Notices
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 787

Thread: 9/11 science

  1. #1 9/11 science 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    I'm not sure if this topic has been banned from the forum, but I want your opinions on this. Clearly anybody who is much interested in physics will know the buildings could not come down that fast (full free fall force of gravitational pull) while having any remaining gravitational energy to cause damage to the buildings. An alternate source must have been used, physics did not change for a few hours.

    Anyway, this is a very interesting video from a scientist that includes many scientific facts that I've rarely, or never heard covered before.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PawC...eature=related


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    And anyone who is interested in facts knows they fell at less than the free fall velocity. (Like you I prefer to say what I mean, so I know you won't be offended by my directness.)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    You're right, but the difference in speed is close enoguh for me not to address that. For the buildings to literally desintegrate into dust, there would not be nearly enoguh energy to bring teh buildings down that fast (law of conservation of momentum). It would still be literally impossible. If you were to double the amount of time it took for the buildings to hit the ground, it would be far more plausible, but when consdiering other obvious facts of physics, you can rule out the possibility of that type of collapse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    421
    I'm pretty sure the buildings fell down. And I'm pretty sure the laws of physics weren't suspended. So I'm guessing that your knowledge of structural collapse is what's lacking here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    A high quantity of thermite was already found, these results were not publicized. There is literally no question whether or not explosives were used, the answer is yes, obviously. It seems you're the only one who is lacking any knowledge on the subject.

    No steel building has EVER in history fallen due to fire. What about WTC7 that was not hit by a plane, and split in half as it fell... This makes no sense. There have been buildings that have burnt for days, with much hotter flames, no collapse. Jet fuel is an excellerant, makes sense. It would have burnt in 10 min max. How can those points NOT be considered.

    Amount of buildings collapsing into own footing in the last 110 years without explosives = 3, including world trade center #7 which was not hit by a plane, was only on fire...

    Amount of buildings that have fallen the exact same way without explosives: 0

    Amount of buildings fallen the same way with explosives: Thousands

    Amount of buildings to collapse due to fire: 0

    Amount of evidence we have of the Govt. lieing and covering things up: Absolutely endless.

    And all of this is meaningless? This is a science forum, I wouldn't have suspected it had so many people completely ignoring the very basic rules of physics involved in the collapses.

    One more thing... as stated in the video, a steel structure has never collapsed like this before, or at all due to any fire. For it to happen once would be considered a physical anomoly. For it to happen twice, you would need to multiply the imporbability by itself, so three time, with exponential imporobability, and one of those cases without any impact damage to completely collapse into dust near free fall speed all on the same day, would defy everything would know or have experienced in the laws of physics. We have experienced already the governments able maliciousness for hundreds of years. Whatever mind state people are in who do not believe explosives were used must be very powerful

    I guess that goes to show how easily one can be manipulated, against all odds, whether or not that person is well educated in that category.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    421
    I propose that 9/11 conspiracy theory talk get relocated to somewhere other than the Physics forum. In the interest of free speech, I say let them rant in peace somewhere. But do we have to listen to this crackpot bullsh*t here?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by salsaonline
    I propose that 9/11 conspiracy theory talk get relocated to somewhere other than the Physics forum. In the interest of free speech, I say let them rant in peace somewhere. But do we have to listen to this crackpot bullsh*t here?
    Feel free to not enter this thread, or once you find any evidence that leans towards your idea of what happened (good luck) feel free to debate it, or you can keep the flag pulled over your eyes.

    I thought this forum would at least have some people who debate my perspective on this event, which I would fully appreciate, rather than provide nothing of quality to the topic, but instead throw insults and ridicule me for what I believe, based on physics on a science web site. Immature people are everywhere.

    It doesn't seem like you really know anything about the physics involved, so it's questioning as to why you're in the physics section, maybe to learn? Maybe you should read a few posts involving this type of physics and come back with some sort of valid debate, rahter than calling it crackpot bullsh*t for no reason other than your patrionism.

    salsaonline------------What you fail to understand is I never mentioned anything about a conspiracy. You're immediately offended by that and close off any logical thinking altogether. Bombs were used, why or how is the more likely question. You have to understand basic physics first though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    This topic is pseudoscientific. Therefore.... off to Psueudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    This is a much better place for this topic. Most people will take that as this topic being theoretical, sadly. Unless I unluckily got responses from the lower end of this forum. I would be quite pleased to have someone bring up any sort of logical point... You can even call me a worthless peice of conspiracy sh*t if you want, just bring up one valid thing that helps prove me wrong other than "You can't be right".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    I don't know anything about the subject. I have seen a couple videos on the subject, but honestly, I'm not that interested.

    If you are interested, it is up to you to prove it to those who disbelieve, not the other way around.

    I would recommend watching videos that oppose what you already believe, with an honest and courageous mind to seek the truth, without the anti-flag covering your eyes. Learn the physics yourself, gather the precise facts, so people can't ridicule you for generalizing and exaggerating.

    If this is what you want to do with your time, do it. Don't say "Do the research and prove my theory wrong" that is a good way to have your theory ignored and thrown to the side, as has been done here. People quite simply, don't want to invest their time in your theory, unless you present something interesting.

    So far you present nothing new and in no way present a debate to bring opposing views into question. IE, you seem to want no discussion on the subject, just for people to disagree or to agree. If you want a discussion, bring something interesting to the table.

    The video you have as a link is a response to a video that quite simply shows cleanup crews cutting steal girders at an angle, AFTER the collapse, DURING cleanup. These videos have no time stamp or noticeable landmarks so they could be of any building, anywhere at any time. Nonetheless, it is a good point, something that should be looked into. Why would a government conspiracy be so easy to spot?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    I don't know anything about the subject. I have seen a couple videos on the subject, but honestly, I'm not that interested.

    If you are interested, it is up to you to prove it to those who disbelieve, not the other way around.
    Thank you for that, honestly. But I was not looking for a rebuttle. I've watched videos explainign how it was a collapse, many of them include scientific information that doesn't exist, or they claim things that were not true, like how aluminum adheres to paper, this is absolutely false, and it was put into teh 10,000 page report of what happened that day, as a scientific fact that is easily proven otherwise...

    My point wasn't to have peopel convince me otherwise, the reason I wanted people to aknowledge actual facts or evidence is because all I've gotten so far is insults, and a complete lack of anything valuable. My main question is why bother writing anything, or why bother having an opinion on the subject if you refuse to know anything about it.


    Nonetheless, it is a good point, something that should be looked into. Why would a government conspiracy be so easy to spot?
    Well, clearly it isn't, and once again I said nothing about a conspiracy. And to correct you, this is certainly new information when speaking to people who know nothing about it. Maybe you have looked into it or researched to some degree. I put forward a video riddled with new infrmation.

    I'm not asking for people to research and reply, I'm asking for peple who already have an opinion to reply. I'm also asking people who don't know anything to research before insulting... Common respect is what I'm asking for.

    People can include themselves in a conversation, It's not my duty to leur people into it or keep their attention or MAKE them interested. That's how discussion works. If you're interested, you can talk about it... Right?

    I think there is a lot of hostility about this subject. As soon as you know someone believes the conspiracy, people seem to nit pick and ridicule thigns that don't even exist, like my lack of bringing thigns forward, even when the only reply given is absolutely negative and completely aside from the point. Aparently I'm to blame for others lack of common sense or respect?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    You're the one with a claim.

    Lay out your premises and support the conclusions with evidence. Otherwise, this is a topic that's been done to death on the internet and not a single thing has ever come from the conspiracy nutters that go on and on about it.

    Thousands of people died and a few insignificant conspiracy nuts want to say it all didn't happen or that the government was responsible. Complete and utter poppycock.

    Either lay out your premises and conclusions with supporting evidence or take a hike.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    You're the one with a claim.

    Lay out your premises and support the conclusions with evidence. Otherwise, this is a topic that's been done to death on the internet and not a single thing has ever come from the conspiracy nutters that go on and on about it.

    Thousands of people died and a few insignificant conspiracy nuts want to say it all didn't happen or that the government was responsible. Complete and utter poppycock.

    Either lay out your premises and conclusions with supporting evidence or take a hike.
    I did that within the first post. All I've gotten was responses like yours. Don't blame me for your ignorance. It's hard to continue to bring up facts when the only thing contributed by anyone else is an attempt at being insulting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    In your OP you made a confidence statement about the nature of gravity and the destruction of the building. You laid out no premises or conclusions with supported evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: 9/11 science 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Clearly anybody who is much interested in physics will know the buildings could not come down that fast (full free fall force of gravitational pull) while having any remaining gravitational energy to cause damage to the buildings.
    Yet you fail to explain why. We're supposed to either rewrite the laws of physics to fit your own ignorance of physics? We're just supposed to take your word for it?

    An alternate source must have been used, physics did not change for a few hours.
    Again, you're expecting us to believe that you have a command over the laws of physics such that you know what happened, yet you don't elucidate. You're basically making a logical fallacy here which is argumentum ignorantum. You don't know, so, therefore, it can't be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    In your OP you made a confidence statement about the nature of gravity and the destruction of the building. You laid out no premises or conclusions with supported evidence.
    Well it's a pretty basic thing to consider. If nearly the entire force of gravity was used as the buildings fell, the rate of fall would be near freefall speed, as we have seen in the videos. There was a considerable amount of destruction of those buildings, that would suggest there was still enoguh gravitational force to cause that destruction... How could this be possible if all gravities energy was being used to bring the buildings down. For this scale of damage, you'd expect the collapase to reflect how much energy is being used to cause damage to it. If the damage is this great, you'd expect the velocity of collapse to reflect the force needed to turn brick into dust.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: 9/11 science 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    You said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Clearly anybody who is much interested in physics will know the buildings could not come down that fast (full free fall force of gravitational pull) while having any remaining gravitational energy to cause damage to the buildings.
    Yet you fail to explain why. We're supposed to either rewrite the laws of physics to fit your own ignorance of physics? We're just supposed to take your word for it?

    An alternate source must have been used, physics did not change for a few hours.
    Again, you're expecting us to believe that you have a command over the laws of physics such that you know what happened, yet you don't elucidate. You're basically making a logical fallacy here which is argumentum ignorantum. You don't know, so, therefore, it can't be.
    Once again, I will try to alter my debuttle. If I were to take someones arm and pull him towards me, with no resistance, I could pull him towards me and the variable would be the amount that person weighed. I could pull him as fast as my muscled allowed to pull an object that weights that amount. If that person was to cause resistence in my pull (the destruction of the building, the amount of force that is used while the building is fallling on top of itself, and the amount of force used to destroy the buildings), my muscle force would therefor be reduced. This is an example of force, it does not vary. When you're dealing with gravity, you would except, without a doubt, that the force of gravity could not all go towards the RATE OF FALL, and the rate of fall would be dramatically decreased.

    We see no evidence of any resistence while they fell, as they fell at near free fall speed. This is brought up so much it's become cleche, but that's only because it is the most easy to understand and fundamental part of my debate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    [color=green]A high quantity of thermite was already found, these results were not publicized.
    And yet you know of it... right. Moreover, I'd be surprised if there weren't aluminum and iron oxide present in a building made of iron girders impacted by an aluminum and magnesium aircraft.

    No steel building has EVER in history fallen due to fire.
    None have had the quantity of jet fuel suddenly applied, raising the temperatures to 1000-1800 degrees F before that I'm aware of. This point is dismissed.

    There have been buildings that have burnt for days, with much hotter flames, no collapse.
    Which ones?

    Jet fuel is an excellerant, makes sense. It would have burnt in 10 min max. How can those points NOT be considered.
    I'm thinking you actually mean accelerant. The jet fuel was consumed and the collapse was sooner than 10 minutes due to the failure of structural integrity. What points need to be considered?

    Amount of buildings that have fallen the exact same way without explosives: 0

    Amount of buildings fallen the same way with explosives: Thousands
    Completely and utterly wrong. The WTC buildings collapsed in a pancake fashion with upper levels successively falling on subsequent lower ones. Controlled demolitions collapses always collapse all levels simultaneously in order to ensure the building falls on as small a footprint as possible.

    Amount of evidence we have of the Govt. lieing and covering things up: Absolutely endless.
    Again, completely and utterly wrong. This isn't fact, rather a fallacy. An ad hominem and a lie to be sure. While there have been government cover-ups in the past, there are far, far more examples of the government disseminating truthful information. Your fallacy here, however, is an indication of how you think about science: in soundbites and rhetoric.

    And all of this is meaningless? This is a science forum, I wouldn't have suspected it had so many people completely ignoring the very basic rules of physics involved in the collapses.
    What we ignore (and often ridicule) are anti-science trolls and conspiracy nuts that like to come to a science forum to duke it out. You might consider actually sticking with the conspiracy nut forums.

    One more thing... as stated in the video, a steel structure has never collapsed like this before, or at all due to any fire. For it to happen once would be considered a physical anomoly.
    Yet another logical fallacy -argumentum ignorantum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    A high quantity of thermite was already found, these results were not publicized.
    And yet you know of it... right. Moreover, I'd be surprised if there weren't aluminum and iron oxide present in a building made of iron girders impacted by an aluminum and magnesium aircraft.

    No steel building has EVER in history fallen due to fire.
    None have had the quantity of jet fuel suddenly applied, raising the temperatures to 1000-1800 degrees F before that I'm aware of. This point is dismissed.

    There have been buildings that have burnt for days, with much hotter flames, no collapse.
    Which ones?

