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.

 

National Geographic - 9/11 Science and Conspiracy Special 8/31/09

page: 18
15
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


awesome.
tell me.
if 100% of gravitational (potential) energy is being used to accelerate something earthward (being converted into kinetic), how much is left over to do other work?




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
tell me.
if 100% of gravitational (potential) energy is being used to accelerate something earthward (being converted into kinetic), how much is left over to do other work?


I don't know Truther Physics. But you do. Tell us.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Do you know what he's talking about at all? Because physics is physics, there isn't "truther physics" and "normal physics." Can you follow along with any physics?



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by billybob
tell me.
if 100% of gravitational (potential) energy is being used to accelerate something earthward (being converted into kinetic), how much is left over to do other work?


I don't know Truther Physics. But you do. Tell us.



Do you know any physics? I am not trying to be rude, just simply asking an honest question.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Do you know what he's talking about at all? Because physics is physics, there isn't "truther physics" and "normal physics." Can you follow along with any physics?


Truther Physics is applied to examinations of freefall of the WTC collapses.

Found online:

" “Truthers” use conservation of momentum to sound smart and attempt to prove that you cannot move more with less. However, this is totally false, as things like levers and pulleys allow a person to do exactly that. "

You guys must U2U each other back and forth like crazy.



[edit on 9-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
There's a regular contributor to this forum who supplies solid scientific data consistency who you put on Ignore. Maybe because he's demonstrated Jones's alleged thermite is actually primer paint.


with regards to the "primer paint" as it is called by "debbies" (debunkers, lol. nice one, achimspock), consider this...

The Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, (a branch of the Naval Sea Systems Command or NAVSEA), described in 1999 as the “national center for energetics”, “the only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the United States”

(more on the indian head division)


so, this primer paint company is supplied with aluminum nanopowders by the navy's nanothermite labs? why would a piant company go to the bother of using NANO SIZED aluminum powder in their paint? it is obviously extremely expensive to make nano particles, and you debbies think this is COMMON for primer paint?


Originally posted by mmiichael
Yet you read my posts and complain about them.


with good reason.



Originally posted by mmiichael
This is about your attention seeking and control. Not science.

Go to one of a hundred science forums online if you don't find what you read here.

Difference is they have professional who know what they're talking about. Not people with little scientific knowledge who can be blown away with any scientific doubletalk form websites videos and the people like yourself.

Good luck


M


i'll try again, lover of science.
as bsbray said, there is no difference between "truther physics", and physics.

my question was very specific, and implies nothing about the wtc1 or 2.

if the only energy available is potential energy from gravity (PE), and 100% of that energy is converted to kinetic energy (KE), how much energy is left over to do other work?
you can go to 1000 or 10,000 physics textbooks (you may have heard of books. although i can't provide a link, they do exist), and they will ALL teach you that if 100% of the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, then there is ZERO energy left to do other work.

and, as for "the collapse starts with the penthouse", first of all, the penthouse fell at near freefall, too.....



and secondly, the descent of the rest of the building, which includes core columns and exterior columns, displayed a period of acceleration indistinguishable from freefall (freefall is when 100% of PE is converted to KE), which means that there was zero energy left to do other work during THAT PHASE of the collapse. it is also observable that all the external columns, and remaining internal core columns failed within fractions of a second of one another, simultaneously, even.


and, after a quick google search, here is a detailed analysis of wtc7 and it's simultaneously disappearing columns. world trade seven

here is a picture of just how many columns had to fail simultaneously...



okay. i'm finished. you can close your eyes and go back to sleep, now.

p.s. when using levers and pulleys you still have to add an external energy source to do any work. that's why you spent so many sad hours as a child sitting on the teeter totter by yourself, and it wouldn't go up and down for you.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Truther Science is manipulating scientific data to force a predermined conclusion.

Jones testing paint chips and finding charactersitics of thermite is a classic example.

