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: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by demonseed
 



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


I've countered every single argument you've put forward! You seem intent on ignoring the effects of KE. The towers did not collapse symmetrically, and they did not collapse in freefall!!! Resistance in the structure did provide a countering force to gravity, yet a net force was still downwards! The energies have been calculated, and it's much higher than the structures can support, especially when weakened.

The arguments you've put forwards assumes the collapses were in freefall, which is completely incorrect. That's why the truthers ideas of:

1. Momentum and energy not being conserved,

2. Underestimating the kinetic energy produced by stored gravitational potential energy (which does increases with more mass!),

3. An apparent make-believe extra super-resistance that holds up all the supports,

4. That constant acceleration means constant forces at separate masses,

Are all truly stupid!

You complained that I called you "stupid"
which you obviously have been.

It's only frustration that led to that, because of the many times you haven't used science correctly.

I'll think I'll stick with just concluding truthers will always be ignorant, and leave you to your own devices.

Ironically in your own mind you will feel some false sense of vindication. It's not surprising that most people don't bother arguing with you. The majority who are frustrated with the lack of critical thinking applied, does not constitute as proof of your beliefs. Luckily any frustration is shortlived, as I won't bother discussing this subject again. It's a complete waste of my time!


[edit on 11-9-2009 by john124]




posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 



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!


Are you implying that Governments have never, and will never murder their own people for power and political Gain?

Wow, that's daft.


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


I believe that I already answered that there were no bodies.

That is called an ANSWER, something that you have yet to provide.

Do try harder next time, would you?


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!


Werent you the one stating that Occams Razor is "Of two explinations, the simplest one is most likely true?

You are contradicting yourself sir.


You call anybody disagreeing with you an attack


You Said:


But it's pointless discussing anything with somebody who will be ignorant whatever line of reasoning is attempted!


In this statement, you implied that anyone who does not see the "Inherent Truth" in your line of "Reasoning" is "Ignorant"

You used the term incorrectly... Ignorance implies a lack of knowledge.... I think the word you meant to use is "Stupid" as it fits better within the context of your statement.

You Said in an earlier post:

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!


You are assuming that your view is the correct one, you are implying that anyone who does not agree with you is irrational, you are attacking the intelligence (Credibility) of those who hold different perspectives than you.

Since none of us *KNOW* what actually happened, your insistance on labling people who disagree with you as "Irrational" is merely an attack.

Hence, what I said.


Are you saying that just because I disagree with your beliefs?


No, I am saying that because you are resorting to NON-ARGUMENT tactics to attempt to ridicule your opponent, instead of debating the point.

Hence, what I said.


You posted the claim originally, so that makes "you" the "arguer" against the govt. explanation!


Yes, and you are Arguing against my position, which makes YOU the arguer...

You need to stop thinking in such contrasting polarities... the world is slightly more grey that you seem to believe that it is.


You haven't yet provided any details that are more than speculation with which to argue against yet.


You have not yet answered my question of "Where are the bodies", which is a detail that my argument is in a symbiotic relationship with.

IF you don't want to argue this point, then just say that you dont know where the bodies are... and we will be done.


It's illogical to blame somebody else just because you fail to provide a logical & sound basis for your counter explanation.


I am blaming you for not arguing... I am blaming you for attacking instead of refuting.

I am blaming you for not having a discussion, but instead, hurling subtle insults.

You have not provided an answer to my querry of "Where are the bodies" and you still refuse to do so.


Our original point of contention, was of the shanksville crash.. you said, AND I QUOTE:


3). Can you explain where the people went if their plane did not crash.


And I asked you to show me proof that they were in fact, ON THE PLANE or found in the crash site.

You have yet to validate your position against my rebuttal.

Every word you have uttered for 4 pages, has been an attempt to misdirect attention from my original rebuttal.

*WHERE ARE THE BODIES?*


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


This seems to be the point you are having trouble with...

How can someone be missing, if they were never *THERE* to begin with?


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


Im not sure what you meant by this statement...

But an alternative explanation, would be that the plane was rerouted, and its members kidnapped and killed.

(Which is exactly what the official story dictates, only I am offering a different "Hijacker" in this theory)

-Edrick



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 



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.


As a rebuttle to your one sided view of this, I shall counter with newtons laws of momentum.

An object at motion will stay in motion, unless acted on by an outside force.

And you agree with this statement, obviously from your "Pancake Collapse" argument.

But what you forget.. is that an object at rest remains at rest, unless acted upon by an outside force.

The falling bits of the tower had momentum... yes.

But the Stationary floors beneath them ALSO had momentum. (Stationary Momentum)

To assume that the falling floors, impart their energy to the stationary floors beneath them, without losing some of their own momentum, is in violation the the laws of conservation of energy (In this case, momentum)

And ascribing the energy to that of a small nuclear bomb, is also an unscientific analogy.