    Jet fuel is an excellerant, makes sense. It would have burnt in 10 min max. How can those points NOT be considered.
    I'm thinking you actually mean accelerant. The jet fuel was consumed and the collapse was sooner than 10 minutes due to the failure of structural integrity. What points need to be considered?

    Amount of buildings that have fallen the exact same way without explosives: 0

    Amount of buildings fallen the same way with explosives: Thousands
    Completely and utterly wrong. The WTC buildings collapsed in a pancake fashion with upper levels successively falling on subsequent lower ones. Controlled demolitions collapses always collapse all levels simultaneously in order to ensure the building falls on as small a footprint as possible.

    Amount of evidence we have of the Govt. lieing and covering things up: Absolutely endless.
    Again, completely and utterly wrong. This isn't fact, rather a fallacy. An ad hominem and a lie to be sure. While there have been government cover-ups in the past, there are far, far more examples of the government disseminating truthful information. Your fallacy here, however, is an indication of how you think about science: in soundbites and rhetoric.

    And all of this is meaningless? This is a science forum, I wouldn't have suspected it had so many people completely ignoring the very basic rules of physics involved in the collapses.
    What we ignore (and often ridicule) are anti-science trolls and conspiracy nuts that like to come to a science forum to duke it out. You might consider actually sticking with the conspiracy nut forums.

    One more thing... as stated in the video, a steel structure has never collapsed like this before, or at all due to any fire. For it to happen once would be considered a physical anomoly.
    Yet another logical fallacy -argumentum ignorantum.
    How is there a fallacy? I was accused of not backing up my statements, why should this only work one way? Because I'm the conspiracist? Emotional opinions should not be used when discussing logical things. Thermite causes microscopic balls of steel only found when thermite is used. Watch the video if you'd like. If you have a good debate on that aspect I'd love to hear it, honestly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Well it's a pretty basic thing to consider. If nearly the entire force of gravity was used as the buildings fell, the rate of fall would be near freefall speed, as we have seen in the videos. There was a considerable amount of destruction of those buildings, that would suggest there was still enoguh gravitational force to cause that destruction... How could this be possible if all gravities energy was being used to bring the buildings down. For this scale of damage, you'd expect the collapase to reflect how much energy is being used to cause damage to it. If the damage is this great, you'd expect the velocity of collapse to reflect the force needed to turn brick into dust.
    You're assumption then, is that the only gravity could destroy the building to the ground, the fall wasn't fast enough, therefore gravity didn't do it? If so, then you're making an assumption that the weight and loss of structural integrity wasn't sufficient. Please show us the math of your claim so we can quantify what you're attempting very badly to say because you're not making sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21 Re: 9/11 science 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Once again, I will try to alter my debuttle.
    Debuttle doesn't mean anything. Post ignored.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    How is there a fallacy? I was accused of not backing up my statements, why should this only work one way? Because I'm the conspiracist? Emotional opinions should not be used when discussing logical things. Thermite causes microscopic balls of steel only found when thermite is used. Watch the video if you'd like. If you have a good debate on that aspect I'd love to hear it, honestly.
    I explained each of the fallacies. Either you get it or you don't. Clearly you don't.

    Please cite a reference that shows how only thermite causes microscopic balls of steel.

    A "good debate" doesn't appear possible for someone so willing to argue about something he clearly has little to no education on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Well it's a pretty basic thing to consider. If nearly the entire force of gravity was used as the buildings fell, the rate of fall would be near freefall speed, as we have seen in the videos. There was a considerable amount of destruction of those buildings, that would suggest there was still enoguh gravitational force to cause that destruction... How could this be possible if all gravities energy was being used to bring the buildings down. For this scale of damage, you'd expect the collapase to reflect how much energy is being used to cause damage to it. If the damage is this great, you'd expect the velocity of collapse to reflect the force needed to turn brick into dust.
    You're assumption then, is that the only gravity could destroy the building to the ground, the fall wasn't fast enough, therefore gravity didn't do it? If so, then you're making an assumption that the weight and loss of structural integrity wasn't sufficient. Please show us the math of your claim so we can quantify what you're attempting very badly to say because you're not making sense.
    Nonono that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that if there was enoguh resistence to collapse the building, it would be refected with how fast the building fell. Falling faster than the speed of free fall would DEFY gravity, about as much as the building falling at free fall speed with GREAT RESISTENCE. If you require a mathamatical equation for this, you might as well not discuss the topic any further. I assume you just didn't understand exactly what I'm saying. But it's very basic, and not wrong. Every action has an equal but opposite raction, does that require an equation to help you understand? It's as basic as "An object in motion will stay in motion" this is self explanatory, no equation required.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Nonono that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that if there was enoguh resistence to collapse the building, it would be refected with how fast the building fell. Falling faster than the speed of free fall would DEFY gravity, about as much as the building falling at free fall speed with GREAT RESISTENCE. If you require a mathamatical equation for this, you might as well not discuss the topic any further. I assume you just didn't understand exactly what I'm saying. But it's very basic, and not wrong. Every action has an equal but opposite raction, does that require an equation to help you understand? It's as basic as "An object in motion will stay in motion" this is self explanatory, no equation required.
    Then quantify this in mathematical terms so we can see what you're really saying. You're implying that you understand physics, but not showing us.

    Cite the thermite balls claim.

    Get some real data.

    And stop posting in that hard-to-read green. Not everyone has a crappy PC. Some of us use Operating systems that render that silly green color in an eye-straining shade. The default color will suffice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Nonono that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that if there was enoguh resistence to collapse the building, it would be refected with how fast the building fell. Falling faster than the speed of free fall would DEFY gravity, about as much as the building falling at free fall speed with GREAT RESISTENCE. If you require a mathamatical equation for this, you might as well not discuss the topic any further. I assume you just didn't understand exactly what I'm saying. But it's very basic, and not wrong. Every action has an equal but opposite raction, does that require an equation to help you understand? It's as basic as "An object in motion will stay in motion" this is self explanatory, no equation required.
    Then quantify this in mathematical terms so we can see what you're really saying. You're implying that you understand physics, but not showing us.

    Cite the thermite balls claim.

    Get some real data.

    And stop posting in that hard-to-read green. Not everyone has a crappy PC. Some of us use Operating systems that render that silly green color in an eye-straining shade. The default color will suffice.
    Why are you so offended right now. If we were using the same aspect of physics in another topic I highly doubt you'd be so irritable. That's the problem with this topic, people don't like to admit the possibility of their country doing something like this. The thermite evidence is in the video.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    BTW, I do not know the exact mathamatics to what I am saying. You'd have to be a physisist to talk about that mathamatical equation, and if what I say is not worth anything because I'm not a physisist then this entire forum is bogus. The law of conservation of momentum is pretty well estabolished. To claim something can fall at (or near) free fall speed while very strong resisting forces are an active variable is absurd, and directly contradicting this already estabolished scientific fact of motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    So far you've failed to wrap your head around this nearly self explanatory aspect of gravity and resistence to gravity. This removes a lot of credibility from what you're saying, but even beyond that, you've made fun of my green font and my crappy computer, once again resorting to insults. This always signifies a struggle to keep up in a debate. Please try and act pleasantly. If you say something significant, it will be duely noted. I am open to criticism, unless it is not productive criticism.
    This is not a 'flame'-section.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Why are you so offended right now. If we were using the same aspect of physics in another topic I highly doubt you'd be so irritable. That's the problem with this topic, people don't like to admit the possibility of their country doing something like this. The thermite evidence is in the video.
    Honestly, the most annoying thing about your posts, aside from it seems to exploit a very real tragedy for the sake of a silly conspiracy theory (I lost a friend in one of the buildings, so the issue hits home for me), is your insistance to use an off-color rather than the very easy to read default color scheme.

    We worked very hard to develop a color scheme at this forum that would be easy on the eyes and your choice of fonts makes it annoying, particularly in large paragraphs. I'm not sure if you just want to be cool, or just different (I'm assuming the latter since it fits with the psychology of conspiracy theorists), but you'll likely get more interest in your posts here if you just stick with the default colors, using the other choices for occasional emphasis or headings and the like.

    I'm at work and don't do a lot of youtube. Moreover, "the evidence is in the video" response doesn't cut it. Either you're able to summarize and cite a proper citation or you aren't. If not, then it isn't evidence at all. By the way, thermite isn't the only method by which little iron balls (both micro and macro-scopic) are formed. This is a function of heat, which was applied to the building not only from the impact but through the energy released in the cascading collapse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    [color=green]So far you've failed to wrap your head around this nearly self explanatory aspect of gravity and resistence to gravity.
    So far, you've failed to elucidate what it is you are claiming.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    The law of conservation of momentum is pretty well estabolished. To claim something can fall at (or near) free fall speed while very strong resisting forces are an active variable is absurd, and directly contradicting this already estabolished scientific fact of motion.
    Where is the claim that the WTC buildings fell "at (or near) free fall speed?"

    The very clearly fell much slower as the initially collapsed level fell on the level below and so on.
    Where is the claim? Have you been living under a rock? lol, jk. They calculated the amount of time it took to hit the ground. They already know how tall the buildings are. Time+Distance=Speed. There's a mathamatical equation I'm good for. I believe you already knew this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    The law of conservation of momentum is pretty well estabolished. To claim something can fall at (or near) free fall speed while very strong resisting forces are an active variable is absurd, and directly contradicting this already estabolished scientific fact of motion.
    Where is the claim that the WTC buildings fell "at (or near) free fall speed?"

    The very clearly fell much slower as the initially collapsed level fell on the level below and so on.
    [color=green]Where is the claim? Have you been living under a rock? lol, jk. They calculated the amount of time it took to hit the ground. They already know how tall the buildings are. Time+Distance=Speed. There's a mathamatical equation I'm good for. I believe you already knew this.[/]
    I don't know if you can tell or not, but I'm trying to get you to elucidate your claim. You're getting there. Now, it seems you're stating that the building(s) fell at/near free-fall and this is not possible. Am I right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    I'm sorry about your friend. Honestly I am. But to say I'm exploiting a tradgety involving the deaths of many people is very, very insulting. Your bias towards what happened doesn't do much justice to those who died, and certainly isn't a reason to ignore any evidence of the conspiracy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    The law of conservation of momentum is pretty well estabolished. To claim something can fall at (or near) free fall speed while very strong resisting forces are an active variable is absurd, and directly contradicting this already estabolished scientific fact of motion.
    Where is the claim that the WTC buildings fell "at (or near) free fall speed?"

    The very clearly fell much slower as the initially collapsed level fell on the level below and so on.
    [color=green]Where is the claim? Have you been living under a rock? lol, jk. They calculated the amount of time it took to hit the ground. They already know how tall the buildings are. Time+Distance=Speed. There's a mathamatical equation I'm good for. I believe you already knew this.[/]
    I don't know if you can tell or not, but I'm trying to get you to elucidate your claim. You're getting there. Now, it seems you're stating that the building(s) fell at/near free-fall and this is not possible. Am I right?
    Yes you are right. There was resistence, as shown by the destruction, which would have slowed down the collapse. And it's not me who's finally "elucidating" my claims, it's you who is finally starting to udnerstand them. If you read back, I've been pretty much restating myself over and over and over since the topic began.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    So far you've failed to wrap your head around this nearly self explanatory aspect of gravity and resistence to gravity. This removes a lot of credibility from what you're saying, but even beyond that, you've made fun of my green font and my crappy computer, once again resorting to insults. This always signifies a struggle to keep up in a debate. Please try and act pleasantly. If you say something significant, it will be duely noted. I am open to criticism, unless it is not productive criticism.
    This is not a 'flame'-section.
    If all you care about is the appearance of "winning" a debate, it's very easy to lure the other debater into losing his/her patience. It doesn't mean that you're right and they're wrong.

    Sometimes someone will say something that is so fundamentally stupid, that I don't even know where to begin in forming a rebuttal. It's one of those situations where you realize that no simple reply will be sufficient--you'd have to give the equivalent of an entire course on the given subject.

    The temptation in those cases is to simply tell the person that he or she is an idiot, and hope that if enough people say this over a long enough time, the person will eventually get the point and begin to fill in the gaps in their knowledge on their own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    It's easy physics. It doesn't require a whole lot of discussion to know that when something is falling, and something else gets in the falling objects way, it slows down. I just don't think you have much knowledge on the subject to be able to make a rebuttle, so you use insults, as I usually experience when posting in youtube videos, not scientific web sites.

    So I'd like to know why you think resistence would not alter the rate of a falling object...

    EDIT: Oh and also, using the cop out "3000 people died" is nearly the most common thing I hear. I don't know why this is, considering it is compeltely off topic and far apart when taking into consideration ANY scientific data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    The law of conservation of momentum is pretty well estabolished. To claim something can fall at (or near) free fall speed while very strong resisting forces are an active variable is absurd, and directly contradicting this already estabolished scientific fact of motion.
    Where is the claim that the WTC buildings fell "at (or near) free fall speed?"

