« First « Previous Comments 481 - 520 of 820 Next » Last » Search these comments
No, if they don't test for explosives it is a cover up and they won't be able to remove the doubt. And there is much more evidence for the conspiracy than there is against it.
So then you also believe they should check for Godzilla concrete, correct? Do you believe that is also a cover up?
The problem with the logic of the paper you provided earlier was that the calculation of the kinetic energy assumed the top of the building was one huge mass. Even if this were true such a huge amount of kinetic energy would have destroyed the section immediately below it thereby dissipating the energy and stopping there. Otherwise would violate Newtons third.
Now I know you never studied physics even in grade school. So the only two possibilities that exist are total destruction of each floor or no destruction at all? Why is that? So show me the calculations that make it impossible for some pulverizing to occur and the bulk of the mass continuing to fall.
I don't even understand what you are saying. What huge mass? That doesn't make sense. The calculations are based on the actual building mass. Each floor added to the mass one at a time. So you are saying that the first x floors fell creating such a huge mass so that the y floors below were totally pulverized which should dissipated the energy and stopped the x floor mass from falling. Huh? Stopped where, in mid air? You call that logic?
Wow you guys make up some really funny shit.
The problem with the logic of the paper you provided earlier was that the calculation of the kinetic energy assumed the top of the building was one huge mass.
It WAS one huge mass. Have you SEEN the video? You act like you haven't seen it.
Even if this were true such a huge amount of kinetic energy would have destroyed the section immediately below it thereby dissipating the energy and stopping there.
Why? Just because you say so?
The problem with the logic of the paper you provided earlier was that the calculation of the kinetic energy assumed the top of the building was one huge mass.
It WAS one huge mass. Have you SEEN the video? You act like you haven't seen it. The towers failed at the point where they were damaged and everything above that fell as a single piece.
Even if this were true such a huge amount of kinetic energy would have destroyed the section immediately below it thereby dissipating the energy and stopping there.
Why? Just because you say so?
The problem with the logic of the paper you provided earlier was that the calculation of the kinetic energy assumed the top of the building was one huge mass.
It WAS one huge mass. Have you SEEN the video? You act like you haven't seen it. The towers failed at the point where they were damaged and everything above that fell as a single piece.
Even if this were true such a huge amount of kinetic energy would have destroyed the section immediately below it thereby dissipating the energy and stopping there.
Why? Just because you say so?
Nope. Newton's Third.
Aren't you leaving out a little math, there?
I can't tell if you're serious or if you're trolling now. That's about the second most ridiculous thing I've ever heard anyone say. If I make a house of cards and drop a bowling ball on it, it doesn't arrest the fall of the bowling ball. Obviously there are calculations you need to make about the mass and energy involved, which you just completely blew off.
What you say is pretty close to true, The mass would have stopped if the supporting columns were still there.
Aha, I can see the problem, you don't have a clue how the wtc was constructed. The floors didn't sit on top of the columns like a traditional high rise. The columns only held up the ends of the top bar of the floor trusses. Break or bend the last couple inches of the trusses the floors are in free fall. Not all that much mass is required to do that. Once the columns lose the lateral support of the floor trusses they collapse also. I thought you said you read the NIST report. It's well detailed in there.
"With a value of 1200 MJ for Ed we are finally in a position to evaluate the energy balance
equation:
½ Mn vi ^2 = ½ [Mn + M1] vf^ 2 + Ed
Thus, setting Mn to 5.8 ? 107 kg, M1 to 0.39 ? 107 kg and with vi equal to 8.52 m/s, we readily determine that the first impacted floor of WTC 1 moved off with a velocity vf equal to 5.4 m/s; that is 3.1 m/s or 36 % slower than the impact velocity. Nevertheless, this reduced velocity was more than sufficient to guarantee a self-sustaining global collapse of WTC 1."Like I said before, the actual facts violate Newton's third.
Your own source shows that the collapse should have slowed down a little upon encountering each new floor. In the actual event the tower collapse speed increased as if there were NO floors below.
