Now that I wasted my time watching this entire video, I must say, you need to perform the correct experiments to prove your case. First off weight and force are 2 different things! All you show is that an object's "apparent weight" as it falls is less than when static. (Well of course it is when the force is not being exerted on the object). But of course when your brick does hit the scale the force "apparent weight" is way greater than it's static weight (force) Why didn't you do...
@bubbasteve8 Why didn't you do an experiment where you first weigh the brick you used just sitting on the scale, then drop it straight on the scale and see if the needle jumps higher than where it sat when the brick sat on top in a static state?
This whole video proves that either your theory is wrong or your experiments are wrong because for the quote @ 1:14 to be true, than everything we know about physics would have to be re-written!
@bubbasteve8 The problem with your experiments is that you are relying on the lower portion of tower being able to have an upward force as great as the upper body's original static weight. (which makes sense) But the problem with that is you CANNOT treat the entire tower as one single structural member. It was a complex system of structural members consisting of steel columns, beams, girders, and concrete slabs. Of those, columns are the only ones that bare load down to the foundation...
@bubbasteve8 And when columns at the floors of impacts failed (and became detached), the upper portion (body) started to fall, the odds of all the columns landing back on all lower columns perfectly vertically was virtually impossible and did not happen. And concrete slabs on floor trusses (fancy beams) are not designed to hold columns, especially ones falling on them along with a 15 to 29 story building attached. The trusses had no chance, they detach. Now initially the trusses helped keep..
@bubbasteve8 columns from tilting sideways, but now that the trusses are gone, eventually the falling debris just tips over, bends over, and simply knock these columns out of place. (watch the tower collapses, you can see tons and tons of exterior columns being pushed outward and disconnect from the towers) Now anyone who has studied structural engineering knows that a column can bare a much greater load applied axially than it could with the same load applied at an angle causing a bending load.
@bubbasteve8 Here is a simple understanding. Take 2 un-sharpened pencils out of a bran new box. Place one across a span between to blocks with only about a 1/2 inch or so on either block like a bridge. Take a your hand (or a hammer) and gently strike down on top of it in the middle of it's span. hit it harder until it breaks (to be accurate, use a new pencil for every strike). Then take a pencil and hole it vertically so it will not tilt or fall (you can use a vice) and strike straight down...
@bubbasteve8 into the top end of the pencil (Please do not use your hand, unless you do at your own risk!) with a hammer with about the same amount of force, then double the force each time until it breaks. (be sure to strike perfectly straight down into the pencil as to apply only an axial load) you will find, even without a scale, that it takes much more force to break it applied axially than when applied in bending (hitting the pencil across the span). Common sense will tell you this...
@bubbasteve8 Thus if it took much less force to bend and push those columns over than what force they could support, then those columns would not exert all of there potential strength upwards as force into the upper portion of building falling on them. Also it is clearly seen in a few videos of the north tower collapse that many core columns stayed standing well over the height of WTC 7 (47 stories tall). Thus many of these columns simply pierced through the upper body as it fell over these...
@bubbasteve8 lower columns. This makes sense because again the upper portion would fall onto the columns, and odds are that most of these columns would have a slab and or trusses land on their top somewhat axially, and again concrete slabs and trusses will not take more than these columns could, so it was kind of like a human falling flat face down on a 8' vertical spike (or even flat edged rebar) that is half berried in the ground. The human will definitely get impaled.
@bubbasteve8 In conclusion. The lower portion of building could NOT and did NOT properly exert all of it's possible upwards force into the upper portion of falling tower. The columns being pushed outward away from the tower, and the columns that stood for several seconds after the tower hit the ground, as we see on video, proves it. In this video you can see some core columns standing after the upper portions falls past @ 0:12 watch?v=nIZp6aOibiM&feature=related
@bubbasteve8 Here is a better video showing multiple shots of these core columns, the second angle @ 0:24 shows the top of WTC 7 on the left which was 47 stories watch?v=7W0-W582fNQ&feature=related
According to this video David Chandler states @ 1:14 "As long as the roof line.."(pause vid for full quote). You serious? Newton would be rolling in his grave if he heard this nonsense! Ok class, everyone in their seats, this is simple. 1st off "static" means "not moving". 2nd, any third grader can tell you that jumping on a small board across a span will be more likely to break as apposed to just standing on it (FACT). That is common sense physics!
@bubbasteve8 That shows that a mass with momentum downwards exerts MORE (not less) force that it's own static weight. So here is a question for you class! Lets say you take a Honda accord, then take a 15 pound bowling ball and gently set it on the roof, use a couple pencils or something so it does not roll, (that is a static 15 pounds) Now take the bowling ball and drop it from 10 ft above the car landing on top of said car. Which would do more damage? (obviously the same ball dropped from 10'!
@bubbasteve8 Therefore it is physically impossible that his quote above could be true. How could the upper portion exert less force to the building below when falling than it would have if it were just sitting there like it did for over 30 years? The answer is it could not! And the fact that it accelerated has nothing to do with it, just the fact that it is moving at a speed, well more than static, proves it will exert more force than it's own static weight. Just like jumping on a stick...
When a moving object collides with a stationary object, the result is the same no matter which object was moving or which object was stationary. Imagine that building moving 500 mph and hitting the stationary plane.
Excellent presentation of what really happened. The tops of the buildings accelerated through their own supports near the speed of gravity. Clearly demonstrating these buildings were demolished from within. Which leads one to conclude 911 was an inside job.
Just laugh at the JooDoe physicists and disinfo agents (igykallen) infesting all these forums. The church of the lying media is being exposed.
You managed to contradict yourself. You say the scale weighs less UNTIL it's hit with the jack. Later you say that the force would be less when the building comes down. It can't be both. The floors coming down would also add to the mass and thus force. You're bowling ball didn't increase in mass as it went down.
You failed to accurately recreate the physics you don't understand anyway.
I tried an experiment based on your interpertaion of newton's laws. I took a plane of glass and placed a baseball on it. The weight (force) was not enough to break the glass. So then I dropped the ball from an airplane until it reached terminal velocity, thus becoming weightless. According to YOU the FORCE should have been less (zero even), yet the glass broke anyway. I wonder what I did wrong?
btw nice barn you got there. But I think you should stick to milking cows.
@igykalen Well, well... look who slithered in here with his disinfo? Unlike you and your wretched ilk, "911 truthers" don't need to "pre-approve" their postings on their videos. Go back under your rock.
@Kill0Your0TV My "disinfo" is wrong how? No surprise you can't explain why.
I set it to approve since youtube doesn't inform me of every post made and sometimes I won't notice a post till weeks later. The pre-approve is the only way I have of knowing when I get new post when I scan for them.
This guy can't understand the basic flaw in his experiment that others have pointed out as well. People like him and you have such a weak understanding of basic physics, it's ridiculous.
@Kill0Your0TV No, for being incredibly stupid and unable to address anything I had said other than to just point to various videos. If you're unwilling to acknowledge my answers (see above), then why should I bother. You've already made up your mind and are best suited on sites like these.
I also don't work for FEMA and the FEMA report was a preliminary one. You should refer to the NIST as it's more relevant. Your question doesn't even make sense anyway, as usual.
@Kill0Your0TV Simple they wrote the report already aware of what caused the buildings to collapse. That's why they didn't look for explosives destroyed all of the evidence and then ignored any witness statements or facts which didn't match with their story.
No. It wasn't the spelling of "weight". You didn't seem to understand that it is the deceleration that is important, not the velocity during the fall. The whole point about the TT is that the smaller "block" falling onto the larger "block" didn't slow down as it descended. Not only was your baseball made of entirely different materials with different properties to your glass, but I will GUARANTEE that it slowed when it broke the glass - I expect it bounced off (2)
(2) rather than continuing through the sheet of glass. Did it? Of course, if you are seriously suggesting that your baseball would be travelling at "terminal velocity" you might as well use a bullet and claim that is analogous to the top of the building falling a few floors. It isn't. That you don't understand that is a problem. A bullet (or baseball) travelling through a pane of glass may not appear to slow down, but it does slow down - you do understand that, don't you?