The two main WTC towers were 1350 ft, a bit more for one. In a vacuum, they would take 9.2 seconds to fall from the force of gravity. Slight variables as some material like paper etc was lighter, but the bulk of the mass, steel beams, concrete, would meet little air resistance.

Truthers claim the buildings fell in 9 to 11 seconds. But from the video evidence only the outer wall were on the ground within 11 seconds. The complete collapse has been measured at the very inside to be 15 seconds, but closer to 25 seconds if not more. Dust clouds obscure the final seconds. But even then it is very apparent the building is still falling after the 11 second juncture and that the inner core of steel is still present at the 15 second mark.

These numbers are actually conservative. Others have used slightly different calculations:


www.bloggernews.net...

WTC 1 and 2 did NOT fall at free-fall speed. This old chestnut has been refuted again and again, but for the record….

Here is the explanation of Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso in the JOM, the Journal of The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society (TMS):

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been freefall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h. It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

You can find the entire article here: www.tms.org...

From the “Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories” site, there is clear photograph evidence that there was no “free-fall”:

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

You can find more here: www.debunking911.com...

And for the physics of why the buildings fell as quickly as they did, you can turn to the NIST reports, or to this summary by Manuel Garcia on Counterpunch:

www.counterpunch.org...


Mike







[edit on 9-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
11, 15, or 25 seconds, it still could not possibly have fallen so fast without a bit of help.

Though I am pretty late on commenting I want to make an observation. There was so much more evidence that NG didn't discuss on the so called documentary it is a shame. Perhaps if they had used the time wasted on profiling "truthers" they could have given the topic a better consideration. Typical of MSM



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


You just wasted all that space to basically say - No one knows how long it took for them to fall. Here are some scientific formulas and such that include times they just made up.

And that is proof of.....?

P.S. No matter how conservatively you guess, the buildings still fell with very very very little resistance being given by the subsequent floors upon which it was collapsing.

[edit on 9/9/09 by evil incarnate]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Truther Science is manipulating scientific data to force a predermined conclusion.

Jones testing paint chips and finding charactersitics of thermite is a classic example.


jeez. after all the work i went through to make it obvious to you, you still try and twist out of the way.

you insist on sticking with the "paint chips" theory, even though it has been pointed out clearly that the aluminum particles are NANO SIZED. okay, NO paint primer has NANO SIZED aluminum particles in it. it takes a great deal of energy to create NANO SIZED aluminum particles, and there is only ONE LAB in the states that even does it (in 1999, at least). there is no reason for nanopowdered aluminum in paint primer. aluminum powder, yes, but NANO SIZED particles, NO.

and, then you go on to describe what happened to towers one and two when i am PROVING to you that wtc7 had periods of freefall, and the whole descent was NEAR freefall.

it's like arguing with a distracted chihuahua.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
Truther Physics is applied to examinations of freefall of the WTC collapses.

Found online:

" “Truthers” use conservation of momentum to sound smart and attempt to prove that you cannot move more with less. However, this is totally false, as things like levers and pulleys allow a person to do exactly that. "

You guys must U2U each other back and forth like crazy.



[edit on 9-9-2009 by mmiichael]


Okay, can you then show us where the pulleys and levers were to help increase the energy used in bringing down the towers? Where were the pulleys and levers that removed the resistance from the sound 80 stories + basement of structure below the damaged portion that collapsed?

Just asking because be it truther physics or physics physics, I just can't figure where your example comes into play here?



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by mmiichael
 


awesome.
tell me.
if 100% of gravitational (potential) energy is being used to accelerate something earthward (being converted into kinetic), how much is left over to do other work?


Interesting how after all those responses, mmmmmichael still has not answered this question. The closest he has come is pulling quotes about truthers off the internet. I think it is fairly safe to conclude he knows very little about physics or he would have tried to shut you up by answering this a while back.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
you insist on sticking with the "paint chips" theory, even though it has been pointed out clearly that the aluminum particles are NANO SIZED. okay, NO paint primer has NANO SIZED aluminum particles in it. it takes a great deal of energy to create NANO SIZED aluminum particles, and there is only ONE LAB in the states that even does it (in 1999, at least). there is no reason for nanopowdered aluminum in paint primer. aluminum powder, yes, but NANO SIZED particles, NO.


