Poll

What is the truth about the 911 attack on the World Trade Center?

Hijacked Planes were flown into the two towers.  Resulting fires caused the collapse.
14 (60.9%)
The planes were CGI and it was controlled demolition
2 (8.7%)
Something other than planes were flown into the twin towers,  missiles drones etc.
2 (8.7%)
The planes were holographic projections from a special satellite, and it was a directed energy weapon
1 (4.3%)
Something else.
3 (13%)
Denspressure
1 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Voting closed: March 06, 2017, 10:56:40 PM

911 What is the truth?

  • 6866 Replies
  • 761442 Views
*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #870 on: February 23, 2017, 12:59:05 AM »

Both aeroplane wings cut right through structural steel on the towers like jelly.

Pentagon planes wings vaporise without leaving a mark.

Fourth plane vaporises without a trace.

Seems kinda contradictory...

Not really,  what do you find contradictory?

The argument that an aluminium aircraft can't slice through steel beams is a nonsense.  I thought we already dealt with that issue,  but perhaps not,  if it keeps coming back.

Try thinking about it in terms of momentum   mv,   you have 175,000 kg travelling at 500 mph,   to stop that and absorb the kinetic energy requires a lot more than steel beams.

The force required is directly proportional to the change in momentum    force = mass * Δv    and of course that force is applied across the impact area, unevenly, the shearing forces can easily exceed the capacity of structural steel.

The kinetic energy goes into shredding the aircraft, the steel structure and the building and of course heat.

Bhs has repeatedly shut you down on this, however you keep posting it?

I've had enough of your dishonesty.

Yes for a building to collapse at 9.8m/s2 it must be a controlled demolition.

It is very difficult, even with a demo to attain gravitational acceleration, it is the ultimate goal of the people pulling it but it is very difficult and rarely achieved.

My equation works well enough, deal with it.

Back to clues forum Rayzor honestly.

Let's make it as simple as I can.   

So if I have a bowling ball on a plank and the plank breaks, the ball falls at free fall rate,  that must be controlled demolition that broke the plank according to your theory.

I'll say it again,  the free fall of the bowling ball, doesn't tell you why the plank broke,  only that it did.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #871 on: February 23, 2017, 01:00:08 AM »
But theres not just one plank Rayzor.

I can't belive you are this dumb.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #872 on: February 23, 2017, 01:01:42 AM »

Quote
Utter crap. I have had many airplanes in ground effect at that speed if not faster. I had a 737-200 (on a sanctioned, approved beat-up of Dublin's RWY 28) going 340 at what I thought was 50ft but in the photos you cannot see much if any daylight below the engine pods. it was easy. Perhaps too easy. I have seen fast Vulcans (big mofo) so low that the engines were sucking up water from the wet runway.

I absolutely believe this story to be true and not fabricated whatsoever.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #873 on: February 23, 2017, 01:05:31 AM »

Quote
Utter crap. I have had many airplanes in ground effect at that speed if not faster. I had a 737-200 (on a sanctioned, approved beat-up of Dublin's RWY 28) going 340 at what I thought was 50ft but in the photos you cannot see much if any daylight below the engine pods. it was easy. Perhaps too easy. I have seen fast Vulcans (big mofo) so low that the engines were sucking up water from the wet runway.

I absolutely believe this story to be true and not fabricated whatsoever.

Rotflmfao.

Rayzor, wanna hazard a guess at why this bullet slows down? In your world it shouldn't lose any velocity apparently.



Hint. The bricks are structural resistance.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #874 on: February 23, 2017, 01:05:43 AM »
This is 20 feet....



Not quite, but it's pretty close and one wing did hit the ground before the impact, and that's also what that security footage suggests.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #875 on: February 23, 2017, 01:06:02 AM »
This is 20 feet....



At 400+ mph....Lol...No. Not with a light wing craft, this completely excludes how they craft got to this position in the first place.

Not leaving a trace, except for a couple random parts from a plane that is not even a 767, no marks on the lawn, not a single part number from 4 planes (average is about 350,000 recognizable recovered pieces from an accident) no FAA investigation (reg 121 is just one of many), not a single shred of evidence that this was a plane, no BTS records (even though they are kept on every single plane in America, and even on these EXCEPT for that one day),a pilot that can't even handle a Cessna can figure out how to fly blind/navigate a 767 100+ mph past vme and vne (something trained pilots couldn't even do on a sim) to perform an impossible maneuver, all first responders including city leaders, reporters, emergency crew etc etc say "There was no plane"....I could keep going on..

Simple fact, y'all wanna believe in fairy tales...Fine.

