CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: "We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11" #2
This topic is locked to prevent further replies.
This discussion was started in a previous topic. You can find it here.
This discussion is continued in a new topic. You can find it here.
This topic was split up because it has reached high page count.
You can find the follow-up topic here.
You can find the follow-up topic here.
Oct 19, 2017 17:48:53 #
emarine wrote:
You're still backpedaling Buddy... when attempting... (show quote)
Do you even realize how ridiculous your side of the debate has become? You can't convincingly argue that there were no explosions because the evidence all proves there were huge explosions.
You keep posting crude drawings which you hope will confuse readers into believing collapsing floors could cause the outer wall structure to collapse. I've created some computer models to scale which show it would be impossible for the floors to fall independently from the center core. The fires did not cover any floor entirely so it would be impossible for all the columns to collapse at the same time as is required for a symmetrical collapse.
A floor in scale to the center core.
Imagine these floors falling. Could they take the center core down with them . . . at 2/3rds free-fall speed?
The outer wall structure was high strength steel. All the columns were tied together at each floor by horizontal steel spandrel. Could falling floors tear this structure apart?
Oct 19, 2017 17:54:19 #
emarine wrote:
so why don't you address this problem without parroting their mistakes
Because he can't...
Because he can't...
I think this photo proves my point.
Oct 19, 2017 18:09:51 #
[quote=Blade_Runner]
payne1000 wrote:
You haven't answered any of the questions. I'll give you another chance:
You fail to address the fact that Newton's Third Law would cause falling floors to slow down with each floor they collided with . . . not speed up as you claim.
Newton's laws don't "cause" anything.
Newton's third law explains why a floor-by-floor collapse would slow down instead of speed up when each floor hits the floor below.
The upper 15 top floors of the North Tower weighed 61915359kgs (68250 tones)
You still have not explained how all the steel columns can give way at the same time when fires did not cover even one floor entirely.
The 95th floor was 351.5 meters above ground.
Take one steel ball that weighs 62 million kgs (68250 tons) and one steel ball that weighs 45.3kgs (100 pounds),
Drop both balls in clear air from a height of 351.5 meters above ground,
both balls will impact the ground in 8.47 seconds,
the speed of both balls at impact will be 83 meters/second (298.81 km/h)
Energy at impact: Big ball = 213279837147.30 joules, little ball = 156248.84 joules
The Twin Towers came down at the speed the explosives were detonated in sequence down the length of the undamaged lower floors.
Quote:
You fail to address the fact that all floors were firmly connected to the massive steel center core which could not possibly collapse straight down.
No, I didn't fail to address this, I refrained from addressing it. If you don't understand the way in which the towers were constructed, there is no point in trying to explain how the connections of the trusses to the vertical support columns failed. I understand how the Towers were constructed much better than you. That's why you can't explain what could make the massive center core collapse from the same weight it had held up for over half a century.
Quote:
You fail to address the fact that 80% to 90% of all the upper floor debris was exploded outward hundreds of feet and little was left to crush the lower floors.
How do you know "that 80% to 90% of all the upper floor debris was exploded outward hundreds of feet and little was left to crush the lower floors"? Chandler and Bolldwyn got it wrong, so why don't you address this problem without parroting their mistakes. The photo below shows all the debris being ejected out and away from the lower floors. Don't you believe what your eyes tell you?
payne1000 wrote:
You haven't answered any of the questions. I'll give you another chance:
You fail to address the fact that Newton's Third Law would cause falling floors to slow down with each floor they collided with . . . not speed up as you claim.
Newton's laws don't "cause" anything.
Newton's third law explains why a floor-by-floor collapse would slow down instead of speed up when each floor hits the floor below.
The upper 15 top floors of the North Tower weighed 61915359kgs (68250 tones)
You still have not explained how all the steel columns can give way at the same time when fires did not cover even one floor entirely.
The 95th floor was 351.5 meters above ground.
