9/11

Why do you so despise freedom of speech, scratcho? Are you American? Remember free speech is more than what you want to hear in your echo chamber/

 

Now it's obvious that no one disagrees with the statement that when a moving body collides with a body of the same composition, two things happen. The moving body is slowed down, and the stationary body is moved. Therefore, that point stands.

The next question is, how is it that the upper block of the North Tower fell through the intact core structure below for the first 360 feet at a rate just 40 feet shy of freefall?

Anyone have an answer to that?

 

Hey cam', Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?
___________________________________________

Scratcho,

You are becoming so emotionally involved here that you're now paranoid about who camlok is, and you're fixating on him. We're discussing the issue of 9/11 here. You haven't contributed anything to the discussion. And I've already shown you the posts from others who set the tone here. Your fixation has caused to ignore the original instigators of trash talk.

 

Now it's obvious that no one disagrees with the statement that when a moving body collides with a body of the same composition, two things happen. The moving body is slowed down, and the stationary body is moved. Therefore, that point stands.

The next question is, how is it that the upper block of the North Tower fell through the intact core structure below for the first 360 feet at a rate just 40 feet shy of freefall?

Anyone have an answer to that?

 

That none of the conspiracy theorist supporters of the USGOCT want to address that question and myriad others, that the same conspiracy theorist supporters of the USGOCT don't want to, won't address all the myriad evidence that blows the USGOCT out of the water, that conspiracy theorist supporters of the USGOCT CAN"T provide any evidence for the USGOCT tells us, them included that the USGOCT hasn't a leg to stand on.

They always flee for a short while, they go off into a little corner and repeat for hours, "I saw the planes I saw the planes I saw the planes I saw the planes I saw the planes I saw the planes ..." until they have filled that little pea sized pocket in their brains that holds THEIR "evidence".

 

There is an answer that has been put forward by 9 scientists in a peer reviewed scientific paper, which has never been contested, which means, in science, that it is the standing science of the day, has been for about nine years.

They, independently, discovered nano scale thermite in WTC dust. Nano scale thermite/nanothermite is a 1990s discovery of US government military scientists. No one else in the world knows how to make it. It is, in the words of those scientists, "a new generation of super explosives".

No one else in the world, with the exception of the USA, possesses it.

Obviously, its presence in WTC dust along with the by products of these nanothermite reactions/explosions tells anyone sentient that elements of the US government were responsible for the controlled demolitions of WTCs 1, 2 & 7.

One would think that in nine years there would be some scientist that would have come forward to offer support for the USGOCT. That there has never been any scientist, architect, engineer, physicist, ... come forward to support the USGOCT tells all of us, VG, scratcho, Cowboy, RH, ... all we need to know - the USGOCT is so outlandishly silly, wacky, crazy, empty of evidence that no scientist wants to touch it with a ten foot pole.

Gordon Ross PEng, also touches on this incredibly strange behavior.

[bolded is mine] [comment in red is mine]

=================

Where's your Evidence?
Where's your Evidence?

If I say that the WTC towers were brought down by means other than the aircraft impacts and the consequent fires then it would be perfectly acceptable for anyone to ask for the evidence and reasoning behind this belief.

By exactly the same reasoning, exactly the same question can be asked of those who believe that the towers were brought down by the impacts and fires. Yet here we are, more than seven years later, [now 17 years later] and not one single person has shown one single piece of physical or visual evidence that supports this latter claim. No detailed scenario of events exists, no meaningful theory of fire-caused collapse exists and no sensible explanations have been given for the very many unusual events which occurred immediately prior to and during the collapses themselves.

In contrast to this desert of information, the claim that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition has a wealth of accompanying argument. There are many pieces of evidence, all of which can easily be fitted into a meaningful explanation that shows a logical train of events and giving cause and effect for each of those evidential instances.

Gordon Ross gordonjross@yahoo.com

 

So, you have been at this a while now. One just needs to google "camlok" and "USGOCT" together. There a post on another site 18 months old with you talking about Prof Hulseys 2 bit study that no one paid attention to.At least two different sites under that username where you just rant about the US government, some mentioning LBJ, so I doubt you are under 50. So why all the angry at the US government? Becuase Trump got voted in?, The most Republican of Republicans? You dont get free healthcare? Your government doesnt give you as much welfare as you think it should. You are one of those guys

But why so much effort directed at 9/11 conspiracy theories? Richard Gage is a bottom feeder, 3/4 of donations each year to asshat911truth.org for the last 11 years would have gone to pay for his salary and expense account, 11 years of donations for one $316K study? Come on

Still doesnt explain why such an obvious error like "Gravity collapses cant freefall, Newton says so" - Gravity collapses cant accelerate due to gravity? what the hell is that?

 

In all that drivel of yours, VG, there is not one piece of evidence for your nutty USGOCT. You obviously don't have the knowledge or the skills to discuss these complicated topics, as evidenced by your lack of evidence.

 

Okay, so now instead of answering questions, you've now taken up stalking. Way to go.

But let's get back on track:

If a bowling ball had been dropped from the roof of the North Tower at the same time as the collapse began, the bowling ball would have been only 40 feet ahead of the roof after the first 360 feet of drop. And according to you, this was made possible because the Tower was being held up by the perimeter columns. However, when I asked how you arrived at such a conclusion, you said that you weren't going to answer unless I defended another poster's post about some other issue, which is, as we all know, your clumsily transparent way of running from the question.

