wtf is an "elastic compromise"?

You also need to remember that these flights were domestic, and citizens don't need to carry a passport to travel domestically. So, yeah more passports were possibly recovered, but not everyone on those planes were carrying passports.

Also, it's quite interesting that OP posts links to all possible theories but fails to include one for the Jewish theory - which is arguably the most sensationalist.

No link indeed

Cool story, anal bead. Perhaps you're relatively new, but I've been bringing parallel discussion of the money trail since the beginning. I didn't "show up" later.

Acting like you "don't care" doesn't change the fact that you can't combat it. You guys take great joy in knocking down arguments. It sustains you; it's entirely why you frequent the thread. Meanwhile, the fact that you can't find an avenue to knock mine down, and have to bail out to feigned apathy speaks volumes.

You're not fooling anyone.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!... Yeah, cept no... Suggesting I'm somehow lacking credibility on this subject because I won't hate who you hate just makes you look ever more ******ed. I'm overflowing with credibility on the issue of 9/11. If you had a way of fighting it off, you would. Your default retreat to "don't care" leaves YOU with zero credibility around here. Not me.

No, no. I'm here to talk about the theory that the government somehow destroyed those buildings, not the stuff you bring up. That's literally the only part of this I'm interested in.

When I say I'm not interested, I'm really not. I just don't care. It's funny to me that you just can't understand that, but there's a lot you apparently can't understand.

And yes, backing an obvious lunatic like Deuces reduces your credibility, like it or not.

And my join date is 6 years before yours, so you're the noob around here.

LOL.... You keep telling yourself that. If you could destroy my argument, you'd take great joy in doing so. It's what trolls like you subsist on here. In my case, you absolutely can't, so you don't.

Where did I back his argument? Oh, right. That's you just making things up like you always do.

LOL... are you 11? The point is, middle schooler, I've been involved in the thread (and the topic) since the beginning. I didn't "just show up."

Just to review, though ... The US executive branch knew the attacks were coming, blocked and obstructed all investigations, and then covered for the perpetrators for 14 years.

Your vote/advocacy shows your ******ation on this matter.

Anyway, welcome to the thread, jiggs. Maybe you can liven things up around here.

Being able to destroy your argument and being able to convince you that your argument has been destroyed are two fundamentally different problems.

omg wot u doin over here?

You're right about one thing here. I can't. Because, as I've told you, I don't care about this topic, so I haven't kept up with it. So congratulations, I guess.

ah, good. You don't think they were controlled demolitions. This is great. You won a point up there and another one here. Way to go. Maybe we can get your little sticker card filled up.


Yeah, I've kind of been here a long time, too, champ. Not sure why you think I just "showed up." I've been involved in several of these 9/11 threads before this, and I've been involved in this one for, oh, at least a year now.

Yeah this last part hasn't been proven by you or anyone else. I get that this your ultimate end goal with this Saudi money business and the 28 pages, but it doesn't follow.

But since I don't really care that much about this theory of yours, sure, Go ahead and believe it.

Well then I guess you're not interested in anything here because I never said the government proper did it. I have argued against the operation being a government operation ala Northwoods. That would just be a disastrous stunt which would have blown up in their faces. Do you think that I think like NIST is in on it and crap like that? I guess you might since paying attention isn't really a strong point of yours.

I don't care what you think, frankly. You're an idiot.

There is the third rail and then there is pure white lightening.

No government would dare do anything like this. While rogue elements are clearly around in the Saudi Royal family, it would be unthinkable for Israel to do anything like that. They wanted Iraq gone, and they got that. But they wouldn't have risked their existence on the 9/11 plot to achieve that.

Yes you've established that you think I'm an idiot. Great. That's really interesting, right up there with your idea that Bazant didn't mean the TTs were crushed by something.

You've demonstrated quite handily. It's not really just something I think. Maybe you could try to prove me wrong and actually respond (sensibly) to the complete destruction of your theories in this thread. Like, did you ever get around to citing that peer-reviewed paper that disputes Bazant's conclusion? No? Why not? Did you ever get around to explaining what would arrest the twin towers' collapse when there was a video demonstrating that buildings do in fact collapse like that when the entire upper block falls on each floor below it? No? Hmm. Do you still try to refute a paper you don't even understand as if doing that will somehow show that this visual proof of concept of the collapse mechanism isn't valid? Yes, you do. Do you somehow think that the upper block of the twin towers, a dynamic (falling) load, will somehow be arrested by the support of the entire rest of the building and not just completely overwhelm the supports of the floor immediately below it and then continue on to do the same thing to each floor underneath it? Yes, you do. Inexplicably. Do you think that the top section breaking into pieces will somehow not weigh the same amount and impart the same amount of force on the structures below it? Yes you do, for some reason.

There is ample evidence you're an idiot. You should either just own up to it, stop posting altogether, or finally get your crap together and start using your brain for more than a crap-sponge.

You could also come join us over at an actual science based forum and try to tackle the issues there instead of here in a poker forum where you know people aren't taking you seriously. But you're too scared to do that. I don't think you even really believe this stuff deep down.

Alright. Jiggs post above got me thinking. How long have I been participating in this thread? Has it really been over a year? I clicked back to the farthest page I could go back to in one click on the little bar at the top. I looked on page 57 which was back in June of 2015. I saw a post of mine near the top of that page. Yep, indeed. Over a year. I then scrolled down to read some of what was being talked about at that time in the thread.

Lol and behold it was Deuces completely not understanding these same basic physics concepts. Hilariously, there was actually even a physicist on that page trying to walk him through it. Still no dice.

It's really fun laughing at truthers. It really is. I've just come to the realization that I'm not doing it in this thread. I'm actually still trying to get through to this moron. It took me seeing how absolutely resistant to it he is by going back in time and seeing him saying the exact same stupid stuff over a year ago to realize what I'm doing and how stupid I am for doing it.