Take one steel ball that weighs 62 million kgs (68250 tons) and one steel ball that weighs 45.3kgs (100 pounds),
Drop both balls in clear air from a height of 351.5 meters above ground,
both balls will impact the ground in 8.47 seconds,
the speed of both balls at impact will be 83 meters/second (298.81 km/h)
Energy at impact: Big ball = 213279837147.30 joules, little ball = 156248.84 joules
The Twin Towers came down at the speed the explosives were detonated in sequence down the length of the undamaged lower floors.
Quote:
You fail to address the fact that all floors were firmly connected to the massive steel center core which could not possibly collapse straight down.
No, I didn't fail to address this, I refrained from addressing it. If you don't understand the way in which the towers were constructed, there is no point in trying to explain how the connections of the trusses to the vertical support columns failed. I understand how the Towers were constructed much better than you. That's why you can't explain what could make the massive center core collapse from the same weight it had held up for over half a century.
Quote:
You fail to address the fact that 80% to 90% of all the upper floor debris was exploded outward hundreds of feet and little was left to crush the lower floors.
How do you know "that 80% to 90% of all the upper floor debris was exploded outward hundreds of feet and little was left to crush the lower floors"? Chandler and Bolldwyn got it wrong, so why don't you address this problem without parroting their mistakes. The photo below shows all the debris being ejected out and away from the lower floors. Don't you believe what your eyes tell you?
Oct 19, 2017 18:50:50 #
payne1000
Newton's third law explains why a floor-by-floor collapse would slow down instead of speed up when each floor hits the floor below.
The collapsing mass encountered static resistance from the floor below. As the mass continued to fall, the mass and momentum increased, and as the mass and momentum increased, so too did the kinetic energy in the falling mass. As the mass, momentum, and kinetic energy increased, the static resistance of each floor the mass collided with DECREASED. A study of the seismic record shows exactly what happened.
You still have not explained how all the steel columns can give way at the same time when fires did not cover even one floor entirely.
All the steel columns DID NOT give way at the same time. When the damaged and fire weakened support columns failed, the load on the remaining columns immediately increased well beyond their load bearing capacity so those columns failed and down came humpty dumpty.
The Twin Towers came down at the speed the explosives were detonated in sequence down the length of the undamaged lower floors.
No, they didn't. There were no explosive detonations, that is just a figment of your imagination.
I understand how the Towers were constructed much better than you. That's why you can't explain what could make the massive center core collapse from the same weight it had held up for over half a century.
The core columns bore the static gravitational weight of the building "for over a half century", but on 9/11, when the upper section of the towers collapsed, the core columns were no longer bearing the static gravitational weight of the building. They were then subjected to the dynamic forces of a mass in motion which exceeded their capacity to bear the static gravitational weight that they held up for "over a half a century".
The photo below shows all the debris being ejected out and away from the lower floors. Don't you believe what your eyes tell you?
The photo shows no such thing. Most of the debris falling away from the collapsing mass was sections of perimeter columns, some sections of floors, and dust, dust and more dust. The ejections are the result of both disintegrating building material and pressurized air.
Newton's third law explains why a floor-by-floor collapse would slow down instead of speed up when each floor hits the floor below.
The collapsing mass encountered static resistance from the floor below. As the mass continued to fall, the mass and momentum increased, and as the mass and momentum increased, so too did the kinetic energy in the falling mass. As the mass, momentum, and kinetic energy increased, the static resistance of each floor the mass collided with DECREASED. A study of the seismic record shows exactly what happened.
You still have not explained how all the steel columns can give way at the same time when fires did not cover even one floor entirely.
All the steel columns DID NOT give way at the same time. When the damaged and fire weakened support columns failed, the load on the remaining columns immediately increased well beyond their load bearing capacity so those columns failed and down came humpty dumpty.
The Twin Towers came down at the speed the explosives were detonated in sequence down the length of the undamaged lower floors.
No, they didn't. There were no explosive detonations, that is just a figment of your imagination.
I understand how the Towers were constructed much better than you. That's why you can't explain what could make the massive center core collapse from the same weight it had held up for over half a century.
