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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Or, are you saying here that you actually believe that there is no plate tectonics, and that the Earth is actually expanding?


Harte


I was not speaking to your assertion concerning plate tectonics with which I am 100% behind you.

I WAS speaking to the tone, name calling, disdain, elitism and egotism of your post.




posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
I was not speaking to your assertion concerning plate tectonics with which I am 100% behind you.

I WAS speaking to the tone, name calling, disdain, elitism and egotism of your post.



SlapNuts,

Maybe I should link you to some of the arguments I was referring to, they did not involve 9/11.

The entire point of my post was that some conspiracy sites on the web just do not want anyone as a member unless they just completely agree with every conspiracy out there. The site I was talking about was one of those. They ran off a perfectly agreeable, well read and completely level headed poster because he stood up and said he did not believe in John Titor (that was the gist of it, anyway.)

I left shortly before that happened.

The subject was intolerance. You should work on your self esteem issues if you see yourself as a target in every derogatory remark anyone ever makes about anything.

After all, I did say that some members of this former site of which I was speaking made even the worst members at ATS look like Socrates. But you conveniently neglected to quote that part, or any of the other parts, of my post that would tend to convey the actual meaning I was putting across. In other words, by selectively editing my post, you put forward a straw man argument for you to demolish at your leisure. Consider what I could make you appear to be saying, if I needed something to be self-righteous about.

Harte



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
I never claimed 'evidence' and don't ever claim it for 'possible ideas'...that what you CTs do. Evidence is reserved for provable fact.

I simply offered some possible methods of forces. Those still remain.
Now you're making the assumption that forces and the effects must be visually obvious and that simply because the existing vidoes show a certain point of view,that someting happening outside that range of view cannot exit.


Your simple methods make no sense when the laws of physics are applied. I asked you in another thread to explain to me these foces and you have failed to do so.

What force other than gravity was providing energy for the collapses?

How do the RESISTIVE forces you imply not contradict the "official" story?

Please answer only the two questions and avoid the 'fluff'. TIA



1. Take your pick. Momentum..resistance..torque.

2. They don't.

Please stick to examples gleaned from the actual "official" story when claiming any inaccuracies and avoid the "riffing". Thanks.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
"Impossible for an object floating in space to maintain any angular momentum?"
Absurd, friend. Impossible for such an object not to maintain it's angular momentum, by the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. That's not even Physics, it's elementary Physical Science - 8th grade stuff.


How would an object maintain angular momentum if it (a) had nothing to rotate around, and (b) was "floating" in space, ie free of gravity?

Gravity is what caused the WTC's angular momentum because the top floors were being pulled downwards onto a fulcrum. If the towers were in space, I hardly see how this would ever happen.


I had thought to respond to some of your later posts after this one. But I'll refrain until I am able to regain at least some confidence that you know at a minimum a tiny amount about the subject that you so stridently espouse.


Don't save your response on account of me. I'm sure I'm not the only one here wondering how the side of the building experiencing less vertical stress would suddenly fail vertically, and somehow level out the collapse and stop the upper floors from rotating.

If the upper floors were redistributing their weight over of one side of WTC2, and that side of WTC2 is failing much more quickly than the other side, why would the other side, which is experiencing less stress because of weight being moved OFF of it, going to fail faster than the side experiencing the extra stress? Because it would HAVE to fail faster to catch up to it. Right? It certainly wouldn't catch up to the other side by failing more slowly, or remaining in place.

And we are clear that angular momentum was NEVER reversed in those collapses, correct? That the cap never 'fixed itself' or what have you (however that would happen in the first place), but just stopped rotating? I didn't think you would suggest something so obviously wrong but Vushta's interpretted your post this way.

[edit on 10-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Collapsing would not destroy the fulcrum because direct contact would always remain between the top floors and the bottom floors.

Top floors "crush" the fulcrum? No, they just contort the beams under them. The floor structures still touch; there is still a pivot for the angular momentum. That's a fulcrum. They still touch, there's still a fulcrum. The momentum would have CONTINUED. (We didn't see this!)


