How to Destroy a 9/11 Truther

Originally posted by nenothtu
This was just too good to pass up.

bsbray11 wrote in one post:

My feeling is that the vast majority of experts in relevant fields are completely uneducated

Emphasis mine. Since when do "feelings" constitute hard evidence of the sort he is demanding from others?

They don't.

And I didn't say they did.

"Too good to pass up," more like "too ignorant to properly interpret this post."

So unless you have polls of professionals, you're just making stuff up.

Still waiting for HIS polls.

I said "my feelings" ON PURPOSE.

Unless defcon posts his stats, his opinion is worth no more than mine. And he was the one making definitive claims, not me, as I clearly stated that these are simply my opinions.


Since I've (hopefully) cleared that up for you, it would be redundant to respond to the rest of your vitriol which was just harping on the same nonsense.

Originally posted by defcon5
Go to an airport and ask any flight crew coming off a flight. Go sit in a hotel lobby and ask a few as they come in for their overnight. You'll either get a similar response or a smartassed answer. Heck go ask weedwhacker, he is an ATPL pilot (Verified by the staff at ATS), but you know what he is going to say to you.

Your unreasonable request here doesn't make up for your lack of stats to support your assertion.

I'm still waiting for some stats to demonstrate what you were claiming, that only a handful of people out of a million or etc. believe this or that. Prove it.

Or qualify it as nothing but your personal opinion. One or the other.

reply to post by bsbray11


There is nothing in that post to refute my assertions or to support your own, and still none of the 'proof' on your part which you demand of others.

I rest my case.

have a nice day!

Originally posted by nenothtu
There is nothing in that post to refute my assertions or to support your own, and still none of the 'proof' on your part which you demand of others.

As you yourself so eagerly pointed out, I qualified my opinions as such.

Defcon, did not.

So if you are going to state something as fact (defcon), you should be prepared to back it up. If I state something as my opinion, unless you can contradict it with other facts, you're just going to have to cry about it. If defcon wants to admit he's just expressing his own opinion that's fine with me, but pretending he's talking facts is disingenuous at best.

I've had a great day.

double post0r please see below!

[edit on 15/2/10 by GhostR1der]

And yes my first post was sarcasm on page 1.. the only freedom the Iraqis are getting is 2000lb bombs and infrastructure reconstruction contractors coming in...

Originally posted by nenothtu

For those who say physics won't allow what happened, I urge you to take a basic course in physics. It will be an eye-opener.

As an extreme example, try to imagine what happens to the inside of a melon if it's put into a press, where all of the main forces are directed... straight down, like the floors in a collapsing building. Hint: the melon innards will follow a trajectory of their own, independent of the 'main' forces. Don't believe me? put a melon in a press and stand next to it. Could be an eye opener, too.

Frankly, all of the ridiculous allegations made by truthers is what turned me off to their arguments to begin with. They are contrary to physics, while claiming to embrace them, not even knowing what they are, or how intricate they can become. It appears to be a matter of who they WANT to believe, who they FEEL like believing, because they can't be troubled to educate themselves in the matter, or even employ the basics of what Einstein called 'thought experiments'.

You know who Einstein was, right? Hint: had something to do with physics. Look it up.

Welcome to PHYSICS101 as taught by GhostR1der. There will be no charge for this lesson.

The relevant law today is the law of conservation of energy. This highschool physics law states that energy cannot be destroyed or created but transfered from one source of energy to another. E.g gravitational potential energy of water to electricity in a hydro dam by propelling a turbine.

With this in mind please consider WTC7. NIST admitted it free fall collapsed for at least 2.2 seconds. Free fall occurs whenan object is accelerating due to gravitational attraction - which has a normally accepted constant of 9.8 ms^2. An object experiencing free fall has no more gravitational potential energy to do work, as it is all being used to accelerate downwards. This follows the law of conservation of energy.

At 9.8ms^2 for 2.2 seconds we get a figure of 21.56m of building crushed, bottom up. This required a simultaneous failure of all steel columns and concrete surrounds. To crush around 6 floors of hundreds of steel columns, bracing, office material, concrete surrounds and other items at free fall in 2.2 seconds, requires there to be NO resistance from the crushed materials to fall at free fall, if there were resistance it would take energy away from gravitational potential, thus slowing the collapse to longer than free fall at every point.

