I knew Jeku would have nothing of substance to say, no valid replies based in facts or anyhting along those lines, just the usual love-snuggle-fest with Indi. So he'll make sweeping broad statements like "its all been debunked" yet cant say how or by whom, then changes the subject. Classic. Yes Jeku we spoke about this however long ago, and you had no answers then either.
I have respect for Krilik, at least he makes an effort and has done some research, and he sounds like he believes what he says.
@Krilik
Quote: "The laws of physics aren't debunked. But when listening to the 9/11 conspiracy, not all of the laws of physics were used to argue for it. They systematically took pieces of information and construed them to fit into facts outside of the entire event. Under all the circumstances that happened on 9/11 the questions asked become arbitrary, because the answers should lead you to ask different questions."
If you mean from within the context of this movie, yes it was quick and generalized, but I asked a specific question regarding one aspect of the event. You seem to support the impossible official theories, so thats what I was asking about, but lets explore...
Quote: "The rate of free fall? That's not even a measurement. "
excuse me? the last time I checked, earth's gravity had a rate of acceleration on falling bodies, something like 32 ft per sec / sec (9.8 m/sec/sec). Using that known rate you can calculate how long it will take for something to fall from a given height, unimpeded, to the ground (factoring air resistence/terminal veloc etc). My question was simply how is it possible that the roofline of wtc1 (1368 ft) fell thru the path of most resistance (impeded) yet still made it to the ground in 10 seconds, within a second or two of the rate of free fall (9.2 sec)? Would the mass of the portion of the building below the impact zones not cause ANY resistance? And therefore time delay to reach the ground? You know, like newtonian physics describes? (Same question for wtc 7)
Quote: "The WTC was not designed to withstand a hit from a 767. Smaller aircraft yes. "
The wtc towers were designed to withstand the impacts of multiple Boeing 707's, please go look up the weight, dimensions, and speeds of both planes, you'll find they are nearly identical, and the 767 is only slightly heavier when fully fueled (which these planes were not), and the 767 cant fly as fast as a 707. Either plane type striking the buildings causes the plane to lose 95% of its kinetic energy as they shear thru the perimiter coulmns and begin to explode. Regardless of these facts, one fact remains, the buildings stood after the impacts for 56 minutes and 102 minutes (wtc 2 - wtc 1)
Quote: "The fire was not the only thing going on if you didn't notice. A plane hit the corner of the WTC. Causing structural changes to one side of the building. "
And its the opposite corner of that same building (South Tower WTC 2) where we see molten iron slag spilling out of the building, emitting white whispy smoke/dust, much like the the exothermic reaction caused by Thermate applied to structural steel. But what you describe still doesnt explain how when wtc2 fell, it violated multiple newtonian laws and reached the ground, again, at the rate of free fall. The upper section of that building slumped to the corner you described, tiletd about 30 degrees, while also rotating, then suddenly stopped these movements and plunged straight down, thru the path of most resistance, in a cloud of fine powder, at freefall speed, to the street below.
Quote: "And there was a fire on a bridge not too long ago that caused steel to melt..."
If you are referring to the california gas truck crash that caused an over pass to fall, you are trying to compare apples and oranges, and are probably betting that I am not informed, and have not studied this - unfortunately you will lose that bet if you make it..
The fuel source for that incident was unleaded gasoline, not jet grade kerosine, gasoline burns hotter than jet fuel. The overpass is a set of single steel beams, that are not to the spec of wtc structural steel, they are made of steel that does not have the same fire rating as structural steel for hi rise buildings. The construction of roadway overpasses employs expansion joints so in the event of a collision, or an earthquake the section of roadway in question (if it fails) will fail by itself and not pull down the entire elevated roadway. The overpass sat in heat it wasnt designed to, it sagged, opened the expansion joints too far, and fell onto the road below (and I bet it was at the rate of free fall) To compare the construction of a california overpass to the construction of the wtc is not feasible. To compare the fuel sources is not feasible. To compare the collapse mechanics is not feasible.
Quote: "Why is debris superficial? You just arbitrarily wrote off something that could have easily caused the building to resonate and collapse on itself. A big enough piece of debris hitting the base of the WTC could have transferred enough energy into the building like an earthquake."
Because I have researched these issues for the past 2.5 years and video and photographic and physics evidence proves my claims. The NIST photo that claims to be showing a portion of wtc7 being damaged has been proven to be an inverted photo of part of the Deutsche Bank building (a completely different building). The claim that "25% of the south east corner was scooped out" has been proven to also be false. The NIST final report on why building 7 collapsed was promised to be released in 2005, its now August 2007. NIST commissioned UL to do scale fire models of the wtc towers and were only able to reproduce 3" on center sag of floor trusses, using hotter controlled fires and unprotected steel, while on 9/11 they claim the floor trusses sagged 34" on center using cooler random open air office fires - they could only get the towers to fall in closed black box computer models. But back to wtc 7, NIST now has delayed the report again and are now considering "explosives" as a possibility. I guess we'll see the report when we see it. But, I digress, the question I have, is why did wtc7 fall straight down, into its footprint in 6.5 seconds (free fall based on its height) not damaging the Verizon building on one side, and the US Post Office building on its other side. If the damage to the south east corner is accurate then why did it not fall in the direction of the damage, and why did it wait 8 hours to fall in the first place? This earthquake force you describe, caused by the wtc1 collapse, happened at 10:28 am - what time did wtc 7 collapse? It collapsed at 5:20 pm. Was this some special delayed reaction earthquake? Why did the BBC, and CNN both report the collpase of WTC 7 BEFORE it happened?
My DBP plugins page is now hosted [href]
here[/href]
