Home | Community | Message Board


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   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link)
    #6054625 - 09/12/06 06:43 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

just read it for yourself, it's quite simple to understand, and the graphics just make it easier.

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]
    #6054800 - 09/12/06 07:40 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

I'm so happy that the person who wrote this "scholarly link" about how the collapse "violates the laws of physics" actually themselves violated the laws of physics.

Allow me to point out some of the problems with the analysis:

First:
The "pile" left after the collapse was very large, and extended quite high into the sky at points, so her initial assumption that the time for the collapse can be accurately calculated by measuring a ball falling from the top of the towers to ground level is already flawed.

Second:
In the animation posted on the site, you can obviously see that the collapse began at the impact point, NOT at the roof, which is what all of her simulations assume. Several floors were infact simultaneously in free fall, because the section above the impact point collapsed together, all floors falling at the same time.

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

The whole "billiard ball" simulation is complete and utter crap because it assumes that each successive collapsing floor begins with an initial velocity of zero, completely ignoring the exiting velocity of the floors already traveling downwards.

When the top couple of floors collapsed, they caused the floors below them to begin collapsing, but they transferred not only the energy necessary to cause collapse, but their existing *momentum*. Thus the lower floors would begin falling at the velocity the floor above them was already traveling, and would accelerate due to gravity from there.

Since this is completely ignored in the cited "paper" I am forced to conclude that the author could use a physics class, and has succeeded in proving nothing...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineApJunkie
part-time Ninja
Male

Registered: 08/17/06
Posts: 2,735
Loc: Loc:Loc:Loc:Loc:Loc:
Last seen: 5 years, 4 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Economist]
    #6054814 - 09/12/06 07:45 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)


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: ApJunkie]
    #6054912 - 09/12/06 08:07 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

I really want to help, but the pictures won't load, can you maybed write out whatever it is in txt (so for off-topic post, btw)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBasilides
Servent ofWisdom
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/10/06
Posts: 7,059
Loc: Crown and Heart
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: dr0mni]
    #6055119 - 09/12/06 08:50 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

My god these conspiracy theories are flat out fucking dumb. The only way the WTC would fall timber style is if the plane had hit it like, at the 20th floor or something.

Btw, there are videos available that show the planes literally smacking into the towers. Who were flying those? Suicide CIA agents? What about the all the cell phone calls from people on the planes who said Arab men just hijacked their flight?

Seriously, these theories just keep getting dumber and sadder. The only "conspiracy theory" that even has an iola of weight would be the notion that the government knew Al Qaeda was poised to attack the WTC, but intentionally failed to halt it or intentionally did not connect the dots that would throw law enforcement into action. And even that is wild stretch.

Stupid college kids these days and their Loose Change DVDs. If it gets any more stupid, someone's gonna have to quarantine David Icke.


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


"Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebarfightlard
tales of theinexpressible
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/29/03
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Basilides]
    #6055131 - 09/12/06 08:52 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

they have used terrorist groups before, no reason they wouldn't again. Or it could have been remote control, which they did have the technology for.


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

"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBasilides
Servent ofWisdom
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/10/06
Posts: 7,059
Loc: Crown and Heart
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: barfightlard]
    #6055164 - 09/12/06 08:58 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

This flies in the face of clear unmitigated logic. People were calling loved ones from all 4 planes assessing the situation, and the 4-way consensus is evident: hijackers took over the planes. If you believe otherwise, you are believing a falsehood. Look, I know Bush is an idiot, but that's no reason to seep to his level.


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


"Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinebarfightlard
tales of theinexpressible
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/29/03
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Basilides]
    #6055189 - 09/12/06 09:03 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

They did it with the WTC in the early 90's, minus the planes. And the document Operation Northwoods shows they were willing to do such a thing with planes.

Not aying it happened, but something doesn't add up.


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

"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBasilides
Servent ofWisdom
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/10/06
Posts: 7,059
Loc: Crown and Heart
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: barfightlard]
    #6055204 - 09/12/06 09:07 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

It's called a massive fucking intelligence failure.


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


"Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedegenerate182
stranger
Male

Registered: 01/14/06
Posts: 54
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Basilides]
    #6055240 - 09/12/06 09:15 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

the sad thing is when they build the freedom tower someone will just do it again...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBasilides
Servent ofWisdom
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/10/06
Posts: 7,059
Loc: Crown and Heart
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: degenerate182]
    #6055268 - 09/12/06 09:23 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Not as long as people remember not to trust Arab hijackers. That's what made 9-11 possible, the fact that no one considered the possibility that those guys were on a suicide mission.