You tell me what's more likely - simultaneous zero resistance from hundreds of massive steel support columns and concrete surrounds with rebar which were standing seconds prior, or the law of conservation of energy not applying for one day in history. Not once, not twice, but three times in a row when pyroclastics and other tricky thermodynamics calculations are applied to WTC1 and 2.

So in order for the WTC7 free fall collapse to not violate the law of conservation of energy, we require a second energy source to ensure zero resistance from support column construction.

I wonder what energy source that could be?
Diesel? Nope, ain't seen demolition companies lining up scores of tankers for a perfect collapse or diesel turning concrete into dust and piles of rubble. My BBQ has not suffered failure due to thermal expansion after many years of use. Secondly UL rated the columns in WTC7 to withstand over 2000 degrees F for 3 hours without failing load bearing requirements. Diesel or jet fuel cannot even reach this temperature in an open air fire.

So we have an impossible, law of physics violating collapse of WTC7 which can be easily proved using highschool physics.

If you can debunk the law of conservation of energy please feel free!

[edit on 15/2/10 by GhostR1der]

Originally posted by GhostR1der

With this in mind please consider WTC7. NIST admitted it free fall collapsed for at least 2.2 seconds.

Are you saying you agree with the NIST estimate, or only PARTS of it? Does this mean we get to pick and choose now?

At 9.8ms^2 for 2.2 seconds we get a figure of 21.56m of building crushed, bottom up. This required a simultaneous failure of all steel columns and concrete surrounds. To crush around 6 floors of hundreds of steel columns, bracing, office material, concrete surrounds and other items at free fall in 2.2 seconds, requires there to be NO resistance from the crushed materials to fall at free fall, if there were resistance it would take energy away from gravitational potential, thus slowing the collapse to longer than free fall at every point.

Please clarify. Are you saying that you support the NIST estimate of 2.2 seconds, and therefore there were actually NO materials present too impede a collapse, or are you saying that you believe maliciously government-planted explosive charges cause ALL materials present to magically disappear to allow for the collapse? Please not that an explosive charge cut of a support structure doesn't magically cause the entire structure to vanish, it just cuts it. The resistance you mention will still be present due to the presence of the materials that were NOT cut.

The alternatives, then, are that the structure was built out of explosive girders, which when detonated would be sufficiently dispersed so as to remove all impeding materials...

...or possibly a 2.2 second estimate was flawed, perhaps calculated after the fact based on simplified measurements of height collapsed multiplied by the gravitational co-efficient.

I'm really not sure which of those 2 possibilities you view as the more likely...

You tell me what's more likely - simultaneous zero resistance from hundreds of massive steel support columns and concrete surrounds with rebar which were standing seconds prior, or the law of conservation of energy not applying for one day in history. Not once, not twice, but three times in a row when pyroclastics and other tricky thermodynamics calculations are applied to WTC1 and 2.

So in order for the WTC7 free fall collapse to not violate the law of conservation of energy, we require a second energy source to ensure zero resistance from support column construction.

That "second energy source" would have to vaporize ALL the impeding materials, not just small slices of them, in order for this "ZERO resistance" argument to apply. Had that occurred, I'd imagine the cleanup would have gone much faster.

I wonder what energy source that could be?
Diesel? Nope, ain't seen demolition companies lining up scores of tankers for a perfect collapse or diesel turning concrete into dust and piles of rubble.

I've seen buildings blown up with bags of flour. Any bakery truck around that day? I mean, if we're already speculating anyway...

My BBQ has not suffered failure due to thermal expansion after many years of use.

Do you habitually build the fire among it's support structures? Seems an odd way to barbecue if you do.

Secondly UL rated the columns in WTC7 to withstand over 2000 degrees F for 3 hours without failing load bearing requirements. Diesel or jet fuel cannot even reach this temperature in an open air fire.

I guess this is where I need to thank the gods that there weren't any other combustibles anywhere in the buildings then. Had there been, it might have taken somewhat over 3 hours for a collapse, rather than the immediate collapse on impact! Oh, wait, there WAS a time lag! Let me re-think that...

So we have an impossible, law of physics violating collapse of WTC7 which can be easily proved using highschool physics.

