It's documented all over that they released names with pictures of the alleged hijackers and those people were showing up alive all over the place. Then they backed off that story once it was busted and made up a cover story for that.
@2012newrevolution On September 14th, the FBI released a list of the names of the hijackers. Several of the names are quite common, which lead to the reports that some of the hijackers were "still be alive". However, on the 27th, the FBI released photographs of the hijackers and this proved that every case of someone "still being alive" was actually just mistaken identities.
@Asylum31 It's documented all over that they released names with pictures of the alleged hijackers and those people were showing up alive all over the place. Then they backed off that story once it was busted and made up a cover story for that.
@SuperLogicalthinker You never took a physics course. Proof; you believe idiotic lies so stupid only morons believe them. You need to prove your insane claims. You can't. You fail because you are void of knowledge.
If you support the video your level of physics is at the moron level.
OGCT Official Government Conspiracy Theory: 19 hijackers with box cutters WHO ARE STILL ALIVE survived flying planes into skyscrapers and so did their indestructible passport from the planet Vulcan. Everyone who believes that, follow the nice Mr. Nazi man into the showers and you get a free cup of Kool-Aid. Dry off with the smallpox blankets we left for you. We're the government. We're here to help. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA
@Asylum31 Just do a search, it's been broadcast on all kinds of news stations. I'd like to see some evidence they're dead. All kinds of the ones still not removed from the FBI list came out and announced they were alive and had press conferences. Unless of course you believe the OGCT CIA backtracks to explain that away. The CIA never lies.
@2012newrevolution Oh, you're not suggesting that some survived the crashes, you're talking about the people who had the same names as the hijackers. Once the FBI released photographs of the hijackers, all reported incidences of someone being listed and "still alive" were confirmed to just be cases of mistaken identity.
Nuclear demolition of skyscrapers was patented by " Controlled Demolition Inc." - the most renowned demolition company that deals with controlled demolition of buildings, and especially with controlled demolition of skyscrapers. The same company was a primary designer of nuclear demolition projects of the World Trade Center in New York and of the Sears Tower in Chicago. - The lower floors were instantly changed to dust by an underground nuclear explosion.
@Asylum31 Evidence were provided by Dimitri A. Khalezov, a former officer the Soviet nuclear intelligence, officially known as the Special Control Service of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry. He published a book and there was a couple hours of video interview on YouTube.
The only way to repeat the real experiment is to build a new WTC1, 2, 7, fly airplanes into them, let WTC 1 and 2 burn and collapse and let the fires hit 7 and see what happens.
Clearly impossible. And it is stupid to bash fancy equations. Those fancy equations only make more precise and quantify those "useless abstract words and laws" (Newton's laws). So, unless you call your laws (the moving object slows down) as just hypothetical and not always true, because those laws are just
Computer models are STILL the second best form of evidence (after physically recreating the whole thing). Far better than prose and ordinary human language for calculating the consequences of actions.
@mphello Correct. That's why the first computer models they did DIDN'T MATCH the official government conspiracy theory, so they distorted the data until it had nor eesemblance to the facts and their bogus model was passed off as science, which it is not.I would donate, as would millions of Americans, to raise funds to create a 2-story replica that matches all the dynamics and recreate it. I would place large bets on it not falling down, not falling straight down, and not falling in 10 seconds.
@2012newrevolution And that's why (what I said about computer models being the 2nd best form of proof for such a complex event) the computer models as presented on NOVA prove the official government conspiracy theory (which it is - it was a conspiracy, a theory, and a fact). Whereas you have offered zero evidence of your wild claims of fraud.
@mphello Ooh, NOVA. Theey're right up there with Discovery Channel, Fox News, and E.T. for scientific authority. HAHA. "Wild claims?" LMAO. I'm not here to be your private Special Needs tutor, I've done my research, and so have scientists and professionals with credentials you'll never have if you don't stop commenting mindlessly and start reading something. The only wild claim is yours that anything in the 911 Commission Report and NIST remotely resembles an investigation or science.
"Maybe explain what is WRONG with a certain experiment on this video."
No problem. As the mass of the falling block is inreasing during WTC's collapse, there are no CONSTANT masses m_1 and m_2 in the over-simplified inelastic collision equation. So the premise of the experiment is wrong. A pretty embarrassing mistake to be honest.
In our little WTC scenario, m_1 would be best described by a time-based function. Just applied mechanis, no place for match box playing here.
"Maybe explain what is WRONG with a certain experiment on this video."
No problem. As the mass of the falling block is inreasing during WTC's collapse, there are no CONSTANT masses m_1 and m_2 in the over-simplified inelastic collision equation. So the premise of the experiment is wrong. A pretty embarrassing mistake to be honest.
In our little WTC scenario, m_1 would be best described by a time-based function. Just applied mechanis, no place for match box playing here.
This video is another example of typical truther fail, thanks @phyandreason Funny to see no-planers credited in the vid btw :D
What you don't realize is that the mass of the falling block is inreasing. There are no CONSTANT masses m_1 and m_2 in your over-simplified inelastic collision equation. Therefore the premise of the experiment is wrong, sry.
In our little WTC scenario, m_1 would be best described by a time-based function. (which frankly, every high-school kid will understand...)
These conspiracy freaks act under the strange dogma that until NIST hasn't compressed its 10000 page report on 9/11 into a fancy little youtube video, the report is plain and simply a diabolic lie meant to brainwash the whole nation.
(btw, I clearly pointed what's wrong with this video, I guess my comment was one or two classes of applied mechanics too much for our conspiracy friend..)
@Asylum31 Because all he does is shoot his mouth off but proves nothing. Make a youtube video explaining his theory like this individual did. But he can't and won't because he's full of it.
@Kill0Your0TV Aside from your personal opinion of him, my question was (and still is) why does he have to make a video? Why isn't simply discussing it sufficient?
@Asylum31 Simple, because nobody has shown the NIST theories in a real experiment. "Physicsandreason" uses real experiments to prove his points. To this day I haven't seen anyone disprove his experiments, let alone with a real experiment. All talk, no action.
@Kill0Your0TV Actually, yes they have. The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center proved in an experiment that jet fuel burns hot enough to cause steel beams to weaken and collapse.
@Asylum31 That's nice. How about Building 7? The official theories are plain ridiculous. "Physicsandreason" shows that gravitational collapse on that day is impossible. Physics don't lie. His experiments don't lie. 911 shills do.
@Kill0Your0TV Damage plus fire caused the collapses of Towers 1 and 2. Tower 7 was no different. It received damage during WTC 1's collapse. It then caught on fire in several parts of the building. These fires burned for many hours until they weakened the building enough and it collapsed.
The results of his experiment can only be as good as the experiment itself, and if you think that dropping a solid block of ice onto another solid block of ice is a valid model of the collapses...
@Asylum31 Yea, I know. That's the official story; heard it a thousand times. These experiments prove them wrong. Maybe explain what is WRONG with a certain experiment on this video.
@Kill0Your0TV The premise that he is trying to get across is that the the collapsing sections should have been slowed by the lower portions of the buildings. But you would only need to argue this point if you believed that the collapses happened at free-fall speed. WTC's 1 and 2 were ~1,360 ft high, the calculated fall time for an object from that height is 9.2 seconds. Videos of the collapses put the times at ~12 seconds (20-25 seconds if you count the inner cores which remained standing for a
@Kill0Your0TV short period of time after. WTC 7 was 610 ft high, the calculated fall time for that is 6.2 seconds. The collapse of the East Penthouse is the first visible evidence that the building is undergoing structural failure internally. Several seconds later, the rest of the building collapsed with very little resistance due to much of the structural support having already collapsed previously. Therefore, the buildings did not collapse in a free-fall and his premise reflects reality.