@ThePeage You do know that as the building came down the mass increased as well. The additional mass came from the building under it that was getting destroyed.
Gravity didn't stop pulling and the mass was increasing. How would it have slowed down it a completely stop?
Also, it only appears that it fell at free fall speed,
Please don't move the goalposts - I asked if you had realise the flaw in your baseball/glass "experiment". Are you still going to claim that this is analogous to the top 15 floors falling onto the bottom 80 or so?
Btw, I don't claim any of the towers fell at FF in their entirely. Known CD's don't fall at FF either. You aren't suggesting that WTC7 doesn't look like a CD (even if it wasn't) are you?
@ThePeage Mass x Velocity = increased force. Not moving any goal posts.
You last question has so many double negatives in it, I'm not sure you even know what you're trying to ask. I am not... does not... was not. I'm not a politician. Speak clear.
If all you're trying to say is: does it look like a CD, then I say to that, who cares what it "looks like." The moon landing "looks like" it was faked to some people. Who cares what it looks like. Back it up with something then.
I ask that question because I have had debunkers tell me that it looks nothing like a CD, even that it looks EXACTLY like a collapse due to fire. That level of denial makes further exchanges a waste of time.
Yes you are trying to move the goalposts. I asked you if you are still claiming that your baseball/glass "experiment" is analogous to the top 15 floors falling onto the bottom 80 or so? Yes or no?
@ThePeage My experiment was in reference to the physics mentioned in a video I watched 2 months ago. You're linking it to something entirely different.
In any event if all you have is that if it looks like a CD, then it must be one, then yes, you are wasting your time.
Is the loss of strength from thermal expansion effects of the fire impossible? What computer models and simulations have been done by anyone to show this?
It "looks" like a CD. That's your analysis of this?
You haven't read my reply. I ask the question to find out if denial makes further exchange a waste of time - nothing more. If you had claimed, as some have, that it looks NOTHING LIKE a CD, then I would have ended our exchange.
Re your "experiment", if that is true and I have "taken it out of context", then why did you post it here? To claim that it was in any way relevant to the collapse of the TT seems to be either an attempt to mislead or ignorance.
It would appear that you have not understood NIST's claims regarding the collapse of WTC7. If you understood the claims, you may not support them. The claim is that thermal expansion (not "loss of strength") pushed column 79 off its seat by moving it 5.5 inches. Do you see the problem with this? In addition, NIST claims that the failure of 79 "in any circumstance" would have caused the building to collapse (see my channel comments for more on this).
@ThePeage : How many different types of electronics are there?!?! All CD means is that something is being destroyed in a controlled fashion. Even if you bulldozed the damn thing it would still be considered a "CD". I swear people overuse words without knowing it's true meaning. Prime example : Conspiracy is an act involving more than 1 person with an intent to deceive. So when people say there is no 9/11 conspiracy it makes me laugh b/c you treat it like religion. Official story is IMPOSSIBLE!!!
love the falling jack example. It shows the scale will read almost three times the object's weight as it decelerates, and this is only from a height of a foot and a half maybe. Imagine the force from greater distances. At 6:07 the scale goes completely around and hits 7 pounds, making a reading of 62 pounds. How to prove the official account, nicely done.
once again someone proves all of you ppl that do not believe wrong.. there is no way that jet fuel weakened the stucture that far in the air for the whole structure of the building to collapes like a deck of cards. its rediculos for one to think that when the plane hit close to the top of the building, jet fuel weakend the lower half of the building to where it fell like that in 7min..watch the video. it blew out from the bottom simple as that. also cnn said it fell 14min before it actually did
At last! A brilliantly clear explanation of the science that confirms in simple terms what my common sense and intuition told me as soon as I saw the burning towers on 911 - that it was a coup d'etat by dark forces, exactly as foretold in 1992 in the book Bringers of The Dawn, by Barbara Marcinniak.
People that follow a failed armature research group 911truth that has yet to separate opinions from factual evidence that is based in physical actions that happened on 91101 merely buy into a fantasy alternate reality that is created by people writing fictional books based on opinion and pseudoscience. They have yet to prove anything in a Court of law as they cannot follow simple investigative laws that require physical evidence to back their claims.
I don't need to explain anything to a hack. FEMA apendix b explains the collapse of wtc 1 and 2. The problem you have is simply not understanding the physics of a 2,000 ft structure falling that is an acre square. You lack the simple structural engineering knowledge of wtc 1,2,7to make any real argument. about the collapse.
And NIST admitted free fall in their calculations. We can play these games all night, but you "believers" are no different than the "truthers" you attack. Your so desperate to make other believe and not question anything the government says. Why get so worked up? You got your 9/11 wars for isreal and conquest. What's the problem with people not trusting their government? It's not like Saddam had those noookular bombs.
I love the falling jack example. It shows the scale will read almost three times the object's weight as it decelerates, and this is only from a height of a foot and a half maybe. Imagine the force from greater distances and subtracting the weight of the jack. At 6:07 the scale goes completely around and hits 7 pounds, making a reading of 62 pounds. How to prove the official account, nicely done.
Can someone explain to me how "office fires" (assuming it was furniture, papers, etc) can fuel the WTC fires when office furniture is designed specifically not to fuel fires? I would imagine they are built to code or industry standard to burn out relatively quickly or not combust.
@ThePatriotMuckraker Well can someone explain the addition of impact damage to structure and a fuel air explosion within a whole floor could not have caused more damage. Also the use of Jet B that burns hotter than Jet A could also be a reason for more extensive secondary fire damage.
@ThePatriotMuckraker Yes your question was answered by ThePatriotMuckraker. In a nut shell the office furniture papers etc(flammable objects in an office) wasn't a significant contributing factor it was the 15 tons of jet fuel. Also the fact the impact took out or weakened a significant amount of structural support.
The 15 tons of jet fuel ignited and burned out on impact. That is why you see a giant fireball and later nothing. Besides, there were no raging fires because people were standing in the gaping hole the plane made, waving for help. The steel is progressive thinner from bottom to top. Another thing to consider is if osama & al-cia-da wanted to take down the towers they would have hit them at the lower floors for maximum damage. Nice try. You "believers" are no different than "truthers."
@ThePatriotMuckraker Okay so 4,400 gallons of fuel just vaporized instantly nothing left? So all that smoke & fire visible after the impact must of been smoke bombs I guess. Ever hear the saying where there's smoke there's fire(not 100% true but for the most part it is)? You may not be aware of it but those responsible for 9/11 where possibly involved in an attempted to fall the north tower in Feb 1993 with a truck bomb that gutted four floors of parking garage beneath the north tower
Why do people constantly fight against Newton's laws. It is impossible for a smaller mass to destroy a larger mass unless the smaller mass has the density and weight of a black hole. On 911, we saw a smaller mass destroy a larger mass in violation of the laws of physics. The video is very simple to understand which is why the cointelpro people never stop attacking this. I see that they assign no less than three a day to attack this truth.
you are basically correct, except that you missed out that the DECELERATION does the damage. Checkout your scale at about 6:00 into the video and you see it rocking up far beyond the point where it was while the load was suspended. This additional dynamic load is, what makes structures crumble, cause they are designed to carry static load, and not static + dynamic load.
Your interpretation is brilliant, except for this very important fact you left out
@tamaramj Except the deceleration necessary was not present in the hypothesized gravitational collapse of the towers, while it's a good point to highlight, it doesn't support NIST's interpretation of the criminal events that happened on that day, that's why people ask "where are the deceleration jolts"? Because they already know that has to be there to support the NIST hypothesis.