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


"Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblequiver
freedrug
Male

Registered: 10/25/05
Posts: 8,047
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Basilides]
    #6055375 - 09/12/06 09:52 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

without the million dollar simulations you'd get the exact same falling in on itself like they did if you used a deck of cards

these people are clutching at straw


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblequiver
freedrug
Male

Registered: 10/25/05
Posts: 8,047
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Basilides]
    #6055402 - 09/12/06 09:57 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Basilides said:
Not as long as people remember not to trust Arab hijackers. That's what made 9-11 possible, the fact that no one considered the possibility that those guys were on a suicide mission.




i watched a doco about the main hijacker abbas i think his name was the other night

that guy was a fucking fruitcake who basicly went on a jihad because they were building maccas in cairo and he couldnt find a job and resented the fact he could feed himself working in the free western world so did he blame his own government for lack of unemployment opportunities and land selloffs to build mc donalds restaurants?
nope he blamed the evil west


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

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: Basilides]
    #6055485 - 09/12/06 10:14 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Basilides said:
Stupid college kids these days and their Loose Change DVDs. If it gets any more stupid, someone's gonna have to quarantine David Icke.



Just be glad no one has pulled him into this....yet.... I think that maybe they knew it and let it happen anyways. That's pretty much where I draw the line. To me it is disturbing to even feel it necessary to entertain the idea that our govt was in on it though. What a fucked up world...


--------------------
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
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Basilides]
    #6055629 - 09/12/06 11:00 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Basilides said:

Stupid college kids these days and their Loose Change DVDs. If it gets any more stupid, someone's gonna have to quarantine David Icke.




Yea... Those people are illogical brainless fucks.


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



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 10 days
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: downforpot]
    #6056085 - 09/13/06 02:47 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Yea... Those people are illogical brainless fucks.




And hurling insults at people for thinking differently than you makes you what? Einstein?


--------------------
"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
Invisiblezorbman
blarrr
Male

Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 5,952
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: dr0mni]
    #6056212 - 09/13/06 04:38 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

I wonder if anyone is investigating the possibility that aliens had something to do with the collapse?


--------------------
“The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”  -- Rudiger Dornbusch

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblequiver
freedrug
Male

Registered: 10/25/05
Posts: 8,047
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: zorbman]
    #6056223 - 09/13/06 04:50 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

:lol:
illegal aliens?


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

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: zorbman]
    #6057599 - 09/13/06 03:48 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

zorbman said:
I wonder if anyone is investigating the possibility that aliens had something to do with the collapse?




Steven Jones is hot on the case. Or maybe it's Jesus. Who knows?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6057679 - 09/13/06 04:04 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

So Al Qaeda put more bombs in the WTC on 9/11. They bombed one of the towers in 1993 and decided to use a lot more on 9/11.

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: Luddite]
    #6057695 - 09/13/06 04:07 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Why me?


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #6057829 - 09/13/06 04:50 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

RosettaStoned said:
Quote:

Yea... Those people are illogical brainless fucks.




And hurling insults at people for thinking differently than you makes you what? Einstein?




Actually yea, I am a moderate.


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



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"

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: zappaisgod]
    #6057836 - 09/13/06 04:51 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Quote:

zorbman said:
I wonder if anyone is investigating the possibility that aliens had something to do with the collapse?




Steven Jones is hot on the case. Or maybe it's Jesus. Who knows?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm




What does this have anything to do with testing a piece of steel, which is all he did?

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: buckwheat]
    #6057880 - 09/13/06 05:02 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Mr. Jones has done a good bit more than that, hasn't he? For a fuller examination of my take on Mr. Jones and his compatriots go to MR&P (only MAIA knows why it's there. I have my guess) and read the thread "Fury as academics claim..." Arch whackjob.


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6057925 - 09/13/06 05:11 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Here's the answer.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The floors didn't pancake.
Also, the math in this link http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
doesn't seem to take into account that when one floor falls on the next one below it it would cause it to fall faster then if it fell without being hit by anything falling onto it from above. In physics, students usually do experiments with pucks on air tables to study collisions (similar to balls on a pool table). When I took physics, we did these experiments, took polaroid pictures while using a strobe light, measured the postions of each puck on the picture and did the calculations based on Newtionian mechanics. Whoever made this page http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
should have studied collisions, but seemed to have left out the calculations where one floor hits the one below it and gives it an initial velocity downward.