The core columns bore the static gravitational weight of the building "for over a half century", but on 9/11, when the upper section of the towers collapsed, the core columns were no longer bearing the static gravitational weight of the building. They were then subjected to the dynamic forces of a mass in motion which exceeded their capacity to bear the static gravitational weight that they held up for "over a half a century".
The photo below shows all the debris being ejected out and away from the lower floors. Don't you believe what your eyes tell you?
The photo shows no such thing. Most of the debris falling away from the collapsing mass was sections of perimeter columns, some sections of floors, and dust, dust and more dust. The ejections are the result of both disintegrating building material and pressurized air.
Oct 19, 2017 18:56:30 #
payne1000 wrote:
Do you even realize how ridiculous your side of th... (show quote)
You ask "Could falling floors tear this structure apart?"... Yes... look at the crude drawing once again & follow the down arrow in the middle... do you call the top section of structure " floors"... the answer is no... it was the entire top structure mass including the floors... time to quit the deceptive crap buddy...
"
Oct 19, 2017 21:44:30 #
emarine wrote:
You ask "Could falling floors tear this structure apart?"... Yes... look at the crude drawing once again & follow the down arrow in the middle... do you call the top section of structure " floors"... the answer is no... it was the entire top structure mass including the floors... time to quit the deceptive crap buddy...
"
"
The entire top structure exploded into pieces such that its mass was not available to accomplish what you allege with your crude drawing.
It is proven that explosive demolition took place in the THREE buildings in New York with far better analysis and evidence than you have produced here.
Oct 20, 2017 08:51:09 #
[quote=Blade_Runner]payne1000
Newton's third law explains why a floor-by-floor collapse would slow down instead of speed up when each floor hits the floor below.
The collapsing mass encountered static resistance from the floor below. As the mass continued to fall, the mass and momentum increased, and as the mass and momentum increased, so too did the kinetic energy in the falling mass. As the mass, momentum, and kinetic energy increased, the static resistance of each floor the mass collided with DECREASED. A study of the seismic record shows exactly what happened. Newton's third law calls for an equal and opposite reaction which would slow the falling mass down as it hits each floor below. The equal and opposite reaction would be pushing up on the falling mass. The falling mass would lose momentum with each lower floor that it encountered. The seismic readings were showing many explosions, not gravity collapse. 100 years of skyscraper history proves that gravity collapses don't happen in skyscrapers.
You still have not explained how all the steel columns can give way at the same time when fires did not cover even one floor entirely.
All the steel columns DID NOT give way at the same time. When the damaged and fire weakened support columns failed, the load on the remaining columns immediately increased well beyond their load bearing capacity so those columns failed and down came humpty dumpty. Fires burning for less than an hour are not capable of weakening heavy steel, even if they totally consumed every floor. The 1975 fire in the North Tower burned for 3 hours, consuming 65% of the 11th floor. None of the steel was damaged or needed to be replaced. Look at the initiation of the North Tower collapse. All the supporting columns were cut at the same time. The columns were not pulled inward as NIST claims. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM88xJX5FsA
The Twin Towers came down at the speed the explosives were detonated in sequence down the length of the undamaged lower floors.
No, they didn't. There were no explosive detonations, that is just a figment of your imagination.
The explosions are clearly visible . . . which make your lies clearly visible as well. www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUDoGuLpirc
I understand how the Towers were constructed much better than you. That's why you can't explain what could make the massive center core collapse from the same weight it had held up for over half a century.
The core columns bore the static gravitational weight of the building "for over a half century", but on 9/11, when the upper section of the towers collapsed, the core columns were no longer bearing the static gravitational weight of the building. They were then subjected to the dynamic forces of a mass in motion which exceeded their capacity to bear the static gravitational weight that they held up for "over a half a century". How could the upper section of the towers collapse at all? The towers were designed to absorb a collision from an airliner. The fires were small and random. The massive center core could not have suffered much damage from an aluminum airliner. The steel in the undamaged lower floors became much heavier toward the base of the towers.
