Pegasus Research Consortium

John Lear's Question and Answers => John Lear's Question and Answer Area => 9/11 Conspiracies => Topic started by: Aemilius on February 28, 2015, 04:30:39 pm

Title: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Aemilius on February 28, 2015, 04:30:39 pm
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSklbwpclTzlpa-el8g5q5ZZ2tWXiHrtSb6iImUFVqnVMpdccVt)

The conditions required for gravitational acceleration to occur have been known for centuries....

(http://picasion.com/pic76/9383be58c2196650abf48981db503779.gif)

The condition under which a body is, literally, free to fall under the influence of the local gravitational field with no resistance to its acceleration....
 
(http://picasion.com/pic76/78fe757793d30a322732edd16cff4bde.gif)

The control that appears on the right in many of the animations is intended as a reminder of that, and also signals the beginning of a comparison....

(http://i.picasion.com/pic76/ef2992a1bed34a1ad9d2e8f520c5ad7e.gif)

We can know with certainty in some cases (like this one) what conditions exist beneath an object (or building) as it falls....

(http://picasion.com/pic76/255b5e6b0f1f20b0bd95d84a94ef1386.gif)

....even though we may not be able to see into the space beneath it as it does....

(http://picasion.com/pic76/1036ed956866bb76e5e518d9c4e7a69c.gif)

Buckled columns, whether one or a hundred, whether one at a time or all at once (or any combination thereof) don't just go from 100% to 0% when they buckle, they steadily decrease in strength while they buckle and that takes time.
 
The mechanism of buckling (a mode of natural progressive structural failure), whether caused by heat....

(http://picasion.com/pic76/171da9bd639a474f93f75416474f53ce.gif)

....or by overloading....

(http://picasion.com/pic76/a338ba3cef6cdac0cc13fe19a7c5c2bc.gif)

....absolutely cannot match or create the conditions required for gravitational acceleration to occur, it's literally impossible. There is no such thing as progressive gravitational acceleration....

(http://picasion.com/pic76/d5dbd5d68ab7326804067a722fe8bc06.gif)

Some force must be introduced to quickly remove all support from beneath the literally falling visible upper part of the building seen in the video....

(http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/4995/wtc7channel9ve7.gif#wtc%207%20gif%20240x180)

The progressive collapse of the building (NIST probable collapse sequence starting with column 79 on the left)....

(http://picasion.com/pic76/06c559cd5c8a1df0aa4d57e1ed06ff51.gif)

....that essentially happens all at once....

(http://picasion.com/pic76/9c68e547d22a337a9448b8c21d55fe12.gif)

....is clearly physically inconsistent with what we empirically know of natural progressive structural failure (defined as a time consuming process of individual/sequential/simultaneous failure involving one or a number of related structural components).

It's a physical impossibility for the lower part of the asymmetrically damaged building (reportedly three core columns and nine perimeter columns)....
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/2051328/wtc-7-collapse-o.gif)

....to have naturally progressively collapsed in any way that could result in the upper part of the building symmetrically descending straight down through itself (NIST probable collapse sequence starting with column 79 circled below) at anything near gravitational acceleration for any period of time. The scenario playing out below is an absolute physical impossibility....

(http://picasion.com/pic76/27116a12288329cea1fc0a4cf817d33a.gif)

....and there is absolutely no mode or combination of modes of natural progressive structural failure driven solely by gravity that can ever give rise to the conditions required for free fall to have occurred at any point during it's descent....
 
(http://picasion.com/pic75/8db27a83092f9cb1be47bba39ea92628.gif)

The scenario playing out below is an absolute physical impossibility. Just as there is no such thing as progressive gravitational acceleration, nor is there any known structural failure mode known as natural progressive structural gravitational acceleration....

(http://picasion.com/pic75/9fda7447ab53a056ff5f02c28634ecb3.gif)

There is simply no point during a natural progressive gravity driven collapse of a steel frame skyscraper like this where one could say....

"Hold it.... right there! That's the point where all the steel columns and structural components that were supporting the building just a moment ago (with an area greater than that of a football field) will undoubtedly be found to be behaving in a manner very much like air (below left). It will take very careful calculation to tell the fall times apart during this free fall period of the ongoing progressive structural failure (below right)"....

(http://picasion.com/pic76/a0cb7908dee38177e36e60b0cc7d95f6.gif)

For the 2.25 seconds (eight stories, approximately 105 feet) that we know the upper part of the building literally fell at gravitational acceleration it cannot have been using any of it's potential energy to crush the building contents, columns and other structural components beneath it and undergo free fall at the same time (as illustrated by this frangible impedance scenario)....

(http://picasion.com/pic75/25bd5d8b9f31bb7a59bb3a25fd6f15bd.gif)

It's physically impossible for the lower asymmetrically damaged part of the building to have naturally progressively collapsed in a way that could result in the upper part of the building actually accelerating as it descended symmetrically straight down through itself, through the path of maximum resistance (below right), and then, driven on solely by gravity, actually continue to accelerate so nearly to gravitational acceleration (below left) as to require very careful calculation for any difference between the two to be detected....