Edited by Luddite (09/13/06 05:21 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Luddite]
    #6057987 - 09/13/06 05:26 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

You can calculate the time it takes for something to fall in freefall from the equation here under "How Far" http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/1DKin/U1L5d.html

Rearrange this equation d = 0.5 * g * t^2 and solve for t.

d = 1368 ft
g = 32.2 ft/s^2

Edited by Luddite (09/13/06 05:29 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Luddite]
    #6057993 - 09/13/06 05:28 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

The floors didn't pancake.




These implicit assumptions seem to be the backbone of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. i.e. Assume the floors pancaked and show how it couldn't happen, assume the molten material was steel and say it wasn't hot enough, etc.

No one has ever addressed the 10,000 page structural analysis study by the American Society of Civil Engineers and NIST. There is no point in arguing it until this study is addressed because points that have been covered ad nauseam just keep being brought back up again as if they are new ideas.

No one ever talks about how the new WTC 7, which was rebuilt, now has a steel reinforced concrete core to prevent the exact same type of failure from happening.

You conspiracy theorists are still living in Sep. 12 2001. They are already designing new buildings based on the knowledge that was gained from analysis of the structural failure of WTC.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinerubixcubies
porch monkey ferlyfe
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/05/06
Posts: 1,218
Loc: ottawa on
Last seen: 14 years, 9 months
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: dr0mni]
    #6058033 - 09/13/06 05:42 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

its a CIA plot to make a puppet out of bush so they made the ballots in Florida hard to punch and then find out about the plot but decide to enhance it because they believe it will not work but the u s is running out of oil and the people "behind" it are middle eastern and there just filled with it and it all played into their hands and then they take away everybody's rights all halfassedly in order to allow people to still try to get the bombs on board to milk the ridiculous precautions they now take which is really just a plot to help the airlines make money on soda....
and if your wondering this is just pure speculation i have no reason to believe it really


--------------------
i'm a very evolved ape you know.

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: dr0mni]
    #6058128 - 09/13/06 06:18 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

How can anything violate the laws of physics?

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: MushmanTheManic]
    #6058493 - 09/13/06 07:50 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

A theory can. Anyway, more on Mr Jones and his con freres:

"This is what Brigham Young University physics professor Steven Jones, put on leave by BYU last week, believes — once again, despite the preponderance of facts showing otherwise."

Just go here;
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjc2MjZmOTI2YzM0M2ZjOTUwZWU4YWRiMjRlOTVjZGM=


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #6058585 - 09/13/06 08:06 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

RosettaStoned said:
Quote:

Yea... Those people are illogical brainless fucks.




And hurling insults at people for thinking differently than you makes you what? Einstein?





Check this out. The Quran proves Relativity and Relativity proves the Quran.
http://www.speed-light.info/

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]
    #6058885 - 09/13/06 09:17 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Economist said:
I'm so happy that the person who wrote this "scholarly link" about how the collapse "violates the laws of physics" actually themselves violated the laws of physics.

Allow me to point out some of the problems with the analysis:

First:
The "pile" left after the collapse was very large, and extended quite high into the sky at points, so her initial assumption that the time for the collapse can be accurately calculated by measuring a ball falling from the top of the towers to ground level is already flawed.

Remember though, the times for collapse can be corroborated with the seismic data. The second collapse was about two seconds shorter, most likely because it landed on top of the pile from the first one that you mentioned. And the top of the roof is a fine place to start since it must hit the ground before the seismic waves can stop.

This model is an IDEALIZED modle, assuming a vacuum or zero to negligable air resistance. Even if the pile was 368 feet (almost 30 stories, or 27% of original height) high, it would only cut the idealized free-fall time by less than 1.5 seconds. Compare that to the estimated 30 seconds and almost 100 seconds, and it becomes insignificant.


Second:
In the animation posted on the site, you can obviously see that the collapse began at the impact point, NOT at the roof, which is what all of her simulations assume. Several floors were infact simultaneously in free fall, because the section above the impact point collapsed together, all floors falling at the same time.

Yes, all the floors, falling SYMMETRICALLY at the same time.

but like I said above, the roof can set as the initial height because it must hit the ground before the seismic activity stops.