Perhaps not, when more factors are added in, rather than doing the math on an extremely limited subset, picked and chosen to support a flawed premise.

If you can debunk the law of conservation of energy please feel free!

No need to debunk laws of physics when one realized that flawed figures may have been plugged into the equations, and some variables left out altogether because they may not be convenient!

Teach me, master. Wanna compare PhD's?

if you had a Phd you wouldnt be arguing with him....you would be aware that no matter how you try, the Laws of Physics remain fixed and immovable.....

Unless you have a Phd in say, Star Trek.....in which case thats OK"capt'n"...you win.



Jeeez....

Originally posted by benoni
if you had a Phd you wouldnt be arguing with him....you would be aware that no matter how you try, the Laws of Physics remain fixed and immovable.....

Unless you have a Phd in say, Star Trek.....in which case thats OK"capt'n"...you win.



Jeeez....

I didn't say I HAD a PhD, I asked if he wanted to COMPARE them. However, I'm willing to bet that my physics education is, at the very least, on a par with my alleged 'instructor'. You'll note that nowhere did I question the laws of physics, I questioned the values included (and those omitted) to skew the results.

Just as I note that this fact either went right over your head, or else you are trying to blow out a smoke screen hoping no one else notices it...

Jeeez indeed!

Jeez yourself!!

Copycat...............

Well, the problem here as I see it is that I realize there is a bit more to physics than simply citing a law. The folks who DO have PhD's relayed that bit of info to me in hushed whispers...

According to them, there seems to be some difference between, say, being able to cite a law from high school physics, and actually being able to properly APPLY that law on a somewhat higher level.

They're sticklers like that, and it seems to irk them somewhat when the results of an improper application are intentionally skewed.

Freakin' rocket scientists! What can you do with them?

Originally posted by benoni
if you had a Phd you wouldnt be arguing with him....you would be aware that no matter how you try, the Laws of Physics remain fixed and immovable.....

It also occurs to me that some opinions are quite similar to your description of physics laws... fixed and immovable... and perhaps similar to my description as well... misapplied!

[edit on 2010/2/15 by nenothtu]

reply to post by Crito


you need to watch what you text...Some people, like myself, served the country in uniform and defended you and every other quack who thinks we did 9-11 to ourselves. The only 9-11 truth is that anyone who thinks the attack was some conspiracy is a COWARD WHO WONT TAKE UP ARMS, so little people like yourself ask us to do it for you and then say it's our fault that we're defending you. I seriously hate people like you.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by GhostR1der
With this in mind please consider WTC7. NIST admitted it free fall collapsed for at least 2.2 seconds.

Are you saying you agree with the NIST estimate, or only PARTS of it? Does this mean we get to pick and choose now?

NIST doing their own measurement and finally verifying it is just icing on the cake. Even I personally have measured WTC7's acceleration to within a small margin of error and matched what NIST got, as it's really not hard at all to measure if you know what you're doing. Many others have done it too. All you need is a video, a good reference for the height of each floor, and maybe a little trigonometry. If you've never had a real physics class and don't know how to measure acceleration then I might understand why you think this point is disputable. But we are talking about a direct measurement, not a theory or hypothesis that somebody came up with.

Are you saying that you support the NIST estimate of 2.2 seconds, and therefore there were actually NO materials present too impede a collapse, or are you saying that you believe maliciously government-planted explosive charges cause ALL materials present to magically disappear to allow for the collapse?

What's the difference between "NO materials present too [sic] impede a collapse" and "magically" disappearing? What in the hell do you think happened to suddenly move all that stuff completely out of the way without expending any of the building's kinetic energy in the process?

You literally just said the same thing twice and just tried to make it sound stupider the second time you said it.

Please not that an explosive charge cut of a support structure doesn't magically cause the entire structure to vanish, it just cuts it. The resistance you mention will still be present due to the presence of the materials that were NOT cut.

I can't understand how the stupidity of your own argument is lost on you. You are basically claiming a building crushing itself should fall faster than a demolished building.

...or possibly a 2.2 second estimate was flawed, perhaps calculated after the fact based on simplified measurements of height collapsed multiplied by the gravitational co-efficient.