(http://i.picasion.com/pic78/8153c195a283e9e70a635e977539318e.gif)

Some other force powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building as it descended must be introduced to explain the observed rate of descent during the 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration.

For the 2.25 seconds that the building iliterally fell at gravitational acceleration, no other force powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building was seen to be introduced from outside the building, and no other force powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building is known to have existed inside the building as an element or normal function of it's infrastructure.
 
For a load supported by a column to descend at gravitational acceleration, all support must be quickly removed, there's absolutely no other way. It must be knocked out, pulled out, blown out, vaporized, etc.

Since no eight story tall boulders were seen rumbling through Manhatten that day that could have quickly knocked out all support....

(http://picasion.com/pic75/1663de40a7bf83c865aa619bbf382767.gif)

....and no suspicious looking Frenchmen were spotted rigging for verinage (another form of controlled demolition) the night before that could have quickly pulled out the support....

(http://picasion.com/pic78/c0ac91b333f1ecf2e9ef8388b2182648.gif)

....and no bombs or rockets were seen to be dropped on/fired at it that could have quickly blown out all support....

(http://picasion.com/pic78/a17b1090eba7c867e754cfe3373b5e71.gif)

....and no giant laser beams or other secret weapons were being tested in the area that could have quickly vaporized all support....

(http://picasion.com/pic78/4d49c47077517a8ea2302b24659a1e00.gif)

....and no other force capable of quickly removing all support from beneath the upper part of the building existed in the building as a normal function of it's infrastructure (blue)....
 
(http://picasion.com/pic78/34be463aa4a4083e6b76ff206a5545d4.gif)

....it naturally follows that whatever the other force was that must be introduced to explain the observed 2.25 seconds of descent at gravitional acceleration, it must have been introduced some time before the event, and unless someone can show how the other force that must be introduced either during or just before the collapse of the building was introduced from outside the building, or that it was already existing inside the building as a normal function of it's infrastructure, the process of elimination really leaves only one possible explanation for the building's behaviour.

Some energetic material powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building during the 2.25 second period of gravitational acceleration must have been physically transported inside the building some time before the event, it had to be brought in.

The explosion model is the only one....

(http://picasion.com/pic75/d09871fcde64ba30384a87220d9837b4.gif)

....that can realistically match and empirically be expected to create the conditions that we know must have existed....

(http://picasion.com/pic75/8db27a83092f9cb1be47bba39ea92628.gif)

....beneath the literally falling visible upper part of the building during its observed largely symmetrical descent at gravitational acceleration for approximately 105 feet in 2.25 seconds....

(http://picasion.com/pic76/0d8f489c42d14f50777e0d8e90059b6a.gif)

The undisputed (both the NIST and independent researchers alike agree) confirmed observation of a significant well defined period of gravitational acceleration....
 
(http://picasion.com/pic76/6c7cd2005f1c75d081a720e434c5c713.gif)

....means that an explosion, or a number of explosions, must have occurred that was powerful enough to quickly remove all support from beneath the upper part of the building (below right), either all at once or incrementally in advance of its descent, permitting it to descend at gravitational acceleration for the observed period and under the conditions required (below left) for free fall to occur....

(http://picasion.com/pic76/ef4a740c36efe88f565475ebbbbf3887.gif)

The building was brought down by explosives.

The empirically established fact that WTC7 was brought down by explosives immediately shines a bright light on literally the only ones who could possibly have carried out a covert domestic operation of this magnitude.... the only ones who had exclusive 24/7 access to the highly secured building (WTC7).... the only ones who were in complete control of the security system for the building.... the only ones who had ready access to the quantity and quality of energetic materials required.... and the only ones who had the required expertise in the effective use of said energetic materials. The fact is that only the Department of Defense/Central Intelligence Agency could have done it.... just as one needn't be Isaac Newton to see there is no other possible explanation for the behavior of WTC7 other than energetic materials having been physically transported into the building, one needn't be Sherlock Holmes to see there is no other possible explanation as to who could have done it since the building was in perpetual lock down as a highly secured government facility.... it's elementary.

So to sum up, in this case anyway, one simple fact (free fall) leads to an inescapable conclusion (intentional demolition). That one simple fact and the inescapable conclusion it naturally leads to (as revealed by analysis), that WTC7 literally had to have been brought down by explosives, along with the fact (as revealed by the list of tenants) that personnel from the Department of Defense/Central Intelligence Agency are literally the only ones who could possibly have done it, really wraps up the whole thing (all the events of that day) in one nice neat little package.

The US Government Planned and Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks

That's just the way it is.
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Aemilius on March 01, 2015, 04:59:53 am
I notice the animations don't always display properly here (could just be my computer), so here's a link to the analysis....

http://aemilius.sosblog.com/
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 01, 2015, 06:34:16 am

The US Government Planned and Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks

That's just the way it is.

Well I'm certainly glad that's over with...we know who done it, we know how who done it, did it. So what's next?  ??? ::) :P

Ooh Ooh, I know....WHY? hhhmmmm....
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Aemilius on March 01, 2015, 06:57:30 am
Well I'm certainly glad that's over with...we know who done it, we know how who done it, did it. So what's next?  ??? ::) :P

Ooh Ooh, I know....WHY? hhhmmmm....