@EveryTimeV2 its not easy to understand but the 'decelaration' in this case is the deceleration of the mass in motion hitting the stucture below which is still static at this point, wether it was in the hypothesized collaps or not. if just the static load explains the collaps, ok...why not, but its dynamic, and thus forces at work are very much higher due to this.
my goal was just to point out that the video simply ignores the deceleration at all
@tamaramj "my goal was just to point out that the video simply ignores the deceleration at all" I noticed that too. Makes you wonder why people don't see this simple but very relevant fact left out of the findings of the experiment.
"Because either all those authorities are wrong or Newton's fundamental laws of motion are wrong." This is a false dichotomy. The third option is that the measurements are wrong and these structures DID NOT uniformly accelerate. I choose the third option. Nice try though.
Americans are suffering from a prolonged cognitive dissonance. Most of them suspect that something was not right on 911, yet they are reluctant to disturb the status quoe. It's like your best friend has a horrible cold sore on his lip and wants to smoke a joint with you, and you do it. You know that something is wrong, yet you don't say anything out of fear of jeopardizing the relationship. Cognitive dissonance.
i dont understand u americans......i think it is more than clear that the whole world had been lied to about 9/11 but it was you who suffered, you are being blinded, driven by your own government......and yet you still dont give a fuck......why?
So, this video would then suggest that there were intentional weakening events throughout the building? If that were so, wouldn't there be evidence of pyrolytic activity during the collapse? Not sure I buy that. would be a conspiracy on such a grand scale as to involve an army of people. You cannot keep something like that quiet. UNLESS THEY WERE HERDED INto THE PLANES OH MY GOD.
It took me a whole 30 seconds to realize he didn't add the weight of each destructed floor to the falling weight which would cause the uniform acceleration. He's using a fixed amount of solid weight landing on solid objects. The towers were 95% air with the falling intact floors increasing in weight at each floor.
@BriansVideoHobby The uniform acceleration would have to be interrupted to destroy the floors, so the destructed floors cannot cause uniform acceleration.
He shows experiments in his other videos that show weight that can be added to the initial falling weight (with the falling concrete blocks with air in them). The acceleration has to slow down in order to destroy something.
@911ReasonableVoice Not in time frame that is in question... You shouldn't jump into a conversation if you're not going to follow the whole thing from the beginning.
@beauxq Yes, in the time frame that is in question. There is a reason all "evidence" is based on the speed of the roof and not the lack of speed of the collapse of the lower floors.
@beauxq I'm about to post a video demonstrating that the upper floors do not accelerate through the lower floors but actually stop and compress upwards. Although, if you want to see for yourself, it's very evident this is the case to the naked eye when the video isn't cropped down to hide it like "physicsandreason" and others have done. So, yes, the roof line accelerates downward but the "Jolt" or hesitation is definitely there.
@911ReasonableVoice I hope your video will also explain what happened between the roof and the floors you speak of, because the roof was supported at one point. So if the roof is falling without decelerating, then whatever was supporting it, must have been removed somehow.
@911ReasonableVoice When you post that video, please include numbers so that others can verify your results unless you and only you want to have the numbers that verify your claim. The scientific method demands that you do that. Failure to include numbers to prove your claim will render your analysis invalid because it can't be verified and replicated.
@911ReasonableVoice When you post that video, please include numbers so that others can verify your results unless you and only you want to have the numbers that verify your claim. The scientific method demands that you do that. Failure to include numbers to prove your claim will render your analysis invalid because it can't be verified and replicated.
What if the amount of deceleration is so small (as it hits the next floor) it is hard to detect from video evidence. How much decelleration do you see when there are controlled demolitions is it noticeable that it would defiantly be seen in the wtc? see
Have you published? What happens is one floor fails it uniformally falls till it hits he next floor? You say the uniform free fall continues so therefore all the freefall must happen due to the supports being blown out or removed so it continues to freefall
This is really a statement about just how much work someone is willing to do to prove something to someone who doesn't want to believe. Thank you for all your hard work. This makes my job of convincing non believers, much easier.
Its well suited for explaining the pathetic tactics that so many trusters resort to. Parroting the official story because of a unfortunate inability to think for themselves, boy you would be good at following orders.
@flanksteak2 It's physically impossible for that many tons of steel, in the amount of time that it did, to loose that much structural integrity, to allow the lack of resistance . If it happened over 6 or 7 hours and took at least 30 seconds that's one thing. but not in under an hour. This is not the same thing as saying fire can't weaken steel, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME. But this is like comparing a gunshot to to a hack saw wound. Instant vs. Slow jagged and prolonged.
Flank can't understand basic physics - for a skyscraper to suddenly go into freefall takes a lot more than some assymetrical damage and random office fires.
@taledarkside you tell that to the famillies of the 9/11 victims and to the millions killed and had there lives made a misery in iraq and afghanistan, yeh u tell em how seriously u investigated a mass genocide against innocent ppl in the states and abroad, yeh u tell em how comfortable ur rotten soul is wen america dedicates more time,effort and money into investigateing a presidents adultery case than the genocide of 3000 of its own innocent citizens and millions more, u sir is a sad excuse
@taledarkside cry u a river, why the fuck would i cry a river to a shit brained apathetic pig, is money all that counts to u, u souless piece of toads shit, and by the way the iraq alqeada connection was one of the reasons the american public was duped into accepting the iraq invasion, read something u fuckin twisted pubic hair, u despicably sad excuse for a human bieng
@taledarkside No you fucking idiot, you can't read. I didn't say we DID invade iraq because of 9/11 I'm saying morons think that. Learn to read for christs sake. Seriously get your god damned eyes checked.
@taledarkside Clearly you didn't know that there are a large number of Americans who think 9/11 is part of the justification of Iraq or you wouldn't have responded how you did. You also wouldn't have posted "what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq" There are plenty of Americans who think "yeah get those bastards for attacking us" when clearly Iraqis did not attack us. And we are still occupying that country because of it.
theres a large number of americans who don't know who is the vice president. And theres 100% of conspiracy theorists don't know about US history in wars.
@taledarkside you idiot, the reason he can use a bowling ball is because we are dealing with FREE FALL SPEED. Fact the twin towers felled at free fall speed. no argument there. since it felled at free fall speed we can throw the pancake theory at the window and many more.. If you drop a ball that weights 1 billion pounds vs 1 ball that weights 100lbs they WILL fall at the same speed. You can only do that when there is NO RESISTANCE. hence the twin towers had none but how is that possible?
@taledarkside you idiot the air resistance is so LOW, practically ZERO, you can ignore it. Unless we are dropping a feather 10,000 feet, we can ignore air resistance.
so a guy falls as fast as a guy with a parachute. ROFL
engineers become engineers from going to middle school. ROFL
"towers fell in less than 10 seconds"
which part? I saw the inner core standing longer than 10 seconds. you don't know anything about air resistance,i can see why counting must be hard for you too
@taledarkside so the twin towers had wind resistnace right? so why in the hell did they fall at free fall speed. you are still a noob that cant own. oh yeah the twin towers had parachutes ROFL you dumbass go back to middle school and learn the basic. i never said engineers become enginers from middle school, you did. you must not now how to speak or write english
@taledarkside and if you want to be a smartass, then fine lets leave your air resistance in the equation... well guess you dumbfuck? the towers fell in less than 10 seconds. what happen to the air resistance there?
Official sources have gone on record estimating the collapse times at around 10-12 seconds. I don't think anyone can look at the collapses and seriously estimate them at 23 seconds - unless they accidentally hit the 'slow-mo' button. Based on the videos I would put them at around 14 seconds - which is exceptionally close to freefall. Of course measuring the start-to-finish of the collapse is an apocryphal method, freefall is better judged by analyzing acceleration of the collapse in every frame.
The fact that NIST have not analysed the entire collapse but have instead resorted to the practice of constructing models of only the initiation, whose data-output is of questionable validity, leads me to think that they do not really want those controversies to be settled. Clearly an elaborate game is afoot and I'm afraid the trusters cannot look to the game-players to help them clear things up, because they appear to have no intention of taking the measurements that could do that for them.
