What are the most glaring flaws in the Popular Mechanics "debunking" of 9/11?

page: 11
6
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343

Yes, kinetic energy.



Oh good grief. Here we go again. You're like a broken record with your "KE trumps all regardless of mass or material" theory. Not only are you struggling with visions of grandeur, but you're an undiscovered genius scientist too. Why do you keep regurgitating this stuff man?




Fine, Replace foot with cinder block. It will still work just as I described. You can even lower the cinder block to 6 inches if you would like. It doesn't matter.


How about we make it an aluminum wing and you make it go fast enough to cut my wood stove in half? Wait, didn't MIT do a paper on this?




posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by FDNY343
Fine, Replace foot with cinder block. It will still work just as I described. You can even lower the cinder block to 6 inches if you would like. It doesn't matter.


Again you seem to miss the point entirely.

Why do you keep using two different objects when the collapse of the towers was not two different objects?

Your cinder block will crush a can because it has far more mass than the can. The top block of the WTC did not have more mass than the bottom. Unless you also insist it was 30 floors falling on one floor, which it wasn't, you have to look at it as either 30 floors falling on 80 floors (both were of the same construction) or one floor falling on one floor, otherwise your analysis will be flawed.

Try dropping two objects of equal mass to be closer to one floor dropping on one floor, or take a one third smaller mass and drop it on the larger mass for 30 floors falling on 80 floors, from as high as you like.

edit on 3/27/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Most Glaring for Me is:

The Subtle Technique to Discredit Truthers!

Let Stephen Jones (Physicist) speak for 12 Seconds (per say) then, Expert Response Flashes on Screen during Transition to a Popular Mechanics Editor or a NIST Scientist.

So Lame...

Loose Change Final Cut puts this National Geographic Special (History Channel, can't remember) to Shame!

Downloaded it for the Kids, So later they can decide for themself!



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
Oh good grief. Here we go again. You're like a broken record with your "KE trumps all regardless of mass or material" theory. Not only are you struggling with visions of grandeur, but you're an undiscovered genius scientist too. Why do you keep regurgitating this stuff man?


Yes, here is a very simple calculator that you can use.

www.csgnetwork.com...

Now, in the mass field, put .1

in the velocity field, put 10,000

press calculate.

See what I mean?

AMAZING amount of kinetic energy.

5 MILLION joules of energy.




Originally posted by Yankee451
How about we make it an aluminum wing and you make it go fast enough to cut my wood stove in half? Wait, didn't MIT do a paper on this?


Yes, and you tried to nitpick it, and dismiss it. I say tried, because you're not understand the paper as it is written.

Here's a suggestion. Why don't you contact write up a paper, (make sure to list any assumptions, and show your math) and submit it to the journal it appeared in as a discussion. Then, the authors will respond with a closure, and they will tell you how wrong you are.

But hey, why would you do that, when you can spout off useless critiques on a random internet forum?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by FDNY343
Fine, Replace foot with cinder block. It will still work just as I described. You can even lower the cinder block to 6 inches if you would like. It doesn't matter.


Again you seem to miss the point entirely.

Why do you keep using two different objects when the collapse of the towers was not two different objects?

Your cinder block will crush a can because it has far more mass than the can. The top block of the WTC did not have more mass than the bottom. Unless you also insist it was 30 floors falling on one floor, which it wasn't, you have to look at it as either 30 floors falling on 80 floors (both were of the same construction) or one floor falling on one floor, otherwise your analysis will be flawed.

Try dropping two objects of equal mass to be closer to one floor dropping on one floor, or take a one third smaller mass and drop it on the larger mass for 30 floors falling on 80 floors, from as high as you like.

edit on 3/27/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)


You're ignoring the FIRST part when the can could hold up the weight of something 100 times it's weight. But yet, make that same weight a dynamic load, and it fails.

Why do you keep missing this part?

Also, the top section should be treated as a whole, because it is disconnected from the lower section, so it moves downward as a single unit. It is impacting one floor at a time.

BTW, you never did explain where all the broken floors went in your failed logic. Where does the rubble go?



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


The rubble disappears into Never Never Land! The same place where truthers run to when shown actual facts and reality!


I've been asking ANOK that for a bit too. I'm wondering why he keeps ignoring those main facts. I dont understand how one can treat the WTC buildings as perfect solid structures with no voids, same material, etc. They were not.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ANOK
 


No, you have 30 floors hitting one floor. Then you have 31 floors hitting one floor, then 32....33....34.......


Then, 33, 34, 32, 31, 32, 33, etc. and so on.

Remember to take into account that some floors were ejecting. It's how WTC 7 sustained a lot of its damage. Still, the number of floors does keep adding up, and it's something with many people here can't seem to understand.


Technically, Varemia, what impacted the WTC7 were the exterior columns, which were nothing more than just freestanding once the actual interior floors collapsed internally. The exterior columns just got forced outward by the collapse, kinda like it was telescoping in, or peeling open like a banana. The "floors" themselves pancaked down into a heap at the base. Just wanted to clear that up!



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



Wrong answer.

All bet it is, for you.

This is getting boring, I'm not sure how to answer this without starting all over again, and repeating what I've already said in this thread. You obvioulsy don't follow along, just make up some answer for the last post, whether it takes into account what has already been discussed or not.