This is exactly why I will not discuss Science with Truthers.
Hundreds of pages on threads and enless links demonstating this claim is Truther BUNK.

You actually know the formula of all paint primers used in WTC? Or are you parroting the same BS online?

Jones experiment have been outed as bad science by anyone even bothering to look at them. Except in doting Truther circles where anything with a chemical name handed to them by some guy in a lab coat becomes Gospel.

And exactly where are the blasting caps, cabling, other forensic residue of controlled explosions? Why can't experienced demolition experts see any indication of controlled sequenced explosions?

How can a millimeter thin layer of anything execept an imagined super duper nanothermite no one can identify, do anything more than warm the surface of tons of steel for a few seconds?

This is all bad science repeated endlessly ignoring every time it is shown to be what it is.

M



[edit on 9-9-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

This is exactly why I will not discuss Science with Truthers.
Hundreds of pages on threads and enless links demonstating this claim is Truther BUNK.

You actually know the formula of all paint primers used in WTC? Or are you parroting the same BS online?


i know that there is aluminum in paint primer, sometimes. so what? the POINT, as if you haven't already read it a dozen times, is that the PARTICLE SIZE of the aluminum is in the NANOMETERS, and ONLY ONE SPECIALISED LABORATORY in the USA can even produce these tiny particles. you are obviously parroting the same mark roberts BS that all the debbies parrot. why don't you debbies duplicate the jones/harrit experiment with a chip of paint primer? i'd be very impressed if you could produce iron microspheres by burning paint primer chips (at less than 500C, to boot).


Originally posted by mmiichael
Jones experiment have been outed as bad science by anyone even bothering to look at them. Except in doting Truther circles where anything with a chemical name handed to them by some guy in a lab coat becomes Gospel.


no. jones experiment has been criticised by debbies who have no idea the difference between "proof" and "speculation". the "paint chips" are clearly thermitic. they have aluminum, and iron oxide, and that's thermite. whether some paint primer is thermitic, is up to the critics to demonstrate.



Originally posted by mmiichaelAnd exactly where are the blasting caps, cabling, other forensic residue of controlled explosions? Why can't experienced demolition experts see any indication of controlled sequenced explosions?


they refused to test for explosive residues.


Originally posted by mmiichael
How can a millimeter thin layer of anything execept an imagined super duper nanothermite no one can identify, do anything more than warm the surface of tons of steel for a few seconds?



well, how about that. you actually have a valid question. indeed, a thin layer of this stuff would barely affect huge steel beams. however, it would be useful as a fuse or trigger.


Originally posted by mmiichael
This is all bad science repeated endlessly ignoring every time it is shown to be what it is.

M


can you specifically state WHY it's "bad science"? you can disagree with methods and conclusions, but that doesn't make science "bad". the only "bad science" i see is the science that ignores the hard evidence like the temperatures needed to create iron microspheres, and the purposeful ignoring of important factors like particle size.



[edit on 9-9-2009 by billybob]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
oh, to add, i see you are ignoring the FREEFALL of wtc7.
bait and switch, bait and switch.....



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
oh, to add, i see you are ignoring the FREEFALL of wtc7.
bait and switch, bait and switch.....

Actually, half a second slower than freefall.
Good to see you Billybob, looks like we've got another Roark here man.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


always good to see you, too.

but, wtc7 was in absolute freefall for the first 2.3 seconds. david chandler, a high school physics teacher, forced the NIST to admit it.

check it this post from higher up on the page...

me posting stuff

the creator of the penthouse freefall video, "achimspock", is a brilliant german guy who's doing awesome work on 9/11 physics. check out all his videos if you have time.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


oh yeah. this guy couldn't shine roark's shoes.




posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
You guys must U2U each other back and forth like crazy.