You do NOT multiply ANYTHING by gravity when you are taking direct measurements. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

If I asked you to measure WTC7's acceleration yourself just to see what kind of margin of error we are dealing with here, would you even know where to start? This isn't just 101 stuff, this is first week of class stuff.

That "second energy source" would have to vaporize ALL the impeding materials, not just small slices of them, in order for this "ZERO resistance" argument to apply. Had that occurred, I'd imagine the cleanup would have gone much faster.

You just keep shooting yourself in the foot with this because you apparently have no comprehension of the fact that we KNOW at what rate WTC7 accelerated to a small margin of error. It accelerated at the rate of gravity, even verified by NIST. If explosives can't do that then what in the hell can? Jet fuel?

Secondly UL rated the columns in WTC7 to withstand over 2000 degrees F for 3 hours without failing load bearing requirements. Diesel or jet fuel cannot even reach this temperature in an open air fire.

I guess this is where I need to thank the gods that there weren't any other combustibles anywhere in the buildings then. Had there been, it might have taken somewhat over 3 hours for a collapse, rather than the immediate collapse on impact! Oh, wait, there WAS a time lag! Let me re-think that...

The rating he is talking about is before permanent deformation may begin to occur, and it may not even occur then, it only has to last at least that long. This permanent deformation is called the "yield strength" and that's only when the steel will start to deform. Not completely and catastrophically fail. In no way whatsoever is that ever predicted by a fire lasting for any given length of time, and there have been MUCH worse skyscraper fires that lasted much longer. Remember that outside of 9/11 there is not even remotely a precedent for fire alone doing this to a building, which is what NIST has hypothesized, also saying the impact damages were insignificant to the collapse sequence because they missed critical columns and only took out superficial exterior structure.

So we have an impossible, law of physics violating collapse of WTC7 which can be easily proved using highschool physics.

Perhaps not, when more factors are added in, rather than doing the math on an extremely limited subset, picked and chosen to support a flawed premise.

And "perhaps" you have already demonstrated you don't understand how these acceleration measurements were made in the first place. 'Picking and choosing to support a flawed premise' is just the nonsense excuse you give when you can't come up with something that actually makes sense. The "premise" is not automatically flawed just because you don't want to hear it, and the data was widely accepted before NIST verified it simply because it is so easy to directly measure. But I already noticed you don't understand how the measurement is even possible.

If you can debunk the law of conservation of energy please feel free!

No need to debunk laws of physics when one realized that flawed figures may have been plugged into the equations, and some variables left out altogether because they may not be convenient!

The only way you could "realize" that kind of nonsense is by clinging irrationally to your pre-conceived beliefs and having no understanding of the physics being discussed. There are no variables to leave out when you are taking a direct measurement like this! Like I asked before, if someone asked YOU to measure WTC7's acceleration, you would have no idea where to start, would you?

Teach me, master. Wanna compare PhD's?

Based on the understanding you have demonstrated above, if you have a PhD in anything remotely related to physics or engineering then your school has completely failed you and deserves to be closed.

I take it that the three stooges are starring all your posts as soon as you make them too. Really, it's pretty clear to see which "side" really understands the physics being discussed and which "side" doesn't. Multiplying measurements by gravity... :shk:

[edit on 15-2-2010 by bsbray11]

The Family Guy video made me laugh. Gotta love Seth.

Originally posted by nycfrog27
reply to post by Crito

 

you need to watch what you text...Some people, like myself, served the country in uniform and defended you and every other quack who thinks we did 9-11 to ourselves.

I respect and thank you for your service to this country. MY country, as well as yours, regardless of the manner in which we serve(d) it. If you think that gives you some moral high ground, think again. Your opinion is no more relevant than anyone else', simply due to your sacrifice (if nothing else, than for your time & effort, and separation from friends & family).

The only 9-11 truth is that anyone who thinks the attack was some conspiracy is a COWARD WHO WONT TAKE UP ARMS, so little people like yourself ask us to do it for you and then say it's our fault that we're defending you. I seriously hate people like you.

That's a very large assumption there, Cowboy - you may want to consider your audience before throwing around ridiculous statements like that. Many of us have served and/or grew up in Military households, and understand all too well the sacrifices that have been made.

And, we hate people like you, who hate us for simply wanting answers to questions that have been GROSSLY unaddressed, and are UNwilling to look at the FACTS due to some silly self-imposed obligation to support (y)our government/military, blindly merely because of your service - honestly, which is sillier?

