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.

 

My beliefs have changed regarding 911

page: 13
15
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

What kind of reply do you call that?



One that you can't address without following in Alice's footsteps and falling down the rabbit hole into Wonderland, where you must also take the position that there really is a TPTB that runs the world.

It shows the amount of fail in your beliefs.




posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


So do you have anything that disputes what I've said yet?

You are talking irrelevant nonsense again. Nothing new, time to move on...



Edit; BTW if you think that world events are not manipulated then you are living in wonderland.

[edit on 6/13/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor
You guys are killing me.


Quite an accusation. Perhaps forums such as this are not the place for you if it is causing problems with your ability to be alive.


First off, it was a thought exercise on scaling.


Not a very good one.


Are you being deliberately obtuse?


Nope.


And do you even realize that you agreed with me?


No, actually I did not.


The whole point of the Hot Wheels analogy is that it's purposely poor because you cant scale down a material's strength, hence my pointing out the square-cube law.


That would be great if you used comparable items in your analogy but you did not.


Imagine a 1/8th scale car, which weighs a scale 8 lbs(1/512th of 4000 lbs). Its made of steel, and everything is pretty well scaled. It hits a wall at a scale speed of 8 mph(1/8th of 65 mph). Does it get damaged as badly as a real car doing 65? Of course not. Any scale modeling is worthless with impacts, which is why its done with computers.


While what you are saying may be accurate, you have sidestepped your original and flawed analogy where using two completely different things, made of different material and constructed in a different manner were used to try and prove your point. That was just plain silly and it stands out because it shows the kind of thinking that gets tossed around her by people thinking they are too smart for their own good. You had a little knowledge and tried to apply it and failed. Sorry to see that happen like that. Plus 8 X 8 is not 65. If you want to be so detail oriented and all...

Just saying, it is nice you have a principal and sort of understand it but when you compare bolted together plastic and metal to a solid chunk of steel to prove that principal, it looks like perhaps it is not being applied correctly, thus leaving me little reason to do anything but question conclusions gleaned from that.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
KJ,

Keep in mind that kiwasabi had just compared the WTC towers to trees(which you apparently had no problem with); so it's not like I was debating a rocket scientist here. I used the simplest scale model analogy I could drum up at the moment. Agreed that it was far from perfect - but it's not as bad you think. The idea isn't to scale down to an exact replica; it's more to do with how scaling down to a proportional size and mass, and a proportional speed - creates a disproportional force of the collision(as you scale down linearly, the kinetic energy scales down exponentially; as you scale up, the opposite happens).

Just look at it the other way around. Scaling up the toy car to a full size car, say 50x, and crashing it at 65 mph(okay 64 mph, ya got me there). Same type of collision the toy car experienced? Negative, even though the construction and materials are to scale. The premise is sound, your objections to the difference in construction and materials, notwithstanding.

BTW, I don't really feel that I'm any smarter than most of other posters here. I know my IQ and I'm far from being in position to talk down to folks about physics, unless they get it totally assed up, as kiwasabi did.

[edit on 13-6-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor
KJ,

Keep in mind that kiwasabi had just compared the WTC towers to trees(which you apparently had no problem with);


No, actually I did not. I saw someone using a tree and a plane to simply discuss -when a tall object is struck at speed - does it fall over, break, or implode. That has nothing to do with comparable structural integrity or scaling. It was simply about falling over or not. Almost anything could have fit there. Your thought experiment comparing how a hung of solid metal reacts compared to an automobile to demonstrate how scaling does not translate integrity was kind of different. Sorry.


so it's not like I was debating a rocket scientist here. I used the simplest scale model analogy I could drum up at the moment.


But that is the point. It was not a scale model analogy because a matchbox car is a visual representation but nothing bout the material, structure, design, or assembly is even remotely close. You are comparing a sheet of paper to an aircraft carrier and calling it a scale analogy of structure.


Agreed that it was far from perfect - but it's not as bad you think.


Sure seems to be so far.


The idea isn't to scale down to an exact replica; it's more to do with how scaling down to a proportional size and mass, and a proportional speed - creates a disproportional force of the collision(as you scale down linearly, the kinetic energy scales down exponentially; as you scale up, the opposite happens).


I know. A matchbox car is not even remotely a scale representation of the mass and size of a real car. A scaled up matchbox car would be too heavy to ever get to 65MPH. It would be a giant, heavy as hell, single piece of metal with some plastic in the middle. I bet if you ram that into a wall at 65, there would still be no scratch on it. See why it just did not help to make the point you were making?


Just look at it the other way around. Scaling up the toy car to a full size car, say 50x, and crashing it at 65 mph(okay 64 mph, ya got me there). Same type of collision the toy car experienced? Negative, even though the construction and materials are to scale. The premise is sound, your objections to the difference in construction and materials, notwithstanding.