Why? Well, that may be answered by a criminal investigation, but it's beyond the scope of the analysis.... I'm afraid there's no provision or stipulation for motive as a step or element of the Scientific Method.

Why do you think they did it?

Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 01, 2015, 08:21:25 am
First it's the assumption that the USA planned and executed 9/11...I do not agree with that statement.

Were the twin towers detonated to cause the collapse? Not in my opinion.

Did a particle beam energy weapon, fired from space or another area, to cause the twin towers to be turned into dust? Not in my opinion.

Was WTc-7 brought down on purpose. From what I've seen I'd have to say yes purposefully.
Now the reasons I think are many and varied from the fires below rendering the building unattainable and dangerous, to what was housed inside that building that caused the NEED to bring it down.

Was there a masterful plot to plan and execute 9/11 to bring the USA into the war on terror? I'm sure there were many scenarios planned with that end result in mind. Was it executed? Only time will tell.
And that's my opinion.
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Pimander on March 01, 2015, 01:57:25 pm
Sarge, there is a difference between an opinion and a cogent argument or analysis. 
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 01, 2015, 02:12:24 pm
Sarge, there is a difference between an opinion and a cogent argument or analysis.
Pim, the opinion is arrived to after the cogent argument or analysis!
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: zorgon on March 01, 2015, 03:39:14 pm
Was WTc-7 brought down on purpose. From what I've seen I'd have to say yes purposefully.
Now the reasons I think are many and varied from the fires below rendering the building unattainable and dangerous, to what was housed inside that building that caused the NEED to bring it down.

Since THIS thread is OBLY about WTC7 :P Nice job BTW...

So we agree that WTC7 HAD to be a demolition

We agree that what the building contained was a motive

Was the building that badly burnt that it was not repairable? I saw no evidence of that but we will never know since it fell

I see THREE floors on fire  Seems to me that is not enough to scrap a building But certainly NOT enogh to melt steel beams 

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/01/article-2056088-0E9F97E800000578-382_634x471.jpg)

This image  a closeup of the first claims this is proof how the outside frame could no longer support the building thus causing the collapse   My these OS people are desperate :P

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/01/article-2056088-0E9F97F400000578-778_634x402.jpg)

I bet those were the offices with the records :P

SO Now the HUGE QUESTION

WTC7 fell several hours after  the towers

IF the fires were so bad they could not save the building and they had to demolish it

HOW did they have time to get explosives into the right location to get a perfect fall in such a short time?

It takes them WEEKS to do it under normal circumstances to make sure it all set right

That leaves only one conclusion

THE EXPLOSIVES WERE ALREADY SET
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 01, 2015, 04:41:29 pm
That's a huge assumption! I remember seeing something about fuel tanks in the basement area either on fire or severely damage and dangerous. Could that have been the reason? Don't know. Just from the film I saw of the bldg. coming down, and it was a closeup shot, it looked like a detonation to me. Did they have enough time to set them, maybe.
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: zorgon on March 01, 2015, 06:10:43 pm
That's a huge assumption!

Not really no... because in the midst of all that chaos of the two towers falling... someone had time to fetch the explosives, bring them into the area,  place them in a burning building and get them set perfectly in the right place without being seen.

Does that really sound logical to you?

I mean I know people have been willing to throw logic science and physics out the window in order to fit the OS but seriously  has it become so bad that logic thought is so easily brushed aside?  When I see people around the net  well I guess it has... this is sad  because it seems Logic died with Spock (RIP)

Quote
I remember seeing something about fuel tanks in the basement area either on fire or severely damage and dangerous. Could that have been the reason?

Fuel tanks in the basement would not account for the building starting to collapse where it did and it would not have allowed a perfect fall

Quote
Did they have enough time to set them, maybe.

Well as I said above the logistics to do that under those cercumstances would require the skills of the Delta Force or a Mossad special unit... then MAYBE they had enough time to get the explosives into the building unseen while being careful that the heat of the fire didn't set them off before they could plant them at precise points and not be seen 

Well forget it..

It was obviously burning furniture and paper that melted the external frame that caused this... That is the OS conclusion so who am I to argue?  Won't matter anyway  It's been 14 years and we still have no real answers.

And no one will open a real investigation by an independent source so our only hope is Putin... who the Russian tabloid Pravda says has the secret
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: zorgon on March 01, 2015, 06:22:30 pm
Ooh Ooh, I know....WHY? hhhmmmm....

The WHY is the easiest part

They want us at war with Muslims.

Bush said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but we bombed them anyway while the people believed it was them that did it. They told us they had WMD's  Yeah they DID Regan sold them to  Saddam when he was fighting FOR us against Iran What they DIDN'T know was Saddam SOLD them to {likely} Syria (except for the gas he used on the Kurds) We sold him jet fighters and trained his pilots,,, then we blew up those planes and today we are once again selling Iraq f-16's and training their pilots to fly them

Seriously?