The upper floors completely vanish from view by the time they reach the impact-damaged section of building, making it impossible to accurately measure the acceleration of the roofline against UNDAMGED sections of building resisting. Roof to ground, free fall is 9.2 seconds. It took the south tower over 15 seconds to reach the ground. The north tower, 23 seconds.
@flanksteak2 Dude, your are out of your league. Further comments from you will only confirm your very high degree of ignorance. Do us, do yourself, a favor and pull your head out and do some @#$%^&* ing homework. You have got to stop eating junk food, it is destroying your brain!
This is the dumbest shit I have ever seen. WTC7's collapse speed is erroneously measured. Collapse begins when the east penthouse vanishes from view. The walls on the outside of the building are non-structural. "free fall' of the exterior walls is meaningless, as they are 'hung' on the cantilever steel frame of the building. The frame collapsed, the walls fall with negligable resistance.
If you don't properly measure the collapse speed, you can game any result from the data you want.
like a famous comdian once said who you gonna believe me or your lying eyes? our citizens have been so brain washed to fear the truth, that they can no longer live in reality! If and when they wake up it will be too late. but thank you for all your efforts
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 1 month ago in playlist Jonathan Cole
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 1 month ago in playlist Jonathan Cole
This has been flagged as spam show
Israel did 911
TakeOurWorldBack (dot) com
YouTube video: 911 Missing Links
Sockpuppet2012 2 months ago in playlist Jonathan Cole
This has been flagged as spam show
Now that I wasted my time watching this entire video, I must say, you need to perform the correct experiments to prove your case. First off weight and force are 2 different things! All you show is that an object's "apparent weight" as it falls is less than when static. (Well of course it is when the force is not being exerted on the object). But of course when your brick does hit the scale the force "apparent weight" is way greater than it's static weight (force) Why didn't you do...
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bubbasteve8 Why didn't you do an experiment where you first weigh the brick you used just sitting on the scale, then drop it straight on the scale and see if the needle jumps higher than where it sat when the brick sat on top in a static state?
This whole video proves that either your theory is wrong or your experiments are wrong because for the quote @ 1:14 to be true, than everything we know about physics would have to be re-written!
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bubbasteve8 The problem with your experiments is that you are relying on the lower portion of tower being able to have an upward force as great as the upper body's original static weight. (which makes sense) But the problem with that is you CANNOT treat the entire tower as one single structural member. It was a complex system of structural members consisting of steel columns, beams, girders, and concrete slabs. Of those, columns are the only ones that bare load down to the foundation...
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bubbasteve8 And when columns at the floors of impacts failed (and became detached), the upper portion (body) started to fall, the odds of all the columns landing back on all lower columns perfectly vertically was virtually impossible and did not happen. And concrete slabs on floor trusses (fancy beams) are not designed to hold columns, especially ones falling on them along with a 15 to 29 story building attached. The trusses had no chance, they detach. Now initially the trusses helped keep..
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bubbasteve8 columns from tilting sideways, but now that the trusses are gone, eventually the falling debris just tips over, bends over, and simply knock these columns out of place. (watch the tower collapses, you can see tons and tons of exterior columns being pushed outward and disconnect from the towers) Now anyone who has studied structural engineering knows that a column can bare a much greater load applied axially than it could with the same load applied at an angle causing a bending load.
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bubbasteve8 Here is a simple understanding. Take 2 un-sharpened pencils out of a bran new box. Place one across a span between to blocks with only about a 1/2 inch or so on either block like a bridge. Take a your hand (or a hammer) and gently strike down on top of it in the middle of it's span. hit it harder until it breaks (to be accurate, use a new pencil for every strike). Then take a pencil and hole it vertically so it will not tilt or fall (you can use a vice) and strike straight down...
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bubbasteve8 into the top end of the pencil (Please do not use your hand, unless you do at your own risk!) with a hammer with about the same amount of force, then double the force each time until it breaks. (be sure to strike perfectly straight down into the pencil as to apply only an axial load) you will find, even without a scale, that it takes much more force to break it applied axially than when applied in bending (hitting the pencil across the span). Common sense will tell you this...
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bubbasteve8 Thus if it took much less force to bend and push those columns over than what force they could support, then those columns would not exert all of there potential strength upwards as force into the upper portion of building falling on them. Also it is clearly seen in a few videos of the north tower collapse that many core columns stayed standing well over the height of WTC 7 (47 stories tall). Thus many of these columns simply pierced through the upper body as it fell over these...
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bubbasteve8 lower columns. This makes sense because again the upper portion would fall onto the columns, and odds are that most of these columns would have a slab and or trusses land on their top somewhat axially, and again concrete slabs and trusses will not take more than these columns could, so it was kind of like a human falling flat face down on a 8' vertical spike (or even flat edged rebar) that is half berried in the ground. The human will definitely get impaled.
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
Comment removed
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
Comment removed
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bubbasteve8 In conclusion. The lower portion of building could NOT and did NOT properly exert all of it's possible upwards force into the upper portion of falling tower. The columns being pushed outward away from the tower, and the columns that stood for several seconds after the tower hit the ground, as we see on video, proves it. In this video you can see some core columns standing after the upper portions falls past @ 0:12 watch?v=nIZp6aOibiM&feature=related
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bubbasteve8 Here is a better video showing multiple shots of these core columns, the second angle @ 0:24 shows the top of WTC 7 on the left which was 47 stories watch?v=7W0-W582fNQ&feature=related
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
According to this video David Chandler states @ 1:14 "As long as the roof line.."(pause vid for full quote). You serious? Newton would be rolling in his grave if he heard this nonsense! Ok class, everyone in their seats, this is simple. 1st off "static" means "not moving". 2nd, any third grader can tell you that jumping on a small board across a span will be more likely to break as apposed to just standing on it (FACT). That is common sense physics!
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bubbasteve8 That shows that a mass with momentum downwards exerts MORE (not less) force that it's own static weight. So here is a question for you class! Lets say you take a Honda accord, then take a 15 pound bowling ball and gently set it on the roof, use a couple pencils or something so it does not roll, (that is a static 15 pounds) Now take the bowling ball and drop it from 10 ft above the car landing on top of said car. Which would do more damage? (obviously the same ball dropped from 10'!
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bubbasteve8 Therefore it is physically impossible that his quote above could be true. How could the upper portion exert less force to the building below when falling than it would have if it were just sitting there like it did for over 30 years? The answer is it could not! And the fact that it accelerated has nothing to do with it, just the fact that it is moving at a speed, well more than static, proves it will exert more force than it's own static weight. Just like jumping on a stick...
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bubbasteve8 as opposed to standing on said stick to break it! Any little kid over 4 could show you this!
bubbasteve8 2 months ago
Newton was obviously a conspiracy theoy nut troofer.
idontfkinknow1234 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When a moving object collides with a stationary object, the result is the same no matter which object was moving or which object was stationary. Imagine that building moving 500 mph and hitting the stationary plane.
JZJYRWO 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Excellent presentation of what really happened. The tops of the buildings accelerated through their own supports near the speed of gravity. Clearly demonstrating these buildings were demolished from within. Which leads one to conclude 911 was an inside job.
Just laugh at the JooDoe physicists and disinfo agents (igykallen) infesting all these forums. The church of the lying media is being exposed.
ChilesGreen 3 months ago
Comment removed
ChilesGreen 3 months ago
20 people are CIA Agents
Superturkeyyy 4 months ago in playlist More videos from physicsandreason 9
Great work, I learnt something here today.
Thank you.
ShillBasher 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You managed to contradict yourself. You say the scale weighs less UNTIL it's hit with the jack. Later you say that the force would be less when the building comes down. It can't be both. The floors coming down would also add to the mass and thus force. You're bowling ball didn't increase in mass as it went down.