    The very clearly fell much slower as the initially collapsed level fell on the level below and so on.
    [color=green]Where is the claim? Have you been living under a rock? lol, jk. They calculated the amount of time it took to hit the ground. They already know how tall the buildings are. Time+Distance=Speed. There's a mathamatical equation I'm good for. I believe you already knew this.[/]
    I don't know if you can tell or not, but I'm trying to get you to elucidate your claim. You're getting there. Now, it seems you're stating that the building(s) fell at/near free-fall and this is not possible. Am I right?
    Yes you are right. There was resistence, as shown by the destruction, which would have slowed down the collapse. And it's not me who's finally "elucidating" my claims, it's you who is finally starting to udnerstand them. If you read back, I've been pretty much restating myself over and over and over since the topic began.
    And yet they collapsed. Pancake style from the point of impact of the airplanes. One level on top of the other. Just as would be expected if the iron girders were subjected to enough heat (1000-1800 degrees F) to disrupt their structural integrity. You can plainly see the upper levels above the planes collapse onto the levels of the impact and then one level after the other following it.

    To suggest that a conspiracy exists where the government planeted explosives then tricked a bunch of Saudi terrorists to hijack planes full of passengers to fly them into the buildings and detonate explosives arranged in a manner that would be 1) unnecessary since a plane full of fuel was about to impact; and 2) be inconsistent with any building implosion/detonation ever done is crazy. Looney. Undereducated.

    Sorry, but that's the way I see it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    That's not the way the U.S. government sees it anymore... This you should at least somewhat interesting. They retracted the pancake theory, because conspiracy theorists said it was impossible, conspiracy theorists who have physisist degrees...

    I am at work also so I don't have the documentation to prove it, but like I said, they already admitted this is impossible to happen, and offered a new (less easily unprovable) theory themselves, when they figured out how many people were weary of the absurd "official" theory of collapse. Many people do not know this, because like WTC#7, it was not heavily publicized, contrary to the rediculas claims they originally made about the collapse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    For the record, you said I was uneducated. YOU don't even know the official story. Like I said, just for the record. No offense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Stop refering to 'they' said this and 'they' proved that. Give proper citations to support your contentions.

    Secondly, if you would like some serious debate from this member please retract your statement made early on that 'all I have had is insults', since my first post to you was not insulting and I dislike inaccurate statements of that type being left hanging in a thread.

    Thirdly, if you can't give us some maths for these claims they are going to be missed. Physics isn't about warm and fuzzy sound bites, its about hard mathematics. (Physicist friends are fond of telling me there is more maths in physics than there is in maths.)

    Fourthly, after going to repeated efforts to point out you had said absolutely nothing about a conspiracry - thereby implying with great vigour that you were not claiming a conspiracy you do an about face and state 'and certainly isn't a reason to ignore any evidence of the conspiracy.'

    String these four items together and your claims and yourself look pretty flaky. It's up to you to change that. Not me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Stop refering to 'they' said this and 'they' proved that. Give proper citations to support your contentions.
    Once again I am at work. Sorry for me not being able to provide those immediately. I will get to it. And don't make demands please, maybe read back on a few things we've spoken about before being presumptuous.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Stop refering to 'they' said this and 'they' proved that. Give proper citations to support your contentions.

    Secondly, if you would like some serious debate from this member please retract your statement made early on that 'all I have had is insults', since my first post to you was not insulting and I dislike inaccurate statements of that type being left hanging in a thread.

    Thirdly, if you can't give us some maths for these claims they are going to be missed. Physics isn't about warm and fuzzy sound bites, its about hard mathematics. (Physicist friends are fond of telling me there is more maths in physics than there is in maths.)

    Fourthly, after going to repeated efforts to point out you had said absolutely nothing about a conspiracry - thereby implying with great vigour that you were not claiming a conspiracy you do an about face and state 'and certainly isn't a reason to ignore any evidence of the conspiracy.'

    String these four items together and your claims and yourself look pretty flaky. It's up to you to change that. Not me.
    Prior to that comment, I ahd not mentioned anything about a conspiracy, that was only assumed. That was the point, I was not saying that I will never in the future make a comment about the conspiracy. Stop nit picking please. What I meant when I have had nothing but insults, is that there was very little of anything of any value, mostly insults. I appologize about the innacuracy of that but lets try and stay on topic.

    And once again, as I previously mentioned, I do not udnerstand the math enoguh to talk about it, you would have to be a physisist, and if you can't debate an event without being a physisist or posting the exact mathamatical calculations this forum is worthless.

    The same expectation would NOT BE HELD if this topic didn't have so mcuh emotional value. You are being unrealistic, by a very very long stretch.

    If I were to kick a ball it would move. That does not require an equation, we know this. So please stop demanding one in this event, as the math would be rediculasly complex, and me not knowing the math does not take away much from the validity of what I'm saying.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I am perfectly happy to wait, but if you had bothered to investigate how science forums operate you would know that references to support unusual, or unfamiliar claims are expected. In many forums failure to produce such material would result in the thread being locked and the offender suspended. Repeat offences would lead to a ban. You may get away with for a time in pseudoscience on this forum, but you'll certainly win few if any converts if you don't produce solid evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by ViperX
    This makes it very hard to comprehend social interaction, like people hinting at something, or being vague is impossible... I take things for how they're said and few people say what they mean.
    As I said in my opening post I say what I mean and I mean to demand that you stop saying 'they'. Such vague, meaningless, cliched verbiage has zero place in a technical discussion, but is completely at home in unsubstantiated, waffly gossip. Which did you wish to engage in?

    What is it you think I have presumed? Be specific. It may be revealing. For the record I have presumed only that there is a reality and in that reality the event called 911 happened. Did you think I had presumed something beyond this? Share it with us, or concede that you are the one making the presumptions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    What I meant by that is to include yourself in the current conversation without reading posts prior. There are not many examples of this, one being that you assumed I was not intending to validate my claims. I said this to avoid going back to the beginning of the conversation with someone new to it. Thanks for the banning warning, I am aware how debates work, and FYI, it doesn't only apply to scientific websites. but again, what you're currently debating has nothing to do with the current topic.
    -----All I'm asking is for you to be fair, and reasonable with your expectations towards me, which any logical thinking person should be able to do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    What I meant by that is to include yourself in the current conversation without reading posts prior.
    I have read all the prior posts. More than that I have studied all the prior posts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Thank you. I will be back later or tomorrow to give resources.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Tell you what, let's start over:

    You have an alternative hypothesis for the events on 9/11 that differ from the reality, which is that Islamic terrorists hijacked three airliners, two of which were flown into the WTC buildings in NY.

    The airliners are seen on graphic video, flying into the buildings, their fuel igniting and the buildings are seen to subsequently collapse, beginning with the floors above the impact sites, continuing in a cascading collapse (pancake style) with the rest of the building.

    Your contention thus far appears to be that the collapse took place "at or near" free-fall speed and there should have been resistance.

    So far, this is merely an argument from ignorance (argumentum ignorantum) and it presupposes that, because you don't know why, therefore it isn't true. Yet we see it occur. Moreover, there is no attempt to mathematically quantify the claim. Taking into account mass, velocity, distance, and time, you should be able to calculate your claim and present it scientifically.

    I see no reason to think that the resistance isn't there. I see no good reason why it should slow the collapse significantly enough to be perceptible. The mass of the overlying structure from the impact site was great. The velocity of its collapse and the weakened structure below the impact site contributed to further collapse, add in additional mass for the next level, additional mass for the next level, and so on. The mass continues to increase on the way down.

    For you to continue the claim, you'll need to quantify it. What's the mass at each level? What's the velocity of the collapse of the levels above the impact site? What's the resistance of the levels below?

    Without this, you have no claim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Like I said, the possibility of a pancake collapse is so clearly not plausible they (the official fairy-tale story makers) have retracted that theory of collapse.

    And once again, if there is resistence during a collapse, how could it fall at the speed of a falling object that is not affected by ANY resistence. PLEASE PLEASE tell me how this is possible. An extremely strong downward wind??? Do you understand what I'm getting at? I want to know your thought process on the subject. This, once again, does not require a mathamatical equation. When there is resistence in fall, falling objects slow down. And once again, if you do not understand this, you should not be having this debate.

    And to claim everything I say is wrong simply because I do not know the extremely complex math involved in this simple example means I'm wrong, is also illogical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Like I said, the possibility of a pancake collapse is so clearly not plausible they (the official fairy-tale story makers) have retracted that theory of collapse.
    Who's "they?" I'm going by the video played endlessly on 24 hour news of the collapse. Very clearly one level collapsed into another on the way down, not all at once in the manner a controlled detonation would.

    And once again, if there is resistence during a collapse, how could it fall at the speed of a falling object that is not affected by ANY resistence. PLEASE PLEASE tell me how this is possible. I want to know your thought process on the subject. This, once again, does not require a mathamatical equation. When there is resistence in fall, falling objects slow down. And once again, if you do not understand this, you should not be having this debate.
    It does require the math. The resistance is there, but it isn't significant to slow the collapse.

    And to claim everything I say is wrong simply because I do not know the extremely complex math involved in this simple example means I'm wrong, is also illogical.
    I'm not saying you're wrong (I believe you probably are), I'm saying you haven't a claim unless you're willing to do the math. A claim like this must necessarily be accompanied by the math required to show it to be the case.[/quote]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    I mean really, the simplicity of a falling object and the affect of resistence is so simple to comprehend, you're either just trying to push my buttons or you really have such little knowledge on the subject you shouldn't be touching anywhere near it.

    And once again. I could claim that a soccer ball would move if I kicked it. Do I need an extremely complex mathamatical equation to validate that claim? So the expectation you're putting forward onto me is unrealistic, and I doubt would be asked for, had this topic been about soemthing that had nothing to do with terrorism.

    Especially something as simkple as a falling object. If you were standing between a ball and the ground, the ball being 10 ft. above you, and the ball was dropped, what would happen?

    1) The ball would bounce off your head
    2) The ball would pass through you and be unaffected by your presense?

    This does not require mathamatica equations. It's the law of gravity, and the law of conservation of momentum. These are already quite well figured out.

    You're only asking me for the math because you know I don't know it. NOBODY would know the math off hand without having a degree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Oh, and it is very possible they would set up detonators to go on a clock. They're clearly not going to destroy the entire building at once, that would be a little obvious, think in realms of debunking a conspiracy theory... They're not going to make it completely obvious it was a demolition...To the average person.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Especially something as simkple as a falling object. If you were standing between a ball and the ground, the ball being 10 ft. above you, and the ball was dropped, what would happen?

    1) The ball would bounce off your head
    2) The ball would pass through you and be unaffected by your presense?

    This does not require mathamatica equations. It's the law of gravity, and the law of conservation of momentum. These are already quite well figured out.

    You're only asking me for the math because you know I don't know it. NOBODY would know the math off hand without having a degree.
    Then get a degree. Visit your local library. Learn the math and do the math.

    The ball would certainly bounce off my head. But the mass of the ball doesn't nearly equate to that of my head.

    The math would begin something like this: d = vt + gt^2/2

    This says that a body in free-fall with an initial velocity of v falls a distance of d in t time.

    In quadratic terms it looks like this: t =(−v +SQRT(v^2 + 2gd))/g

    That would get you started.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Actually, I have one more reply before I leave work, I understand I've made myself unclear as to EXACTLY what I'm getting at. You're smart, this should make sense...

    It does require the math. The resistance is there, but it isn't significant to slow the collapse.
    Absolutely, you're right. So you dont' believe the amount of resistence is enoguh to affect the rate of fall (due to weakening of teh structure) but when you watch the video, these giant steel frames were bent, concrete turns to dust, a whole lot of destruction due to the falling building. The building was falling due to gravity (durp) and gravities force is used to cause this destruction. Any gravitation force used to cause destruction (based on resistence, nothing will break and turn to dust under no force) this force used to destroy the building is therefor not able to affect the rate of speed.

    The destruction was immense, and if gravity caused this ginormous amount of concrete to turn to dust, and giant steel frames to twist and bend (even the steel that was NOT affected by fire or heat) that energy cannot be applied towards the rate of fall, resistence causing the damage would slow down the collapse.

    So to say the resistence was not great enough to fall down the collapse, it certainly would not be great enough (to the EXACT same extent) to cause damage. When considering the immense scale of the damage, there is only one possible conclusion. Most of Gravities energy would have to be put into the DAMAGE, rather than rate of fall.

    For both the damage AND the rate of fall to be reflective on gravities full force, it would mean only one possible thing...

    Gravity that day was twice as strong (or greater) as it is currently, and before the attack.

    I hope that clears up what I was trying to say. And I realize you may not have been deliberatly trying to piss me off, so I apologize for the comments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Oh, and it is very possible they would set up detonators to go on a clock. They're clearly not going to destroy the entire building at once, that would be a little obvious, think in realms of debunking a conspiracy theory... They're not going to make it completely obvious it was a demolition...To the average person.
    This is the crazy talk of conspiracy nuts. There's no evidence for claims of "detonators" and "they" and it has no business on a science forum even in the pseudoscience section. Please stick to facts, science, data, math and evidence that exists in reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Especially something as simkple as a falling object. If you were standing between a ball and the ground, the ball being 10 ft. above you, and the ball was dropped, what would happen?

    1) The ball would bounce off your head
    2) The ball would pass through you and be unaffected by your presense?

    This does not require mathamatica equations. It's the law of gravity, and the law of conservation of momentum. These are already quite well figured out.

    You're only asking me for the math because you know I don't know it. NOBODY would know the math off hand without having a degree.
    Then get a degree. Visit your local library. Learn the math and do the math.

    The ball would certainly bounce off my head. But the mass of the ball doesn't nearly equate to that of my head.

    The math would begin something like this: d = vt + gt^2/2

    This says that a body in free-fall with an initial velocity of v falls a distance of d in t time.

