9/11 Controversy Strikes Again at UC Boulder Face-Off

I don't get involved in these debates ever, but I have to on this one. And not because I just graduated from CU!

Do we have any videos of non-controlled demolitions of large buildings to compare to? What does it look like when a plane hits a skyscraper and the skyskraper falls down? Why wouldn't that be a free-fall?

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
This debate will go on forever I think, people refuse to let themselves believe anything that goes against their own belief systems. A natural collapse? Come on, 5 mins of research into controlled demolitions proves what the WTC collapses were.

Precisely. The buildings exploded from top to bottom in about three seconds longer than absolute free fall.

Absent the use of explosives and it clearly violates Newton's Three Laws of Motion.

It's self evident, but people are in denial. However, it cannot remain that way indefinitely. Grade 10-11 physics will in the end bring down the official conspiracy theory myth about what happened on 9/11.

The buildings did not "collapse" that's not what actually occured, that's a lie.

I suppose as it stands at the moment, we have the architects for truth with at least circumstantial evidence for the use of an exotic thermate substance. It is obvious that they are pursuing areas that NIST didn't bother about, if NIST had, they would have been at least morally bound to pursue that same avenue and should have found the same anomalous substance, and would have had to deal with it, but they didn't and are in default. In fact if terror MO's are anything to go by, NIST should have been looking for signs of the second "surprise" strike, which is often "the big one" while initial first strikes are a blind, or a distraction. That falls nicely into the bogus video of Bin Laden, where he said the towers falling were unexpected. Just what you might expect him say if (1) it was actually Bin Laden, when it clearly wasn't and (2) it is not properly clear that Bin Laden was responsible anyway. That video was a great Faux pas on the part of officialdom, as it only made many even more suspicious of the OS's, latterly.

Originally posted by subject x
reply to post by jude11

 

Watching 30 videos of birds flying in the distance, then one video of bats flying in the distance doesn't make bats the same as birds, although the videos would be remarkably similar.

Birds and bats flying in a distance WOULD look similar.
They both have wings and they flap said wings to fly.

WTC7 and a CD'd building ALSO look similar.
In many aspects.

Originally posted by Solasis

What does it look like when a plane hits a skyscraper and the skyskraper falls down? Why wouldn't that be a free-fall?

If you understand physics you should know that you don't have to see something to know how it would act, because ALL colliding objects follow the same rules of motion, according to Sir Isaac Newton. You don't need that much information to understand a given scenario. Engineers do this all the time, they don't build things and just hope they work. They work on known facts not faith.

It wouldn't be 'a free fall' [sic] because objects can not free fall through other objects.

That's the simple explanation.

reply to post by ANOK


Okay I think you missed the point of my question. These guys are saying "You can watch videos of controlled demolition and it looks just like this." But I want to see visual evidence -- even a high quality simulation -- that an uncontrolled collapse would not also look like this to the human eye. I've yet to see that.

But thanks for the "free-fall" answer, that was actually very helpful. I just wasn't thinking about that in the right order. (Not sure what your little "sic" comment was supposed to accomplish, though. Obviously there is no "unit of event" or whatever called "a free-fall." But it's a pretty damn obvious and applicable short-hand. Would "in free-fall" have been more accurate and just as easy to say? Probably, but what's the real difference in a query like this?)

reply to post by ANOK


It has been proven over and over to be "Almost Free Fall Speed." So, yes you are correct on that point.

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by ANOK

 

Okay I think you missed the point of my question. These guys are saying "You can watch videos of controlled demolition and it looks just like this." But I want to see visual evidence -- even a high quality simulation -- that an uncontrolled collapse would not also look like this to the human eye. I've yet to see that.

Well it wouldn't look like the WTC collapses, you don't need to see one to understand that Newtons laws makes it impossible.
As I said if you understand the physics you'll understand why it couldn't happen, regardless of free-fall or not.
Free fall is irrelevant really, the point is there was no discernible amount of resistance as there should have been. It takes time for floors to collapse, each floors collapsing would slow down the collapse until there was not enough dropping floors left and the collapse would stop, long before it was complete.

You also have to consider post collapse result which show there was no mass of the building still in its footprint which would be required for progressive/pancake collapse. If there is no mass in the footprint this means the mass was being ejected during the collapse, which means it wasn't available for crushing of other floors.