You failed to accurately recreate the physics you don't understand anyway.
igykalen 4 months ago
Comment removed
Lithium102 4 months ago
I tried an experiment based on your interpertaion of newton's laws. I took a plane of glass and placed a baseball on it. The weight (force) was not enough to break the glass. So then I dropped the ball from an airplane until it reached terminal velocity, thus becoming weightless. According to YOU the FORCE should have been less (zero even), yet the glass broke anyway. I wonder what I did wrong?
btw nice barn you got there. But I think you should stick to milking cows.
igykalen 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@igykalen Well, well... look who slithered in here with his disinfo? Unlike you and your wretched ilk, "911 truthers" don't need to "pre-approve" their postings on their videos. Go back under your rock.
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago 4
@Kill0Your0TV My "disinfo" is wrong how? No surprise you can't explain why.
I set it to approve since youtube doesn't inform me of every post made and sometimes I won't notice a post till weeks later. The pre-approve is the only way I have of knowing when I get new post when I scan for them.
This guy can't understand the basic flaw in his experiment that others have pointed out as well. People like him and you have such a weak understanding of basic physics, it's ridiculous.
igykalen 4 months ago
@igykalen Oh, so I was banned from posting on your video because... asking questions?
This individual is doing the real experiments your NIST cover-up investigation didn't do.
So since you can't ban me from here I'll ask you again, what's with all the corrosion, melting, sulfur on the FEMA Appendix C samples?
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV No, for being incredibly stupid and unable to address anything I had said other than to just point to various videos. If you're unwilling to acknowledge my answers (see above), then why should I bother. You've already made up your mind and are best suited on sites like these.
I also don't work for FEMA and the FEMA report was a preliminary one. You should refer to the NIST as it's more relevant. Your question doesn't even make sense anyway, as usual.
I can however ignore you here.
igykalen 4 months ago
@igykalen That's what I thought. You never answer a direct question put to you. You're a liar and deceiver. You should get into politics. Goodbye.
Kill0Your0TV 4 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV
igkalen is a JooDoe physicist and gate keeper of the faith of the church of the lying media.
ChilesGreen 3 months ago
@ChilesGreen I hear ya. These 911 Liars are so transparent and pathetic.
Kill0Your0TV 3 months ago
@Kill0Your0TV Simple they wrote the report already aware of what caused the buildings to collapse. That's why they didn't look for explosives destroyed all of the evidence and then ignored any witness statements or facts which didn't match with their story.
APBriggs2009 3 months ago
@igykalen
Have you worked out what you did wrong yet with your baseball/glass "experiment"? If not, why not?
ThePeage 1 month ago
@ThePeage Have you managed to figure out what's wrong with the logic of that sentence yet? If not, why not?
Was it the spelling of 'weight'? The whole i before e thing really throws me off.
igykalen 1 month ago
@igykalen
No. It wasn't the spelling of "weight". You didn't seem to understand that it is the deceleration that is important, not the velocity during the fall. The whole point about the TT is that the smaller "block" falling onto the larger "block" didn't slow down as it descended. Not only was your baseball made of entirely different materials with different properties to your glass, but I will GUARANTEE that it slowed when it broke the glass - I expect it bounced off (2)
ThePeage 1 month ago
@ThePeage
(2) rather than continuing through the sheet of glass. Did it? Of course, if you are seriously suggesting that your baseball would be travelling at "terminal velocity" you might as well use a bullet and claim that is analogous to the top of the building falling a few floors. It isn't. That you don't understand that is a problem. A bullet (or baseball) travelling through a pane of glass may not appear to slow down, but it does slow down - you do understand that, don't you?
ThePeage 1 month ago
@ThePeage You do know that as the building came down the mass increased as well. The additional mass came from the building under it that was getting destroyed.
Gravity didn't stop pulling and the mass was increasing. How would it have slowed down it a completely stop?
Also, it only appears that it fell at free fall speed,
igykalen 1 month ago 4
@igykalen
Please don't move the goalposts - I asked if you had realise the flaw in your baseball/glass "experiment". Are you still going to claim that this is analogous to the top 15 floors falling onto the bottom 80 or so?
Btw, I don't claim any of the towers fell at FF in their entirely. Known CD's don't fall at FF either. You aren't suggesting that WTC7 doesn't look like a CD (even if it wasn't) are you?
ThePeage 1 month ago
@ThePeage Mass x Velocity = increased force. Not moving any goal posts.
You last question has so many double negatives in it, I'm not sure you even know what you're trying to ask. I am not... does not... was not. I'm not a politician. Speak clear.
If all you're trying to say is: does it look like a CD, then I say to that, who cares what it "looks like." The moon landing "looks like" it was faked to some people. Who cares what it looks like. Back it up with something then.
igykalen 1 month ago 3
@igykalen
I ask that question because I have had debunkers tell me that it looks nothing like a CD, even that it looks EXACTLY like a collapse due to fire. That level of denial makes further exchanges a waste of time.
Yes you are trying to move the goalposts. I asked you if you are still claiming that your baseball/glass "experiment" is analogous to the top 15 floors falling onto the bottom 80 or so? Yes or no?
ThePeage 1 month ago
@ThePeage My experiment was in reference to the physics mentioned in a video I watched 2 months ago. You're linking it to something entirely different.
In any event if all you have is that if it looks like a CD, then it must be one, then yes, you are wasting your time.
Is the loss of strength from thermal expansion effects of the fire impossible? What computer models and simulations have been done by anyone to show this?
It "looks" like a CD. That's your analysis of this?
igykalen 1 month ago 4
@igykalen
You haven't read my reply. I ask the question to find out if denial makes further exchange a waste of time - nothing more. If you had claimed, as some have, that it looks NOTHING LIKE a CD, then I would have ended our exchange.
Re your "experiment", if that is true and I have "taken it out of context", then why did you post it here? To claim that it was in any way relevant to the collapse of the TT seems to be either an attempt to mislead or ignorance.
ThePeage 1 month ago
@igykalen
It would appear that you have not understood NIST's claims regarding the collapse of WTC7. If you understood the claims, you may not support them. The claim is that thermal expansion (not "loss of strength") pushed column 79 off its seat by moving it 5.5 inches. Do you see the problem with this? In addition, NIST claims that the failure of 79 "in any circumstance" would have caused the building to collapse (see my channel comments for more on this).
ThePeage 1 month ago
@ThePeage : How many different types of electronics are there?!?! All CD means is that something is being destroyed in a controlled fashion. Even if you bulldozed the damn thing it would still be considered a "CD". I swear people overuse words without knowing it's true meaning. Prime example : Conspiracy is an act involving more than 1 person with an intent to deceive. So when people say there is no 9/11 conspiracy it makes me laugh b/c you treat it like religion. Official story is IMPOSSIBLE!!!
BadBoriBoy 1 month ago
@BadBoriBoy
Erm.... is this comment really for me? If you are saying that the official story is impossible, then we agree.
ThePeage 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
love the falling jack example. It shows the scale will read almost three times the object's weight as it decelerates, and this is only from a height of a foot and a half maybe. Imagine the force from greater distances. At 6:07 the scale goes completely around and hits 7 pounds, making a reading of 62 pounds. How to prove the official account, nicely done.
lijebaley01 5 months ago
Im a redneck before anyone goes honored but ain't it funny that basically a redneck knows more than pretty much every American
DevildogDean 5 months ago
once again someone proves all of you ppl that do not believe wrong.. there is no way that jet fuel weakened the stucture that far in the air for the whole structure of the building to collapes like a deck of cards. its rediculos for one to think that when the plane hit close to the top of the building, jet fuel weakend the lower half of the building to where it fell like that in 7min..watch the video. it blew out from the bottom simple as that. also cnn said it fell 14min before it actually did
712criminal 5 months ago
In ur video u never go into the actual building structure. First that has to be determined.
smoothbrother69 5 months ago
good vid
FANTOMTRON 5 months ago
At last! A brilliantly clear explanation of the science that confirms in simple terms what my common sense and intuition told me as soon as I saw the burning towers on 911 - that it was a coup d'etat by dark forces, exactly as foretold in 1992 in the book Bringers of The Dawn, by Barbara Marcinniak.
zen4men 5 months ago
People that follow a failed armature research group 911truth that has yet to separate opinions from factual evidence that is based in physical actions that happened on 91101 merely buy into a fantasy alternate reality that is created by people writing fictional books based on opinion and pseudoscience. They have yet to prove anything in a Court of law as they cannot follow simple investigative laws that require physical evidence to back their claims.