    In quadratic terms it looks like this: t =(−v +SQRT(v^2 + 2gd))/g

    That would get you started.
    Hahaha. Ok. Thanks you for that. But honestly, do you really expect everyone to know all these equations? I don't remember it being a requirement to join this site. Anyway, I will try to figure all that out, and come back with every aspect of physics I know, using mathamatical equations, to explain my claims. Although I must say the probability of this happening is 1 in..... some number that we don't have a word for yet...

    Please read my above post, it will make clear what I'm talking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Oh, and it is very possible they would set up detonators to go on a clock. They're clearly not going to destroy the entire building at once, that would be a little obvious, think in realms of debunking a conspiracy theory... They're not going to make it completely obvious it was a demolition...To the average person.
    This is the crazy talk of conspiracy nuts. There's no evidence for claims of "detonators" and "they" and it has no business on a science forum even in the pseudoscience section. Please stick to facts, science, data, math and evidence that exists in reality.
    No evidence? First of all I already said I'm at work, and will provide any evidence I have later on. And if by evidence you mean, what, a picture of the detonators? You're starting to sound like the police. Then I'm sorry but nothing will convince you of the truth.

    By they, I'm saying the official story makers, I will come back witht he name later. For the 4th time, I'm at work. But leaving now. Post away.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Actually, I have one more reply before I leave work, I understand I've made myself unclear as to EXACTLY what I'm getting at. You're smart, this should make sense...

    It does require the math. The resistance is there, but it isn't significant to slow the collapse.
    Absolutely, you're right. So you dont' believe the amount of resistence is enoguh to affect the rate of fall (due to weakening of teh structure) but when you watch the video, these giant steel frames were bent, concrete turns to dust, a whole lot of destruction due to the falling building. The building was falling due to gravity (durp) and gravities force is used to cause this destruction. Any gravitation force used to cause destruction (based on resistence, nothing will break and turn to dust under no force) this force used to destroy the building is therefor not able to affect the rate of speed.

    The destruction was immense, and if gravity caused this ginormous amount of concrete to turn to dust, and giant steel frames to twist and bend (even the steel that was NOT affected by fire or heat) that energy cannot be applied towards the rate of fall, resistence causing the damage would slow down the collapse.

    So to say the resistence was not great enough to fall down the collapse, it certainly would not be great enough (to the EXACT same extent) to cause damage. When considering the immense scale of the damage, there is only one possible conclusion. Most of Gravities energy would have to be put into the DAMAGE, rather than rate of fall.

    For both the damage AND the rate of fall to be reflective on gravities full force, it would mean only one possible thing...

    Gravity that day was twice as strong (or greater) as it is currently, and before the attack.

    I hope that clears up what I was trying to say. And I realize you may not have been deliberatly trying to piss me off, so I apologize for the comments.
    Again, to make, sustain and develop your argument, you're going to have to get into the math. In that, you may want to consider the "Honda collision law" which states, basically, that when a body of mass M with velocity w hits a body of mass m at rest the two bodies become a single body of mass (M + m) with velocity v. It can be expressed:

    Mw = (M + m)v.[/i]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    I don't have a lot of time. Just popping on to show this video. News broadcasts the day of 9/11, never to appear on mainstream media ever again. Yippy.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIgoX...eature=related
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Actually, I have one more reply before I leave work, I understand I've made myself unclear as to EXACTLY what I'm getting at. You're smart, this should make sense...

    It does require the math. The resistance is there, but it isn't significant to slow the collapse.
    Absolutely, you're right. So you dont' believe the amount of resistence is enoguh to affect the rate of fall (due to weakening of teh structure) but when you watch the video, these giant steel frames were bent, concrete turns to dust, a whole lot of destruction due to the falling building. The building was falling due to gravity (durp) and gravities force is used to cause this destruction. Any gravitation force used to cause destruction (based on resistence, nothing will break and turn to dust under no force) this force used to destroy the building is therefor not able to affect the rate of speed.

    The destruction was immense, and if gravity caused this ginormous amount of concrete to turn to dust, and giant steel frames to twist and bend (even the steel that was NOT affected by fire or heat) that energy cannot be applied towards the rate of fall, resistence causing the damage would slow down the collapse.

    So to say the resistence was not great enough to fall down the collapse, it certainly would not be great enough (to the EXACT same extent) to cause damage. When considering the immense scale of the damage, there is only one possible conclusion. Most of Gravities energy would have to be put into the DAMAGE, rather than rate of fall.

    For both the damage AND the rate of fall to be reflective on gravities full force, it would mean only one possible thing...

    Gravity that day was twice as strong (or greater) as it is currently, and before the attack.

    I hope that clears up what I was trying to say. And I realize you may not have been deliberatly trying to piss me off, so I apologize for the comments.
    Again, to make, sustain and develop your argument, you're going to have to get into the math. In that, you may want to consider the "Honda collision law" which states, basically, that when a body of mass M with velocity w hits a body of mass m at rest the two bodies become a single body of mass (M + m) with velocity v. It can be expressed:

    Mw = (M + m)v.[/i]
    So you're good at math. Congrats, but what good is that when you can't apply it to something.

    By the way, it really depends on the application...



    As the image suggests, that is not always true.

    And besides, you're missing a part of the equation. When two bodies of mass become a single body of mass, the velocity would decrease immensely, depending on the force required to move the stationary mass. I am NOT going to come up with the mathematical calculations to that. It's self explanatory, and it would require too much effort being put into something that speaks for itself.

    ^^^That's when gravity is entered into the equation, the original body of mass with velocity transfers its energy into the stationary body, but gravity continues the collapse. You get one body of mass with a velocity reflective EXACTLY of the resistance applied when the two bodies became one which is ALWAYS less velocity. There is no arguing that, so please don't ask for an equation unless that's the only language you speak in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    You say you've only received insults, but I'm the one insulted. I didn't insult you in any shape or form, unless you taking constructive criticism towards your poor debate skills. In which case, you said that you've only gotten hostility in the past, meaning that you've done this before, meaning you should know what to expect, and either change your tactics if you hope to convince anyone, or stop looking for blind support.

    I'm not opposing your theory, I asked simple questions.

    You keep saying that thermite is present as though the only reason thermite will be around to destroy a building, but in my post I clearly said that demolition crews use thermite to cut steel beams during cleanup.

    You dismissed this by saying that opposing arguments your aware of(I'm assuming they are mostly in the form of videos on youtube?) are poorly done and don't meet your standards of evidence(kind of like you)... so because arguments have yet to convince you, ALL arguments will now be ignored... if that's the case, rest assured I do not oppose your argument, I am curious what you say to the people who say that thermite is used to cut beams by demolition crews after cleanup, when were the reports made? maybe the demo crews burnt after the reports. Maybe you should find this out because it is a weakness in your argument. If you don't know, then you are going on faith. There is nothing wrong with that, but you should rephrase much of what you are saying if it is faith and not evidence that you derive your opinions from.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Skinwalker and I were just having an actual debate. I've been bringing up logical arguments and my only opposition for the last two frikin pages was the fact I couldn't provide the exact mathematical equations. That's bogus. We've finally gotten to the point we are discussing actual physics. I think that your accusation towards my debate skills comes from an emotional bias. I was not trying to insult you, I'm not sure how I did that, I don't even remember replying to your post. I did take the thermite example from the video I posted, and it may have been a bad example I will admit that. It is typical for someone to use that one mistake, if it was one, as a way to ignore anything ELSE I bring forward. You accuse me of doing that, but if you actually read the posts, you'll notice I'm the one giving the evidence, not much could be said for many others who posted here. So in terms of debate I'm pretty sure I'm doing it properly. Once again I am perfectly capable of taking others opinions into consideration.

    It just seems like some people including yourself have more to argue about due to this topic, but completely unrelated to it, like my skills in debating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Skinwalker and I were just having an actual debate.
    Skinwalker was debating. You were largely making unintelligible gurgling noises.
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I've been bringing up logical arguments and my only opposition for the last two frikin pages was the fact I couldn't provide the exact mathematical equations. That's bogus. We've finally gotten to the point we are discussing actual physics.
    Crap. Unmitigated crap. Actual physics requires the math. Some would say actual physics is the math.
    You make a song and dance about it being unreasonable to be asked for it, since you don't know how to do it. Rather like a person demanding they be allowed to participate in an F1 race even thought they can't drive.
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I think that your accusation towards my debate skills comes from an emotional bias.
    No, it comes from the fact that your debate skills suck.
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I was not trying to insult you, I'm not sure how I did that, I don't even remember replying to your post.
    You did that to marcus just like you did it to me by saying you had received nothing but insults, when both of us - especially marcus - had made pertinent observations. So not only are your debating skills highly questionable, but you seem to have reading comprehension problems. (And this from a self declared intellectual. )

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    ....... you'll notice I'm the one giving the evidence, not much could be said for many others who posted here. .
    you haven't presented any evidence whatsoever. You keep stating an opinion that the buildings could not have collapsed at close to free fall velocity, yet when you are asked to justify that opinion you whine that you are unable to do so because you can't do the math. Then you try to substantiate the opinion by offering a further opinion that it is obvious your view is correct. Not a shred of evidence in sight.

    You also make much of the destruction - conversion to dust and twisted metal - of the collapse. You state - or certainly appear to state - that the energy required to collapse the building at near free fall velocity was unavailable to cause the destruction. If that is what you are saying (and you appear to say it several times) then that is truly dumb. What is happening is simple. Here it is without the math.
    Potential energy ==> kinetic energy ==>thermal energy; bond breaking and particle separation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    It just seems like some people including yourself have more to argue about due to this topic, but completely unrelated to it, like my skills in debating.
    Here is the bottom line. You are pushing a tired conspiracy theory without the either the debating skills or the evidence or the maths to do so with any conviction whatsoever. The only people you will convince are those who should not be allowed to cross the street on their own. Harsh? I hope so. Harsh is what I was aiming for.

    I'm sure you are a nice guy. I feel zero animosity towards you. In fact I find your devotion to this nonsense quite endearing. But your argument sucks and your presentation of it sucks even more. I'm sorely tempted to create a sock puppet to argue your case properly, with actual evidence and reason, not a bunch of you-to- are-a-tube videos.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Why can you not argue politely and maturely. If I cannot debate properly, why make fun of me, why not just propose your opposition? There's only one answer to that, you simply can't or you would have by now.

    I must have really offended you. Instead of actually debating on the subject you ridicule my debating skills. I have not seen this happen in another thread, and it's all due to the subject of this thread. You are the ones who cannot debate this subject. You would never ask me for the actual mathematics of these physics unless you were truly backed into a corner. I could give you 100 examples on this site where people spoke about physics and did nto offer the math equations. That's really sad. You can't defend yourself so you cop out by leaving the actual subject completely uncovered, you just insult me. I hope you don't havea degree in anything, because your money was wasted.

    It really is sad, knowing that some people with at least some sort of intellegence cannot amply defend their theory. You must be so terrified of admitting the truth about 9/11 you just avoid it completely, and attack my charactor. I don't care how smart you think you are, but you're clearly very immature. I am very surprised at the lack of intellegence on this forum, I was expecting so much more. It's pathetic really.

    It is not impossible to discuss physics without offering the math. The results of interaction of bodies of mass is self explanatory. Maybe just for me, but like I said, YOU asking for the math is just you admitting you know nothing about physics or it's you hiding from learning the truth.

    I don't know why smart people allow themselves to be victims of propaganda and manipulation, but you're the reason America is so fucked up. And I can pretty much guarentee you're American. The education system there is very poor.

    When one body of mass with velocity contacts another stationary body of mass it becomes one body of mass with velocity.
    That alone is absolutely incomplete... And it was passed off as an actual rule. How sad is that. The equation was given, but it doesn't even descripbe what happens when the body of mass is falling, it doesn't describe the resistence of the falling object...

    It's so incomplete and vague, yet I'm the one who's wrong, while I'm the one making the correction.

    ...Really really sad. I don't know why it's so hard to just be decent and admit when you're wrong. I guess I damaged your ego. I guess the next step would be to ban me, because I'm smarter than you. Sorry buddy...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    I was not trying to turn this into a giant debate. I simply wanted to talk about it, but you people started making absurd assumptions and said I was posting wrong... I brought up the topic and you guys made it a big debate, and then insulted my debating skills. Like I said this is all due to the subject, which you people can't handle. And once again, how very sad. Good luck with life. You'll need it much more than I do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Like WTC#7. How can you ignore that. The entire half of the building could have been destroyed and the building at most would have toppled over, it would never collapse into itself. We have NEVER seen this before. EVER, even from buildings with much more fire and much more structural damage. And it passed off as totally possible? Are you just plain stupid? Damn, really, screw your heads on right. It's pathetic. Your own country is terrorizing you and you're defending your country, I wish you could understand that, it's just way too far above your level of thinking.


    ^^^In a perfect impact, the moving body will transfer all of it's energy into the motionless body. The result velocity after impact nearly equals the original velocity of mass BEFORE impact, because the original body is STATIONARY due to RESISTRENCE and the transfer of energy. Easy, prove this wrong, you can't, because it's right.

    A body of mass with velocity transfers it's energy to a body of mass that is stationary. Gravity continues the movement, which is restricted by the motionless body of mass. (imperfect collision of motion body will NOT TRANSFER ALL ENERGY like the picture above) THE VELOCITY AFTER IMPACT OF BOTH BODIES OF MASS COMBINED SHOULD THEORETICALLY EQUAL THE VELOCITY OF THE ORIGINAL BODY OF MASS IN MOTION. (Like picture above) Durrrrp. That means it should have taken twice as long to hit the ground, considering how close to freefall speed the buildings collapsed. Not even when illustrated will you understand this, it seems.