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

Um, what are you talking about. She used 32ft/second^2 as the gravitaional constant. I've run the equation through a grapher and gotten an identical graph to hers. so no, she in no way left out the big G

The whole "billiard ball" simulation is complete and utter crap because it assumes that each successive collapsing floor begins with an initial velocity of zero, completely ignoring the exiting velocity of the floors already traveling downwards.

When the top couple of floors collapsed, they caused the floors below them to begin collapsing, but they transferred not only the energy necessary to cause collapse, but their existing *momentum*. Thus the lower floors would begin falling at the velocity the floor above them was already traveling, and would accelerate due to gravity from there.

Since this is completely ignored in the cited "paper" I am forced to conclude that the author could use a physics class, and has succeeded in proving nothing...

She not only mentions momentum, she points out what a huge amount of it would be lost due to the pulverization of concrete into fine dust

sorry, but you have debunked nothing




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]
    #6059006 - 09/13/06 09:42 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

dr0mni said:
Remember though, the times for collapse can be corroborated with the seismic data. The second collapse was about two seconds shorter, most likely because it landed on top of the pile from the first one that you mentioned. And the top of the roof is a fine place to start since it must hit the ground before the seismic waves can stop.

This model is an IDEALIZED modle, assuming a vacuum or zero to negligable air resistance. Even if the pile was 368 feet (almost 30 stories, or 27% of original height) high, it would only cut the idealized free-fall time by less than 1.5 seconds. Compare that to the estimated 30 seconds and almost 100 seconds, and it becomes insignificant.




So, a few reasons why this is wrong:
First, in her model she measured time to hit the ground, so she did NOT in fact take into account collapsing onto already existing debris. (This is fairly obvious in all of her charts.

Second, I believe that the actual number (less simultaneously falling floors and collapsing onto debris) would probably be around the 10-12 second range (i.e. collapsing slightly slower than free-fall) and on that scale, a difference of 1.5 seconds is VERY significant.

Third, I hate to tell you this, but the measurements of G take into account things like air resistance, so the whole "idealized model" thing was already killed by the numbers she used.

Quote:

dr0mni said:
Yes, all the floors, falling SYMMETRICALLY at the same time.

but like I said above, the roof can set as the initial height because it must hit the ground before the seismic activity stops.



This is fine, except she suggests, in her model, that none of the floors could be falling simultaneously. The whole "billiard ball" model is contigent upon each ball falling and hitting the ball below it, not all the balls being dropped at the same instant. However, it's fairly obvious that several of the floors DID infact begin falling at the same instant (equivalent, in her model, to several of the balls being dropped at the same time).

As with my first complaint, I don't think this will account for the complete difference, but even if it only shaves off 1-2 seconds, we're talking about a total collapse lasting around 10-12 seconds in slightly-slower-than freefall, so 1-2 seconds is very significant.

Quote:

dr0mni said:
Um, what are you talking about. She used 32ft/second^2 as the gravitaional constant. I've run the equation through a grapher and gotten an identical graph to hers. so no, she in no way left out the big G



No, she didn't take into account acceleration due to gravity, as acceleration due to gravity means that each floor would being to fall at the speed the floor above it was already travelling (hence the whole "acceleration" bit). She started each successive floor at a velocity of zero, thus missing acceleration due to gravity.

Quote:

dr0mni said:
She not only mentions momentum, she points out what a huge amount of it would be lost due to the pulverization of concrete into fine dust

sorry, but you have debunked nothing




She neither quantifies how much momentum would have been lost, nor does she have any evidence backing up the composition of the dust flying out of the tower.

She includes absolutely no models or equations on the matter, she just says she "thinks" that it would be sufficient to have an impact on the downward velocity.

Given that NIST and the American Civil Engineers have both said differently than she does, and they're packed with experts who have put together models including equations, material compositions, etc. while Jane Doe won't even tell us who she is, you will please forgive me if I believe them and not her.

I think this paper is pretty well debunked, and if you continue to believe in it, well, that's your choice, as long as you recognize it involves taking the word of a complete stranger who offers no equations, evidence, or proof, over the experts at NIST and the American Civil Engineers Association.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblebadreligion2good
Uncertain
Male

Registered: 02/21/06
Posts: 888
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Economist]
    #6059171 - 09/13/06 10:26 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Sounds debunked to me, the conspiracy theories put out there by loose change are a pain in the ass, and all those people trying to proove the documentary is right are waisting there time. The fact is the towers definitely went down, and airplanes definitely smashed into them, and people definitely died. Those are the undeniable facts, those are the ones that matter, thats what we know for sure. All these theories are irrelevant, trivial.


