Home | Community | Message Board

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Asante]
    #6062308 - 09/14/06 07:34 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Wiccan_Seeker said:
Drills are often on moments notice for the ones undergoing them, but planning drills and having drillsd conducted takes time. And then there is the fact that if you want something done, you have to announce that "this is not a drill" to yank people out of their stupor :wink:

So that is unlikely.




That seems to contradict Mayor Giuliani's assertion that New York faired better because there happened to be a large FEMA drill scheduled for 9/11 in New York.

Maybe things work differently for the CIA, but for FEMA the drill was a "good excuse" to have a lot of equipment and personnel ready and in place just in case something went down.

I don't buy into the whole "the government knew it was going to happen" but I would believe that if they thought something might be coming up, it would be a good idea to have a lot of people and equipment already mobilized.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebuckwheat
Cynically Insane

Registered: 12/09/02
Posts: 11,179
Loc: Not Enough Characters to ...
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Economist]
    #6062319 - 09/14/06 07:36 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Economist said:

I think the drills were just a likely response to "the whole grid blinking red". The government knew something was going down, but they were unable to figure out what, so they decided to hold LOADS of drills in order to keep everyone on alert.

I can't prove that, but then it's no less likely than any of the conspiracies.




These drills are usually planned months in advanced though. Planting fake blimps for the NORAD controllers wouldnt be a very bright idea. If you listen to the tapes Vanity Fair did a story on you can see why. One memorable qoute from those tapes for me was "Is this part of the exercise or real World" Which is what i think is the true intended purpose of the drills. One of the 15 drills even put fighter jet's away from Washington and NY to the northern Atlantic by Nova Scotia.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 9 days
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Economist]
    #6063502 - 09/15/06 01:38 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Why would you run drills if you thought something real might happen? That is a huge risk to have people's attention diverted when there is real danger.

The drills were likely to keep people busy so they could pull the damn thing off. Like how does a hijacked plane make it through american airspace for 1hr and 15mins after the 1st plane struck in NY? Fighter pilots should have ample time to intercept the plane before it got to the pentagon, but where were they? People honestly believe our airspace protection is that pathetic? Yeah right  :rolleyes:


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #6063518 - 09/15/06 01:47 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

RosettaStoned said:
Why would you run drills if you thought something real might happen? That is a huge risk to have people's attention diverted when there is real danger.




As I said above, Mayor Giuliani credited the planned FEMA drill with creating a more organized atmosphere, where people and equipment were already mobilized, and ultimately allowing a stronger, more productive response to 9/11 than would have been possible were there not a FEMA drill on that day.

If FEMA was more capable of responding because all of their assets were mobilized because of a drill, it stands to reason that drills might be run as an excuse to mobilize assets on dates when there is a good possibility something might happen.

Quote:

RosettaStoned said:
Like how does a hijacked plane make it through american airspace for 1hr and 15mins after the 1st plane struck in NY? Fighter pilots should have ample time to intercept the plane before it got to the pentagon, but where were they? People honestly believe our airspace protection is that pathetic? Yeah right




It was "that pathetic" back in 1995 when the Whitehouse was struck by a plane that the FAA admitted they had seen on radar but did nothing about...

But I suppose the Clinton administration could have also been in on the 9/11 conspiracy...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 9 days
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Economist]
    #6063536 - 09/15/06 02:06 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

It was "that pathetic" back in 1995 when the Whitehouse was struck by a plane that the FAA admitted they had seen on radar but did nothing about...

But I suppose the Clinton administration could have also been in on the 9/11 conspiracy...




I'm sorry but that is a very poor comparison. America was "attacked" on 9/11 remember? We were not being "attacked" in 1995. The ENTIRE US govt knew we were under attack, hell I knew we were under attack 15mins after it happened. Your telling me it is reasonable to assume 1hr and 15mins is ok time for an enemy aircraft to disappear in american airspace, then strike the very heart of our military without any resistance?

You simply cannot compare an instance of complete normality in 1995 to the 1st hour after 9/11 when we KNEW there were other hijacked aircraft flying close to washington. They didn't have to run the pony express from NY to washington to know we was under attack you know? It was on the tv, do fighter pilot commanders and radar station commanders not watch tv or talk to superiors that watch tv? No phone calls were made? No secret military phone network they could have used?

The excuse for the reaction time of our military aircraft after the 1st plane hit in NY stinks and trying to compare it to a time of complete normalcy in 1995 stinks. The only thing you could rightly compare it to is to the 1st and 2nd plane that hit the towers in the beginning. Now if that plane in 1995 was the 2nd or 3rd plane an hour later you might be onto something...


