My beliefs have changed regarding 911

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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....

But as usual in your hypothesis your are ignoring the resistance of all the undamaged structure below the impact point and fires.

Gravity is not strong enough to overcome resistance by itself, even air offers resistance against gravity.

When two objects collide no matter the mass the forces acting on each object is equal (Newton's 3rd law), the greater mass will receive the least amount of deceleration on impact thus causing the object with the least mass to be the most damaged due to it's higher deceleration.

So the forces acting on the lower structure from the 'falling top' are equal to the forces acting on the falling top itself, so it is impossible for the top to overcome and crush something of equal or even greater mass (the columns increased in size towards the bottom).

If the top did drop then there is more chance that the top itself would be broken up by it's impact with the bottom, there is nothing to make it keep on going crushing the buildings through the path of most resistance. As the top section was damaged from fire and impact it is more likely it would be the weakest part of the structure and thus not have the force to damage the still undamaged bottom.

If you watch the collapse videos what I describe is exactly what happened, you can see the tops breaking up before the bottom drops.
There is no other conclusion than there was some other force acting on the bottom of the towers that we're not being told about.

911review.org..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

[edit on 6/14/2010 by ANOK]

OP, I feel exactly the way you do. I have read the 9/11 section of this site many times and felt slightly swayed to agree with the people believing explosives were used, but never totally switched from the "official explanation" as to why the towers collapsed. Recently I watched an excellent video called "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" by the folks at ae911truth, who are architects and engineers, and it made total sense. They laid it out so logically, I cannot deny that the official explanation is IMPOSSIBLE. I just felt compelled to finally join ATS after I read your post to say I have also realized it was a lie.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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....

But as usual in your hypothesis your are ignoring the resistance of all the undamaged structure below the impact point and fires.

Gravity is not strong enough to overcome resistance by itself, even air offers resistance against gravity.

When two objects collide no matter the mass the forces acting on each object is equal (Newton's 3rd law), the greater mass will receive the least amount of deceleration on impact thus causing the object with the least mass to be the most damaged due to it's higher deceleration.

So the forces acting on the lower structure from the 'falling top' are equal to the forces acting on the falling top itself, so it is impossible for the top to overcome and crush something of equal or even greater mass (the columns increased in size towards the bottom).

If the top did drop then there is more chance that the top itself would be broken up by it's impact with the bottom, there is nothing to make it keep on going crushing the buildings through the path of most resistance. As the top section was damaged from fire and impact it is more likely it would be the weakest part of the structure and thus not have the force to damage the still undamaged bottom.

If you watch the collapse videos what I describe is exactly what happened, you can see the tops breaking up before the bottom drops.
There is no other conclusion than there was some other force acting on the bottom of the towers that we're not being told about.

911review.org..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

[edit on 6/14/2010 by ANOK]

More claims that make sense but you don't cite a source. So cite your source, stop making stuff up, or leave your 100% un-expert opinion at home. When you REFUSE to cite your source you're just blocking people like me who have come here for information from finding it.

If what you say is correct then you should have no problem directing me to an investigation about the collapse that corroborates what you are saying. I've begged you for sources several times and as with this post. Your source is a picture.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Either you'd prefer to beat up strawmen instead of arguing the points that are raised, or you have dire comprehension problems. Maybe it goes beyond comprehension into basic logic.

Yeahh, and a scaled up matchbox car would weigh 5000 lbs instead of 3500. That's like what, ten orders of magnitude too big!? C'mon dude. I believe you said it would be too heavy to even move? You cannot even admit that the mass is reasonably to scale(1.66x). If the toy car was 10x heavier than it needed to be for the scale, you may have had a point.

And you still didn't understand what I was saying even though I explained it like four different ways. So I'll use smaller words and simpler sentences this time. I wasn't comparing anything to a real car crash with the small and big Matchbox car experiments. This was a second experiment, which eliminates your concerns about the construction and materials; there are no real cars in the second experiment. But the end result of the second experiment has the same outcome as before. Small scale = no damage. Big scale = damage. Why? Because the physics is not the same in big crashes as small crashes. That was the point of the analogy.

Because the physics(including material strengths) of crashes doesn't scale down with sizes, masses and speeds - a Matchbox car into a wall isn't comparable with a real car crashing into a wall, and a toy plane crashed into a tree isn't comparable with a real plane crashing into a building. I'll confess that for the purpose of the thought experiment, it didn't occur to me to have kiwasabi imagine a tiny perfectly scaled down replica of a real car, where the construction and materials are the same, only to achieve the same outcome.


Now then, lets just attack the argument directly without an analogy.