--------------------
All I know is that I dont know.

Row, row, row, you boat, gently down the stream.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Omnicyclion prophet
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,230
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: dr0mni]
    #6059182 - 09/13/06 10:29 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

What tends to throw people off:

Concrete and steel are very solid things. Strong stuff on a human scale. But if you build on a large scale like the WTC, the weight forces pressing down on the structure are so immense, and the objects so large, that these buildings on their scale are incredibly fragile. Once it moves strongly, thick reinforced concrete crumbles like crushing a biscuit in your hand.

You can park a truck on a tiny column of concrete, but whack it with a hammer and it cracks.

People are baffled by how it looked how the towers fell but conspiracy or no, its fall from the outside doesn't look that alien if you mind the forces at work.

A skyscraper hardly will ever fall over, and will almost always fall straight down, explosives or not, because the gravity force of the heavy materials is enormous and pulls it down under its own weight. To fall over the Towers would've needed a huge push from the side to seriously interfere with the downward motion. That extra energy wasn't there. Floors will collapse far easier than serve as a sliding plank to let the top part slide off. With those forces, the building can only go straight down.

Then there is the speed with which the building fell down. This becomes less remarkable when you realize that the top part slamming down on the lower part sends down a crushing shockwave, so that the lower part already is weakened and internally crushed to a great extent before the top part falls down on it, so all this weight atop all this structural weakness can make the collapse go quite fast.

Then there are the puffs of smoke way below the collapsing zone. That has got to be explosives, right? Umm, no, they might be caused by explosives, but you got to realize enormous shockwaves travel down the tower, throught the concrete and steel, at hundreds of meters per second. These shockwaves, at that scale, near inevitably cause pressure effects far beneath the collapsing zone. A big thump crushes a gypsum ceiling and busts out a window, and there's a smoke eruption.

It could be explosives but why? The structure needs no weakening, because the shockwaves will do that efficiently by themselves. It will be messy, but if you're a rogue government that really DOES take down the Towers, you *want* messy because otherwise it would look overly neat and suspicious to the thousands of demolition experts in the world. Once the initial collapse occurs in the "right" way the whole building will inevitably come down, and it takes modest math and physics to orchestrate that if you're an evil government branch with access to all structural information.

The only place where explosives would make sense would be in the very beginning, to get the initial collapse happening. This would have to be close to the crash sites. Imagine being a welltrained group of navy seals with some portable charges to commit the unspeakable act. That would be the utter mission from hell: there is NO way to know whether you even can get high up in the building after a plane slammed into it. Once there, there is NO TELLING what you will find. How many floors are destroyed, to what extent, will it be approachable due to heat etc? This means you'd have to plan the exact placing of the charges on the fly, judging by structural weakening by the plane which you cannot oversee or perhaps even get to, with ridiculously small amounts (portable) of explosions that have to be placed in such a specific way as to be undetectable. You need to have watched only a bit of Discovery Channel to see that thats a near impossible mission with enormous uncertainties on a crucial mission. Nobody sane would conduct such a mission, the risks of failure (lets say 1% chance of succeeding) are just too great especially for the major mission of a well-planned conspiracy. Think about it from the viewpoint of the huypothetical evil government branch planning 9/11, add just a little knowledge, stir the pot and the unlikelyness jumps right at you.

So: falling straight down fast with puffs of smoke low in the towers are perfectly normal building collapse behaviors without any intervention.

An on the fly demolition mission is so unrealistic it isnt even funny.


...and now the but!

I have no very probable explanation for what the steel seemed to have done. I just don't know.

There is compelling evidence that a lot of people seemed to know this would happen. Most compelling are unusual financial transactions, which were numerous and statistically improbable.

It is likely that some things were not "as alleged" about September 11, but the visual collapse of the Towers is in no way remarkable, even to be expected, even though it looks too weird to be natural.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here

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: Asante]
    #6061950 - 09/14/06 06:07 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Excellent post W_S. But which unusual financial transactions are you referring to, the put options? Because those have been quite debunked.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/2/62018.shtml
http://www.911myths.com/html/selling_amr.html

Or are you talking about the Larry Silverstein business which has also been thoroughly handled and put to rest by various members of this website.

