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.
Originally posted by billybob
quailfy it yourself.
i've explained it well enough.
'credible' is a completely subjective word, in this case.
Originally posted by mmiichael
I didn't discover or personally investigate the laws of physics.
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.
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.
That's how I, and most people deal with complex multi-disciplinary required information.
We are in a thread discussing a questionable paper on a conspiracy site.
What I am experiencing is an unremitting assault on my reasoning processes
I tire of typing away at this as if I have reason to feel defensive.
The conspiracy loving hordes descend on threads to find strength in numbers. It doesn't strengthen the inherent weakness of their arguments.
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?
Originally posted by billybob
i haven't contradicted myself, either, and i'm not saying nothing.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.