We see a [most likely] false flag attack in Paris  More Muslim hate

We see ISIS destroying Museum artifacts of the Sumarians  More Muslim hate  never mind that most of them were replicas (they did get one big statue  One of the bulls from that lost gate I had in the Stargate section)

All over the US and the world  small incidents of supposed Muslims stirring the pot  All to create Muslim hate

And guess what? Its WORKING  Most people want to NUKE EM ALL

The side note why is MONEY

Silversyein had to demolish the buildings due to asbestos contamination. The occupancy was so low he was losing money It would have cost him a small fortune to demolish those buildings properly

So shortly before the 'attack' he INCREASES the insurance...  Big banks remove 90% of the gold that was stored in the vaults... then the attacks take down two towers and the third building as well. 

So no more expensive bill to upkeep White Elephant buildings  No demolition bill... but rather he collects insurance   and to top it off each plane was one claim so he gets paid DOUBLE

As a bonus the Enron scandal  (and others being looked at) disappears in the dust and fire

Yeah and here is Mr Q Clearance asking WHY?
 ::)
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: ArMaP on March 01, 2015, 06:50:49 pm
That leaves only one conclusion

THE EXPLOSIVES WERE ALREADY SET
Maybe they weren't explosives. ;)

I have been reading the electronic version of some old (1930) science-fiction magazines, and in February issue, one of the stories was about a mad musician that demolished a sky-scrapper in New York using sound. :)
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: zorgon on March 01, 2015, 06:55:29 pm
I have been reading the electronic version of some old (1930) science-fiction magazines, and in February issue, one of the stories was about a mad musician that demolished a sky-scrapper in New York using sound. :)

That is interesting :P 

Tesla once set up resonance in his building that almost shook it apart and he had to destroy the device with n axe to stop the feedback loop  It must have been scary because the police were on the way 

I too started a resonance in an old apartment using a synthesizer  Not intentionally but it didn't stop till I unplugged the Moog... My mom was two floors down at the opposite end of the building and it scared her

Somehow she knew it was me though :P

You realize of course that still requires INTENT and PLANNING using a Tesla Scaler type weapon :P

Back in  few minutes
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 01, 2015, 08:32:55 pm
Mr. Q clearance? Bwawawalolol. Someone has to ask why so you can lay it all out for us!!!!! :)
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: zorgon on March 01, 2015, 10:12:31 pm
Well I may not have all the answers  but there are just too many questions that just do not make sense. Those two towers were designed to withstand multiple hits.  And no time in history has a fire in a building ever melted the steel core beams let alone the frame...

I think I want to check Hiroshima at ground zero and see what that did to steel cores :P

The steel in the basement of the towers wss STILL RED HOT when they excavated it six weeks later. No one has ever explained that one to me yet either  :P
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Pimander on March 02, 2015, 03:26:17 am
The British made a documentary on WTC7 but I haven't found it yet.  They came to the conclusion that the building was demolished.
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Aemilius on March 20, 2015, 10:04:30 am
Sarge, there is a difference between an opinion and a cogent argument or analysis.

Right, that's why I didn't bother responding right away.... How does one really deal with someone who actually believes unsupported opinion can somehow supercede or even call into question an iron clad empirically verifiable scientific method driven graphical target system analysis and solid conclusion arrived at by process of elimination (really just an exhaustively stated eighth grade homework assignment)?

I've discussed this in a number of forums both as I worked it out and following completion. Lots of people like Sarge who live in the shadowy world of opinion have had lots to say.... I'm wrong, I'm making claims, it's a false premise, I'm making assertions, it's an assumption, I'm speculating, I'm an idiot, it's just my opinion, I'm lying, I'm a troll, I can't think clearly, I have an agenda, too many people would have to have been involved, it's already been settled, it's old news, the government would never do that, we'll never know, nobody cares, I should be ashamed, I'm not an expert and so on.

One thing no one has ever done though is shine any kind of light on any error in the top to bottom empirically verfiable analysis I posted (either as it was being worked out or following completion).

Sarge, just like all the rest, you don't provide any empirical data (defined as empirically verifiable research carried out by you or someone else) to support anything of what you're going on about, and you don't point out any error in the top to bottom empirically verfiable analysis I posted by simply copying and pasting some aspect of it accompanied by a relevant quote of any descriptive text saying anything like "This animation and accompanying discriptive text is incorrect, the scenario (target system) would not play out as depicted/described compared to the control (source system) and here's why...." corresponding to your disagreement (whatever you imagine that is), so you can disagree all you like and shovel all the opinion you want.... What do I care?

If you can't break the analysis (and by extension the conclusion it naturally arrives at), and you can't provide some more plausible empirically verifiable explanation for the observed behaviour of the building using an acceptable method of analysis that effectively models/demonstrates your laughable opinion (just my opinion of your opinion), I really don't need to care what you think or take anything you say seriously (at least in this thread).... Why should I?