Lets take a look at some Mathematics, shall we?


Tower Mass: 500,000,000kg (Liberal Estimate)
Gravitational Acceleration: 9.8m/s


Now, the upper 30 some floors collapsed onto the lower 60 floors.

That would be 1/3 the total mass of the building.

or, 500,000,000kg / 3 = 166,666,666kg

So, lets say, that the upper floors fell the full 12 feet (Typical floor height) and accelerated unimpeded for that entire time.

That would impart a velocity of (32f/s) / 12f = (1/3 * 32f/s)

So, the total velocity of the upper 30 floors had an acceleration time of 1/3 sec.

That would impart a velocity of 3.7 m/s (12f/s)


The kinetic energy of a 166,666,666kg structure moving at 3.7m/s is 616,666,664 joules (Newton meters)


The Energy of the Hiroshima Bomb (Small Nuclear Bomb) is 58,500,000,000,000 Joules


OR, 94,864 TIMES the power of the kinetic energy of the falling top 30 floors.

And lest we forget... only the top 15 floors fell.


The kinetic energy imparted by the falling floors was well within the design loads of the bottom floors.

And any pancake action would have slowed to a crawl, and the top floors would have toppled over and fell off, thus halting the collapse.


Your point is MATHEMATICALLY moot.

-Edrick



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Judging by the number of replies, it's not so easy to win a debate.

I've rarely seen someone switch sides in one of these discussions regardless of what logical arguments have been put forward.

It's been 8 years and people are still arguing. It's not so easy.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


thank you. it's people like you who take the time to argue idiots who purely believe everything the media news and government has said about 9/11.

I wish people would just take the time to examine any controversial event themselves instead of just going off what somebody said happened.

again thanks for pointing out many way to obvious facts that "de-bunkers" just blatantly ignore.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Dave157
 


Well, thank you for that.

Usually all I get is "LaLaLaLaLa I can't Hear You" trumpeted from the pits...

(Third Line)

-Edrick



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 



And ascribing the energy to that of a small nuclear bomb, is also an unscientific analogy.


Not really, if you are talking about any kind of explosive, you have materials expelled with kinetic energies. Therefore these can be calculated, and given as ratios or percentages to each other.


The kinetic energy of a 166,666,666kg structure moving at 3.7m/s is 616,666,664 joules


KE=1/2(Mv^2)

Therefore KE = (166666666*3.7^2)/2 = 1,140,833,329 Joules = 1140.8 MJ

This is from your own values of mass and velocity, and you can't even calculate the KE correctly. I don't even need to provide my own values of mass and velocity to debunk your post!! What school of Maths did you learn at again?!

Anyway you don't need to reply back, as this post was to demonstrate to others how badly your maths is. You can't even calculate kinetic energies properly, so there's no point debunking any more of your post!

I have no idea what you are wittering about on that extremely long and dull post just before your last one, but it seems you think that I'm arguing for a particular explanation, when actually I'm only pointing out logical fallacies in your theory. Your explanation lacks any answers to perfectly relevant questions, just like the make-believe alien example, and just like any theory that anybody can come up with. The alien example was an analogy to your own example, not a real explanation. I thought that would be obvious to you by now.

Anyway, you are the arguer against the govt. explanation, and I offer no explanation, therefore I'm not arguing for one. Therefore I do not have to answer any of your questions. The onus is on you to convince me of your theory, not for me to convince you that it's not true. So far you just state your opinion, and expect me to answer questions that disprove that opinion. I'm sorry, but that's a stupid way of arguing a case for anything.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dave157
reply to post by Edrick
 


thank you. it's people like you who take the time to argue idiots who purely believe everything the media news and government has said about 9/11.

I wish people would just take the time to examine any controversial event themselves instead of just going off what somebody said happened.

again thanks for pointing out many way to obvious facts that "de-bunkers" just blatantly ignore.



Hmmm, do you realise the person you are crediting with success has just failed to accurately calculate the kinetic energy of a falling mass? That was using his own figures of mass and velocity with which to debunk the value he gave for kinetic energy.

Perhaps you would be best suited to learn the science yourself or at least listen to somebody with experience and knowledge in maths. It's ironic you will ignore government scientists, and even those not working for the government, and assume they are all lying or incompotent. Yet you will listen to the incompotent scientists, and thank somebody on a message board who plucks values apparently from fresh air, and then thank them for strengthening your illogical beliefs.

What makes you know that everyone who disagrees with the truthers hasn't examined the event for themselves? Are the obvious facts that you are supposedly referring to, the incorrect values of kinetic energy?

Anyway, your hero catastrophically failed at his calculations!



[edit on 11-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by Dave157
 


Well, thank you for that.