But that is y'all's choice and belief...It is not rooted in reality

You missed the fact that it came in on a shallow dive.  As far as eye witness accounts let's look at the evidence.

Out of 136 witnesses,   104 directly people saw the plane hit the pentagon,    of those 26 reported that it was an American Airlines Jet,   39 others said it was a large commercial aircraft,   7 said it was a boeing 757,  16 people reported seeing the plate hit light poles and trees and a power transformer was hit. 

None of the 136 witnesses saw a missile or military aircraft.

As for the first responders,  yes, i'd believe that a 400 mph crash isn't going to leave much evidence.  BTW,  could you tell dispute the difference between the main impact on the outer walls and the punch out hole on one of the inner rings,  he called me dishonest when I pointed out he was wrong.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #876 on: February 23, 2017, 01:06:53 AM »

Quote
Utter crap. I have had many airplanes in ground effect at that speed if not faster. I had a 737-200 (on a sanctioned, approved beat-up of Dublin's RWY 28) going 340 at what I thought was 50ft but in the photos you cannot see much if any daylight below the engine pods. it was easy. Perhaps too easy. I have seen fast Vulcans (big mofo) so low that the engines were sucking up water from the wet runway.

I absolutely believe this story to be true and not fabricated whatsoever.

Rotflmfao.

Rayzor, wanna hazard a guess at why this bullet slows down? In your world it shouldn't lose any velocity apparently.



Momentum.   Do you really need a lesson in basic physics?
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #877 on: February 23, 2017, 01:07:34 AM »
Momentum vs structural resistance.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #878 on: February 23, 2017, 01:10:41 AM »
Daily reminder no ones even attempted to touch this.

Quote
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.


Rayzor enough with your dishonesty.

I'll say it again,  the free fall of the bowling ball, doesn't tell you why the plank broke,  only that it did.

But theres not just one plank Rayzor.

I can't belive you are this dumb.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #879 on: February 23, 2017, 01:16:13 AM »
This is 20 feet....



Not quite, but it's pretty close and one wing did hit the ground before the impact, and that's also what that security footage suggests.

What security footage?? The one that shows 5 frames with 2 missing in the middle? And out of 80 plus tapes they have of it they release just that? With excuse of "it's too traumatic"? Yet they have no problem showing people falling out of the WTC?

Get real...There were no marks on the lawn either....

Nor did you answer anything else in my post of course...

As I said...You don't need to convince me of why you want to believe in miracles...Just don't try to convince me they aren't miracles.


Oh and fyi, to those that keep saying "but but...The planes were going fast, so there would be nothing left in them" obviously have no idea on physics or metallurgy...Not to mention every plane accident in the history of aviation.

Planes dont vaporize, sure sometimes we lose them and don't know where they wreck, but even then we eventually find them.

The average recognizable pieces of a plane wreck is around 350,000, sometimes more... Usually half of those have part numbers that can be verified by either maintenance logs or through design records.

Hell even challenger we found over 80,000 pieces and that was going almost 20k mph lol...

Not one found for 4 planes lmao....

Smdh...

Y'all need to get real....This is getting old.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 01:18:07 AM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #880 on: February 23, 2017, 01:16:27 AM »
Daily reminder no ones even attempted to touch this.

Quote
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.


Rayzor enough with your dishonesty.

I'll say it again,  the free fall of the bowling ball, doesn't tell you why the plank broke,  only that it did.

But theres not just one plank Rayzor.

I can't belive you are this dumb.

So let me get this straight,  I want to be 100% clear,  you are saying that free fall is a necessary and sufficient condition to conclude controlled demolition.     Think before you answer.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #881 on: February 23, 2017, 01:20:39 AM »
It depends on the structure, for building 7, yes no doubt as I have explained the building would start to collapse long before a freefall.



Nowhere near enough damage to all but vaporise the plane.

Come on guys.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #882 on: February 23, 2017, 01:22:37 AM »
Momentum vs structural resistance.

Hey,  you got one correct,  and the critical factor is the weight of the bullet,  if you used depleted uranium for example you have a much higher mass, and proportionally higher impact.

If you fired a 1 kg block of plastic at those bricks at rifle velocities,  you'd see pulverized and shattered bricks everywhere.   impact =  Δv * mass
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #883 on: February 23, 2017, 01:25:21 AM »
Oh and fyi, to those that keep saying "but but...The planes were going fast, so there would be nothing left in them" obviously have no idea on physics or metallurgy...Not to mention every plane accident in the history of aviation.

Planes dont vaporize, sure sometimes we lose them and don't know where they wreck, but even then we eventually find them.