What you seem to be misunderstanding, agaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnn,



is the whole business of other forces. Are you going to still pretend that as a the floors beneath the fulcrum gave out, it should have kept going?

In this situation both the sinking edge and the fulcrum are acted on by the next floor, and then the next, etc, effectively destroying the fulcrum. If the fulcrum should have stayed intact, then how do you account for the debris being thrown everywhere?

The only way for your "magic fulcrum" theory to work is if the entire building just folded up like an accordian, which is clearly not the case when we see steel beams being ejected from the building.

This is even more amazing coming from someone who believes that the tops of the building disintegrated as soon as the smoke obscured the collapse, making air pressure somehow impossible.



posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Just to chime in for a bit, but the building was experiencing a tilt.

BSBray11 is correct in his assertions that the weight indeed shifted to the leaning side of the building, with the fulcrum essentially being the inner core of the World Trade Center. While the leaning was occuring, you had lack of stress on the structural supports on the other side of the lean.

But however, as we've seen, the whole building below the lean gave out simultaneously, for that to happen, you would have to have the building's mass essentially focused more globally around the collapsing supports (the exterior columns).

What is trying to be made, as a point, is that the upper building load had a huge load of momentum. That's velocity x mass, and the upper portion did have a lot of mass as can be seen from the picture earlier in this thread. So you had a huge force to be reckoned with.

However, with all the mass being shifted towards the leaning side, that half of the building would of began to significantly buckle more at the same time, still feel a resistance on whatever remaining inner core it had and put torque on the fulcrum (the inner core).


The assertion stands is, the upper portion that was leaning should of continued to lean while at the same time taking down that side of the building, not everything around it. But for the building to give out like we see in all the collapse videos, the fulcrum would of had to been severed as it began to tip, which would cause the upper portion that was leaning to lose its torque ability around the fulcrum, causing it to fall down straight onto the building.

No one's trying to say that the upper half should of just tipped over and there, the rest of the 60-70% of the building should of remained, but that the upper portion as it was tipping did have enough momentum in its favor to cause destructive forces on the leaning side of the WTC but at the same time, falling down onto the streets below, now causing a global collapse/buckling effect around the impact zone, with the building simultaneously just loosing support, causing the upper portion to just fall on it. Something took it out from under its feet before it could tip completely over.



[edit on 7/10/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Are you going to still pretend that as a the floors beneath the fulcrum gave out, it should have kept going?


Why would the floors beneath the fulcrum give out before the fulcrum itself, LB?



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   
And not just the floors on the tilting side, we're talking ALL the way around.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Bsbray, I'm not going to argue semantics with you, if that's all you have I'll take that as an admission that your accordian fall theory is wrong.


Masi, look into the hat truss. It moved forces from failing columns to other columns. As the forces became to much for the remaining columns, they all collapsed at nearly the same time.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
The subject was intolerance. You should work on your self esteem issues if you see yourself as a target in every derogatory remark anyone ever makes about anything.

After all, I did say that some members of this former site of which I was speaking made even the worst members at ATS look like Socrates. But you conveniently neglected to quote that part, or any of the other parts, of my post that would tend to convey the actual meaning I was putting across. In other words, by selectively editing my post, you put forward a straw man argument for you to demolish at your leisure. Consider what I could make you appear to be saying, if I needed something to be self-righteous about.

Harte


My self-esteem is perfectly fine but thanks for the concern.

I edit the quotes or I get slapped by the mods, however to say tha a certain group of CTers' are all of the names you called above, then to come here, to a groups of CTers and expect them to NOT make the same connection is implausible and irresponsible.

Why would I be building a "straw man argument" about your derogatory use of language regarding "conspiracy theorists"? This group or otherwise?



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

1. Take your pick. Momentum..resistance..torque.

2. They don't.

Please stick to examples gleaned from the actual "official" story when claiming any inaccuracies and avoid the "riffing". Thanks.