@Kill0Your0TV However, he also to uses this experiment in an attempt to accurately model the collapses. And a solid block of ice, even including its proportional shape, has very little in common with a 110 story skyscraper.
@Asylum31 The laws of motion are still the same. A small object will not completely destroy a much larger object when hitting it. Also, there must be a "jolt", or slowdown when the two collide. This didn't happen at all with the the twin towers. The official story is impossible.
@Kill0Your0TV The problem with applying that to the Towers is that a building isn't an object in that sense, it's a structure made up of many smaller objects. And many of those smaller parts survived the collapse relatively intact (the perimeter columns, for example), but the overall structure did not.
The calculated fall time and the observed collapse times that I listed prove that it did happen, even though it wasn't to the degree that you think it should have been.
@Asylum31 Then you can make a video and prove your theory? So far I've seen absolutely nothing that explains the non "jolt" and the complete destruction of both towers via experiment. Nature can't be fooled.
The hypothesis that is the most likely is controlled demolition.
@Kill0Your0TV Yes. Any video of the complete collapses (with the exception of the inner columns, which I noted earlier) shows that it took ~12 seconds for the Towers to collapse and proves that it happened even if it isn't obvious.
I should note that what you are using is called the argument from incredulity, and it is fallacious.
@Kill0Your0TV Do you only accept proof in the form of video? I'm sure there are plenty already on here which document the collapse times. As for the calculated fall times, it's a calculation. The buildings were 1,360 feet tall. I've already provided the answer, 9.2 seconds. But if you don't believe me, feel free to perform the calculation for yourself.
@Asylum31 What has that got to do with the lack of the "jolt"? Nothing. Where is the jolt of the top part of the building hitting the bottom part of the building?
@Kill0Your0TV Another fallacy. This time it's a strawman. I said that the "jolt" is there, but it isn't blatantly visible. And the different times prove it.
@Kill0Your0TV The "jolt" is just the lower portions of the structures providing resistance against the collapsing upper portions. If the Towers had collapsed in ~9.2 seconds, the calculated time it takes for an object to fall 1,360 feet, that would mean that the Towers experienced no resistance (i.e. no "jolt"). Since the Towers actually collapsed in ~12 seconds (with the exceptions of the inner cores with stood for several more seconds), that means they did experience resistance (i.e. a jolt).
@Asylum31 LOL! Are you serious? There was no "jolt" when the upper tower hit the lower tower. It's plain to see in the video. That's the whole problem.
One object hitting another object ALWAYS experiences a "jolt". The reason it didn't is because there was no resistance. There is no way around that :-)
@Kill0Your0TV Incorrect, there is a "jolt". If the Towers had collapsed without experiencing any resistance (i.e. no "jolt"), then they would have collapsed in ~9.2 seconds. Since the Towers actually took ~12 seconds to collapse (minus the inner cores), that means they did experience resistance during the collapses (i.e. a jolt). It doesn't matter if you can see it or not, the times prove that it happened. Why are you having such a difficult time understanding this?
@Asylum31 Why don't the 911 physicists (or anyone else competent for that matter) agree with you? The jolt should of happened when the top of the building would hit the undamaged bottom part of the building. There is no jolt. It clear as day in this video. What don't you understand?
@Kill0Your0TV I am in agreement with physicists. The "jolt" happened, even if you can't see it. The times prove it. Do you understand what fallacious arguments are? Because you're using argument from incredulity again.
@Kill0Your0TV Actually, the ~12 seconds prove it happened. The reason you can't see it is because there is no reference point to look at. If you dropped an object right next to the roof of the Towers, at the moment they started to collapse, the object would be even with the roof until the building had collapsed far enough to reach the next floor down (~10 feet). After that, the object would surge ahead of the roof, and the gap would only continue to get wider. That's what the times prove.
@Asylum31 Forget it, buddy. I'm not playing little games with you any longer. You want to live in denial (or as a shill) that's your business.
Maybe watch 0:58 - 1:08 a couple hundred more times until you get it. There is no jolt. The top part of the building speeds up. But I doubt reality will have any change in someone like you.
@Asylum31 plus... just looking at the debris falling will tell you the buildings did not fall at free fall speed. The debris is falling FASTER and is AHEAD of the collapsing building. The debris hits the ground before the building does. If both were at free fall speed then they would have hit the ground at the same time. 12 seconds is a bit slow...I have approx.18 seconds(34 sec for outer support they were left) for North, approx. 16sec for South, and 15-18 for 7. either way...not free falls
@fustraton Incorrect. Only the first ~2 seconds of the main structure's collapse attained free-fall speed and it happened in the middle of the entire collapse.
@fustraton So am I. The first visible sign of collapse was when the East Penthouse collapsed. Then several seconds later, the main structure collapsed. When this happened, for ~2 seconds, the building was in free-fall. The whole building, however, was not in a free-fall for the entire collapse.
@fustraton If you don't know what the East Penthouse was, you are not informed enough to even be taking part in this debate, but I digress. The East Mechanical Penthouse was one of two structures on the roof of WTC 7 (the other being the West Penthouse). When the building started to collapse, the East Penthouse was the first thing to go. The rest of the building, including the West Penthouse, remained intact for several seconds and then it too collapsed.
@fustraton WTC 7 was 610 feet tall. An object in free-fall from that height is calculated to take about 6.2 seconds to reach the ground. Although if you disagree with my math, feel free to perform the calculation yourself.
Every video of the collapse of the building (excluding the East Penthouse earlier) shows that the collapse happens in 7-8 seconds. Over 15 seconds if time starts when the Penthouse collapses.
Either you're extremely misinformed or you are lying. Which is it?
@fustraton Yes, it is physically impossible for WTC 7 to have collapsed in 2-3 seconds because, if it was in a free-fall during the entire collapse, the shortest amount of time it could have taken is 6.2 seconds.
Watch this one, then. watch?v=_kSq663m0G8 , I counted at least six seconds before the building disappeared behind the dust cloud, and it still had some distance it needed to cover before reaching the ground.
@Tsutomu6 Im not stupid. 1+1 = 2. Its just in your pathetic mind that you believe everything told to you. I don't understand how you cant question the original events.
I question your claim: "I've counted the 3 main videos of the 7 WTC collapse. They all take about 2-3 seconds."
And because you fail to understand why this time is impossible for a total collapse time, it's easy to understand why you fail to understand that I question the original events.
That is the part where NIST had do admit freefall. But since X(t)=X0+v(t)*t and v(t)=v0+a(t)*t and a(t)=const., x(t)=a/2*t² or t=sqrt(2*buildingheigt/gravityacceleration) which is about 6 seconds for WTC7.
So IF you say, total collapse time is less than 6 seconds, you say it had to be controlled demolition AND someone increased gravityacceleration.
@fustraton You never did provide a link to a video which proves your claim of 2-3 seconds. I, however, did provide one which proves my claim of at least 6 seconds, not to mention that the math supports me as well.