No it doesn't say that at all. Read more carefully, this only deals with the first floor to collapse, it doesn't say anything at all about subsequent floors. Even so, why would it slow each floor rather than accelerate? The least mass and energy is the first floor to fall, after that the mass increases and increases knocking each subsequent floor away more easily. Your statement makes no sense.
I still haven't seen your explanation of exactly how this violates newton's third law. If an object falls, knocks a second object loose and they both continue to fall it's not a violation or even all that relevant to newtons' third law.
If you were doing experiments on newtons laws in a college level physics course I would ask for my tuition back.
So then you also believe they should check for Godzilla concrete, correct?
Wouldn't King Kong be more likely?
I think we can eliminate King Kong and Godzilla as the perpetrators of this dastardly deed as there would have been video.
There is no video of explosive charges, so that can be ruled out as well. You have only pointed out a couple puffs of smoke and a low rumbling sound heard when the audio is enhanced; the deafening sounds of explosions and numerous quick, bright flashes that are seen in videos of actual controlled demolitions are not present in any video.
By your own words, controlled demolition is ruled out. Thanks for proving my point.
Bowling ball? House of cards?
Are you trying to say that if you had a house of cards 110 storys high and lifted the top 15 stories and then dropped them the whole thing would drop in a burning pile?
The absurdity of your example makes me think you are not seriously looking at the evidence.
No, why would the house of cards burn? The WTC burned because a plane full of fuel flew into it. It didn't START burning after it fell. But yeah, if I doused a card house with kerosene and lit a match to it, it would burn.
I'm starting to think you don't even have the slightest clue what happened that day.
Is it just me or does coriacci1's avatar look like the live version of sesame streets Bert?
The process of knocking the second object (floor) loose would slow it down somewhat. The process of knocking each of the subsequent floors loose would slow the collapse below free fall speed.
How long did you say you have been defending the truth of 9/11?
So then this video violates the laws of physics? How did the model fall down, then?
You are blind. You don't have the intellect to understand the obvious. You talk about unicorns, but on the day of judgement the deeds of everyone, including Bush/Cheney and their co conspirators will be known.
Allll....righty then. Have fun with that.
Trust me, this does not have massive bolts in it. Therefore, and only therefore, does it not defy the laws of physics.
This is a joke, but it is a sad one, homeboy.
He didn't say anything about bolts. He simply said that each floor would slow the fall and slow the collapse beyond freefall speed. The model tower in my video did not weigh half a million tons like the twin towers did. Obviously, having a structure in place does not necessarily prevent it from collapsing. So we can rule out this theory that simply because there were floors below the collapse, that they would automatically arrest the fall of the towers.
You obviously are incapable of envisioning in your mind the scale we are talking about. If you shrunk the WTC to the size of the model tower, the steel beams would be like toothpicks, and the "massive bolts" would be like the head of a pin. You are trying to apply your layman's "gut feeling" to matters of physics and engineering, in which you have no training or experience. Things may "seem" or "feel" a certain way to you, but that is only because you are unable to grasp the immense forces that were in play. 500,000 tons is just a number to you; you obviously don't understand how much force that is when it is in motion. A bolt is not going to stop hundreds of thousands of tons of weight falling on it. The WTC was designed to hold up the weight of the building, not to arrest the fall of that much weight when it's already in motion.
The joke here is your refusal to listen to reason.
You are trying to apply your layman's "gut feeling" to matters of physics and engineering, in which you have no training or experience.
What about the engineers at ae911truth.org ? Are you saying that you understand more than a structural engineer?
There's a rather obvious problem with that argument.
I do believe a jet hit the pentagon but I still can't find a link. Please provide me one of yours. Thanks @homeboy
If you believe it, then what's the problem? Or are you lying?
I do believe a jet hit the pentagon but I still can't find a link. Please provide me one of yours. Thanks @homeboy
Take your pick. There are several images. Some showing a timeline...
And if you believe that planes did hit the towers (which is pretty well proven), then how can you believe in the controlled demolition? Do you think Al Queda and GWB were in cahoots??
