Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubbl

reply to post by evil incarnate


quailfy it yourself.
i've explained it well enough.
'credible' is a completely subjective word, in this case.

i tried to show you something better than 'qualify', and that was 'quantify', but it seems you don't have enough potential energy to do your own work.

see ya, i'm done with evil.

Originally posted by billybob
quailfy it yourself.
i've explained it well enough.
'credible' is a completely subjective word, in this case.

This is why I am confused. You speak with such certainty and yet you contradict yourself at least once in every post. I am not sure what side you feel you belong on or what points you are trying to prove/disprove. I just know that you cannot qualify subjective. I cannot qualify why mint ting a ling is the best ice cream ever. It is subjective.

Originally posted by mmiichael
I didn't discover or personally investigate the laws of physics.

Well you SHOULD personally investigate the laws of physics rather than having faith, because even the most basic aspects of physics are contradicted by the official report.

Those who fooled you with the official story counted on the fact that you would assume the most basic physics checked out.

The truth is they didn't check out...the math doesn't add up.

Originally posted by mmiichael
What I am experiencing is an unremitting assault on my reasoning processes rather than on pointed weaknesses of certain arguments. That pretty much speaks volumes about the sources.

The assault on your reasoning is a direct result of your arguments.

You are a matter of confusion for people because you seem to be capable of critical thinking and reasoning but are unable (or unwilling) to see the most glaring flaws in the science of the official story but are discussing this specific issue with such detail.

It is odd to apply such inconsistent doubt.

Originally posted by mmiichael
I didn't invent the wheel or need to reinvent it. I didn't discover or personally investigate the laws of physics. I defer to Mr Newton and his official story.

Then you've also never had a college physics class.

In the classes I took, we had to prove the physics theories we were using were correct. We had to set up a bunch of equipment in a certain way so as to control the measurements, and we measured the acceleration of gravity, transfer of momentum, etc. So in this way, we didn't have to "defer to Mr Newton," we understood what he was trying to show by reproducing it ourselves, and proving it in front of our own eyes. If you remember your science classes even in grade, I'm pretty sure they teach the scientific method, and that all good science is reproducible by definition, and if it isn't, it's worthless.

That's how I, and most people deal with complex multi-disciplinary required information.

And that's exactly why so many people are so wrong so much of the time. This is why you and everybody else that won't think for themselves justify giving the popularity of something more value than objective data. How popular an idea does not matter at all, unless every single person who agrees has studied it and proven it conclusively for themselves, which is obviously not the case. The "everybody" that agrees, are all people that also refer to other people, NIST or FEMA, their own opinions, etc., instead of the objective data.

We are in a thread discussing a questionable paper on a conspiracy site.

I guess real people don't use the internet, right? Tenured professors, etc., don't use the internet either, do they? They still use feathers and a little well of ink, too?

What I am experiencing is an unremitting assault on my reasoning processes

You're experiencing no such thing, because you haven't tried to reason anything. All you do is say there is evidence, and refer to "countless" amounts of evidence, refer to other people, and then when questioned about any of it eventually say you aren't qualified for this or that and forget about it. The materials mentioned in the OP supposedly cause exactly the same thing that FEMA admitted finding in samples in appendix c of its report, but you aren't qualified to talk about that. On and on and on. There is no logic or reason to assault.

I tire of typing away at this as if I have reason to feel defensive.

Have you ever considered the validity of what the people you are arguing with are saying?

The conspiracy loving hordes descend on threads to find strength in numbers. It doesn't strengthen the inherent weakness of their arguments.

Here you are again expressing your feelings over group mentalities. I'm not concerned at all with them. The same difference on again.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Ok, you say a lot of things that all really say nothing. Either You do not understand what potential energy is or you are arguing with the wrong guy.

Why would you say that billybob doesn't understand PE? Can you tell us how you define it that would make a difference as far as what the OP shows?

yeah. why would you say that?
mass times force times distance = work

mass times acceleration due to gravity times the height of the falling piece equals total energy available.
that's gravitational PE. it's simple. if the piece falls as fast through the building as it does through air, that means one hundred percent of the energy from gravity times mass times distance is being used to do the work of accelerating it earthward. as soon as other work is being done, like crushing concrete to an ultrafine powder in milliseconds, less energy is available for acceleration.

in the case of wtc7, it DID fall for at least 2.6 seconds (even according to the NIST) through itself as fast as it would have through air. that means for those 2.6 seconds there was ZERO energy leftover from the gravitational energy sink to break apart the building.

anyway, i'm not trying to argue, i'm trying to point out something important in understanding why i know the towers were demolished, and how they couldn't have fallen unassisted in those times.

i haven't contradicted myself, either, and i'm not saying nothing.