(that being the towers not WTC 7 which was a different method of collapse being a classic implosion demolition)

Originally posted by jude11
reply to post by ANOK

 

It has been proven over and over to be "Almost Free Fall Speed." So, yes you are correct on that point.

On what point exactly?

It doesn't have to be anything even close to free fall, if the collapse was complete and there was no slowing from resistance then there had to be some other energy acting on the towers other than gravity. 30 floors can not crush 80 floors without running out of floors, because both the collapsing floors and the static floors would both be crushed when they collided, there is no other time the crushing of the top could happen, the top floors didn't have enough mass to stay in one piece while crushing floors of more or less equal mass bellow it.

There had to be more going on than just gravity to remove resistance all the way down ahead of the collapse wave.

reply to post by ANOK


I was actually pretty good a physics. what I wasn't good at was visualizing from equations. I could do two-dimensional vectors, but I couldn't add and subtract them without the numbers. So how's about you stop saying "PHYSICS SEZ" and help me out with WHAT I AM ACTUALLY ASKING FOR.

Has anyone produced an accurate simulation of what this "should" have looked like?

Originally posted by subject x
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

reply to post by jude11

 

No. You can't come to an informed decision on something with so many variables from watching a couple of youtube videos. The very fact that you think you can shows why the 9/11 truth movement is not taken seriously by so many.

on the contrary, it is taken seriously by alot of people. it's just that they do not have the power to bring forward a new investigation.
i find it facinating, and a bit telling, that there are people that DO NOT want a politically independent investigation. that in itself, is enough to for me to not believe the offical story. the general public is not stupid, they just don't have the resources, money, also known as, power, to challange the people that do. this has been an accepted fact for many decades. it's not the evidence, that is holding back an independent investigation, it's the fear of repercussions from our elected leaders to start one.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by subject x
reply to post by JibbyJedi

 

reply to post by jude11

 

No. You can't come to an informed decision on something with so many variables from watching a couple of youtube videos. The very fact that you think you can shows why the 9/11 truth movement is not taken seriously by so many.

on the contrary, it is taken seriously by alot of people. it's just that they do not have the power to bring forward a new investigation.
i find it facinating, and a bit telling, that there are people that DO NOT want a politically independent investigation. that in itself, is enough to for me to not believe the offical story. the general public is not stupid, they just don't have the resources, money, also known as, power, to challange the people that do. this has been an accepted fact for many decades. it's not the evidence, that is holding back an independent investigation, it's the fear of repercussions from our elected leaders to start one.

edit on 17-3-2011 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

Second, what is the big fear of an indipendent investigation? Who needs to be protected from the results it might produce and why?

reply to post by jimmyx


And it's that fear that keeps people who really know better, heap scorn upon anyone who questions the "Official Story", while all the time afraid for their own job, or their life. The mainstream media is complicit in that they absolutely shun anyone who even starts to question official reports. Surely Fox, with it's rep for fair and balanced reporting by now, would have had some investigation of these claims of conspiracy. Not. Why? Because somebody told them not to pursue it. Somebody with so much power that they control what's reported. That really pisses me off.

Originally posted by logicalthinking
Richard Gage debated with Chris Mohr on the building collapses on 9/11 for over four hours at UC Boulder in front of 225 students. Check out the article.
3 Switched from Unsure to For Controlled Demolition
2 Switched from Unsure to For Natural Collapse
3 Switched from for Controlled Demolition to Unsure
1 Switched from for Controlled Demolition to for Natural Collapse
There will be a full video of the debate released soon.

Article Here

Interesting. So after listening to an equal one on one debate between the two sides, twice as many people became convinced it was a natural collapse...or at least started having doubts about the controlled demolitions story... than there were people who were absolutely convinced there were controlled demolitions. That ain't looking too good for Gage. I'm frankly amazed at why he would actually admit to getting spanked like this.

It would have been interesting to learn how many people previously believing in natural collapse were actually convinced by Gage's presentation that there were controlled demolitions. The reason it isn't mentioned is because I think I already know the answer: ZERO. Someone who knows two plus two equals four isn't going to be convinced it can ever equal five no matter how hard some con artist tries.

