I had a post composed of all the questions you’ve posed, but it got really really long. What I surmised from that is that rather than witnessing or genuine debate, this is mostly just JAQing (Just Asking Questions).
I’m going to try new approach - in this thread you’ve asked many questions for which you’ve been provided answers and responses. You’ve received many questions which you haven’t responded to. Going forward in this thread you may not ask any additional questions. You can make statements and respond to others, but no more questions from you in this thread.
Of course, everyone that does see it will notice that I did post it for the photographs of the Pentagon damage, that you only showed to all that you will ignore.
As we have seen you are relying with arguments that climate change deniers or creationists would make. That is not making arguments based on reality, but on obfuscation.
so in terms of the proof beyond any doubt that 9/11/2001 = FALSE FLAG
there is the 2.25 sec of FREE FALL for WTC7
there is the obviously fake “FLT175” video
there is the Towers descending straight down @ 64% of the acceleration of gravity
what does it take to get people to at least question this farce?
Try this: things on the planet here fall at a rate of 9.8m/s[sup]2[/sup]. That is free fall. Things that do not fall at that rate have some force preventing them from experiencing free fall. In the case of the towers, the force had to have been delivered from beneath the falling floors. This means that, if the speed was 64% A[sub]G[/sub] then the remaining 36% must have been coming from the lower floors, to slow the upper floors down. In other words, 100% of the weight of the upper floors was impinging on the lower floor, but the lower floors were mustering resistance (which was causing them to fail).
How much debris do you expect to be intact? Yeah you can reconstruct a plane which crashes on takeoff, from cruising altitude, not so much. Note they did identify remains from this non-existent airliner.
And you also haven’t explained the cellphone calls. Can’t admit you are wrong, can you?
I made a suggestion a few pages ago which you unfortunately never responded to. Do your homework. Don’t just vaguely argue “the physics don’t work” without actually modeling out the physics. Put in the work, build a model in a physics engine, and test that shit. Then, return with results and source code, so that we can check your work. Because right now (and, indeed, until you actually put the work in) you’re not appealing to any actual physics. You’re appealing to your own incredulity.
If we consider the upper 20 floor (or whatever) as a rigid structure of some constant mass, gravity is pulling down on that structure with weight W. If something is pushing up on that structure with an equal force, it stays where it is. If we remove the upward force completely, the structure falls with an acceleration due to gravity, 9.8 m/s[sup]2[/sup]. If the structure falls, but at a slower rate, there must be some upward force resisting it, but that upward force is less than the original steady-state (that is, before the building started to collapse).
The problem is in viewing that upward force, during the collapse, as a constant. I haven’t done the math to see if the 64% number is accurate, but let’s use it anyway. When enough of the vertical supports weakened, there wasn’t enough force to keep the top 20 floors in place, and they started to descend. When it had fallen 3.6 meters and met the next floor down, that floor would have needed to exert more than the steady-state force in order the stop the collapse. It couldn’t. The supports that were supposed to carry that load gave way and now the top 21 floors fell another 3.6 meters. So you had periods of relatively small upward force alternating with brief moments of upward force that quickly overwhelmed what the lower floors could handle. Sure, maybe that averaged out to 36% of the load that the building was designed to carry, but so what?
And why 36%? No reason, that’s just how it turned out. The same way that the hijackers didn’t have to fly 540 kts.; they just put the plane into a dive to fly as fast as they could, and 540 kts. is what they wound up with.
So, the videos of the plane could not be true because we cannot see the 540 m.p.h. plane slow down as it crashes through the wall pierced by many windows,
but there is a problem with the collapse, because we can see the building falling at less than free fall velocity as it crushes through the many still supported floors beneath it.
The experience of one’s own life, existing in the real world and seeing how objects interact with each other at rest, at speed, and when accelerating or slowing down should give you all the information you need to disregard your interpretation of the crashes. You are quite literally ignoring the actual bodily experiences of your own life.
This whole thing seems to be triggered by the OP’s inability to visualize what happens to objects that impact objects at extremely high speeds, and how this differs from the same impacts of the same objects at lower speeds. We’ve already had the example of the ping pong ball penetrating a paddle and a bit of rain gutter piercing a tree, things which can’t happen at lower speeds, and yet they happened - and can be replicated - at speeds sometimes considerably less than the speed at which the planes hitting the towers were travelling. Likewise he seems not to understand just how significant a factor gravity is when heavy things fall down. But that’s just the fundamental inability to understand inertia and gravity.
More telling are the repeated assertions that all the recorded evidence is false, all the eyewitness statements are lies, all the physical and mathematical modelling of the events is skewed, all the physical evidence that demonstrates that events happened as reported doesn’t exist, and that “logic” involves somehow just repeating nonsense and blaming others for failing to be swayed by this. That suggests an unwillingness to debate in good faith.
You’ve done nothing but speculate, deny reality and use specious CT reasoning from the moment you created this “debate”. But when it comes time to provide some substance to your wild-hared speculation, suddenly you clam up and refuse to speculate? How predictably convenient, for you.
C’mon Jay_Jay, at least have the courage of your convictions and offer some original thoughts that haven’t come from the playbook written by discredited and debunked CT lunatics.
Start here:
[ul]
[li]Who were the major players involved in the planning and execution of these events? [/li][li]What did they gain by doing so? [/li][li]Why do US gov’t administrations continue to cover it up? [/li][li]What evidence exists for the orchestration for this “False Flag” operation and the on going cover-up?[/li][li]How has media managed to maintain the alleged cover-up for all these years? [/li][li]Where did you first learn of this? [/li][li]Has anyone actively encouraged you to promote these ideas? [/li][li]If so, who or what organization do they represent? [/li][li]Are you concerned that some gov’t authority might retaliate against you in some way for uncovering ‘the truth’, as you understand it?[/li][/ul]