You already said you agreed with kiwasabi about his tree analogy, and one of the options of which was an implosion 30 minutes later. Now this was a horrendous choice of words; he should have said it as "pancake collapse" or "progressive collapse", but well go with what he said. So, here's the thing: if you agree that an implosion(read: progressive collapse) is impossible with a tree, why do you think it's a vaild comparison, when under no circumstances can it possibly be achieved? That's why is an idiotic statement. Do you still stand behind it?




[edit on 14-6-2010 by 767doctor]

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So a tree is quite similar to a WTC tower, but a matchbox car is not a relevant scale comparison to a car?

You guys crack me up.

Apparently.

What kills me is that KJ understands that the end result(collapse) cannot be duplicated with a tree, yet somehow agrees with the analogy. Truther logic, I guess.

Originally posted by kiwasabi

All you need is an intuitive grasp of physics (which you have just by living on Earth) to see that the buildings imploded.

I believe that the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff at the most prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities Northwestern and Perdue generally have an intuitive grasp on physics.

They all support the airplane fire theory which is why I believe that it was possible for the twin towers to have collapsed from airplanes and fire damage. Understanding why the buildings collapsed requires more than high school physics. It took a team of MIT professors 200 some odd pages to go over everything.

I would say yeah airpanes and fire theory is the one I support but then I found experts who disagree with that theory and supported other theories. (themite, DEW, explosives) and when all these experts are disagreeing with each other I don't know who is right and who is wrong.

I really want sit down with the truther experts and find out what they say about the sources I listed above. Specifically the MIT investigation. Untill that happens I will never know.



sources all cited on this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"I see no comparison between matchbox cars and 9/11. Sorry."

Bear with him; he's obviously preaching to the delusional.

Originally posted by 767doctor

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
So a tree is quite similar to a WTC tower, but a matchbox car is not a relevant scale comparison to a car?

You guys crack me up.

Apparently.

What kills me is that KJ understands that the end result(collapse) cannot be duplicated with a tree, yet somehow agrees with the analogy. Truther logic, I guess.

I guess it takes a special kind of thinking to be like the rest of you and I can just not do that. You are now just making things up and putting words in my mouth. Maybe if you read and understood what I actually posted, you might be making some sense. I can give you a hint. I never agreed with any analogy between a tree and the twin towers. I simply agreed that if you hit a tree, something will happen to it. You are the one trying to use scale and claim a matchbox car is a representation of a real car when it comes to a collision. Whatever you need to tell yourself to pretend to be right. Maybe someone can show me where I ever said a tree was a valid representation of the twin towers? Good luck with that.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Posted by you

Posted by me
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.

And when the tree cannot possibly implode(the desired outcome of this scenario), you should have a problem with this. But your own words say you didn't, and now you're trying to back out of it.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
I can give you a hint. I never agreed with any analogy between a tree and the twin towers. I simply agreed that if you hit a tree, something will happen to it.

That's deep. I'm glad we cleared that up, because I never would have figured out as much. Can we start keeping the topic(WTC towers fate) under consideration and not state the obvious?

Originally posted by 767doctor

That's deep. I'm glad we cleared that up, because I never would have figured out as much.

Not sure why you expected anything deep. That is your problem for thinking I ever said anything more profound about the tree than I did. I simply agreed that if hit, a tree will react. Likewise I did not agree that a matchbox car represents the construction or materials of a real car in any way. See the difference? Stop looking for arguments that do not exist and pay attention next time and you will not have to cry for pages about people not fitting into your box. If you wanted something profound about a tree getting hit, you should have kept barking after the person who was using it to make some point, not me.

Can we start keeping the topic(WTC towers fate) under consideration and not state the obvious?

You tell me. All I said was that I did not agree a solid hunk of metal represented a mass of tiny pieces held together made from varying materials. That was all I said.

Originally posted by iamcpc
More claims that make sense but you don't cite a source.

You keep asking for sources but I don't know what sources you want or need?

If you need a link to Newtons laws of motion, here you go...(which btw is back to where we started from with the U2U's isn't it?)

csep10.phys.utk.edu...

Another physics principle you need to know...

www.physicsclassroom.com...

And another...

electron9.phys.utk.edu...

If you need a source to be able to understand the physics I can't help you. Understand the physics and you won't need a source will you?

If the 'OSers' knew the physics then they could argue the physics, not keep asking for sources to stuff that doesn't need to exist for my points to be valid. You just want a source you can attempt to debunk, a person you can discredit, not address what I've actually said. There are lot's of sites out there that say basically what I'm saying so don't pretend you don't know...