Matter of fact, no matter what the truth IS, don't you WANT it? You know you/we haven't been given it - regardless of your stance, THAT is fact. If you can't at least admit that, please don't bother with anymore wasted keystrokes.

And, if you want continue to believe that the events of 9/11 were carried out by 19 Islamic extremists - and supporting Islamic cast - and take the OS at face value, then it is YOU who are the 'coward' for not taking the time to TRULY defend the country you've boasted so much about, by finally getting to the bottom of all of this ('cause we sure as hell ain't there, yet).


Respectfully,
-Scott




[edit on 2/16/2010 by SquirrelNutz]

Originally posted by bsbray11

What's the difference between "NO materials present too [sic] impede a collapse" and "magically" disappearing? What in the hell do you think happened to suddenly move all that stuff completely out of the way without expending any of the building's kinetic energy in the process?

Your initial argument was that the buildings collapsed in "free fall", too fast for materials to have been in the way impeding the collapse. You then jumped to the conclusion that external explosives MUST have been involved for that to occur. Somehow my pointing out that cut charges would in no way remove all that impeding material is flawed?

You must be using some sort of exotic quantum physics.

You literally just said the same thing twice and just tried to make it sound stupider the second time you said it.

Glad I succeeded in making it sound stupider the second time. IMO, it IS a stupid argument. Either the materials WERE there, or they were NOT. I'm betting they WERE, and didn't disappear just because your equations lead you to believe they must have for it to work out as you say.

Please not that an explosive charge cut of a support structure doesn't magically cause the entire structure to vanish, it just cuts it. The resistance you mention will still be present due to the presence of the materials that were NOT cut.

I can't understand how the stupidity of your own argument is lost on you. You are basically claiming a building crushing itself should fall faster than a demolished building.

Nope. Your insertion of words into my mouth doesn't mean that I said what you claim. I'm just pointing out that explosive charges aren't necessary, as you surmise they are. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've mentioned the speed of the collapse of building crushing itself at all, other than to note that the materials you question would be in place in either event. Just cutting them doesn't make them go away. Your argument doesn't account for the fact that they didn't disappear altogether, and hinges entirely on a single measurement. Just trying to help you out a bit, bro.

Perhaps you'd care to explain why you think explosives would drop it faster than catastrophic failure, why they would affect the acceleration of gravity?

You do NOT multiply ANYTHING by gravity when you are taking direct measurements. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Neither do you take 'direct' measurements from a video. Unless the meaning of 'direct' has been recently redefined?

If I asked you to measure WTC7's acceleration yourself just to see what kind of margin of error we are dealing with here, would you even know where to start? This isn't just 101 stuff, this is first week of class stuff.

Could be that I WOULD know where to start. It could be equally true that I realize that it's not quite as simplistic as you make it sound, for the sake of your argument, and that ONE parameter is a shaky basis for an entire theory.

Of course, that's THIRD week of class stuff. Did you make it that far?

That "second energy source" would have to vaporize ALL the impeding materials, not just small slices of them, in order for this "ZERO resistance" argument to apply. Had that occurred, I'd imagine the cleanup would have gone much faster.

You just keep shooting yourself in the foot with this because you apparently have no comprehension of the fact that we KNOW at what rate WTC7 accelerated to a small margin of error. It accelerated at the rate of gravity, even verified by NIST. If explosives can't do that then what in the hell can? Jet fuel?

Accelerated at the rate of gravity... what could make that happen... I dunno... GRAVITY? You've yet to explain why you believe explosives would be required to enter the equation.

And "perhaps" you have already demonstrated you don't understand how these acceleration measurements were made in the first place.

I mentioned 'how these acceleration measurements were made in the first place' where? If I haven't even mentioned them, how is it I've demonstrated a lack of understanding of them? As a matter of fact, my whole premise is that they shouldn't be taken as the only effective factor.

'Picking and choosing to support a flawed premise' is just the nonsense excuse you give when you can't come up with something that actually makes sense.

"Something that actually makes sense"... you mean like a theory that requires the silence of hundreds, if not thousands, of a "brotherhood" (who are otherwise thoroughly inept, outside of collapsing giant buildings) to pull off, that requires explosive charges to make a building fall down in the presence of other catastrophic damage, in a world where gravity doesn't work without explosives... sense like that, right? I'll try harder to make "sense" next time!