The fact is that WTC7, a solidly constructed (welded and bolted together) steel frame building clad in glass and red exterior non-load bearing masonry attached to the steel work, as clearly demonstrated by sound empirical analysis, was brought down by explosives, and nothing you said changed a thing. And unless you can come back with something that either directly addresses some error in the analysis in the above described manner or you can coherently present some more plausible empirically verifiable explanation that supports what you're saying and supercedes it, analytically, you're screwed..... Sarge.
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Aemilius on March 20, 2015, 11:05:05 am
To the rest.... interesting comments.
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: rdunk on March 20, 2015, 11:09:28 am
Aemillus, since when did "real facts" become "real answers"?? Seemingly, the real world for many of us has become what we individually believe about the total circumstance of a matter. And that is pretty much how we humans have always regarded matters. We often confuse fact with what we think we know - a "flat earth" being a good "for example". One of the things Ronald Reagan said was, "often what people think they know, just isn't right". It was a political comment about Democrats/liberals, but it does generally apply.

So, I guess empirical evidence can provide fact of truth to some, and more grounds for questions to others.  Often what we think we know can blind us to whatever is the truth. Howbeit, it makes no difference to the truth what we think or believe - the fact/truth prevails. And this applies to every aspect of our lives and our existence.

The word "skepticism" is the term that encompasses these such actions, and broadly defines why some cannot accept "presented proof" for whatever - whether it be for alien intelligence/intelligent design, or for our government possibly doing anything that is against the law, like killing Americans and taking down buildings

Well, considering the multitude of lawlessness demonstrated by the US Government in recent years - IRS, Benghazi, gun running, etc, etc, etc, etc, --------- where does one now draw the line to what we think our government absolutely "could not/would not/never not" ever do??    Huuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmm??!!!

So Aemillus, don't be too put out that your very detailed efforts are not totally seen as the answer by some, as that is to be expected - each of us knows what we know - "damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead"! :)

Thanks for your efforts!!
 
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Aemilius on March 20, 2015, 02:33:54 pm
Aemillus, since when did "real facts" become "real answers"??

Real facts are what we use to get real answers.... also known as "the truth".

Seemingly, the real world for many of us has become what we individually believe about the total circumstance of a matter. And that is pretty much how we humans have always regarded matters.

Unfortunately, that outlook will not stop a 339.87 pound anvil from crushing your toes when dropped from a height of approximately 16.5 feet. I think I'll stick with my outlook.... hard facts, hard science and hard answers. You can go ahead with your individual total circumstance becoming the individual real world thing though, let me know how that works out for you.... but stay away from anvils!   

We often confuse fact with what we think we know - a "flat earth" being a good "for example". One of the things Ronald Reagan said was, "often what people think they know, just isn't right". It was a political comment about Democrats/liberals, but it does generally apply.

The "flat earth" is just an example of people wrongly believing something was a fact that was not. Science corrected that, nothing to do with this topic.
 
So, I guess empirical evidence can provide fact of truth to some, and more grounds for questions to others.

Empirically verifiable scientific evidence (particularly with regard to Newtons Laws) is synonymous with fact and truth.  Anyone may feel free to wonder about them, but nothing will change them (think anvil).

Often what we think we know can blind us to whatever is the truth. Howbeit, it makes no difference to the truth what we think or believe - the fact/truth prevails. And this applies to every aspect of our lives and our existence.

Well, that may be true in some cases, like thinking we know what's inside a black hole, or thinking that the whole universe once occupied the volume of a pencil eraser, but it's not applicable here. There's no chance, for instance, that the entire world has somehow been flat-earth-like misinterpreting the Law of Conservation of Energy or that someday soon we'll all find out that rocks actually do fall upward, not downward as we believed.

The Law of Conservation of Energy is a "law" because it has been shown to be true so many times over the centuries, and it can be applied in analysis to precisely predict the actions of bodies in any number of hypothetical scenarios under the influence of gravity.... that's a fact.

The Law of Conservation of Energy has not been misapplied in analysis, and though one needn't be Isaac Newton to carry out this form of analysis, the formatting of the animations was nevertheless guided by a forty-five year veteran Ph.D research phyisicist, Dr. Alan Calverd. If there was any error, as I like to say, he would have closed in on me faster than a ravenous Hyena closing in on an abandoned newborn baby Wildebeest (he's actually a nice guy, well, for a sophist anyway).   

The word "skepticism" is the term that encompasses these such actions, and broadly defines why some cannot accept "presented proof" for whatever - whether it be for alien intelligence/intelligent design, or for our government possibly doing anything that is against the law, like killing Americans and taking down buildings.

No, that's not accurate really. In science, the word "skepticism" applies to things and mechanisms we don't yet completely understand but continue to advance theories about in an attempt to better explain observations, like what's in a black hole, or whether or not the whole universe once occupied the volume of a pencil eraser, that sort of thing.

However, when it comes to the Law of Conservation of Energy, there are no such uncertainties or any ambiguity. Any reluctance to accept presented proof derived from the properly applied Law of Conservation of Energy in analysis or the reliably precise predictions it makes is denial (maybe worse).... not healthy skepticism.

Well, considering the multitude of lawlessness demonstrated by the US Government in recent years - IRS, Benghazi, gun running, etc, etc, etc, etc, --------- where does one now draw the line to what we think our government absolutely "could not/would not/never not" ever do??