Convince me by debating the evidence!
You have been shown evidence throughout this thread. You chose to ignore it in favour of posting up another Youtube video. You aren't looking for the truth. You've already decided what you believe and that is evidenced by your posts in this thread. Personally, I don't believe for a minute that you just stumbled across that website a couple of weeks ago. Your posts smack of leading. That is not the approach of someone interested in both sides of the story. You come across as extremely disingenuous - oh yes, i'm just interested in the facts, I just want to have a debate etc. etc., but all you do is post up incredibly predictable videos without analysis or any real consideration of their content - look at that 2 puffs of smoke video, or the one trying to show that the fire at WTC7 was small, etc. etc. They are simply wrong. There just isn't anything to debate with regard to the videos being posted up by you and your fellow conspirators.
Hey bigsby,
I have been teaching computer science and programming at the college level for almost 20 years. I have a bachelors degree in comp sci and a masters in education. I used to work for the navy on nuke subs. I am a life long Californian.
I seem to recall from an earlier post that you are from another country. Where are you from? What is your education? What do you do for a living?
Just curious. Thanks.
I could say I'm a quantum physicist with 3 PhDs for all the difference it makes. After all, this is the internet. It doesn't matter where I live or what I do. It's irrelevant to the issue at hand. Perhaps I can ask you what your purpose was in trying to big yourself up.
Bigsby says
Personally, I don't believe for a minute that you just stumbled across that website a couple of weeks ago.
It's true.
Proof indeed. So you suddenly decided to read a conspiracy website a decade after the event and were immediately converted. OK.
I have only posted a couple of videos.
Ah yes, I noticed how critical you were of the others that were posted.
I did not even know about the AE911truth.org before I watched the video linked in the original post a couple of weeks ago
each one teach one!
What about the engineers at ae911truth.org ? Are you saying that you understand more than a structural engineer?
The vast majority of engineers do not agree with the kooks on that website. Also, the "engineers" on the website are not necessarily structural engineers. Also, none of their credentials appear to have been checked by anyone. We have a known case of someone signing up his dog as an engineer on that site. So we have no idea how many of them, if any, even exist or are actual engineers at all.
So you are siding with a very dubious, very small minority of all the engineers in the world, whereas I am siding with the vast majority of engineers who believe what we saw in the videos - planes hitting buildings, the buildings burning, and the buildings failing AT THE SPOT WHERE THEY WERE DAMAGED BY THE PLANES, is what actually happened.
So, are YOU saying you understand more than the vast majority of structural engineers?
each one teach one!
So you start this thread that has been going on for some time. I challenged you to form ANY sort of argument, in your own words, to support your point. And this entire time, you can only manage to copy and paste videos directly from a conspiracy website. The only things you have actually written yourself are banal one-liners that don't make any sense.
Basically, you suck, coriacci1.
I do believe a jet hit the pentagon but I still can't find a link. Please provide me one of yours. Thanks @homeboy
1. Find the white bar at the top of your web browser, which will currently say "patrick.net...etc...".
2. Type the words "youtube.com" into that white bar.
3. Press [enter] or click on the arrow at the right of the white bar.
4. You will now be on youtube.com.
5. Type "plane hits pentagon" into the white bar at the top of the youtube page.
6. Press [enter] or click the little magnifying glass icon.
7. Pick any one of the many videos of the Pentagon security camera that have been posted on youtube.
8. You aren't going to see much, and I will explain why: Plane go very, very fast - security camera go slow.
Wow, that was tough, huh? Using teh internets sure is hard. What subject did you say you teach?
I am not "siding" with anyone. I am looking for a debate on the evidence presented by this questionably "dubious... minority of all the engineers in the world".
No you're not. Your mind is already made up.
Do you have a link to an actual pic of the plane hitting the pentagon? My searches turn up blank.
Your mind turns up blank.
My credentials are modest by comparison to some of the members of ae911truth.org.
Alleged credentials of members of ae911truth.org.