@Asylum31 I have counted it and it is around 2-3 seconds. Proove to me it was not a controlled demolition. The building is the same distance (approximately) from 1 WTC as 1 Liberty Plaza Building from 2 WTC. Both going over another building. How did one building of 47 floors collapse yet a building of just 7 floors more not. The WFC buildings didn't collapse. Haven't you realised it was only the WTC buildings that were taken down (exceptions for the bankers trust building). Proove me wrong plz.
@fustraton Again, provide a link which proves that, until you do, the link I gave proving at least 6 seconds stands uncontested.
Explosives can not be seen or heard going off prior to or during the collapses. In addition, none of the thousands of people at ground zero found a single piece of evidence from any explosive device.
The collapses were not uniform, therefore, being the same approximate distance away does not mean that they received similar damage.
@fustraton The building was made using a different design structure, meaning that even if the two had been hit in exactly the same way, it might react differently to the damage than WTC 7 did. This building only suffered broken windows and light facade damage; It never caught on fire, which is what eventually lead to the collapse of WTC 7.
@fustraton For the same reason it didn't sustain much damage. The collapses, not being uniform, did not disperse burning debris in equal amounts in all directions. In addition, because it didn't sustain much damage, there wasn't as big of a chance for burning debris to get inside to start a fire.
@fustraton According to NIST, when the rest of the building collapsed, for the first 2.25 seconds of its collapse it was in a free-fall. Not the entire time the rest was collapsing.
"~2 seconds" means "approximately 2 seconds". I said that because 2.25, when rounded, is approximately 2.
I don't recall seeing much smoke (thus no fire) below the impact zones of towers 1 and 2. So what exactly made the lower floors weaker than the upper floors?
The materials used should not be an issue as long as the physics are correct. Brian Cox determined the radiant energy of the sun using an umbrella, thermometer and a bucket of water.
Just curious what you would have done differently to demonstrate the proper physics involved in this experiment.
@chocomalk If you're only trying to exhibit the general concept of a falling object slowing, stopping or being deflected when it hits a stationary object, then no, the materials don't matter. But if you're trying to accurately model the collapses, then they absolutely do matter.
What would I do? Build a scale structure out of materials that would give the model the exact strength to mass ratio as the Towers.
I think that is what he is doing here, just to describe the physics, and he did so well in my opinion all things considered.
I would also build a structure that represents the WTC, and I think given the time and money so would many, including the poster of this video. The real question is why didn't NIST?
@chocomalk NIST was concerned with figuring out why the buildings collapsed, not why they collapsed the way they did. Other groups have gone on to explain the latter. They probably feel that it has been satisfactorily explained and that there is no reason to keep dwelling on it. As you said, it would be difficult and expensive to do so. Not to mention that the types of people the demonstrations would be aimed at convincing would readily accept something from an "official source" anyway.
What other "groups"? And how did they explain this?
I don't doubt that inertia would have brought the towers down, and I think most accept this at least in essence. Yet there remains a portion of three collapses that don't seem to fit into the normal realm of things.
For an average person it would be difficult and expensive, for someone tasked with the job and given 3-4 years it would have been easier and less expensive than some of the tests NIST did. Many of their tests..
The Bazant article really does what NIST does, it shows that collapse was possible and likely inevitable.
Phrasing like "Unlikely though such a distribution may be," followed by careful wording/formula is on par with NIST equating input data with proprietary data to withhold its methods on legal grounds. The paper was to be checked against NIST models, that input data is unavailable thus unverifiable and could be the math presented in the paper itself resulting in a huge...
...conflict of interests. As much as having the "proprietary" code would be nice, knowing what was input/when vs what was not would resolve much dispute.
There is visual/exif/witness evidence of steel exposed to the elements for at least a year, rain, snow, moss accumulated on the metal. Hardly controlled conditions, NIST has a huge jpeg folder of the steel on their site.
...were actually redundant, as we already knew what fire can do, what temperatures steel looses strength at, what to expect from gases released by office contents etc...all this to go with someone else explanation in the end.
As far as their methodology is concerned, I take issues with some of it. One being the lack of review of FEMAs metallurgical analysis, the storage of the steel itself is questionable. The biggest obstacle in all of this was the Bush admin, before and after.
HE JUST PROVED THAT ALL MOMS BASEMENT D FLUNKERS ARE UNEDUCATED U TUBE TROLLS. CALLING A EXPERT A RETARD PROVES NOTABLJX2 IS A IMMATURE CHILD WHO IGNORES SCIENCE/PHYSICS !!!!!!!! A+ ON YOUR VIDEO AND PROVING IT WITH SCIENCE UNLIKE THE NIST THEORY. AE911TRUTH ORG, GO
THIS MAN IS A ENGINEER USING SCIENCE AND PHYSICS !!!! NO U TUBE TROLL CAN EVEN SPEAK AGAINST HIM. HE IS A EXPERT BACKED BY THOUSANDS OF EXPERTS AND LAWS OF PHYSICS + MORE THEN 60% USA PEOPLE AGREE WITH AE911 EXPERTS + MANY MANY FIREMEN AND SOME 911 FAMILYS, FACT !!!! UNEDUCATED TROLLS FAIL !!!!
THIS UNEDUCATED U TUBE TROLL NOTABLJX2 JUST CALLED A EXPERT ENGINEER WITH A DEGREE A RETARD AHAHAHHAHAHAHA. FAIL !!! HE IS A TROLL ON U TUBE WITH NO DEGREE CALLING EXPERTS RETARDS , THESE ARE YOUR MOMS BASEMENT D-FLUNKERS !!!! THIS GIRL DIDNT KNOW HE WAS A ENGINEER DID SHE LOLL IGNORANT TROLL
I don't believe in conspiracies. The simplest answers are usually correct. I am not interested in politics or possible motives. However, nobody is addressing the central point here. Something terrible happened to those three buildings on that day with no convincing argument why they collapsed at freefall speed. Even if the steel central support columns on the lower floors had become like cardboard (ignore why for now), they would still pose enough resistance to slow the top below freefall speed
Perhaps you could try those experiments again with a scale model or using layered structures with central support columns to mimic those of the wtc buildings.
Using solid blocks isn't a proper way to do this experiment and thus your conclusions are invalid.
If you're going to do an experiment like this, do it properly and from a neutral viewpoint.
And since we are talking about bazant here...his model clearly says he is as curious as NIST to get his desired result in the form of equations...but in the process of acheiving it, he makes assumptions that makes no physical sense.
This video shows that when mass1 hits mass2, MASS1 SLOWS DOWN!
The upper portion of the towers do NOT slow down. They do not slow down AT ALL. They don't fall some, slow down, then accelerate... THEY DO NOT SLOW AT ALL
@Merlin5by5 I didn't say shit about bombs or thermite. Honestly, I don't know what the fuck happened to those buildings but what I do know is that the official report on their collapse fails miserably. And yes bombs WOULD make the building fall faster. Compare controlled demo of a steel structure to that of a steel framed structure that falls without explosives. The speed of collapse is VERY different. I don't know what caused those towers to fall but it wasn't planes or fires.
@Merlin5by5 Hey dumb fuck...what he really is trying to say is that your example is how a natural collapse is supposed to be....uneven partial collapse. That's how steel structures behave in a natural collapse.
And floor by floor... from top to bottom...even-collapse that we saw in the case of WTC is unnatural.
@Merlin5by5 Hey faggot...you already made too many dumb statements. All you got is profanities..no understanding of physics whatsoever.
Haven't you embarrassed yourselves enough already?
And the collapse of those two towers didn't differ because they were controlled demolitions.