Basically no one else posts in this thread besides an occasional drive-by truthing. If I'm not getting an inordinate amount of joy from laughing at Deuces, I shouldn't be posting here. I'm certainly not going to break through to him.

I have decided to unsubscribe from this thread. Deuces, if you want to continue this, I will still be on the International Skeptics Forum as well as lots of competent engineers and scientists. If you want to continue jerking it in this thread where no one but you and Jiggs actually cares about anything, I guess feel free.

I'm out.

You give up easily, just give Deuces a little time to figure things out. He only had 15 years, thousands of posts, and god knows how many hours of youtubes.

Behold... The final thought process of the coincitard, completely out of fuel, and bailing on his vehicle from the center lane in heavy city traffic.

And it absolutely hasn't been, troll. ... But thanks for popping in while also avoiding offering some new round of racist RW screed. Progress.

I've made it extremely easy for team Bush science to embarrass me, even avoiding altogether your misunderstanding of Newton's laws, yet you have all failed to do it. All you have to do is demonstrate the generalized Bazant phenomenon/mechanism anywhere with any objects.

There are plenty of demonstrations that conform to the counter, that collapse would not have gone to completion in the manner observed. You can check out a reel of botched demolitions featuring various types of partial collapse. You just don't see anything like what was seen on 9/11 outside of controlled demolition. And that brings to mind the other simple-yet-impossible-for-you challenge: show me a collapse that looks anything like the TTs or WTC7 collapse which isn't a demolition. Can you even show me an aftermath of a non-demolition collapse that looks what was observed at ground zero?

I think if 9/11 saw just one building fall this way, in a way never before or since seen outside of demolitions, it would be an easier story to accept. As it is, we are asked to believe all 3 buildings fell this way, never seen before or since, and in the context of a terrorist attack, inadvertently, by way of fire. The fires, of unconfirmed temperature, with no evidence of creating the heat supposedly necessary, were what was responsible in every case. So a little better sprinkler system and all three buildings are standing. So the terrorists basically inadvertently knocked down 3 planes with two airplanes, by a method which took years to explain completely unsatisfactorily by way of secret calculations.

I think we can do better than that.

I'm only here for the Muslims...who btw where the ones who murdered 3000 innocent people.

As for the controlled demolition, this has to be wackiest and weirdest way to try to make it happen. If ANYTHING goes wrong anywhere (out of sequence explosions, someone talking) the organizers are ****ed. It's far easier to just blow the thing up to bring it down...like the 1993 WTC bombing almost did:
Here again we have the Buddhist religion causing mass murder.

Anyway. It's estimated that a different placement of this bomb could have brought the WTC down, given how they were deisigned with central support columns, it the bomb has merely been placed a little closer to the columns

Also, two quick questions:

1. How much potential energy was stored in each floor, and all the floors combined? How does that number compare with the energy released by a small nuclear weapon?

2. Let's say that the supports of one floor weakened with the heat, causing it fall. If this happened, how much energy and impulse and momentum would it have when striking the floor below?

It is and it isn't. It's far easier to blow up the buildings without having to control the planes, obviously. But say you wanted to blow up the buildings but have people think they weren't blown up. Why? Because the apparent cause, the planes, will completely redirect any subsequent investigation away from the culprits and focus it on the stooges.

So if I were planning a false flag terrorist attack on a grand scale, if I were to just blow up the buildings then the investigation would know the method and look at the materials used, trace them, look into building maintenance records, figure out who had access, and eventually put together a picture of how it really went down which could reveal the planners. But by putting the planes out there as a massively spectacular misdirection, you not only heighten the effect of the terrorism, but you will induce most people to think "plane hit building, building go down, plane cause building to go down".
I've achieved my terrorism aim with more spectacle and impression than a straight up bombing could ever hope to achieve as well as preemptively sabotaged most investigations into it.


Just the gravitational energy, weight x height. The differences in floor weights is significant. The steel frame, the outer steel frame and the core, were denser the closer to the ground. The steel was thickest and heaviest at the bottom, making the supposed acceleration through the building by the top part even more incredible. Imagine the top of the Eiffel tower accelerating through the remainder at nearly free fall. Doesn't seem like something that would happen in this physical universe, does it?

These were very big floors. The fires were not very hot and moved around the perimeter. We know this because of visual evidence and the fact that people were able to move through stairways in the core without being cooked. One survivor said he even went back many floors through the core at the impact zone to get something. So the ambient temperature in at least part of the core was nowhere near hot enough to melt steel. In fact, according to NIST, there is no physical evidence of the temperatures required to melt steel. So if there was steel melting it certainly wasn't through the entire horizontal plane.

The point here is that some of the potential energy would be used in bending the steel elastically as the building comes down. Still, it would come down with a **** ton of force, and a **** ton would also hit it in return from the supporting structure. But don't try to convince anyone here of that- they only do downward force in the universe, according to them, as far as the WTC and bowling balls go.

You stupid ****wit. 2 to 16 times the dynamic load the floor below the collapse could support overwhelmed the rest of the building. Once it started and continued to increase its load as it collapsed there was no stopping it. Why is that so difficult for your peabrain to understand?

Deuces and Tooth will have a lot of fun together imo. Tooth fulfills Deuces's fantasy of non-truthers being conversatives whipped up in a frothing rage against muslims, and Deuces being naive to the point of delusion probably fits Tooth's image of liberals. They deserve each other.

Deuces: everybody understands that SOME energy is used up to break things during the fall. The question is how much.

I'm very impressed that you were able to give an almost correct expression for the potential energy (you're only missing a constant!). Now can you give an expression for the energy lost to impacts and deformations?