    Not sure why you would not understand this without a math equation. Once again, I really hope you didn't pay for your educations.


    If you don't haev the brains to prove me wrong, then don't be a pathetic baby and start calling names and throwing insults. You can't even argue or debate rationally and maturely and then say I can't debate.

    ---Prove me wrong, and I'll admit to being wrong. You won't do this, because you don't know how. It's as simple as that. Enjoy finding proof that says I'm wrong... I think you'll just resort to more insults as usual.---
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker

    Again, to make, sustain and develop your argument, you're going to have to get into the math. In that, you may want to consider the "Honda collision law" which states, basically, that when a body of mass M with velocity w hits a body of mass m at rest the two bodies become a single body of mass (M + m) with velocity v. It can be expressed:

    Mw = (M + m)v.[/i]
    That's exactly the problem. 20 Stories initially started into motion when the fires caused a collapse. (I don't recall which tower that was true of, because I'm pretty sure the planes hit them both at different levels, but please bear with me..)

    The top 20 Stories collapsed into the 90 stories below, minus the 3 or so that had been hit. By the time the debris from floors 91-110, had impacted the materials contained in the floors 71-90, we might expect that the total mass would be traveling at 1/2 the expected speed of free fall. This is compounded by the fact the building used heavier supports in the lower floors than the upper floors.

    By the time the debris from the floors 71-110 had impacted the materials contained in the floors 31-70, we should expect another halving of the expected speed of free fall.

    The chemical energy of deformation involved in destroying the supporting structures is a whole additional matter. (Estimating how much energy, exactly, that required would be quite a headache, and probably isn't possible to do with accuracy beyond a very, very broad ball park estimate)

    Amount of buildings that have fallen the exact same way without explosives: 0

    Amount of buildings fallen the same way with explosives: Thousands
    Completely and utterly wrong. The WTC buildings collapsed in a pancake fashion with upper levels successively falling on subsequent lower ones. Controlled demolitions collapses always collapse all levels simultaneously in order to ensure the building falls on as small a footprint as possible.
    I think you're over constructing the claim into something it isn't. Obviously all controlled demolitions that are conducted by a certified professional at a regulated construction site, and in accordance with the law, where the professional's work is likely to be reviewed by somebody...... these kinds of controlled demolitions always happen a certain way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Oh, and it is very possible they would set up detonators to go on a clock. They're clearly not going to destroy the entire building at once, that would be a little obvious, think in realms of debunking a conspiracy theory... They're not going to make it completely obvious it was a demolition...To the average person.
    This is the crazy talk of conspiracy nuts. There's no evidence for claims of "detonators" and "they" and it has no business on a science forum even in the pseudoscience section. Please stick to facts, science, data, math and evidence that exists in reality.
    It's the claim that anyone would make if they believe that a criminal activity has occurred. It is logically impossible that anyone would ever:

    A)- Believe the building was destroyed illegally by controlled demolition. (Or destroyed by a partial combination of an airplane, and a demolition.)

    and

    B)- Believe the perpetrator(s) would take no precautions whatsoever to conceal their participation.

    There are lots of interesting ways to destroy something, in our day and age, and also quite a few ways to control a collapse so that it hits a minimal amount of the surrounding area, if that's a person's goal. Apparently large amounts of office space were going un-rented in the WTC, which means a person with a skeleton key, or the building owner's permission, would be free to do all kinds of "maintenance", almost in plain sight, without being discovered by anyone.


    And, in looking for a reference on that claim, I found the following Wiki Article very interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silverstein_Properties Apparently Silverstein paid 3.55 Billion to secure the lease in July of 2001 (2 months before the attacks), and received 4.55 Billion in insurance payments afterward. (However the article mentions that he expected something more like 7.1 Billion)

    Here's the part where it talks about the vacancies:


    During the 1990s, New York was suffering from the effects of the 1987 stock market crash, which led to high vacancy rates at the World Trade Center. George Pataki became Governor of New York in 1995 on a campaign of cutting costs, including privatizing the World Trade Center. A sale of the property was considered too complex, so it was decided by the Port Authority to open a 99-year lease to competitive bidding.[13]
    This site is pretty useful if you want to refute the controlled demolition theory, but only so useful. NIST at least addresses the possibility, however, and offers some refutation. I'm going to post a less conspiriatorial thread on the Engineering forum, and see if it becomes an interesting discussion.

    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    that the energy required to collapse the building at near free fall velocity was unavailable to cause the destruction.
    This is not what I was saying, this doesn't even make sense. Try and get it right this time. Gravities energy cannot pass the amount of energy gravity has. Sounds simple, why don't you udnerstand that. When there is destruction of the buildings, that means force was applied to cause that desctruction, because there was no availible path for the top of the building to FALL, it caused resistence, the resistence causes pressure, the pressure causes destruction, in EXACT proportion to the amount of force towards the rate of fall LOST.

    Get it right. Trying to make me look stupid gets you nowhere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    The top 20 Stories collapsed into the 90 stories below, minus the 3 or so that had been hit. By the time the debris from floors 91-110, had impacted the materials contained in the floors 71-90, we might expect that the total mass would be traveling at 1/2 the expected speed of free fall. This is compounded by the fact the building used heavier supports in the lower floors than the upper floors.
    Thank you so much. This is exactly what I've been saying, without the physical complexities. But you won't get far with saying these things without being told you're absolutely incorrect for not providing the math involved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    Why can you not argue politely and maturely..
    Interesting. You made a great play on another thread of how you said what you meant. You stated you were not very good at the subtle hint. You implied - you strongly implied - that you thought it was a good thing to say what you meant.

    In my opening post by I noted that I would do exactly the same thing. I was confident this would not offend you, since you liked direct talking. I did this for two reasons a) I was honouring your position on the matter, paying respect to you, b) I wished to ensure that you would not have any problems with subtlety in my posts, because I had removed the subtlety from them.

    In response you declared you had received nothing but insults. Strange. You seem to say one thing, but mean another. You claim to like direct talking, but you object to it when you are presented with it. Can you explain that?

    Moreover, I have not been impolite in my last post. If you think I have please identify where. You seem to be confusing directness and an objective assessment of what you have said with impoliteness. If you are talking crap do you wish me to pretend you are not? I am not clear how this would be of any long term benefit to you. I can see in the short term it might make you feel nice, but for long term development of skills, knowledge and character it would be useless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    If I cannot debate properly, why make fun of me, .
    I haven't made fun of you. I have given you some pointers as to what you are doing wrong. It shouldn't take too much effort to figure out from that what you need to change to do things right. In short, if you will consider my comments and those of other posters, and act upon them, you can become an effective debator and thereby get the kind of discussion you claim to want to have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    .... why not just propose your opposition? There's only one answer to that, you simply can't or you would have by now.
    There is nothing to oppose. You have not offered anything other than an opinion. It is your opinion that the buildings could not fall at close to free fall velocities. It is your opinion that a simple collapse could not generate the destruction. It is your opinion that steel spheres could only be generated by the action of thermite.

    All we have had from you is opinions. You have offered no evidence other than some you tube material, of questionable value and relevance. Given opinions the only thing I am required to 'propose by way of opposition' is that I find your opinion unconvincing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I must have really offended you. Instead of actually debating on the subject you ridicule my debating skills. ..
    You haven't offended me. I doubt you could.
    I haven't ridiculed your debating skills, it just so happens they are ridiculous. Is it sensible to blame me for the standard of your debating skills?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    You are the ones who cannot debate this subject. You would never ask me for the actual mathematics of these physics unless you were truly backed into a corner. ...
    Oops. I was wrong. And so soon!
    You have offended me. You have offended me by revealing that a fellow human can get things so wrong.

    Let's try this again. You say you don't know much physics and virtually no math. This suggests you don't have much of a science education. Nothing wrong with that. Most people on the planet don't have much of a science education.

    Well I do have something of a science education. I work in an engineering field that requires the application of science. Let me assure you that when things get serious in science and engineering the mathematics comes out.

    There is a related concept that you seem blithely unaware of. When someone proposes something different from the currently accepted consensus opinion it is up to them to make a case for their differing view. It is not up to those who form part of the consensus.

    Now you may think that is unfair. Tough shit Viper. That's the way the world works and if you want to make your way in it you had better get used to it and fast. (Actually I can make a very good case for why it is a very fair way to do things, but that is irrelevant, because that is the way it is. Capice?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I could give you 100 examples on this site where people spoke about physics and did nto offer the math equations. .
    I'm a nice guy. Give me ten. That's ten examples where someone made an extraordinary claim and they weren't asked to provide some maths to justify their claim. So, not one hundred examples, just ten. Tell you what - as a late Easter present, I'll settle for five.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    That's really sad. You can't defend yourself so you cop out by leaving the actual subject completely uncovered,...
    As noted above, all you have done is spout opinions. No evidence. No data. No math. Just opinions. You are the one leaving the subject uncovered.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    You must be so terrified of admitting the truth about 9/11 you just avoid it completely, and attack my charactor.
    I said in my last post that I thought you were probably a nice guy and that I found you endearing. Can you explain in what way that is an attack on your character. I mean, if I had said I loved you, would you have claimed it was an assasination attempt?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    It is not impossible to discuss physics without offering the math. ...
    It is not impossible, but you haven't got the knack to deliver a relevant thought experiment like Einstein and neither do I. So for us mundane 'intellectuals' we'll have to make do with the math.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    YOU asking for the math is just you admitting you know nothing about physics or it's you hiding from learning the truth. ...
    My physics is kind of crap. I can't handle Maxwell's equations. I can just about grasp Lorentz transformations, then my knees give out and if someone says quantum electrodynamics I head for the nearest A & E. My physics is mired in the works of Galileo and Newton and Hooke and Copernicus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I don't know why smart people allow themselves to be victims of propaganda and manipulation, ...
    Yep. We can agree on that wholeheartedly. While we are on the subject can you explain how you were persuaded to believe all this conspiracy nonsense in the first place? Do you feel any sense of shame that you have been gullible enough to fall for the propaganda and slow enough to be manipulated?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    but you're the reason America is so fucked up.
    Damn! And all this time I've been blaming George Bush.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    And I can pretty much guarentee you're American. The education system there is very poor....
    You're quite good at getting things wrong, aren't you? I'm not American.

    The American educational system has many flaws. It also has some of the finest universities on the planet. (And some of the worst.)

    Interesting as these last few points have been they have nothing to do with the ongoing lack of evidence from yourself for your extraordinary claim. Will you come up with anything, or are you going to run away?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    When one body of mass with velocity contacts another stationary body of mass it becomes one body of mass with velocity.
    That alone is absolutely incomplete... .........It's so incomplete and vague, yet I'm the one who's wrong, while I'm the one making the correction..
    SkinWalker offered the equation not as a complete solution, but as something you might want to consider. He was trying to help you towards offering a more evidence based, reasoned and mathematically justified argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    ...Really really sad. I don't know why it's so hard to just be decent and admit when you're wrong. ...
    Mirror, mirror on the wall.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    ...I guess I damaged your ego. ...
    I'm not sure whether that was addressed to me, SkinWalker, or marcus. I shouldn't worry about me. My ego is decidedly to large to be affected (or even effected - never can get that one right) by anything you might say.

    Now, do you want to tell me who the various they's are that you referred to earlier. I am hopeful that someone out there on the conspiracy side of the fence has done the math. Let's see it.

    Your endearlingly,
    John
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    When one cannot defend their opinion they always resort to an attack on charactor. Why is it so hard for you to argue the physics, they have been laid out quite nicely by the new poster on this topic, is there not enough math still for you?

    You spent all that time writing with nothing relevent to the my original post starting this thread. It's pretty clear already that I hurt your ego, otherwise you wouldn't waste the time. How about an actual debate on teh subject, rather than further trying to impact MY ego.


    You're quite good at getting things wrong, aren't you? I'm not American.
    I was hopeing you wouldn't say that. My mistake. I do have a new question, why is it so hard to understand the possibility of the American govt. doing this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    As noted above, all you have done is spout opinions. No evidence. No data. No math. Just opinions. You are the one leaving the subject uncovered.
    Wrong wrong wrong. I have provided plenty of legitamit aspect of physics, minus the math and variable, which are still not completely understood. You have failed to rebuttle ANY of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I do have a new question, why is it so hard to understand the possibility of the American govt. doing this.
    Please find a single paragraph, sentence, phrase, or even word within any of my posts on this or any other thread on this forum, on any topic that implies or explicitly states that I would find it hard to understand that possibility.

    You will not be able to find one because I have not expressed an opinion on that point. What I have made an observation on is the absence of any significant evidence to support such a possibility. In short, I understood that this was a thread about the physics of falling buildings, not the politics of failing governments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I do have a new question, why is it so hard to understand the possibility of the American govt. doing this.
    Please find a single paragraph, sentence, phrase, or even word within any of my posts on this or any other thread on this forum, on any topic that implies or explicitly states that I would find it hard to understand that possibility.

