It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Backing up the Govt Story vs. Debunking Alt. Theories

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Your whole post falls quite nicely into your opening statement:




I think it's more of a "I shall single-handedly and instantly debunk everything (even when I'm not completely sure of what I'm saying) and never be wrong (...or at least not admit it)!" kind of trip, a second cousin to outright trolling.




posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Stop kidding us Bsbray, you only feel that way in the case of Prof. Jones, who supports your theory.

Why don't you feel that way about the experts whose names take up almost ten pages of the NIST report?

If you really have such blind faith in physicists, why do disagree with Prof. Eager?



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

If you really have such blind faith in physicists, why do disagree with Prof. Eager?



How about Dr. Eager is a materials engineer and not a physicist? Why does everyone bow down to this materials engineer? He knows how the materials would act but by you guy's standards, we can't use him when we are talking about physics. See the double standard?



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Since we are so far off topic and many here seem so unread... Google this LIST OF IDIOTS that seem to agree. Not materials engineers or structural engineers so I guess they do not count?

Richard Falk
Howard Zinn
Andrew Bacevich
John McMurtry
Rosemary Radford Ruether
John Cobb Jr.
Noam Chomsky
Marcus Raskin
Michael Meacher
Wayne Madsen
Douglas Sturm
Chalmers Johnson
Joseph Hough


[edit on 7-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Alot of theologins and philosophers there in that list. The only one of importance might be the first...who is a mathmetician. I don't know why you included all those people when clearly everyone is going to say that they don't have the credentials. But your main point was right. Every engineer...even industrial engineers have to take statics, dynamics, calculus, physics etc.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
The only one of importance might be the first...who is a mathmetician.


If we are talking only about the dynamics of a building collapsing you are maybe correct.

If you are talking about motives, history, global politics, American polotics, multi-national corporations, religion... ALL facets of this event the list above is quite important.

What the "debunkers" try to do is imply that only a VERY SMALL group of people are qualified to form valid scientific opinions on the building collapses. A group they know is hard to get on here, prove their credentials and post.

They also do this in regards to the other facets of this event listed above.

There is a TON of "brain power" believeing in alternative theory for various reasons. The debunkers would have you believe this not to be true and focus only on certain people as being "credible".



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Stop kidding us Bsbray, you only feel that way in the case of Prof. Jones, who supports your theory.


Not really. I just don't think it's any coincidence that the first person with major credentials to come out against NIST was a -- physicist.


Why don't you feel that way about the experts whose names take up almost ten pages of the NIST report?


Because they're structural engineers (or else yes-men sitting around in NIST's desks
), and don't have expertise with virtually any of the collapse anomalies?

No offense, Griff, but I've even seen you use this reasoning in posting before (Griff is such an engineer as we are discussing): if NIST can logically explain how these trusses in WTC7 initially failed, then I guess their (whole) story makes sense.


If you really have such blind faith in physicists, why do disagree with Prof. Eager?


First, I don't have blind faith. There was absolutely no call for you to make this assumption, I just happen to agree with Prof. Jones' work. I already believed most of what he said, before he said it.

Second, Eager isn't a physicist, but is head of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT.

And thirdly, Eager's theory doesn't check out anyway because it doesn't explain a damned thing except how parts of the first floor may have theoretically collapsed. If -- the fires were extreme enough to start a collapse to begin with.




I like how you guys don't correct my pinpointing areas of expertise, too.

Is that because you know angular momentum is more in the realm of a physicist (because it happens to be a physics term) rather than the realm of someone who merely designs building to stand, and rarely has to deal with any kind of momentum at all? Same with squibs and the straightforward kind of momentum, resistances etc.




[edit on 7-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Jones has no qualifications to draw conclusions on the topics hes addressing--none.

I could be wrong tho--could you list his qualifications here for all to see?



It IS blind faith that you have. This statement tells the truth:



I already believed most of what he said, before he said it.


I asked you this before and got no response.

How did you determine that the 'angular momentum' is an anomoly?
I'm not even sure of what you're getting at?

Are you saying that for some reason the "chunk" of the tower should have kept moving away from the building or something? Why? Once the connection to the structure failed, it fell as it should--straight down and crumbling as it contacted the rest of the collapsing structure with great force.



I like how you guys don't correct my pinpointing areas of expertise, too.


Could it be because the logic is obviously convoluted?

Example:



Because they're structural engineers (or else yes-men sitting around in NIST's desks
), and don't have expertise with virtually any of the collapse anomalies?



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Jones has no qualifications to draw conclusions on the topics hes addressing--none.


Why do things have to be so black and white with you? No similarities between the appearances of the squibs and demo charges. No qualifications for Prof. Emeritus Jones.


I could be wrong tho--could you list his qualifications here for all to see?


Professor Emeritus of Physics at BYU. You can look up where he's studied or whatever online.


It IS blind faith that you have. This statement tells the truth:

I already believed most of what he said, before he said it.


So I believe something, and believed it before Dr. Jones endorsed it, and therefore I have blind faith?

