Backing up the Govt Story vs. Debunking Alt. Theories

Harte??...Phoenix??..

What I'm saying is that at a certain point more relative weight doesn't matter to some connections at all. The continuing failure is instantaneous.

Go ahead and say that then. But no engineer is going to take the claim seriously, especially without some elaboration.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Go ahead and say that then. But no engineer is going to take the claim seriously, especially without some elaboration.

Are you sure?

Damn it, dude, stop spamming!

Explain to us -- in detail -- why a whole floor, all the way across, trusses and perimeter and core columns and all, would fail simultaneously when the weight is being shifted from one side of the building to the other.

Did you miss harte's post? He explains it very well.

Originally posted by Harte
Or, you could just say "As the building started to lean left, suddenly the supports on the right gave way and the thing leaned back to the right, then all hell broke loose and I couldn't see because of the dust."

Also remember the hat truss which connected all the columns and made a simultaneous collapse pretty much inevitable.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Damn it, dude, stop spamming!

Explain to us -- in detail -- why a whole floor, all the way across, trusses and perimeter and core columns and all, would fail simultaneously when the weight is being shifted from one side of the building to the other.

The towers were mostly open floor space. Floors connected from perimeter to core.
When the perimeter began to fail when the top 'chunk' tilted the bracing and therefore structural integrity was lost.
What would make you think it wouldn't collapse?
The other tower didn't have the "shifting chunk"...why do you think it failed?

Spamming?

Wow! this thread went off track on the first hill of the rollercoaster in a hurry,

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Where is the THIRD group of posters that SUPPORT the govt theory instead of "debunking" alternative theory?...I know someone is losing a debate/argument/fight when they stop endorsing or focusing on the merits of their own theory and simply try to attack the theories of others.

As you can see from some of the posts, supporters of the Govt. theory have given evidence for their side and questioned / debunked alternative theories. For the most part are they not going to coincide? I don't think you'll find many alternative theory supporters who don't also "debunk" the Govt. theory.

I don't get exactly what you are driving at. There is plenty of evidence going back and forth on both sides. Alternative theories will always have more questioning of their facts and assumptions since they go against the "prevailing thought", whaterver that is.

And as an aside, isn't the second part of the quote above kinda what you are doing with this thread? Maybe that's just me.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Did you miss harte's post? He explains it very well.

Originally posted by Harte
Or, you could just say "As the building started to lean left, suddenly the supports on the right gave way and the thing leaned back to the right, then all hell broke loose and I couldn't see because of the dust."

Did you miss my response?:

Again, the floors directly under the tilt should have failed more quickly because of increased stress. All of that weight leaning on top of them is encouraging them to fail, and simultaneously taking weight OFF of the other side of the building.

In fact, there was a whole post in response to his. I think I made it pretty clear that his solution makes no sense: the opposite side of the building should not have just suddenly gave out and caught up to the stressed side when weight was being taken off of it. Structures don't collapse from having to support less loads.

Btw, there wasn't any "lean[ing] back to the right", either. The momentum just disappeared. Not reversed and corrected itself, though that would be just as messed up.

You do realize that when the top floors started tilting outward, stress was being redistributed to one side of the building, right? The weight didn't remain constant across the whole floor? Just trying to see if you get this concept.


Vushta -- I'm still waiting for a valid respones. Summarizing the problem and then asking me what should have happened doesn't count as a valid response to the problem I presented you.

I saw the response post and it contained the same opinion that you have been espousing for a while.

However you seem to think that bombs can destroy the fulcrum, but don't agree that collapsing can destroy the fulcrum.

Who's argument is inconsistent and doesn't make sense?

I think the only thing you proved is that you didn't understand his explanation and are determined to treat the towers as simple blocks and not vast webs of steel girders, all interconnected.



[edit on 10-7-2006 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
However you seem to think that bombs can destroy the fulcrum, but don't agree that collapsing can destroy the fulcrum.

You seem to not understand the argument. Againnnnn.

Collapsing would not destroy the fulcrum because direct contact would always remain between the top floors and the bottom floors.