The construction and materials are to scale???????????? What toy cars do you have? Can you link me because my nephew would go insane for a toy car made out of all real scaled down car parts and materials. Thank you for highlighting the problem with your analogy right there. You think toy cars, when scaled up, become made out of thousands of moving and attached parts that are mostly plastic and alloys. I would like to know how you scale things that creates such an alternate reality.


BTW, I don't really feel that I'm any smarter than most of other posters here. I know my IQ and I'm far from being in position to talk down to folks about physics, unless they get it totally assed up, as kiwasabi did.


That is quite a statement considering this response shows you simply didn ot understand kiwasabi. See, according to what you just said, you really do not have the knowledge to refute that statement. Your words are doing you more harm than good when it comes to correcting people on physics. How about you just stop and I just stop. Unless you want to start a thread on it. I would really love to read all about these special toy cars you have.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor
I used the simplest scale model analogy I could drum up at the moment. Agreed that it was far from perfect - but it's not as bad you think. The idea isn't to scale down to an exact replica; it's more to do with how scaling down to a proportional size and mass, and a proportional speed - creates a disproportional force of the collision(as you scale down linearly, the kinetic energy scales down exponentially; as you scale up, the opposite happens).


The problem arises when we consider a thing called "moment of inertia". You can't scale down things like this and expect them to act in the same manner.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


"moment of inertia":

Sounds as if you have it all figured out --- or at least are on the right path...

Care to elaborate??

(HINT: Not laying any traps....those (traps) will be of your own making, IF you choose that path...



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


All I'm saying is you can't take something like the towers and scale it down. Moment of inertia is an engineering term that if you knew about it, you would not need to ask.


If you want to learn about it, then please ask. But, please don't make it look like I don't know what I talk about just because you, yourself, is ignorant of the subject.


Edit: Let me elaborate more as my original post to you might be miscunstrued as me being a dick. I am not trying to be.

All I'm saying is that no one can scale down the towers and expect it to act the same. Even the "truthers" have some sort of test they have set up. They say "make a scaled model which can't implode on itself...blah, blah, blah." All I'm saying is you can't scale it down without changing the reasults. Peace.

[edit on 13-6-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


OK.....

"inertia" is not a foriegn word to me. (although, of course, it IS a bit 'foreign'...the word, I mean....just one of many additives to the English language...)

Perhaps it IS, though...to some.

But, back to 'inertia'.....I understand that concept, very well.

Not sure what your intent is, though....

Because, 'inertia', and Isaac Newton, are related...to "Isaac" and his 'laws' that he derived from the mathematics...and, of course, observation and experimentation.....



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Actually, moment of inertia has nothing to do with Newton or Inertia. It is an inherent physical atribute dealing with mass and distance from the centroid (center of mass). It is inherent in every physical being. Scaling down the steel from the towers would alter the moment of inertia of the scaled down steel. Thus altering the outcome.

You can't scale down physics. You can make a model of it, but the physical properties will always be dissimilar to the original.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter

The problem arises when we consider a thing called "moment of inertia". You can't scale down things like this and expect them to act in the same manner.


Right. You can also scale up or down a material itself, but not it's strength. I imagine this is why there's a hard limit to the height we can build structures.

I ain't no physicist, as I said, but I too am interested in how the 'moment of inertia' relates to our scale models. I think I may have an inkling what you mean, if you are referring to the resistance the toy's materials has to damage as it's scaled down.

eta: way late on the draw, thanks Nutter.


[edit on 13-6-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


These two sentences explains it all.



The moment of inertia of an object about a given axis describes how difficult it is to change its angular motion about that axis. Therefore, it encompasses not just how much mass the object has overall, but how far each bit of mass is from the axis.


en.wikipedia.org...

Notice that the MoI is a product of the distance to the center of mass. When you scale something down, the center of mass and the distance from it change.


[edit on 13-6-2010 by Nutter]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 767doctor
eta: way late on the draw, thanks Nutter.



No problem. I think you had a handle on it. I was just adding some further comments.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Nutter
 


I strive to disagree, with what was, in your post, a simplistic description.

Please understand the difference between the terms "Potential Energy", and "Kinetic Energy"

Oh, and BTW..Sir Isaac Newton's observations, and codifying mathematics DO have relevance....HE codifed, and described motion within a gravitational field. (Even IF he didn't understand everything....his math is solid).

"MoI"?? Yes...of course any mass has, IF it is "at rest", some inertia. (See 'potential energy') that is easily 'overcome', as it begins to fall (when acted upon) under the force of gravity.

However, once set in motion (in this case, due to gravity) the MASS, and the 'resting inertia' comes into play....its "resting inertia" is irrelevant, once it begins to move....The MASS packs quite the wallop, and driven by GRAVITY as it is....well.....we all saw the results....