Originally posted by ANOK

thus causing the object with the least mass to be the most damaged due to it's higher deceleration.

What utter drivel. No wonder you're unable to understand 9/11.

Apply your statement to the following:

A 1 lb steel ball impacts 2 lbs of room temp butter.

According to you, the steel will be damaged.



You're hopeless.......

I find it difficult to believe that someone could study 911 for any period of time, and come to the conclusion that the OS is even close to the truth.
I mean, really?
Dresden was bombed into oblivion in World War II and fire raged through the city, but yet the frames of buildings still stood, though gutted by fire.
911 must have taught the military that it is much easier to destroy buildings than previously thought, just design a missile with some jet fuel in it, and bingo, down comes the building.
Absurd.

reply to post by iamcpc

This again is coming form the guy who DOES NOT believe that the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff at the most prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities Northwestern and Perdue are credible sources.

I never said I do not believe in any of these sources, this is “YOU” making up wild accusations.
A&E has proved that the NIST reports are lies. I do support A&E because they have shown their science and have debated the problems areas with NIST.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by impressme]

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by iamcpc

 

This again is coming form the guy who DOES NOT believe that the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff at the most prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities Northwestern and Perdue are credible sources.

I never said I do not believe in any of these sources, this is “YOU” making up wild accusations.
A&E has proved the NIST reports are lies. I do support A&E because they have shown their science and have debated the problems areas with NIST.



[edit on 14-6-2010 by impressme]

Know how people keep in power and avoid taking bullets to the head (JFK), losing School support, funding, etc; do not bite the hands that feed you. Many architects, engineers, and others say there is absolute proof just by how they fell onto their own footprints, and building 7 not being hit by a plane but fell the same way (smooth, no resistance noted) that it was a controlled demolition. That cannot happen in 5 minutes, or even an hour. It must be pre-planned.

Moreover, like smoking; corporations hired their "experts" to sit on the stand and say, "I see no proof smoking causes cancer." Or global warming (farce that it is, being "man made"). Or the EPA saying "The air won't harm anyone here" yet what happened to the first responders at the WTC on 911? I choose to not smoke, the arguments against global warming not being "man made" seem to be by people wanting freedom instead of control for big govt, I agree with them (like Monkton, spelling?), then 911 appears to be an inside job. 100% certain, simply by the way the buildings fell.

Still, moreover, check my earlier posts. Inside sources told me I am right. CIA, NSA, and others with Security Clearance. Everyone wants to survive. It is like that story about a woman being raped while people watched out of their windows; nobody helped. People don't want to get involved. "It is not effecting/affecting me." Others, like the dis/mis info types are obviously unable to argue on Science. If I see rape, it is rape. I saw the tapes, listened to eye witness accounts, had relatives on the ground, and some very sensitive conversations with above-mentioned sources. They won't go near JFK, to most it was before their time, they won't go near UFO stuff at all, but on 911, you'd be surprised what some guys shooting guns in the middle of nowhere with music blazing away, are willing to comment on. Everyone wants to live though. If one person comes out, CIA, NSA; they'd be killed before they could offer solid proof--such as a secret communication. Will knowing it was an inside job change things? No.

They continue to do harm, to be greedy, selfish, because they are sociopaths/psychopaths. No pitty, no remorse; they feel they are doing "God's work." Unfortunately, it is not Jesus they pray to, it is Lucifer, Satan, and even themselves. By helping them, you are supporting ignorance. MANY are not told before-hand. However, if people go to work, and know things are being shut down (like court cases), they smell guilt in the offices, they know enough on the inside to see a scam at play; they know. It is one huge mess, but at the end of the day, I'd rather oppose tyranny, and seek truth. My confidence comes from me bouncing my thoughts off various people and seeing heads tell me yes, and hearing, "That should be enough right there, keep seeking, you are right, overall, rest are details that might never come out." From that, I am confident in my position which makes it painfully obvious who the clowns (playing jokes), and potential CIA/NSA/MSM types may be. Simple person, not involved, not given anything other than told I am right. People are waking up though.

Originally posted by Stewie
I find it difficult to believe that someone could study 911 for any period of time, and come to the conclusion that the OS is even close to the truth.
I mean, really?
Dresden was bombed into oblivion in World War II and fire raged through the city, but yet the frames of buildings still stood, though gutted by fire.
911 must have taught the military that it is much easier to destroy buildings than previously thought, just design a missile with some jet fuel in it, and bingo, down comes the building.
Absurd.

How many buildings having the same design as the WTC Twin Towers were there in Dresden in the 1940's?

