# News clips from 9-11-2001 **You can't debunk this**

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Ganymede, Oct 9, 2007.

1. ### mrowUnlessRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,041
Well, I hope it's never seen that way. I've always liked you draq, I was just surprised that's all. But regardless, back to the thread topic.

Messages:
22,087

5. ### James911Registered Member

Messages:
27
GeffP, If you really want to go down to the milliseconds to proof that it's not free fall, then here it is: I can see that you really struggled to add some seconds to the 10S seismic data. Keep in mind that this is your own analysis, but the folks in PopMech have been doing this job day and night, they sleep, they eat, they wake up and they dream on this type of data. How much you tried to add? at the most an extra 2 seconds...then let me tell you this:

The formula t = sqrt( 2 * d/g ) is a formula that you apply in vacuum, this means no air resistance, no concrete resistance and no Steel resistance.
So in a vacuum and perfect conditions you get that 9.2 Seconds. However, when you add the air resistance which involves drag to the falling body, the equation becomes ugly, which will increase the falling time.

Hope this will satisfy you.

Regarding your question of why in that picture, pieces are falling faster than the tower itself, i.e., faster than free fall speed. I'll tell you why.
If you go back to the free fall formula, that formula is not complete, there is a piece of that equation which is ignored because a free falling object does not count for it, which is the initial velocity of the free falling object, I have marked it in RED and BOLD

d = V*t + 0.5*g*t*t

Now if you through an object from the top of WTC2 without an initial velocity it will reach the ground in about 9.2 Second
Now if you through an object from the top of WTC2 with an initial velocity it will reach the ground in less than 9.2 Second, i.e. faster than free fall speed. That's why you see the small noise in the seismic data chart before the big spike.

Now the question that comes to mid, from where this initial velocity comes from? The red part of the above equation, what caused it to appear?

Analyze this picture and you will see exactly the cause of this initial velocity:

img136.imageshack.us/img136/8052/southtoweranalysisnu0.jpg

This is a picture that consist of three pictures put side by side. Yes...It's the WTC2 collapsing in the first milliseconds.
Watch the top section of WTC2 falling and disintegrating in mid air while the floors beneath it hasn't started crashing yet.
You can see the top 37 floors being eaten away in mid air while smoke of dust, concrete and pieces of steel are being thrown out from all sides. All this is happening while the 81st, 82nd and 83rd floor hasn't started collapsing yet...Remember to keep the top of the BLUE building as your reference ...Only one thing can explain this phenomena...I'll leave it to you to figure it out.

( To have a fair discussion, can someone post for me this picture, as I don't know what's wrong with my number of posts. It's stopping me from posting pictures. Unless the administrator sort out my account. Just post the picture and I'll do the explaining. )

Hope this helps.
James

Last edited: Jun 20, 2008

7. ### MacGyver1968Fixin' Shit that Ain't BrokeValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,028
I don't see what that pic proves, except that the collapse began right above the impact zone of the aircraft...where it should start.

I wonder how the bomb guys knew what floor to put the bombs on?

Why did they wait almost an hour to set them off? You could have killed a lot more people if you would have set them off as the plane crashed into the building..plus it would have been much easier to disguise the explosion.

Why not set off the charges in both buildings simultaneously?...that would have really made an impact.

I really do not see how the time that buildings took to collapse has anything to do with how the buildings were destroyed. Buildings that are destoyed by controlled demolision are gutted first, and their supports weakened...plus they put charges on every floor. Thats why they fall faster. The WTC obviously wasn't gutted first, and the collapse obviously started in just one place. Whether a bomb or fire weakened steel caused the collapse...seems to me they would collapse at about the same rate.

Last edited: Jun 20, 2008
8. ### GeoffPCaput gerat lupinumValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,087
Two things: actually, it's to whole seconds, or tenths of seconds at most.

The other thing is that actually it's up to you to prove it's freefall. I'm just falsifying your hypothesis.

Not at all. The graph speaks volumes about a huge uncertainty in the assignment of the end of the seismic event. Where does it stop, exactly? How is this known? The entire right side of the graph is filled with noise.

You're telling me that the gang at PopMech live on seismic data? Interesting. So do you agree with their conclusion:

So - I assume you accept this version of events, then, since PopMech eats and breathes seismology? Personally, I'm highly skeptical of anyone's ability to call a correct endpoint to that graph. Can you identify on that graph where the building stops and the residual noise starts? I'd challenge anyone to that.

Problem: air resistance would be minimal anyway against the power of a falling building of the mass of the WTC, unless you can illustrate an equation that would add time.

But the initial velocity of the debris was also zero, much as the building itself. I can see debris coming off the building throughout the video and then falling faster anyway. I can see old pieces that came off the building when the collapse started that are falling faster than the building now: for, as you realize, all loose collapse debris had to have started no earlier (with very minor exceptions which are clearly not in any great numbers on the video) than the collapse itself. In short: all falling debris falls faster than the building, no matter which time point it fell off at. The picture is entirely irrelevant.

