Safe Mode: On
Physics of 9/11 With Math

A more thorough explanation of the physics of 9/11 with mathematical equations and not just pictures of two buildings and a crane!!!



Also no mention of the "path of least resistance" which every physicist knows is a term used to describe the flow of electricity.

Loading the player ...
Embed CodeSwitch Player
Plays: 939 (Embed: 0)




Thanks to Dave Thomas of JREF for the educational video on the collapse time of the towers.



More on JREF here, some great stuff on this following link with a lot of intelligent people on both sides.



http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64


Added: Jun-9-2012 Occurred On: Jun-9-2012
By: barogers619
In:
Conspiracy
Tags: physics, WTC, 9/11, true math, no conjecture
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, United States (load item map)
Views: 1179 | Comments: 75 | Votes: 4 | Favorites: 1 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • If you believe the 3 towers fell from airplane impacts, you are a fool.

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (3) | Report

  • BS your calculations are out by 0000.121 M/S
    Can you also explain Bld 7 for the lovely audience?

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (3) | Report

    • @ANTIREDNECK
      Damage to a key support column from the collapse of WTC 1 resulting in a "Single point of failure" - Google it. Another good example of this is the Oklahoma city federal building. The explosion didn't blow the face off that building, it simply lifted one very critical load bearing beam off its foundation, giving the front half of the building nowhere to go but down. If McVeigh could have parked further under the building, it more than likely would have resulted in a total More..

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

    • @j_ramone Lmao, I was asking about Bld 7.
      You know the one that was never hit, the one that had no major damage, the one that had a couple of spot fires, the one that housed tha CIA headquarters, the one that dropped like a rock for no good reason... Any of this ringing any bells for you?... You remember that one doncha?

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

    • @ANTIREDNECK

      dont forget it house parts of the IRS, Secret Service, INS, DoD, SEC, NAIC.....so many ppl didnt forget that building collapsed...they just didnt know...it really wasnt broadcasted like WTC 1 & 2

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

    • @ANTIREDNECK
      Yes. I'll repeat it for you with extra words since you apparently don't catch on too quick: Building 7 collapsed due to, but not limited to...here it comes...Damage to a key support column from the collapse of WTC 1 resulting in a "Single point of failure". Go ahead and hit the thumbs down button again, you do seem capable of that.

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (-1) | Report

    • @j_ramone
      - I can't believe that an intelligent person has said what you did! Utterly amazing!

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

  • Comment of user 'reidy' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • This is all mental masturbation.

    Kerosene fires (jet fuel is kerosene, much less volitile than gasoline) do not bring about the failure of steel highrise buildings. Documented more intense fires in similar structures never have.

    Implanted controlled explosives do.

    You might not like the truth but the truth is what it is.

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (1) | Report

    • @ValleyBlacksmith

      Most claims by the conspiracy theorists have been assessed and rebutted thoroughly, especially with regard to the building collapses. Your refusal to critique your own beliefs has little to do with the truth.

      Which more intense fires took place in buildings that had been hit near the top by 80 tons doing 500 miles an hour?

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @ValleyBlacksmith
      Jet fuel will make steel beams fail - this is a fact. Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGsOkT__M7Y

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @doriedd
      I'm no expert so I leave it up to more than 1,000 of the world's foremost and highly respected architects and engineers who do not hesitate to put their reputations and careers on the line in stating emphatically that the government's version of events is a lie, period. That's good enough for me.

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

    • @doriedd
      - "Rebutted thoroughly"? Point me in the direction of just one!
      - "Your refusal to critique your own beliefs has little to do with the truth". This would seem to point directly to yourself!

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

    • @ValleyBlacksmith
      - Me too! But, it seems like the deniers know more than this people. It's incredible how some people can deny.

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

  • Here's the only math you need; 2 planes + 3 buildings = alot of dumb sheep who believe everything the media/government tells them.

