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.

 

3 Easy ways to win a 9/11 truth debate.

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Yeah I agree, it's futile to convince these believers of their ignorance. Whatever I say, they keep falsely rebutting it with "symmetric collapse nonsense", and beliefs that air resistance & weakened material resistances can hold up large masses.




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by demonseed
 



Clearly playing video games makes me a virtual scientist.


Not really, I was suggesting that based on your misuse of Physics. After all I also play the odd video game myself. Although video games are not real, and so you're not going to always see objects behaving within the realms of classical physics within games.


The gravity on Earth is a constant(generally). A couple dozen stories of building are not gonna change the force of Earths gravity to any negligible amount.


This constant is the acceleration due to gravity, not the force due to gravity!

Do you understand what a force is? Because quite clearly you do not by your use of words. Gravity produces a force towards the centre of the Earth because of its gravitational field. Therefore the mass of any object, i.e. a ball dropped from a height, will fall towards the floor, with a gravitational force = mg (g=9.81 m/s^-2).

Yes there are resistive forces that counter the ball as well, but are far less than forces due to gravity.

Forces produced by gravity aren't constant for different masses. Each floor has to support all the mass of all of the floors above it. After the collapse of each floor, the resulting mass that was falling due to gravity increased, so it's utterly illogical and stupid to say that the forces due to gravity did not also increase.

Perhaps you should learn your Maths, Physics and Mechanics from an appropriate textbook, rather than a truther website. Then you wouldn't misrepresent science as you are currently doing!

The towers did accelerate during the collapse, and if that was odd do you really think so many people would be keeping silent on this issue? I mean, if there were such a clear and obvious signal of deceit, it would not go unnoticed by anybody with at least A levels in Maths for students at the age of 17 or 18.

Clearly you lack even that level of education!

Refer back to my previous comment to this one at the top of the page, and it exactly describes you!

Your ideas and use of logic are flawed at several levels.


So really, i'm not quite sure who is studying virtual physics here..


Are you so unimaginative that you have to reply back using the same phrases I used prior!


[edit on 11-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   



Forces produced by gravity aren't constant for different masses. Each floor has to support all the mass of all of the floors above it. After the collapse of each floor, the resulting mass that was falling due to gravity increased, so it's utterly illogical and stupid to say that the forces due to gravity did not also increase.



It is illogical to say that the force of gravity changes.

Your telling me that if i dropped a block that weighed 5 pounds and then a block that weighed 8 pounds, that the 8 pound block would fall faster?

Because thats what you're implying right now......

Your right, everything generates its own gravitational field. But you really think that the top part of a skyscraper is going to have any negligible effect on Earths gravity? In fact, assuming the top half the skyscraper did create a magnetic field strong enough to have any negligible effect, all that would do is slow down its decent towards Earth. Because the more mass something has, the longer it would take for that object to be sucked in by Earths gravity.



[edit on 11-9-2009 by demonseed]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
Yeah I agree, it's futile to convince these believers of their ignorance. Whatever I say, they keep falsely rebutting it with "symmetric collapse nonsense", and beliefs that air resistance & weakened material resistances can hold up large masses.



Im confused what the nonsense here is....

Just because you're losing an argument and can't stand the truth does not make it nonsense.

Its ok, take a moment to ponder and then everything will be ok.

Personally, im moving to canada

=)



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by demonseed

Originally posted by john124
Yeah I agree, it's futile to convince these believers of their ignorance. Whatever I say, they keep falsely rebutting it with "symmetric collapse nonsense", and beliefs that air resistance & weakened material resistances can hold up large masses.



Im confused what the nonsense here is....

Just because you're losing an argument and can't stand the truth does not make it nonsense.

Its ok, take a moment to ponder and then everything will be ok.

