For normal folks, just to provide an explanation. The debris they are highlighting is probably the true baseline for "freefall speed" that this guy loves. Thats how fast the entire top of the building would be falling if it was truly "freefall speed"

Freefall speed is of course not a speed at all, but an acceleration. It is equivalent to 9.8 m/s/s. So something that has been falling longer will be going faster the longer it is falling, speeding up every second until it reaches its terminal velocity from air resistance. This piece highlighted is likely one of the first pieces that comes into our view that originated near the top of the building, so it is accelerating past debris that is just starting to fall on lower floors which hasnt yet had time to accelerate. Its been falling and accelerating for a few seconds, therefore its moving at a higher speed, while the middle to lower floors its speeding past are just beginning their descent.

JJxvi said:

---

For normal folks, just to provide an explanation. The debris they are highlighting is probably the true baseline for "freefall speed" that this guy loves. Thats how fast the entire top of the building would be falling if it was truly "freefall speed"

Freefall speed is of course not a speed at all, but an acceleration. It is equivalent to 9.8 m/s/s. So something that has been falling longer will be going faster the longer it is falling, speeding up every second until it reaches its terminal velocity from air resistance. This piece highlighted is likely one of the first pieces that comes into our view that originated near the top of the building, so it is accelerating past debris that is just starting to fall on lower floors which hasnt yet had time to accelerate. Its been falling and accelerating for a few seconds, therefore its moving at a higher speed, while the middle to lower floors its speeding past are just beginning their descent.

---

Watch the video instead of spouting off this nonsense

He measures the speed, it was 1.5Gs

Time for you to give us answers and not rely on us to debunk shoddy talking points.

Quote:

---

but the data is inconsistent.

---

So far the only inconsistent one I pointed out was the FBI interview of Johnson and earlier FBI reports on 9/11.

Quote:

---

Why was Beamer's phone not disconnected upon impact?

---

Explain to me the AirFone system. What does disconnected mean? Did the phone system give the annoying beeping noise when a call was disconnected similar to a land line? Could the line still be open and an operator not know if a phone was disconnected? I read she kept the line open until she heard the plane had crashed from soneone else in the office.

Quote:

---

The line was left open. The official story regarding the cell phone calls has plenty of issues.

---

What are the issues?

Quote:

---

When you call your mother do you introduce yourself as your first and last name?

---

Why does this matter? Who did this? What impact does it have on the outcome?

AggiEE said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

For normal folks, just to provide an explanation. The debris they are highlighting is probably the true baseline for "freefall speed" that this guy loves. Thats how fast the entire top of the building would be falling if it was truly "freefall speed"

Freefall speed is of course not a speed at all, but an acceleration. It is equivalent to 9.8 m/s/s. So something that has been falling longer will be going faster the longer it is falling, speeding up every second until it reaches its terminal velocity from air resistance. This piece highlighted is likely one of the first pieces that comes into our view that originated near the top of the building, so it is accelerating past debris that is just starting to fall on lower floors which hasnt yet had time to accelerate. Its been falling and accelerating for a few seconds, therefore its moving at a higher speed, while the middle to lower floors its speeding past are just beginning their descent.

---

Watch the video instead of spouting off this nonsense

He measures the speed, it was 1.5Gs

---

Been a while but I would suggest that you revisit linear momentum & collisions.

AggiEE said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

SociallyConditionedAg said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

AggiEE,

I'm curious. I'm in my 50's and don't believe the official story, obviously. I believed the official story for years, I really didn't realize there was controversy until maybe 2005 or so when I first started hearing about "truthers". I immediately dismissed them as idiots, so I understand the pushback you and I get on this forum.

In 2013 or so, I saw a video on 911 that blew me away. Tower 7 was the kicker, I just couldn't believe that I knew nothing about that. Then watching it collapse and seeing all the controversy coinciding with it - it was stunning. Tower 7 and all the hundreds of other hard-to-explain details are what caused me to change my opinion on the whole thing.

I'm curious how old you are and what made you change your mind.

---

I was in a similar boat. I'm in my 30s, have been a conservative all my life.