Originally posted by billybob
i haven't contradicted myself, either, and i'm not saying nothing.

Yes, you are saying nothing because I have no clue what you are arguing about. Why are you explaining what PE is? Why are you going on about how you know the buildings were demolished. Somewhere back there you got me confused with someone else because all along you have been having half of an argument and I was not having the other half. I am not, was not arguing with you about anything and I still have no clue what it is you are trying to prove to me.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Ok, you say a lot of things that all really say nothing. Either You do not understand what potential energy is or you are arguing with the wrong guy.

Why would you say that billybob doesn't understand PE? Can you tell us how you define it that would make a difference as far as what the OP shows?

PAY ATTENTION KIDS BECAUSE I AM ONLY GOING OVER THIS ONE MORE TIME. I said either you do not understand what it is, or you are arguing with the wrong guy. I was already in the belief that it was the latter rather than the former. Now I am sure of it.
If English is not your first language, just say so and I will understand.
If English is your first language, then I sure cannot help you out.

I think that what I said was pretty clear because I have no idea what billbob is even arguing with me about. I have no clue what he is trying to prove or discounting or whatever. He just seems to be using me as a reason to hit the reply button. You kids have a ball with that. My sentence was clear. You need to read it again and then see if you still want to ask me that.

Originally posted by billybob

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Ok, you say a lot of things that all really say nothing. Either You do not understand what potential energy is or you are arguing with the wrong guy.

Why would you say that billybob doesn't understand PE? Can you tell us how you define it that would make a difference as far as what the OP shows?

yeah. why would you say that?
mass times force times distance = work

mass times acceleration due to gravity times the height of the falling piece equals total energy available.
that's gravitational PE. it's simple. if the piece falls as fast through the building as it does through air, that means one hundred percent of the energy from gravity times mass times distance is being used to do the work of accelerating it earthward. as soon as other work is being done, like crushing concrete to an ultrafine powder in milliseconds, less energy is available for acceleration.

in the case of wtc7, it DID fall for at least 2.6 seconds (even according to the NIST) through itself as fast as it would have through air. that means for those 2.6 seconds there was ZERO energy leftover from the gravitational energy sink to break apart the building.

anyway, i'm not trying to argue, i'm trying to point out something important in understanding why i know the towers were demolished, and how they couldn't have fallen unassisted in those times.

i haven't contradicted myself, either, and i'm not saying nothing.

Actually. If zero energy was left over from gravity pulling the building down, that would kind of prove it wasn't a demolition. As you so quaintly put it, the law of conservation of energy would have taken effect. The building would have collapsed faster if there had been other forces at work. However, you just said yourself that it collapsed in exactly the allotted amount of time it would take, should it be under gravity's influence.

How you come to the conclusion that "crushing concrete to an ultrafine powder in milliseconds" would take more energy and work than was provided by the planes hitting, or the force of that explosion, I don't know. But I'm also not entirely sure what you're attempting to prove by saying the building fell as fast as it should if under the influence of gravity and gravity alone.

Perhaps you should crunch your numbers again?

reply to post by Highground

You're missing the point.A normal demolition produces as little of this dust as possible.The surrounding businesses must be protected from this as it is harmful.The concrete must be broken up,of course,but never pulverised so fine.The amount of energy required to obtain micro sized particles is so much greater than what is required to merely crumble concrete as to be exponential.I;m seeing this in my daily work right now as I am breaking up a lot of old concrete for a job I am on right now.I try to do as little work as possible as it is with a jack hammer and sledge,and recognize the obvious fact that the larger the chunks,the more efficient the worker.This was micro fine powder,pulverized aggregate,doesn't just happen.Crushed,concrete will pop this aggregate,which is washed (round,hard quartz stones)gravel,right out of the matrix.The point you seem to miss is that the energy will be used to either fall at free fall speed OR crush the concrete,but not both!Even burned with kerosene.

reply to post by Highground


please watch the videos in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

once again, there is a BIG difference between falling through air, and falling through a skyscraper.

reply to post by trueforger


i like the hands on truth, trueforger. very visceral. i used to do the same job in my teens. hard work!
higher ground, not only does it require exponentianally more energy to crush concrete into smaller and smaller particles, but doing it mechanically (not explosively) requires a special GEOMETRY as well. the smaller the particle, the more likely it can get merely move out of the way of the crusher. that's why they use steel ballbearings or cylinders in ball mills to create fine dust.