Personally, im moving to canada

=)


The argument has been won already, you should be glad that I'm hanging around to try and remove you from your delusional and false usage of science.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by demonseed

Originally posted by john124
Yeah I agree, it's futile to convince these believers of their ignorance. Whatever I say, they keep falsely rebutting it with "symmetric collapse nonsense", and beliefs that air resistance & weakened material resistances can hold up large masses.



Im confused what the nonsense here is....

Just because you're losing an argument and can't stand the truth does not make it nonsense.

Its ok, take a moment to ponder and then everything will be ok.

Personally, im moving to canada

=)


The argument has been won already, you should be glad that I'm hanging around to try and remove you from your delusional and false usage of science.


Ok, before we continue.... let me ask you a question:

You take a feather and a Bowling ball. Place them in a vacuum and drop them from the same height. Which one will hit the ground first?

edit: im just going to throw it out there. I havent insulted you once yet you have insulted my "science" and "values" and "video game hobby". The idea here is to use logic, reason, and fact.

You are a good writer and very coherent but im gonna try and urge you to stay on topic and stop with the insults.

Luckily you are atleast debating so that is probably why your posts arent being deleted but throwing words like "dilusional" and "virutal physics" and "knowledge of a 7th grader" are not going to get the debate going, especially in todays civilized world.


[edit on 11-9-2009 by demonseed]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by demonseed
 



It is illogical to say that the force of gravity changes.

Your telling me that if i dropped a block that weighed 5 pounds and then a block that weighed 8 pounds, that the 8 pound block would fall faster?


Oh dear!!! You still don't get it. Pounds, stones, kg etc are all units of mass.

The force of gravity on a unit mass doesn't change, but the force due to gravity on a mass depends on its mass alone, in the Earth's gravitational field.


Because thats what you're implying right now......

Your right, everything generates its own magnetic field. But you really think that the top part of a skyscraper is going to have any negligible effect on Earths gravity? In fact, assuming the top half the skyscraper did create a magnetic field strong enough to have any negligible effect, all that would do is slow down its decent towards Earth. Because the more mass something has, the longer it would take for that object to be sucked in by Earths gravity.


Listen, you should stop with this pseudo-science BS. Spend some time reading a physics book on Newton's laws of motion.

I never ever said that any skyscraper produced its own significant gravitational field. Why did you refer to a magnetic field?



[edit on 11-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by demonseed
 



It is illogical to say that the force of gravity changes.

Your telling me that if i dropped a block that weighed 5 pounds and then a block that weighed 8 pounds, that the 8 pound block would fall faster?


Oh dear!!! You still don't get it. Pounds, stones, kg etc are all units of mass.


Because thats what you're implying right now......

Your right, everything generates its own magnetic field. But you really think that the top part of a skyscraper is going to have any negligible effect on Earths gravity? In fact, assuming the top half the skyscraper did create a magnetic field strong enough to have any negligible effect, all that would do is slow down its decent towards Earth. Because the more mass something has, the longer it would take for that object to be sucked in by Earths gravity.


Listen, you should stop with this pseudo-science BS. Spend some time reading a physics book on Newton's laws of motion.

I never ever said that any skyscraper produced its own significant gravitational field. Why did you refer to a magnetic field?



[edit on 11-9-2009 by john124]


Pounds are a unit of mass? Why, i didnt know that thanks for the very important and relevant info. I also want to thank you for answering the question... oh wait.... you didnt....


I did mean to say Gravitational field i will fix that.




[edit on 11-9-2009 by demonseed]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
www.grc.nasa.gov...

The object in motion is the top half of the Skyscraper.

It is acted upon by a force called gravity.

Force = Mass(of the upper part of WTC Tower) x Gravity.

It is compelled to change that sate by forces acted upon it, ei: the over 100 stories of WTC Tower below it.

Gravity is always exerting a force onto the Tower. ALWAYS. Every floor above the 1st floor is exerting the forces of gravity towards the ground. The structure of the building is preventing it from falling.