Or something else?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Omnicyclion prophet
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,230
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Viveka]
    #6062165 - 09/14/06 07:02 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

I haven't seen those transactions debunked sufficiently, for me to dismiss them. I'm no construction or demolition expert but I researched a lot of it from all sorts of angles to find out for myself. I've got a strong drive to want to know everything about anything that interests me and I know how to feed my data hunger.

There just are too many reports of all sorts of people that seemed to have known it would happen. It's plausible, and you just have to recall the New Orleans disaster to see that even with previous knowledge of an imminent disaster a government can unbelievably screw up, without an evil agenda.

I believe they knew it was going to happen, but either screwed up in stopping it or were made to screw up by a group within the government with an agenda of its own.

Remember the CIA was also up to their nose in the Heroin trade during the vietnam war, and it was sometimes smuggled in the bodybags of fallen soldiers so awfully unpatriotic things do happen.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here

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: Viveka]
    #6062194 - 09/14/06 07:10 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Viveka said:
Excellent post W_S. But which unusual financial transactions are you referring to, the put options? Because those have been quite debunked.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/6/2/62018.shtml
http://www.911myths.com/html/selling_amr.html

Or are you talking about the Larry Silverstein business which has also been thoroughly handled and put to rest by various members of this website.

Or something else?




What larry silverstein buisness specifically?

Also i looked around that site to look for explanations for terror drills hapening on the same day that the attacks happen. They do try to disprove Alex Jones calculation of a one in a 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance for the 7/7 drill. Fair enough,but they don't even have a conclusive answer. But when you combine the 9/11 NRO drill and 14 others on that day. And the one on the Oklahoma City Bombing. Then what. They didnt even Address the the NRO drill on 9/11 instead one that happened a year earlier? What's up with that? Trying to confuse people by giving the impression that was the drill we truth seekers talk about.

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: buckwheat]
    #6062222 - 09/14/06 07:16 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

buckwheat said:
What larry silverstein buisness specifically?



Some have tried to suggest that because Silverstein took out a very large insurance policy on the towers within 2 months of the attacks, that clearly he knew something was going to happen.

However, he also signed the lease within 2 months of the attacks, so the insurance is easily explained. Furthermore if you run the numbers, even if Silverstein was able to recoup the total amount he claimed the insurance companies owed him (he claimed $7 billion, they paid out between 3 and 4, he took them to court and lost) he still would have come out behind because the lease was valued at $8 billion prior to purchase. Silverstein also had extensive realestate investments throughout the city, all of which immediately became less valuable post-9/11 as people and businesses began to move out, driving rents down.

Ultimately, it just doesn't add up to anything out of the ordinary.

Quote:

buckwheat said:
Fair enough,but they don't even have a conclusive answer. But when you combine the 9/11 NRO drill and 14 others on that day. And the one on the Oklahoma City Bombing. Then what. They didnt even Address the the NRO drill on 9/11 instead one that happened a year earlier? What's up with that? Trying to confuse people by giving the impression that was the drill we truth seekers talk about.




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.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAsante
Omnicyclion prophet
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,230
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Economist]
    #6062264 - 09/14/06 07:27 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:


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.





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.


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here

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: 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, 10 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, 10 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, 10 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, 10 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
InvisibleTien
人民英雄
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/30/05
Posts: 2,382
Loc: Canoodia Flag
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Basilides]
    #6070169 - 09/17/06 09:18 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Basilides said:

Btw, there are videos available that show the planes literally smacking into the towers. Who were flying those? Suicide CIA agents? What about the all the cell phone calls from people on the planes who said Arab men just hijacked their flight?





1. Boing 757 and 767 are the only models of Boeing that are able to perform autonomous flight. Yes, this includes taking off, flying, and landing. Those planes have intelligent software installed that prohobits the pilot from putting anymore than 1.5g's on the plane. Can someone fucking explain to me how the aircraft which hit pentagon performed a 5-7 g turn before impact?

It gets even better though...767 and 757 are the only Boeings that can be REMOTE FLOWN. This feature is there so that Norad can fly the plane to safe place if something is going on with the pilots. Why wasn't this done to avoid the 9/11 tragedy?

2. The cell phones could have NEVER been made from those planes (especially flight 93 - since it was in a rural area)
You see, most cellphones are equipped with transmission power of up to 5 watts - usually just 3. First, your cell gets a hold of a local transponder, lets it know who you are and who your service provider is, let it know what mode you want to comm in, establish that your phone is an a roaming area. This process is called 'electornic handshake' and usually 45 secs to complete in a roaming area upon power up. Considering that an airplane is going at about 500/mph and three times the range of the cells 5 watt transmitter...EVEN THE HANDSHAKE could not occur...let alone a soapy call to the family.