Stupid fuck...I wasted my time already with you.....and I thought you really had any understanding of physics when you challenged...you turned out to be a moron
Very nice!
lighthammer2531 4 weeks ago
It's documented all over that they released names with pictures of the alleged hijackers and those people were showing up alive all over the place. Then they backed off that story once it was busted and made up a cover story for that.
2012newrevolution 1 month ago
@2012newrevolution On September 14th, the FBI released a list of the names of the hijackers. Several of the names are quite common, which lead to the reports that some of the hijackers were "still be alive". However, on the 27th, the FBI released photographs of the hijackers and this proved that every case of someone "still being alive" was actually just mistaken identities.
Asylum31 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31 It's documented all over that they released names with pictures of the alleged hijackers and those people were showing up alive all over the place. Then they backed off that story once it was busted and made up a cover story for that.
2012newrevolution 1 month ago
@SuperLogicalthinker You never took a physics course. Proof; you believe idiotic lies so stupid only morons believe them. You need to prove your insane claims. You can't. You fail because you are void of knowledge.
If you support the video your level of physics is at the moron level.
iSunTzu 1 month ago
OGCT Official Government Conspiracy Theory: 19 hijackers with box cutters WHO ARE STILL ALIVE survived flying planes into skyscrapers and so did their indestructible passport from the planet Vulcan. Everyone who believes that, follow the nice Mr. Nazi man into the showers and you get a free cup of Kool-Aid. Dry off with the smallpox blankets we left for you. We're the government. We're here to help. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA
2012newrevolution 1 month ago
@2012newrevolution Which of the hijackers survived? I'd love to see some evidence of that claim.
Asylum31 1 month ago
@Asylum31 Just do a search, it's been broadcast on all kinds of news stations. I'd like to see some evidence they're dead. All kinds of the ones still not removed from the FBI list came out and announced they were alive and had press conferences. Unless of course you believe the OGCT CIA backtracks to explain that away. The CIA never lies.
2012newrevolution 1 month ago
@2012newrevolution Oh, you're not suggesting that some survived the crashes, you're talking about the people who had the same names as the hijackers. Once the FBI released photographs of the hijackers, all reported incidences of someone being listed and "still alive" were confirmed to just be cases of mistaken identity.
Asylum31 1 month ago
look kids and sheeple. physics at work
dogsofwarclan 2 months ago in playlist Meer video's van physicsandreason
This has been flagged as spam show
NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT - 9/11 PENTAGON ATTACK
/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o
9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res.
/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ
9/11 - Missing Links ( full movie )
/watch?v=GD_vwzjdTi4
Why The Military Knows Israel Did 9/11
/watch?v=kVKGRB3cygg
Sockpuppet2012 2 months ago in playlist Jonathan Cole
Nuclear demolition of skyscrapers was patented by " Controlled Demolition Inc." - the most renowned demolition company that deals with controlled demolition of buildings, and especially with controlled demolition of skyscrapers. The same company was a primary designer of nuclear demolition projects of the World Trade Center in New York and of the Sears Tower in Chicago. - The lower floors were instantly changed to dust by an underground nuclear explosion.
jw934 2 months ago
@jw934 Any evidence to support that claim?
Asylum31 2 months ago
@Asylum31 Evidence were provided by Dimitri A. Khalezov, a former officer the Soviet nuclear intelligence, officially known as the Special Control Service of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry. He published a book and there was a couple hours of video interview on YouTube.
jw934 2 months ago
Israel did 911
TakeOurWorldBack (dot) com
YouTube video: 911 Missing Links
Sockpuppet2012 2 months ago in playlist Jonathan Cole
The only way to repeat the real experiment is to build a new WTC1, 2, 7, fly airplanes into them, let WTC 1 and 2 burn and collapse and let the fires hit 7 and see what happens.
Clearly impossible. And it is stupid to bash fancy equations. Those fancy equations only make more precise and quantify those "useless abstract words and laws" (Newton's laws). So, unless you call your laws (the moving object slows down) as just hypothetical and not always true, because those laws are just
mphello 3 months ago
@mphello .. approximations to reality, as are ANY laws by humans encoded in words.
mphello 3 months ago
Computer models are STILL the second best form of evidence (after physically recreating the whole thing). Far better than prose and ordinary human language for calculating the consequences of actions.
mphello 3 months ago
@mphello Correct. That's why the first computer models they did DIDN'T MATCH the official government conspiracy theory, so they distorted the data until it had nor eesemblance to the facts and their bogus model was passed off as science, which it is not.I would donate, as would millions of Americans, to raise funds to create a 2-story replica that matches all the dynamics and recreate it. I would place large bets on it not falling down, not falling straight down, and not falling in 10 seconds.
2012newrevolution 1 month ago
@2012newrevolution And that's why (what I said about computer models being the 2nd best form of proof for such a complex event) the computer models as presented on NOVA prove the official government conspiracy theory (which it is - it was a conspiracy, a theory, and a fact). Whereas you have offered zero evidence of your wild claims of fraud.
mphello 1 month ago
@mphello Ooh, NOVA. Theey're right up there with Discovery Channel, Fox News, and E.T. for scientific authority. HAHA. "Wild claims?" LMAO. I'm not here to be your private Special Needs tutor, I've done my research, and so have scientists and professionals with credentials you'll never have if you don't stop commenting mindlessly and start reading something. The only wild claim is yours that anything in the 911 Commission Report and NIST remotely resembles an investigation or science.
2012newrevolution 1 month ago
what this guy is using is not comparible to the towers cant finish the vid sry
wally810ft 3 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV
"Maybe explain what is WRONG with a certain experiment on this video."
No problem. As the mass of the falling block is inreasing during WTC's collapse, there are no CONSTANT masses m_1 and m_2 in the over-simplified inelastic collision equation. So the premise of the experiment is wrong. A pretty embarrassing mistake to be honest.
In our little WTC scenario, m_1 would be best described by a time-based function. Just applied mechanis, no place for match box playing here.
NotableJInx2 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kill0Your0TV
"Maybe explain what is WRONG with a certain experiment on this video."
No problem. As the mass of the falling block is inreasing during WTC's collapse, there are no CONSTANT masses m_1 and m_2 in the over-simplified inelastic collision equation. So the premise of the experiment is wrong. A pretty embarrassing mistake to be honest.
In our little WTC scenario, m_1 would be best described by a time-based function. Just applied mechanis, no place for match box playing here.
NotableJInx2 4 months ago
Comment removed
NotableJInx2 4 months ago
This video is another example of typical truther fail, thanks @phyandreason Funny to see no-planers credited in the vid btw :D
What you don't realize is that the mass of the falling block is inreasing. There are no CONSTANT masses m_1 and m_2 in your over-simplified inelastic collision equation. Therefore the premise of the experiment is wrong, sry.
In our little WTC scenario, m_1 would be best described by a time-based function. (which frankly, every high-school kid will understand...)
NotableJInx2 4 months ago
Comment removed
NotableJInx2 4 months ago in playlist Weitere Videos von physicsandreason
This has been flagged as spam show
Excellent video."Debunkers" owned.
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
Comment removed
NotableJInx2 4 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
There is absolutely no way in hell those planes brought down the buildings.
KungFriedChicken 4 months ago
@KungFriedChicken You're absolutely right. It actually was the combination of impact damage and fires which brought them down.
Asylum31 4 months ago
@Asylum31 To an imbecile maybe.