PhantasyPublishing 6 months ago
I don't need to explain anything to a hack. FEMA apendix b explains the collapse of wtc 1 and 2. The problem you have is simply not understanding the physics of a 2,000 ft structure falling that is an acre square. You lack the simple structural engineering knowledge of wtc 1,2,7to make any real argument. about the collapse.
PhantasyPublishing 6 months ago
@PhantasyPublishing
And NIST admitted free fall in their calculations. We can play these games all night, but you "believers" are no different than the "truthers" you attack. Your so desperate to make other believe and not question anything the government says. Why get so worked up? You got your 9/11 wars for isreal and conquest. What's the problem with people not trusting their government? It's not like Saddam had those noookular bombs.
ThePatriotMuckraker 6 months ago
I love the falling jack example. It shows the scale will read almost three times the object's weight as it decelerates, and this is only from a height of a foot and a half maybe. Imagine the force from greater distances and subtracting the weight of the jack. At 6:07 the scale goes completely around and hits 7 pounds, making a reading of 62 pounds. How to prove the official account, nicely done.
lijebaley01 7 months ago
Can someone explain to me how "office fires" (assuming it was furniture, papers, etc) can fuel the WTC fires when office furniture is designed specifically not to fuel fires? I would imagine they are built to code or industry standard to burn out relatively quickly or not combust.
ThePatriotMuckraker 7 months ago
@ThePatriotMuckraker Well can someone explain the addition of impact damage to structure and a fuel air explosion within a whole floor could not have caused more damage. Also the use of Jet B that burns hotter than Jet A could also be a reason for more extensive secondary fire damage.
PhantasyPublishing 6 months ago
@PhantasyPublishing
Nice try on the "re-direction." Didn't answer my question.
ThePatriotMuckraker 6 months ago
@ThePatriotMuckraker Yes your question was answered by ThePatriotMuckraker. In a nut shell the office furniture papers etc(flammable objects in an office) wasn't a significant contributing factor it was the 15 tons of jet fuel. Also the fact the impact took out or weakened a significant amount of structural support.
robvlob 6 months ago
Comment removed
ThePatriotMuckraker 6 months ago
The 15 tons of jet fuel ignited and burned out on impact. That is why you see a giant fireball and later nothing. Besides, there were no raging fires because people were standing in the gaping hole the plane made, waving for help. The steel is progressive thinner from bottom to top. Another thing to consider is if osama & al-cia-da wanted to take down the towers they would have hit them at the lower floors for maximum damage. Nice try. You "believers" are no different than "truthers."
ThePatriotMuckraker 6 months ago
@ThePatriotMuckraker Okay so 4,400 gallons of fuel just vaporized instantly nothing left? So all that smoke & fire visible after the impact must of been smoke bombs I guess. Ever hear the saying where there's smoke there's fire(not 100% true but for the most part it is)? You may not be aware of it but those responsible for 9/11 where possibly involved in an attempted to fall the north tower in Feb 1993 with a truck bomb that gutted four floors of parking garage beneath the north tower
robvlob 6 months ago
@robvlob
In the case of wtc1&2: "where there is smoke there was a poorly fueled fire." Besides, cliches are a poor way to explain the collapse of the WTCs.
ThePatriotMuckraker 6 months ago
Awesome video. Science and logic.
universalstudios13 7 months ago
Why do people constantly fight against Newton's laws. It is impossible for a smaller mass to destroy a larger mass unless the smaller mass has the density and weight of a black hole. On 911, we saw a smaller mass destroy a larger mass in violation of the laws of physics. The video is very simple to understand which is why the cointelpro people never stop attacking this. I see that they assign no less than three a day to attack this truth.
Daddyo930 8 months ago
you are basically correct, except that you missed out that the DECELERATION does the damage. Checkout your scale at about 6:00 into the video and you see it rocking up far beyond the point where it was while the load was suspended. This additional dynamic load is, what makes structures crumble, cause they are designed to carry static load, and not static + dynamic load.
Your interpretation is brilliant, except for this very important fact you left out
tamaramj 8 months ago
@tamaramj Except the deceleration necessary was not present in the hypothesized gravitational collapse of the towers, while it's a good point to highlight, it doesn't support NIST's interpretation of the criminal events that happened on that day, that's why people ask "where are the deceleration jolts"? Because they already know that has to be there to support the NIST hypothesis.
EveryTimeV2 7 months ago
@EveryTimeV2 its not easy to understand but the 'decelaration' in this case is the deceleration of the mass in motion hitting the stucture below which is still static at this point, wether it was in the hypothesized collaps or not. if just the static load explains the collaps, ok...why not, but its dynamic, and thus forces at work are very much higher due to this.
my goal was just to point out that the video simply ignores the deceleration at all
tamaramj 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tamaramj "my goal was just to point out that the video simply ignores the deceleration at all" I noticed that too. Makes you wonder why people don't see this simple but very relevant fact left out of the findings of the experiment.
robvlob 6 months ago
An accelerating upperblock cannot crush itself because the weight of the upperblock is much less than its weight in a static situation.
Therefore is the selfcrussing upperblock impossible whitout the help of explosives.
oegromov 8 months ago
@oegromov
Sorry, fella. That ignores common sense.
MOMENTUM = Mass X SPEED, from High School, remember?
READ IT SLOWLY. That means that each UNIT of speed multiplies the MASS
that the building below it faces. We can test this VERY simply.
Take the heaviest object you can hold, and drop it on you from 1400 feet.
Write us to see if you could stop it from crushing you.
Stop a car rolling down a steep driveway. Catch a dropped 20 lb barbell.
The examples are endless.
Merlin5by5 8 months ago
So the sampoong building collapse was also an inside job?
JayBlack12100 8 months ago
"Because either all those authorities are wrong or Newton's fundamental laws of motion are wrong." This is a false dichotomy. The third option is that the measurements are wrong and these structures DID NOT uniformly accelerate. I choose the third option. Nice try though.
MrMZaccone 8 months ago in playlist physicsandreason
The only problem is that the claim that WTCs 1, 2, and 7 uniformly accelerated is demonstrably false.
MrMZaccone 8 months ago in playlist physicsandreason
Americans are suffering from a prolonged cognitive dissonance. Most of them suspect that something was not right on 911, yet they are reluctant to disturb the status quoe. It's like your best friend has a horrible cold sore on his lip and wants to smoke a joint with you, and you do it. You know that something is wrong, yet you don't say anything out of fear of jeopardizing the relationship. Cognitive dissonance.
Daddyo930 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Gage (AE911Truth) Talk @ Cambridge University
UK 18th June 2011 (ALL WELCOME)
See the featured video on my channel for full details.
cappucinokid100 8 months ago
i dont understand u americans......i think it is more than clear that the whole world had been lied to about 9/11 but it was you who suffered, you are being blinded, driven by your own government......and yet you still dont give a fuck......why?
sraac88 11 months ago
So, this video would then suggest that there were intentional weakening events throughout the building? If that were so, wouldn't there be evidence of pyrolytic activity during the collapse? Not sure I buy that. would be a conspiracy on such a grand scale as to involve an army of people. You cannot keep something like that quiet. UNLESS THEY WERE HERDED INto THE PLANES OH MY GOD.
doktorandom 11 months ago
@doktorandom It hasn't been kept quiet, in case you didn't notice.
Besides, it doesn't matter how improbable it is, if the alternative is impossible.
beauxq 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NIST cover-up:
We Have the Results and Only We Have the Results
watch?v=iQdJuQLNFCk
iBlindGame 11 months ago
It took me a whole 30 seconds to realize he didn't add the weight of each destructed floor to the falling weight which would cause the uniform acceleration. He's using a fixed amount of solid weight landing on solid objects. The towers were 95% air with the falling intact floors increasing in weight at each floor.