en.wikipedia.org...

scroll down to energy consumption on the wiki page to get an idea of the numbers.

reply to post by billybob


Cool

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/15/2009 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by Highground
Actually. If zero energy was left over from gravity pulling the building down, that would kind of prove it wasn't a demolition. As you so quaintly put it, the law of conservation of energy would have taken effect. The building would have collapsed faster if there had been other forces at work. However, you just said yourself that it collapsed in exactly the allotted amount of time it would take, should it be under gravity's influence.

I am confused here. Are you trying to say that buildings that are intentionally set with charges to bring them down should fall faster than the speed of gravity?

I think the confusion is about the ACCELERATION.That is the "work" that is a result of discharging static,into kinetic energy.That the WTC fell at "free fall"speed means it was accelerating the whole time.If the energy of falling was converted into grinding-into-micro-powder,it would not have been accelerating,but would have been slowing down.(a pun)I am done with trying to explain.You either get it by now or there's a reason you're not and that reason is not lack-o-logic.

reply to post by evil incarnate


we're saying that buildings that fall through themselves while should fall SIGNIFICANTLY slower than debris falling through the air.
i even provided a link to a simulation that shows what happens to the collapse time as you add in every new energy sink, like the crushing of concrete.

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by evil incarnate

 

we're saying that buildings that fall through themselves while should fall SIGNIFICANTLY slower than debris falling through the air.
i even provided a link to a simulation that shows what happens to the collapse time as you add in every new energy sink, like the crushing of concrete.

I think that you had better refrain from answering for other people. Again, you are looking for a reason to argue with me when I am not on the other side. What I asked is not only not asnwered by what you replied with, it is out of place. If you are just looking for an excuse to try and educate me to your side, STOP. I know. You are - again - arguing with the wrong guy. Unless you are two different posters and you forgot which side of the argument you were having?

Specifically, I was asking about this

Originally posted by Highground
Actually. If zero energy was left over from gravity pulling the building down, that would kind of prove it wasn't a demolition.

I am asking Highground to clear up what he or she said. I would like to understand how accelerating at or near the speed of gravity is proof of no explosives. That seems to mean that explosives then would make it fall faster than gravity. I also do not understand how 0 energy left afterwards proves no demolition. How much energy is left over after a building is demo'd?

BillyBob, I am not asking you. I do not know why you want to argue with me so badly but how about you let this one go until you can make some sense when you respond to me.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by evil incarnate]

Has been an intriguing thread amigos.

I have a final question for both truthers and skeptics.

What piece of evidence (for OS or against) really stands out in your opinion???


Borrowed this video from Infidel666 on the other 911 thread. It is a 9 minute interview with an interesting Danish scientist regarding nano thermite.

reply to post by vehemes terra eternus


WTC7's free-fall acceleration is what stands out in my mind. Even if you don't know what exactly had been placed in that building, or by who, you can still know that there was "other energy" doing the work of the collapse when the building's own PE/KE did nothing.

It accelerated at 9.8m/s^2 exactly, even according to NIST now, and when it wasn't, it was only off by a small margin. Realize that 9.8m/s^2 is free-fall acceleration through a vacuum. That means there isn't even room in that acceleration for drag caused by falling through air, which should definitely have slowed the collapse, not to mention the entire steel structure which you would also have to factor in. There is direct evidence that PE/KE was not lost to either of those things, meaning both the air and the building itself were pushed right out of the way continuously so as to allow the building above to fall as if nothing at all were below it, which is the definition of a free-fall.

What stands out for me is that severed beam.The way the slag trail goes.The fact of it not being full of debris.Slightly off topic is my observation in today's news blatherings about the foiled terror plot is how those losers were under surveilence for a year.Just like the 9-11 patsies.

reply to post by GoldenFleece

believe you're correct. It's possible that the plane near Shanksville was intended to destroy the evidence at WTC 7. Maybe it got delayed or compromised and had to be shot down. The mayor of Shanksville and several Vietnam vets in the area distinctly heard Sidewinder missiles prior to the "crash." That's what amazes me about the government's official story. They're totally incapable of telling the truth about any aspect of 9/11, including details that could be justified or seen as innocuous. Nope, 100% lies from beginning to end.

Nah man all information indicates this plane was headed for the CIA.