Usually all I get is "LaLaLaLaLa I can't Hear You" trumpeted from the pits...

(Third Line)

-Edrick


Maybe if you brushed up on your maths and applied it correctly, then you would have more of an audience, without the giggles.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Ok, well I have a question. How could the jet fuel have supposedly melted the steel beams? Wouldn't it have to melt all of them at the same time causing the building to collapse the way it did? The plane hit the tower from only one side and wouldn't the beams closest to the fire melt first, therefore making the top of the building tilt to that side?



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 



But the Stationary floors beneath them ALSO had momentum. (Stationary Momentum)


NO!! Stationary objects do not have momentum, as p=mv, and when v=0, p=0.

The stationary floors had gravitational potential energy, that converts to kinetic, sound and heat energy during collapse.


To assume that the falling floors, impart their energy to the stationary floors beneath them, without losing some of their own momentum, is in violation the the laws of conservation of energy (In this case, momentum)


Taking into account all resistances, the net energy is directly as a force approximately downwards due to kinetic energy becoming greater as each floor collapses, because the mass above the collapse points increases. Therefore there is a net acceleration downwards of the towers collapsing in approximately 14 seconds, which is slower than freefall. The resistances in the structure obviously prevent freefall speeds. As can be seen the towers collapse floor by floor and accelerate downwards.

This shows a conservation of energy between each floor as kinetic energy increases, gravitational potential energy decreases, and material resistances decrease as each floor collapses due to less mass below to provide the reactionary forces. Momentum is also conserved.

Yes, momentum & energy is transferred between each floor during the collapse, so there's no violation of the law there. But you must consider the overall mass above the next floor increasing after each floor collapse, and reactionary forces below decreasing as the mass below it reduces, as each floor collapses, and so there's less mass to plough through!

Once the originally damaged supports had weakened significantly, there was only one direction the mass above would move - and that's aproximately down. Yes it seemed to tilt a little at first, but as soon as several floors collapsed the whole top part of the towers ploughed approximately downwards, because the building's shape is approximately symmetrical below the impact points. But the collapse is in no way symmetrical!

All the evidence supports this, and all the evidence supports a weakened structure, (around 50%), being unable to hold in place the mass above the impact points with reactionary forces from below. The towers weren't designed to withstand this level of structural failure, and the only outcome was the pile-drive downwards.

It's ironic how somebody can just deny this all, and scream and shout that it's not true, and followers blindly join in with them. It's very amusing.


The kinetic energy imparted by the falling floors was well within the design loads of the bottom floors.


Now that made me laugh as well!
You cant even calculate kinetic energy using your own given figures of mass and velocity, and you then use incorrect results to make incorrect conclusions!


And any pancake action would have slowed to a crawl, and the top floors would have toppled over and fell off, thus halting the collapse.


You're ignoring the very facts of momentum and energy conservations by stating that as true!


If the top part leaned more for some reason, such as the structures failing more to one side than what happened on 9/11 if the planes hit less centrally, then the circumstances would have been different, and the top may have tilted far enough to one side to fall over. Then with conserved energy and momentum, and with a smaller component of force downwards produced by smaller kinetic energies, it's possible not all of the structures below may have failed. But none of that happened, and the planes hit more centrally, causing more damage.


So yes it's nice to theorise what may have happened had the supports not received the same amount of damage, but it doesn't mean we disregard the videos of the planes hitting the towers, or the defined physics which tells us the structures at the impact level were severely stressed and weakened by the burning jet-fuel, office equipment and airplane aluminium melting along with the steel girders.

Oh and before I leave - I suspect I would have had more success talking to my dining room table about Physics & Maths, than having these conversations with you!


[edit on 11-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SonsOfAnarchy
Ok, well I have a question. How could the jet fuel have supposedly melted the steel beams? Wouldn't it have to melt all of them at the same time causing the building to collapse the way it did? The plane hit the tower from only one side and wouldn't the beams closest to the fire melt first, therefore making the top of the building tilt to that side?


It did indeed tilt a little as the top part buckled and then collapsed.


[edit on 11-9-2009 by john124]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124

Originally posted by SonsOfAnarchy
Ok, well I have a question. How could the jet fuel have supposedly melted the steel beams? Wouldn't it have to melt all of them at the same time causing the building to collapse the way it did? The plane hit the tower from only one side and wouldn't the beams closest to the fire melt first, therefore making the top of the building tilt to that side?


It did indeed tilt a little as the top part buckled and then collapsed.


[edit on 11-9-2009 by john124]


It tilted and still fell inward??



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
1 wtc 7

2 Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney´s stand down order in the command bunker that Norman Mineta was wittnes to

3 Larry silverstien using the term "Pull it"

thats 3 easy for people to comprehend



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by SonsOfAnarchy
 



It tilted and still fell inward??