What always struck me about 9/11 was the destruction of the towers, it never seemed natural to me going back to basic physics. When I initially saw the attacks I never anticipated for them to collapse like that.

The sheer awe of the event and the huge glut of information that happened that day quickly turns your attention to who is responsible, so I just went with the mainstream narrative.

In the mid 00s I saw the truth movement gaining popularity and like you I instantly dismissed it. Then I watched Loose Change and the film raised so many questions that I started to pay closer attention, especially after finding out about WTC7

Shortly thereafter, AE911Truth was formed and a bunch of great material from various scientists and engineers started to appear. My belief that it was an inside job was solidified by the work of David Chandler and Steve Jones, the latter who studied the dust and found evidence of nano-thermate that has no justification for why it should exist in such large quantities.

I'm not generally a conspiracy theorist, and I certainly don't want to believe any of this. It's a lot more comforting to think this was the result of foreign terrorists rather than a false fiat attack orchestrated by elements of our own government, but the evidence is too definitive to ignore these uncomfortable truths.

It certainly has made me a much more cynical person, especially as it pertains to governmental policy and initiatives - it makes me question everything from the standard American diet to COVID and so forth.

---

Similar story here. I believed the official story to begin with but then saw the way the Bush administration handled the Patriot Act and the war and I started piercing things together over time. If it were only the 2 towers that fell, I probably wouldn't have questioned it, but WTC7 falling was completely unnatural.

A firefighter that helped clean out the rubble told me that the NYFD firefighters told him about the explosions they heard before they fell. With all the obvious lies the government tells us daily, who can't believe the official story? The last 2 years of COVID insanity sold be enough to make everyone distrust the government.

---

It's fascinating to me how quickly people dismiss all the eyewitness accounts of explosions, and we also have plenty of video evidence of explosions as well.

Doesn't surprise me that there's a lot of firefighters that think it was an inside job due to that and the molten steel

---

What's more fascinating is that a person who purports to have a college degree believes that the government diverted AA77 to a government-controlled airport, removed all the passengers, had them all make fake phone calls to their loved ones, killed them all and buried them in places no one can find them, and then destroyed the plane. And not a single person involved spoke up about this insane plot.

Think about what you're saying here. Does that really make more sense to you than two buildings collapsing after being hit by massive planes?

At some point, these conspiracy theories are flat-out ****ing stupid and you're there.

---

That's precisely the dilemma, isn't it? Which do you choose to believe:

Red Pill: Something that I find to be blatantly physically impossible as a result of plane impacts and ensuing fires, despite being an extremely uncomfortable truth inconsistent with the narrative of the country we all grew up believing in:

• Complete destruction of three buildings
• Collapsing at free fall speed
• A significant portion of the debris scattered in a massive radius around the towers with no known lateral force to explain such an extreme field of debris
• Pools of molten steel at ground zero reminiscent of a foundry or "lava"
• Surfaces of warped steel beams covered in Sulfur with analyzed Dust that contains significant amount of molten iron consistent with Nano-Thermate
• Visual evidence of Squibs 60 floors below the impact zone that is not explained by supposed "pressure points" in an open office setting surrounding the exterior columns
• Numerous eye witnesses of explosions at all of the buildings, some going off before the planes have even impacted, and far away from the impact zone
• Temperatures at ground zero that lasted for months that are totally unexplained by the fires that occurred from the planes and ensuing fires
• Outright comical conveniences such as the passport they found in the streets of NYC, yet it's difficult to find any remnants of basic office furnishings anywhere.
• The insider trading, which is statistically significant and a proven fact that there were people that knew in advance at financial institutions that this would occur

Blue Pill: The impossibility that conspiracies ever happen. That covert operations planned by psychopaths in power that have a wholly utilitarian view of power and the American public, willing to do whatever is necessary to institute a wide-sweeping agenda that would result in multiple wars and domestic agendas, somehow does not exist within the highest levels of society and our government. And that there's absolutely no way this operation could have been compartmentally planned by key well-connected individuals, over a long period of time, and that they must all somehow be willing to "talk" despite the obvious implication that they fully believed in this operation to begin with and to speak up about it would result in their likely demise. This, despite evidence of similar government-sponsored false flag terrorist attacks such as Operation Northwoods, that were drafted by the military and made it all the way to the President of the United States to sign off on.