The Upper portion of a tower collapsing onto a lower portion might punch through maybe the first or second floor but as each floor accumulates the force will be slowed and the portions falling down will have skewed in any given direction due to the path of least resistance, causing the upper portions of the tower to fall to the ground. Thus, leaving the remaining structure standing.

A 2 story wall left standing after the collapse is not a valid indication of this happening.



[edit on 11-9-2009 by demonseed]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by demonseed
 



You take a feather and a Bowling ball. Place them in a vacuum and drop them from the same height. Which one will hit the ground first?


Exactly the same.

Force is proportional to the mass and acceleration.

Acceleration (a=G*m(Earth)/r^2) is constant, the force varies.

G is gravitational constant = 6.67e-11 m³/kgs²

It's the force which caused the resulting damage to subsequent floors during the WTC collapse. You can't treat acceleration as force, maybe that's what you've been doing all along.

Perhaps my previous postings might make more sense to you after that insight.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by demonseed
 



You take a feather and a Bowling ball. Place them in a vacuum and drop them from the same height. Which one will hit the ground first?


Exactly the same.

Force is proportional to the mass and acceleration.

Acceleration (a=G*m(Earth)/r^2) is constant, the force varies.

G is gravitational constant = 6.67e-11 m³/kgs²

It's the force which caused the resulting damage to subsequent floors during the WTC collapse. You can't treat acceleration as force, maybe that's what you've been doing all along.

Perhaps my previous postings might make more sense to you after that insight.


What force is acting upon the upper floors of the collapse?

Gravity

So gravity is the force being exerted on the Tower. Gravity is a constant, just as you stated. So force = Mass x Gravity.

Or is some hand of god exerting an additional miracle force upon the tower...?


The more mass an object has, the more acceleration it has towards the Earth but a the same time the more resistance it has towards the Earth. This is why the Feather and the Bowling ball fall at the same speed.

You still have not said anything to convince me that the mass of roughly 30 stories of a skyscraper, acted upon gravity alone, is enough to "plow" through over 100 stories of a skyscraper.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by demonseed]

[edit on 11-9-2009 by demonseed]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by demonseed
www.grc.nasa.gov...


Gravity is always exerting a force onto the Tower. ALWAYS. Every floor above the 1st floor is exerting the forces of gravity towards the ground. The structure of the building is preventing it from falling.


Yes, correct.


The Upper portion of a tower collapsing onto a lower portion might punch through maybe the first or second floor but as each floor accumulates the force will be slowed and the portions falling down will have skewed in any given direction due to the path of least resistance, causing the upper portions of the tower to fall to the ground. Thus, leaving the remaining structure standing.


The forces due to gravity were just too great for each subsequent floor to handle with the extra increase in mass for each floor. After all, the tower with the largest mass above the impact zone collapsed first, as the breaking point of the steel structure would have been reached much sooner due to the larger forces from above the weakened supports, in relation to the other tower.


[edit on 11-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by demonseed
 



The more mass an object has, the more acceleration it has towards the Earth but a the same time the more resistance it has towards the Earth. This is why the Feather and the Bowling ball fall at the same speed.


Acceleration is constant at 9.81 m/s^-2

Same acceleration, not same velocity/speed. OK, same velocity/speed at the same time if you see what I mean for the bowling ball and feather dropped in a vacuum at the same height.


You still have not said anything to convince me that the mass of roughly 30 stories of a skyscraper, acted upon gravity alone, is enough to "plow" through over 100 stories of a skyscraper.


I think you're underestimating the forces caused by this gravitational acceleration.

911research.wtc7.net...


