Just how convoluted can you get?

…it seems to me like he blew you off. I wonder why? Another armchair physicist asking a question that he won’t understand (or believe) the answer to…

Whatever you do for a profession, don't you have a similar reaction to certain questions or situations? Like when a doctor is at a party, people start asking advice about some malady, antique dealer always hears “my grandmother had 6 of those in her basement…”, etc. It’s a common reaction to repetitive stupid questions, it isn’t a government cover up.

See, whether you like it or not, whether you realize it or not, your quoting that law & your basic understanding of physics is WRONG. It has nothing to do with cow tailing to the government, but has everything to do with common sense, physics/engineering & logic.

Again, a physicist or an engineer could explain this to you and some have. Many of them have in interviews & papers. At this point, they are feeling as though they are banging their heads against a wall because the people who support this Con Dem thing just will not listen. I understand that many of these experts now refuse to even discuss the fallacy of your claim because it is getting so time consuming, especially seeing as many experts are on record as explaining what happened with the collapse. You choose to hold tight to that one law as your last ditch effort to keep this aspect of a controlled demolition alive.

I’ve said this before, but you are backing the wrong horse here. There are plenty of questions about 9-11… its just none of them lead to a controlled demolition. What do you require to finally stop pushing these claims?

Funny. He didn't correct my reasoning or the way I referenced those laws, and I think he would know if I misused them. He would at least certainly know much better than you, I would say, as to whether or not I was using 'faulty physics' or any other such b.s. claim.

It would be easy to simply say, "Your assumptions are wrong," or something like that, but he just simply said he was not prepared to respond to my inquiry.

That simple.

I didn't say anything that would suggest I was conspiracy theorist, either. Nor did I say anything indicative that I was an 'armchair physicist', and he even apologized to me for not being able to respond appropriately:

Unfortunate ly my very busy schedule of teaching 3 courses and research
etc., does not leave me with any time to prepare an appropriate response to
your e-mail. I apologize to you and wish you the best.
A.

All the bologna you suggest is frankly just wishful thinking, man. What the man said was pretty straightforward, and he suggested none of what you claim he did. He was pretty courteous about my question.

You shouldn't put words in the man's mouth.

Btw - I'm not suggesting this man is part of the cover-up. You shouldn't put words in my mouth, either.

[edit on 27-9-2005 by bsbray11]

As usual, I didn't say much of what you said I did. I also didn't say what you said I said the Dr. said.

It is fairly obvious that you are so bias towards your views that NOTHING could be told to you that you would even listen to, let alone believe.

You are in massive DENIAL.

I'll ask a 2nd time, What would it take for you to change your thinking?

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
As usual, I didn't say much of what you said I did. I also didn't say what you said I said the Dr. said.

Since you want to get technical, I never suggested you said the prof said anything in that last post.

You are in massive DENIAL.

Nah, lol.

I'll ask a 2nd time, What would it take for you to change your thinking?

Evidence.

And no, "your physics is wrong, but I won't say how" is not evidence. And neither is "here is an explanation that is 100% correct!" when it's in fact built on total malarky. And I know; I know.. you're convinced that the people on your side are right and post the only facts. We seem to be ironically of differing opinion on the nature of facts.

But, yeah, evidence. There is none for the official story. The demo theory makes more sense to me.

*braces for another rant*

[edit on 27-9-2005 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Funny. He didn't correct my reasoning or the way I referenced those laws, and I think he would know if I misused them.

He would at least certainly know much better than you, I would say, as to whether or not I was using 'faulty physics' or any other such b.s. claim.

It would be easy to simply say, "Your assumptions are wrong," or something like that, but he just simply said he was not prepared to respond to my inquiry.

That simple.

I didn't say anything that would suggest I was conspiracy theorist, either. Nor did I say anything indicative that I was an 'armchair physicist', and he even apologized to me for not being able to respond appropriately:

Unfortunate ly my very busy schedule of teaching 3 courses and research
etc., does not leave me with any time to prepare an appropriate response to
your e-mail. I apologize to you and wish you the best.
A.

All the bologna you suggest is frankly just wishful thinking, man. What the man said was pretty straightforward, and he suggested none of what you claim he did. He was pretty courteous about my question.

You shouldn't put words in the man's mouth.

Btw - I'm not suggesting this man is part of the cover-up. You shouldn't put words in my mouth, either.

[edit on 27-9-2005 by bsbray11]

I got an idea BS, lets try an experiment, you email him again, only this time, use a different email address so he doesnt know your the same guy, and ask him a physics question equally complicated as the angular momentum one that is also is neutral in nature and unrelated to 9/11 and see if he doesnt give you the same reply. If your theory that he's avoiding your question becuase he cant explain it is correct, then he should actually reply with the answer, otherwise he'll reply with "Im too busy.."

Lets see what happens

Originally posted by bob2000
If your theory that he's avoiding your question becuase he cant explain it is correct, then he should actually reply with the answer, otherwise he'll reply with "Im too busy.."

Lets see what happens

Lol, I never put forth such an idea.

Honestly, I don't know whether he has any idea as to why the momentum disappeared or not. He only stated that he was unprepared to respond.

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
I didn't say much of what you said I said. I also didn't say what you said I said the Dr. said.

Wait, wait...who said that who said you said what to who?


Oh man, I'm so confused...

perhaps, the professor feels an honest response would get his neck tightly wrapped in barbed-wire. he fears going the way of the dodo bird(aka microbiologist).

to those of who ACTUALLY understand physical laws, bstray has a valid point.

once something begins moving in a certain direction, it will continue in that direction until an opposing force acts on it. period. all changes in velocity(acceleration) and direction are relevent to the overall energy exchange. it seems many here get there physics lessons from magazines like time and popular mechanics. some of us went to class, and learned the lessons, so we don't even need the professor to okay our work anymore. in fact, the professor isn't even always right(or honest and selfless).

living in an orwellian bubble is comforting, i hear.

Originally posted by billybobonce something begins moving in a certain direction, it will continue in that direction until an opposing force acts on it. period. all changes in velocity(acceleration) and direction are relevent to the overall energy exchange.

Hurray!

Thanks billybob, this proves that the towers collapsed due not only to massive structural failure, but also the floors collapsing into each other.

On the tower in question a small collapse caused one side to collapse first, the energy from said collapse helped bring about a general collapse.

Tada!!

Physics is awesome.


Look at that, an explanation that doesnt require thousands of people and bombs.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Hurray! On the tower in question a small collapse caused one side to collapse first, the energy from said collapse helped bring about a general collapse.

Tada!! Physics is awesome.

I'm glad you're excited, but unfortunately in whatever particular plane of existence you were LeftBehind in, physics is not "awesome" at all. In your world physics sucks for mankind BIG TIME - a baseball would go straight through the catcher's hand (very painful), every coin dropped would travel through the earth to China (the Chinese would be emperors of the world), and no building would ever stand up in the first place (we'd be hiding in caves from our Chinese oppressors).

Look at that, an explanation that doesnt require thousands of people, bombs...

...or logic.

[edit on 2005-9-29 by wecomeinpeace]

Remember this number everyone. Because it may come back to haunt the White House.

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by billybobonce something begins moving in a certain direction, it will continue in that direction until an opposing force acts on it. period. all changes in velocity(acceleration) and direction are relevent to the overall energy exchange.

Hurray!

Thanks billybob, this proves that the towers collapsed due not only to massive structural failure, but also the floors collapsing into each other.

it proves nothing. it is a basic physical laws. proof is mathematical. you need the tension, load, torsion, ductility, malleability, etc. properties of all the materials used which would then need to be plugged into a massive amount of computations which would include times, directions, accelerations, and energy conversions.

i love this great new orwellian phrase, 'massive structural failure', or 'runaway collapse', or even better, 'HISTORICAL//TYPICAL runaway collapse'. HAHAHA! like that EVER happens! HAHAHAHA!
reproduce it, if it's proven. anyone? thought not.

'proof', HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! that's frickin' hilarious. PROOF! HAHAHA!
thanks, man. i needed a good laugh.

and how does this explain tower seven? or six(the roof exploding 550 ft. into the air simultaeneously as the second plane hit ther tower)? or the blatant destruction and removal of key evidence from the biggest crime scene in america?

Originally posted by billybob
and how does this explain tower seven? or six(the roof exploding 550 ft. into the air simultaeneously as the second plane hit ther tower)? or the blatant destruction and removal of key evidence from the biggest crime scene in america?

I guess I'll respond to this part as it's the only thing that adds to the discussion.


I'll admit I don't know much about the explosion on six, when I look into it I'll respond to that one.

As to seven, perhaps you haven't heard the firemen describing a gaping hole in the building.

Or perhaps this picture.



Or the fact that it was built unstable and people had known that it wouldn't be hard to make it collapse.

Now onto the rubble.

Here is the report of Dr. W. Gene Corley of the ASCE. Please note that he is not from the government.

www.house.gov...

The team was provided with unrestricted access to all areas of the site except for areas where their presence might have impeded the on-going rescue and recovery efforts and areas which were determined to be extremely hazardous. To aid the team in this intense 6-day effort, FEMA made its Regional Operation Center (less that 8 blocks form the WTC site) available for use by the team on a 24-7 basis.



During this time period, team members also examined structural debris at the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island and at the two recycling yards in New Jersey. Samples of structural steel were obtained and have since been subjected to laboratory analyses. Under the guidance of selected team members, numerous professional engineers who are members of SEAoNY are continuing this work on the team’s behalf and have been visiting recycling yards and landfills regularly since the beginning of November. Additional samples of the structural steel have been obtained and are presently being stored at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Maryland for use in future studies.

And later he says,

There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures.

He is one of those experts, that some believe never weighed in on this issue. You'll notice that they examined samples in a laboratory. If traces of explosives showed up, it would have been readily apparent, as you can't just choose not to look for explosives. It would have been apparent in any analysis.

I don't see any blatant destruction or removal before investigation. I see just the opposite.

www.house.gov...
On September 29th, the City of New York granted the team access to the World Trade Center site and from October 7th to the 12th, the entire team was on site.

Ooooh, they got there early, didn't they.

The team was provided with unrestricted access to all areas of the site except for areas where their presence might have impeded the on-going rescue and recovery efforts and areas which were determined to be extremely hazardous.

Don't look over there. Look over here! Look at me! Look at me!

No, you can't get samples from there...it's for your own safety.

www.house.gov...
On October 1st, the WTC study became a joint effort between ASCE and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a partnership, which continues to this day.

The partnership with FEMA has proven to be extremely beneficial to the overall success and progress of the WTCteam. In addition to providing funds, FEMA has provided logistical assistance, organizational and operational guidance, assistance in obtaining and organizing the needed data, and will provide the resources to publish the report.

Sounds pretty darn independent to me.



[edit on 2005-9-30 by wecomeinpeace]

Or the fact that it was built unstable and people had known that it wouldn't be hard to make it collapse.

C'mon! I'm amazed how they can fool you into these things. They want us to believe that the 2 towers were of such an unusual structure that a slight fire brings them down, and gosh darnit, so was building 7. I bet they hit the 2 brittlest buildings in NY. Tough luck, bad architects. Lets turn over and continue hibernating cause we will learn from our mistakes and build stronger buildings. Yeah, that's gonna save us next time.
Well that, and the million coincidences show that it's impossible for something like that to happen again, isn't it?