Hah! In recent years? Operation Gladio alone goes back half a century or more. By recent years.... Are you speaking in terms of geological time? Because it seems to me false flag attacks have been a mainstay of miltary strategy going back at least to the old pirate days where the term originates.... and probably much further! In fact, I can easily envisage the first ancient malicious psychopathic stone age villager sticking an arrow in his leg that looks like the ones belonging to another guy in a neighboring village, running into the village with the arrow sticking out and raising a ruckus, and then promptly leading his now infuriated fellow villagers off to slaughter everyone in the other peaceful neighboring village. He gets their food, their women and their land, hell, he'd probably even be seen as a hero afterwards by his fellow villagers for leading them to victory over an aggressor and thwarting the evil spirits or something.... it's a natural!


So Aemillus, don't be too put out that your very detailed efforts are not totally seen as the answer by some, as that is to be expected...."


Not put out. If people want to believe in things that can't possibly be true, things that one learns in the eighth grade are literally physically impossible, like "Natural Progessive Structural Gravitational Acceleration", for example as in the case of WTC7, where one massive body is said to have fallen straight down through another massive body as if through air, they're certainly free to. In view of all the other bizarre things people believe these days.... I guess I really shouldn't be surprised!


....each of us knows what we know - "damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead"!


Right! That's the old individual total circumstance becoming the individual real world spirit!

Thanks for your efforts!!

And thanks for commenting!!

You're post didn't directly address any aspect of the analysis, so naturally it can have no impact on the veracity of the information conveyed or the (still) empirically eastablished fact that WTC7 was brought down by explosives, but it was interesting and clearly shows how some can be confronted with scientific reality and still remain in denial (or rather skepticism as you call it) by trying to explain away the most fundamental laws of physics as if somehow, possibly, maybe, just might be, if everything was just right, if things went a particular way, sort of, and conditions were just so.... they might be open to various interpretation.

So where were we? Oh yes, the analysis and it's conclusion continue to stand empirically unassailed (here and elsewhere), WTC7 was brought down by explosives.... and it remains an empirically established fact.   
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: ArMaP on March 20, 2015, 03:05:02 pm
You're post didn't directly address any aspect of the analysis, so naturally it can have no impact on the veracity of the information conveyed or the (still) empirically eastablished fact that WTC7 was brought down by explosives
I only finished high-school and have some trouble understanding some of those long words, so I may have missed/misinterpret a previous explanation, but when does a theory become a fact?
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 20, 2015, 03:13:35 pm
Ok somehow my opinion on a subject is of great concern here. I'll have to go back and re read my posts but I do believe I said that Wtc-7 was different than the rest of the bldgs . being brought down. It definitely looked like a demo job. I only questioned if they had enough time to rigged the explosives. And I also questioned the REASON they would want to bring it down.

I'm sorry if that's not good enough for you but tuff! After all it is only an opinion!
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Aemilius on March 20, 2015, 03:36:20 pm
I only finished high-school and have some trouble understanding some of those long words, so I may have missed/misinterpret a previous explanation, but when does a theory become a fact?

I dropped out of the eighth grade. And no, you didn't miss anything. There's no theory in the analysis, only graphically represented empirically verifiable data.... nothing about theories becoming fact or fact becoming theories or anything like that. Technically though, Newtons Laws are still theory, even though we refer to them as laws. Centuries of independent experimental verification of results he obtained is why they're seen as inviolable laws.

 
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Aemilius on March 20, 2015, 04:01:38 pm
Ok somehow my opinion on a subject is of great concern here.

Not at all. On the contrary, your opinion is of absolutely no concern at all. There's no science in it.... How could it be?

I'm sorry if that's not good enough for you but tuff!

Well Sarge, it's not that it's not good enough for me, it's that it's not good enough for science.... tuff for you, not for me.

After all it is only an opinion!

Right, that's all it is.... you certainly won't get any argument from me on that!
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 20, 2015, 04:53:39 pm
But you keep talking about it! So it obviously does. Lol only your comments matter I forgot! Lol
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: ArMaP on March 20, 2015, 05:06:25 pm
There's no theory in the analysis, only graphically represented empirically verifiable data.... nothing about theories becoming fact or fact becoming theories or anything like that.
Now I'm even more confused; is an "empirically eastablished fact" a real fact? Are there different kinds of facts?

Quote
Technically though, Newtons Laws are still theory, even though we refer to them as laws. Centuries of independent experimental verification of results he obtained is why they're seen as inviolable laws.
Well, where's the independent experimental verification of your ideas/theories? Or don't ideas/theories need independent experimental verification?
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Aemilius on March 20, 2015, 05:29:26 pm
But you keep talking about it! So it obviously does. Lol only your comments matter I forgot! Lol

Just responding to your posts is all. What really irks me I think is that you seem to think you can argue against solid science with unsupported opinion, which is really a bit like standing there in your underwear throwing small rocks at an advancing Sherman Tank. You're just going to repeatedly get run over (looks like your taking a beating already) but go ahead if you're into that sort of thing.... it's none of my business.