This post is not even worthy of response. You are arguing in a CIRCLE. Please take a High School physics class. Avoid the ignorance. Thanks.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Harte
"Impossible for an object floating in space to maintain any angular momentum?"
Absurd, friend. Impossible for such an object not to maintain it's angular momentum, by the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.


How would an object maintain angular momentum if it (a) had nothing to rotate around, and (b) was "floating" in space, ie free of gravity?

Any object, once set into rotation by applied force(s), will continue to rotate until an opposite (or at least a force in a different direction from the original) force is applied, in which case it will either stop rotating or start to rotate in a different direction. The energy of the rotation itself is represented by the rotational speed combined with the moment arm. This is why skaters speed up in their rotations as they bring their arms inward. Conservation of the energy stored in the rotation, or in other words, conservation of angular momentum.

The Earth itself has angular momentum, that's why it doesn't just stop rotating. The Earth is "floating in space." The gravity of the Earth is not the source of, nor the result of, the Earth's angular momentum.

A rotating object not subject to outside forces will rotate around it's own center of gravity.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Gravity is what caused the WTC's angular momentum because the top floors were being pulled downwards onto a fulcrum. If the towers were in space, I hardly see how this would ever happen.


Gravity is only an applied force. Gravity is applied equally to the building portion in this discussion. What is not applied equally, in the case of a failing building, is the upwards "reaction" force ("equal and opposite reaction" ring a bell?)
The building is constantly having gravitational force applied in a downward direction. Why does the building not just move downward in the direction of this force? The equal, but opposite, reaction of the ground pushing up on the building.

When the building began to fail, the reaction force is what failed. This resulted in an applied torque, counterclockwise, as I recall from the clip, centered at what we are calling "the fulcrum" on the lower right side of the section.

This is no different than applying a force (say rocket propulsion) to one side of the space shuttle. The result would be rotation. But in the example of the shuttle, there being nothing present to apply a reaction force, the shuttle would rotate around it's center of gravity. In the case of the building, the rotation happens around the fulcrum due to the reaction force present at that location.


Originally posted by bsbray11
And we are clear that angular momentum was NEVER reversed in those collapses, correct? That the cap never 'fixed itself' or what have you (however that would happen in the first place), but just stopped rotating? I didn't think you would suggest something so obviously wrong but Vushta's interpretted your post this way.

Well, NEVER is a strong word, even without the caps.

Obviously, it was reversed at some point, it's not rotating right now is it?

I believe you and others here are saying that the angular momentum was reversed, it's just that you believe it was reversed through the actions of demolition near the fulcrum. My thinking is that the fulcrum wouldn't need explosive demolition to fail, the falling building section alone would do that quite well enough. The thing is, as the bottom left edge contacts the structure under the failed portion,( IOW under the portion that "lost" the reaction force, or, under the portion that allowed gravity to start pulling down the left side of the building), it suddenly experienced again the upwards reactionary force. Momentarily of course. But since this side of the building now had a velocity component, and not just simple weight (or gravitational acceleration - which is what weight is) then there was an associated impact force. This impact was enough to (momentarily) stop the downward travel of the left side of the building section.

Technically, these impact and reaction forces would add together into an upward force on that side of the building, with a moment arm from the point of impact to the fulcrum, resulting in applied torque which would create an opposite angular momentum to the original, cancelling it, or most of it.

Or, you could just say it started to lean to the left, then the right side started to crumble, making it straighten back up some. Then there was a huge collapse with so much dust that I couldn't see what happened after that.

Harte



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Obviously, it was reversed at some point, it's not rotating right now is it?


I meant being moved back in the opposite direction, as you should've been able to gather from my wording.


My thinking is that the fulcrum wouldn't need explosive demolition to fail, the falling building section alone would do that quite well enough. The thing is, as the bottom left edge contacts the structure under the failed portion,( IOW under the portion that "lost" the reaction force, or, under the portion that allowed gravity to start pulling down the left side of the building), it suddenly experienced again the upwards reactionary force. Momentarily of course. But since this side of the building now had a velocity component, and not just simple weight (or gravitational acceleration - which is what weight is) then there was an associated impact force. This impact was enough to (momentarily) stop the downward travel of the left side of the building section.