Don't you also believe something? Or do you know it? Maybe that's the real difference between blind faith and skepticism.



How did you determine that the 'angular momentum' is an anomoly?
I'm not even sure of what you're getting at?


I think the fact that you don't know what I'm getting at is the real problem.

Momentum is something that's naturally conserved.



Are you saying that for some reason the "chunk" of the tower should have kept moving away from the building or something? Why?


Yep. Because momentum is something that's naturally conserved.

This is why I posted a definition in the other thread for you.



Once the connection to the structure failed, it fell as it should--straight down and crumbling as it contacted the rest of the collapsing structure with great force.


Look up the words torque, fulcrum, etc.

When the top of WTC2 started tilting outwards, its weight was being shifted to one side of the building. Not all floor panels equally.

[edit on 8-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   


Why do things have to be so black and white with you? No similarities between the appearances of the squibs and demo charges. No qualifications for Prof. Emeritus Jones.


Nice deflection.

Obviously the reference to "no qualifications" in regard to Jones is in his commenting on what he is not qualified to draw conclusions on.

Is he qualified?

Yes. Quite so. In the fields of his training.
None of those fields have anything to do failure analysis or forensic investigations.

To have him try and trump qualified scientists who not only DO have training in the applicable fields but have dedicated their lives to it is..well bullseet.



So I believe something, and believed it before Dr. Jones endorsed it, and therefore I have blind faith?


Yeah...thats pretty much the pattern.



Don't you also believe something? Or do you know it? Maybe that's the real difference between blind faith and skepticism.



Point?


I think the fact that you don't know what I'm getting at is the real problem.


I think the fact that you avoid such questions is the real problem



Momentum is something that's naturally conserved.



Point/context?



Are you saying that for some reason the "chunk" of the tower should have kept moving away from the building or something? Why?




Yep. Because momentum is something that's naturally conserved.


How far? How did you determine this?

Is it possible that movement was stopped because some attachment still remained?



When the top of WTC2 started tilting outwards, its weight was being shifted to one side of the building. Not all floor panels equally


What are you getting at?



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
You know what I think is ironic, Vushta?

You have no idea what it means that WTC2's angular momentum disappeared, but I know that as soon as I explain it to you in detail, you're going to immediately try to debunk it as if you know exactly what you're talking about.

And you won't ever let up once you start, either. No matter what you may or may not learn about angular momentum, or momentum in general.



Yep. Because momentum is something that's naturally conserved.


How far? How did you determine this?


"How far?" Wtf? Uh, three feet? No, no... Six meters. Angular momentum is conserved for only six meters at a time.



The reason angular momentum is important in physics is that it is a conserved quantity: a system's angular momentum stays constant unless an external torque acts on it.


Same source as the last time I quoted this for you.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
[removed unnecessary quote of Entire previous post]


Nice deflection.

Still refusing to answer any questions I see.


Quoting – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 7/9/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Angular momentum is conserved unless an external force is applied. Given the top of a building beginning to lean to, say, the left before the collapse, you have a torque vector pointing at you from the center of this rotation (counter-clockwise rotation), I assume that this rotational center (fulcrum) would be at the lower right hand side of the section of the building that is leaning to the left - correct?

The building top is not floating in space. As it continues to rotate, the motion of the lower left side of the section, which is moving down and to the right (slightly) is being resisted by the structure in the level under it. This means that the rotation is either being slowed, stopped or at the very least not ocurring as quickly as it would without this resistance. This resistance is one such "external force" acting on the angular momentum about which you are so concerned.

In the meantime, at the lower right edge - which is the center of rotation (the "fulcrum,") the vast majority of the weight of the rotating section is being borne. This is because on the other side, less weight can be carried by the understructure because, obviously, the building is moving. If the weight was being evenly borne by both sides, the rotation wouldn't have started in the first place.

The extremely large and extra load that the fulcrum is bearing causes the section supporting the fulcrum to give way. Gravitational acceleration of this suddenly released load applies a second torque, this one opposite in direction to the first. IOW, a rotation that is clockwise. This is the second, and more important, "external force" acting on the angular momentum about which you are so concerned.

This torque, opposite in direction to the first, applies an angular momentum to the building section that is also opposite to the original, and this, my friends, is where the "conserved angular momentum" went.

Or, you could just say "As the building started to lean left, suddenly the supports on the right gave way and the thing leaned back to the right, then all hell broke loose and I couldn't see because of the dust."

Harte



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Nice deflection.

Still refusing to answer any questions I see.


Ha ha ha - you really take the biscuit Vushta

bsbray11 just answered some of your points regarding angular momentum and then you state he is refusing to answer any questions

You crack me up


[edit on 8/7/2006 by alienanderson]



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienanderson

Originally posted by Vushta
Nice deflection.

Still refusing to answer any questions I see.