The average recognizable pieces of a plane wreck is around 350,000, sometimes more... Usually half of those have part numbers that can be verified by either maintenance logs or through design records.

Hell even challenger we found over 80,000 pieces and that was going almost 20k mph lol...

Not one found for 4 planes lmao....

Smdh...

Y'all need to get real....This is getting old.

Daily reminder no ones even attempted to touch this.

Quote
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.


Rayzor enough with your dishonesty.

I'll say it again,  the free fall of the bowling ball, doesn't tell you why the plank broke,  only that it did.

But theres not just one plank Rayzor.

I can't belive you are this dumb.

The centre dropping before the collapse at g is strong evidence of a controlled demolition, this happens when the central supports are initially cut, look into it, it looks like a textbook "pull"

I can show you a collapse at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds here.

Quote
the analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
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.

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

This video shows well when the building actually starts to fall. E.g stage one never happened...



Please see NIST's "models" for wtc 7



The collapses in the "model" are nowhere near free-fall or symmetrical

Also check this out.


Please note that handing in your maths test without showing working equals a fail. Pay close attention to the fact it is stated they won't release the data because of "safety"

I'd love to believe the official story but I can't for the same reason I can't believe the earth is flat.

Here is a video of NIST's lead investigator explaining why free fall of the building is impossible given the official story.


« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 01:28:52 AM by disputeone »
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #884 on: February 23, 2017, 01:31:50 AM »
It depends on the structure, for building 7, yes no doubt as I have explained the building would start to collapse long before a freefall.



Nowhere near enough damage to all but vaporise the plane.

Come on guys.

Well,  at least you stopped thinking the inner ring punchout hole was the impact point.   That's a little progress.

At 400 mph the plane would in fact have just about completely disintegrated,  most of the wreckage that did survive ended up inside the building,  not much outside.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #885 on: February 23, 2017, 01:34:53 AM »
This is 20 feet....



Not quite, but it's pretty close and one wing did hit the ground before the impact, and that's also what that security footage suggests.

What security footage?? The one that shows 5 frames with 2 missing in the middle? And out of 80 plus tapes they have of it they release just that? With excuse of "it's too traumatic"? Yet they have no problem showing people falling out of the WTC?

Get real...There were no marks on the lawn either....

Nor did you answer anything else in my post of course...

As I said...You don't need to convince me of why you want to believe in miracles...Just don't try to convince me they aren't miracles.


Oh and fyi, to those that keep saying "but but...The planes were going fast, so there would be nothing left in them" obviously have no idea on physics or metallurgy...Not to mention every plane accident in the history of aviation.

Planes dont vaporize, sure sometimes we lose them and don't know where they wreck, but even then we eventually find them.

The average recognizable pieces of a plane wreck is around 350,000, sometimes more... Usually half of those have part numbers that can be verified by either maintenance logs or through design records.

Hell even challenger we found over 80,000 pieces and that was going almost 20k mph lol...

Not one found for 4 planes lmao....

Smdh...

Y'all need to get real....This is getting old.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #886 on: February 23, 2017, 01:35:09 AM »
Oh and fyi, to those that keep saying "but but...The planes were going fast, so there would be nothing left in them" obviously have no idea on physics or metallurgy...Not to mention every plane accident in the history of aviation.

Planes dont vaporize, sure sometimes we lose them and don't know where they wreck, but even then we eventually find them.

Are you sure about that?



This was a 500 mph impact with a structure designed to absorb the impact,  not a conventional building.  Still nothing much is left of the plane.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #887 on: February 23, 2017, 01:37:47 AM »
Actually the towers were also built to withstand a passenger plane crash.

Edit, stop shilling up the thread and let us talk to the honest posters.
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #888 on: February 23, 2017, 01:39:50 AM »
Actually the towers were also built to withstand a passenger plane crash.

Yes, and they did.   until some other as yet undetermined factors initiated the collapse.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #889 on: February 23, 2017, 01:41:58 AM »
Edit in case that post "vaporises"
Actually the towers were also built to withstand a passenger plane crash.

Yes, and they did.   until some other as yet undetermined factors initiated the collapse.

I think we have conclusively proven it was CD on this thread, to be fair, haven't you been following?
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 01:48:59 AM by disputeone »
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #890 on: February 23, 2017, 01:49:20 AM »
I said accident, not specifically designed test to stress test a wall.

I promise you there would be at least a few pieces of material that we can draw a part number off of. Not to mention this wall was designed to reflect the plane in its entirety.

Also, as you notice, this is a real plane collision, the moment the plane made contact with the wall it started to decelerate and break up...If this were 9/11, it would have just vanished into the wall.