Apples and oranges again.

I could say that hardly ANY buildings were left standing in Osaka, Tokyo or Yokohama in Japan after our firebombing raids in WWII and it would have as much pertinence.

I never said I do not believe in any of these sources, this is “YOU” making up wild accusations.

I never said you didn't believe them. I said you think that the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, the Journal of Structural Engineering, the Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, the Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Civil Engineering staff at the most prestigious engineering university on the planet, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as all the other universities Northwestern and Perdue are NOT credible sources.


as you explained here (where the sources were cited):
www.abovetopsecret.com...


You don't THINK THEY ARE NOT CREDIBLE because you say (after being presented with those sources):

"the nonsense (OS) you are supporting has no CREDIBLE sciences into support itself, nothing."

I never said I do not believe in any of these sources, this is “YOU” making up wild accusations.

You said that here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I never said I do not believe in any of these sources, this is “YOU” making up wild accusations.

"If you want to believe the WTC came down by office fires and jet fuel, that is your right but, don’t expect the rest of the world to be that ignorant."

You said that here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I never said I do not believe in any of these sources, this is “YOU” making up wild accusations.

"I would love to see credible science to support this fairytale."

You said that here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Why would you say that there are no credible sciences that support the OS after being presented with a collection of science that supports the OS?


[edit on 15-6-2010 by iamcpc]

Originally posted by AdmiralX
Know how people keep in power and avoid taking bullets to the head (JFK), losing School support, funding, etc; do not bite the hands that feed you.

See this is where things become ridiculous. You really think that the whole mainstream architectural and engineering communities secretly believe that 9/11 was an inside job and that the towers were blown up, but toe the official line in order to keep their jobs? Highly unlikely, I'd say.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by AdmiralX
Know how people keep in power and avoid taking bullets to the head (JFK), losing School support, funding, etc; do not bite the hands that feed you.

See this is where things become ridiculous. You really think that the whole mainstream architectural and engineering communities secretly believe that 9/11 was an inside job and that the towers were blown up, but toe the official line in order to keep their jobs? Highly unlikely, I'd say.

I wish I could give you a high five!
A star will have to do.

That is what the whole 911/ truther conspiracy boils down to, everyone is lying to save their jobs!

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by iamcpc
More claims that make sense but you don't cite a source.

You keep asking for sources but I don't know what sources you want or need?

If you need a link to Newtons laws of motion, here you go...(which btw is back to where we started from with the U2U's isn't it?)

csep10.phys.utk.edu...

Another physics principle you need to know...

www.physicsclassroom.com...

And another...

electron9.phys.utk.edu...

If you need a source to be able to understand the physics I can't help you. Understand the physics and you won't need a source will you?

If the 'OSers' knew the physics then they could argue the physics, not keep asking for sources to stuff that doesn't need to exist for my points to be valid. You just want a source you can attempt to debunk, a person you can discredit, not address what I've actually said. There are lot's of sites out there that say basically what I'm saying so don't pretend you don't know...

I want the source that said:

"If the top did drop then there is more chance that the top itself would be broken up by it's impact with the bottom, there is nothing to make it keep on going crushing the buildings through the path of most resistance. As the top section was damaged from fire and impact it is more likely it would be the weakest part of the structure and thus not have the force to damage the still undamaged bottom."


I your source that said:

"the forces acting on the lower structure from the 'falling top' are equal to the forces acting on the falling top itself"

I want your source that said:

"The towers did collapse symmetrically, all the debris was ejected equally in all directions during the collapse wave. This proves there was no resistance to the collapse from undamaged structure, no slowing of the collapse wave. "


The sources that you cite don't say ANYTHING about the wtc towers. They talk about linebackers, levers, and pucks. They don't even say anything about collapsing buildings.

I understand physics. I don't understand some of your physics and I understand some of your physics. This is not about what you understand or about what I understand. This is about me finding your source for your information. I asked my physics professors Steven Wilson and Douglas Patterson about the statement that you made:

"The towers did collapse symmetrically, all the debris was ejected equally in all directions during the collapse wave. This proves there was no resistance to the collapse from undamaged structure, no slowing of the collapse wave. "

They said that a symmetrical collapse does not indicate there was no resistance at all. They pointed out machines that press down on metal to shape it. Iron would give a good amount of resistance but can have a symmetrical collapse. I mentioned the speed of the fall and they indicated that falling that much slower than free fall indicates a LARGE amount of resistance.

They explained that the buildings are mostly air. When people incorrectly analyze the physics they are assuming that the building was solid. They explained how difficult it is to analyze all the aspects of a building collapse without an engineering background.