emarine

The expansion of gasses radiating in all directions from a chemical explosion is not Kinetic energy & never was...

payne1000

The towers didn't fall at absolute free fall speed because they fell at the speed the explosives were timed in sequence which was about 2/3rds free fall speed. If the explosives had stopped at any time during the fall, the remaining floors would have remained standing. Watch the sequenced explosions move down the North tower. 2/3rds free fall speed is pretty fast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUDoGuLpirc

payne1000

kinetic energy: energy that a body possesses by virtue of being in motion.

The expansion of explosive energy radiating outward in all directions is a force in motion.
Therefore it is kinetic energy.
Did you say you were an engineer?
Did you get your degree in Botswana?

emarine

Really putz... So us readers some troofer math on who figured out how to time the explosions @ 2/3 free fall speed... especially when the speed was averaged from top to bottom or beginning of the event to end... all you prove here is you love Mission Impossible movies ... so us readers your science putz

payne1000

"So us readers"?
If you made that error once, I'd ignore it . . . but twice in the same short babble?
Get someone on the next computer to translate English for you.

emarine

You're still clueless putz... kinetic energy is "mass" in motion not force ...watch the video putz

payne1000

Look at the photo and see if you can see the "masses" moved by explosive force:

emarine

Fact is all I see is massive amount of Kinetic energy released from a very large heavy mass falling from a great height ..what I don't see are blast waves & flashes or hear the 1000's of blasts breaking the sound barrier ... you're still clueless

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

OK, first you tell us that the collapsing mass could not possibly have crushed the entire building because the lower section of the tower was too strong, now you are telling us that the collapsing mass met no resistance at all. Which is it? When someone changes his story in mid stream it's a sure sign of someone working a lie.

Obviously when 165000 tons of the top of a 500000 ton building collapses, there is 335000 tons of building beneath it. That's a lot of tons to crush and bounce off of.

What we see in ALL videos and photos is air ejections due to over pressurization caused by the collapsing mass. Like stomping on an inflated balloon. What we do not see are explosive detonations, only the jaundiced eye of the truther loons can see what isn't there.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

You may be getting close, the forces of a progressive building collapse can be explosive, as when hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete crash into hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete. Once the portion of the towers above the impact zones broke loose, there was no stopping the total destruction of the building. The collapse was an extraordinarily violent event from the start. There was never a single shred of evidence found that bore the signature of a compound explosive device. Just as there is no indication whatsoever of explosive detonations occurring in your "smoking gun". The controlled demolition theory is the figment of really warped imaginations.

payne1000

Blade runner posted a diagram of the fireproofing on the perimeter columns. It appears to have been at least an inch thick. It took 4 to five hours for the Windsor Tower steel to begin to fail in a much larger fire. The Windsor steel had no fireproofing at all. The South Tower fires burned for slightly less than an hour. There is no way the fireproofed steel in the Twin Towers could have been weakened by the short duration they burned. No skyscraper in the 100-year history of skyscrapers has ever fallen from fire damage. Many skyscrapers have been brought down with controlled demolition. You weren't there on 9/11. Maybe that's why you didn't see and hear what went on.
These people were there. They describe experiencing what you think is missing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UKfzGt6Fxk

emarine

You bitchin @ my phone again?... try and stay focused on the science you fail to understand or do you understand & just choose to lie?... Na you're too funny to understand what you try & sell...

thinksense

It is interesting to observe that one side of this "discussion" constantly uses deleterious names and descriptions and foul language as it attacks the other, while the other side does not answer in kind.

The nasty side even has a "thing", playing the role of a very low class, possible drug user using typical troll techniques, using shockingly bad language and even threats of physical harm in an effort to disgust and anger his victims so that they will be distracted from the continuity of their discourse..

These are signs of dishonest, con men facing a person whom they do not want to get his points made. The signs of entities who feel that they are losing the debate. They are not seriously looking for answers.

Personally I don't understand why payne is continuing to answer these entities who only repeat the same tactics and same confusing litany put forth to confuse the low intelligence readers. I would not. They are not worth the time, unless you like that sort of thing.


By the way, it is pretty disingenuous to claim that over $2,000,000,000,000 which has not been properly accounted for to this day, is not “missing”. I wonder if the Tax people would believe that the last year’s income and expenses record can’t be found, so I shouldn’t have to pay tax. Hay, it’s not my fault somebody burnt the office.

emarine

Fact or opinion?... By the way, it is pretty disingenuous to claim that over $2,000,000,000,000 which has not been properly accounted for to this day, is not “missing”. I wonder if the Tax people would believe that the last year’s income and expenses record can’t be found, so I shouldn’t have to pay tax. Hay, it’s not my fault somebody burnt the office.
thinksense

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

So, you don't think that being called "lying, anonymous, Zionist shills" is offensive. How about when an asshole insults your family? Like your father and mother. Or, accuses you of covering up for and defending mass murderers. The mass murderers who killed nearly 3000 people on 9/11 were, beyond any doubt, Islamic terrorists, specifically members of al-Qaeda. The 9/11 truth movement has let these barbarians off the hook.

If you think payne has demonstrated any continuity in his "discourse", you haven't been paying attention. Understandable since you just but in here with a prejudice comment, offering your two cents worth without a shred of continuity, or even honest objectivity.