Sure the exoskeleton of WTC would have been compromised in certain areas, but there would have been this reflection noticed as well instantly as we see here. It is very very simple physics.

Not disappearing inside of a building without a trace, then exploding when it feels like it.

Smdh
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #891 on: February 23, 2017, 01:49:44 AM »
I think we have conclusively proven it was CD on this thread to be fair, haven't you been following?

No, that was one  theory we discussed.  We concluded a new analysis was required, and NIST should release their models and supporting data.

You can leap to that conclusion if you like.  So long as you are aware that's not proven.


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #892 on: February 23, 2017, 01:51:12 AM »
Reminder of Rayzors dishonesty.

Oh and fyi, to those that keep saying "but but...The planes were going fast, so there would be nothing left in them" obviously have no idea on physics or metallurgy...Not to mention every plane accident in the history of aviation.

Planes dont vaporize, sure sometimes we lose them and don't know where they wreck, but even then we eventually find them.

The average recognizable pieces of a plane wreck is around 350,000, sometimes more... Usually half of those have part numbers that can be verified by either maintenance logs or through design records.

Hell even challenger we found over 80,000 pieces and that was going almost 20k mph lol...

Not one found for 4 planes lmao....

Smdh...

Y'all need to get real....This is getting old.

Daily reminder no ones even attempted to touch this.

Quote
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.


Rayzor enough with your dishonesty.

I'll say it again,  the free fall of the bowling ball, doesn't tell you why the plank broke,  only that it did.

But theres not just one plank Rayzor.

I can't belive you are this dumb.

The centre dropping before the collapse at g is strong evidence of a controlled demolition, this happens when the central supports are initially cut, look into it, it looks like a textbook "pull"

I can show you a collapse at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds here.

Quote
the analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
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.

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

This video shows well when the building actually starts to fall. E.g stage one never happened...



Please see NIST's "models" for wtc 7



The collapses in the "model" are nowhere near free-fall or symmetrical

Also check this out.


Please note that handing in your maths test without showing working equals a fail. Pay close attention to the fact it is stated they won't release the data because of "safety"

I'd love to believe the official story but I can't for the same reason I can't believe the earth is flat.

Here is a video of NIST's lead investigator explaining why free fall of the building is impossible given the official story.




I said accident, not specifically designed test to stress test a wall.

I promise you there would be at least a few pieces of material that we can draw a part number off of. Not to mention this wall was designed to reflect the plane in its entirety.

Also, as you notice, this is a real plane collision, the moment the plane made contact with the wall it started to decelerate and break up...If this were 9/11, it would have just vanished into the wall.

Sure the exoskeleton of WTC would have been compromised in certain areas, but there would have been this reflection noticed as well instantly as we see here. It is very very simple physics.

Not disappearing inside of a building without a trace, then exploding when it feels like it.

Smdh
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #893 on: February 23, 2017, 01:52:25 AM »
What security footage??
The only security footage of it.

The one that shows 5 frames with 2 missing in the middle? And out of 80 plus tapes they have of it they release just that? With excuse of "it's too traumatic"? Yet they have no problem showing people falling out of the WTC?
Source?

Get real...There were no marks on the lawn either....
Source?

Nor did you answer anything else in my post of course...
Sorry, but most of it was just baseless assertions.

The average recognizable pieces of a plane wreck is around 350,000, sometimes more... Usually half of those have part numbers that can be verified by either maintenance logs or through design records.

Hell even challenger we found over 80,000 pieces and that was going almost 20k mph lol...

Not one found for 4 planes lmao....

Smdh...

Y'all need to get real....This is getting old.
Source?
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #894 on: February 23, 2017, 01:55:27 AM »
I said accident, not specifically designed test to stress test a wall.

I promise you there would be at least a few pieces of material that we can draw a part number off of. Not to mention this wall was designed to reflect the plane in its entirety.

Also, as you notice, this is a real plane collision, the moment the plane made contact with the wall it started to decelerate and break up...If this were 9/11, it would have just vanished into the wall.

Sure the exoskeleton of WTC would have been compromised in certain areas, but there would have been this reflection noticed as well instantly as we see here. It is very very simple physics.

Not disappearing inside of a building without a trace, then exploding when it feels like it.

Smdh

That  animated gif that was posted earlier is deliberately misleading  you only need to roll on a few more frames to see the impact damage.



You definition of "without a trace"  is not supported by the video evidence.



Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #895 on: February 23, 2017, 02:04:31 AM »
What security footage??
The only security footage of it.