Yeah, it tilted as it fell downwards as well, but not far enough to fall over sideways. A few posts back I explained the sequences for this.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by SonsOfAnarchy
 



It tilted and still fell inward??


Yeah, it tilted as it fell downwards as well, but not far enough to fall over sideways. A few posts back I explained the sequences for this.


Yeah, I don't know though maybe its because I really don't remember anything from high school physics but I just can't see how a building can fall inwards like that when it was only hit from one side and like I said before the tower was hit pretty high up not like it was hit in the middle.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


ok fire cant melt steel...even if the whole building was on fire it wouldnt fall in free fall like it did

they even admitted there was bombs in the basement look it up



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 



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.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SonsOfAnarchy
 


It's not even the issue of collapse initiation at the level of the impacts and fires which is the problem, it's what ensued, as the cascading and ejecting debris plume, continued to move all the way down the remaining structure, without any loss of momentum, and to within a few seconds of free fall, in nothing but air. That's the problem. Absent the use of explosives, to remove the structure beneath that plume as it descended, the official story is what I would call "The Foot of God Hypothesis". (see my quoted post above for more, to get a better understanding of just what we're dealing with and looking at). And bear in mind that the majority of the mass was ejected in that fountain of debris, so once initiated, and say, half way through the "collapse" there's literallly half LESS building, above the remaining half, yet it was pulverized, all the way to the ground and there was no loss of momentum, and no resistence encountered.



posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 



Not really, if you are talking about any kind of explosive, you have materials expelled with kinetic energies. Therefore these can be calculated, and given as ratios or percentages to each other.


You are comparing 15 floors falling at 3.7ms to a nuclear weapon.

The analogy is Wrong by ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE!


KE=1/2(Mv^2)

Therefore KE = (166666666*3.7^2)/2 = 1,140,833,329 Joules = 1140.8 MJ


Yes... you are correct.

I said 600 million, it was really 1,100 million.

I was off by half.

Which still falls well within the Safety rating of the floors structural design.


Anyway you don't need to reply back, as this post was to demonstrate to others how badly your maths is. You can't even calculate kinetic energies properly, so there's no point debunking any more of your post!


Well, lets see... you sure love to claim superiority don't you?

Let's use YOUR numbers, against your analogy.

Falling Energy: 1,140,833,329 Joules
Energy of the Smallest Nuclear Weapon: 58,500,000,000,000 joules

So... *I* was off by half, and *YOU* were off by 3 orders of magnitude.


once the floors from above pile-drive down with the energy output of around 1% the energy output of a nuclear bomb.


The collapse had %0.0019 the energy of a nuclear bomb.

You cannot compare this to a nuclear weapon, doing so is misleading.

You didn't even bother to see if your statement was true, did you?


NO!! Stationary objects do not have momentum, as p=mv, and when v=0, p=0.


You are assuming that the object is Stationary... it is not.

Nothing is stationary.

The planet itself is rotating at about 1000 miles per hour...


Also, you are assuming that p=0 means that the object does not have momentum... and you are incorrect.

p=0 means that the object has a momentum of 0.

Which means, in order to change its velocity, energy must be added from an outside source in the direction of the vector that you wish to change.


If you press down on something with a force of 1,400Mj, that energy is CONSERVED in the system.

Meaning that the lower "Stationary" object can only accelerate as the Upper object DECELERATES.


Your basic understanding of physics is quite lacking.


Taking into account all resistances


Show your work, or don't bother posting useless "I know the answer" statements.

If it is not falsifiable... it is not science.


All the evidence supports this, and all the evidence supports a weakened structure, (around 50%)


What part of the building did the fire effect?


You seem to claim that the entire structure was on fire.

It was not.

The structure beneath the impact was at full strength, due to it *NOT BEING ON FIRE*

You fail to grasp the nature of reality.


It's ironic how somebody can just deny this all


Agreed.


This shows a conservation of energy between each floor as kinetic energy increases, gravitational potential energy decreases


And just how did the falling debris know that it was getting closer to the ground, and slow down?

I don't think you know what you are talking about.


and material resistances decrease as each floor collapses due to less mass below to provide the reactionary forces


Do.... you even... know how physics work?

The resistance does not decrease... that is absurd.

Each floor was designed to support the weight of *ALL* of the floors above it.

Resistance would INCREASE as the collapse progressed further down.

Thus, slowing the collapse.


Wow, you are not debating at all.... I see all of your shaming language, your attempt to Vilify me, and lump all of the other questioners around me...

Your science is the worst sort... Arrogant, without proof.


I at least provided the background for my conclusions, You do not.


You can not claim to be working in the methods of science if you pick apart MY calculations, and then refuse to provide some of your own.


You Remind me of The Creationists, really.




And you are still wrong.



-Edrick



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join