The issue that you and I were discussing is that the observed lateral ejection of concrete and steel from the get-go not only required kinetic energy from the already fire-damaged upper block to do so, but reduced the mass and kinetic energy of the upper block at the same time as well. Also, the pulverization of that concrete, steel, and building contents took yet more kinetic energy from the descending upper block.

So the question to you was:

Where did the energy to do all this, with enough left over to clear a path for the upper block to drop through the intact lower core structure at virtual freefall speed, come from?

You answered by stating that:

"There was no internal intact structure pushing upwards. The external steel columns were holding the load, once they gave way . . ."

I responded with:

". . . you've arbitrarily decided that the only thing holding up the core was the perimeter columns. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

You responded to that question by attempting to bargain with me, stating that you would answer that question only on the condition that I first answer a question concerning an issue that you are debating with another poster. But that's not how it works. So, how did you arrive at the conclusion that the only thing holding the core up was the perimeter columns. I mean, you must have some basis for believing such a thing, or you wouldn't have said it. Right? Right. So let's have it . . .

 

Last chance to answer a simple Question (don't answer with another question this time ) How many people and you can include the pilots , do you or your nutty professor think it would take to fake this terrorist incident ?
answer the question or fuck off, cos I am getting sick of your silly shit

 

We will never know mally, camlock has entered the eternal abyss.

 

Only to rise again in another seven years

 

WHOooA, I followed your lead and googled the dearly departed camlok. Read some of his posts on other boards. The guy is a menace.

 

You went 20/30 pages repeating this question - "The next question is, how is it that the upper block of the North Tower fell through the intact core structure below for the first 360 feet at a rate just 40 feet shy of freefall?" acting like everyone was hiding from something by not answering a question that makes no sense in the first place.

Whats the "upper block"? where is your imaginary line the upper block starts? Why did the top part of the building start to fall- gravity, why did the top part of the buliding start to crush the stuff under it? Gravitational potential energy mostly, but also a small part of the energy comes from heat and chemical reactions. What is your imaginary internal core structure? Where are you measuring 360 feet from? a "rate" just 40 feet shy of freefall, 40 feet is a distance measurement, freefal is acceleration, distance / speed squared, and where are you measuring that from. where are you getting that from? You didnt come up with that yourself

And now in this post the steel is getting pulverized now "Also, the pulverization of that concrete, steel, and building contents took yet more kinetic energy from the descending upper block."


The answer to your question is PE=massxgravityxheight

Why did the top part of the building start to crush the floors below, the simple version, the gravitational potential energy coming down, the retarding force (what load everything under it can handle) pointing up. If the first is greater than the second then squish

Richard Gages dumbass explanation with the cardboard boxes, the 95 floors below arent a single entity resisting the force from above. the building starts to collapse, that arbitary 15 floors hits the 95th floor, no they dont pancake down, they concertina, the next couple floors start to give way, potential energy is released adding to the force impacting the next couple of floors, some kinetic energy is imparted side ways, and so on and so on until near the bottom

But thats on the video anyway, and you are not going to answer where you are getting 360/40 from, where you are measuring them from , why 360.00/40.00 exactly. Where your imaginary intact "core" structure starts lengthways or widthways

...why?

....because you have gone at least 15 years thinking , err I dont really understand potential energy so the only explanation is secret CIA explosive Vegemite. And you have to stick with that now, just like you have to stick with all the concrete in the building getting pulverized, even with all the photos of the rescuers walking over all the concrete blocks in the rubble with the cadaver dogs. and I dare say the next 13 years as well, so you will get to 2031, 30 years after the event still posting on messageboards, errrr why did the top part of the building start to crush the floors below duh uh uh uh uh. The other 99.5% of everyone else like, dude, seriously

 

You've admitted here (albeit in a poorly structured sentence) that you've been ignorant of the details of the core structure. This does not bode well for your credibility here.

And the fact that you have to ask what is meant by the "upper block" exposes yet more of your ignorance on the subject.

And the reason I'm acting as if no one has answered the question I've been repeating is because, so far, no one has answered it. So far, you've offered this gem: "There was no internal intact structure pushing upwards. The external steel columns were holding the load, once they gave way . . ." And so I asked you how you arrived at that conclusion. And, for what seems like the tenth time, you've avoided answering that question again.
_______________________________________________________________

On the video below, place a straightedge horizontally across the screen and line it up with the top of the building and then count the seconds it takes for the 360 feet of antenna to pass the marker. That speaks for itself, unless you care to suggest that the video is a mirage.


30 second mark, and 1:12 mark.

The antenna descended 360 feet in five seconds. That's 40 feet shy of freefall. So the antenna accelerated substantially as it descended. Now, if the heat damaged upper block of the Tower met with the intact lower core structure--which was designed to support vertical loads--physics dictates that the energy required for the upper block to break up the steel below and pulverize concrete would absolutely be an energy drain. As such, this nearly freefalling of the antenna indicates that the upper block met with very little resistance. Whether you know it or not, you're pushing the idea that when the upper block started to descend and contacted with the lower block, the lower block just gave way and began falling at the same rate at the upper block. But we know that that's impossible, don't we?

 

Sorry ZenKarma.

Okay, so anyway, I think we can all agree that 9/11 was an inside job. Case closed.

 

UM

 

NOPE...!!



Cheers Glen.

 

It so clearly was, though. Buildings on fire don't implode into dust. It doesn't happen. Not in a million years. Keep dreaming. Dream on. Pull the wool back from your eyes.