The "premise" is not automatically flawed just because you don't want to hear it,

No, it's flawed because it doesn't take any factors into account beyond 'first week' 'high school' physics. It's flawed because it ignores factors that don't fit with the conclusion you're trying to force. It's flawed because it is based on a single measurement, which you claim to be 'impossible' in your very own post. Whether I 'want' to hear it doesn't even enter the equations.

No need to debunk laws of physics when one realized that flawed figures may have been plugged into the equations, and some variables left out altogether because they may not be convenient!

The only way you could "realize" that kind of nonsense is by clinging irrationally to your pre-conceived beliefs and having no understanding of the physics being discussed. There are no variables to leave out when you are taking a direct measurement like this!

Nice attack there! Is that how you react every time your pet theories are questioned? You would note, if you were still in your rational mind, that I didn't question your theory as much as questioning the data (or more precisely, the lack thereof) you used to arrive at it.

You appear not to realize that merely measuring a rate of fall is not sufficient to develop an entire theory on the matter by completely ignoring all other factors.

You still haven't accounted for the REQUIREMENT for explosives, or explained how they would have removed all the material you stipulated was a requirement for the collapse speed you so obviously 'directly' measured, as you've proudly pointed out so many times now.

You have, however, demonstrated a thoroughly emotional attachment to your theory, and a willingness to ignore all other factors that simply don't fit in with it.

As I said in my initial post, you're welcome to believe as you will. I'm not here to bring your theory down, with or without the required explosives, so relax. By the same token, I don't feel any compulsion to embrace a theory which does not accord with more of the factors than will be taught in the first week of a high school physics class, which chooses to use ONE equation to the exclusion of the rest of physics.

Keep on thinking that gravity, a vast right-wing conspiracy, and explosives are the only possible factors, and I bid you well with it.

I'm not here to change your mind or educate you, but it does cause me to feel somewhat uncomfortable that my physics education began in Virginia. It seems that the standards may have slipped a bit since those days. They seem to have left out logic and the scientific method.

Originally posted by xBWOMPx
I built cessna planes.

Private aircraft are built from much weaker materials then commercial aircraft. I have flown Cessna 150's, piper tomahawks, and Cherokee's. I have also worked on every type of commercial aircraft including BA's concords. I have also worked F-16's, C-130's, and Antanov's.

Originally posted by xBWOMPx
Yes, those FIGHTER jets are designed for reaching speeds like that

And I have shown you video of a 757 flying 350 knots, not much below what those aircraft were flying at. In an air show, they are not even allowed to push to envelope on what the aircraft can actually do as there are civilians in close proximity.

Originally posted by xBWOMPx
yes certain grades of steel can melt at 700 degrees I know someone who does that kind of work for a living, there is also steel that has to be strengthened for structures that are as massive as a sky scraper also.

I have shown a document that addresses different types of steel that are used in construction. You made the claim of tempered steel not loosing strength until over 1300 degrees, I have shown from actual documents that number is vastly incorrect and at 1000 degrees steel is 10% of what it normally is. Of course far be it from a truther to admit when they are wrong.

Originally posted by xBWOMPx
Commercial planes are not meant to fly fast at low altitudes look it up, you'll find they can reach much higher speeds at higher altitudes.

No, they cruise at higher speeds at higher altitudes because that is where they run efficiently at, not because they cannot do the same thing at lower altitudes.

This is due to the Power-Speed Curve:
www.auf.asn.au...

As air density, and consequently drag, decreases with height, then airspeed, from a particular power level, will increase with height; e.g. the airspeed attained with 65% power at sea-level is 90 knots increasing to 100 knots at 10 000 feet.

Originally posted by xBWOMPx
The atmosphere is so thick it would shake a commercial plane apart if it flew 576 MPH into the twin towers at a few hundred feet.

The only person who made this claim as the guy who built the shaker system, Joseph keith. Building the shaker system does not in any way qualify Mr keith to comment on the stresses that the airframe can withstand. There is a wide variance in how much stress it takes to damage an airframe, and it varies not only between aircraft model types, but even from aircraft to aircraft of the same frame type. Aircraft have often far exceeded their performance envelopes without suffering airframe failure, though they may suffer some airframe damage. There was a 747, for example, that went into a nose dive and vastly exceeded its G-Force rating, yet it only had a few panels fall off (crap like the fuel panel door) and suffered no major damage.

Originally posted by xBWOMPx
And besides the twin towers what about building 7 that had a few debris fall on it and a few level on fire? That one def. doesn't make sense.

There was just an independent two year study of building seven completed, and they found none of the conspiracy theories on the subject to be true. It fell do to severe fire and damage to the side facing the tower that fell next to it.

reply to post by hooper


Dude.

Did you just say "martial arts"?

Hhahaha.

Originally posted by bsbray11
So if you are going to state something as fact (defcon), you should be prepared to back it up.

The fact that I cannot back up conversations I have had with other airline personnel does not in anyway constitute that I am stating a personal opinion, it simply means that I am telling from first hand experience. I recommend that you get out of your dorm and go gain some first hand experience yourself by connecting with a similar crowd of professionals, then report your findings. If nothing else you can even ask the cross section of known airline professionals on this website. Go ask Weedwacker, go ask Inteligirl, go ask Off the Street...

Originally posted by nenothtu
Your initial argument was that the buildings collapsed in "free fall", too fast for materials to have been in the way impeding the collapse.

Basically, but that is not the actual technical problem. As has already been explained to you, it's the kinetic energy that was never used that is the problem.

You then jumped to the conclusion that external explosives MUST have been involved for that to occur. Somehow my pointing out that cut charges would in no way remove all that impeding material is flawed?

Yes, because you are suggesting that no explosives can bring down a building at free-fall but using explosives can't. Care to explain why it's impossible with explosives but simultaneously possible without them?

You must be using some sort of exotic quantum physics.

I guess it could seem that way when you don't understand basic physics in the first place.

You literally just said the same thing twice and just tried to make it sound stupider the second time you said it.

Glad I succeeded in making it sound stupider the second time. IMO, it IS a stupid argument.

Then it was the first time you said it too, when you asserted it happened without explosives yet it can't happen with them. Yes, that is a very stupid argument.

I'm betting they WERE, and didn't disappear just because your equations lead you to believe they must have for it to work out as you say.

Not just mine, NIST's. Since you are such the brilliant scientist that you are solely in the right while everyone else on both "sides" of this issue is wrong, why don't you measure WTC7's acceleration yourself and show how NIST and everyone else is wrong in their measurement?

Nope. Your insertion of words into my mouth doesn't mean that I said what you claim. I'm just pointing out that explosive charges aren't necessary, as you surmise they are. As a matter of fact, I don't think I've mentioned the speed of the collapse of building crushing itself at all, other than to note that the materials you question would be in place in either event.

So basically your entire "argument" is to deny the free-fall acceleration that virtually everyone else on Earth now accepts, including the people who wrote the federal reports.

Perhaps you'd care to explain why you think explosives would drop it faster than catastrophic failure, why they would affect the acceleration of gravity?

Again you demonstrate you are totally clueless on this entire issue, as if 2 or 3 demonstrations of the same thing in your last post wasn't cutting it.

You do NOT multiply ANYTHING by gravity when you are taking direct measurements. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Neither do you take 'direct' measurements from a video. Unless the meaning of 'direct' has been recently redefined?

So first of all you admit that you had no idea what you were talking about in the first place, multiplying ANYTHING by gravity in taking this measurement.

Enough said.

I won't even honor you with a response after this because you are obviously trolling, putting on like you understand concepts that you have repeatedly demonstrated you do not.

And yes, the measurements WERE taken directly from videos and there is absolutely nothing that invalidates this data, unless you think the camera itself is lying now.

If I asked you to measure WTC7's acceleration yourself just to see what kind of margin of error we are dealing with here, would you even know where to start? This isn't just 101 stuff, this is first week of class stuff.

Could be that I WOULD know where to start.

Well let me put it this way.

If you turn that "could be" into actually doing it, then I will respond to you. Otherwise, I'm not, and I don't expect to, because I already know from what you have posted that you would be completely lost trying to figure this out on your own. You have no idea what you are even talking about.

It could be equally true that I realize that it's not quite as simplistic as you make it sound, for the sake of your argument, and that ONE parameter is a shaky basis for an entire theory.

From your perspective it "could be equally true," since you are ignorant of kinematics in the first place, but from mine, no, it's pretty obvious you just don't understand the method to find the acceleration.

Of course, that's THIRD week of class stuff. Did you make it that far?

If I recall correctly I was doing conservation of energy stuff, work/energy during the 3rd week of 101. I would remember because we had a painstaking lab report due every week and I hated every one of them. And that's a yes, I made it through the course. AND I remember enough of it to still do free-body diagrams and the like.

Will be looking forward to your measuring WTC7's acceleration and posting your work here. If you can't remember the simplest stuff you learned in your physics class then you might as well have never taken it at all.

Accelerated at the rate of gravity... what could make that happen... I dunno... GRAVITY?

Bravo. I'm sure you earned your "F."

You've yet to explain why you believe explosives would be required to enter the equation.

This just keeps getting better and better. If you understood why free-fall is an issue at all then you would understand why it immediately implies sources of energy outside of the kinetic energy of the building itself. Because the kinetic energy of the building was not used. Thus the free-fall. But I'm going too fast now aren't I?

And "perhaps" you have already demonstrated you don't understand how these acceleration measurements were made in the first place.

I mentioned 'how these acceleration measurements were made in the first place' where? If I haven't even mentioned them, how is it I've demonstrated a lack of understanding of them?

You keep saying someone must have fudged the numbers somehow or that it's not possible to make an accurate measurement. You even suggested multiplying some figure by gravity while figuring the acceleration.

"Something that actually makes sense"... you mean like a theory that requires the silence of hundreds, if not thousands, of a "brotherhood" (who are otherwise thoroughly inept, outside of collapsing giant buildings) to pull off, that requires explosive charges to make a building fall down in the presence of other catastrophic damage, in a world where gravity doesn't work without explosives... sense like that, right? I'll try harder to make "sense" next time!

You completely misrepresent what I am saying, but I don't even care. Just get back to me when you're ready to demonstrate physics 101 stuff, and measure WTC7's acceleration.

No, it's flawed because it doesn't take any factors into account beyond 'first week' 'high school' physics.

I wouldn't consider you an authority on that since you haven't even been able to demonstrate competence with first week 101.

Nice attack there! Is that how you react every time your pet theories are questioned? You would note, if you were still in your rational mind, that I didn't question your theory as much as questioning the data (or more precisely, the lack thereof) you used to arrive at it.

So I take it that since you don't understand how we (both myself and NIST independently, also other members here) measured WTC7's acceleration, you are finally admitting you don't understand how to do it yourself. It really is NOT complicated. If you think it is, then I can't imagine trying to discuss anything more complicated than these laws of motion and kinematics with you.

You appear not to realize that merely measuring a rate of fall is not sufficient to develop an entire theory on the matter by completely ignoring all other factors.

You appear not to realize that the rate of fall is intrinsically related to both the kinetic energy of the building and the work (or lack thereof) it was performing via laws of physics.

You have, however, demonstrated a thoroughly emotional attachment to your theory, and a willingness to ignore all other factors that simply don't fit in with it.

This is what Freud called "projection." You can look that up too while you're at it. It's projecting negative qualities about yourself onto others or your external environment because you are unwilling to face them yourself. And sorry, but I actually remember what I learned in physics 101, and I can demonstrate it, and that's what makes the difference between me and you. So now you know who is just being emotional.

I don't feel any compulsion to embrace a theory which does not accord with more of the factors than will be taught in the first week of a high school physics class, which chooses to use ONE equation to the exclusion of the rest of physics.

Man, now not only are you showing you don't remember the first week, but you must not remember anything that came after that, either. It is ALL connected: displacement, velocity, acceleration, force, friction, kinetic energy, work, etc. They are ALL tied together in the equations.

I'm not here to change your mind or educate you

I hardly need you to tell me that.

but it does cause me to feel somewhat uncomfortable that my physics education began in Virginia. It seems that the standards may have slipped a bit since those days. They seem to have left out logic and the scientific method.

I'll respond to you again when you demonstrate you remember the first week of 101, by measuring WTC7's acceleration, like NIST's engineers did.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by bsbray11]