Discussion of reasons why folks believe what they do and supported by factual evidence...

[gamolon]

This explanation describes a situation of controlled demolition, which is of course what happened to WTC1.


North Tower Acceleration by David Chandler

I'll make this real easy for you. Using Chandler's representation of a structure here:


Explain how the the smaller, upper section destroyed the lower, larger section.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCjEi4z2KZA

Chandler's diagram show only percentage of weight. That's it. Simplistic. So explain why Chandler's model/diagram doesn't result in the same outcome with the building in my video. It matches the smaller % upper section versus the larger % lower section criteria and should be applicable to any objects in that manner.

So using Chandler's model above, the numbers for the building in my video would be about .20w instead of his .36w. I got .20 because the building was about 15 floors high and 3 floors came down upon 10 and destroyed/crushed them. Chandler's model and explanation says that this shouldn't have happened right? So where is the mistake within Chandler's model? What needs to be added to it in order to account in for the two different results?

 

[gamolon]

Explain the missile nose sticking out of WTC2.

View attachment 67224120

If that is an intact "missile nose" that PENETRATED THE FACADE, where did it go in the videos? I never see that "missile nose" continue in it's trajectory in ANY videos.

 

[gamolon]

Explain the missile nose sticking out of WTC2.

View attachment 67224120

That "missile nose" is a debris cloud.


You have had this explained to you many times before. Watch the video starting at 3:23. You will see the debris cloud dissipate. I don't see a "missile nose" anywhere that leaves the explosions/debris cloud. Did it just disappear?

 

[mike2810]

That "missile nose" is a debris cloud.
View attachment 67224130

You have had this explained to you many times before. Watch the video starting at 3:23. You will see the debris cloud dissipate. I don't see a "missile nose" anywhere that leaves the explosions/debris cloud. Did it just disappear?

You won't get an answer to your question that makes sense. Certain posters should be ignored.

 

[camlok]

Explain how the the smaller, upper section destroyed the lower, larger section.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCjEi4z2KZA

You know full well how the smaller, upper section destroyed the lower, larger section, gamolon, as does Mr Chandler and all the other scientists who know that it was a controlled demolition.

You've got to explain the molten/vaporized steel, the molten molybdenum, the vaporized lead, the free fall [WTC7], the accelerating speed of the twin towers, no evidence for hijackers, molten steel for months after the collapse, US government/military non-commercially available nanothermite found in the dust, no serial numbered parts matched to any of the alleged aircraft, the wrong engine for the alleged WTC2 plane, and all the other myriad total impossibilities found within the totally wacky USGOCT.


Chandler's diagram show only percentage of weight.

David Chandler's work is supported by thousands of architects, engineers, physicists, ..., whereas your work is supported by NONE. For all we know you could be the fraud Michael Shermer or the fraud, Mick West.

 

[camlok]

If that is an intact "missile nose" that PENETRATED THE FACADE, where did it go in the videos? I never see that "missile nose" continue in it's[sic] trajectory in ANY videos.

I shouldn't have to tell you that there is a huge explosion right after the "missile" exits the building, as you already know this from looking at the video but because that is your only schtick, distractions and diversions, I do have to tell you.

 

[camlok]

You won't get an answer to your question that makes sense. Certain posters should be ignored.

You are self describing AGAIN, mike. Another zero evidence post from you.

I thought that "I can explain it to you ..." meant something, that you chose that for a reason. Silly me! You never explain anything.

 

[camlok]

You are basically turning complex objects into simplistic representations in order to try and use Newton's Laws.

You folks constantly self describe, gamolon. That is exactly what you are doing.


Then when I try to use the same simplistic logic (the video of the verinage), you want to discredit it by adding additional variables like "it was concrete" or "it was designed to collapse".

You illustrate your ignorance or your planned deceptions - which is it?

Verinage is CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!! Calculations are made by engineers to see where they have to hydraulically remove supports.

The important point which you don't/haven't address[ed] and will run like hell from now is that with the verinage system, there is ALWAYS a jolt, a deceleration, following Newton's Laws of Motion.