The analysis continues to stand over your objections (really just  shouting and hand waving), you haven't refuted any part of it, the building was brought down by explosives, that's the way it is..... Sarge
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Aemilius on March 20, 2015, 06:12:56 pm
Now I'm even more confused; is an "empirically eastablished fact" a real fact?

Yes.

Are there different kinds of facts?

Well, there are lots of facts about lots of different things, even facts about facts, but there aren't lots of different kinds of facts about one thing.... a fact is a fact, that's a fact (just having a bit of fun there).

Well, where's the independent experimental verification of your ideas/theories?

I think I mentioned a couple of times I don't have any new ideas or theories, only empirically verifiable data.

Or don't ideas/theories need independent experimental verification?

Sure new ideas/theories need independent experimental verification. But since there are no new ideas or theories of any kind in the analysis, only empirically verifiable data top to bottom, there's nothing there to verify, it's just the Law of Conservation of Energy. So, if what you're asking me to provide is independent empiirical verification of the Law of Conservation of Energy.... you're lost, I can't help you. Try Wikipedia (look up  Newton and Galileo). I'm not a grade school teacher.

Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 20, 2015, 06:31:47 pm
Just responding to your posts is all. What really irks me I think is that you seem to think you can argue against solid science with unsupported opinion, which is really a bit like standing there in your underwear throwing small rocks at an advancing Sherman Tank. You're just going to repeatedly get run over (looks like your taking a beating already) but go ahead if you're into that sort of thing.... it's none of my business.

The analysis continues to stand over your objections (really just  shouting and hand waving), you haven't refuted any part of it, the building was brought down by explosives, that's the way it is..... Sarge

Don't wear underwear! Lol and I don't remember making any objections to anything. So you keep trying to beat your chest about your scientific facts and I'm happy for you. Lol
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Pimander on March 20, 2015, 06:36:32 pm
So was building 7 rigged with explosives in advance?  I think that is the suspicion right?

Who did it?  Someone in the CIA had to be involved in the cover up!
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Aemilius on March 20, 2015, 07:11:53 pm
Don't wear underwear!

So you're not scientific or hygenic.... noted.

Lol and I don't remember making any objections to anything.

Looks like an objection to me, maybe that last time the Sherman Tank ran over you it affected your memory....

First it's the assumption that the USA planned and executed 9/11...I do not agree with that statement.

So you keep trying to beat your chest about your scientific facts and I'm happy for you. Lol

Thanks, I'll do that (their not my scientific facts though, just scientific facts). And you keep beating, well.... whatever it is you beat about your opinion too. If it works for you that's good enough for me Sarge.... Good luck (and stay away from anvils)!
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Aemilius on March 20, 2015, 07:22:01 pm
So was building 7 rigged with explosives in advance?  I think that is the suspicion right?

No, it's more than a suspicion, it's a conclusion, and a conclusion arrived at by sound analysis is to a suspicion what a cogent argument or analysis is to an opinion (think naked guy throwing little rocks at a Sherman Tank).

Who did it?  Someone in the CIA had to be involved in the cover up!

I think I touched on that in the original post....

The empirically established fact that WTC7 was brought down by explosives immediately shines a bright light on literally the only ones who could possibly have carried out a covert domestic operation of this magnitude.... the only ones who had exclusive 24/7 access to the highly secured building (WTC7).... the only ones who were in complete control of the security system for the building.... the only ones who had ready access to the quantity and quality of energetic materials required.... and the only ones who had the required expertise in the effective use of said energetic materials. The fact is that only the Department of Defense/Central Intelligence Agency could have done it.... just as one needn't be Isaac Newton to see there is no other possible explanation for the behavior of WTC7 other than energetic materials having been physically transported into the building, one needn't be Sherlock Holmes to see there is no other possible explanation as to who could have done it since the building was in perpetual lock down as a highly secured government facility.... it's elementary.

Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: RUSSO on March 20, 2015, 09:05:25 pm
The fact is that only the Department of Defense/Central Intelligence Agency could have done it....

Plausible deniability (CIA™). Department of Defense/Central Intelligence Agency had nothing to do with it. They are above the chain command... The evil formless "terrorists" did it. ;)

Quote
one needn't be Sherlock Holmes to see there is no other possible explanation as to who could have done it since the building was in perpetual lock down as a highly secured government facility.... it's elementary.

Mycroft Holmes would see it but do nothing about it. Too much effort  :P

Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Sgt.Rocknroll on March 20, 2015, 09:34:58 pm
I said I didn't think the USA planned 9/11. But Wtc-7 was different and probably brought down on purpose. I can't make it clearer for you. The only questions I had about WTC-7 was how and why. And going commando is very hygienic. Never threw rocks at tanks. DIA had me in a cave reporting on spy stuff.  ::)
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Aemilius on March 20, 2015, 10:59:59 pm
I said I didn't think the USA planned 9/11. But Wtc-7 was different and probably brought down on purpose.

Right, so you think it was probably intentionally brought down, but you don't think it was intentionally brought down by literally the only ones who could have brought it down intentionally.... you're lost. 