Originally posted by Cassius666
on the contrary, it is taken seriously by alot of people. it's just that they do not have the power to bring forward a new investigation.
i find it facinating, and a bit telling, that there are people that DO NOT want a politically independent investigation. that in itself, is enough to for me to not believe the offical story. the general public is not stupid, they just don't have the resources, money, also known as, power, to challange the people that do. this has been an accepted fact for many decades. it's not the evidence, that is holding back an independent investigation, it's the fear of repercussions from our elected leaders to start one.

What on Earth is a, "politically independent commission"? Everyone with the credentials to be on such a commission is by definition involved with the gov't or the events of 9/11 in some way. For one thing, anyone coming in and testifying on how Al Qaida operates is by definition a gov't intelligence agent from some country or another.

Originally posted by Solasis
I don't get involved in these debates ever, but I have to on this one. And not because I just graduated from CU!

Do we have any videos of non-controlled demolitions of large buildings to compare to? What does it look like when a plane hits a skyscraper and the skyskraper falls down? Why wouldn't that be a free-fall?

Graduated with a degree in WHAT?

Steven Jones mentions but does not emphasize the distribution of steel in WTC1 or any other skyscraper. The amount of steel must increase toward the bottom because more weight must be supported and putting in more steel means still more weight. For the top 13% of the north tower to come straight down and accelerate at more then 50% of G, which is what it would take to come down in less then 18 seconds, is not only ridiculous it is IMPOSSIBLE.

Unfortunately it can be hysterically funny for the nation that put men on the Moon to debate Newtonian Physics for NINE YEARS after a grade school physics problem. And then college graduates don't have sense enough to demand to know the distributions of steel and concrete of the towers in that time. Debates are not about getting the audience to understand relevant facts. They are psychological BS to manipulate the watchers.

Search the AE911Truth website. It sure is curious they don't talk about the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers. Could it be they are more interested in expecting people to BELIEVE because they can wave degrees in people's faces than they are in getting them to UNDERSTAND the simple physics?

www.youtube.com...

The Laws of Physics do not care what people want to BELIEVE.

psik

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by ANOK

 

Okay I think you missed the point of my question. These guys are saying "You can watch videos of controlled demolition and it looks just like this." But I want to see visual evidence -- even a high quality simulation -- that an uncontrolled collapse would not also look like this to the human eye. I've yet to see that.

But thanks for the "free-fall" answer, that was actually very helpful. I just wasn't thinking about that in the right order. (Not sure what your little "sic" comment was supposed to accomplish, though. Obviously there is no "unit of event" or whatever called "a free-fall." But it's a pretty damn obvious and applicable short-hand. Would "in free-fall" have been more accurate and just as easy to say? Probably, but what's the real difference in a query like this?)

edit on 16-3-2011 by Solasis because: (no reason given)

Actually, you are correct in your assumption that when buildings collapse, regardless of the cause, the look is similar. Why? Becuase what you are seeing is the collapse and not the cause. Look at videos of forrest fires, can someone tell the difference between a forrest fire started by lighting and one started by arson? Of course not. The same principle applies here.

As for the "free fall", don't be fooled, no one knows exactly how long it took the buildings to collapse. There were no devices attached to the buildings recording those measurements. The time of the collapse has been estimated based on review of video tapes and some seismic data.

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by ANOK

 

I was actually pretty good a physics. what I wasn't good at was visualizing from equations. I could do two-dimensional vectors, but I couldn't add and subtract them without the numbers. So how's about you stop saying "PHYSICS SEZ" and help me out with WHAT I AM ACTUALLY ASKING FOR.

Has anyone produced an accurate simulation of what this "should" have looked like?

Why are you asking this?

Can't you go find what you want all by yourself?

Again why do you need a model of how it should have looked like? In fact I don't think it should have collapsed period, so if you want to know what it SHOULD have looked like, imagine the towers without smoke pouring out of them and STILL STANDING. That's what I think they should have looked like.

For one thing, anyone coming in and testifying on how Al Qaida operates is by definition a gov't intelligence agent from some country or another.

Oh, I see you're still hung up on that AL-Qaida myth; pretty much explains how you came to your ill informed conslusion on 9/11.

Has anyone produced an accurate simulation of what this "should" have looked like?

No; because the people who have the money and power to produce this "accurate simulation" are the same ones who produced the actual event. I don't think they'd be stupid enough to incriminate themselves be reproducing a simulation of the actual event.