KungFriedChicken 4 months ago
@KungFriedChicken Coming from you, I'll take those as compliments.
Asylum31 4 months ago
@Asylum31 I think the official story technique is to annoy the shit out of logic..
KungFriedChicken 4 months ago
@KungFriedChicken In what way?
Asylum31 4 months ago
Comment removed
NotableJInx2 4 months ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@NotableJInx2 Maybe you can make a Youtube video and prove him wrong? Of course you can't. :-)
Goodbye.
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Why does he need to make a video to prove this wrong?
Asylum31 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31
I have no clue either, believe me :D
These conspiracy freaks act under the strange dogma that until NIST hasn't compressed its 10000 page report on 9/11 into a fancy little youtube video, the report is plain and simply a diabolic lie meant to brainwash the whole nation.
(btw, I clearly pointed what's wrong with this video, I guess my comment was one or two classes of applied mechanics too much for our conspiracy friend..)
NotableJInx2 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31 Because all he does is shoot his mouth off but proves nothing. Make a youtube video explaining his theory like this individual did. But he can't and won't because he's full of it.
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago 3
@Kill0Your0TV Aside from your personal opinion of him, my question was (and still is) why does he have to make a video? Why isn't simply discussing it sufficient?
Asylum31 4 months ago
@Asylum31 Simple, because nobody has shown the NIST theories in a real experiment. "Physicsandreason" uses real experiments to prove his points. To this day I haven't seen anyone disprove his experiments, let alone with a real experiment. All talk, no action.
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Actually, yes they have. The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center proved in an experiment that jet fuel burns hot enough to cause steel beams to weaken and collapse.
Asylum31 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31 That's nice. How about Building 7? The official theories are plain ridiculous. "Physicsandreason" shows that gravitational collapse on that day is impossible. Physics don't lie. His experiments don't lie. 911 shills do.
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Damage plus fire caused the collapses of Towers 1 and 2. Tower 7 was no different. It received damage during WTC 1's collapse. It then caught on fire in several parts of the building. These fires burned for many hours until they weakened the building enough and it collapsed.
The results of his experiment can only be as good as the experiment itself, and if you think that dropping a solid block of ice onto another solid block of ice is a valid model of the collapses...
Asylum31 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31 Yea, I know. That's the official story; heard it a thousand times. These experiments prove them wrong. Maybe explain what is WRONG with a certain experiment on this video.
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV The premise that he is trying to get across is that the the collapsing sections should have been slowed by the lower portions of the buildings. But you would only need to argue this point if you believed that the collapses happened at free-fall speed. WTC's 1 and 2 were ~1,360 ft high, the calculated fall time for an object from that height is 9.2 seconds. Videos of the collapses put the times at ~12 seconds (20-25 seconds if you count the inner cores which remained standing for a
Asylum31 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV short period of time after. WTC 7 was 610 ft high, the calculated fall time for that is 6.2 seconds. The collapse of the East Penthouse is the first visible evidence that the building is undergoing structural failure internally. Several seconds later, the rest of the building collapsed with very little resistance due to much of the structural support having already collapsed previously. Therefore, the buildings did not collapse in a free-fall and his premise reflects reality.
Asylum31 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV However, he also to uses this experiment in an attempt to accurately model the collapses. And a solid block of ice, even including its proportional shape, has very little in common with a 110 story skyscraper.
Asylum31 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31 The laws of motion are still the same. A small object will not completely destroy a much larger object when hitting it. Also, there must be a "jolt", or slowdown when the two collide. This didn't happen at all with the the twin towers. The official story is impossible.
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV The problem with applying that to the Towers is that a building isn't an object in that sense, it's a structure made up of many smaller objects. And many of those smaller parts survived the collapse relatively intact (the perimeter columns, for example), but the overall structure did not.
The calculated fall time and the observed collapse times that I listed prove that it did happen, even though it wasn't to the degree that you think it should have been.
Asylum31 4 months ago
@Asylum31 Then you can make a video and prove your theory? So far I've seen absolutely nothing that explains the non "jolt" and the complete destruction of both towers via experiment. Nature can't be fooled.
The hypothesis that is the most likely is controlled demolition.
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Why do I have to make a video? The times I listed prove that it happened even if it isn't easily visible.
There has yet to be any evidence that supports the controlled demolition claim.
Asylum31 4 months ago
@Asylum31 You mean you can prove the "jolt" happened using the available video, or another video?
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Yes. Any video of the complete collapses (with the exception of the inner columns, which I noted earlier) shows that it took ~12 seconds for the Towers to collapse and proves that it happened even if it isn't obvious.
I should note that what you are using is called the argument from incredulity, and it is fallacious.
Asylum31 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31 Really? I guess I'll just take your word that it did?
Seriously, you can easily make a video proving your points then, using WTC video, right?
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Do you only accept proof in the form of video? I'm sure there are plenty already on here which document the collapse times. As for the calculated fall times, it's a calculation. The buildings were 1,360 feet tall. I've already provided the answer, 9.2 seconds. But if you don't believe me, feel free to perform the calculation for yourself.
Asylum31 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31 What has that got to do with the lack of the "jolt"? Nothing. Where is the jolt of the top part of the building hitting the bottom part of the building?
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Another fallacy. This time it's a strawman. I said that the "jolt" is there, but it isn't blatantly visible. And the different times prove it.
Asylum31 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31 Then prove it. You'll be the first.
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV I already have, but it isn't my fault or problem if you refuse to accept that. Nor am I the first, not by a long shot.
Asylum31 4 months ago
Comment removed
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31 You have? Where? Is it somewhere in this comment thread? Is there another video that proves this "jolt"? Can you point me to it?
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Yes, it's in this comment thread.
Asylum31 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31 Well you must be pretty modest for not showing this to everyone at the drop of a hat. I know I would.
So these times prove a "jolt"? How? Mind explaining a little further?
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV The "jolt" is just the lower portions of the structures providing resistance against the collapsing upper portions. If the Towers had collapsed in ~9.2 seconds, the calculated time it takes for an object to fall 1,360 feet, that would mean that the Towers experienced no resistance (i.e. no "jolt"). Since the Towers actually collapsed in ~12 seconds (with the exceptions of the inner cores with stood for several more seconds), that means they did experience resistance (i.e. a jolt).
Asylum31 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31 LOL! Are you serious? There was no "jolt" when the upper tower hit the lower tower. It's plain to see in the video. That's the whole problem.
One object hitting another object ALWAYS experiences a "jolt". The reason it didn't is because there was no resistance. There is no way around that :-)
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV The times prove there was a "jolt", even if you can't see it.
Asylum31 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31 The live video of the event says you're wrong.
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV How so?
Asylum31 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31 Because there's no jolt, no slowdown. Impossible.
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Incorrect, there is a "jolt". If the Towers had collapsed without experiencing any resistance (i.e. no "jolt"), then they would have collapsed in ~9.2 seconds. Since the Towers actually took ~12 seconds to collapse (minus the inner cores), that means they did experience resistance during the collapses (i.e. a jolt). It doesn't matter if you can see it or not, the times prove that it happened. Why are you having such a difficult time understanding this?
Asylum31 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31 Why don't the 911 physicists (or anyone else competent for that matter) agree with you? The jolt should of happened when the top of the building would hit the undamaged bottom part of the building. There is no jolt. It clear as day in this video. What don't you understand?
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV I am in agreement with physicists. The "jolt" happened, even if you can't see it. The times prove it. Do you understand what fallacious arguments are? Because you're using argument from incredulity again.