I can't make it clearer for you. The only questions I had about WTC-7 was how and why.

How? Well, the Department of Defense/CIA had some of their murderous Operation Gladio boys carry a bunch of explosives/incendiaries of some sort into the building prior to 9/11, then they placed them, and then they detonated them, that's how.... You honestly can't figure that out?

And why? Who cares? The building was provably brought down by explosives and they're literally the only ones that could possibly have done it....  that's all that matters. Whether one knows why they did it or not doesn't change the fact that it was done and they're literally the only ones that could have done it.

And going commando is very hygienic.

Whatever.

Never threw rocks at tanks.

You did in this thread and got flattened.

DIA had me in a cave reporting on spy stuff.

Judging by the quality of your argument here I'm not surprised.

Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Aemilius on March 20, 2015, 11:49:07 pm
So let's see.... Where were we again? Oh yes, the graphical analysis and the conclusion it naturally arrives at continues to stand empirically unassailed (here and elsewhere), WTC7 was brought down by explosives.... and that remains an empirically established fact.
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Sinny on March 21, 2015, 01:59:36 am
Just tuned into page 3 of this thread.

I'm absolutely amazed there are still educated people out there that are still questioning how and by whom.

Obviously there were pre-planted bombs in all buildings, and obviously it was an inside job of the highest order of treason within the American agencies.

Anyone who disagree's with the above is, these day, in the minority.

This is the first 9/11 thread I've commented on in a very long time, because the need for discussion no longer exists.

We, (the majoity), collectively know the truth.

However, the 'attack' has thus far served it's purpose.

It has inflicted emotional trauma to the people of western society and froze us into inaction and apathy.

But we are now becoming to understand our apathy, and the complex ritual orientated ways of our slave masters, and it sharn't be long until the 100th Monkey effect kicks in.
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: ArMaP on March 21, 2015, 06:05:58 am
I think I mentioned a couple of times I don't have any new ideas or theories, only empirically verifiable data.
I thought that when you say "no other force capable of quickly removing all support from beneath the upper part of the building existed in the building as a normal function of it's infrastructure" was just an idea or theory, unless you were familiar with the building's construction. Isn't an assumption? Isn't an assumption just an idea/theory?

Quote
So, if what you're asking me to provide is independent empiirical verification of the Law of Conservation of Energy.... you're lost, I can't help you.
No, what I would like was to see independent empirical verification of your assumptions, like the one I posted above or that "no giant laser beams or other secret weapons were being tested in the area".
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Pimander on March 21, 2015, 10:10:00 am
It is impossible to independently verify whether secret weapons tests were going on without access to classified material that is NOT disinformation.  Lots of classified documents are faked and used for counter intelligence and designed to deliberately throw enemies off the scent.  The real ones are harder to get. :)

I also think that although you have to suspect an inside job of some description, that does not mean we know exactly who is behind WTC7 coming down.  It is a complicated situation because whoever it is knew about the 9/11 attack but may or may not be behind it.  Sometimes these things are not just arranged but rather they are convenient so certain forces do not act on intelligence and allow a planned attack to occur.  This can then be used as a pretext for war without doing anything yourself.
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Dyna on March 21, 2015, 11:07:23 am
[youtube]jbReTl3Uin0[/youtube]

This list of engineers and experts agree with your assessment that the building was brought down.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/911-at-least-this-aspect-of-it-was-not-an-inside-job.html
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: hoss58 on March 21, 2015, 08:20:53 pm
Don't wear underwear! Lol and I don't remember making any objections to anything. So you keep trying to beat your chest about your scientific facts and I'm happy for you. Lol


Well... I don't wear underwear either  Sarge, [grin]  I am with you there !!       As far as this thread in particular and the 9/11 event in general , I am of the opinion that none of us alive today will ever know the truth of what happened that day .  Its been 50 +years since Kennedy was  killed and we are still coming up with theories  on that .  So  I figure that it will  be 100 years to find out  what really happened on 9/11.   just my 2 cents , no need to rebut   ;D
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: hoss58 on March 21, 2015, 08:40:28 pm
 :)As far as how the buildings were brought down me and a couple of guys in Vegas have a pretty good idea how it was done  ;)   As my signature says ...'when you die you will find out John Lear was right "....
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: Sinny on March 22, 2015, 03:37:14 am
:)As far as how the buildings were brought down me and a couple of guys in Vegas have a pretty good idea how it was done  ;)   As my signature says ...'when you die you will find out John Lear was right "....

Why when we die?
Who's came back from the dead to verify this?
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: hoss58 on March 22, 2015, 06:51:33 am
Why when we die?
Who's came back from the dead to verify this?

Ok Sinny  ;D lets not de- rail the thread now .   The veil of this 3D life on earth will be lifted when you pass.  Don't be so  critical of the message . It is something to ponder ,not to dissect . 8)
Title: Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
Post by: zorgon on March 22, 2015, 04:19:42 pm
Why when we die?
Who's came back from the dead to verify this?

Why bother asking? You already made it clear you don't believe in reincarnation  :P