At first the towers may have provided a little bit of resistance, but as it accelerated, the forces increased, easily surpassing the ability of the building to support it. Which law of physics are you referring to?
9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)
- Thread starter Stryder
- Start date
- Status
I vote that this thread be moved to the Pseudoscience or Politics/World Events sections. It's no longer about discussing the scientific merits of different theories, but about pushing a specific political opinion based on limited selections of limited evidence. Furthermore, there are too many fallacies in the logic and understanding of basic Newtonian mechanics being displayed by the proponents of a conspiracy for this thread to merit its continued existence here.
Agreed, they are as bad as the global warming deniers and the creationists.
Look at the image, try this link: home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/collapse2.jpg
Newton's First Law of Motion says:
Every object in a state of uniform motion
tends to remain in that state of motion
unless an external force is applied to it.
The top section of the south tower was leaning away from the centre of the tower.
It's motion is to fall away from the tower not into the tower, as you can see in the picture.
What external force caused it's path of motion to be changed....You tell me
Gravity.
Like I say, this belongs in the pseudoscience section, there's no longer any merit to discussing this topic as a subject of physics. Furthermore, a lot of photographic and video evidence used in the common conspiracy theorist arguments is based on digitally enhanced footage that's been proven to add things that weren't there in the original footage, so what good is this to a physicist? There's nothing more to discuss here- save it for the election polls or take it to the Supreme Court, this isn't a theory of physics and all the questions asked here about the physics have already been answered.
If so, then a DOG ALSO CAN FLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYYYY
I don't know about dogs flying, but clearly things with less intelligence can argue for conspiracy theories. You wanted to revive this stupid pseudoscientific thread, well then let's have it. You linked us to the following image:
And then followed it up with the following piece of drivel:
Tell me Mr. conspiracy nut, how many office towers do you know with curvy windows and floors? If that's an accurate picture, the building ought to collapse on its own just from shoddy design. You give us an image from a blatantly distorted lens, and submit it as physical evidence? How stupid do you think we are?
This topic no longer has any relevance to physics. It needs to be moved now, so this guy will stop trolling around wasting our time with junk science while looking for fellow paranoids to keep him company.
While the idea that the 911 attacks were a false flag operation is not beyond the realms of possibility, the idea that flying planes into the building to disguise a controlled demolition is laughable.
Why complicate the conspiracy?
Why involve more people than you absolutely have to and invite greater opportunity for a security breach?
Why not simply detonate the explosives and blame the terrorists for that?
If you want to elevate AQ from what it is in reality to what it is portrayed to be, that would make much more sense.
Why complicate the conspiracy?
Why involve more people than you absolutely have to and invite greater opportunity for a security breach?
Why not simply detonate the explosives and blame the terrorists for that?
If you want to elevate AQ from what it is in reality to what it is portrayed to be, that would make much more sense.
Well, if you discredit this picture then you need a big pair of glasses
The above picture will haunt you again and again.
Well, I wont comment on this
Well, stop wasting your time and stop writing in this thread.
I don't know why some people are trying very very very hard to deny any proof of an inside job? ARE ...THEY AFRAID THEY WILL BE EXPOSED...then wast no time ... the 911 truth movement tide is coming to get you and wash you away to your destiny.
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
:bugeye:The best evidence of all is that the dunderheads at 9-11 truth are still alive!
That doesn't look like an image from a blatantly distorted lens so much as an image blatantly and badly distorted by photoshop. The rubber sheet warping effect even extends to the north tower. Bring evidence such as this to court and you will be facing contempt charges at a minimum. Bring evidence such as this to a scientific forum and you will merely be laughed at. How stupid do you think we are?
Thats true. How hard can it be to push someone in front of a truck?:shrug:
If so, then a DOG ALSO CAN FLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLYYYYYYYYYYY
Are you down to invective?
Fixed. You ran away from one debate. Are you going to run away from this one also?
You going somewhere?...So be patient and wait your turn, I am coming back to you on the other thread.
The only thing that haunts me is that a photoshopped image gets submitted to a science forum as physical evidence, and that this thread doesn't go to the cesspool where it belongs as a result. Clearly if you don't notice the distortions throughout the entire image, you either need glasses of your own, or you need to get your prescription checked.
Just keep drinking that conspiracy Koolaid, it makes you easier to control.
I watched a documentary last night on the saloman brothers building 7 which also collapsed in the vicinity of WTC on 9/11...
You can watch a short version on this,
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7
or this which is only 9secs long,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A
I didn't know about this building collapsing as well, the documentary makers showed it to some experts who all said it was a controled demolition and were gobsmacked when told it was 9/11 footage.....
Other points which were brought up.....
The BBC announced 23 minutes before it actualy fell that it had collapsed,
They announced it twice once when they were told it had collapsed and once when it did collapse,
In this footage at the begining they go to a live broadcast from New York where Jane Stanley is reporting about building 7's collapse 'YET' building 7 is quite visible behind her head to the right..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s
This thread should be in 'Architecture and Engineering' not P/Math and certainly not the cess pool.....