    You will not be able to find one because I have not expressed an opinion on that point. What I have made an observation on is the absence of any significant evidence to support such a possibility. In short, I understood that this was a thread about the physics of falling buildings, not the politics of failing governments.
    It wouldn't appear that way, you're turning it into an observation of how little I know about the math behind physics. I didn't know that was a requirement to join this forum. You're the forum nazi, because it appears I can't express my opinions or talk abiout physics without backing it up mathematically, even if I don't know how. That's not cool, it makes you look like a douche.

    So another question, why do you demand everyone have the same knowledge you have? This is a discussion, not a comparison of education.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    I don't know why this subject is so heated for people. Maybe it's like how a rape victim often doesn't want to admit they've been raped (especially if it was someone close to them, as is often the case).

    In this particular matter, we don't honestly know for sure, or at least I've never met anyone who had found conclusive evidence. Probabalistically, I think that 3 vertical collapses on the same day is an unlikely event. In terms of the conservation of energy problem, I'm still suspending judgement.

    Why do people make non-sequetir attacks like claiming that a conspiracy nut must be disputing the fact the buildings even fell? Or claiming that a conspiracy nut must be doubting that a collapse was even possible without demolition? Why not stick to the actual assertion: That the collapse was too fast.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    .... why not just propose your opposition? There's only one answer to that, you simply can't or you would have by now.
    There is nothing to oppose. You have not offered anything other than an opinion. It is your opinion that the buildings could not fall at close to free fall velocities. It is your opinion that a simple collapse could not generate the destruction. It is your opinion that steel spheres could only be generated by the action of thermite.
    Is it your opinion that the buildings could fall at close to free fall velocities from only the damage caused by the planes, and fire?

    I totally agree with you on the other parts. A simple collapse can cause a lot of destruction, and steel spheres could conceivably be generated by the heat from friction forces.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I must have really offended you. Instead of actually debating on the subject you ridicule my debating skills. ..
    You haven't offended me. I doubt you could.
    I haven't ridiculed your debating skills, it just so happens they are ridiculous. Is it sensible to blame me for the standard of your debating skills?
    It would be nice to offer some refutations if you want to enlighten somebody. Of course he's mostly making arguments from ignorance, but... that's only a problem if you're already biased.

    The defender in a court trial is free to make arguments from ignorance. The prosecutor is not. So, which are you presuming: innocence or guilt?


    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    You are the ones who cannot debate this subject. You would never ask me for the actual mathematics of these physics unless you were truly backed into a corner. ...
    Oops. I was wrong. And so soon!
    You have offended me. You have offended me by revealing that a fellow human can get things so wrong.

    Let's try this again. You say you don't know much physics and virtually no math. This suggests you don't have much of a science education. Nothing wrong with that. Most people on the planet don't have much of a science education.

    Well I do have something of a science education. I work in an engineering field that requires the application of science. Let me assure you that when things get serious in science and engineering the mathematics comes out.
    Yeah, but you don't have to solve the equations in their entirety to make a simple statement, especially when the question relates to the fundamental violation of a known law.

    E (collapse) = Mass * Height * g = (1/2) Mass * (Velocity ^2)

    If any energy has been expended to accomplish tasks other than just acceleration, there should be missing velocity. The question the OP raises is how much energy should it have taken to break the chemical bonds required to deform the structure? Is it a negligible amount compared to the Mass and Velocity? How negligible?



    There is a related concept that you seem blithely unaware of. When someone proposes something different from the currently accepted consensus opinion it is up to them to make a case for their differing view. It is not up to those who form part of the consensus.
    The same concept that motivated the Catholics to coerce a recantation out of Galileo.

    It's the philosophical equivalent of calling truth itself to a popular vote.


    Now you may think that is unfair. Tough shit Viper. That's the way the world works and if you want to make your way in it you had better get used to it and fast. (Actually I can make a very good case for why it is a very fair way to do things, but that is irrelevant, because that is the way it is. Capice?)
    It's probably part of the reason the world works so badly.


    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    You must be so terrified of admitting the truth about 9/11 you just avoid it completely, and attack my charactor.
    I said in my last post that I thought you were probably a nice guy and that I found you endearing. Can you explain in what way that is an attack on your character. I mean, if I had said I loved you, would you have claimed it was an assasination attempt?
    Condescension? That's the worst kind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    When one body of mass with velocity contacts another stationary body of mass it becomes one body of mass with velocity.
    That alone is absolutely incomplete... .........It's so incomplete and vague, yet I'm the one who's wrong, while I'm the one making the correction..
    SkinWalker offered the equation not as a complete solution, but as something you might want to consider. He was trying to help you towards offering a more evidence based, reasoned and mathematically justified argument.
    The effect in your picture, Viper, assumes perfect rigidness of the materials. When the materials are not perfectly rigid, then Skinwalker's equations are more accurate. In the 911 collapse, the materials were surely not perfectly rigid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    I don't know why this subject is so heated for people. Maybe it's like how a rape victim often doesn't want to admit they've been raped (especially if it was someone close to them, as is often the case).
    Maybe I'm taking this the wrong way, but that was the funniest thing I've heard all week... Anyway, as I began this thread, there was an immediate feeling of hostility, and absolutely unanswerable questions being asked, like the math associated with everything that happened, even when the variables have not been figured out. And without a reply answering the unanswerable questions, all my comments were deemed meaningless.

    I do believe this is a result of the topic at hand, although when dealing with John who is aparently, or at least presumably indifferent to the topic, it's also questionable as to why he is resisting so much of what I say. Although once again, if you look at any other topic with his involvement, all you see is him attacking others way of posting and the "evidence" they bring forward, he rarely contribues to anything relevent to the topic of discussion.

    I would much rather continue this discussion untouched by personal, emotional bias. With this topic it seems impossible. I did not recently join this forum to be ridiculed for the amount I nkow about math, I did nto figure people would be so anal.


    Why not stick to the actual assertion: That the collapse was too fast.
    Exactly my point, thank you.

    It would be nice to offer some refutations if you want to enlighten somebody. Of course he's mostly making arguments from ignorance, but... that's only a problem if you're already biased.
    I have a very very basic knowledge of physics, but I try to make sense and I believe I have so far. Any comment from me would be, technically, an ignorant observation because of this. It doesn't mean I don't qualify to take part in conversation.

    The effect in your picture, Viper, assumes perfect rigidness of the materials. When the materials are not perfectly rigid, then Skinwalker's equations are more accurate. In the 911 collapse, the materials were surely not perfectly rigid.
    Correct me if I'm wrong please. From what I understand he was saying when one mass with velocity hits another with no velocity, they become one mass with velocity. It doesn't matter any longer how rigit the structure is, you can still assume with little to no doubt there would still be resistence. The velocity would not come close to the original velocity before impact, resistence would slow down the collapse, am I right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Why not stick to the actual assertion: That the collapse was too fast..
    I did. He stated it as an opinion. I noted that it disagreed with the official, (detailed, scientific) report and asked him to provide evidence for his case. He responded with more opinions.
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Is it your opinion that the buildings could fall at close to free fall velocities from only the damage caused by the planes, and fire?
    .
    No. I am not qualified to have an opinion on the matter. It is my belief that this is what happened based upon the official report.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The defender in a court trial is free to make arguments from ignorance. The prosecutor is not. So, which are you presuming: innocence or guilt? .
    I'm presuming nothing. I'm asking him for the evidence and the maths. Independent of that, each time he comes up with an excuse for not providing these I point out how weak and pointless that is. If he wants more guidance than that he can pay me.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Yeah, but you don't have to solve the equations in their entirety to make a simple statement,.
    Yeah, but you have to know the equation. Viper was parroting.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The same concept that motivated the Catholics to coerce a recantation out of Galileo.
    Political issue. Nothing to do with science.
    (Now for ****'s sake Viper, pay attention. I'll set them up for you, but you have to knock them down. Kojax, be a sport and leave this one for Viper.)

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It's the philosophical equivalent of calling truth itself to a popular vote..
    That's beneath you. You know perfectly well that a popular vote is based upon opinion, a scientific consensus is based upon the application of scientific methodology.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Condescension? That's the worst kind. .
    The worst kind of what?[/quote]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    That detailed scientific report failed to adequately mention why the buildings collapsed so fast, it also failed to mention WTC#7, the offical report was vague and missed nearly all the points I was making. So to prove it wrong based on scientific facts would mean to include facts they left out, not proving anything wrong, just adding more than the report offers.

    10,000 page document, no mention of building #7, another thing that may appear to be a little fishy. It appears they left out anything they could not scientifically suggest, and even then, the math isn't offered. So why isn't that document worthless to you?

    I'm presuming nothing. I'm asking him for the evidence and the maths.
    He is right, you can still get a point across without including the math involved. As he said, it is perfectly acceptible to dispute an incident that appears to contradict an already estabolished rule of physics. You demanding the actual math just proves how little about physics you understand.

    It's also not fair. What if all I have is opinions like you say (clearly wrongfully), am I not entitled to share my opinions? Simple question.


    No. I am not qualified to have an opinion on the matter. It is my belief that this is what happened based upon the official report.
    To believe someones analysis without any involvement of your own makes you dividual by number of society. Everybody is entitled to an opinion, you just rely too heavily on other peoples. especially in this circumstance, if you want to know anything about the conspiracy (or any alternate viewpoint, in any subject), you don't get your information from the people involved with the conspiracy. especially when the report made many false statements.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Why not stick to the actual assertion: That the collapse was too fast..
    I did. He stated it as an opinion. I noted that it disagreed with the official, (detailed, scientific) report and asked him to provide evidence for his case. He responded with more opinions.
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    Nist actually addresses the question of the fast collapse, but personally I find their details a little too ambiguous to just believe them outright. I posted the account itself on the Engineering forum, and I'm hoping someone will be able to fill in some of the gaps for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Is it your opinion that the buildings could fall at close to free fall velocities from only the damage caused by the planes, and fire?
    .
    No. I am not qualified to have an opinion on the matter. It is my belief that this is what happened based upon the official report.
    Please don't talk like that. Science is universal. Provided with the right data, we can all do at least a basic analysis, and arrive at our own conclusions.

    It's sort of like how you can get a better price at the automechanic shop if you ask more questions and show that you at least kind of understand what's going on under your own hood. But you don't have to be a full on professional automechanic to question an automechanic.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The defender in a court trial is free to make arguments from ignorance. The prosecutor is not. So, which are you presuming: innocence or guilt? .
    I'm presuming nothing. I'm asking him for the evidence and the maths. Independent of that, each time he comes up with an excuse for not providing these I point out how weak and pointless that is. If he wants more guidance than that he can pay me.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Yeah, but you don't have to solve the equations in their entirety to make a simple statement,.
    Yeah, but you have to know the equation. Viper was parroting.
    That seems to be the core of the problem. It would be much more satisfying to have a discussion with the person who actually holds Viper's opinion. (The person who gave him his opinion), instead of a second party.

    I don't think Viper arrived at this conclusion on his own, so it's kind of hard to really discuss it.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The same concept that motivated the Catholics to coerce a recantation out of Galileo.
    Political issue. Nothing to do with science.
    It has everything to do with science. I'm one of those people that only believes in direct evidence. "A professional said" is not credible evidence to me. "A professional observed x, applied y process, and concluded z" is a little different, because then I'm able to check their math and reasoning process, and determine for myself whether I believe they arrived at the correct conclusions.


    The Catholics had plenty of professional monks who could refute Galileo on the mere basis that his conclusions were radically different from theirs. If the scientific community wants to shoot down all discussion of the issue on the same basis, then I have no more reason to respect them than the monks.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    It's the philosophical equivalent of calling truth itself to a popular vote..
    That's beneath you. You know perfectly well that a popular vote is based upon opinion, a scientific consensus is based upon the application of scientific methodology.
    If it were more than opinion, there would be no need for consensus.

    I get frustrated when I see too much personal (or group personal) credibility being used as a reason that I should believe something, because I think Ad Hominem arguments are just as bad when they're used constructively, as when they're used destructively.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Condescension? That's the worst kind. .
    The worst kind of what?
    [/quote]

    Worst kind of character assassination. But don't worry. I was kind of being facetious.

    That said: when you really want to discredit someone as a person, the smartest way is to say you really like them personally, but doubt their competency.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    I don't think Viper arrived at this conclusion on his own, so it's kind of hard to really discuss it.
    I did not sit down, measure the time it took for the building to hit the ground, compare it to the law of physics, and conclude that it was impossible, so in those terms, yeah, you're right. You can't really discuss something in terms you are not educated in. This should not be a requirement to have a conversation. Sad that this topic turned into a flame on how one should talk to someone, rather than the actual topic at hand...

    Please don't talk like that. Science is universal. Provided with the right data, we can all do at least a basic analysis, and arrive at our own conclusions.
    This is what I did. I am not taking everything I know from videos, I have my own analysis, so to say I did not come to my own conclusion is wrong. Although most of my "conclusions" have been based on agreeance with the initial thought pervoked by other sources, but not all of them. Just an FYI.

    Nist actually addresses the question of the fast collapse, but personally I find their details a little too ambiguous to just believe them outright. I posted the account itself on the Engineering forum, and I'm hoping someone will be able to fill in some of the gaps for me.
    They did, but not adequately. It's hard to believe their perspective on what happened, and doesn't necessarily follow rules of physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    I still question why this conversation has to do with debating skills... John if you want to prove my debating skills worthless, you have to at least take part in the debate. You have not done this anywhere in the thread. You simply ridiculed me for not talking or debating right, and you've never deviated away from it. Must be awesome to spend all your free time making fun of people who don't talk the way you do.

