The Physics of 911

Do you even read my posts before you keep saying the same thing over and over again?

I have said multiple times that I estimate that the acceleration is 6 m/s^2 which implies resistance (as a decrease from the expected 9.8 m/s^2). This basic fact makes your repeated argument that I haven't answered your questions silly. I could ask you to estimate the energy you think is needed for the top block... but why should I bother. This isn't really about science.

You are so set in your conspiracy theory....

This is the thing. The antenna shows that the upper block passed through the lower intact core structure without so much as a jolt. Do you actually believe that the descending upper block would not be affected by the core structure below it? Of course, you're going to say that it was not exactly a freefall descent. But you're deliberately ignoring the fact that when a falling structure hits a stationary and intact structure below, the lower structure will resist, and the upper structure will be slowed or arrested. The video clearly shows no such thing. It's all smooth as silk. How does that happen?

You keep saying the same thing over and over again. You are doing what every conspiracy theorist does whether the conspiracy is 9/11, the moon landing or faces on Mars.

All you have is a grainy YouTube video.

You are making a bunch of stuff up based on your psychological need to prove your narrative. You don't know anything about the core structure. You don't know if it is "intact" at this point. You don't know anything about the potential energy, or the energy it takes to break screws or even if screws were broken or concrete is broken.

Making random guesses based on a YouTube video is not science. It is speculation at best... and it isn't even really speculation since there is zero chance you will speculate something that contradicts your narrative.

The truth is you don't have enough information from this video to understand anything about what the "core structure" or the energy required or whether a "jolt" would even happen or be noticeable on this video. Of course I don't have this information either. But I understand that it isn't valid to just make stuff up based on what fits a narrative.

You are speculating about the apparent "smoothness" of a falling antenna and ignoring the fact that that lots of people saw and heard to large airplanes hit the towers.

I don't understand your need to believe this conspiracy theory. But for us non-believers, even after taking the time to analyze your video as you requested, your narrative doesn't make very much sense.

That's because you keep avoiding answering them. The best you've done is in this post I'm answering to right now when you say that we don't know if the core is intact or not. Nevertheless, that's just conjecture on your part; you're just making it up to compensate for the fact that the upper block passed through the lower core structure without slowing down. You had to explain that somehow, and that's what you decided to settle on. But you're not even thinking through what you're saying. If the lower core structure was so weak and frail, how much more weak and frail was the fire damaged upper block? Didn't think of that, did you?

And the video is not grainy or obscured, and you know it. You're simply hoping to detract from what it clearly shows. Anyone can see that the antenna does not show anything like a jolt, which means that the upper block collided with, and passed through, the lower core structure as if it wasn't there. I know you understand the impossibility of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo
30 second mark.

Grainy, huh?

I was just trying to help out your argument since you aren't really making any headway.

Excellent video.

And it's not like just the one detail is the reason we don't believe the official conspiracy theory.

There's many details that are obvious to those who can deduct and rationalise situations.

I'll post this link again, for the newcomers to this thread.

http://www.911truth.org/the-top-40-reasons-to-doubt-the-offical-story/

Excellent video.

And it's not like just the one detail is the reason we don't believe the official conspiracy theory. There's many details that are obvious to those who can deduct and rationalise situations.

I'll post this link again, for the newcomers to this thread.

http://www.911truth.org/the-top-40-reasons-to-doubt-the-offical-story/

Not really, since they lack a theory. None of the truthers here has proposed any hypothesis about what happened. They don't have a clue. They are just watching videos of 911 and finding them all very bizarre. What they fundamentally cannot swallow is the idea that the US could be victim of some non-American bad guys. Because America IS the bad guy, always. But they will never admit to that.

No "theory" needed, Olly. Just a healthy rejection of a poorly funded excuse, handed down under the guise of a scientific report.

It's the right of the people to question dubious activities by their govt.

Don't you have that right in the EU?

To clarify your point: If someone doesn't know who did it, how they did it, and why they did it, then a solid mass passing through another solid mass as if it wasn't there can be ignored.

Exactly. This is why lots of people believe in ghosts.

Ghosts?

It's not just who did it and why. You have no clue HOW, ie by which physical means it was done. You guys wonder to no end if the antenna fell at the exact right speed it "should" have fallen, but when asked what could possibly have accelerated or slowed down its fall, you have no clue... So you don't have a theory. Therefore you don't even rise to the level of conspiracy theorists.

I am pointing out that the arguments that Glenn is making for the 9/11 conspiracy theory are the same arguments that people use to prove the existence of ghosts... and UFOs... and civilizations on Mars.

If you don't have to provide a real theory, then finding video evidence that "reality" isn't real is not that difficult.

To clarify your point as well: If someone doesn't know who did it, how they did it, and why they did it, then a solid mass passing through another solid mass as if it wasn't there can be ignored. That's your argument in a nutshell. You've not explained how such a thing could happen. Therefore, we'll pick up where we left off.

That's because you keep avoiding answering them. The best you've done is in this post I'm answering to right now when you say that we don't know if the core is intact or not. Nevertheless, that's just conjecture on your part; you're just making it up to compensate for the fact that the upper block passed through the lower core structure without slowing down. You had to explain that somehow, and that's what you decided to settle on. But you're not even thinking through what you're saying. If the lower core structure was so weak and frail, how much more weak and frail was the fire damaged upper block? Didn't think of that, did you?

And the video is not grainy or obscured, and you know it. You're simply hoping to detract from what it clearly shows. Anyone can see that the antenna does not show anything like a jolt, which means that the upper block collided with, and passed through, the lower core structure as if it wasn't there. I know you understand the impossibility of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAofwkAOlo
30 second mark.

Grainy, huh? Calling that video grainy exposes you as one who exaggerates to protect their position, which speaks volumes about your position.

Actually, your unspoken declaration that the upper block of the Tower passed right through the lower core structure is indicative of your belief in ghosts. You believe that the lower core became a ghost that no longer possessed physicality. But you know full well that it that's impossible.

In that case, very clearly there was extraterrestrial technology involved.

Maybe on the top floor of the North tower, there was a covert extraterrestrial listening post monitoring our progress. When the alien overseer, they beamed a hidden section of the building to save their agents without interfering with human civilization.

You have seen the videos about Area 52... they are watching us (along with the ghosts).

Its physicality was neutralized, of course...

Which, of course, you do, because you believe an unproven theory gifted to you by the NIST arm of a govt known to be corrupted to the core. Nice work, Olly.

There's no such thing in science as a "proven theory". The best you can get is a theory not disproven yet. You would know that if you had any interest in science.

The US goverment is not rotten to the core. That'd be a very manichean, simplistic view, good for the simpletons.

What's your nationality, by the way?