Now you're arguing in milliseconds.

Debris goes faster than the building throughout; even pieces on the building that should be up to speed and don't start with Vo = 0.

Best regards,

Geoff

9. ### GeoffPCaput gerat lupinumValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,087
Mac raises some excellent points:

i) how did they know what floor to put the bombs on?

ii) how were the bombs not damaged?

iii) why were no explosions seen to strip the outer shell of its support columns?

Geoff

10. ### MacGyver1968Fixin' Shit that Ain't BrokeValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,028
That's just it...there are no outer support columns...The entire skin of the building is a load bearing member. That's why all the windows are tiny little arrow slits, and there aren't any huge windows.

Here's an image of the WTC under construction...notice the only columns are in the center "inner box"...

Since the wtc was constructed in a unique manner...different than any other building..it would collapse differently and at a different rate than other buildngs. Since no one has ever imploded a building of this design...so there's no real way anyone can say how long a collapse would take. Seeing how there are no interior columns or walls in the office space, there isn't a whole lot to slow the collapse...and would result in a shorter collapse time.

Last edited: Jun 20, 2008
11. ### James911Registered Member

Messages:
27
Well...Well...Well, GeffP

I can see that you are running away from reality and the shocking proof of the existing solid evidence. I am realy shocked from your double standard, on one side you showed your atmost ability to analyse in the most detailed fashion a seismograph that not many people can do. But on the other side when you are confronted with the unquetionabale proof of "CONTROL DEMOLITION" you tend to shift the subject and say:

I challenge you to post this picture.
if you have the nerve to do it then post it. and explain what's happening.

Proof of control demolition
This is the picture:img136.imageshack.us/img136/8052/southtoweranalysisnu0.jpg

It looks like something happened to your eyesight when you saw that picture.

Now, I'll go and make a cup of tea. I will be away for the weekend.
As we are totaly done with the free fall subject, I will be back to finish off with the next topic, which is "MOLTEN METAL".

Best regards
James

Last edited: Jun 20, 2008
12. ### GeoffPCaput gerat lupinumValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,087
Wow, Mac...I thought it was a lot less support than that.

James911 - please cease the accusation of running away from evidence. I'm right here. You have not discussed your response to my points about the interval of the collapse not being measureable evidence of demolition. (In fact, you earlier accused me of being a government agent of some kind, which I've actually been accused of before.) You accuse me of a double standard, which is sheer poppycock. I simply disagree with PopMech's assumption of the collapse period. Oddly enough, it's you that resorts to Argument from Authority, but only so far as it might support your pre-conclusions. You have not demonstrated any unquestionable proof of anything so far.

Here's the picture you wanted. What's it meant to represent? Mac's already discussed it. Why don't you respond to these arguments?

What the picture shows me is i) that it was not controlled demolition, since the upper area of the tower is already leaning (is this the part that damaged WTC7?), and ii) that someone has drawn specious red arrows on the picture. Of course,since the area is concealed by dust, it's hard to say what is happening behind it. If you would care to comment further, please do. I have already explained, however, that debris falling after this point (that is, below your red arrows) also falls faster than the tower, obviating differences in 'free-fall' since it it moving at the same speed as the rest of the not free falling building

Or is your argument that the upper portion of WTC1 only is in freefall? Are you saying that the charges were planted only at the impact site? Then please explain your argument - and the consistent arguments of all Troofers - that the entire building is in free fall. (Please note that your plea of "air resistance" also applies to free-falling debris.) You may not cherry-pick your evidence.

I appreciate that you have retired on the subject, since it is not going to your liking, but you must respond to these questions and issues. Following this, I would be happy to re-address the issue of the molten aluminum compounds. I believe Shaman, above, has some interesting pictures to post on this subject.

Best regards,

Geoff

Last edited: Jun 20, 2008
13. ### shaman_Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,467
Which pictures Geoff?

That picture above is interesting. It shows how the collapse starts on the floors hit by the plane. Then the building collapses in a manner unlike a controlled demolition.

14. ### GeoffPCaput gerat lupinumValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,087
A good point.

I was thinking of the molten metal pics you had. Or was that Mac? (If so, sorry Mac.) Either way, an interesting demonstration. And if you saw molten metal, what would be your first call as to it's identity? Steel, naturally.

15. ### James911Registered Member

Messages:
27
By the way GeffP, thanks for posting that picture, I do appreciate. Also, there in nothing wrong being a government agent, protecting the country is good.

Now, What's wrong with the above picture...?

Can someone give a scientific and physical explanation to what did happen in that picture?

Where is Newton's first law of motion?
Every object in a state of uniform motion
tends to remain in that state of motion
unless an external force is applied to it.
Where is the conservation of energy?
Where is the physical law which says: "For every action there is a reaction"?
How comes the floors in section C hasn't crashed yet ( Look at WTC2 side, beside the blue building, in the three pictures ), while the top floors of WTC2 in section A i.e. all of the 37 floors has disappeared and were converted to dust?
If the top floors were converted to dust even before the floors in section C start crashing, then what caused the pancake effect. Surely the pancake effect means that a very very very heavy body crashed the floors below and so on. Now that very very very heavy body has turned into dust even before the floors in section C start to crash. Please can someone explain...