There was no jolt on 911, the twin towers fell at accelerating speed. That is impossible, which illustrates that the twin towers were blown up.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

I’d like to relate what a structural engineer explained to me this past Saturday at a wedding reception on the patio deck of The Rivers Restaurant in the heart of Downtown Chicago. She was a table partner. Owns a very successful engineering company located Downtown.

Because of several active threads discussing 9/11 conspiracy theory, I asked her if people with her expertise were the kind of people who could constructively analyze what happened to the three World Trade buildings. “Yes,” she said. “One of the professions that could understand what happened.” So I mentioned the theories that said the buildings fell as if taken down intentionally with explosives. “Of Course they did,”she said. “ That’s just exactly how they were designed.”

She led me to the deck railing overlooking the stunning landscape of night-time Downtown. “See that building over there?” She pointed out a skyscraper. “That particular building has been carefully engineered to pancake in on itself in case of structural failure. She pointed to a second one... “That one there was designed to twist just slightly just before complete failure in order to make a final attempt to strengthen the structure before collapse. Then, if that fails, it will pancake to the ground.” Then to a third one, “That one there has been found to be mis-designed and will, right now, likely fall forward. It is being structurally modified right now so that it will pancake upon structural failure.”



“Of COURSE,” she said, “those three buildings looked like a professional demolition. They were specifically designed that way.”

That’s the best explanation I’ve ever heard that debunks this conspiracy. Though ai never bought it for a second and never entered those threads. It makes perfect sense to me. Hope others gain some perspective like I did.

I've learned something from you today Maggie, Thank You.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

So you agree that WTC2, shown above, was designed to collapse the way it did? That the engineers who designed that building analyzed the scenario of a plane hitting those specific floors causing fires and knew it would collapse he way it did?

Actually yeah, we've been pretty paranoid about planes hitting buildings since we've had planes. In fact day of, we had jets in the air running an exercise for just that scenario. Hijacked plane targeting a building. But that wasn't the engineers point, she said when a building becomes structurally unstable. AS in for any reason, not just plane crashes. And that definitely sounds like something engineers would have implemented into giant buildings.

 

[camlok]

But that wasn't the engineers point, she said when a building becomes structurally unstable. AS in for any reason, not just plane crashes. And that definitely sounds like something engineers would have implemented into giant buildings.

You illustrate, in a major way, just how little you know about building design.

 

[camlok]

I've learned something from you today Maggie, Thank You.

You and Maggie can't possibly believe this arrant nonsense!

For dawg's sakes, think a little bit!!!

No scientist, engineer, physicist, architect, ... has ever suggested such a totally ludicrous idea that buildings are designed to collapse when they become structurally unstable, since 911 or actually, forever.

Why did NIST spend all those years and all that tiny amount of money to pretend to do a forensic analysis?

Why are there forensic engineers? Under this totally nutty scenario, they would be frauds.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

You illustrate, in a major way, just how little you know about building design.

I'm not an expert on it, but I recognize logic when I hear it, I like to think. I mean it could be an easy thing to check, look up NY building codes and see if there is some requirement for how a building comes down in an uncontrolled way. I would, but I don't care enough.

 

[camlok]

I'm not an expert on it, but I recognize logic when I hear it, I like to think.

You have shown no inclination to do that at all!


I mean it could be an easy thing to check, look up NY building codes and see if there is some requirement for how a building comes down in an uncontrolled way. I would, but I don't care enough.

Read my last post! It is simply not possible.

 

[gamolon]

You illustrate your ignorance or your planned deceptions - which is it?

Verinage is CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!! Calculations are made by engineers to see where they have to hydraulically remove supports.

The important point which you don't/haven't address[ed] and will run like hell from now is that with the verinage system, there is ALWAYS a jolt, a deceleration, following Newton's Laws of Motion.

There was no jolt on 911, the twin towers fell at accelerating speed. That is impossible, which illustrates that the twin towers were blown up.

Here's some reading for you.

NMSR 9-11 'Truth' Resources: Chandler's Data Support a Gravitational Collapse!