    Bigot, look up the word.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Third version: try reading what I have written in all my previous posts with your blinkers off, then it might make some sense to you. If it doesn't you will find a handy little Ignore function which you can use to avoid seeing any of my posts.

    Fourth Version:I have no interest in proving or disproving your debating skills. I had hoped to point out some weaknesses in your approach that could be to your benefit if you corrected them. You prefer to take umbrage and bury your head in the sand. Your choice. I'm finding the entire exchange very boring indeed.

    Versions one and two were self censored.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Ignore function which you can use to avoid seeing any of my posts.
    Thank you! Could have told me sooner. If you were making simple kind suggestions, you wouldn't come off offensively, and you could have started off with the ignore feature. Would have been far more helpful. Somewhere in your deluted brain you fail to see how you have come off offsensively. Thanks for contributing literally nothing at all bud and making a yourself look like a fool, and bigot, bad quality combination.

    There's surely no helping you.


    I'm finding the entire exchange very boring indeed.
    And that's why you continued for 6 whole frikin pages... I think you thoroughly enjoyed your bigotry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    You have added this person to your Ignore List. Click HERE to view this post.
    Sweet cookies. No more nonsense. I really wish I knew about this earlier.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X

    Bigot, look up the word.
    Please don't make personal attacks against other users. By all means point out bad evidence, poor logic or bad argument techniques.

    Now, you promised some sources several pages ago. Data in support of your position. It would be nice for this debate to centre on that rather than the direction it's currently headed. If the debate continues with ad hominems and unfounded statements in the absence of some decent evidence, I'll have to lock the thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X

    Bigot, look up the word.
    Please don't make personal attacks against other users. By all means point out bad evidence, poor logic or bad argument techniques.

    Now, you promised some sources several pages ago. Data in support of your position. It would be nice for this debate to centre on that rather than the direction it's currently headed. If the debate continues with ad hominems and unfounded statements in the absence of some decent evidence, I'll have to lock the thread.
    That's reasonable. You might not want to look through all the posts on the thread though, it's riddled with personal attacks. I promised yesterday to provide sources, I didn't get to it. I will later on when I can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    10,000 page document, no mention of building #7, another thing that may appear to be a little fishy. It appears they left out anything they could not scientifically suggest, and even then, the math isn't offered.
    Which document are you talking about? Because the National Institute of Standards and Technology's investigation does, in fact, cover the collapse of WTC 7 in great detail (and with lots of math.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I did not sit down, measure the time it took for the building to hit the ground, compare it to the law of physics, and conclude that it was impossible, so in those terms, yeah, you're right.
    I'm curious, if you did not sit down and measure the speed at which the towers fell, how can you be certain that they did indeed fall at freefall speed? Furthermore, how would you even know what freefall speed is for a building that size if you haven't done the calculations?
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    For the record...comments by John.

    Skinwalker was debating. You were largely making unintelligible gurgling noises.
    Crap. Unmitigated crap.
    No, it comes from the fact that your debate skills suck.
    And that''s just from one post, after me saying all I've received is personal attacks, and before I made any of my own. Only point of this post is so I don't make myself come off as a dick, so early in my membership anyway. Calling John a bigot was more of an observation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    For the record...comments by John.

    Skinwalker was debating. You were largely making unintelligible gurgling noises.
    Crap. Unmitigated crap.
    No, it comes from the fact that your debate skills suck.
    And that''s just from one post, after me saying all I've received is personal attacks, and before I made any of my own. Only point of this post is so I don't make myself come off as a dick, so early in my membership anyway. Calling John a bigot was more of an observation.
    John's attacks are directed at your debating skills (saying they suck) and your arguments themselves ("crap" and "unintelligible")- not at you as a person. A fine line, and perhaps annoying to you, but he didn't call you any names. If he does, he will get the same treatment that you do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    10,000 page document, no mention of building #7, another thing that may appear to be a little fishy. It appears they left out anything they could not scientifically suggest, and even then, the math isn't offered.
    Which document are you talking about? Because the National Institute of Standards and Technology's investigation does, in fact, cover the collapse of WTC 7 in great detail (and with lots of math.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I did not sit down, measure the time it took for the building to hit the ground, compare it to the law of physics, and conclude that it was impossible, so in those terms, yeah, you're right.
    I'm curious, if you did not sit down and measure the speed at which the towers fell, how can you be certain that they did indeed fall at freefall speed? Furthermore, how would you even know what freefall speed is for a building that size if you haven't done the calculations?

    I was merely replying on where my knowledge or interest came from. I did not initially calculate the time of collapse without hearing it from another source first. I did ample study of it afterwards. I simply do not know the calculation, I am incapable of applying those calculations to the event...

    One thing I know for certain, is that it feel very close to freefall speed, and in order to do so, there cannot be lot of resistence.

    One thing that backs up my opinion on that is the 100+ years of reference. 3 unique anomolies all in the same day, suspicion is warranted. I am not claiming to be right, I am claiming that it is very unlikely for these events to occue, if not impossible. Anything further on that I cannot provide, like I said, I am incapable of doing so.

    Anything further from someone else who is capable, I would gladly accept, analyze, and decide for myself whether I wanted to believe it. I try to be unbiased and acception, and based on the average users knowledge of physics and math on this site, I would be more inclined to take thing they say into consideration, rather than trying to do it myself and get the calculations wrong.

    I am hostil because instead of discussing the actual topic, I was ridiculed on my debating skills. Nothing was put on the table, I'm assuming because of the topic. And for that I appreciate your formal approach.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    For the record...comments by John.

    Skinwalker was debating. You were largely making unintelligible gurgling noises.
    Crap. Unmitigated crap.
    No, it comes from the fact that your debate skills suck.
    And that''s just from one post, after me saying all I've received is personal attacks, and before I made any of my own. Only point of this post is so I don't make myself come off as a dick, so early in my membership anyway. Calling John a bigot was more of an observation.
    John's attacks are directed at your debating skills (saying they suck) and your arguments themselves ("crap" and "unintelligible")- not at you as a person. A fine line, and perhaps annoying to you, but he didn't call you any names. If he does, he will get the same treatment that you do.
    Unwarranted attacks on my debating skills. He didn't even begina debate. His comments were made simply to annoy me, which removed the line (IMO) between attacks on debating skills and attacks on my person... I think he still deserves the same treatment, but it doesn't bother me either way. I wouldn't want you to read through every post to gain a proper perspective, especially if it means you once again prove me wrong. In fact, forget this post, I just don't want to erase it and have nothing to show for the past minute of typing. I'm joking.

    But it would make sense to make corrections, not to simply say "you debate stupid".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    One thing I know for certain, is that it feel very close to freefall speed, and in order to do so, there cannot be lot of resistence.
    How would you know if you hadn't timed it? The collapse of WTC 7 was a segmented one. First the interior began to collapse (evidenced by video of the roof and east penthouses caving in first) which is followed by the collapse of the outer shell. The relatively fast collapse of the outer shell is what conspiracy theorists often mistake for a "uniform free-fall collapse," but when you take into concideration that the interior had collapsed first, it is expected that it would be met with little resistance and collapse relatively quickly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    One thing that backs up my opinion on that is the 100+ years of reference. 3 unique anomolies all in the same day, suspicion is warranted. I am not claiming to be right, I am claiming that it is very unlikely for these events to occue, if not impossible. Anything further on that I cannot provide, like I said, I am incapable of doing so.
    Stating the lack of precedent for an event says nothing about the event itself. After all, no one has ever won more than 10 Olympic gold medals before, but that fact didn't prevent Michael Phelps from winning 14 last year. Even if someone had won 15 sometime in the past, Phelps's performance would have been the same.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    One thing I know for certain, is that it feel very close to freefall speed, and in order to do so, there cannot be lot of resistence.
    How would you know if you hadn't timed it? The collapse of WTC 7 was a segmented one. First the interior began to collapse (evidenced by video of the roof and east penthouses caving in first) which is followed by the collapse of the outer shell. The relatively fast collapse of the outer shell is what conspiracy theorists often mistake for a "uniform free-fall collapse," but when you take into concideration that the interior had collapsed first, it is expected that it would be met with little resistance and collapse relatively quickly.
    I DID time it, what I said was I did not time it before hearing about the free fall theory. That's all. And metal buildings don't just collapse on the inside. It may have started that way, but the outside followed by seconds. If the outside was standing with no interior, you'd think you'd notice that.

    Stating the lack of president for an event says nothing about the event itself. After all, no one has ever won more than 10 Olympic gold medals before, but that fact didn't prevent Michael Phelps from winning 14 last year. Even if someone had won 15 sometime in the past, Phelps' performance would have been the same.
    [color=green]That is completely different. Ones own ability will very quite differently from another, that's normal, we encounter this every day and there is nothing special about it. But when you compare other buildings with similar damage, hotter fires that burnt much longer, even with structural damage, this has never happened before except for 9/11, where it happened three times in one day. Your example is very flawd.

    I have seen a video of a steel building collapsing. It toppled over and looked the exact same, except it stood on a 45% angle. Steel buildings don't fall into themselves not only at that rate, but at all, they don't just turn into dust. Again, I could be wrong, I'm not stating this as fact. But I believe you'd have to be quite ignorant to think all this happened on one day, and differs so tremendously when compared to similar, or even events with greater significance.

    If you're not sure what events I'm talking about I will provide articles and pictures of them later. One building burnt for so long all that was left was the steel frame, still far more than capable of standing, and not very compromised structurally.

    Not only that, but the vast amount of references we have all contradict what happened, under more extreme circumstances. Just not rational to believe they came down on their own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I DID time it, what I said was I did not time it before hearing about the free fall theory. That's all. And metal buildings don't just collapse on the inside. It may have started that way, but the outside followed by seconds. If the outside was standing with no interior, you'd think you'd notice that.
    At which point did you begin timing it? When the east penthouses collapsed, or when the outer shell collapsed? Most cameras filmed WTC 7 from the front and at a low angle. They would not have been able to see the collapse of the east penthouses. Other camera angles show this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I have seen a video of a steel building collapsing. It toppled over and looked the exact same, except it stood on a 45% angle. Steel buildings don't fall into themselves not only at that rate, but at all, they don't just turn into dust.
    Upon what evidence/experience do you base this opinion? I sure hope it is more than just a single video. Math would greatly help your case here.

    EDIT
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    If you're not sure what events I'm talking about I will provide articles and pictures of them later. One building burnt for so long all that was left was the steel frame, still far more than capable of standing, and not very compromised structurally.
    Please provide this. Specifically on that building. I'd like to know how tall it was, how wide it was, and whether it had been severely damaged from the falling debris of a much larger tower (as WTC 7 had.)
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    The basic idea from your link seems to be that building 7 fell because the sprinkler system for the lower floors was the city water main, and that had been severed. Apparently they knew it would fall hours ahead of time, so nobody was still inside.


    My trouble with building 7.... is that it did pretty much the same thing as the main WTC buildings (collapsed vertically), but not for the same reasons. Everything NIST has to say about it just seems very ex-post-facto. Almost like saying "We know it wasn't sabotage, so it must have been such and such other complicated series of events." It just doesn't seem to be in keeping with Occam's razor.

    So, we've got two entirely different scenarios leading to the same, fairly improbable result. (Of the tall buildings in history that are known to have collapsed, what percentage of them have been vertical collapses?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    I have seen a video of a steel building collapsing. It toppled over and looked the exact same, except it stood on a 45% angle. Steel buildings don't fall into themselves not only at that rate, but at all, they don't just turn into dust.
    Upon what evidence/experience do you base this opinion? I sure hope it is more than just a single video. Math would greatly help your case here.
    I'm not sure a mathematical approach exists for that kind of question. A vertical collapse is certainly not impossible, but that doesn't mean we're compelled to automatically have to believe it happened.

    Allowing the mere fact that something is possible to be sufficient for belief is not science. It should have to be probable. Indeed, for science to accept it, it should have to be overwhelmingly probable. I don't mean that the event itself has to be what we would expect, but one should expect compelling evidence in order to believe that the dice have landed on snake eyes 3 times in a set of 7 rolls.

    I demand a strong burden of evidence whenever someone presents me with an improbable event. I don't set a burden so strong that I can't be convinced, because that would be absurd, but I still set a heavier burden for improbable events than I do for probable ones.


    EDIT
    Quote Originally Posted by Viper-X
    If you're not sure what events I'm talking about I will provide articles and pictures of them later. One building burnt for so long all that was left was the steel frame, still far more than capable of standing, and not very compromised structurally.
    Please provide this. Specifically on that building. I'd like to know how tall it was, how wide it was, and whether it had been severely damaged from the falling debris of a much larger tower (as WTC 7 had.)
    The official NIST report states that: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001." That's in the last paragraph on page 37 of the report. (page 39 of the PDF file).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    My trouble with building 7.... is that it did pretty much the same thing as the main WTC buildings (collapsed vertically), but not for the same reasons.
    Basically, yes. They were both vertical collapses caused by impact damage and fire. But obviously, WTCs 1 and 2 were top-down collapses while WTC 7 was a bottom-up collapse.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Everything NIST has to say about it just seems very ex-post-facto. Almost like saying "We know it wasn't sabotage, so it must have been such and such other complicated series of events." It just doesn't seem to be in keeping with Occam's razor.
    Exactly what assumptions does the investigation make? Could you please be more specific?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The official NIST report states that: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001." That's in the last paragraph on page 37 of the report. (page 39 of the PDF file).
    Which is why I'm also asking for the building's size. The location of the fire is also important.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I demand a strong burden of evidence whenever someone presents me with an improbable event. I don't set a burden so strong that I can't be convinced, because that would be absurd, but I still set a heavier burden for improbable events than I do for probable ones.
    Of course it is appropriate to question any explanation. But the mistake that conspiracy theorists make is to assume a default position.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    My trouble with building 7.... is that it did pretty much the same thing as the main WTC buildings (collapsed vertically), but not for the same reasons.
    Basically, yes. They were both vertical collapses caused by impact damage and fire. But obviously, WTCs 1 and 2 were top-down collapses while WTC 7 was a bottom-up collapse.
    That even makes it more mysterious. If at least the collapses had the same specific cause, or were of the same type, it would be less of a surprise for them both to have resulted in symmetrical collapses, instead of a titling, or toppling collapse.

