Official 9/11 debate!

[Edial]

...
What this means is that those items were falling at free fall speed, and the buildings were collapsing slower than free-fall. What in the world do you mean by 'downward pressure'? That doesn't make any sense. What forced them to fall faster than gravity would allow?

No it does not mean there were falling at free fall speed. You should have appended the part of my post showing that.
...

Free fall speed (in vacuum) for 1362 ft is 9.2 sec.
According to 9/11 Congressional testimony, WTC fell in 10 sec. Some say a bit longer. But 911 Testimony said 10 seconds.
.8 seconds difference from free fall speed. You call this "resistance" to justify each of the floors pancaking individually at free fall?​

...

WTC fell at almost free fall speed.
Top solid part was pressing on the destroyed debris downwards and there were either explosions or pressure that propelled some large chunks down.
Free fall for 1392 ft is 9.2 sec.
Buildings came down in 10 sec.

Please provide examples of nuclear demolitions, how they work, and why that results in the collapse of a building from the top-down, where the lower floors get crushed by the mass above them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use....E2.80.9D_and_.E2.80.9Ccrashed.E2.80.9D_zones

I don't know where you're getting 'evaporated' from. There was tons and tons of debris,...

Not even close for 2 110 story buildings.

It makes no sense at all. The best explanation, which requires the least amount of assumptions (Occam's Razor), is molten aluminum. The heat from jet fuel and ensuing office fires are more than enough to cause it, and that heat was trapped and fed by enough oxygen in the ensuing weeks. No need to propose nuclear devices, debris falling faster than gravity will allow, or any of that nonsense.

Btodd

Nuclear demolition (link above) explains everything and leaves no questions unsatisfied.

 

[Edial]

Really, a lot of conspiracy theories - like this one - fall apart when people stop and ask question.

In this case, the conspiracy hinges on people somehow managing to hide a pair of nuclear detonations that supposedly took place in the middle of one of the most populous cities on the planet.

If a word "nuclear' what alarms you, it should not.
Underground nuclear detonations are done often (especially when creating underground chambers for natural gas) and they are very safe for population.
It is not Hiroshima. Underground detonation is very safe.

 

[Edial]

The nuclear detonation thing is this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use....E2.80.9D_and_.E2.80.9Ccrashed.E2.80.9D_zones

I just think its wacky.

It cannot be disproven and every objection is satisfied.
This about it. Re-read it few times.

 

[Edial]

Or radiation/fallout.

Underground nuclear detonations are done often in context of creating underground storage chambers for natural gas.
It is very safe for population. Radiation goes into a granit underground.
Read the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallman12q/Nuclear_Demolition#External_readings

 

[Ironhold]

If a word "nuclear' what alarms you, it should not.
Underground nuclear detonations are done often (especially when creating underground chambers for natural gas) and they are very safe for population.
It is not Hiroshima. Underground detonation is very safe.

We're only talking what - 80 feet down?

It's not going to be as self-contained as you want to think.

 

[Btodd]

Free fall for 1392 ft is 9.2 sec.
Buildings came down in 10 sec.

Nice try.

Nuclear demolition (link above) explains everything and leaves no questions unsatisfied.

No, it doesn't. You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever that it happened, and it certainly doesn't explain why the building collapsed from the impact points of the planes, and all lower floors remain intact until they're crushed by the mass coming down on them.

Watch the video. The lower floors aren't collapsing until they get crushed. That's not how ANY demolition works.


Btodd

 

[Goonie]

It cannot be disproven and every objection is satisfied.
This about it. Re-read it few times.

but it cannot be proved, indeed you have provided barely any evidence for this theory. A dubious wiki document is not convincing, hey anyone can create a wiki page supporting their particular theory.

 

[Edial]

We're only talking what - 80 feet down?

It's not going to be as self-contained as you want to think.

I did not invent this.
This is 50 meters underground in a granite.
It is safe. Read the article.
Also, nuclear does not mean atomic.

 

[Edial]

Nice try.

Why nice try?
10 seconds was a testimony in congress. They said that.
Videos? I don't know if one can rely on that, but in any case this is how CNN counted it ...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html
10:28:23 Top of the North Tower starts to break apart
10:28:31 Rubble starts to hit the ground (start of big signal)
10:28:36 The heaviest rubble hits the ground (peak of big signal)
10:28:39 Most heavy rubble has reached the ground (end of big signal)​

Rubble starts hitting the ground after 8 seconds and 13 seconds for heavy rubble.
Speed of free fall is 9.2 seconds. where do you see a discrepancy enough to suggest there was resistance due to the floors slamming against each other?

No, it doesn't. You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever that it happened, and it certainly doesn't explain why the building collapsed from the impact points of the planes, and all lower floors remain intact until they're crushed by the mass coming down on them.