Asylum31 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31
"The "jolt" happened, even if you can't see it. "
You can't see it because it never happened. The video is right in front of you. You can see the top hit the bottom structure without a jolt.
"Do you understand what fallacious arguments are? "
Yes. It's what you're doing.
The building coming down in 12 seconds has nothing to do with the (missing) jolt at the top.
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Actually, the ~12 seconds prove it happened. The reason you can't see it is because there is no reference point to look at. If you dropped an object right next to the roof of the Towers, at the moment they started to collapse, the object would be even with the roof until the building had collapsed far enough to reach the next floor down (~10 feet). After that, the object would surge ahead of the roof, and the gap would only continue to get wider. That's what the times prove.
Asylum31 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Really? Please tell me what type of logical fallacy I am committing so I can correct myself.
Asylum31 4 months ago
@Asylum31 Forget it, buddy. I'm not playing little games with you any longer. You want to live in denial (or as a shill) that's your business.
Maybe watch 0:58 - 1:08 a couple hundred more times until you get it. There is no jolt. The top part of the building speeds up. But I doubt reality will have any change in someone like you.
Goodbye.
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Sorry, but I proved myself ten times over. If you don't want to accept the evidence, that's fine with me.
Asylum31 4 months ago
@Asylum31 plus... just looking at the debris falling will tell you the buildings did not fall at free fall speed. The debris is falling FASTER and is AHEAD of the collapsing building. The debris hits the ground before the building does. If both were at free fall speed then they would have hit the ground at the same time. 12 seconds is a bit slow...I have approx.18 seconds(34 sec for outer support they were left) for North, approx. 16sec for South, and 15-18 for 7. either way...not free falls
lcspies 4 months ago
@lcspies 7 did fall at free fall speed. No denying that. You can see the building the whole time during the collapse.
fustraton 4 months ago
@fustraton Incorrect. Only the first ~2 seconds of the main structure's collapse attained free-fall speed and it happened in the middle of the entire collapse.
Asylum31 4 months ago
@Asylum31 No, I'm talking about 7 WTC.
fustraton 4 months ago
@fustraton So am I. The first visible sign of collapse was when the East Penthouse collapsed. Then several seconds later, the main structure collapsed. When this happened, for ~2 seconds, the building was in free-fall. The whole building, however, was not in a free-fall for the entire collapse.
Asylum31 4 months ago
@Asylum31 The whole building was freefall, not just one part of it (or the east penthouse or whatever the fuck that is). Why do you put ~2 btw?
fustraton 4 months ago
@fustraton If you don't know what the East Penthouse was, you are not informed enough to even be taking part in this debate, but I digress. The East Mechanical Penthouse was one of two structures on the roof of WTC 7 (the other being the West Penthouse). When the building started to collapse, the East Penthouse was the first thing to go. The rest of the building, including the West Penthouse, remained intact for several seconds and then it too collapsed.
Asylum31 4 months ago
@Asylum31 Let's also say several miliseconds later. And the whole lot, including the east penthouse took about 2 seconds to collapse.
fustraton 4 months ago
@fustraton WTC 7 was 610 feet tall. An object in free-fall from that height is calculated to take about 6.2 seconds to reach the ground. Although if you disagree with my math, feel free to perform the calculation yourself.
Every video of the collapse of the building (excluding the East Penthouse earlier) shows that the collapse happens in 7-8 seconds. Over 15 seconds if time starts when the Penthouse collapses.
Either you're extremely misinformed or you are lying. Which is it?
Asylum31 4 months ago
@Asylum31 You are lying. I've counted the 3 main videos of the 7 WTC collapse. They all take about 2-3 seconds. You must be misinformed.
fustraton 4 months ago
@fustraton I'd love for you to send me a link to one of those videos, because, as I proved earlier, what you are suggesting is physically impossible.
Asylum31 4 months ago
@Asylum31 Physically impossible? Search WTC 7 collapse on youtube.
fustraton 4 months ago
@fustraton Yes, it is physically impossible for WTC 7 to have collapsed in 2-3 seconds because, if it was in a free-fall during the entire collapse, the shortest amount of time it could have taken is 6.2 seconds.
Watch this one, then. watch?v=_kSq663m0G8 , I counted at least six seconds before the building disappeared behind the dust cloud, and it still had some distance it needed to cover before reaching the ground.
Asylum31 4 months ago
@fustraton
failing @ such a basic fact makes all your further caims laughable.
It's like you want to talk about the integration of a rotational epiped, when you still belive 1+1=3.
Tsutomu6 3 months ago
@Tsutomu6 Im not stupid. 1+1 = 2. Its just in your pathetic mind that you believe everything told to you. I don't understand how you cant question the original events.
fustraton 3 months ago
@fustraton
I question your claim: "I've counted the 3 main videos of the 7 WTC collapse. They all take about 2-3 seconds."
And because you fail to understand why this time is impossible for a total collapse time, it's easy to understand why you fail to understand that I question the original events.
Tsutomu6 3 months ago
@Tsutomu6 they do
fustraton 3 months ago
@fustraton
and that tells us... what?
Tsutomu6 3 months ago
@Tsutomu6 that they take 2-3 seconds.
fustraton 3 months ago
@fustraton
That is the part where NIST had do admit freefall. But since X(t)=X0+v(t)*t and v(t)=v0+a(t)*t and a(t)=const., x(t)=a/2*t² or t=sqrt(2*buildingheigt/gravityacceleration) which is about 6 seconds for WTC7.
So IF you say, total collapse time is less than 6 seconds, you say it had to be controlled demolition AND someone increased gravityacceleration.
Tsutomu6 3 months ago
@Tsutomu6 Dude. That is bollocks.
fustraton 3 months ago
it took less than 6 seconds.
fustraton 3 months ago
@fustraton
Great. Then you disagree with NIST. You say "no resistance", there for CD.
Tsutomu6 3 months ago
@Tsutomu6 ?
fustraton 3 months ago
@fustraton You never did provide a link to a video which proves your claim of 2-3 seconds. I, however, did provide one which proves my claim of at least 6 seconds, not to mention that the math supports me as well.
Asylum31 3 months ago
@Asylum31 I have counted it and it is around 2-3 seconds. Proove to me it was not a controlled demolition. The building is the same distance (approximately) from 1 WTC as 1 Liberty Plaza Building from 2 WTC. Both going over another building. How did one building of 47 floors collapse yet a building of just 7 floors more not. The WFC buildings didn't collapse. Haven't you realised it was only the WTC buildings that were taken down (exceptions for the bankers trust building). Proove me wrong plz.
fustraton 3 months ago
@fustraton Again, provide a link which proves that, until you do, the link I gave proving at least 6 seconds stands uncontested.
Explosives can not be seen or heard going off prior to or during the collapses. In addition, none of the thousands of people at ground zero found a single piece of evidence from any explosive device.
The collapses were not uniform, therefore, being the same approximate distance away does not mean that they received similar damage.
Asylum31 3 months ago
@fustraton The building was made using a different design structure, meaning that even if the two had been hit in exactly the same way, it might react differently to the damage than WTC 7 did. This building only suffered broken windows and light facade damage; It never caught on fire, which is what eventually lead to the collapse of WTC 7.