With all of its structural redundancies, "the World Trade Center was probably one of the more resistant tall building structures," McNamara said, adding that "nowadays, they just don't build them as tough as the World Trade Center." His statement is bolstered by the fact that the support structures of both twin towers withstood the initial hits of the two kamikaze airliners despite the breaching of many levels of framing. After the deletion of key structural members from about the 90th to 96th floors on the north face of the north tower, One WTC, and from about the 75th to the 84th floors of the south, east and north faces of the south tower, Two WTC, the buildings' skeletons found alternative paths to take the loads. Each impact and following explosion imparted first a large local lateral force and then an omnidirectional force to the structures, together causing massive initial damage to the columns and floor systems at the elevation of the crash. This "massive initial damage to the columns" fails to distinguish between the perimeter columns and the much stronger core columns. There is no evidence that in either collision the core columns were severely damaged. In the off-center South Tower collision, there appears to have been little damage to the core, as survivors evacuated through stairwells in the core passing through the impact zone.

Despite shocks and explosions estimated to be equivalent to that of the 1995 truck bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (about 400 tons of TNT), the towers remained upright. "The buildings displayed a tremendous capacity to stand there despite the damage to a major portion of the gravity system, and for an hour or so they did stand there," McNamara said. "The lateral truss systems redistributed the load when other critical members were lost. It's a testament to the system that they lasted so long."

Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next—a key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member. So the engineers who designed it to withstand a 707 collision forgot that jets carry fuel? The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building—paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained. This misleads the reader into thinking that 800°F to 1500°F temperatures were reached and sustained, for which there is no evidence. Since jet fuel boils easily and has a low flash point, it would have burned off quickly in the first few minutes after the crashes -- a point granted even by the government's official reports.

Some have raised questions about the degree of fire protection available to guard the structural steel. According to press reports, the original asbestos cementitious fireproofing applied to the steel framework of the north tower and the lower 30 stories of the south were removed after the 1993 terrorist truck bombing.

Others have pointed out the possibility that the aviation fuel fires burned sufficiently hot to melt and ignite the airliners' aluminum airframe structures. Aluminum, a pyrophoric metal, could have added to the conflagrations. Hot molten aluminum, suggests one well-informed correspondent, could have seeped down into the floor systems, doing significant damage. "Aluminum melts into burning 'goblet puddles' that would pool around depressions, [such as] beam joints, service openings in the floor, stair wells and so forth...The goblets are white hot, burning at an estimated 1800 degrees Celsius. At this temperature, the water of hydration in the concrete is vaporized and consumed by the aluminum. This evolves hydrogen gas that burns. Aluminum burning in concrete produces a calcium oxide/silicate slag covered by a white aluminum oxide ash, all of which serve to insulate and contain the aluminum puddle. This keeps the metal hot and burning. If you look at pictures of Iraqi aircraft destroyed in their concrete shelters [during the Persian Gulf war], you will notice a deep imprint of the burned aircraft on the concrete floor.

Though the Boeing 767s airliners that hit the towers were somewhat larger than the Boeing 707 (maximum takeoff weights: 395,000 pounds versus 336,000 pounds) the structures were designed to resist, the planes carried a similarly sized fuel load as the older model—about 24,000 gallons versus 23,000 gallons, according to Kausel. "Most certainly," he continued, "no building has or will resist this kind of fire." The sprinkler system, which was probably compromised, would have been are useless against this kind of fire, he said, adding, "The World Trade Center towers performed admirably; they stood long enough for the majority of the people to be successfully evacuated."

Kausel also reported that he had made estimates of the amount of energy generated during the collapse of each tower. "The gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam," he explained. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). "That's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb," he noted. Since each tower weighed about 500,000 tons, Kausel is making a huge error by assuming all the mass is concentrated at the tops of the towers. Nor would it be correct to make the simplifying assumption of the mass being concentrated at the midsection, since the lower portions of the buildings had much heavier-gauge steel.

There you go!

[edit on 11-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 02:58 AM
link   
911review.com...

A more straightforward perspective is the pile-driver explanation, which is accurate due to the high kinetic energy output.


From then on, the collapse became inevitable, as each new falling floor added to the downward forces.

Further down the building, even steel at normal temperatures gave way under the enormous weight - an estimated 100,000 tonnes from the upper floors alone.

"It was as if the top of the building was acting like a huge pile driver, crashing down on to the floors underneath," said Chris Wise.

