WTC Collapses

[Tony Szamboti]

Conservation of momentum is a conventional idea...your interpretation of conservation of momentum is what is controversial....just because you use conventional terms doesn't make your argument unconventional. You couldn't find your own ass with both hands and a map.

Why is it that those who either support the present official explanation for the collapses in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 or don't doubt it seem to use ad hominem and arguments from incredulity so much more than they seem to debate the facts?

 

[synthesizer-patel]

You couldn't find your own ass with both hands and a map.

of course not - what would he hold the map with?

Ps - I copyrighted that phrase 2 years ago - you owe me a residual

 

[psikeyhackr]

Conservation of momentum is a conventional idea...your interpretation of conservation of momentum is what is controversial....just because you use conventional terms doesn't make your argument unconventional. You couldn't find your own ass with both hands and a map.

.
ROFLMAO

"your interpretation of conservation of momentum is what is controversial"

You just make up some verbal BS and pretend it means something. What have you explained about what is controversial in FALL OF PHYSICS? You haven't demonstrated that you understand anything in it. Our disappeared physics graduate student accused it of being garbage while at the same time saying the math was correct didn't explain how it was garbage.

It demonstrated the combined effects of gravity and conservation of momentum while leaving out structural resistance which could only have slowed things down more. It is like the people who prefer to BELIEVE the official story but don't understand enough physics to see the flaws in it can only attack those trying to explain the flaws.

psik

 

[Stryder]

.
ROFLMAO

"your interpretation of conservation of momentum is what is controversial"

You just make up some verbal BS and pretend it means something. What have you explained about what is controversial in FALL OF PHYSICS? You haven't demonstrated that you understand anything in it. Our disappeared physics graduate student accused it of being garbage while at the same time saying the math was correct didn't explain how it was garbage.

It demonstrated the combined effects of gravity and conservation of momentum while leaving out structural resistance which could only have slowed things down more. It is like the people who prefer to BELIEVE the official story but don't understand enough physics to see the flaws in it can only attack those trying to explain the flaws.

psik

Truthers on this subject remind me of how some can argue that Bumblebee's and Helicopters shouldn't physically be possible fly? But they do!

I'm surprised Occam's Razor hasn't been mentioned much in regards to 9/11 either. A lot of Extreme theories supported with no evidence, how are people suppose to react?

To be honest I'm very close to shutting the 9/11 threads down because it's gone beyond circular and I really think the only people that support any conspiracy here are actually fuelling their own agenda's.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Truthers on this subject remind me of how some can argue that Bumblebee's and Helicopters shouldn't physically be possible fly? But they do!

I'm surprised Occam's Razor hasn't been mentioned much in regards to 9/11 either. A lot of Extreme theories supported with no evidence, how are people suppose to react?

To be honest I'm very close to shutting the 9/11 threads down because it's gone beyond circular and I really think the only people that support any conspiracy here are actually fuelling their own agenda's.

I would hope you realize that Occam's razor stipulates that the most simple explanation, which accounts for All of the evidence, is usually correct. In the case of the 3 NYC building collapses on Sept. 11, 2001 the controlled demolition theory fits that criteria.

Can you give examples of circular arguments which have been made by people you would term "truthers"? I honestly haven't seen circular arguments here by those who do not accept the present government explanation for these building collapses.

 

[John99]

Truthers on this subject remind me of how some can argue that Bumblebee's and Helicopters shouldn't physically be possible fly? But they do!

I'm surprised Occam's Razor hasn't been mentioned much in regards to 9/11 either. A lot of Extreme theories supported with no evidence, how are people suppose to react?

To be honest I'm very close to shutting the 9/11 threads down because it's gone beyond circular and I really think the only people that support any conspiracy here are actually fuelling their own agenda's.

It is like a religion and they have their converters out for sure. That is one main issue i have is people forcing their beliefs on others especially when evidence is flimsy or comical. At this point it can be considered preaching but that is just my felling on it .

 

[John99]

The other day i was reading somehting through google, a very nice looking site too. I was reading about jet fuel, steel, fire temps and all kinds of stuff and then i got to the part where the author was\is a janitor. I am sure Janitors are not qualified to conduct investigations such as these.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Oops!

 

[John99]

oh tay....:bugeye:

 

[psikeyhackr]

The other day i was reading somehting through google, a very nice looking site too. I was reading about jet fuel, steel, fire temps and all kinds of stuff and then i got to the part where the author was\is a janitor. I am sure Janitors are not qualified to conduct investigations such as these.

.
That is nothing but the same psychological association game of people connecting so called Truthers with Moon Hoaxers.

Getting to the Moon was a physics and engineering problem.

Designing the WTC was a physics and engineering problem.

You don't construct buildings that tall without figuring out how much steel to put where. Or are you claiming that is possible?

If you are smart enough to explain what is wrong with FALL OF PHYSICS then do it.

Here is the response from the physics graduate:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2146928&postcount=1310

psik

PS - I had two tabs open while I was looking for that link.

 

[John99]

:grumble:

 

[MacGyver1968]

It really does sound like you want to pick on a trivial misunderstanding due to your use of a rarely used abbreviation in this country. I am sorry your arguments for the present official story on the tower collapses aren't holding up, but you really shouldn't lower yourself to personal attacks.

This is a science board, the world of science uses the metric system, and is the standard for this board. If you had participated in threads other that this one, you would have realized this.

