How it Was Done: 9/11 and the Science of Building Demolition

I have every bit of confidence that there are people every bit as crazy as truthers here present themselves to be.

 

troughers are the ones who have proven they do not know the difference between up and down or left and right. They think eerie shadows are planes and explosive detonations are little dust balls. How insane is that?

 

thats whats wrong!

 

Long term sock? Maybe...

IT specialist is a popular national guard position. I haven't heard of a lot that are self-employed, kind of a weird way to go about making good money. Also, how can you even be considered an IT anything without a rooted droid? Controlling downloads remotely is one of my favorite things to do. Plus, clearing all the junk that comes from the carrier makes the phone 10x better in and of itself. At this point, anyone involved with computers would almost have to have some form of cell phone. Even more if you're self-employed, unless you're always at home.

ETA: Building your own computer stopped being impressive a long time ago. Now the hardest part about building a computer is making sure all of your hardware is compatible and deciding whether to use windows or an open source. I use Ubuntu myself, on a few machines, and this laptop I think has windows 8. I just bought it a few hours ago and haven't really dug through it yet. Seriously though, building a computer is self explanatory. If you order the hardware properly then the parts will only fit in their assigned spot LoL. OooOOoOO

No planes has to be the absolute dumbest theory ever when it comes to 9/11. It always boil down to 1 thing, why? Why even risk it? There is nothing to gain by not flying the actual planes into the towers. I mean, to do CGI or anything else to that affect you would have to involve hundreds if not thousands of people. Also, the CGI still doesn't explain the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing sound of the multiple sources that captured the plane engine maxing out when 175 evened off. It just doesn't make sense, if you're going to kill people than do it the smart way and use the planes. No one that would be able to utilize CGI or anything else like it, to fake the planes would be stupid enough to actually do it. If they were that smart then they would realize it would make way more sense to just use the actual planes.

I was thinking maybe a Poe? Or a government shill. He could be purposefully out here to make the truth movement look bad. If "they're" crafty enough to have people out there and "they" care enough to fight the woo, then it would make sense.

 

What's a Poe?

 

Your claims are complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Attempting to use photos of steel beams that were cut during the recovery/rescue timeframe and claiming those were the results of thermite cut is completely dishonest. It only shows the Nutters will lie about everything to make their house of cards stand.

Like how you conveniently ignored that the vast majority of the steel was found in straight pieces cleanly cut at the ends, two football fields away.

Completely fabricated lie....and something for which you have no proof. NONE.

Second, the idea that as the building came down, objects wouldn't naturally be ejected due to the massive force of the collapsing weight/floors above is to simply ignore physics.

 

There were 3 NORAD time lines. The original was smelled as a rat by the 9/11 commission, and subsequent investigations by them revealed a second time line. The 3rd, and real time line, came after the release of the 9/11 report, when large amounts of documents and audio were released using FOIA requests. Were the time lines that different? Not really. But as can be expected, NORAD was trying to find the one which made them look the least inept. It was the same with most government agencies after 9/11. There was a significant amount of ass covering. Does that equal conspiracy? Far from. Just political bullsht.

As for the blips on FAA radar.. that is just pure nonsense. Not only would that be outright moronic, dangerous, and totally illegal, but there is just no system in place which places simulated blips into the civilian air traffic system. There would be no need to. What need would ATC have for inserted blips?? But most importantly, even if these blips were there (which they weren't) they served absolutely no purpose. AA11 was tracked by multiple ATC stations from hijacking, all the way to Manhattan. No issues. UA175 was tracked by Newark, JFK and New York TRACON. AA77 didn't get noticed because ZID ARTCC lost information on it due to the way its radar system filters information, and a faulty search radar set as primary in the radar sort boxes where AA77 turned off its transponder (see my blog for details on that). No one was watching for a track, but there was one there. No one was chasing any fake dots, that's for sure. UA93 was tracked all the way too. There is no evidence, or reason, for the FAA to have fake blips on their scopes.

NEADS however is a different story. We know at least one of their scopes had simulated blips for a brief period of time, until they were turned off at 0930. This was from a drill which was due to begin that morning, but was cancelled. Did it change anything? Not at all. By this time, both AA11 and UA175 had hit the WTC before NEADS even had fighters in the area. By 0930. AA77 was baring down on the Pentagon, but no one had told NEADS about it, and the Langley fighters were still a hundred miles away.

But I've corrected fraud on all his points before. He's just being trollish, as usual.

 

This vanity fair article pretty well covers the time line issue.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

 

Basically it means you can't tell the difference between someone who actually believes what they're saying, or someone is who is just pulling your ankle.

 

citation and proof please.

 

As the floors above compacted down, air pressure (with extremely headed gasses) was forced to escape, increasing the pressure forced debris, smoke and objects out the side of the building. Which is what we witness in the video. No explosions needed. Completely within the laws of physics.

 

I asked you to cite it, so you cant, thats ok.

 

The laws of physics just stop when you don't like them?

 

which law are you talking about?

 

Jojo doesn't understand things like physics and law. He's spent to much time with his head in the truther trough.

 

before you continue with your usual ad hominem bull(*)(*)(*)(*) accusations, why dont you FIRST tell us WHICH LAW your sock is talking about

One thing koko does not do is read minds, only troughers have that mystical magical ability. Of course that may be their archilles heel and why they are most often wrong about everything they claim.

 

well there is athe law that two things can't occupy the same space at the same time in the same continuum. Here is the thing, as the building collapsed, the floor above one pushed down through the floor below. But there was stuff there known as air. It seems not to be there but trust me it is and it has pressure when condensed into a smaller space. To prove, blow up a plastic bag or a balloon, then squeeze it harder and harder, eventually it will pop. Better yet, take those milk cartons we used as kids, drink the milk, (don't be wasteful) and then close and stack up three or four. Push down on the top one, eventually either they will pop or the opening will pop out releasing the pressurized air. That is what happened in the towers. As upper floors collapsed through the lower ones, air pressure built up as the space for air became smaller and smaller. Certain windows were weaker than others and blew out causing jets of smoke, debris and air to escape. PHYSICS...

 

sorry but 5th grade analogies really arent physics. Stating the specific law you think applies is a good start providing that it applies. Yours does not.

The towers were not a piston in a cylinder as you would have us believe.

 

Third law, very simply explained. Nice one.

 

which third law is that?

Believing Bull(*)(*)(*)(*): How Not to Get Sucked into an Intellectual Black Hole Paperback


by Stephen Law (Author)

 

I am using this analogy because you appear to not have the intellectual capacity to deal with anything more detailed. Sorry you are so disturbed.

 

well 5th grade explanations to solve university problems is completely useless, however troughers havent figured that out yet.

 

Oh and you have?...Tell me something....if thermite was used to cut beams....then what was used to "eject" them?...Another explosive material? Where is the evidence for that explosive material? How deep in the rabbit hole will you go?

You're laughable. Fact is, Gravity and Newton's Third account for the debris field. You do know that debris doesn't just fall to the ground without being interacted with other debris or pars of the building, right? Beams, girders and other debris, are known to "bounce" when they collide with parts of the building?

What about the initial impact of the plane? What building debris/parts were "ejected" (as seen in all the videos)...and what distances did they travel?

Claims of Controlled Demolition or planted explosive charges are NOT at all what the forensic evidence shows.

 

wow so tell us what you think the ejections were, show proof.

 

A university-level answer would involve complex discussions of degenerative neurological conditions and might get some of us banned. I am sure that some 9/11 T types believe what they do due to the tendency of some people's bodies to synthesize a substance similar to DMT under stress.