How about you address the math and evidence provided within instead of constantly attacking the person who posts it. Show me where the math is wrong if you disagree. Conclusion from the site linked above:

In conclusion, David Chandler's physics underestimates the dynamic impacts by a factor of 100. If the first impact alone were represented by a 100-story skyscraper, Chandler's estimate of that force would be a one-story house. And it gets even worse for subsequent impacts.

The top "9/11 Truth Physicist" severely underestimates the forces of the actual impacts.
The most important calculation of "9/11 Truth Physics" is invalidated by a fundamental error that would earn a typical freshman physics student a failing grade.

But, it's important to realize that David Chandler's careful measurements actually validate the gravitational-collapse model discussed in these pages.

 

[gamolon]

You illustrate your ignorance or your planned deceptions - which is it?

Verinage is CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!! Calculations are made by engineers to see where they have to hydraulically remove supports.

The important point which you don't/haven't address[ed] and will run like hell from now is that with the verinage system, there is ALWAYS a jolt, a deceleration, following Newton's Laws of Motion.

There was no jolt on 911, the twin towers fell at accelerating speed. That is impossible, which illustrates that the twin towers were blown up.

Let's get a little more detailed with the graph eh?

 

[gamolon]

I shouldn't have to tell you that there is a huge explosion right after the "missile" exits the building, as you already know this from looking at the video but because that is your only schtick, distractions and diversions, I do have to tell you.

Sorry, it's a cloud of debris, not a "missile nose" as the picture below clearly shows.

 

[camlok]

Sorry, it's a cloud of debris, not a "missile nose" as the picture below clearly shows.

Such deep dishonesty, such patent dishonesty, gamolon. In your picture, of course it is a debris cloud. This is after the explosion, what else could there be but a cloud of debris?

Why didn't you post the picture that you posted before when you replied to me where it shows a very defined circular nose and a very defined cylindrical shape?

 

[camlok]

Here's some reading for you.

We were discussing verinage, gamolon, so why do you do a data dump and flee from the discussion?

"New Mexicans for Science and Reason"! Are there two or three New Mexicans? Where have they published, in what peer reviewed journal?

 

[mike2810]

"New Mexicans for Science and Reason"! Are there two or three New Mexicans? Where have they published, in what peer reviewed journal?

"You illustrate your ignorance or your planned deceptions - which is it?"

 

[camlok]

"You illustrate your ...

Just big copycats. You guys finally post something and you won't even show their "qualifications".

"New Mexicans for Science and Reason"! Are there two or three New Mexicans? Where have they published, in what peer reviewed journal?

 

[gamolon]

Just big copycats. You guys finally post something and you won't even show their "qualifications".

Is the math wrong? Why can't you argue the math contained within? It clearly shows Chandler screwed up.

 

[gamolon]

David Chandler's work is supported by thousands of architects, engineers, physicists,

Oh really? You have proof of this?

 

[gamolon]

Such deep dishonesty, such patent dishonesty, gamolon. In your picture, of course it is a debris cloud.

Excellent! We agree that my picture shows a debris cloud. So let's move on...

This is after the explosion, what else could there be but a cloud of debris?

So now we get into a timing issue. Your picture supposedly shows a "missile nose" PRIOR to the explosion, but mine is a debris cloud AFTER the explosion. why do I see an explosions (pointed out by the red arrow) in your picture below and see the same explosion in mine?
Your photo with the red arrow:


My picture showing the same explosion pointed out with the green arrow:


Please explain to me how you are arguing that these photos are at different times! Your pictuire being BEFORE "the explosion" and mine is AFTER "the explosion". What happened to your "missile nose" you say was in your picture, but is gone in mine and instead shows a debris cloud?

Edit: I'll make this real easy for you. The link below is to the video I took my picture from. Show me what timestamp your "missile nose" shows up in prior to the explosion. It goes from 3:23 to 3:28.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk

Looks like a debris cloud here!

 

[gamolon]

Debris cloud here also! I see the explosions starting on the left! Where's the "missile nose" camlok?