I'm an American, but I try to use metric units, when discussing things on this board. Most members of the board are not from the US.

 

[psikeyhackr]

This is a science board, the world of science uses the metric system, and is the standard for this board. If you had participated in threads other that this one, you would have realized this.

I'm an American, but I try to use metric units, when discussing things on this board. Most members of the board are not from the US.

.
Oh wow, let's make a BIG DEAL about the metric system.

That's it, the conservation of momentum must be wrong in FALL OF PHYSICS because it is not in metric units.

psik

 

[MacGyver1968]

.
Oh wow, let's make a BIG DEAL about the metric system.

That's it, the conservation of momentum must be wrong in FALL OF PHYSICS because it is not in metric units.

psik

First..I wasn't making a big deal...I was pointing out that the metric system is generally used on this board.

Secondly, I wasn't even talking to you, or discussing whether your pet theory is wrong or not...so why did you bring it up? Why do you HAVE to bring up your topic in every...single..post you make?

This is called "one topic posting"...and is against the rules of this forum. Your nothin but a broken record, and I for one will be happy when you are banned.

 

[Stryder]

I would hope you realize that Occam's razor stipulates that the most simple explanation, which accounts for All of the evidence, is usually correct. In the case of the 3 NYC building collapses on Sept. 11, 2001

Thats the simple bit covered, now the bit we know is not simple.

the controlled demolition theory fits that criteria.

Actually it doesn't fit. You see simply there were two planes that crashed into the buildings, they were witnessed by many bystanders, the wreckage of these planes was found strewn around that definitely identified them as planes. I watched the actually event as it was televised world wide and it was definitely planes (When the first plane hit I thought it was a film on the television that hadn't been advertised but then when the commentary started to state about what had just happened and then the second plane hit, reality sank in.)

There is so much proof identifying that simply planes were used to demolish targets (or just cause extensive damage. They probably didn't think it would bring them down) and no proof for demolitions, just a bunch of "truthers" running around in circles, trying to pick holes in reality.

Can you give examples of circular arguments which have been made by people you would term "truthers"? I honestly haven't seen circular arguments here by those who do not accept the present government explanation for these building collapses.

That would be:

the controlled demolition theory fits that criteria.

I state this because it's something you stated, something you believe and you overlook reality in the pursuit of this fabrication. That is blind sighted belief, like others have stated "near Religious Zealotism".

 

[Stryder]

.
That is nothing but the same psychological association game of people connecting so called Truthers with Moon Hoaxers.

Getting to the Moon was a physics and engineering problem.

Designing the WTC was a physics and engineering problem.

You don't construct buildings that tall without figuring out how much steel to put where. Or are you claiming that is possible?

If you are smart enough to explain what is wrong with FALL OF PHYSICS then do it.

Here is the response from the physics graduate:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2146928&postcount=1310

psik

PS - I had two tabs open while I was looking for that link.

That information was covered previously. The buildings Steel framework was made from lighter steel the closer you got to the top of the building, they didn't use the same Grade throughout the whole structure because it would of added un-necessary cost to the construction since the building was designed to support it's own weight with a margin for office equipment and people. It was never designed to take an impact, only retrofitted in case of an accident.

This basically means that during a fire it wouldn't take as long for the upper floors steel to distort than the higher grade steel of the floors below.

 

[psikeyhackr]

...your interpretation of conservation of momentum is what is controversial....

.
Would you care to explain that?

I don't see how you can if you don't understand what is in FALL OF PHYSICS but be my guest.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

That information was covered previously.

It was never designed to take an impact, only retrofitted in case of an accident.

.
Yeah, it was but you got it wrong.

http://www.truveo.com/WTC-Towers-Designed-to-Withstand-Impact-of-Loaded/id/36349228

Now I don't care whether the towers were designed to withstand impacts or not. I am saying that the way the mass and strength must be distributed in ANY SKYSCRAPER it should be IMPOSSIBLE for the top 15% to come straight down and destroy the rest. So where is trustworthy data from official sources on the distribution of steel and concrete in the towers?

Why isn't the Truth Movement and Richard Gage screaming about not having it? It is like the movement wants people to BELIEVE not UNDERSTAND.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

Secondly, I wasn't even talking to you, or discussing whether your pet theory is wrong or not...so why did you bring it up? Why do you HAVE to bring up your topic in every...single..post you make?

This is called "one topic posting"...and is against the rules of this forum. Your nothin but a broken record, and I for one will be happy when you are banned.

.
But you said this is a SCIENCE BOARD. We are talking about the SCIENCE of a building falling. You have noticed right? The physics is the same regardless of the measurement system.

9.8 m/sec^2 = 32 ft/sec^2

FALL OF PHYSICS isn't one topic. It is gravitational acceleration and conservation of momentum. That is TWO topics.

It does seem to be a problem with these boards, that people don't want to solve problems they want to have fun debating. By their definition of FUN.

Of course there is an advantage to the boards in that it is easily possible to IGNORE anyone you want.

psik

 

[MacGyver1968]

.
Would you care to explain that?

I don't see how you can if you don't understand what is in FALL OF PHYSICS but be my guest.

psik

Your model is too simple to yield anything but the most basic data. You only account for mass and velocity, and nothing else. Other factors need to be considered in such a complex chain of events. Your model doesn't account for material strength or any other details. I'm not an expert in physics..but these are the issues I see.