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #6064452 - 09/15/06 11:49 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Rosetta, my friend, you have misattributed that quote. The authors name is zappaisgod, not Zappa. Please fix. BEFORE I SUE YOUR ASS INTO A STATE OF BANKRUPTCY FROM WHICH YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO RETRIEVE EVEN THE REMNANTS OF YOUR RECTUM. Just kidding.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #6064499 - 09/15/06 12:02 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

RosettaStoned said:
I'm sorry but that is a very poor comparison. America was "attacked" on 9/11 remember? We were not being "attacked" in 1995. The ENTIRE US govt knew we were under attack, hell I knew we were under attack 15mins after it happened. Your telling me it is reasonable to assume 1hr and 15mins is ok time for an enemy aircraft to disappear in american airspace, then strike the very heart of our military without any resistance?




You think it's a bad example. Great! I think it's a bad example too. Unfortunately it's the only even remote example I could find.

You are trying to assert something you cannot prove (i.e. that our air defence was organized enough and capable enough to take out the flight that struck the Pentagon). I have pointed out that the available evidence, however weak, contradicts that.

Now, if you want to assert that our air defence is better than the government claimed: PROVE IT

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 9 days
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Economist]
    #6064687 - 09/15/06 01:05 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

You are trying to assert something you cannot prove




You just described 99% of the 9/11 commission report.


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6064799 - 09/15/06 01:43 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Rosetta, my friend, you have misattributed that quote. The authors name is zappaisgod, not Zappa. Please fix. BEFORE I SUE YOUR ASS INTO A STATE OF BANKRUPTCY FROM WHICH YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO RETRIEVE EVEN THE REMNANTS OF YOUR RECTUM. Just kidding.





That was just for reiteration. As to the proof thing:


"You just described 99% of the 9/11 commission report."

It is becoming increasingly clear that there is no level of evidence that will satisfy any of the loons who desperately want to find Lex Luthor (aka GW Bush) responsible and complicit in this and every other poopy thing that happens in the world. There should be a Survivor show segregated into various conspiracy theory camps. The fucking bitch fights would truly be high comedy. Nothing like a whacko scorned and all. Or was that woman? Fuck it, I'll use it as I see fit.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 9 days
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6065509 - 09/15/06 05:01 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

I'll spell my sig how I want thanks. You do not deserve the "isgod" at the end and I sure as hell aren't putting it there.

As to your assertion that no amount of "proof" will satisfy a dissenter I could say the exact same thing about the ignorant repub lap dogs. There is no amount of contradictory information that will make you question the official story, you think every fucking thing has been debunked. Well I got news for you, the repubs are in charge of defining words. Much has yet to be answered and simply because you are satisfied with a certain explanation does NOT mean everyone on planet earth agrees.

You don't define words, you do not define when something is "debunked" and govt payroll stooges don't either. Each individual person decides for themselves and when millions to billion(s) of people around the world believe something it isn't because they are all nuts.


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #6065569 - 09/15/06 05:19 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Yes, I do and yes, we do and no, you are the ignored lunatic fringe precisely because of your lockstep dismissal of the obvious. You sir are the true puppet. I knew girls like you way back then. Patricia Krenwinkle, Leslie Van Houton, Lynette Fromme. (I did that from memory, so the spelling may be a bit off)


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineViveka
refutation bias
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #6067982 - 09/16/06 02:59 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

I think your misattribution of zappaisgod's statement is indicative of your questionable approach in general. It displays a blatant disregard for accuracy, it's assumptive, and it takes liberties spurred on by base emotional reactions (you don't deserve the "isgod"). That very judgement exposes the overall incompleteness of your thought process. See, even if you 'allowed' your fellow poster the privilege of including the "isgod" portion of his screenname, you wouldn't be asserting that he is god, you would merely be accurately attributing the quote using his full name. So by denying it, and attributing the statement to "Zappa", which implies the great musician and composer of the 20th century, Frank Zappa, you are not only innacurate, you are possibly spreading misinformation and at the same time you are exposing your pettiness.

Unless you weren't aware that the "zappa" in zappaisgod's handle is a real world character in which case only your inexperience and lack of perspective is exposed.

Edited by Viveka (09/16/06 03:39 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #6068050 - 09/16/06 03:26 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

RosettaStoned said:
You just described 99% of the 9/11 commission report.



How does this relate to our air defenses?

I'm not arguing for or against the commission report, however, you made an assertion that our air defenses were more than capable of stopping the plane that hit the Pentagon.

I am still waiting to see some proof of this.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Economist]
    #6068417 - 09/16/06 05:32 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Even NIST has said that they only computed models leading up to the point of initial collapse, but not the "structural behavior" following.

There is no way that all of the momentum was transferred to lower floors in such a way that the lower structure posed NO RESISTANCE whatsoever, allowing near-freefall speeds, and still pulverize that much concrete into dust.