Asylum31 3 months ago
@Asylum31 Why did 1 Liberty Plaza and the WFC buildings not catch fire then.
fustraton 3 months ago
@fustraton For the same reason it didn't sustain much damage. The collapses, not being uniform, did not disperse burning debris in equal amounts in all directions. In addition, because it didn't sustain much damage, there wasn't as big of a chance for burning debris to get inside to start a fire.
Asylum31 3 months ago
@fustraton According to NIST, when the rest of the building collapsed, for the first 2.25 seconds of its collapse it was in a free-fall. Not the entire time the rest was collapsing.
"~2 seconds" means "approximately 2 seconds". I said that because 2.25, when rounded, is approximately 2.
Asylum31 4 months ago
@Asylum31 The whole 47 story building took about 2 secs to collapse.
fustraton 4 months ago
@fustraton I was speaking about 1 and 2 and WTC 7 only fell at free fall for 2.2 seconds.
lcspies 4 months ago
@lcspies I agree that it took longer, but I was arguing for the lowest time boundary that I could find for a reason.
Asylum31 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31 Yeah but remember you're a knob jockey..
KungFriedChicken 4 months ago
@Asylum31
I don't recall seeing much smoke (thus no fire) below the impact zones of towers 1 and 2. So what exactly made the lower floors weaker than the upper floors?
Robert697 4 months ago
@Robert697 The fires caused the initiation of the collapse.
It's not that the lower floors were weaker, it's that they weren't strong enough to withstand the force from the impact of the falling upper floors.
Asylum31 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV As for lying, well, I haven't. So I don't know why you brought it up.
"911 shills do". Nice ad hominem.
Asylum31 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31 Never said you lied, did I?
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
Comment removed
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NotableJInx2
The materials used should not be an issue as long as the physics are correct. Brian Cox determined the radiant energy of the sun using an umbrella, thermometer and a bucket of water.
Just curious what you would have done differently to demonstrate the proper physics involved in this experiment.
chocomalk 4 months ago
@chocomalk If you're only trying to exhibit the general concept of a falling object slowing, stopping or being deflected when it hits a stationary object, then no, the materials don't matter. But if you're trying to accurately model the collapses, then they absolutely do matter.
What would I do? Build a scale structure out of materials that would give the model the exact strength to mass ratio as the Towers.
Asylum31 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31
I think that is what he is doing here, just to describe the physics, and he did so well in my opinion all things considered.
I would also build a structure that represents the WTC, and I think given the time and money so would many, including the poster of this video. The real question is why didn't NIST?
It would have been simple for them.
chocomalk 4 months ago
@chocomalk NIST was concerned with figuring out why the buildings collapsed, not why they collapsed the way they did. Other groups have gone on to explain the latter. They probably feel that it has been satisfactorily explained and that there is no reason to keep dwelling on it. As you said, it would be difficult and expensive to do so. Not to mention that the types of people the demonstrations would be aimed at convincing would readily accept something from an "official source" anyway.
Asylum31 4 months ago
@Asylum31
1
What other "groups"? And how did they explain this?
I don't doubt that inertia would have brought the towers down, and I think most accept this at least in essence. Yet there remains a portion of three collapses that don't seem to fit into the normal realm of things.
For an average person it would be difficult and expensive, for someone tasked with the job and given 3-4 years it would have been easier and less expensive than some of the tests NIST did. Many of their tests..
Cont
chocomalk 4 months ago
@chocomalk The Civil Engineering Department from Northwestern University in Illinois published an in depth review of the collapse.
There was nothing strange about the handling of the steel according to the people who had to do it.
Asylum31 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31
1.
The Bazant article really does what NIST does, it shows that collapse was possible and likely inevitable.
Phrasing like "Unlikely though such a distribution may be," followed by careful wording/formula is on par with NIST equating input data with proprietary data to withhold its methods on legal grounds. The paper was to be checked against NIST models, that input data is unavailable thus unverifiable and could be the math presented in the paper itself resulting in a huge...
Cont
chocomalk 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Asylum31
2.
...conflict of interests. As much as having the "proprietary" code would be nice, knowing what was input/when vs what was not would resolve much dispute.
There is visual/exif/witness evidence of steel exposed to the elements for at least a year, rain, snow, moss accumulated on the metal. Hardly controlled conditions, NIST has a huge jpeg folder of the steel on their site.
chocomalk 4 months ago
@Asylum31
2.
...were actually redundant, as we already knew what fire can do, what temperatures steel looses strength at, what to expect from gases released by office contents etc...all this to go with someone else explanation in the end.
As far as their methodology is concerned, I take issues with some of it. One being the lack of review of FEMAs metallurgical analysis, the storage of the steel itself is questionable. The biggest obstacle in all of this was the Bush admin, before and after.
chocomalk 4 months ago
Comment removed
NotableJInx2 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HE JUST PROVED THAT ALL MOMS BASEMENT D FLUNKERS ARE UNEDUCATED U TUBE TROLLS. CALLING A EXPERT A RETARD PROVES NOTABLJX2 IS A IMMATURE CHILD WHO IGNORES SCIENCE/PHYSICS !!!!!!!! A+ ON YOUR VIDEO AND PROVING IT WITH SCIENCE UNLIKE THE NIST THEORY. AE911TRUTH ORG, GO
Headshothorror4488 4 months ago
Comment removed
NotableJInx2 4 months ago
Perfectly irrelevant.
imbok 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THIS MAN IS A ENGINEER USING SCIENCE AND PHYSICS !!!! NO U TUBE TROLL CAN EVEN SPEAK AGAINST HIM. HE IS A EXPERT BACKED BY THOUSANDS OF EXPERTS AND LAWS OF PHYSICS + MORE THEN 60% USA PEOPLE AGREE WITH AE911 EXPERTS + MANY MANY FIREMEN AND SOME 911 FAMILYS, FACT !!!! UNEDUCATED TROLLS FAIL !!!!
Headshothorror4488 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THIS UNEDUCATED U TUBE TROLL NOTABLJX2 JUST CALLED A EXPERT ENGINEER WITH A DEGREE A RETARD AHAHAHHAHAHAHA. FAIL !!! HE IS A TROLL ON U TUBE WITH NO DEGREE CALLING EXPERTS RETARDS , THESE ARE YOUR MOMS BASEMENT D-FLUNKERS !!!! THIS GIRL DIDNT KNOW HE WAS A ENGINEER DID SHE LOLL IGNORANT TROLL
Headshothorror4488 4 months ago
2:53
NeverOwned 4 months ago
Comment removed
NotableJInx2 4 months ago 2
Comment removed
NotableJInx2 4 months ago
Comment removed
NotableJInx2 4 months ago
I don't believe in conspiracies. The simplest answers are usually correct. I am not interested in politics or possible motives. However, nobody is addressing the central point here. Something terrible happened to those three buildings on that day with no convincing argument why they collapsed at freefall speed. Even if the steel central support columns on the lower floors had become like cardboard (ignore why for now), they would still pose enough resistance to slow the top below freefall speed
hasski 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hasski The thing is that they didn't collapse at free-fall speed and there is plenty of visual evidence to confirm this.
Asylum31 4 months ago 9
Perhaps you could try those experiments again with a scale model or using layered structures with central support columns to mimic those of the wtc buildings.
Using solid blocks isn't a proper way to do this experiment and thus your conclusions are invalid.
If you're going to do an experiment like this, do it properly and from a neutral viewpoint.
redeadnixon 4 months ago
ONCE AGAIN, let's test the premise of this video.