This might explain things if the angular momentum simply slowed at a couple points as it continued along, but doesn't explain why the floors below the cap suddenly began to fall symmetrically at the same time the momentum disappeared.

Again, weight is being shifted off of one side of the building and onto another. Even if there is hesitation from resistance, the opposite side of the building should not be failing in tandem with the "resisting" side of the building.

This explanation requires one side of the building to offer greater resistance to slow the cap, but at the same time requires the other side of the exact same floor to give out at the same time from less stress than it was designed for, with little to no "impact" (more like contortion).



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Bsbray, I'm not going to argue semantics with you, if that's all you have I'll take that as an admission that your accordian fall theory is wrong.


It's not semantics. You somehow think pancake collapses skipped floors.



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

This post is not even worthy of response. You are arguing in a CIRCLE. Please take a High School physics class. Avoid the ignorance. Thanks.


Circular reasoning is the main course of CTs like ...well..like you for instance.
Hey!..nice non answer and avoiding the points. At least you all are consistant..but that makes for predicability and you rarely fail to come thru.

Nice deflection..why not address the reality of the forces possibly involved?

Listen...I really don't care how much time you spend rapidly googling things like 'angular momentum' just so you can glean a couple of phrases and come back and fake that you know what you're talking about. Everyone can tell.

The whole point is moot. Another run into the woods of minutia by you CTs. Thats all you ever do because you simply can't make a believable story out of the CD theory by using actual facts and evidence.

So ..How were the building rigged without anyone noticing..again?



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
This might explain things if the angular momentum simply slowed at a couple points as it continued along, but doesn't explain why the floors below the cap suddenly began to fall symmetrically at the same time the momentum disappeared.

Well, regarding the collapse of the floors below and the symmetry thereof, wouldn't you still have this same question, regardless of rotation in the upper section of the building?

The way I see it, your real problem is the way the collapse looks and not really with whether or not something stopped the rotation of the upper building section. I mean, obviously something did stop this rotation, right? It could have happened like I said, it could have happened like you said. What difference does it make what it was when even without the rotation, you still have a problem with the pancake collapse of the overall structure?

The angular momentum of the top portion of the building is not involved in the fact that that portion of the building collapsed into the lower portion. Down is still down, whether you're rotating or not.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Again, weight is being shifted off of one side of the building and onto another. Even if there is hesitation from resistance, the opposite side of the building should not be failing in tandem with the "resisting" side of the building.


This might be true of the Empire State Building, and other skyscrapers with skeletal steel frameworks that are similar to it. The WTC was a radical departure from these types, and while it was an absolutely new design in and of itself, it did not represent the first departure from the older structural styles. That "steel-intensive" sort of design was well down the road toward retirement before the WTC was designed.


Originally posted by bsbray11
This explanation requires one side of the building to offer greater resistance to slow the cap, but at the same time requires the other side of the exact same floor to give out at the same time from less stress than it was designed for, with little to no "impact" (more like contortion).

No, once the failing side "catches" the load, even if it's only momentarily, a much larger-than-designed-for load is transferred to the opposite side, even if only momentarily.

This whole "angular momentum" argument seems to me to be concentrating on a subject with very little chance of bearing much fruit. I mean, there was no rotation in the other tower, right? What exactly is the point of worrying about whether angular momentum was conserved? Obviously it was conserved, it always is, otherwise...what? The end of Physics?

Harte



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
The way I see it, your real problem is the way the collapse looks and not really with whether or not something stopped the rotation of the upper building section. I mean, obviously something did stop this rotation, right? It could have happened like I said, it could have happened like you said. What difference does it make what it was when even without the rotation, you still have a problem with the pancake collapse of the overall structure?


The problem involves basic pancake theory stuff, yeah, but it wasn't so much how it looked as what must have actually happened. If the cap did not begin falling symmetrically, you would have seen more tilting, whether in one direction or another, as a result of an asymmetrical collapse.