Top floors "crush" the fulcrum? No, they just contort the beams under them. The floor structures still touch; there is still a pivot for the angular momentum. That's a fulcrum. They still touch, there's still a fulcrum. The momentum would have CONTINUED. (We didn't see this!)

Explosive charges, on the other hand, separate all major structural aspects on a single floor within a fraction of a second. In this case, floors literally would begin to fail simultaneously across the board, in all corners and in between at pretty much the same time.

The fulcrum is lost because a solid connection between the top floors and bottom floors is lost when the intermediate floors are destroyed in an instant with explosives. The angular momentum disappears. (We DID see this!)


None of you has yet to lend any support to the idea that whole floors could fail evenly, all trusses and etc. on a given floor giving out at the exact same time, without explosives. There's just no reasonable way it could have happened. You have weight being taken from one side of the building and being shifted to another side, in which the building begins to lean. Nothing about that suggests a floor should fail evenly.

I think the only thing you proved is that you didn't understand his explanation and are determined to treat the towers as simple blocks and not vast webs of steel girders, all interconnected.

LB, you apparently didn't understand his explanation because he's the one making the WTC out to be a building of blocks. I'm saying the whole reason the tilt would not be lost is because that "vast [web] of steel girders" was failing on one side and not the other. The whole fact that the building began tilting in one direction at all refutes everything the two of you are suggesting (except he knows what he's saying whereas you apparently don't know what he's saying). Physics doesn't shift gears halfway through a job, and the floors directly under WTC2's collapse point were by no means extraordinary compared to the floors directly above.

And no, the trusses on the leaning side of the building were NOT directly connected to the trusses on the other side. That would be looking at the floors as if they were "simple blocks".

Originally posted by Vushta
Harte??...Phoenix??..

What I'm saying is that at a certain point more relative weight doesn't matter to some connections at all. The continuing failure is instantaneous.

This is factually incorrect and basically makes zero sense, but you just keep on showing me your level of scientific intellect.

Originally posted by Harte
must agree with you about conspiracy theorist's websites in general. I was (formerly) a member of another site. I had to quit because I got too tired of the complete lack of reason, plus the unrelenting stupidity of members there that would hold on to the most idiotic beliefs, to the point where you think maybe they're mentally ill, in the face of factual[?] information to the contrary.

Harte, you seem like an educated smart guy... You are aware of chaos theory, entropy, statistics and simple philosophy(logic) right?

The problem with all of the debunkers is SIMPLE. You can "poke" holes in conspiracy theories all you want but at the end of the day:

1. You claim that an immense series of extraordinarily impossible coincidences are ALL FACT, plausible, possible and happened as stated by the media and gov't.
2. You claim that by "defeating" a single argument in observed evidence "debunks" an alt. theory.
3. You use "Evidence" produced by government agancies as FACT. I call it speculation as it is a conflict of interest for the gov;t ONLY to investigate.
4. You use insults and name calling to berate the "competition". THIS SHOWS HOW WEAK YOUR POSITION REALLY IS. Call any trial lawyer and ask. Ask a shrink.
5. We have pointed out HUNDREDS of problems with the gov'ts story. ALL WE WANT IS A RELEASE OF THE EVIDENCE, ANOTHER IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION and some ANSWERS.

Why would you EVER want to squash the scientific process? These are real people asking for this. Not the list of INSULTS you just hurled above. Cool your ego Einstein becasue you are in a ever shrinking minority in your "beliefs".

Vushta, your posts just seem like babbliing nothing. When will you actually make a point backed by education?

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
Harte??...Phoenix??..

What I'm saying is that at a certain point more relative weight doesn't matter to some connections at all. The continuing failure is instantaneous.

This is factually incorrect and basically makes zero sense, but you just keep on showing me your level of scientific intellect.

You must not understand my point. There alot of assumptions being made in this thread. Assumptions that MUST exist for the "anomolies" to exist.

Connections that had to fail at the EXACT same time. Paints a nice cookie cutter image that can only be the result of an exact "plan"..but is the assumption true?
Angular momentum MUST have continued ...unless acted on by another force. The unproven assumption is that there was no other forces involved. How is this proven?

Originally posted by Vushta
Angular momentum MUST have continued ...unless acted on by another force. The unproven assumption is that there was no other forces involved. How is this proven?

