Who cares to debate the events of 9/11/2001 based upon the laws of physics?

[Jay_Jay]

@snfaulkner

Typical airline crashes aren’t into buildings.

You know what “hollyweird” uses for pyrotechnics displays? gasoline. Which is very similar to kerosene as a pyrotechnic, of which the planes has thousands of pounds.

and the jet fuel explosion just happened to ( in each case )
wait until the alleged airliner was inside the building before it ignited … .what?

[Jay_Jay]

@running_coach

Yes, really. Link to the “Harley guy”?

- YouTube

[scr4]

@Jay_Jay

This does NOT require “equations”
in order to be a real explanation, fact is that the building descended at
FREE FALL acceleration for 2.25 sec and kept its shape for that time while dropping straight down. The psychological warfare is very intense around this bit
people need to get the fact that free fall acceleration is a critical factor here
and the NIST report doesn’t negate the physical laws.

So your claim is, when a building’s structure is weakened by explosives, the entire building will free-fall. But when a building’s structure is weakened by collision and intense fire, the building will do something else. What makes you think that?

[enipla]

@Jay_Jay

you invite speculation without actually examining the events and the media reporting on said events. the problem I have with the whole thing is not just in the individual events such as an alleged airliner crash, but also in the uniformity of the events, two towers completely destroyed, total of 4 alleged airliner crashes where all of the aircraft were not just destroyed they were broken up into incredibly small bits, in typical airliner crashes leave some large sections of the airliner to be found.
the fact that for 3 of the alleged airliners the crash includes the plane punching a hole in a wall and the whole aircraft allegedly enters the building and then only after the aircraft is inside the building, a huge hollyweird special effects type pyrotechnic display goes off … Its too contrived, to scripted … and the “Harley guy” on camera being the great explainer to tell the official story … really guyz?

Yes really. Clearly, you are having a hard time understanding the forces involved. And plenty of large pieces where found (considering the circumstances of the crashes).

[snfaulkner]

@Jay_Jay

and the jet fuel explosion just happened to ( in each case )
wait until the alleged airliner was inside the building before it ignited … .what?

Its not gonna ignite BEFORE the tanks rupture, spraying it all over a hot impact site, now is it?

[Jay_Jay]

@GIGObuster

No, because the WTC did not fall like a controlled demolition.

Skeptic » eSkeptic » September 7, 2011

The fact is that something descending at 64% of the acceleration of gravity
is only exerting 36% of its own weight on whatever is below it.

[running_coach]

@Jay_Jay

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5y8PtfKA14

1. Why do you consider him to be a spokesman for what happened.
2. Why are you posting something you consider fake?

[DrFidelius]

@Jay_Jay

The fact is that something descending at 64% of the acceleration of gravity
is only exerting 36% of its own weight on whatever is below it.

Um, no

[running_coach]

@Jay_Jay

The fact is that something descending at 64% of the acceleration of gravity
is only exerting 36% of its own weight on whatever is below it.

What happened to freefall? You keep jumping back and forth.
And where do you get the 36% figure?

[puzzlegal]

Maybe I’m too late to this thread, but I’m curious what part of the “standard story” do you think isn’t true, Jay_Jay? Do you not believe that airplanes hit the towers? Do you think that there was something in addition to the airplanes to help them burn? Something else?

[QuickSilver]

@Jay_Jay

This does NOT require “equations”
in order to be a real explanation, fact is that the building descended at
FREE FALL acceleration for 2.25 sec and kept its shape for that time while dropping straight down. The psychological warfare is very intense around this bit
people need to get the fact that free fall acceleration is a critical factor here
and the NIST report doesn’t negate the physical laws.

@Jay_Jay

the telling bit is the fact of complete and total destruction of both towers.
This is the least likely scenario of all possible outcomes.
and it is only a function of the psychological warfare that more people do not consider this VERY suspicious.
BTW: I’m not going to second guess the actual demolition, the process could have started off with charges detonating in multiple locations.

@Jay_Jay

The fact is that something descending at 64% of the acceleration of gravity
is only exerting 36% of its own weight on whatever is below it.

What the fuck are you even talking about??

[running_coach]

@QuickSilver

What the fuck are you even talking about??

He’s not sure. But he thinks it sounds impressive.

[enipla]

@Jay_Jay

and the jet fuel explosion just happened to ( in each case )
wait until the alleged airliner was inside the building before it ignited … .what?

Sure, it was also moving at ~500mph. As the wings where most of the fuel was did not (and would not) break up UNTIL THEY hit and entered the building.

For the life of me, I don’t get why this is so hard to understand. Jay_Jay, can you even conceive what 500mph is? Doesn’t seem so. And I think that’s a big part of your problem with what happened.

[Jay_Jay]

@snfaulkner

Its not gonna ignite BEFORE the tanks rupture, spraying it all over a hot impact site, now is it?

The g force stress on the airliner right from the start, would cause the tanks to rupture before the wings contacted the wall, additionally the PENTAGON crash event had the wings folding up to the body of the airliner in order to make it in the initial entry hole and that would most certainly cause the breach of the fuel tanks before the alleged airliner was fully inside the building …

[drewder]

@Jay_Jay

Point, an airliner colliding with a skyscraper wall
would have to suffer the consequences of equal and opposite reaction
and therefore if there was sufficient energy to punch a hole in the wall
that includes having to displace >3 tons of mass, there would be sufficient energy to destroy the airliner and that is break it up into a lot of aircraft wreckage before it had any opportunity to make that wing shaped gash.

do you see this at all?

So show your work. Show that a 757 traveling at around 500 mph lacks the ability to punch a hole through a steel reinforce building. The math should be fairly easy,the mass and composition of all the objects involved should be fairly well documented and strength and behavior of such materials should be available in any engineering materials handbook.

So take us through the science that shows that something impossible happened. Making impassioned pleas and appeals to logic is philosophy not science.

[QuickSilver]

Jay_Jay,

Why did the US government orchestrate the events of 9/11?
Who were the major players involved in the planning and execution of these events?
What did they gain by doing so?
Why do subsequent administrations continue to cover it up?
What evidence exists for the orchestration and the on going cover-up?
Where did you first learn of this?
Has anyone actively encouraged you to promote these ideas?
If so, who or what organization do they represent?
Do you worry that the gov’t might retaliate against you in some way for uncovering ‘the truth’, as you understand it?

[running_coach]

@Jay_Jay

The g force stress on the airliner right from the start, would cause the tanks to rupture before the wings contacted the wall, additionally the PENTAGON crash event had the wings folding up to the body of the airliner in order to make it in the initial entry hole and that would most certainly cause the breach of the fuel tanks before the alleged airliner was fully inside the building …

Cite?

[GIGObuster]

@Jay_Jay

The fact is that something descending at 64% of the acceleration of gravity
is only exerting 36% of its own weight on whatever is below it.

That is nice, the core of the buildings did not do that. Again, you have nothing.

[Jay_Jay]

@running_coach

He’s not sure. But he thinks it sounds impressive.

and for the skeptics, WHO will actually check it out
maybe do your own homework on the subject,
this one is obvious to people who understand what is going on.
and for the masses who have been watching the Tee Vee,
well … it is what it is … sorry about that …

[Jay_Jay]

@GIGObuster

That is nice, the core of the buildings did not do that. Again, you have nothing.

what are you referring to
the core of the building did not do what?