Your denials always start after the collapse is initiated. You need to explain in detail how that initiation came about.
The photo below shows all the debris being ejected out and away from the lower floors. Don't you believe what your eyes tell you?
The photo shows no such thing. Most of the debris falling away from the collapsing mass was sections of perimeter columns, some sections of floors, and dust, dust and more dust. The ejections are the result of both disintegrating building material and pressurized air. Pressurized air does not move hundreds of tons of steel and concrete hundreds of feet sideways. Pressurized air goes around heavy objects.
Newton's third law explains why a floor-by-floor collapse would slow down instead of speed up when each floor hits the floor below.
The collapsing mass encountered static resistance from the floor below. As the mass continued to fall, the mass and momentum increased, and as the mass and momentum increased, so too did the kinetic energy in the falling mass. As the mass, momentum, and kinetic energy increased, the static resistance of each floor the mass collided with DECREASED. A study of the seismic record shows exactly what happened. Newton's third law calls for an equal and opposite reaction which would slow the falling mass down as it hits each floor below. The equal and opposite reaction would be pushing up on the falling mass. The falling mass would lose momentum with each lower floor that it encountered. The seismic readings were showing many explosions, not gravity collapse. 100 years of skyscraper history proves that gravity collapses don't happen in skyscrapers.
You still have not explained how all the steel columns can give way at the same time when fires did not cover even one floor entirely.
All the steel columns DID NOT give way at the same time. When the damaged and fire weakened support columns failed, the load on the remaining columns immediately increased well beyond their load bearing capacity so those columns failed and down came humpty dumpty. Fires burning for less than an hour are not capable of weakening heavy steel, even if they totally consumed every floor. The 1975 fire in the North Tower burned for 3 hours, consuming 65% of the 11th floor. None of the steel was damaged or needed to be replaced. Look at the initiation of the North Tower collapse. All the supporting columns were cut at the same time. The columns were not pulled inward as NIST claims. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM88xJX5FsA
The Twin Towers came down at the speed the explosives were detonated in sequence down the length of the undamaged lower floors.
No, they didn't. There were no explosive detonations, that is just a figment of your imagination.
The explosions are clearly visible . . . which make your lies clearly visible as well. www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUDoGuLpirc
I understand how the Towers were constructed much better than you. That's why you can't explain what could make the massive center core collapse from the same weight it had held up for over half a century.
The core columns bore the static gravitational weight of the building "for over a half century", but on 9/11, when the upper section of the towers collapsed, the core columns were no longer bearing the static gravitational weight of the building. They were then subjected to the dynamic forces of a mass in motion which exceeded their capacity to bear the static gravitational weight that they held up for "over a half a century". How could the upper section of the towers collapse at all? The towers were designed to absorb a collision from an airliner. The fires were small and random. The massive center core could not have suffered much damage from an aluminum airliner. The steel in the undamaged lower floors became much heavier toward the base of the towers.
Your denials always start after the collapse is initiated. You need to explain in detail how that initiation came about.
The photo below shows all the debris being ejected out and away from the lower floors. Don't you believe what your eyes tell you?
The photo shows no such thing. Most of the debris falling away from the collapsing mass was sections of perimeter columns, some sections of floors, and dust, dust and more dust. The ejections are the result of both disintegrating building material and pressurized air. Pressurized air does not move hundreds of tons of steel and concrete hundreds of feet sideways. Pressurized air goes around heavy objects.
Oct 20, 2017 09:04:19 #
emarine wrote:
You ask "Could falling floors tear this structure apart?"... Yes... look at the crude drawing once again & follow the down arrow in the middle... do you call the top section of structure " floors"... the answer is no... it was the entire top structure mass including the floors... time to quit the deceptive crap buddy...
"
"
So you're saying the top section of the tower was a solid unit . . . a block, in other words . . . as Professor Boldwyn's equation refers to it.