What other force could have changed the vector?

Oh, I don't know. The collision with the remaining parts of the building? remaining connection giving resistence?sudden larger gaps created by the uneven failing of the walls etc.

Why is this important and what is it supposed to prove? Let me guess..bombs.

Originally posted by Vushta
Oh, I don't know. The collision with the remaining parts of the building? remaining connection giving resistence?sudden larger gaps created by the uneven failing of the walls etc.

Why is this important and what is it supposed to prove? Let me guess..bombs.

If the "collision" changed the vectors we would see an obvious delay whie the energy was trasnferred to the supporst enough to remove their resistance.

From all the video we have access to, we see NO "large gaps" or "uneven falling of the walls".

Where are you gleaning this "evidence"?

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
Oh, I don't know. The collision with the remaining parts of the building? remaining connection giving resistence?sudden larger gaps created by the uneven failing of the walls etc.

Why is this important and what is it supposed to prove? Let me guess..bombs.

If the "collision" changed the vectors we would see an obvious delay whie the energy was trasnferred to the supporst enough to remove their resistance.

From all the video we have access to, we see NO "large gaps" or "uneven falling of the walls".

Where are you gleaning this "evidence"?

I never claimed 'evidence' and don't ever claim it for 'possible ideas'...that what you CTs do. Evidence is reserved for provable fact.

I simply offered some possible methods of forces. Those still remain.
Now you're making the assumption that forces and the effects must be visually obvious and that simply because the existing vidoes show a certain point of view,that someting happening outside that range of view cannot exit.

Originally posted by Vushta
I never claimed 'evidence' and don't ever claim it for 'possible ideas'...that what you CTs do. Evidence is reserved for provable fact.

I simply offered some possible methods of forces. Those still remain.
Now you're making the assumption that forces and the effects must be visually obvious and that simply because the existing vidoes show a certain point of view,that someting happening outside that range of view cannot exit.

Your simple methods make no sense when the laws of physics are applied. I asked you in another thread to explain to me these foces and you have failed to do so.

What force other than gravity was providing energy for the collapses?

How do the RESISTIVE forces you imply not contradict the "official" story?

Please answer only the two questions and avoid the 'fluff'. TIA

Originally posted by bsbray11
At least you know what I'm talking about, Harte, and are giving it a good effort.

It's not exactly complicated. Angular momentum, like energy and/or mass, must be conserved or at least accounted for.

Originally posted by bsbray11It would be impossible for an object "floating in space" to maintain any angular momentum. There would have to be something to provide torque. You could have something float and maintain the more mundane linear momentum.

What a disappointment to see such a statement from somebody that I thought understood at least something of elementary physics.

"Impossible for an object floating in space to maintain any angular momentum?"
Absurd, friend. Impossible for such an object not to maintain it's angular momentum, by the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. That's not even Physics, it's elementary Physical Science - 8th grade stuff.

I had thought to respond to some of your later posts after this one. But I'll refrain until I am able to regain at least some confidence that you know at a minimum a tiny amount about the subject that you so stridently espouse.

Harte

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Harte
must agree with you about conspiracy theorist's websites in general. I was (formerly) a member of another site. I had to quit because I got too tired of the complete lack of reason, plus the unrelenting stupidity of members there that would hold on to the most idiotic beliefs, to the point where you think maybe they're mentally ill, in the face of factual[?] information to the contrary.

Harte, you seem like an educated smart guy... You are aware of chaos theory, entropy, statistics and simple philosophy(logic) right?...

...4. You use insults and name calling to berate the "competition". THIS SHOWS HOW WEAK YOUR POSITION REALLY IS. Call any trial lawyer and ask. Ask a shrink....

...Why would you EVER want to squash the scientific process? These are real people asking for this. Not the list of INSULTS you just hurled above. Cool your ego Einstein becasue you are in a ever shrinking minority in your "beliefs".

SlapNuts,
If you posit that I am aware of simple philosophy, you should certainly have forseen that I would know a straw man argument when I see one.

Or, are you saying here that you actually believe that there is no plate tectonics, and that the Earth is actually expanding?

Harte