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (1) | Report

    • @whiteowlonfire hiyuck!yous goin dancin with yer cuz tunite ,,hes purdy

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (-1) | Report

    • @k-doe aren't you embarrassed to talk that way? your comment lacks any stature. There are actually citizens who can think for themselves and your comment doesn't belong in their conversation. How old are you; my guess is teenager. Keep wasting your life trying to look cool and funny.

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @whiteowlonfire just bringing myself down to your level idiot!you retards do not understand logical educated responses.. so this is what you get...cuz!

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (-1) | Report

    • @k-doe
      - Why can't you make an intelligent reply? Anyone with half a brain could say what you did. I notice you, and many other deniers, are very good at insulting and name calling, but very poor at providing anything to back up your denails. It doesn't make you all look so bright.

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

    • @IamCanadian well I am responding to people who are half brained nitwits!yeah I said it ..NITWITS ..lol take a hike loser

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (-2) | Report

  • Comment of user 'ahoogeveen' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • Comment of user 'heynow' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • @heynow

      the other thing that gets me is its claimed they trained on single engine cessnas and from what the teachers say...they pretty much sucked....then they fly some jumbo jets with precision. and they did all this AFTER their whore chasing coke snorting alcohol drinking parties.

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

  • I think your missing quite a few equations.

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (1) | Report

  • Comment of user 'Force' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • i'll take a frosty with that.

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Shhhhhhhhhh, you'll cause truther head explodies worldwide if you use actual facts that contradict their fantasies.

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

    • @Ruffus
      - Then instead of showing your immaturity with your insults and name calling, why don't you show us some "actual facts", as you say, instead of just running your mouth?

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (-1) | Report

    • @IamCanadian

      LMFAO, if you haven't seen the fact's by now you never will. Good luck with that.

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (2) | Report

    • @Ruffus
      - I expected AS much! Nothing but a cop out answer. YOU were the one who said, "actual facts"! If you can't back it up, SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH, loser!

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (-1) | Report

    • @IamCanadian
      Fuck you you little puke. This thread itself has facts that you're too stupid to see, do your own search on facts that have been shown & explained Ad infinitum, you want me to search out other plain as day fact's for you you insignificant lazy fuck?
      Learned a long time ago to never argue with an idiot, they just bring you down to their level & beat you with experience. Sadly I just broke that rule by replying to you.

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

    • @Ruffus my head got lumpy from banging it against the wall ..these ...whatever they are..."people"are fucked and it seems there only there to deny facts and frustrate the hell out of you..

      Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

  • but all truthers know better!you cant use math....... try using elmo !!he is more there speed..all trutheres are basement dwelling, cousin loving RETARDS and this is more effort than they deserve ...but thanks.. converting one thruther at a time..hopefully

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • case solved

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • I'm not sure I get it. Is this supposed to be a truther video or anti-truther?

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • It's way too early to even try to divulge this shit.

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • um... after you a done seeing black helicopters, try reading something factual.. it's called the 911 commission!

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Comment of user 'ReaList03' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • Clinton and Gore did it because they were so pissed that Bush "stole" the election in 2000 and they wanted to "stick it to him"... Haven't you guys figured that out yet???

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Excellent, excellent analysis.

    I was tempted to analyze this myself (assumed I'd get a similar result), but never did so.

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Comment of user 'bs3ac' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • Math is so fake

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (-1) | Report

  • Video is kind of pointless! It was never claimed that the buildings fell at freefall speeds. It was however claimed that they fell at "almost" freefall speed, just like this video says, just like any building that is being taken down through demolition. Poster is grasping at straws.

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (-2) | Report

    • @IamCanadian

      "It was never claimed that the buildings fell at freefall speeds." You'll need to run that past the million or so posts on the internet that claim it was free-fall speed. Maybe your comment would have been valid if you said, "Not everyone claimed..."

      So already I see you are really bad at interpreting data, but to make things worse, you then go and say something as ambiguous as "almost" free-fall speed? What is "almost" free-fall speed? More..

      Posted Jul-12-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

  • Suck on that you nut job truthers.

    Posted Jun-9-2012 By 

    (-3) | Report