Common Sense

[28th Kingdom]

so what lateral force would be propelling it off the side of the building? did god decide to reach down and give it a whack?

I have the same question... what magical lateral force, caused the upper mass (supported by 37 non-severed vertical core columns) to tilt over?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I have the same question... what magical lateral force, caused the upper mass (supported by 37 non-severed vertical core columns) to tilt over?

jury's pic showed it pretty good

i just dont see why you expect it to go all the way all of the side

 

[28th Kingdom]

jury's pic showed it pretty good

http://home.comcast.net/~jerry.jobe/WTC1.jpg

i just dont see why you expect it to go all the way all of the side

That pics shows it pretty good, yea? Cool... than maybe you can point out the 37 non-severed core columns for me.. because I'm having a hard time finding them.

 

[332nd]

That pics shows it pretty good, yea? Cool... than maybe you can point out the 37 non-severed core columns for me.. because I'm having a hard time finding them.

That's ok... I've been having a hard time hearing the "CD Charges" sine the theory came out.

 

[28th Kingdom]

That's ok... I've been having a hard time hearing the "CD Charges" sine the theory came out.

That's okay... because all of the thousands of first hand accounts (including firefighters and policemen) of hearing explosions going off... has been debunked as exploding cans of hair spray.. the Towers were only a few miles from Jersey, weren't they?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnbpz9udYus

 

[defaultdotxbe]

That's okay... because all of the thousands of first hand accounts (including firefighters and policemen) of explosions going off... has been debunked as exploding cans of hair spray.. the Towers were only a few miles from Jersey, weren't they?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnbpz9udYus

so if that was a demo charge going off in WTC7.....why didnt it start to fall at that moment?

piss poor excuse for a demolition if you ask me

 

[Mashuna]

That pics shows it pretty good, yea? Cool... than maybe you can point out the 37 non-severed core columns for me.. because I'm having a hard time finding them.

please don't interject some really abstract term like, transferring of loads

So once again 28th, you want a simple explaination that covers all the technical details but doesn't introduce any tricky concepts that you don't understand.

I keep wavering between thinking you don't really believe what you write, as you're effectively self-debunking with all your inconsistancies and refusal to accept or acknowledge any of the answers to your questions. Then I read some of your 'logic' and 'calculations' and think that maybe you really do believe everything you say.

I can't decide which is more disturbing.

 

[28th Kingdom]

so if that was a demo charge going off in WTC7.....why didnt it start to fall at that moment?

piss poor excuse for a demolition if you ask me

You don't know much about CD, do you? Firstly, the Twin Towers weren't CD. They were rigged with explosives... but definitely not in the same way that you setup a CD... I mean, have you ever seen walls explode in a CD... the Twin Towers were rigged completely different than a CD... that's why the people who rigged them... didn't have to know jack about CD. All they had to know was how to rig a building to explode... and I'm sure the MOSSAD knew a little something about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL3zIv7LdZQ

Notice how things don't start collapsing at the first sounds of explosions.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

You don't know much about CD, do you? Firstly, the Twin Towers weren't CD. They were rigged with explosives... but definitely not in the same way that you setup a CD... I mean, have you ever seen walls explode in a CD... the Twin Towers were rigged completely different than a CD... that's why the people who rigged the buildings... didn't have to know jack about CD. All they had to know was how to rig a building to explode... and I'm sure the MOSSAD knew a little something about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL3zIv7LdZQ

Notice how things don't start collapsing at the first sounds of explosions.

notice how the landmark tower has a little bit more than 1 explosion? notice how it begins collapsing after the explosions?

now lets go back to you WTC7 phonebooth vid, we have 1 explosion, and the tower doesnt seem to collapse right afterward (cant be sure becuase the video cuts out, truther ADD i suppose, cant stick with one vid for more than 30 seconds)

 

[28th Kingdom]

So once again 28th, you want a simple explaination that covers all the technical details but doesn't introduce any tricky concepts that you don't understand.