I'll take the red pill, because it's clear as day with my own set of eyes and the logical conclusion that follows, and that what occurred after 9/11 played directly into the hands of the agenda of those in power. It is not difficult to connect the dots.

---

It's actually very difficult (impossible, actually) to connect the dots of the conspiracy I laid out.

And you still, after 30 pages of this nonsense, have not answered the question I've asked multiple times: buildings that are demolished have lots of the internal structures removed prior to demolition and they have been vacant for a long time prior to demolition to allow for that. We know WTC7 was occupied up until 9/11.

How do you explain this and how could it have been demolished without following this standard protocol that would have been impossible given that people still worked there?

This is the only question I want answered. I don't want to hear about some dude who heard an explosion. I don't want to hear about exploding paint. I don't want to hear about another dude who saw some hot coffee on a table. I don't want to hear about remote controlled planes. I don't want to hear about any of the other **** you deflect with.

I want a direct answer to this question.

---

Still waiting for an answer to this question.

AggiEE will write a thesis on a guy that heard something after the planes had crashed into buildings 1 and 2 (shocking someone would hear something that sounded like an explosion on 9/11), but won't answer this basic question. Weird.

---

Another day, another AggiEE refusal to answer this question even though he's clearly reading this thread because he keeps posting nonsense.

---

Bump, since AggiEE is back to posting obscure videos and not answering this simple question.

---

Already answered many times in this thread

The guy had an expletive laden meltdown of personal attacks after I responded

If he doesn't like my answer he can move on

---

Wait, what?

I still haven't seen the answer.

You're a child who refuses to answer a question and then gets his feelings hurt when you get called on with "expletives."

Indeed must have been a very long while for you if that's how you are going to explain a piece of debris that's in air falling a little less than 1G and then suddenly accelerates to 1.5G mid-air with a trail of white smoke behind it

I assume the 'EE' indicates a degree in engineering.

IIIHorn said:

---

I assume the 'EE' indicates a degree in engineering.

---

At Olsen Field, we always screamed "EEEE!" when the opposing team made an error.

Perhaps, after reading this thread, the EE stands for that?

Tanya 93 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

I assume the 'EE' indicates a degree in engineering.

---

At Olsen Field, we always screamed "EEEE!" when the opposing team made an error.

Perhaps, after reading this thread, the EE stands for that?

---

Great point, Teach!

1.5G is bull***** He likely made an error or miscalculation or misjudgment in his conversions from pixels (because thats what he's measuring for his distances) to meters or from frames to seconds or even potentially both. I believe what that guy is measuring (assuming his plot points are accurate) as far as the acceleration changes, is the object rotating or oscillating as it falls and as it does it the drag from air resistance acting on the object is lower or higher depending on the orientation. So when its more aerodynamic, more of the full acceleration of gravity is acting on the object, and in the other orientation there is more drag slowing the acceleration of gravity.

Tanya 93 said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

I assume the 'EE' indicates a degree in engineering.

---

At Olsen Field, we always screamed "EEEE!" when the opposing team made an error.

Perhaps, after reading this thread, the EE stands for that?

---

Add it to the growing list of errors that those opposing my comments routinely run into, you may be onto something.

- molten steel (no explanation)
- iron rich microspheres in dust (no explanation)
- conservation of momentum violated (no explanation)
- explosions and squibs captured on video (no explanation)
- WTC7 collapse (no explanation)
- extremely high rubble temps weeks/months after (no explanation)
- debris that seemingly had its own source of thrust, accelerating downward significantly faster than gravity (no explanation)

Nothing to see. Wear your mask, take your vax, avoid physical facts.

JJxvi said:

---

1.5G is bull***** He likely made an error or miscalculation or misjudgment in his conversions from pixels (because thats what he's measuring for his distances) to meters or from frames to seconds or even potentially both. I believe what that guy is measuring (assuming his plot points are accurate) as far as the acceleration changes, is the object rotating or oscillating as it falls and as it does it the drag from air resistance acting on the object is lower or higher depending on the orientation. So when its more aerodynamic, more of the full acceleration of gravity is acting on the object, and in the other orientation there is more drag slowing the acceleration of gravity.