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   
So, using the OP and 'bunker rationale, NO WAY could WTC 1 and 2 be "pulled" because it would take "months and months and months and no one saw anything which is impossible and someone would have blabbed by now and they had security dogs which made it harder or damn nigh impossible and nanothermite wasnt really there cos who put it there and it looked like paint chips and the jet fuel went down the lift which blew up the lobby and all the explosions heard were gas cannisters going off and the steel melted and buckled and the pentacon was hit with a plane too cos my buddies showed me some top secret photos that no one else has seen which clear it all up for me and if you wait another 9 years these folks are going to release a lot of stuff soon including photos that will show it was a plane that made a 20 ft hole in the wall without so much as a scratch were the engines should have hit and Rumsfeld is an old fart whose losing his mind and and I know this because the internet told me when i was researching having taken some time off to properly investigate cos I'm a cop who only deals in concrete evidence even though ive posted some stuff about missiles cos this is ATS but Shanksville I aint sure of still cos my intense research never came up with anything even though i tried to hook up with some pilot who said that a missile was missing but i couldnt find him but someone else told me that that was basically how it went or something like that but they wouldnt go on the record and who could blame them even though the plane was swallowed by the ground and only 8% of the dead were retrieved yet they ID'ed everyone on board .

BUT.....


WTC 7 was a controlled detonation because it was unsafe for the public and beyond repair.....and all this was done within a few hours with some cleverly placed explosives that were rigged up that day......





Wow mike.....glad you concluded in closing that you didnt expect everyone to agree with your opinion..!!

This was an interesting tack taken here, and quite refreshing in its approach.....however insane it reads!!

The default 'bunker position for WTC1 and 2 is it would be impossible to install the charges (even if they did it clandestinely over the period of a few months, under the cover of darkness)....

BUT.....

The 47 storey WTC7 was quickly wired up, without anyone at all seeing anything, including all the fire fighters and rescue crews etc.
Hence the controlled demolition "look" to it all as it came down in perfect symmetry.

You gotta be pullin' our legs right??
I thought it was truthers that were "nut jobs" in foil hats...jeez!!

Back to the drawing board methinks mike....you got a couple of holes there you need to work on...maybe your mates who appreciate that youve "seen the light" and had your epithany can help you...

You sure need it with that tale....:


Oh, and thanks for sharing your opinion...as the 'bunkers love to say here on good 'ole ATS, opinions are like A-holes...everyones got one..!!

[edit on 14-6-2010 by benoni]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


I don't understand why you feel the need to patronize someone who just does not "think" or believe in the same things you do.

But your NOT indicitive of what ATS is about in no small way and for sure, no large portion either.

[edit on 6/14/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Yeah mike, thanks for that ...haha!!

Interesting thread you got here pal !!

Dont worry about my profession mate....with your spelling I'm amazed you
found employment as anything, let alone a "Law Enforcement Officer" ...



The irony...!!

Thanks again for the giggles...



Edit..5minutes later

Jeez mike...your all over the show here...within 5 minutes youve dropped your own patronising tone, deciding instead to edit your post about me "working with children"(whatever that meant...)and instead now lecture me on MY tone...

Lots of changes in your like dude..are you OK?

[edit on 14-6-2010 by benoni]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by frozenspark
 


I was in a rush, and just hit "reply" to you, what I wrote was at other posters; like the TS. Sorry for the confusion.

Mike has nothing new here. mis/dis info. Like the old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." Mike wants us to think the water is in fact as magical as the "magic bullet" in the JFK murder. Or that Obama has kept his campaign promises, or that fluoride is good for you. Most people in the world would want to agree with Mike though, NOT for being right, just because the implications of the truth would turn most people's worlds upside down. My cousin was going to the mall there, but decided not to that day. I think of those who died, and the other "circumstances" that took place. Inside job, I'd bet on that.


[edit on 14-6-2010 by AdmiralX]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


Got something to contribute to the thread in the form of a discussion about the topics ?

Or,

Did you just want to pass on your childish rhetoric cause what I have been able to learn about 911 no longer fits within your belief range?



[edit on 6/14/2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


Mike, all you seem to do is sit on this thread all day. Ironically, if people think, and I think a LOT on here who are genuinely curious about the world around them fit into this category, then they will have to think you are disinfo. CIA, NSA, a kid in his mom's attic or basement 17 years old trying to mess with people? I have not pinpointed my exact theory on who you are. MAYBE, to redeem yourself, you come out and say, "Just pointing out how many holes are in the official story guys, making discussion is all." That would be a saving throw so to speak (role playing game term). The Jury/Judge in my mind still does not know what you truly hope to accomplish here. I check back for 10 minutes, sometimes more, then post a few replies. Then when I quickly scroll, there you are, you seem to live on this thread. Interesting.




top topics



 
15
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join