Watch the video. The lower floors aren't collapsing until they get crushed. That's not how ANY demolition works.
Btodd

But it does explain why buildings collapsed from impact point and lower floors remain intact until they are crushed.
Read the article.
Once a 150 kiloton explosive is detonated from 50 meters beneath the base of the building, energy goes up through the building.
The bottom 325 meters of the building turn to dust, yet it is held together the way a sand castle is. Slightest pressure from the top and it collapses.
The next 80 meters of the building (right below the point of impact) turns into larger pieces of debris.
And now the top, solid part of the building above the point of impact starts pushing the building down.
And since most of it is already turned to dust, it goes down very close to the speed of free fall.
It is not exactly free fall because the top 80 meters are still large debris.
But the rest of the building, below that turns into dust - energy does that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallman12q/Nuclear_Demolition#External_readings

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Btodd]

From your own link:

"It is widely accepted that both Towers completely fell (nearly everything but the dust reached the ground) in around ten seconds. This estimate appears to be based mainly on seismic data. However, video evidence of the North Tower collapse suggests that it took close to 15 seconds for the destruction to reach the ground."


Btodd

 

[Edial]

From your own link:

"It is widely accepted that both Towers completely fell (nearly everything but the dust reached the ground) in around ten seconds. This estimate appears to be based mainly on seismic data. However, video evidence of the North Tower collapse suggests that it took close to 15 seconds for the destruction to reach the ground."


Btodd

You don't seem to understand that I am not plotting against you otherwise I would have gotten other links.
Independent evidences say 10-14 seconds.
If it would be pancaking it would not even reach the ground and take minutes and look like a pancaked building.
It was clean all the way down like a hot knife through butter.

 

[Btodd]

You don't seem to understand that I am not plotting against you otherwise I would have gotten other links.
Independent evidences say 10-14 seconds.
If it would be pancaking it would not even reach the ground and take minutes and look like a pancaked building.
It was clean all the way down like a hot knife through butter.

I never implied that you're 'plotting against me', and don't even know what that would entail.

I simply pointed out that the link you used to state that it collapsed in 10 seconds actually points out that it was about 15 seconds.

The idea that it would have taken minutes is absurd. You need to do some calculations on how much force was being applied once that collapse initiated. Everything that happened is explained by physics, without having to resort to theories about nuclear detonations, thermite, or controlled demolitions.

I'm simply correcting you on putting out false information.


Btodd

 

[Edial]

I never implied that you're 'plotting against me', and don't even know what that would entail.

I simply pointed out that the link you used to state that it collapsed in 10 seconds actually points out that it was about 15 seconds.

The idea that it would have taken minutes is absurd. You need to do some calculations on how much force was being applied once that collapse initiated. Everything that happened is explained by physics, without having to resort to theories about nuclear detonations, thermite, or controlled demolitions.

I'm simply correcting you on putting out false information.


Btodd

Yet I am an engineer, not a structural engineer, but nonetheless an engineer and dealt with frictions and pressures and powers and all this good stuff before I changed career to Christian volunteering.
It is not possible for things to have happened like that due to fires. Building 7 was not even hit by a plane.
I proposed a theory, a real active theory that answers EVERY possible objection and plugs every hole from BOTH sides of the argument.
Termite cannot cause that destruction as well as so much dust vs Office fires cannot cause Building 7 to fall.

 

[cow451]

There had to be a reason why these building were brought down.
Clearly there was no pancake effect,

The "pancake" theory is not the widely-held view and was quickly dismissed. The NSTE report does not promote that theory. Therefore you are agreeing with the "official" version. Congratulations.

 

[Edial]

The "pancake" theory is not the widely-held view and was quickly dismissed. The NSTE report does not promote that theory. Therefore you are agreeing with the "official" version. Congratulations.

But my theory is the underground nuclear demolition.
And it addresses every objection we have accumulated in 14 years.
Everything fits.
NSTE has it's own opinions that do not add up.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

But my theory is the underground nuclear demolition.
And it addresses every objection we have accumulated in 14 years.
Everything fits.
NSTE has it's own opinions that do not add up.

The fact that the website nucleardemolition.com is the first thing that comes up when I search "nuclear demolition" and that it's home page has nothing to do with demolishing buildings using nuclear technology and everything to do with exposing a 9/11 conspiracy, should give any reasonably intelligent person good reason to doubt this extremely unlikely claim.

 

[Edial]

The fact that the website nucleardemolition.com is the first thing that comes up when I search "nuclear demolition" and that it's home page has nothing to do with demolishing buildings using nuclear technology and everything to do with exposing a 9/11 conspiracy, should give any reasonably intelligent person good reason to doubt this extremely unlikely claim.

It's a good site, but it is incorrect in saying it is a nuclear reactor.
Straw-man type of site.
Nuclear reactors melt and do not explode.

This was clearly due to a 150 kiloton explosive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallman12q/Nuclear_Demolition

 

[TheQuietRiot]

It's a good site, but it is incorrect in saying it is a nuclear reactor.
Straw-man type of site.
Nuclear reactors melt and do not explode.

This was clearly due to a 150 kiloton explosive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallman12q/Nuclear_Demolition

There is 0 evidence that a nuclear explosion occured in NYC on 9/11 ir indeed at any point in history.

 

[Goonie]

There is 0 evidence that a nuclear explosion occured in NYC on 9/11 ir indeed at any point in history.

Really? Zero evidence of a nuclear explosion at any point in history? Nagasaki, hiroshima? You should start a new thread in conspiracies.

 

[Btodd]

Really? Zero evidence of a nuclear explosion at any point in history? Nagasaki, hiroshima? You should start a new thread in conspiracies.

He said, "in NYC".


Btodd