Originally posted by bsbray11
This explanation requires one side of the building to offer greater resistance to slow the cap, but at the same time requires the other side of the exact same floor to give out at the same time from less stress than it was designed for, with little to no "impact" (more like contortion).

No, once the failing side "catches" the load, even if it's only momentarily, a much larger-than-designed-for load is transferred to the opposite side, even if only momentarily.


How exactly would this happen? I can seen loads being transferred from the weighted side through the trusses to the core, but this would require the trusses on the stressed side to hold up an awfully long time against stress that would soon begin to fail whole 12.5-foot floors evenly in about 0.1 seconds each, don't you think?

The trusses on the stressed side actually would've had to endure that increased stress and jolt and held up through all of this for about 3 seconds. After that 3 seconds, truss failures, by official theory, began at a rate that works out around 0.1 seconds per floor. Very rapid and straight down, for hardly any additional weight at all. The crushed floors were totally pulverized, which could easily be deflected, and even then most of the debris was falling over the sides of the buildings.

And I don't really see how the stress could be transferred through the core and out to the trusses on the other side of the building in any manner that would divide the stress so equally between the sides that a symmetrical fall is achieved. The core must absorb at least SOME of that energy, even if it contorts and breaks in places.

Again, it just seems extremely counter-intuitive that the side experiencing major decreases in loads should fail at the exact same rate as the side experiencing major increases in loads, and already has angular momentum. I don't even see how it could even be close. That's the main beef I have against what you're saying.


I mean, there was no rotation in the other tower, right? What exactly is the point of worrying about whether angular momentum was conserved? Obviously it was conserved, it always is, otherwise...what? The end of Physics?


There was less tilt in WTC1, but then again, WTC1's cap was a lot smaller and lighter. The energy went somewhere, but I don't think the way it disappeared was the result of anything natural.



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

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Masi, look into the hat truss. It moved forces from failing columns to other columns. As the forces became to much for the remaining columns, they all collapsed at nearly the same time.


So that caused a simultaneously buckling effect all around the building, even though the huge majority of mass (i.e. the upper building) was leaning effectively to one side of the building, infact, tipping over?

Explain.



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

This post is not even worthy of response. You are arguing in a CIRCLE. Please take a High School physics class. Avoid the ignorance. Thanks.


Circular reasoning is the main course of CTs like ...well..like you for instance.
Hey!..nice non answer and avoiding the points. At least you all are consistant..but that makes for predicability and you rarely fail to come thru.

Nice deflection..why not address the reality of the forces possibly involved?

Listen...I really don't care how much time you spend rapidly googling things like 'angular momentum' just so you can glean a couple of phrases and come back and fake that you know what you're talking about. Everyone can tell.

The whole point is moot. Another run into the woods of minutia by you CTs. Thats all you ever do because you simply can't make a believable story out of the CD theory by using actual facts and evidence.

So ..How were the building rigged without anyone noticing..again?


I answer all of your questions in the PROPER threads Vushta. You just ignore them and go on trying to derail the next thread.

Why would I argue vectors, momentum, inertia and the other forces involved withthe collapse with you? When I asked you what resistive force would counteract the rotational inertia of the upper block of WTC 2 your answer...


Originally posted by Vushta
...momentum, resistance, torque...


This answer alone shows you are nothing more than a shill with no formal physics training. You actually are arguing for me as there was no "oppposing torque" available and the only "momentum" was going in the WRONG direction for your argument. Finally, to say RESISTANCE is the force that offered RESISTANCE would get you kicked out of second grade in this country. I do not even have a word for how STUPID that answer is.

Your personal attack on me is quite amusing. (Impeachment)

Your instance that planting explosives is IMPOSSIBLE is quite amusing. (Derailment)

If you want to talk physics instead of claiming I just Google these terms the BRING IT ON little guy. I have not seen a charachter typed by you that shows you have any sort of higher education whatsoever. You simply seem to be trying... POORLY... to master the art of winning a debate through retardation.


[edit on 12-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

[edit on 12-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join