Even if the pile driver is hidden within the dust cloud, it would only have a fraction of the mass of the former top of the building, since most of it was clearly falling outside of the building's profile.

Moreover it is noteworthy that the rubble falling outside of the tower's profile is falling at about the same rate at which the Tower is disappearing. Even the largest and heaviest pieces of rubble at the bottom edges of the rubble cloud are falling less than twice as fast as rubble falling inside the Tower's profile. But the rubble falling inside the Tower's profile is, according to the official explanation, crushing the building.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 

I'm sorry but I must debunk that (please examine what is presented here very very carefully, given the importance of the debate).


Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Free fall in air would be about 10 seconds or so. Buildings went down in anywhere from 12 to 14 seconds, so to within a mere couple seconds or a few seconds of absolute free fall, all the while ejecting this fountain-like cascade of debris, all the way to the ground, without any loss of momentum.

The OCT (official conspiracy theory) as to what happened there I like to call "The Foot of God Hypothesis".

This post I made in another thread illustrates the point I'm trying to make here.


Originally posted by OmegaPoint

Originally posted by rogerstigers
A little digging got me this:



The real question is, how did all that implode and explode and go from top to bottom to within mere seconds of absolute FREE FALL in nothing but air..? with all the material blowing out in a plume of exploding debris, some firing large pieces of steel into the adjacent American express building and into the Winter Garden Atrium five hundred feet away - all the way to the ground WITHOUT ANY LOSS OF MOMENTUM???

Absent the use of explosives severing everything beneath the descending debris wave, that is..

[edit on 10-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]


Sir Isaac Newton's Three Laws of Motion

www.grc.nasa.gov...

Another interesting aspect, is that the North Tower was impacted around the 95 floor (of 110), and yet precisely the same phenomenon occured, again, all the way to the ground, without any loss of momentum. Absent explosives, that is impossible.

Regarding the North Tower, here's a little graphic which further illustrates the point



And so, since the second case, is through nothing but air, or in short, nothing at all, it is ONLY within the DIFFERENCE (mere seconds) wherein every "breakage" would have to occur, throughout the remaining length of structure and that would be probably as fast or faster than the speed of sound, or in short ALL AT ONCE. This is absurd.

Here is yet another way of looking at it

Case 1: Free-fall time of a billiard ball dropped from the roof of WTC1, in a vacuum:


Case 2: Progressive free fall in ten-floor intervals:


Case 3: Progressive free fall in one-floor intervals


And in those cases, that is operating on the basis of floors being suspended in mid air, with no columnar support structure at all, such that the next fall time commences at the point of impact, like a series of dominos suspended in mid air one above the other.

Videos of destruction

911research.wtc7.net...

Edit to add video of first hand eyewitness testimony of explosions


Google Video Link


There, I think that completes the picture.


[edit on 11-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


"Since each tower weighed about 500,000 tons, Kausel is making a huge error by assuming all the mass is concentrated at the tops of the towers. Nor would it be correct to make the simplifying assumption of the mass being concentrated at the midsection, since the lower portions of the buildings had much heavier-gauge steel. "

From your source....

Im not sure if you're reading your sources, but they seem to be more in line with what i'm saying.

Another of your sources:

"Moreover it is noteworthy that the rubble falling outside of the tower's profile is falling at about the same rate at which the Tower is disappearing. Even the largest and heaviest pieces of rubble at the bottom edges of the rubble cloud are falling less than twice as fast as rubble falling inside the Tower's profile. But the rubble falling inside the Tower's profile is, according to the official explanation, crushing the building. "

This guy even mentions "according to the official explanation." So even he is weary of the official explanation, hinting at another possible explanation.

The first sentence is a dead giveaway:

"the rubble falling outsdie of the tower's profile is falling at about the same rate at which the Tower is disappearing."

Free Fall speed. Confirmed by your own source.



[edit on 11-9-2009 by demonseed]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 



How is that any different to you assuming that the government are definitely lying?!