The one that shows 5 frames with 2 missing in the middle? And out of 80 plus tapes they have of it they release just that? With excuse of "it's too traumatic"? Yet they have no problem showing people falling out of the WTC?
Source?


Check out the car driving in not even hearing or seeing the plane lol.

Quote
Get real...There were no marks on the lawn either....
Source?



The fence and lightposts are still up lmao...




Quote
Nor did you answer anything else in my post of course...
Sorry, but most of it was just baseless assertions.

Incorrect.

Quote
The average recognizable pieces of a plane wreck is around 350,000, sometimes more... Usually half of those have part numbers that can be verified by either maintenance logs or through design records.

Hell even challenger we found over 80,000 pieces and that was going almost 20k mph lol...

Not one found for 4 planes lmao....

Smdh...

Y'all need to get real....This is getting old.
Source?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Plane+crashes
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11196
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #896 on: February 23, 2017, 02:07:16 AM »
The gif is just a simple frame by frame....Just that alone is impossible.

Either you have zero knowledge in anything we are discussing here, can't let your ego be bruised, mentally handicapped, or a shill... However, I can't go back to square one with you, it is a waste of my time.


Master I am going to tell you the same thing I told rayzor in the very beginning...I don't have time to teach you how the wheel is made.

If you can't hold even the most basic conversation please just watch the thread or don't visit. I didn't figure you for someone who would be this "sort", however I have been wrong before.

So please, do some research first, as well as learn some of the basics that you would need to know in fields pertaining to this subject.

That is if you actually care about truth, if not, and you only want to reinforce your preconceived notions at whatever cost, reality and truth be dammed....Then fine, live your life that way, I don't fault you.

Just don't waste my time.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

disputeone

  • 24826
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #897 on: February 23, 2017, 02:10:05 AM »
I said accident, not specifically designed test to stress test a wall.

I promise you there would be at least a few pieces of material that we can draw a part number off of. Not to mention this wall was designed to reflect the plane in its entirety.

Also, as you notice, this is a real plane collision, the moment the plane made contact with the wall it started to decelerate and break up...If this were 9/11, it would have just vanished into the wall.

Sure the exoskeleton of WTC would have been compromised in certain areas, but there would have been this reflection noticed as well instantly as we see here. It is very very simple physics.

Not disappearing inside of a building without a trace, then exploding when it feels like it.

Smdh

That  animated gif that was posted earlier is deliberately misleading  you only need to roll on a few more frames to see the impact damage.

Why wasn't the impact damage done as the plane entered the building, surely momentum vs structural resistance happens the instant the momentum meets the structural resistance????
Quote from: Stash
I'm anti-judaism.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl
Whose narrative is it to not believe the government?

Quote from: Wolvaccine
speech should be a privilege. Not a right.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #898 on: February 23, 2017, 02:16:48 AM »
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Check out the car driving in not even hearing or seeing the plane lol.
Yeah, it really is surprising that they were concentrated on driving.. (sorry for the sarcasm).
Anyways, don't see what BHS meant by missing frames.



The fence and lightposts are still up lmao...


I can't see the lawn in front of the impact site in the first picture, so I'm not sure what this photo is supposed to prove. The second picture is not at a good angle, and the lawn to the left of the impact is obscured.


Incorrect.
Did he quote/cite any sources? I'm very positive that he didn't.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Plane+crashes
Ah, a bunch of lists/top 5's of plane crashes, just the evidence I need right? (Not sorry for sarcasm this time, that was a bit disrespectful).
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Rayzor

  • 12111
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #899 on: February 23, 2017, 02:17:45 AM »
I said accident, not specifically designed test to stress test a wall.

I promise you there would be at least a few pieces of material that we can draw a part number off of. Not to mention this wall was designed to reflect the plane in its entirety.

Also, as you notice, this is a real plane collision, the moment the plane made contact with the wall it started to decelerate and break up...If this were 9/11, it would have just vanished into the wall.

Sure the exoskeleton of WTC would have been compromised in certain areas, but there would have been this reflection noticed as well instantly as we see here. It is very very simple physics.

Not disappearing inside of a building without a trace, then exploding when it feels like it.

Smdh

That  animated gif that was posted earlier is deliberately misleading  you only need to roll on a few more frames to see the impact damage.

Why wasn't the impact damage done as the plane entered the building, surely momentum vs structural resistance happens the instant the momentum meets the structural resistance????

It was,  you can see the aluminium cladding getting shredded.

And it's NOT momentum vs structural strength,  it's CHANGE in momentum vs the resistance of the structure to various forms of failure.   

« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 02:20:35 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.