I keep wavering between thinking you don't really believe what you write, as you're effectively self-debunking with all your inconsistancies and refusal to accept or acknowledge any of the answers to your questions. Then I read some of your 'logic' and 'calculations' and think that maybe you really do believe everything you say.

I can't decide which is more disturbing.

I just want to know... if you have eliminated the possibility of explosions with scientific evidence or with mere speculation i.e. it's impossible to rig inhabited buildings with explosives.

Could speculation accepted as fact... be warping your calculations and/or theories?

 

[beachnut]

You don't know much about CD, do you? Firstly, the Twin Towers weren't CD. They were rigged with explosives... but definitely not in the same way that you setup a CD... I mean, have you ever seen walls explode in a CD... the Twin Towers were rigged completely different than a CD... that's why the people who rigged them... didn't have to know jack about CD. All they had to know was how to rig a building to explode... and I'm sure the MOSSAD knew a little something about that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL3zIv7LdZQ

Notice how things don't start collapsing at the first sounds of explosions.

This is why you do not understand this!!!

It is called knowledge;

Today, 01:08 AM

I didn't say that... they're making this crap up.

Last edited by 28th Kingdom : Today at 01:30 AM.

Today, 01:09 AM

I was going off of freefall times that someone else came up with. According to this video, freefall for steel beams a certain size would be 4.7 seconds over the distance of 100 meters.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

So we divide 100 meters into the height of WTC 2 (415m) We get 4.15.

4.15 X 4.7 = 19.505 seconds.

Today, 01:17 AM

I was going off of freefall times that someone else came up with. According to this video, freefall for flat steel beams would be 5.6 seconds over the distance of 100 meters.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U

So we divide 100 meters into the height of WTC 2 (415m) We get 4.15.

4.15 X 5.6 = 23.24 seconds.

If you understood why you are wrong here you will start to see you are wrong all the time.

Then you go to school and you can be right. School!!!!

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I just want to know... if you have eliminated the possibility of explosions with scientific evidence or with mere speculation i.e. it's impossible to rig inhabited buildings with explosives.

Could speculation accepted as fact... be warping your calculations and/or theories?

you cant prove a negative, so we can never prove explosives werent in the WTC, but the same holds true for bigfoot and the loch ness monster, you cant prove they dont exist either

in this case, the burden is on you, you have to prove explosives were in the towers, and simply speculating as to the origin of a sound you hear is no more proof than a grainy pic of a submarine with a neck on it

 

[Minadin]

Could speculation accepted as fact... be warping your calculations and/or theories?

Not mine, I have to understand these things to make a living. You can my explaination here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2241047#post2241047

(You seem to have missed it the first time)

 

[28th Kingdom]

notice how the landmark tower has a little bit more than 1 explosion? notice how it begins collapsing after the explosions?

now lets go back to you WTC7 phonebooth vid, we have 1 explosion, and the tower doesnt seem to collapse right afterward (cant be sure becuase the video cuts out, truther ADD i suppose, cant stick with one vid for more than 30 seconds)

No, I noticed two explosions... not one - I guess you have limited hearing abilities... and also, do you think the building I linked to would have fallen if only two explosions went off?

Also...notice even in CD videos...how the buildings invariably crumple unevenly. WTC 7 fell so unbelievably symmetrical...it even defies CD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

 

[defaultdotxbe]

No, I noticed two explosions... not one - I guess you have limited hearing abilities... and also, do you think the building I linked to would have fallen if only two explosions went off?

sounds more like an explosion and an echo to me

so what was the point of this blast? a loud noise to get everyones attention and look all suspicious before the actual demolition?

Also...notice even in CD videos...how the buildings invariably crumple unevenly. WTC 7 fell so unbelievably symmetrical...it even defies CD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

so your saying it doesnt look like a CD?

i thought the whole of your evidence rested on its visual resemblence to a demolition? better not tell roxdog

 

[R.Mackey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_of_least_resistance

Don't you think that the upper mass' momentum coupled with inertia and the fact that below it is a rock solid 70+ floors of undamaged building with 47 core columns, floors and steel outer columns... would propel it off to the side of the building (where there is no resistance) instead of down and through a structure which had the ability to support (massive resistance) the weight of the upper mass?