Better tell BR. He denies the top sections were blocks. Why don't you explain how this block of lighter weight floors could crush the much heavier and larger block of lower floors.
Take Newton's third law into account in giving your explanation.
Your crude drawing completely leaves out the massive center core and its relationship to the floors. Isn't that planned deception by you and whoever created that graphic?
.
The upper "block" completely disappears within seconds.
The center core in relation to a floor slab.
240 steel columns tied together at all 110 floors by horizontal steel spandrel.
Oct 20, 2017 16:34:33 #
whole2th wrote:
The entire top structure exploded into pieces such that its mass was not available to accomplish what you allege with your crude drawing.
It is proven that explosive demolition took place in the THREE buildings in New York with far better analysis and evidence than you have produced here.
It is proven that explosive demolition took place in the THREE buildings in New York with far better analysis and evidence than you have produced here.
You have proved absolutely nothing to date but a possible theory that no one has provided even close to conclusive proof of in 16 years ... Keep up the good work Buddy...
Oct 20, 2017 16:44:05 #
payne1000 wrote:
So you're saying the top section of the tower was ... (show quote)
you can call the top section whatever you choose... objects fall from the top down on earth and impacts the first object under its path not the first 90 objects... one floor with a weight limit ... the top section well exceeded this weight limit from the static weight alone... the rest is basic physics in which you can't revise to the planet earth according to larry payne...
Oct 20, 2017 16:56:06 #
emarine wrote:
you can call the top section whatever you choose... objects fall from the top down on earth and impacts the first object under its path not the first 90 objects... one floor with a weight limit ... the top section well exceeded this weight limit from the static weight alone... the rest is basic physics in which you can't revise to the planet earth according to larry payne...
The top sections of both Twin Towers disintegrated well before their intact masses could have crushed the more massive structures below. The top section of the South Tower was tilted and should have 'slid of the side' as its angular momentum (*if it had stayed intact) would have put that section to the side of the skyscraper. Instead, that section of 15-20 floors disintegrated and both Towers demonstrated radially symmetrical explosive destruction in waves of explosions from the top-down.
Your physics is woefully lacking as you attempt to cover-up obvious explosive demolition.
Top of the South Tower sliding off--could not possibly have been a 'pile driver' to crush, symmetrically, the lower, more massive structures.
Radially symmetrical explosions produce a ball of ejected debris.
Oct 20, 2017 17:22:13 #
emarine wrote:
you can call the top section whatever you choose... objects fall from the top down on earth and impacts the first object under its path not the first 90 objects... one floor with a weight limit ... the top section well exceeded this weight limit from the static weight alone... the rest is basic physics in which you can't revise to the planet earth according to larry payne...
You have yet to explain how the floors can fall through the massive center core. Have you forgotten how big it was? There was no more weight on the center core than had been on it for the 50 years prior to 9/11. There was no weight in the towers which could exceed the weight limit of the center core. It was designed to hold up three times the weight it actually held up. The only force which could bring it down were cutting charges and high explosives . . . exactly what all the photos and videos revealed.
.
The mighty center core in size relation to a floor slab.
Oct 20, 2017 18:47:30 #
payne1000 wrote:
You have yet to explain how the floors can fall th... (show quote)
you are clueless on the construction of the "mighty" center core... That's why you only show the large bottom floors and Photoshop what you can't see inside higher up... you want a refresher on reinforced concrete buddy?...
Oct 20, 2017 18:51:19 #
emarine wrote:
you are clueless on the construction of the "mighty" center core... That's why you only show the large bottom floors and Photoshop what you can't see inside higher up... you want a refresher on reinforced concrete buddy?...
Payne is not your buddy, and was not born yesterday.
It is you who have no legs to stand on.
Oct 20, 2017 19:14:38 #
whole2th wrote:
Payne is not your buddy, and was not born yesterday.
It is you who have no legs to stand on.
It is you who have no legs to stand on.
So now you go out of your way to hurt my feelings... My buddy & I have had a well established relationship long before you showed up blessing us with pure bullshit... Jr...
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.