Let's drop a car on a 9/11 Truther, and find out if the falling
car TIP-TOES around his head to find the LEGENDARY
"Path of Least Resistance". Debunkers propose that a
falling car would piledrive right thru the Truthers body,
accelerating as it fell, without explosives, Microscopic
explosives, Fairy Dust, or Science Fiction Technology.
Boy, are we radical.
Merlin5by5 4 months ago
you stupid truthers.....regular laws of physics does not apply to WTC....those towers obey the new awesome laws ie., bazant's laws of durka durr.
I mean...come on...he wrote gazillion books. So nature is a bitch for Dr.Bazant.
If he says you can fart your way to the moon with his awesome complicated equations...you better believe it.
batshitcrazy007 4 months ago
@batshitcrazy007
Too bad you don't know what laws of physics apply anyways. The WTC tower
pretty obviously obey Bazants physics better than the Abbott and Costello
physics you believe in. SO, if you got a complaint about Bazant's mathematics,
return to the report, point out EXACTLY which of his conclusions are wrong,
and work out the math right here in front of us. Lets face it, you don't know
math beyond the stomping of one of your hooves.
Merlin5by5 4 months ago
@Merlin5by5 First of all math has a little value here when proper physics isn't used in the first place.
And his paper only deals with the progression of the collapse once the intial collapse of the storey damaged by aircraft impact starts,
which was supposed to be explained by the NIST.
But ofcourse NIST's analysis is anything but proper science.Instead of basing their input data on physical evidence and experiments,
they have relied on adjusting their input to get the desired result.
contd..
batshitcrazy007 4 months ago
@Merlin5by5 contd..
And since we are talking about bazant here...his model clearly says he is as curious as NIST to get his desired result in the form of equations...but in the process of acheiving it, he makes assumptions that makes no physical sense.
contd...
batshitcrazy007 4 months ago
@Merlin5by5 contd...
He assumes that, after the initiation of the collapse, only the columns in the storey being impacted dessipates the energy of the falling mass
and that the structure below that storey essentially acts as a rigid body. And ofcourse the top mass which is essentially the same structure and takes
the same impact force(newton's 3rd law) does not dessipate any energy(?), which implies he considering it as a rigid body also.
contd...
batshitcrazy007 4 months ago
@Merlin5by5 contd...
So basically he takes one storey and puts it on the ground and drops a rigid mass equal to the top 15 storeys on it from a height equal to 2 storeys.
That is just ridiculous....
batshitcrazy007 4 months ago
This video shows that when mass1 hits mass2, MASS1 SLOWS DOWN!
The upper portion of the towers do NOT slow down. They do not slow down AT ALL. They don't fall some, slow down, then accelerate... THEY DO NOT SLOW AT ALL
Jebus495 4 months ago
@Jebus495
Well, do you think Explosives, or Thermite / Thermate would make the building
fall faster, and the Mass would NOT slow down? How does THAT make sense.
The FACT is that if you drop a heavy enough weight, and it falls fast enough,
it will crush the structure under it, and if their is any speed left, it will accelerate
thru the structure. Get used to it, Bunky, that's NOT going to change.
Explosives and Microscopic paint melting steel if for Children and Drug fantasies.
Merlin5by5 4 months ago
@Merlin5by5 I didn't say shit about bombs or thermite. Honestly, I don't know what the fuck happened to those buildings but what I do know is that the official report on their collapse fails miserably. And yes bombs WOULD make the building fall faster. Compare controlled demo of a steel structure to that of a steel framed structure that falls without explosives. The speed of collapse is VERY different. I don't know what caused those towers to fall but it wasn't planes or fires.
Jebus495 4 months ago
@Jebus495
You're right on about Bazant's bizarre notions - he's wrong on the physics and wrong on the facts.
proudfootz 4 months ago
@Jebus495
BE SPECIFIC. How does the NIST and FEMA report fail miserably?
What part of Bazant's heavily math supported argument can you correct?
DO THE MATH, there Kooktard. SHOW US your solution.
Because, let's face it, we both know you can't. Neither can your hastily
googled Twoofer references. Bazant's Modeling follows standard physical
modeling. HE DOES NOT model the structure as a rigid body, in fact,
SEVERAL math lines (page 7) are in polar moments of Inertia,
that deal with crumpling.
Merlin5by5 4 months ago
@Merlin5by5 " HE DOES NOT model the structure as a rigid body,"
Following is one of his assumptions for his continuum model:
2) Energy is dissipated only
at the crushing front this implies that the blocks in Fig. 2 may be
treated as rigid, i.e., the deformations of the blocks away from the
crushing front may be neglected.
So who is retard/kooktard now? May be you ought to read his paper properly and understand it and then argue...stupid fuck!
batshitcrazy007 4 months ago
@Jebus495
LMAO, Bombs make a building fall faster? On what planet? The whole point is
that on earth, EVERYTHING FALLS at the same acceleration. Even YOU, right
now, at zero velocity. That's what weight is, Mass at ONE G acceleration.
The Lower structure in ALL the WTC towers was under the same acceleration.
That's what gave IT weight. The ONLY thing that resists this is STRUCTURE.
When the structure failed at impact of the upper block, NO Mysterious
explosions are needed, Fella. NO CD there
Merlin5by5 4 months ago
@Merlin5by5
You seem to be seriously confused.
CD is used to bring buildings down - to eliminate the 'resistance' of the STRUCTURE.
proudfootz 4 months ago
@proudfootz
Sorry, Controlled Demolition is used to remove the REMNANTS of buildings.
The resistance of the structure is broken before hand. The STRUCTURE
fails before any movement or collapse happens, Dumbshit.
IF the structure was still there, no movement would happen at all.
Merlin5by5 4 months ago
@Merlin5by5 Hey dumb fuck...what he really is trying to say is that your example is how a natural collapse is supposed to be....uneven partial collapse. That's how steel structures behave in a natural collapse.
And floor by floor... from top to bottom...even-collapse that we saw in the case of WTC is unnatural.
Got it? you thick skulled moron!
batshitcrazy007 4 months ago
@batshitcrazy007
Well, GEE, Piss Ant Pussy, did you find a natural collapse that's different?
How many skyscraper collapses that fell differently do you have?
The ONLY two 110 story skyscrapers that have collapsed, fell EXACTLY
the same way, even though they were struck at 2 DIFFERENT points.
From TWO different directions, and in 2 different manners.
I would say that's 100% of skyscrapers falling that way. DUH.
Why didn't they differ?
Merlin5by5 4 months ago
@Merlin5by5 Hey faggot...you already made too many dumb statements. All you got is profanities..no understanding of physics whatsoever.
Haven't you embarrassed yourselves enough already?
And the collapse of those two towers didn't differ because they were controlled demolitions.
Stupid fuck...I wasted my time already with you.....and I thought you really had any understanding of physics when you challenged...you turned out to be a moron
batshitcrazy007 4 months ago
@batshitcrazy007
All his 'global collapse models' turned out to be plane crashes and fires.
proudfootz 4 months ago
@batshitcrazy007
Trust me little faggot, I plan to treat you with the same contempt and disgust
you treat George Bush, Dick Cheney, the US government, and every science
organization on the planet with. Where is YOUR PHYSICS, YOUR MATH?
Why would controlled demolitions begin on TWO different floors, but end
up with the SAME RESULTS? Just because you have your head up
Richard Gage's Ass, don't expect the world to join you.
You seriously think I AM YOUR PROBLEM? Try your shit with ANY engineer.
Merlin5by5 4 months ago