The "path of least resistance" is an incremental thing, with the possible and sometime exception of superfluids. At all times the total energy gradient has to be negative. Ordinarily, the trajectory of an object cannot ever actually reach the true path of least resistance. In some cases, that path is not even an attractor.

Here's a dumb example. Let's say your house is on a small hill, with nothing around it. An 18-wheeler is heading straight for it at high speed. Will the 18-wheeler magically flow around your house, damaging nothing? That's the path of least resistance, right?

Wrong. The "resistance" also includes the energy needed to alter the truck's vector. It's actually harder for it to miss than it is to smack your house. Your insistence that the upper block would somehow slide to the side assumes that it would take no energy at all to slide the block 200 feet so that it could drop.

Guess what: Moving a 50 thousand ton block 200 feet sideways takes lots of energy. This has been explained to you at least ten times, including graphically. Aside from a puppet show, I don't know what else to try.

Yea, the WTC 1 & 2 fell because of the way the upper mass' latent energy penetrated the towers' terminal resistance threshold. Are you that dumb... please go read a book and learn something.

Ah, so the proven liar and slanderer claims to be more knowledgeable than us, huh?

Let's test that theory:

I have the same question... what magical lateral force, caused the upper mass (supported by 37 non-severed vertical core columns) to tilt over?

That's okay... because all of the thousands of first hand accounts (including firefighters and policemen) of hearing explosions going off... has been debunked as exploding cans of hair spray.. the Towers were only a few miles from Jersey, weren't they?

So let's suppose your idiotic observation was correct: It was explosives that shoved that 50 thousand ton block 200 feet to the side.

Suppose the block is blasted in a parabolic arc, moving 200 feet aside in roughly one second, but feel free to use whatever time you wish. Also suppose the explosives are 100% efficient in doing this (there's no way in the world they would -- explosives are really, really bad at moving solid objects -- but let's make this as easy as possible).

1. Numerical answer: How much explosives are needed? Show your work.
2. Essay answer: Is there a way to tell whether an explosive this size was detonated?

Let's see what you've got, since you've "read a book" and "learned something." I'll be glad to check your work, since I can calculate this standing on my head.

 

[28th Kingdom]

sounds more like an explosion and an echo to me

so what was the point of this blast? a loud noise to get everyones attention and look all suspicious before the actual demolition?



so your saying it doesnt look like a CD?

i thought the whole of your evidence rested on its visual resemblence to a demolition? better not tell roxdog

A tall building falling from the sky in seconds (WTC 7) is the part that resembles a CD.... because, we've never seen buildings do this outside of a CD. Not from hurricane damage, or earthquake damage... or plane damage... or fire damage... only from damage caused by planted explosives.

 

[28th Kingdom]

... explosives are really, really bad at moving solid objects ...

Before I reply to anything... please tell me what the hell you mean by this.

 

[Minadin]

because, we've never seen buildings do this outside of a CD.

Exactly . . . you have no other point of reference, nothing to base it on, which is why it looks like a CD to you. People who know more than you do about these things disagree with your grossly non-expert opinion; that should tell you something.

 

[R.Mackey]

Before I reply to anything... please tell me what the hell you mean by this.

Explosives don't move large objects.

I work for NASA. Rockets are not explosives (unless something goes wrong). There's a reason for this.

If you detonate a pile of explosives next to a large object, what happens? The explosive creates a pressure front that washes over the object at supersonic speed. Even assuming the object survives the shock, it won't move much, because there's only a pressure differential for a millisecond or so -- and then the shock is gone, moved past the object. To move something requires energy, in the form of work, which is equal to power times time. The power is there, but not the time. So the explosives never do much work.

Not to mention, the explosive is pushing its energy out in all directions, not focused on the object itself. There are rarely things like pistons unless you build them that way.