---

Right, he "made a mistake", why don't you measure it yourself and prove him wrong?

You just instantly dismissed it because you don't want it to be true. Yet we can compare to debris that was similarly ejected at the same rough height and it's still moving significantly faster using a quick eye test

No. You told me to watch it, i did. I even froze it on his graphs and data to get a sense of what he was showing me. His 1.5 g claim is not even supported in the video he just says it. There is nowhere in that video where a linear distance like meters is even shown. Im not gonna "watch the video" and "do the math" and "check my work" ad infinitum for you. Im only posting for other people anyway. You are an ideologue who will never be swayed.

So, engineering?

JJxvi said:

---

No. You told me to watch it, i did. I even froze it on his graphs and data to get a sense if what he was showing me. His 1.5 g claim is not even supported in the video he just says it. There is nowhere in that video where a linear distance like meters is even shown. Im not gonna "watch the video" and "do the math" and "check my work" ad infinitum for you. Im only posting for other people anyway. You are an ideologue who will never be swayed.

---

Rockets at the World Trade Center is a three minute video [1] [2] made by David Chandler, a retired High School physics teacher [3] [4] [5] [6] . In the video, Chandler uses Tracker, a program for analyzing the motion of objects in videos, to examine the behavior of an object accelerating downwards from the dust cloud of the collapse of World Trade Center 2 (South Tower) apparent in the CBS2 (WCBS) Chopper 2 footage provided by NIST [7] [8].

FULL VIDEO

By Chandler's estimations, once the object was launched downwards ahead of the major portion of the cloud of dust and debris, it 1. accelerated to about 1/3 of gravity, 2. suddenly accelerated to 15 m/s2 coinciding with an apparent outburst of material ("white smoke"), and 3. slowed to slightly less than gravitational acceleration.

By other photographic evidence, Chandler identifies the object as a perimeter wall unit, 30 feet long, weighing about 4 tons.

To explain the behavior of the object, Chandler proposes that a thermitic material attached for the purpose of demolition was acting as a mid-air rocket propellant.

A high school physics teacher. Well thanks…I'm swayed now.

I wonder how much "thermitic material" it would take to accelerate a 30 foot long, 4 ton object by 15 m/s/s. Or I guess by 12 since his claim is that it was falling at 1/3 g on its own. A rocket normally requires that most of the mass be dedicated to fuel, and even that is normally in a configuration where it is designed to be a rocket and have the explosive propellant contained into stream, not just a happy accident where "thermitic material" is placed on one side of it or whatever. Maybe the WTC was built by an Ivo Shandor and the whole thing was made out of solid rocket propellant from the beginning.

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

A high school physics teacher. Well thanks…I'm swayed now.

---

Cool, since you prefer to defer to authority rather than facts, I assume you are an engineer that graduated top of his class like me and not some basketweaver like 99% of this thread?

I can point you to thousands of credentialed scientists and engineers with fancy titles that agree with this "High school physics teacher" if you prefer

IIIHorn said:

---

So, engineering?

---

Elementary Ed

redcrayon said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

So, engineering?

---

Elementary Ed

---

What is something 99% of this thread couldn't get past, Alex

I, for one, never even took a science class in college. So all of you can judge "my truth" based on those parameters.

AggiEE said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

IIIHorn said:

---

So, engineering?

---

Elementary Ed

---

What is something 99% of this thread couldn't get past, Alex

---

Kinda like you and punctuation?

I'm in commercial real estate development. Work hand in hand with hundreds of different engineers and architects. Been involved in building and developing over a million square feet of space across about 40 something states.

Top 10% of my class graduating high school. Finance major with emphasis in real estate at A&M. Def not too 10 at A&M because I was out having fun gaining real world experience.

Samsonite? You were way off.

JJxvi said:

---

I, for one, never even took a science class in college. So all of you can judge "my truth" based on those parameters.

---

Makes sense

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

I'm in commercial real estate development. Work hand in hand with hundreds of different engineers and architects. Been involved in building and developing over a million square feet of space across about 40 something states.

Samsonite? You were way off.

---

I love how when asked whether you're an engineer, the response is "no, but I work with them"

Sorry, you are not an engineer by association, that's not how this works.

My point is not one real life engineer I've ever worked with supports your theories, and I know way more than you.

And youre the one referencing a high school physics teacher. Comical.

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

My point is not one real life engineer I've ever worked with supports your theories, and I know way more than you.

And your the one referencing a high school physics teacher. Comical.

---

I'm not the one using logical fallacies like deferring to authority like you are.

I see no reason to discredit somebody on the basis that they are a retired physics teacher with an MS in mathematics. Attack their argument, not their profession. Most in "real estate development" are utterly clueless on this topic but I'm not going to instantly discredit them on that basis alone.

I would venture to guess most engineers, like most people in this country in general, are simply not informed about all the details surrounding 9/11 and haven't bothered to look into it, or their cognitive dissonance is so strong that they'd prefer to believe an outrageous lie that conforms to the world they thought they grew up in because it's more comforting than the reality of the alternative.

Satellite of Love said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Satellite of Love said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

You've failed to indicate what is "gross" about it. What in particular do you disagree with when it comes to the evidence of that call?

---

My followup sentence stating their claim that Beamer was not on the plane. They are saying it was all faked. That they were given a script then another plane was crashed. Yea that is gross.

Also you ignored my followup FBI document (as you did through out when people brought up evidence).

They also are making the claim that the Airfone calls were in fact cell phone calls. That is pretty dumb considering they can relay where each call came from and had cell phone records to back it up. Again, relying on those who were contacted as the source that they were cell phone calls. The family members probably assumed that since they were calls from an airplane. Again, video taking a lot of liberties outside of known information from the flight. It's half assed research on their part.

---

So you have to choose which source you believe. The phones of those receiving the calls or the FBI. Certainly the government would never lie or fabricate evidence or omission?

Odd that Beamer's call is still connected after the plane is alleged to have crashed

---

---

Where did this graph come from? The typo makes me think it isn't official.

AggiEE said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

I, for one, never even took a science class in college. So all of you can judge "my truth" based on those parameters.

---

Makes sense

---

Exactly. Help me understand how big a glob of "thermitic material" sprayed to the side of a 30 foot long, 4 ton object it takes to accelerate that object by 12 m/s2? Shouldn't be that hard of math problem, even for my uneducated brain.

AggiEE said:

---

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

A high school physics teacher. Well thanks…I'm swayed now.

---

Cool, since you prefer to defer to authority rather than facts, I assume you are an engineer that graduated top of his class like me and not some basketweaver like 99% of this thread?

I can point you to thousands of credentialed scientists and engineers with fancy titles that agree with this "High school physics teacher" if you prefer

---

Prove this.

JJxvi said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

I, for one, never even took a science class in college. So all of you can judge "my truth" based on those parameters.

---

Makes sense

---

Exactly. Help me understand how big a glob of "thermitic material" sprayed to the side of a 30 foot long, 4 ton object it takes to accelerate that object by 12 m/s2? Shouldn't be that hard of math problem, even for my uneducated brain.

---

Whatever is sufficient for a free falling body to suddenly accelerate at a rate faster then gravity, you can't really come up with any rational explanation other than his estimates must be wrong, despite being able to visually see debris falling from a similar height at a much slower rate

Again, just add it to the list of unexplained phenomenon like molten steel flowing like lava and eyewitness reports of explosions.

There's only one logical source that could account for any of these glaring issues

AggiEE said:

---

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

A high school physics teacher. Well thanks…I'm swayed now.

---

Cool, since you prefer to defer to authority rather than facts, I assume you are an engineer that graduated top of his class like me and not some basketweaver like 99% of this thread?

I can point you to thousands of credentialed scientists and engineers with fancy titles that agree with this "High school physics teacher" if you prefer

---

Whoa, basket weaver? Why the hell do you insult me when all I've tried to do is understand where you are coming from. Geology is about two levels above basket weaving in your opinion, but I did have to take Engineering Physics along with plenty of other technical classes like Organic Chemistry that relies on theory and proof.

AggiEE said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

I, for one, never even took a science class in college. So all of you can judge "my truth" based on those parameters.

---

Makes sense

---

Exactly. Help me understand how big a glob of "thermitic material" sprayed to the side of a 30 foot long, 4 ton object it takes to accelerate that object by 12 m/s2? Shouldn't be that hard of math problem, even for my uneducated brain.

---

Whatever is sufficient for a free falling body to suddenly accelerate at a rate faster then gravity, you can't really come up with any rational explanation other than his estimates must be wrong, despite being able to visually see debris falling from a similar height at a much slower rate

Again, just add it to the list of unexplained phenomenon like molten steel flowing like lava and eyewitness reports of explosions.

There's only one logical source that could account for any of these glaring issues

---

Very scientific. Thank you Professor.

I have many problems with it though. I do have an explanation for changes in acceleration, although not "faster than gravity." There are two sources of acceleration acting on a falling piece of debris, gravitational force and drag. Gravitational force is constant, but drag is not. It varies based on the velocity, shape (like the area of the cross section perpendicular to the vector of velocity), mass, etc. So, the high school physics teacher, he measured changes in acceleration by plotting the pixel location of the object on an x and y plot of the video frames, and time, presumably based on the framerate. His observations seem to be in time intervals of 0.2..seconds? I guess?

Anyway, you throw a rectangular prism, rod, cylinder, whatever (lets say one weighing 4 tons and 30 feet long) off of the top of a building. What it will do, is it will oscillate between falling end to end (horizontal, large cross section), and up and down (vertical, small cross section). Both will have very different drag coefficients, and so the drag force imparted will be very different, so as it falls it acceleration will alternately increase and decrease, and when it reaches terminal velocity, it will actually speed up and slow down as each way has a different terminal velocity as well. Think of a person in a sky diving wind tunnel, they flatten body out and they accelerate upwards because drag is greater than gravity, then orient themselves more vertically, drag no longer outweighs gravity and they fall slowly to the bottom of the tunnel.

Your claim that this is "faster than gravity" has no basis, except this physics teach said it. You show me the math. He doesnt have velocity, or distances in his measurements. He or his software has to extrapolate those based on parameters that he puts in. If the camera was 5 inches away from a miniature twin towers but had the exact same size in the field of view of the camera, or if the camera is a mile away from a full size twin towers, the acceleration numbers the software will calculate will be very different. At some point in his analysis, he had to input into the software how many meters he thinks a certain number of change in pixels is. He could easily make an error in that process, and yet we are not shown his work, and we are not even shown how the data gets converted in meters or meters per second, we just see his best fit lines, and he claims different slopes represent different accelerations in terms of g. You just have to trust him. The simplest explanation is that he is wrong, or he misjudged something, not that a 30 foot, 4 ton beam became a rocket.

Regarding being able to visually see debris falling, this is almost useless information to try to compare debris to each other piece by piece. The buildings are 415 m tall and we dont really know if a particular piece of debris starts from the bottom of the impact zone, or starts from near the full height of the building unless we see that in the frame unobscured. To compare two pieces of debris and the rates they are falling, you have to know way too many things about them. You have to know how high they started, at what time compared to each other, you have to know their drag coefficients. If I drop a piece of loose leaf paper out my first floor window at the same time my friend drops a lead fishing weight from the second floor, the fact that the lead weight wins the race to the ground, does not mean that I can jump to the conclusion that the lead weight fell faster than gravity because "i saw other debris falling at a slower rate" etc

EE graduated top of his class, but then entered a "free fall" at a rate greater than the acceleration due to gravity until he became this person.

His reputation has been so thoroughly destroyed, that the only possible explanation is a controlled demolition over the past 30+ pages. The heat in the thread is no where near high enough to account of the melt he's undergoing.

I have several eyewitnesses to this event.

The question is though...who would want to totally discredit an individual like this? Some one who really has it against TAMU engineering. Maybe a certain professor of anthropology?

Staff, can we move this thread to the 'BSC' board already????