You keep asking where the bodies went, I am saying that there were NO bodies.

IT is the simpler solution.


Sure... let me try a theory: aliens from planet Edricksky shot down the plane mistaking it for a predatory animal, and felt so embarrassed they just had to clean up all of the mess!

It fits the observable data!! Therefore it must be a plausible and possible explanation!!


Considering the likelihood of an advanced interstellar species mistaking a Jet Airliner for a living biological organism... you are simply makeing an argument for Absurdity here.


Definition of Occam's razor: "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

By attempting to make use of Occam's razor you are implying that either you or the govt. are correct. The range of explanations are endless even if we were to disregard the best explanation given by the govt. There's photos of wreckage shown on a previous posting! When there's wreckage of a plane, it's more likely a plane crashed, than didn't crash!


Yes... we had one theory, and I interjected another, hence the competition of theories...

YOU interjected a THIRD, that we have already determined is a MORE complicated explanation, so, according to occams razor, Mine is still correct.

So.... where are the bodies then?

IF a plane wrecked... where are the bodies?


Occam's razor doesn't really apply here at all the way you've tried to use it, because it's no more logical than using it with the above theory on aliens stealing the wreckage and bodies, or any other wild theory for that matter!


Yes, it is...

Your explanation of the "Aliens" stealing the bodies and wrecking the planes is inherently MORE complicated, and therefore less likely to be true, hence, my explanation is superior to your Fallacious argument.


And I was sat here thinking that maybe just maybe some of these truthers here will satrt to see sense after I try to use reason and logic to turn them into rational people! But it's pointless discussing anything with somebody who will be ignorant whatever line of reasoning is attempted!


This is known as an Ad Homenin attack... instead of continuing to debate the point, you are attacking the intelligence of people who disagree with you.

This is known as a logical fallacy, and an argumentative fallacy.

This tactic is typically only attempted when the arguer (You) has no defensable position.


So, I'll ask you, one more time.... where are the bodies?

-Edrick



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 



Considering the likelihood of an advanced interstellar species mistaking a Jet Airliner for a living biological organism... you are simply makeing an argument for Absurdity here.


What's the likelihood of the US govt. murdering almost 3000 people in their own country?

You're in no position to call anybody absurd!


So.... where are the bodies then?

IF a plane wrecked... where are the bodies?


It's pointless to ask questions and expect answers, when your theory doesn't answer that or any other related questions either.


Your explanation of the "Aliens" stealing the bodies and wrecking the planes is inherently MORE complicated, and therefore less likely to be true, hence, my explanation is superior to your Fallacious argument.


Nah, it fits the same conditions as much as your theory. If we are to play by the same rules, then it's a valid theory, or neither are!


This is known as an Ad Homenin attack... instead of continuing to debate the point, you are attacking the intelligence of people who disagree with you.


You call anybody disagreeing with you an attack, even when they've been rational and logical with their conclusions. A real debate here is almost non-existant, as you're claiming a theory based on a complete fallacy of logic. Saying what you believe and then getting upset when somebody questions it using logic is not being critical on your part, and doesn't hold any scientific merit.


This is known as a logical fallacy, and an argumentative fallacy.


Are you saying that just because I disagree with your beliefs? And are you going to start being more honest with yourself for a change?!


This tactic is typically only attempted when the arguer (You) has no defensable position.


You posted the claim originally, so that makes "you" the "arguer" against the govt. explanation! You haven't yet provided any details that are more than speculation with which to argue against yet. It's illogical to blame somebody else just because you fail to provide a logical & sound basis for your counter explanation.


So, I'll ask you, one more time.... where are the bodies?


Do you have the answers to this question that can be considered as evidence, or any other answers for the rest of your "own" theory? If you don't, it's completely irrelevant & stupid to expect others to answer the same related questions validly, and then use that expectation to attack those who disagree with you.