    Generally, in science, if you get multiple similar results in the same set of observations, and the result itself seems to be improbable absent some kind of causal explanation, it usually follows that they had the same cause.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Everything NIST has to say about it just seems very ex-post-facto. Almost like saying "We know it wasn't sabotage, so it must have been such and such other complicated series of events." It just doesn't seem to be in keeping with Occam's razor.
    Exactly what assumptions does the investigation make? Could you please be more specific?
    This is part of bullet point #2, on Nist's question and answer page, where the question asked why they didn't consider sabotage as a possibility.

    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by NIST
    NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

    *

    the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

    *

    the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

    Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
    The only part of that answer that impresses me is the part where they mention that they found no evidence of any actual explosions on the lower floors, and so I'd like to know more about what processes they used to look for that. Elsewhere they mention that seismic activity didn't begin until the building had already initially begun to collapse, but the use of explosives during the collapse would be hard to rule out that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The official NIST report states that: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001." That's in the last paragraph on page 37 of the report. (page 39 of the PDF file).
    Which is why I'm also asking for the building's size. The location of the fire is also important.
    The complete dimensions and size are on page 47 of the pdf file. It was 47 Stories tall, but you might want to actually look at the page because it was a weird kind of trapezoid, in terms of its horizontal dimensions.

    http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I demand a strong burden of evidence whenever someone presents me with an improbable event. I don't set a burden so strong that I can't be convinced, because that would be absurd, but I still set a heavier burden for improbable events than I do for probable ones.
    Of course it is appropriate to question any explanation. But the mistake that conspiracy theorists make is to assume a default position.
    I guess there's two parts to the question then. There's the question itself, and then there's the methodology of the people trying to answer it. If the group trying to answer the question have bad methods, one might be tempted to automatically assume that the question has an answer opposite to the one they're arriving at. To even take the question seriously feels like you're affirming their methods.

    However, that's a form of the genetic argument fallacy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    That even makes it more mysterious. If at least the collapses had the same specific cause, or were of the same type, it would be less of a surprise for them both to have resulted in symmetrical collapses, instead of a titling, or toppling collapse.

    Generally, in science, if you get multiple similar results in the same set of observations, and the result itself seems to be improbable absent some kind of causal explanation, it usually follows that they had the same cause.
    Perhaps I did not phrase it correctly. The fact that they were vertical collapses triggered by impact and fire is just about the only thing they have in common. WTCs 1 and 2, if you notice from the video, collapsed outward and were relatively uniform. This is because many of the vertical support columns had been damaged by the planes and the remaining columns were being progressively weakened by the fires. When they finally gave way, the lower section of the building could no longer handle the weight of the top section and it came crashing down. The outer floors of the building collapsed first leaving the inner core exposed momentarily before collapsing itself. This is difficult to see on video because of the dust clouds, but you can catch glimpses of the inner core if you look closely. WTC 7, on the other hand, was not a uniform collapse, or an outward collapse because it did not have the same structure as towers 1 and 2. It collapsed in on itself because of a progressive failure originating from the one section of the building. Here are some visualizations of the simulations performed by the NIST.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    This is part of bullet point #2, on Nist's question and answer page, where the question asked why they didn't consider sabotage as a possibility.

    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    ...

    The only part of that answer that impresses me is the part where they mention that they found no evidence of any actual explosions on the lower floors, and so I'd like to know more about what processes they used to look for that. Elsewhere they mention that seismic activity didn't begin until the building had already initially begun to collapse, but the use of explosives during the collapse would be hard to rule out that way.
    The NIST explanation does not ammount to "we know that it wasn't a controlled demolition, so it must have been..." They say specifically that there was no need for a controlled demolition because all the elements for those buildings to fall down were already present. It is somewhat irritating how you (and conspiracy theorists) throw around phrases like "explosives" and "controlled demolition" like its some simple thing. None of them realize just how difficult controlled demolitions actually are. A building even half the size of WTC 7 would require months and months of manual (and careful) weakening of every support column on every floor (a building the size of towers 1 and 2 would probably take years.) This is, by no measure, subtle work. It is both loud and labor intensive. Large men with crowbars and sledgehammers ripping apart the walls and laying fuse wire everywhere is the type of thing that will get noticed in a busy office building. Then there's the actual demolition itself. That too, is very loud and noticeable. The series of explosions are regularly heard for miles away. But towers 1 & 2 and tower 7 all collapse amid relative silence. So really, for a trained expert (nearly a thousand of which were interviewed by the NIST) it takes little more than the video footage to determine that it was not a controlled demolition. But this is further corroborated by the lack of evidence for explosives (fuse wires, squib remains, explosive byproducts, ect.) There is no indication that any explosive assistance was even present, let alone required for any of the collapses that took place on 9/11. Saying that there is is a positive claim and the burden of proof is on the ones making it.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    The complete dimensions and size are on page 47 of the pdf file. It was 47 Stories tall, but you might want to actually look at the page because it was a weird kind of trapezoid, in terms of its horizontal dimensions.

    http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf
    You misunderstand. I was asking Viper-X for information about the building he mentioned that burned all night and didn't collapse. He claims that it was similar to tower 7, so I'm asking for information about it.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Finger
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    That even makes it more mysterious. If at least the collapses had the same specific cause, or were of the same type, it would be less of a surprise for them both to have resulted in symmetrical collapses, instead of a titling, or toppling collapse.

    Generally, in science, if you get multiple similar results in the same set of observations, and the result itself seems to be improbable absent some kind of causal explanation, it usually follows that they had the same cause.
    Perhaps I did not phrase it correctly. The fact that they were vertical collapses triggered by impact and fire is just about the only thing they have in common. WTCs 1 and 2, if you notice from the video, collapsed outward and were relatively uniform. This is because many of the vertical support columns had been damaged by the planes and the remaining columns were being progressively weakened by the fires. When they finally gave way, the lower section of the building could no longer handle the weight of the top section and it came crashing down. The outer floors of the building collapsed first leaving the inner core exposed momentarily before collapsing itself. This is difficult to see on video because of the dust clouds, but you can catch glimpses of the inner core if you look closely. WTC 7, on the other hand, was not a uniform collapse, or an outward collapse because it did not have the same structure as towers 1 and 2. It collapsed in on itself because of a progressive failure originating from the one section of the building. Here are some visualizations of the simulations performed by the NIST.
    It seems we're talking past each other. The fact that the only common element between these collapses would be the fact they were symmetrical is a bit of a phenomenon, unless you consider symmetrical collapses to be very common or probable outcomes.

    If there were something common about the events leading up to them, that would make it *less* phenomenal, not *more* phenomenal.

    Generally, in science, when you want to prove a given experimental result is not an artefact of the mechanism being used to produce it, you set up another experiment using a different mechanism. The likelihood that two separate mechanisms would lead to the same anomalous behavior, or create the same artefacts, is considered unlikely, which leads people to believe that the reason you got the results you got was because the theory was true, instead of being because you used a particular mechanism to test it.

    Here we have two very different mechanisms, and one result: symmetrical collapse.



    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    This is part of bullet point #2, on Nist's question and answer page, where the question asked why they didn't consider sabotage as a possibility.

    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    ...

    The only part of that answer that impresses me is the part where they mention that they found no evidence of any actual explosions on the lower floors, and so I'd like to know more about what processes they used to look for that. Elsewhere they mention that seismic activity didn't begin until the building had already initially begun to collapse, but the use of explosives during the collapse would be hard to rule out that way.
    The NIST explanation does not ammount to "we know that it wasn't a controlled demolition, so it must have been..." They say specifically that there was no need for a controlled demolition because all the elements for those buildings to fall down were already present. It is somewhat irritating how you (and conspiracy theorists) throw around phrases like "explosives" and "controlled demolition" like its some simple thing. None of them realize just how difficult controlled demolitions actually are. A building even half the size of WTC 7 would require months and months of manual (and careful) weakening of every support column on every floor (a building the size of towers 1 and 2 would probably take years.) This is, by no measure, subtle work. It is both loud and labor intensive. Large men with crowbars and sledgehammers ripping apart the walls and laying fuse wire everywhere is the type of thing that will get noticed in a busy office building. Then there's the actual demolition itself. That too, is very loud and noticeable. The series of explosions are regularly heard for miles away. But towers 1 & 2 and tower 7 all collapse amid relative silence. So really, for a trained expert (nearly a thousand of which were interviewed by the NIST) it takes little more than the video footage to determine that it was not a controlled demolition. But this is further corroborated by the lack of evidence for explosives (fuse wires, squib remains, explosive byproducts, ect.) There is no indication that any explosive assistance was even present, let alone required for any of the collapses that took place on 9/11. Saying that there is is a positive claim and the burden of proof is on the ones making it.
    I've already cited a source pointing out that a substantial amount of the tenant space in the WTC buildings was going unused. The owner could easily send a work crew into any unused office he wanted and simply tell the other tenants they were busy remodeling.

    Silverstein secured a 99 year lease to the building in July of 2001, for about 3.5 billion dollars (mostly from other investors). He was the first private individual to ever obtain such a lease. The building's ownership and control was entirely public until then. After the 911 attacks, he collected 4.5 billion in insurance. (He actually attempted to collect 7 billion, claiming the 2 planes counted as 2 instances)

    He only had the buildings for 2 months before they fell. (He still holds the lease for the lot until 2100) That is a very fast billion dollars. If there was a conspiracy involved, then it's virtually certain he was part of it. If there wasn't one, then he's just a very lucky guy.

    This means you can assume both the total cooperation of the building owner, and the obliviousness of other tenets, when evaluating the feasibility of rigging the building to collapse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Generally, in science, when you want to prove a given experimental result is not an artefact of the mechanism being used to produce it, you set up another experiment using a different mechanism. The likelihood that two separate mechanisms would lead to the same anomalous behavior, or create the same artefacts, is considered unlikely,
    So you tend to believe that fish, dolphins and ichthyosaurs are very closely related, then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,781
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Generally, in science, when you want to prove a given experimental result is not an artefact of the mechanism being used to produce it, you set up another experiment using a different mechanism. The likelihood that two separate mechanisms would lead to the same anomalous behavior, or create the same artefacts, is considered unlikely,
    So you tend to believe that fish, dolphins and ichthyosaurs are very closely related, then?
    Dont forget Penguins and Sea turtles
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Junior Finger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    266
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Here we have two very different mechanisms, and one result: symmetrical collapse.
    We do not have one result. WTC 1 and 2 collapsed outward, WTC 7 collapsed inward. 1 and 2 collapsed from the top-down, 7 collapsed from the bottom-up. 1 and 2 each collapsed within an hour, 7 took seven hours. We're not talking past eachother, I'm talking and you appear to be ignoring what I'm saying so that you don't have to address it.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I've already cited a source pointing out that a substantial amount of the tenant space in the WTC buildings was going unused. The owner could easily send a work crew into any unused office he wanted and simply tell the other tenants they were busy remodeling.
    Again, you say these things like they're simple. We're no longer talking about months of preparation here, now we're talking years. Possibly decades. Silverstein only had ownership for two months, how could he possibly have done this? Your explanation doesn't really explain a whole lot and relies heavily on assumptions. Still want to talk about Occam's Razor?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Silverstein secured a 99 year lease to the building in July of 2001, for about 3.5 billion dollars (mostly from other investors). He was the first private individual to ever obtain such a lease. The building's ownership and control was entirely public until then. After the 911 attacks, he collected 4.5 billion in insurance. (He actually attempted to collect 7 billion, claiming the 2 planes counted as 2 instances)
    This isn't the movies, policies are specifically set up to pay for the restoration of the property and nothing else. Insurance companies often have legal safeguards to prevent the recipient from using the awarded money on anything other than restoration. So the $4.6 billion is his, but it isn't. His name was on the check, but if he spent the money on anything other than the reconstruction of the property, he would likely be sued to hell and back and charged with insurance fraud. He evidently hasn't done this, since your own source (the Wikipedia page) says that the $4.6 billion is "currently being used to rebuild the World Trade Center." If this was his plan, then it was a bad plan.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    He only had the buildings for 2 months before they fell. (He still holds the lease for the lot until 2100) That is a very fast billion dollars. If there was a conspiracy involved, then it's virtually certain he was part of it. If there wasn't one, then he's just a very lucky guy.
    No, he evidently was a very unlucky guy. Two months after purchasing a very lucrative asset, it gets destroyed. Leaving him with a 99 year lease that has no positive cash flow. He's been paying $102 million a year for eight years rent on a property that isn't making him any money. If you factor in the amount that the World Trade Center could have been making in that time, his total losses could be estimated in the billions.
    Artist for Red Oasis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •