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

[Jay_Jay]

@QuickSilver

Faked by whom and for what purpose?

again a request of speculation and this is really not necessary
the bottom line here is that it is possible to prove that the whole fiasco
was a lie.

[QuickSilver]

@Jay_Jay

you don’t actually have to see an airliner collide with a building in order to have a concept of what should be seen if such an event should happen.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

[silenus]

@Jay_Jay

again a request of speculation and this is really not necessary
the bottom line here is that it is possible to prove that the whole fiasco
was a lie.

Yet you have done nothing of the sort. Funny, that.

[XT]

@Gyrate

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.

He thinks computer model simulations are ‘cartoons’ and won’t accept them or even really look at them, yet doesn’t have a grasp himself of how a plane with that much mass moving that quickly is going to react when it hits a building. It’s his knee-jerk rejection of any sort of visual modeling coupled with his lack of understanding of physics (even rudimentary physics) and his certainty that 9/11 MUST be a fake that sets this up. Basically, nothing we can say will change his mind…it’s made up. No amount of facts is going to change that.

[QuickSilver]

@Jay_Jay

again a request of speculation and this is really not necessary
the bottom line here is that it is possible to prove that the whole fiasco
was a lie.

You’ve done nothing but speculate, shamelessly.

You’ve proven nothing but a fundamental lack of understanding of events while perpetuating CT lunacy.

Now, have the courage of your convictions and explain why these events are a large scale cover-up.

[Jay_Jay]

@Robot_Arm

I think I can see what Jay_Jay is getting at.

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.

about that 20 floors falling bit,
once the upper mass has fallen that one floor, and attained some speed
it would encounter a stationary mass ( that is the lower floor ) and not only have to bust up said floor, but accelerate said mass to match the speed already attained by the original 20 floors, however that is impossible without subtracting from the speed of the original 20 floors.

[Jay_Jay]

@QuickSilver

You’ve done nothing but speculate, shamelessly.

You’ve proven nothing but a fundamental lack of understanding of events while perpetuating CT lunacy.

Now, have the courage of your convictions and explain why these events are a large scale cover-up.

a 2.25 sec drop at free fall acceleration is NOT speculation.

[running_coach]

@Jay_Jay

The ONLY videos that are critical to the case are the ones that actually show the south wall of the south tower, there are only 3 or maybe 4 of these, all of the rest of the video alleging to show the crash of “FLT175” were faked real-time because they didn’t have to show the alleged penetration event they just showed an image of an airliner and then the explosion from the alleged crash, all the time the south wall was obscured by anothe skyscraper or was shot from the north side of the south tower.

incredulity over how these things may have been accomplished
does nothing to negate the obvious fake images that were promoted as the alleged crash of “FLT175”

PROOF they were faked? Your declaration they were faked is no proof at all. How about anomalies on the video? Example: incorrect markings, wing configuration, engine type, wrong placement of doors, etc.

[Bone]

@Jay_Jay

Just ONE POINT here
totally straight up legit physics, WTC7 spent 2.25 sec falling at the acceleration of gravity and kept its shape while falling straight down during that time.
how was that done without controlled demolition?

This is a warning for failure to follow moderator instructions. Please refer to post #961.

[/moderating]

[XT]

@Jay_Jay

a 2.25 sec drop at free fall acceleration is NOT speculation.

It’s misrepresentation.

[running_coach]

@Jay_Jay

a 2.25 sec drop at free fall acceleration is NOT speculation.

So what? You keep repeating that as if it proves something.

[Jay_Jay]

@XT

He thinks computer model simulations are ‘cartoons’ and won’t accept them or even really look at them, yet doesn’t have a grasp himself of how a plane with that much mass moving that quickly is going to react when it hits a building. It’s his knee-jerk rejection of any sort of visual modeling coupled with his lack of understanding of physics (even rudimentary physics) and his certainty that 9/11 MUST be a fake that sets this up. Basically, nothing we can say will change his mind…it’s made up. No amount of facts is going to change that.

“lack of understanding of physics” OK
please then enlighten me as to how WTC7 fell at FREE FALL acceleration
for 2.25 sec while keeping its shape and falling straight down.

[QuickSilver]

@Jay_Jay

about that 20 floors falling bit,
once the upper mass has fallen that one floor, and attained some speed
it would encounter a stationary mass ( that is the lower floor ) and not only have to bust up said floor, but accelerate said mass to match the speed already attained by the original 20 floors, however that is impossible without subtracting from the speed of the original 20 floors.

Stop torturing science. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

[Jay_Jay]

@running_coach

So what? You keep repeating that as if it proves something.

and you have to keep saying that it really doesn’t prove anything
however for there to be free fall, ALL of the support for the falling mass
would have had to be removed and all at the same time.

[Khendrask]

21 pages? Really?
Can we all just agree that in some cases, ignorance wins?

[Jay_Jay]

@QuickSilver

Stop torturing science. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.

rather than telling me that I’m “torturing” science
please explain what I got wrong about this…

[QuickSilver]

@Jay_Jay

a 2.25 sec drop at free fall acceleration is NOT speculation.

That’s the only bit that appears true. The building structure failed and appears to have collapsed at near g acceleration.

Congratulations, you’ve proven that things fall.

Move on and answer the questions you’re so determined to avoid answering.

[running_coach]

@Jay_Jay

“lack of understanding of physics” OK
please then enlighten me as to how WTC7 fell at FREE FALL acceleration
for 2.25 sec while keeping its shape and falling straight down.

Because nothing is acting on the debris to make it move in another direction.
Why is this so significant that you keep repeating it without explanation?

Did someone give you this talking point and you don’t really understand what it means?
Were you told it would drive your enemies before you and you would hear the lamentations of their women?

[Jay_Jay]

@Khendrask

21 pages? Really?
Can we all just agree that in some cases, ignorance wins?

The big bamboozle is in full effect here and people refuse to even consider alternatives to the official lie on the subject. oops!

[QuickSilver]

@Jay_Jay

rather than telling me that I’m “torturing” science
please explain what I got wrong about this…

It’s been explained to you. We can’t understand it for you.

Now, you start answering the questions I’ve asked you, over and over.