BriansVideoHobby 11 months ago
@BriansVideoHobby This isnt his only video. He does other experiments and looks at different kinds of building demolistions watch?v=dgZLXI3whGA
I havent watched all of this vids yet but the best is the thermate video.
NicosMind 11 months ago
@BriansVideoHobby The uniform acceleration would have to be interrupted to destroy the floors, so the destructed floors cannot cause uniform acceleration.
He shows experiments in his other videos that show weight that can be added to the initial falling weight (with the falling concrete blocks with air in them). The acceleration has to slow down in order to destroy something.
beauxq 11 months ago
@beauxq The uniform acceleration WAS disrupted. The upper portion of the building compressed against the lower portion.
911ReasonableVoice 11 months ago
@911ReasonableVoice Not in time frame that is in question... You shouldn't jump into a conversation if you're not going to follow the whole thing from the beginning.
beauxq 11 months ago
@beauxq Yes, in the time frame that is in question. There is a reason all "evidence" is based on the speed of the roof and not the lack of speed of the collapse of the lower floors.
911ReasonableVoice 11 months ago
@911ReasonableVoice Which floor are you talking about? and how did you measure its acceleration?
beauxq 11 months ago
@beauxq I'm about to post a video demonstrating that the upper floors do not accelerate through the lower floors but actually stop and compress upwards. Although, if you want to see for yourself, it's very evident this is the case to the naked eye when the video isn't cropped down to hide it like "physicsandreason" and others have done. So, yes, the roof line accelerates downward but the "Jolt" or hesitation is definitely there.
911ReasonableVoice 11 months ago
@911ReasonableVoice I hope your video will also explain what happened between the roof and the floors you speak of, because the roof was supported at one point. So if the roof is falling without decelerating, then whatever was supporting it, must have been removed somehow.
beauxq 11 months ago
@911ReasonableVoice Of course there is a jolt. The free fall only lasts for 108 feet (as per NIST) of the total height of the building.
Ahlywog 10 months ago
@911ReasonableVoice When you post that video, please include numbers so that others can verify your results unless you and only you want to have the numbers that verify your claim. The scientific method demands that you do that. Failure to include numbers to prove your claim will render your analysis invalid because it can't be verified and replicated.
Daddyo930 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@911ReasonableVoice When you post that video, please include numbers so that others can verify your results unless you and only you want to have the numbers that verify your claim. The scientific method demands that you do that. Failure to include numbers to prove your claim will render your analysis invalid because it can't be verified and replicated.
Daddyo930 8 months ago
What if the amount of deceleration is so small (as it hits the next floor) it is hard to detect from video evidence. How much decelleration do you see when there are controlled demolitions is it noticeable that it would defiantly be seen in the wtc? see
89lc12 11 months ago
Have you published? What happens is one floor fails it uniformally falls till it hits he next floor? You say the uniform free fall continues so therefore all the freefall must happen due to the supports being blown out or removed so it continues to freefall
89lc12 11 months ago
Of course not but the towers did free fall. The films show the NIST analysis was trustworthy.
oriolesfan61 11 months ago
Shill info here godlikeproductions. com/forum1/message1365335/pg1
ThisGuyIsAlwaysRight 1 year ago
mike rivero=awesome
randrewm97 1 year ago
You're not a very bright feller are ya techtard. No you're not.
flanksteak2 1 year ago
This is really a statement about just how much work someone is willing to do to prove something to someone who doesn't want to believe. Thank you for all your hard work. This makes my job of convincing non believers, much easier.
kindly4real 1 year ago 19
This is high school physics; it's just not debatable.
Memories of physics class; the long-winded and tedious Mr. Jones is explaining a graph.
Mr. Jones: "Clark, how does the time go in this problem?"
Clark: "Very slowly, Mr. Jones; very slowly."
Skeptic121 1 year ago 2
The author of this video typifies all the "educated" people in the Truther movement.
1) Male
2) Middle-Aged
3) Unmarried
4) Childless
5) Batshit crazy
flanksteak2 1 year ago
@flanksteak2
Its okay if you don't understand what he's saying, you could just admit it without the ad hominem.
NeutralExistence 1 year ago
@NeutralExistence "Ad Hominem"
This term is something else Truthers constantly parrot. They had never heard the term until they started trolling websites.
flanksteak2 1 year ago
@flanksteak2
Its well suited for explaining the pathetic tactics that so many trusters resort to. Parroting the official story because of a unfortunate inability to think for themselves, boy you would be good at following orders.
Ever been a soldier?
NeutralExistence 1 year ago
@NeutralExistence I can see you have a lot of scientific reasons for not believing that fire can weaken steel.
flanksteak2 1 year ago
@flanksteak2
Who ever said fire cant weaken steel?
Where do you come up with these insane presumptions...
NeutralExistence 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NeutralExistence "Who ever said fire cant weaken steel?"
911 Truthers.
flanksteak2 1 year ago
@flanksteak2 It's physically impossible for that many tons of steel, in the amount of time that it did, to loose that much structural integrity, to allow the lack of resistance . If it happened over 6 or 7 hours and took at least 30 seconds that's one thing. but not in under an hour. This is not the same thing as saying fire can't weaken steel, GIVEN ENOUGH TIME. But this is like comparing a gunshot to to a hack saw wound. Instant vs. Slow jagged and prolonged.
techmosis 1 year ago
@techmosis "It's physically impossible for that many tons of steel, in the amount of time that it did, to loose that much structural integrity"
How many tons of steel lost that much structural integrity? (LAFF)
flanksteak2 1 year ago
@techmosis
Flank can't understand basic physics - for a skyscraper to suddenly go into freefall takes a lot more than some assymetrical damage and random office fires.
proudfootz 1 year ago
human body parts burn at 1600 degrees and turn to dust
Thermite creates 4,000 degree heat
they found 20,000 body parts at ground zero
if there was thermite, those body parts would be vaporized. The truth movement lying since 2002.
taledarkside 1 year ago
@taledarkside Argument from lack of imagination. Does some thermite mean that everything there was subjected to temperatures of 4500F? No.
iBlindGame 1 year ago
Reality does not stop or Ameri-duuuuh, no matter how special you think you are.
Reality is reality & nist cant even change that,
Sept11IsALie 1 year ago
So...did somebody prove this guy wrong?
I thought so...
o.-
MeatVision 1 year ago
what does the WTC have to do with a bowling ball?
funny how they don't build a replica of the towers and put thermite in it
taledarkside 1 year ago
@taledarkside its kinda funny why more money was spent on the clinton lewinsky affair than on the 9/11 investigation
wild0hawk 1 year ago
@wild0hawk
Lawyers charge more than engineers
taledarkside 1 year ago
@taledarkside you tell that to the famillies of the 9/11 victims and to the millions killed and had there lives made a misery in iraq and afghanistan, yeh u tell em how seriously u investigated a mass genocide against innocent ppl in the states and abroad, yeh u tell em how comfortable ur rotten soul is wen america dedicates more time,effort and money into investigateing a presidents adultery case than the genocide of 3000 of its own innocent citizens and millions more, u sir is a sad excuse
wild0hawk 1 year ago
@wild0hawk
cry me a river
i given you a simple fact that lawyers charge 500 dollars an hour while an engineer charges 100 dollars an hour.
i didn't see no genocide, i saw murder by a religious group
And your a sad excuse because you were finding the entire situation "its kinda funny"
taledarkside 1 year ago
@taledarkside cry u a river, why the fuck would i cry a river to a shit brained apathetic pig, is money all that counts to u, u souless piece of toads shit, and by the way the iraq alqeada connection was one of the reasons the american public was duped into accepting the iraq invasion, read something u fuckin twisted pubic hair, u despicably sad excuse for a human bieng
wild0hawk 1 year ago
@wild0hawk
once again
what does Iraq have to do with 9/11????
taledarkside 1 year ago
@taledarkside you sir is a moron, and i wont waste my precious time in a futile attempt to make a lump of stinking shit understand something :)
wild0hawk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wild0hawk
okay, then everyone will know you are a liar
taledarkside 1 year ago
@taledarkside Iraq has everything to do with 9/11 because most of the morons in the US think it's the justification for the invasion of Iraq.