When I said that the difference in the height considering the pile, and that the difference in time would be no more than 1.5 seconds.. I made that calculation assuming that the pile was over 300 feet high (~20 stories). Obviously it was not that tall... it was probably less than 10.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: dr0mni]
    #6068446 - 09/16/06 05:44 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

To begin with, as posted elsewhere in this thread, the NIST report also found that the "pancake theory" of collapse doesn't pan out either. (you can find this at: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm )

So already the experts have stated that the entire premise of the link starting this thread is wrong.

What really disturbs me is your insistance on believing something based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. You are claiming that there is no way enough momentum could transfer during collapse to allow for near free-fall speeds. You claim this despite the NIST report, and despite ANY evidence suggesting otherwise. Where is your proof that there wouldn't have been enough momentum to transfer? Where are the equations? Where is the engineering, the testimony?

Why should anyone listen to your blind faith?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Economist]
    #6068499 - 09/16/06 06:07 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Social scientists and philosophers tend to have severe deficiencies in the mathematical realm (Economists obviously excluded) so don't hold your breath.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleMushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6068586 - 09/16/06 06:36 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

B-b-b-b-b-b-but they're scholars! They can't be wrong about things! Personal biases!? Impossible!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Economist]
    #6068589 - 09/16/06 06:38 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

In what is the biggest loas of crap ever: THE "PAPER" IGNORES ACCELERATION DUE TO GRAVITY!

This is why when you leave a water faucet slightly open, the stream of water near the top is one contiguous ribbon of water, but near the bottom it separates into droplets.

The molecules near the bottom travel faster than the ones near the top, spreading apart, and eventually breaking the ribbon into droplets.

I always chuckle when someone who reads popular mechanics and fancies themselves a physicist writes a 'paper' like the one linked above.  :thumbdown:


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Diploid]
    #6069186 - 09/16/06 10:38 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

I don't need a complicated equation to prove that the momentum couldn't have been transferred because it is common sense. If there is a huge steel and concrete structure underneath a falling body then it is going to to offer resistance! But we don't see that. We see the entire structure fail at once!

Yes, the NIST paper discredits the Pancake theory, but still offers no plausible mechanism for GLOBAL collapse of the whole structure, only the initiation of collapse. It also continues to dismiss the alleged "squibs" as air being pistoned out by collapsing floors, despite the fact that it also dismisses the pancake theory. It's a contradiction!

I don't have blind faith. A week ago I began doubting all of this, thinking "maybe it is just a bunch of misconceptions and misinformation" but then I look at the photos of molten metal pouring out of the towers, and molten metal being pulled out of the wreckage WEEKS afterwards, and the freefall speeds of WTC 1, 2, AND 3.

I don't have blind faith, I believe what I've seen and what I know from Physics 101. You are the one who has blind faith in governmental beaurocracies. Why should you trust NIST? Because they are a big organization? Do you realize the threat to an engineers job if they were to propose such a controversial theory as controlled demolition? They are told "figure out HOW a plane could've brought these building's down" not "figure out IF a plane could've..." Many other fire engineers have complained that the official investigation leaves too many vital questions unanswered that could pose a threat to safety in other high-rise buildings.

I've been convinced through witnessing the photos and videos for myself, not by "blind faith" in "supposed scholars". What these people say is logical, and is more convincing than any official explanation that I have heard.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinemr_minds_eye
Disposable Wage Whore
Male User Gallery
Registered: 01/22/02
Posts: 1,948
Loc: Samsara
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: dr0mni]
    #6070134 - 09/17/06 08:48 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

My step-father who is an engineer says that he was surprised that they didn't collapse sooner.


--------------------
Our quest for discovery fuels our creativity in all fields, not just science. If we reached the end of the line, the human spirit would shrivel and die. But I don't think we will ever stand still: we shall increase in complexity, if not in depth, and shall always be the center on an expanding horizon of possibilities.
-Stephen Hawking

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Millionaire Offers $100,000 For Scientific Proof WTC Towers Collapsed As Bush Administration Claims
( 1 2 all )
ekomstop 4,973 37 12/16/04 08:29 PM
by ekomstop
* GAO - Bush administration violated anti-propaganda law grib 1,899 18 05/21/04 03:37 PM
by Mushmonkey
* Surviving the Bush Dictatorship - Martial Law
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
wingnutx 7,019 169 08/23/03 01:48 PM
by wingnutx
* Sharia law -- gotta love it
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Phred 5,514 101 11/25/04 11:59 AM
by zahudulallah
* dealing with law enforcement ChromeCrow 1,414 4 08/26/02 02:29 AM
by Lana
* morality and the law
( 1 2 all )
hongomon 2,257 33 11/20/02 02:08 PM
by BleaK
* international law crunchytoast 1,292 18 11/15/05 07:18 AM
by crunchytoast
* Law Too Unconstitutional For Even Justice Department to Defend Ravus 661 3 01/26/05 06:54 PM
by zappaisgod

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,011 topic views. 1 members, 4 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.