Everybody remembers 9/11, but does anyone remember what happened 9/10? Let me remind everybody. 9/10 was the day when, the then secretary of defense D Rumsfeld, on national TV reveiled that the pentagon couldn't account for $2.3 TRILLION!!!! Oddly, the following day the pentagon was hit by and "airplane". The accounting quaters were hit, several mostly civilians, were killed, and the records conveniently destroyed!
On the contrary from the "dubious" site:
"Most architects and engineers have never been presented with the scientific evidence of controlled demolition. In addition, most of those who take the time to examine this evidence acknowledge that the official story can’t be true. As of the date of this publication, there are almost 1,700 architects and engineers who openly support the findings of AE911Truth vs. only a few dozen who have openly supported the NIST WTC reports. Even so, in the end, the evidence stands on its own, regardless of how many professionals are aware of it. "
On the contrary of what? What exactly do you think a conspiracy website is going to post up? What do you think this demonstrates? I've read your posts. You aren't being honest about where you are coming from. You aren't new to this. And you aren't interested in debate. At least bgamall is straight up with his opinion. You, on the other hand, are playing a game.
This would be true in a pancake collapse but the videos make it obvious that the building was blown out from the top down. Most of the mass of the building was ejected outward and would not be available to destroy the intact building beneath.
Which video are you talking about now? And you are saying most of the mass was ejected outward? What makes you say that? Because there were dust clouds? Haven't you and bgamall been demanding an explanation for how a building can collapse into its own footprint? Now you're saying most of the debris was ejected away from the building. Which is it?
So there are no pics or videos?
So you don't know how to search "plane hits pentagon" on youtube?
The government has the full pics of the plane or whatever hitting the pentagon. They have chosen not to reveal them.
Lie.
There apparently was not enough large parts left to believe that it was a plane. Anyway, Rumsfeld said it was a missile.
Lie.
What is your point here homeboy?
That the security tape from the pentagon is readily available on the internet, and for you to say you "can't find it" either means you are disingenuous or stupid.
"Most architects and engineers have never been presented with the scientific evidence of controlled demolition. In addition, most of those who take the time to examine this evidence acknowledge that the official story can’t be true.
Obviously a lie. The site claims 7 million hits, and says 1700 A&Es plus 15,000 petition signers believe in the controlled demolition. So out of 7 million who "reviewed the evidence", only 16,700 believe that the official story isn't true. That's only 0.002%. That's quite a ways from "most".
With 7 million hits, for them to suggest that their message isn't getting out, is absurd. We've seen their evidence; it's just that we think it's bullshit.
"We had to blow WTC7 because it had sensitive material stored by the many agencies stationed there. The building was prewired for collapse in the event of an attack on the nation. An overzealous junior agent pushed the wrong button after the terrorist attack. He has been promoted to a position where he cannot cause any more trouble."
Do you have any evidence to support this theory?
It's not a theory, it's an imaginative story I made up to support the evidence presented by ae911truth.org.
It's a better story than the "concrete godzilla".
Boy, you really are obtuse. The concrete godzilla was a rhetorical device I used to demonstrate the absurdity of your point of view, i.e. you wanted to test for thermite even though the elements that would be tested for are already present in the building materials. I was showing how ridiculous that is by suggesting we test for concrete, even though concrete is already present, to determine if a concrete godzilla attacked the building. It wasn't supposed to be a "good" story; it was supposed to show how ridiculous your point of view is.
But your scenario was not rhetorical at all. You genuinely stated that you would find that believable.
Are you really a college-level teacher? I'm having a hard time believing you even WENT to college.
Personal attacks are not helpful to the debate.
What debate? You are just trolling, jabbering, and posting links to feeble conspiracy videos.
You can put me on ignore and be done with me.
Why? It's much more fun to see what stupid thing you will say next. It's entertaining to listen to someone who claims to be a college-level teacher and doesn't even understand the difference between reductio ad absurdum and an earnest argument, or understand how to do a simple web search.
« First « Previous Comments 481 - 520 of 820 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://www.youtube.com/embed/kcd6PQAKmj4