Your idea of "NO bodies" still doesn't explain the valid question of "WHERE the missing people went?", which is just as relevent.

I think the families are missing loved ones from that day who were at least supposed to board that particular flight.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
If truthers have trouble understanding the towers collapsing in terms of force from above, then consider the kinetic energy output from the stored gravitational potential energy.

The towers were designed to withstand a jet plane crash, as they did survive the initial impacts 8 years ago today. But the truthers often miss out other key facts, that the towers were never designed to withstand the burning jet-fuel & burning aluminium from the plane. This lie of omission and many other lies form the basis for their theories, which are full of speculation and false uses of scientific principles.

Once you realise the towers "can" collapse after the structure weakened by at least 50%, it's not a giant hurdle of logic to jump over to realise the towers would completely collapse, if you look at the situation in terms of kinetic energy. It's unrealistic to expect the material reactionary & resistance forces & to counter this immense kinetic energy, once the floors from above pile-drive down with the energy output of around 1% the energy output of a nuclear bomb.

The collapse time was approximately 14 seconds, therefore not at freefall as truthers suggest!

This fits in with conservation of energy, and conservation of momentum.

Why anybody would want to disregard or underestimate this magnitude of energy from a falling mass is astounding. Has any building ever survived that amount of mass dropped on top of it - no it hasn't! It's completely stupid to disregard all of this for the WTC!

Some people here have got upset when I've pointed out flaws in their reasoning, logic and use of scientific principles. But it is impossible to criticise anyone who behaves with such a level of ignorance because they will truly be offended by whatever I say that strongly counters their beliefs, when I have used correct scientific principles to back up & explain why they are wrong.

When somebody cannot comprehend a fairly straightforward scientific principle or basic use of logical principles, it is an observational fact that they lack either the intellectual capacity, or the educational tools to understand and use them properly.


[edit on 11-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
If truthers have trouble understanding the towers collapsing in terms of force from above, then consider the kinetic energy output from the stored gravitational potential energy.

The towers were designed to withstand a jet plane crash, as they did survive the initial impacts 8 years ago today. But the truthers often miss out other key facts, that the towers were never designed to withstand the burning jet-fuel & burning aluminium from the plane. This lie of omission and many other lies form the basis for their theories, which are full of speculation and false uses of scientific principles.

Once you realise the towers "can" collapse after the structure weakened by at least 50%, it's not a giant hurdle of logic to jump over to realise the towers would completely collapse, if you look at the situation in terms of kinetic energy. It's unrealistic to expect the material reactionary & resistance forces & to counter this immense kinetic energy, once the floors from above pile-drive down with the energy output of around 1% the energy output of a nuclear bomb.

The collapse time was approximately 14 seconds, therefore not at freefall as truthers suggest!

This fits in with conservation of energy, and conservation of momentum.

Why anybody would want to disregard or underestimate this magnitude of energy from a falling mass is astounding. Has any building ever survived that amount of mass dropped on top of it - no it hasn't! It's completely stupid to disregard all of this for the WTC!

Some people here have got upset when I've pointed out flaws in their reasoning, logic and use of scientific principles. But it is impossible to criticise anyone who behaves with such a level of ignorance because they will truly be offended by whatever I say that strongly counters their beliefs, when I have used correct scientific principles to back up & explain why they are wrong.

When somebody cannot comprehend a fairly straightforward scientific principle or basic use of logical principles, it is an observational fact that they lack either the intellectual capacity, or the educational tools to understand and use them properly.


[edit on 11-9-2009 by john124]


Nobody here has gotten upset except you:

"The argument has been won already, you should be glad that I'm hanging around to try and remove you from your delusional and false usage of science."

"Yeah I agree, it's futile to convince these believers of their ignorance. Whatever I say, they keep falsely rebutting it with "symmetric collapse nonsense", and beliefs that air resistance & weakened material resistances can hold up large masses. "

And you seemingly ignore half of my arguments. Im not really sure who the loopy conspiracy theorist here is...



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join