For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

a reply to: blackaspirin

The gravitational energy was not enough.

When the south tower's top started to tip to the side, the force from that should haved stayed to that side of the tower.

If the opposite side of the tower from the tilted top portion was still intact, it would have made sense.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

Angular momentum of the tipping top vanished.

When the building is tipping the rotation is centered around its pivot point. When the pivot point collapses and the upper block begins to fall, the center of rotation moves from the pivot point to the center of mass of the upper block of the building. This is what stops the rotation.

To prove this for your self: Take a broom balance it upright on your hand. Allow it to start tipping. Remove your hand from underneath it. The rotation will stop and the broom will fall to the ground at the same angle it was when you released it.

Fires that burned hot enough to compromise structural steel but not humans apparently.....

a reply to: 11I11

Fires that burned hot enough to compromise structural steel but not humans apparently.....

Or they climbed to the open area to wave for help.
Which seems more likely ?

originally posted by: 11I11
Fires that burned hot enough to compromise structural steel but not humans apparently.....

She jumped because of the heat.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: blackaspirin

The gravitational energy was not enough.

When the south tower's top started to tip to the side, the force from that should haved stayed to that side of the tower.

If the opposite side of the tower from the tilted top portion was still intact, it would have made sense.

So you've done some sort of calculation regarding the dynamic force, and concluded it is not enough? Or is this just personal incredulity?

So, I had asked you what you are saying, or implying...happened at that moment. If the steel did not fail at the impact zone, and the upper mass did not drop through the impact zone and start a global collapse all the way down, then...

What happened? You casually mentioned something about this 'indicates heat energy far in excess of gravitational energy'. Please elaborate.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

Angular momentum of the tipping top vanished.

To prove this for your self: Take a broom balance it upright on your hand. Allow it to start tipping. Remove your hand from underneath it. The rotation will stop and the broom will fall to the ground at the same angle it was when you released it.

Lol.. exactly.

The excersise you just described shows zero resistance, which is why the broom fell that way.

This is why the tower fell the way it did. The resistance was gone.

Should have toppled.

a reply to: waypastvne

That style of 'gotcha' pseudo-skepticism is one of the most annoying things about the Truth Movement, where they make numerous assumptions about what a split-second photograph must mean for the entire event, and hand-wave everything away like a stubborn child.

And then get shown they don't know what they're talking about.

I'll bet you a million that he will show that photo again as 'proof the fires weren't that hot', even after you pointed out that she jumped to her death. It's the same song-and-dance that's been going on for 16 years. Much like the 'no wreckage at the Pentagon' claim, right after you show them wreckage at the Pentagon. No apparent conscience at all.

Anyway, thank you for pointing out the uncomfortable fact of the matter.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

The excersise you just described shows zero resistance, which is why the broom fell that way.

This is why the tower fell the way it did. The resistance was gone.

Should have toppled.

The 'tilted block' you speak of fell through the impact zone at the point of failure. That's what starts the upper block going straight down, as gravity dictates. The dynamic force created is too much for the next floor to resist the falling mass. If it had been past the tipping point, it might have continued on over, even as the impact zone failed - but it wasn't, and it didn't.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Angular momentum? Not sure what you are trying to convey. There was no side force on the towers other than wind.

Gravity was pulling straight towards the center of the earth on the building.

The twisting was not from side loads.

The twisting was from the loads shifting as gravity pulled straight down on the upper portion of the building as the vertical columns buckled.

Once the vertical columns lost the ability to resist load by lose of being straight, the upper portion of the building was free to fall straight down into the floors below.

Conspiracists argue the vertical columns should have supported the building.

I argue the falling upper stories of the buildings acted like wrecking balls to break floor connections which result in the total collapse of the floor systems.

It is fact large sections of vertical columns remained standing after the complete collapse of the towers.

It is fact the vertical columns fell slower than the floor system.

Debunk the vertical columns helped guide a majority of the falling mass, more or less,
stright down? Like a bumper rails.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

Angular momentum of the tipping top vanished.

To prove this for your self: Take a broom balance it upright on your hand. Allow it to start tipping. Remove your hand from underneath it. The rotation will stop and the broom will fall to the ground at the same angle it was when you released it.

Lol.. exactly.

The excersise you just described shows zero resistance, which is why the broom fell that way.

This is why the tower fell the way it did. The resistance was gone.

Should have toppled.

You realize the tower's design was to minimize the cost of concrete and maximum open space.

The building's design was more like a pop can then a solid broom or tree.

There really wasn't any "angular momentum".

There was shifting of the loads while gravity pulled straight down. And it's plausible the vertical columns that had not lost their structural integrity, the columns that remained standing after the complete collapse of the floor systems, help funnel the majority of the falling mass.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: blackaspirin

The gravitational energy was not enough.

When the south tower's top started to tip to the side, the force from that should haved stayed to that side of the tower.