Ha ha ha - you really take the biscuit Vushta

bsbray11 just answered some of your points regarding angular momentum and then you state he is refusing to answer any questions

You crack me up


[edit on 8/7/2006 by alienanderson]


Well...No he didn't answer anything. He made some general statements.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

This torque, opposite in direction to the first, applies an angular momentum to the building section that is also opposite to the original, and this, my friends, is where the "conserved angular momentum" went.

Or, you could just say "As the building started to lean left, suddenly the supports on the right gave way and the thing leaned back to the right, then all hell broke loose and I couldn't see because of the dust."

Harte


Thanks Harte, could'nt have given a better explanation myself - yours certainly matches my thoughts on this subject to a "tee"

Being thought of as a debunker is not right nor fair just for pointing out the major holes that exist in some of the theories. Theories are just that until they can withstand rigorous tests of logic and mechanics which is a hallmark of ATS's quality as a conspiracy site - the others suppress dissent of pet theory and promote ignorance by their actions.

To me the bigger conspiracy lies in those protected from blame for their actions/inactions during the 90's setting this whole deal up.



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix

Thanks Harte, could'nt have given a better explanation myself - yours certainly matches my thoughts on this subject to a "tee"

Being thought of as a debunker is not right nor fair just for pointing out the major holes that exist in some of the theories. Theories are just that until they can withstand rigorous tests of logic and mechanics which is a hallmark of ATS's quality as a conspiracy site - the others suppress dissent of pet theory and promote ignorance by their actions.

Thanks for the feedback. And I must agree with you about conspiracy theorist's websites in general. I was (formerly) a member of another site. I had to quit because I got too tired of the complete lack of reason, plus the unrelenting stupidity of members there that would hold on to the most idiotic beliefs, to the point where you think maybe they're mentally ill, in the face of factual information to the contrary.

Those guys made even the worst here look like Socrates.

The final straw was an argument with about four other members about how there is no continental drift, the Earth is just expanding.



Originally posted by PhoenixTo me the bigger conspiracy lies in those protected from blame for their actions/inactions during the 90's setting this whole deal up.


I don't want to start with the blame. There's plenty to go around to everyone, I'm sure. The Bush Administration was slow on the uptake, the 9/11 commission purposefully didn't scratch the surface, IMO, because both parties should have done a better job. You can lay a lot of it at Clinton's feet I guess, but policies that led at least toward this situation go back beyond WWII.

Mainly, I blame the terrorists. And their sponsors.

Harte



posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
At least you know what I'm talking about, Harte, and are giving it a good effort.





Originally posted by Harte
The building top is not floating in space. As it continues to rotate, the motion of the lower left side of the section, which is moving down and to the right (slightly) is being resisted by the structure in the level under it.


It would be impossible for an object "floating in space" to maintain any angular momentum. There would have to be something to provide torque. You could have something float and maintain the more mundane linear momentum.

The fulcrum you're talking about is what's making the angular momentum possible in the first place. As long as it's there, the building will pivot around that fulcrum, and continue to fall at an angle. It will only stop doing so when a connection to the fulcrum is lost, or when the actual tilting floors encounter equal and opposite force.

In this case, losing a connection to the fulcrum would be very tricky, considering that the upper floors would be falling straight down onto the fulcrum, constantly.

This is where problems begin to arise with what you're saying.



The extremely large and extra load that the fulcrum is bearing causes the section supporting the fulcrum to give way.


As long as the upper floors touched the lower floors, a tilt should have been present. There would be torque.

When the fulcrum "gives way", what do the upper floors do? Do they fall further onto the fulcrum, re-establishing the fulcrum, or do they hang in mid-air? Or does the fulcrum just disappear?

Well, do the upper floors hang suspended in mid-air, no longer touching the bottom floors? Does any natural collapse theory allow this? The building stops falling down? Of course not! The upper and lower floors would have kept touching! There should have always been a fulcrum, even if the materials that made it up were being bent or contorted or whatever.


Or, you could just say "As the building started to lean left, suddenly the supports on the right gave way and the thing leaned back to the right, then all hell broke loose and I couldn't see because of the dust."


The weight was being redistributed to the side upon which the top floors were leaning.

The side that the floors were leaning away from would've been experiencing less loads, and therefore shouldn't have failed in any way that would catch it back up to the other side, where more weight was being distributed, and where the building had already built up an angular momentum.


Unless you're going to tell me that air is resisting this building, it should have kept tilting outwards under any natural collapse theory.




Again, the floors directly under the tilt should have failed more quickly because of increased stress. All of that weight leaning on top of them is encouraging them to fail, and simultaneously taking weight OFF of the other side of the building.

[edit on 8-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 09:06 AM
link   


Again, the floors directly under the tilt should have failed more quickly because of increased stress.


Why?
In forces of that magnitude it would seem like something 'failing more quickly' would be insignificant.
It would also seem likely that connection failures were well underway below that "big chunk"...to put it in scientific terms.



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I still don't think you have a firm grasp on what you're saying, Vushta.

Things fail more quickly when you put more weight on top of them. It's just how it works. I'm not bothering going into any more detail with you because it should be common sense.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join