That actually made me laugh. You are more paranoid than any of us are. You must think we plan all these posts out, word everything so cleverly as to stump you, huh?


You can't even get over yourself enough to talk physics without accusing us of manipulating it before we even get into the discussion. How much more blind can you be to your own bias? You even went automatically to a "debunker" site to try to prepare for what we were going to say about the PE/KE.



I'll be honest: PE/KE transfer with the WTC Towers is nearly impossible to find, and agree upon. For a simple reason: there is so much missing data, everyone has to assume variables. And lo and behold, people who want the collapse to arrest assume one end of the theoretical spectrum, and the people who want the collapse to continue with a maximum of energy assume the other side of the theoretical spectrum. Both sets of data are completely possible in theory, which is only as far as anyone has been able to determine so far (I'll ignore the fact that people like Bazant had to erroenously assume 50% of the mass of each tower remained within its footprint, etc.), which is why this "ad hom" garbage goes all the way up the ladder to the scientists and engineers themselves. And there is no way to justify one set of variables over the other except if more documentation were released or more laboratory studies were carried out. You can take my word for this if you want or not, I don't REALLY care because I doubt you will even really want to get into the nitty-gritty of any of this stuff anyway!!!

BUT, that is not the case with WTC7. WTC7 actually accelerated at free-fall. Which means ~100% of its PE went to KE. And that "~" means that the difference is so small, no, you cannot destroy a 47-story steel framed skyscraper with it, turning it into a 3-story high pile of trash. If for no other reason that makes sense, then it should at least make sense in light of the fact that it has never happened before, or since, and not even NIST understands the collapse mechanism. Which is all a run-around way of saying you have absolutely no evidence, not even circumstantial, of anything other than a controlled implosion of that building.

[edit on 9-9-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by mmiichael
You guys must U2U each other back and forth like crazy.



I've got him on ignore because I read three or four of his posts trying to equate us with nazis and white supremacists, but I read that in your post and chuckled myself. Actually I think I u2u'ed billybob once about four years ago, and bsbray once, so no the only collusion we attain is ending up on the same threads arguing with people who can't seem to understand that in the rock paper scissors game, structural, and heat conducting steel beats fire and intact structure beats rubble's intertia. However in this case, fire is apparently all powerful lest we forget the presence of molten steel that was confirmed in the debris of building 7 weeks later.

If Issac Newton had got on the roof of WTC 7 and dropped his famous apple, it would have taken about five and half seconds for the apple to hit the ground, give or take a few nanoseconds to account for things like particulate, barometric pressure or humidity... WTC building 7 fell in what, less than 6.5 seconds, that's literally about a half second faster than freefall speed. Not to mention it fell symmetrically and perfectly into it's own footprint, the exterior walls falling inwards towards the center of the building, that's unprecedented and impossible in a fire related collapse... the structure's supports all failed simutaneously, shall we figure the odds against that happening in an asymetrical fire with little or no structural damage? Apply the famous Occam's Razor when we say a controlled demolition vs. a fire related collapse if you like, one is likely to cause this collapse, the other is not even close to likely.
Eyewitnesses, assumed by you to be unreliable or outright liars for no better reason than to parrot FEMA's BPAT's unconclusive 'we don't know why wtc 7 collapsed', claimed they heard a huge explosion that literally visually rippled through the building just before it came down.
How much more evidence of a controlled demoiltion do you need than the two photosensitive orbs in the frontal area of your skull and the logic behind them?

That's why it's largely pointless to argue about the semantics here, as plain old common sense dictates that a quacking, waddling, feathered, aquatic bird with webbed feet is generally a duck, use the same logic and see which of these collpases looks fire related...








Edit:

Originally posted by billybob
wtc7 was in absolute freefall for the first 2.3 seconds.

Ah... but can you answer this one... WHAT is the Airspeed Velocity of an unladen swallow?


[edit on 9-9-2009 by twitchy]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join