Please, I am not being sarcastic here:
Any one has gone to university? Where are those scientific and thinking minds? Any one up to the challenge?

Surely, if those top floors were leaning away from the centre of WTC2, then there whouldn't be a reason for the pancake effect. Hence the building shouldn't have collapsed.

Can he explain it to the utmost detail, basing his answers with physical and scientific laws? After all we are in a sciforum.

I am certainly sure someone can explain it.

Regards
James

Last edited: Jun 23, 2008
16. ### RandwolfIgnorance killed the catValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,188
Well, I certainly do not claim to be an expert on this, but even if these top floors were "converted to dust", wouldn't that dust still be "very very very heavy"?

17. ### shaman_Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,467
Randwolf is right.

It's hard to see exactly what is happening there because of the dust clouds but it's very unlikely that those top floors were all dust at that point. They were compressed, they were still very heavy, and they were coming down. Even in the third picture you can see several stories still intact as they are falling.

Even though the building is leaning that doesn't mean it's no longer exerting a downward force.

18. ### GeoffPCaput gerat lupinumValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,087
I'm sure it is, although I'm not sure why you're mentioning it.

"Converted to dust"??? Are you mad? There's dust thrown up by the impact, but they weren't converted to dust. Why wasn't the whole bloody building converted to dust when it hit the ground then? Were the steel girders (which apparently lose none of their supportive strength at 650C) converted to dust? The desks? The toilets and brass fixtures, were they converted to dust? This is getting positively Biblical.

But, of course, you are being sarcastic. I repeat: are you going to university? Which one? (If it's Brigham Young, just please don't answer.)

This is the maddest proposition so far.

As am I. But when we do, you duck and cover. Allow me to repeat verbatim my last post:

*****************************************************************************

Two things: actually, it's to whole seconds, or tenths of seconds at most.

The other thing is that actually it's up to you to prove it's freefall. I'm just falsifying your hypothesis.

Not at all. The graph speaks volumes about a huge uncertainty in the assignment of the end of the seismic event. Where does it stop, exactly? How is this known? The entire right side of the graph is filled with noise.

You're telling me that the gang at PopMech live on seismic data? Interesting. So do you agree with their conclusion:

So - I assume you accept this version of events, then, since PopMech eats and breathes seismology? Personally, I'm highly skeptical of anyone's ability to call a correct endpoint to that graph. Can you identify on that graph where the building stops and the residual noise starts? I'd challenge anyone to that.

Problem: air resistance would be minimal anyway against the power of a falling building of the mass of the WTC, unless you can illustrate an equation that would add time.

But the initial velocity of the debris was also zero, much as the building itself. I can see debris coming off the building throughout the video and then falling faster anyway. I can see old pieces that came off the building when the collapse started that are falling faster than the building now: for, as you realize, all loose collapse debris had to have started no earlier (with very minor exceptions which are clearly not in any great numbers on the video) than the collapse itself. In short: all falling debris falls faster than the building, no matter which time point it fell off at. The picture is entirely irrelevant.

Now you're arguing in milliseconds.

Debris goes faster than the building throughout; even pieces on the building that should be up to speed and don't start with Vo = 0.

*****************************************************************************

The above reply from PopMech illustrates the underhandedness and willful avoidance of the issues by the Troofer movement. They demand evidence, then the most rational interpretation of that evidence contradicts them and wham it's off to the next topic. Any admission of possibility is construed immediately as fact, and hell take the hindmost in the rush to properly denounce anyone possessing the unfortunate advantages of reason , knowledge and common sense. The old cry of "trust no one over 30" has been replaced by "trust no one over 13". Which is unfortunate, as it puts us in the position of having mass consciousness repeatedly responding to a fart in the wind of reality.

Best regards,

Geoff

19. ### MacGyver1968Fixin' Shit that Ain't BrokeValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,028
God Dang, you talk purdy, Geoff!

20. ### GeoffPCaput gerat lupinumValued Senior Member

Messages:
22,087
Don't butter me up, sweet-cheeks. Y'ain't been on the range that long.

(I hope I used "Y'ain't" all right; my Texan double contractions have been a bit out of use.

)

21. ### James911Registered Member

Messages:
27
There were no physics in all of the above answers.

Can someone else explain.

22. ### MacGyver1968Fixin' Shit that Ain't BrokeValued Senior Member

Messages:
7,028
Lot's of good points made, which you keep ignoring. Afraid to answer?

23. ### James911Registered Member

Messages:
27
MacGyver1968, you've posted your bit. we've also seen GeffP's reply. Leave others to give their scientific and physical explanation.

I think that's what forums are here for, not a boxing ring.