CFrostyTheSnowman 1 year ago
@CFrostyTheSnowman
We invaded Afghanistan because of 9/11 idiot. you can't remember 10 years of history. SAD
taledarkside 1 year ago
@taledarkside No you fucking idiot, you can't read. I didn't say we DID invade iraq because of 9/11 I'm saying morons think that. Learn to read for christs sake. Seriously get your god damned eyes checked.
CFrostyTheSnowman 1 year ago
@CFrostyTheSnowman
why you telling me shit I already know then?
taledarkside 1 year ago
@taledarkside Clearly you didn't know that there are a large number of Americans who think 9/11 is part of the justification of Iraq or you wouldn't have responded how you did. You also wouldn't have posted "what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq" There are plenty of Americans who think "yeah get those bastards for attacking us" when clearly Iraqis did not attack us. And we are still occupying that country because of it.
CFrostyTheSnowman 1 year ago
@CFrostyTheSnowman
We are occupying Iraq for different reasons.
theres a large number of americans who don't know who is the vice president. And theres 100% of conspiracy theorists don't know about US history in wars.
taledarkside 1 year ago
@taledarkside 100% huh, thats a scientific extrapolation yes? I'll argue like you.
100% of anti conspiracy theorists think rat shit tastes good.
I'm right without actually asking every single anti conspiracy theorist. Because I can say whatever I want and it's automatically true.
CFrostyTheSnowman 1 year ago
@CFrostyTheSnowman
and thats pretty much what conspiracy theorists do, just like yourself.
taledarkside 1 year ago
@taledarkside STFU>FOH
KeshaIsHot808 1 year ago
@KeshaIsHot808
keep making the truth movement rich while they piss on the people who died on 9/11 for money
your garbage like loose change creators.
taledarkside 1 year ago
@wild0hawk
BTW, what does Iraq have to do with anything related to 9/11?
more propaganda bullshit
taledarkside 1 year ago
@taledarkside you idiot, the reason he can use a bowling ball is because we are dealing with FREE FALL SPEED. Fact the twin towers felled at free fall speed. no argument there. since it felled at free fall speed we can throw the pancake theory at the window and many more.. If you drop a ball that weights 1 billion pounds vs 1 ball that weights 100lbs they WILL fall at the same speed. You can only do that when there is NO RESISTANCE. hence the twin towers had none but how is that possible?
MIT2004 1 year ago
@MIT2004
bowling ball have air resistance and the WTC had air resistance.
we are not dealing with free fall speed, because this is the real world where there is "air resistance"
taledarkside 1 year ago
@taledarkside you idiot the air resistance is so LOW, practically ZERO, you can ignore it. Unless we are dropping a feather 10,000 feet, we can ignore air resistance.
MIT2004 1 year ago
@MIT2004
you don't ignore air resistance
so a guy falls as fast as a guy with a parachute. ROFL
engineers become engineers from going to middle school. ROFL
"towers fell in less than 10 seconds"
which part? I saw the inner core standing longer than 10 seconds. you don't know anything about air resistance,i can see why counting must be hard for you too
taledarkside 1 year ago
@taledarkside so the twin towers had wind resistnace right? so why in the hell did they fall at free fall speed. you are still a noob that cant own. oh yeah the twin towers had parachutes ROFL you dumbass go back to middle school and learn the basic. i never said engineers become enginers from middle school, you did. you must not now how to speak or write english
MIT2004 1 year ago
@MIT2004
Maybe you should learn how to count how long the WTC collapsed.
demolition buildings don't fall at free fall speed. Looks like truth movement lie about the data to push their agenda.
taledarkside 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MIT2004
"we are dropping a feather 10,000 feet"
so me dropping a feather at 5 feet will fall just as fast as a ball? ROFL
taledarkside 1 year ago
@taledarkside and if you want to be a smartass, then fine lets leave your air resistance in the equation... well guess you dumbfuck? the towers fell in less than 10 seconds. what happen to the air resistance there?
go back to middle school and lealrn the basics
MIT2004 1 year ago
This is excellent information. Thank You!
hansjalv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Official sources have gone on record estimating the collapse times at around 10-12 seconds. I don't think anyone can look at the collapses and seriously estimate them at 23 seconds - unless they accidentally hit the 'slow-mo' button. Based on the videos I would put them at around 14 seconds - which is exceptionally close to freefall. Of course measuring the start-to-finish of the collapse is an apocryphal method, freefall is better judged by analyzing acceleration of the collapse in every frame.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
Comment removed
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
The fact that NIST have not analysed the entire collapse but have instead resorted to the practice of constructing models of only the initiation, whose data-output is of questionable validity, leads me to think that they do not really want those controversies to be settled. Clearly an elaborate game is afoot and I'm afraid the trusters cannot look to the game-players to help them clear things up, because they appear to have no intention of taking the measurements that could do that for them.
CHIPSTERO7 1 year ago
The upper floors completely vanish from view by the time they reach the impact-damaged section of building, making it impossible to accurately measure the acceleration of the roofline against UNDAMGED sections of building resisting. Roof to ground, free fall is 9.2 seconds. It took the south tower over 15 seconds to reach the ground. The north tower, 23 seconds.
Now go back and do your math again, moron.
HavocGunStar 1 year ago
@HavocGunStar according to wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
the collapses took 11secs for WTC1 and 9 secs WTC2
if you have proof the collapses took longer than that, then you have proven NIST is lying.
Congratulations! you are now a troofer.
rechapit 1 year ago
@rechapit NIST says 9 and 11 seconds was the time it took for the pieces freefalling outside the structure to strike the ground.
They do not claim the buildings totally collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds.
If you claim they did then you are lying and if you have to lie to make controversy then obviously there isn't any.
flanksteak2 1 year ago
@flanksteak2 Dude, your are out of your league. Further comments from you will only confirm your very high degree of ignorance. Do us, do yourself, a favor and pull your head out and do some @#$%^&* ing homework. You have got to stop eating junk food, it is destroying your brain!
lizardfirefighter110 1 year ago
@lizardfirefighter110 LOL. How much dope did you have to smoke today?
flanksteak2 1 year ago
@rechapit You should probably re-read NIST's report. I get the feeling you .... missed something about what reached the ground at 9 seconds.
HavocGunStar 1 year ago
This is the dumbest shit I have ever seen. WTC7's collapse speed is erroneously measured. Collapse begins when the east penthouse vanishes from view. The walls on the outside of the building are non-structural. "free fall' of the exterior walls is meaningless, as they are 'hung' on the cantilever steel frame of the building. The frame collapsed, the walls fall with negligable resistance.
If you don't properly measure the collapse speed, you can game any result from the data you want.
HavocGunStar 1 year ago
like a famous comdian once said who you gonna believe me or your lying eyes? our citizens have been so brain washed to fear the truth, that they can no longer live in reality! If and when they wake up it will be too late. but thank you for all your efforts
ranger4usa83 1 year ago
"Galileo, the persecuted Truther of his time"
LOL
No. Galileo was NIST and the Truthers were the uneducated and hostile public that did not believe him.
jizzmonger 1 year ago
@jizzmonger Couldn't agree more, NIST's facts are all about belief...
Tackling the issue on their favorable terms was the expected move for an uneducated and hostile public.
Explain why NIST failed to repond when shown their WTC7 model was detached from reality of freefall?
Explain Nanothermite found in dust?
Explain why all the evidence was shipped before any forensic testing?
Explain why Nist violated NFPA guidelines?
ErileMatan 1 year ago