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: dr0mni]
    #6070241 - 09/17/06 10:07 AM (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.

Common sense has a notorious history of being dead wrong on close examination. This is why 'equations' are so useful.


If you put a car in neutral on a down-sloping hill and release the break, it will accelerate downhill at some speed governed by physics.

If you put TWO cars in neutral some distance apart on the hill and release the break on the first, then when it crashes into the second car, you release the break on the second, the second car will accelerate down the hill faster than the laws of physics 'allow'. This is due to the boost given it by the first car crashing into it.

Someone with a third grade science education will call this a violation of the laws of physics and think up conspiracy theories. Real physics will chuckle at them.


--------------------
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
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: Twin Towers "collapse" violates laws of physics (with scholarly link) [Re: Diploid]
    #6070280 - 09/17/06 10:19 AM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Diploid said:
I don't need a complicated equation to prove that the momentum couldn't have been transferred because it is common sense.

Common sense has a notorious history of being dead wrong on close examination. This is why 'equations' are so useful.


If you put a car in neutral on a down-sloping hill and release the break, it will accelerate downhill at some speed governed by physics.

If you put TWO cars in neutral some distance apart on the hill and release the break on the first, then when it crashes into the second car, you release the break on the second, the second car will accelerate down the hill faster than the laws of physics 'allow'. This is due to the boost given it by the first car crashing into it.

Someone with a third grade science education will call this a violation of the laws of physics and think up conspiracy theories. Real physics will chuckle at them.





My physics teacher said one time "common sense does not apply".  He showed us plenty of demonstrations that boggled the mind.  Common sense tells you the earth is at rest yet we know it revolves around the sun thousands of miles per hour.  People used to think the earth was at the center of the universe.  The commies and fanatic towel heads exploit this gullability to enslave you and the rest of the world.


http://www.google.com/search?client=oper...=utf-8&oe=utf-8

http://www.amazon.com/Disinformation-Med...9082469?ie=UTF8

Edited by Luddite (09/17/06 10:20 AM)

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: Tien]
    #6070677 - 09/17/06 12:53 PM (17 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Tien said:
2. The cell phones could have NEVER been made from those planes (especially flight 93 - since it was in a rural area)
You see, most cellphones are equipped with transmission power of up to 5 watts - usually just 3. First, your cell gets a hold of a local transponder, lets it know who you are and who your service provider is, let it know what mode you want to comm in, establish that your phone is an a roaming area. This process is called 'electornic handshake' and usually 45 secs to complete in a roaming area upon power up. Considering that an airplane is going at about 500/mph and three times the range of the cells 5 watt transmitter...EVEN THE HANDSHAKE could not occur...let alone a soapy call to the family.




I don't know where you got this from, but someone's been selectively cropping documents to feed you this.

To begin with, in rural areas where analogue service is used (so you can make calls with a much weaker signal than with digital), it was common to achieve coverage by placing 1 tower every 16 miles (you can read this here: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/1,33352-0.html ). Also, the "electronic handshake" would take place at the tower, so again once every 16 miles. The electronic handshake also does NOT take 45 seconds.

This should just be common sense, does it take nearly a minute for you to place a cell phone call (let alone ringing, and having the other person pick up) for EACH AND EVERY call? Clearly the answer is no. More realistic esitmates for the electronic handshake are 15-20 seconds, perahps longer if signals are very weak and such.

At any rate, a simple glance at the black-box info from flight 93 (available at the end of the report here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc04.pdf ) shows that flight 93 had descended to a height at or just below 20,000 feet (so less than 4 miles) by 9:44, meaning before the calls were being made. Furthermore, the same report shows that the airspeed was 250 MPH at that time and wouldn't pick up until 10:00.

At an airspeed of 250 MPH, and at an altitute of 4 miles, even a 45-second long handshake becomes possible with towers designed to cover 16-mile radii (remember the coverage is a sphere, and at 250 MPH you're only going about 4 miles per minute).

But none of this is new, it just reveals what we've always known: that the conspiracy nuts combine half-truths with non-existant research to reach claims that can't be validated.

I'll work on debunking the whole bit about the planes and the software in a little while, I apologize for not having time right now.

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

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


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, 9 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 0.052 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 14 queries.