/11, three buildings were razed with perfect precision. One was 131 ft. taller than the record tower and the other two (minus cell phone antennas) were 929 ft. taller than the record holder.
The Hudson Building “It took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives…” James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated"
http://www.history.com/media.do?id=most_hudsons_implosion_broadband&action=clip
Even according to the Loose Change guys, the heightened security and bomb-sniffing dogs had only been lifted for 5 days.
Of course, the construction is different and the towers would need less explosives if they were the same height. However, the towers were much taller and had more columns to cut as a result. Even if they did have the same amount of columns it would still take over 72 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives. That's just one building. Add the second tower and WTC7 and you see where this is going. It quickly becomes absurd. As if this absurdly complex plan was the ONLY way to scare Americans.
I'd like to thank Slugman from Political Myths blog for his contribution.
Political Myths Debunked
Home | Osama Bin Laden | First time in history | Free Fall | The Fire | The Twin Towers | Impacts | Fires and Fire Proofing | Columns and Trusses Towers Collapse | WTC 7 | WTC 7 South Side | WTC 7 Photos | Squelching "Squibs" | Rethinking Thermite | Explosions | Firemen Quotes
Civil Engineers Quotes | Prof. Steven Jones | Massive Conspiracy | Zogby | Real Conspiracy | Government Planning | Molten Steel
Peer-reviewed Papers | Iron Burns!!! | Madrid/Windsor Tower | Conspiracy Theorist Hall of Fame | Fire Gallery 1 | Fire Gallery 2 | Fire Gallery 3
General Fires Gallery
None of that bullshit debunks that video either. also for the hundreth time,wiki can type in ANYTHING they want to at that place to fit their stories.they have been known many times before in the past to lie about countless numbers of subjects. nice try though.you need to read through that post of mine again cause none of your bullshit debunks that video.hahahahahahahahahahahahaWhy don't you build a structure exactly like the WTC and do a controlled demolition of it to prove your point. If it bothers you that much, wouldn't it be worth it to know if what you're saying holds water?
No.. NIST needs to make a scale model light it on fire and watch it not collapse
Yes. And ignore the fact that it also got hit by an airplane, just like Alex Jones and the rest of the truther nuts do.
Why don't you build a structure exactly like the WTC and do a controlled demolition of it to prove your point. If it bothers you that much, wouldn't it be worth it to know if what you're saying holds water?
No.. NIST needs to make a scale model light it on fire and watch it not collapse
Yes. And ignore the fact that it also got hit by an airplane, just like Alex Jones and the rest of the truther nuts do.
In the photos you can that it begins to tilt over but then gets pulled back in magically as it begins to collapse due to the explosives bringing it down.
Can you PLEASE explain how that worked?! How did the antenna get "pulled back" by explosives???
Holy shit. THAT needs to go in my signature hall of fame.
the explosives went off which is why we see it disintegrating to powder at the very top,since the roof and everything else on top got obliterated thanks to the explosives,the antenna had nowhere else let to fall since the roof of the building wasnt there anymore after being obliterated.duh.that one you should be painfully aware ofBingo.
I wonder what it is like to be laugh at? Share?
nice rebutal loyal Bush dupe.
uhh you obviously have not watched the video from the aireal view when that happens.