Here a skyscraper burns for 15 hours and the building is shown the next day...
building 7 burnt for just 7 hours.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM&feature=related
Never before in the history of Engineering has a steel building collapsed pre-9/11 then it all happens at once....here is some info on steel buildings,and what would/wouldn't make them collapse,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnnjIzamnJo
The truth is painful that people who are supposed to look after you care more about money than human life....there is no warant for the cesspool it's about the possability of the structures collapse due to fire, and the facts state that the building's should not have collapsed from this and the hundreds of people's reports of explosions prior to collapse puts it down to an engineer to anwser...
"Steel will never become hotter than the flame/heat applied to it and melts at 2750 degrees, it would need a blast furmance or a thermite device applied to it for it to melt"
"Airplane/jetplane fuel burns at 1400 degrees" you do the math.........................
You can watch a short version on this,
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7
or this which is only 9secs long,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A
I didn't know about this building collapsing as well, the documentary makers showed it to some experts who all said it was a controled demolition and were gobsmacked when told it was 9/11 footage.....
Other points which were brought up.....
The BBC announced 23 minutes before it actualy fell that it had collapsed,
They announced it twice once when they were told it had collapsed and once when it did collapse,
In this footage at the begining they go to a live broadcast from New York where Jane Stanley is reporting about building 7's collapse 'YET' building 7 is quite visible behind her head to the right..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s
This thread should be in 'Architecture and Engineering' not P/Math and certainly not the cess pool.....
Here a skyscraper burns for 15 hours and the building is shown the next day...
building 7 burnt for just 7 hours.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM&feature=related
Never before in the history of Engineering has a steel building collapsed pre-9/11 then it all happens at once....here is some info on steel buildings,and what would/wouldn't make them collapse,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnnjIzamnJo
The truth is painful that people who are supposed to look after you care more about money than human life....there is no warant for the cesspool it's about the possability of the structures collapse due to fire, and the facts state that the building's should not have collapsed from this and the hundreds of people's reports of explosions prior to collapse puts it down to an engineer to anwser...
"Steel will never become hotter than the flame/heat applied to it and melts at 2750 degrees, it would need a blast furmance or a thermite device applied to it for it to melt"
"Airplane/jetplane fuel burns at 1400 degrees" you do the math.........................
Last edited:
Yes.....
The BBC last Sunday has aired more than an hour program about WTC7.
A very detailed investigation of all the evidences of WTC7 collapse. Watch it if you can : Link is : ......bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ck4jd
The BBC is finally trying to come clean with it's conscience, and tries to justify why Jane Stanley reported WTC7 collapse 20 minutes before it actually collapsed.
The program showed the following:
I would say I was very impressed that a main stream media like the BBC is airing like this type of information to millions of viewers. Now all who watched that program are talking about an inside job.
Thanks you, this phrase is everything...Steel will never become hotter than the flame/heat applied to it..."
Also, Steel will only melt in the following situations:
This will leave Thermite as the prime suspect...INSIDE JOB
US GOVERNMENT HAS SHOT ITSELF IN THE FOOT...
Case closed
The BBC last Sunday has aired more than an hour program about WTC7.
A very detailed investigation of all the evidences of WTC7 collapse. Watch it if you can : Link is : ......bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ck4jd
The BBC is finally trying to come clean with it's conscience, and tries to justify why Jane Stanley reported WTC7 collapse 20 minutes before it actually collapsed.
The program showed the following:
[*]Control Demolition
[*]Free fall speed
[*]Themite
[*]Very high temperature at the base of WTC7 event 5 days after 911
[*]And many more...
I would say I was very impressed that a main stream media like the BBC is airing like this type of information to millions of viewers. Now all who watched that program are talking about an inside job.
Thanks you, this phrase is everything...Steel will never become hotter than the flame/heat applied to it..."
Also, Steel will only melt in the following situations:
[*]When a blast furnace is used
[*]When Oxyacetylene gaze mixture is used
[*]When a thermite device is applied to it
This will leave Thermite as the prime suspect...INSIDE JOB
US GOVERNMENT HAS SHOT ITSELF IN THE FOOT...
Case closed
Last edited:
Never before in the history of engineering have two jetliners loaded with fuel flown into a tall steel building. Then on 9/11 it all happened at once.
Never before in the history of engineering had a loaded fuel tanker truck hit a bridge with the resultant inferno causing the bridge to weaken and collapse. Then on 4/29/07 it all happened at once. That bridge collapse should have been the end of the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. It's too bad logic and evidence are a lot less persuasive than obviously doctored photos.
You do the math. The only ones who are saying the steel melted are journalists whose science education ended with Physics 001 "Physics for Poets", and nutjobs. That the steel couldn't have melted is a straw man argument. Steel becomes malleable at a temperature far lower than the melting point.
This is the essence of why the 911 conspiracy meme has taken hold on so many. If it was just 19 individuals who did this, that makes life in our modern world quite scary and capricious. While the airplane-into-a-building attack has been cut off, there are many other places where our modern world is fragile. Another group of terrorists might be able to something else just as heinous or even worse; what, where, and how they will do it -- nobody knows. It might be that man in the bulky coat walking down the street. We are not safe!
On the other hand, if 9/11 was some conspiracy by people in power, all we have to do is find the culprits and put them in jail. Tada! The world is safe again.
Last edited:
- Status