If the opposite side of the tower from the tilted top portion was still intact, it would have made sense.

Nobody said the tip was corrected. The upper portion was free to fall straight down with the tip to one side once the buckling became great enough for gravity to pull the entire upper portion into the building below.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

Should have toppled.

You asked me why the building Stopped its rotation. I explained it to you.

You do not accept this explanation. So apparently you have your own explanation.

So explain it to us. You can use all the explosives, jet engines/solid rocked boosters attached to the roof, thermite, nukes in the basement,Anything, Anything you want.

Just explain to us why the building stopped tilting.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

''I doubt you would know. We hire fire stopping engineers for fire stopping and we hire structural engineers to tells what we already know lol ''
I'm an inspector for all of them. I'm sure I do know what I'm talking about.

Yes your the consultant. Never hear much from you.

Sorry I didn't mean to offend you to the point you feel the need to attack me. Perhaps you're not high up enough in the ladder to actually see the reports from consultants like me who knit pick your entire job apart and show you how you're doing it wrong.

If your taking responsibility for the whole project then why do you require each shop drawing to be stamped by each trade engineer.

I don't require that.

I think you take the credit. Not the responsibility. But at least I got some fight out of you.

Perfect example is commercial block. The engineer who's signed off on the blueprint is NEVER onsite. I'm the only engineer onsite making sure every job is being followed to the blueprint. When a mason doesn't have a clue of how much overlap a rebar is suppose to have and their boss has no idea how much you can grout without a mechanical vibrator or when the steel worker doesn't know how thick the bead is suppose to be they come to me and the buck stops with me as I oversee and sign off on every aspect of the job. If the building suffers structural damage and the investigation shows the masons didn't grout every 16'' or if the firestop wasn't installed properly and I signed off on it I'm liable. Since I oversee every step of the entire project, hold people to the details of the job, and enforce all known codes, that makes me the most responsible party. And most construction companies nowadays like to offset their liability to someone like me.= because I know more and do a better job and take full responsibility for the liability.

originally posted by: Ujjvala
Well explain building 7 which fell the same way. Explain the videos and testiomonies of firefighters and employees that witnessed bombs throughout the building and basements. i.e. William Rodriguez

I have NEVER seen a video showing a bomb at building 7. Please post the video!
I don't want to see the videos that show a building falling down.

originally posted by: 11I11
Fires that burned hot enough to compromise structural steel but not humans apparently.....

I have seen some silly arguments from "awakened minds" around 9-11 but this one might be the dumbest.

Watch the videos and see all the sad souls that choice jumping from the top of a skyscraper vs burning to death.
Probably a reason for that.

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: 11I11
Fires that burned hot enough to compromise structural steel but not humans apparently.....

I have seen some silly arguments from "awakened minds" around 9-11 but this one might be the dumbest.

Watch the videos and see all the sad souls that choice jumping from the top of a skyscraper vs burning to death.
Probably a reason for that.

It's sad the lack of common sense among some individuals turns an argument to such morbid depts. But it shows the willingness to exploit 9/11 by any means?

But....... Sometimes you have to wonder if individuals really believe what they post, or if it's a sick game to try to make the truth movement look bad?

The truth movement could have been a needed thing if individuals would have practiced discernment and called out the ridiculous.

Since we have an inability to stay on topic ... and ... and because I've learned so much from some posters -- I'm going to go rather wildly off-topic.

'Common Sense' is usually just uninformed opinion.

In physics, Schrodinger's Cat being alive and dead at the same time defies common sense and requires (at least for me) a lot of study and acceptance to 'get'. My common sense tells me that is impossible.

Especially in the modern world. I can't form a reasonable argument for or against anything that I don't have a basic knowledge of.

The topic of 9/11 covers a vast array of technical areas that require special knowledge to evaluate.

I don't have education or experience in the fields necessary so I depend on others to explain it to me in order that I can make an informed opinion.

Thank you for educating me. My uninformed opinion has shifted.

Uninformed opinion can also be called:

Argument By Laziness (Argument By Uninformed Opinion):

the arguer hasn't bothered to learn anything about the topic.
He nevertheless has an opinion, and will be insulted if his opinion is not treated with respect.

For example, someone looked at a picture on one of my web pages, and made a complaint which showed that he hadn't even skimmed through the words on the page. When I pointed this out, he replied that I shouldn't have had such a confusing picture.

www.don-lindsay-archive.org...

a reply to: FyreByrd

I don't care what people believe, it's...
Confusing innuendo for fact
Faith vs evidence
Science vs pseudoscience
Using quotes and photos out of context

For the pentagon jet deniers, the ignoring of scores of civilians that attest to a large commercial jet impact.

And finally the response when you get a conspiracist cornered, "Its all a lie." But conspiracists will cite government documents when it suits them.

The jet fuel argument refers to THE MOLTEN STEEL. Not the actual collapse