That's because you continue to cast the physics involved as a contest between two monolithic objects, they weren't. They complex construction that depended on interlocking supports to remain intact. The impact challenged those interlockings and they failed and hence the structures failed.

You first say lots more things than mass is involved, and then you say the above, completely ignoring the mass of the building completely.

Yep, pretty much do ignore mass, because the "mass" wasn't challenged, just the structure connections. You can whistle your "Newtonian" tune all day long, but no one is buying it because people understand the way the world is constructed (and deconstructed) better than you would hope they do. People understand that you can knock down a 1000lb door because you are not challenging the mass of the door, your only challenging the strength of the hinges holding it up.

But of course even the most dense 3 year old knows things don't just generally 'fall down', and there IS a lot more involved in it than 'just falling down'.

3 year olds know that you don't need to pull all the blocks out of there toy castle, just the ones holding it up.

For the sake of this argument MASS is extremely important to the point that you have to ignore it in order for your fantasy to work. (I didn't say 'OS fantasy' because the OS did not even explain the WTC collapses, this is the fantasy of desperate OS supporters.)

Nah, mass is relatively unimportant, the buildings did not disintegrate, they connections failed and they fell down.

MASS is what keeps the 30 floors from crushing 80 floors of equal, or more mass. MASS is why you don't like Newtons laws of motion, because it IS mass that determines the damage received by colliding objects. Yes other things come into play, but only when the major physical laws have already been explained, and they haven't, and they can't be explained by the structures construction. In fact the opposite would be more the case, the buildings structure would resist its own collapse.

Nope, mass is almost irrelevant except as a means to calculate the stress put on the connections. You can spin this with all your semantic disinformation you can mustard, but in the end the building fell apart when those connections were placed under more stress than they were designed to handle. The building was not crush or dustified or any other silly nomenclature, it fell apart.



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Nope, mass is almost irrelevant except as a means to calculate the stress put on the connections. You can spin this with all your semantic disinformation you can mustard, but in the end the building fell apart when those connections were placed under more stress than they were designed to handle. The building was not crush or dustified or any other silly nomenclature, it fell apart.


You beat me to this kind of post. You know, I'm glad these theories and stuff will be available for a long time. There are some who know enough to post Newton's physics stuff, but have NO CLUE how to apply them to a real world.

They serve as shining examples of the ignorance inherent in the TM. The pathetic part is that they really don't know they are doing it......



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by FDNY343
So explain how bullets can puncture through a concrete wall?


They can? What bullets mate? You need to be far more specific because I know for a fact a regular round will not penetrate a concrete wall, most won't even penetrate a car door. I was in the military mate, you need to do better than that to convince me.




Now I'm having a little more trouble believing you are for real. Most regular bullets won't penetrate a car door? And you were in the military? Ok fine fine, before i say anything else, at what distance were you firing from? What do you consider "regular" rounds? What types of rounds from what types of guns? "Regular" Glock 9mil? .38SP? S&W .45? 7.62x51mm? 7.62x54mm? Maybe you were shooting a .22LR from 500meters and that's why it didnt penetrate the car door? Or were you firing low velocity/low power .38s from 200meters? Were the rounds those special frangible ones? Maybe thats why?

Plus what kind of a car door were you shooting at? Was it off one of those cars that used lots of steel in it's construction, like an old Caddilac from the 70s? I've read before that the one round that had most trouble with car doors was the regular .38 Special used by police officers back in the 70s. But then again, the car doors of the day were built solid and heavier. Also, what part of the door? You see, its a little more complicated than just saying, it wont happen because you say so. From what I have seen, read and learned, nearly all types of bullets have absolutely no problem with car doors, including shot guns with buckshot.

Just out curiosity, were you firing at an APC's door? I had to ask.

Let's see some facts on bullets vs car doors:
www.theboxotruth.com...
www.theboxotruth.com...
www.theboxotruth.com...
thefiringline.com...
edit on 3/27/2011 by GenRadek because: minor changes



posted on Mar, 27 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


In addition is believed that sections of the 300 foot radio/Tv antenna mast on top of the building also
impacted WTC 7



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by GenRadek
 


In addition is believed that sections of the 300 foot radio/Tv antenna mast on top of the building also
impacted WTC 7


that didn't bother wtc5 & wtc6 iirc so they although heavily damaged still managed not to
collapse into their own footprint. unlike wtc7. right?



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by psyop911
 


Again - Different buildings, different construction methods

Actually WTC 5 did sustain internal collapses from the fires

Both WTC 5 & 6 were low (8 story) steel frame buildings

WTC 7 was 47 stories - it used a series of long spane cantilever trusses to span a Con ED substation

The long span trusses were under tremendous strees - estimaed at 2000 lbs per foot

Somehow keep missing the point that an 8 story low raise is NOT COMPARABLE to a 47 floor high raise
especially if the high raise uses some fancy engineering to build it.



posted on Mar, 31 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

so what if 9/11 was real or not? does it really matter that much? would the gubbamint react differently if the towers didn't collapse? what difference does this discussion make? do we further the cause that we are fighting for or do we even have a cause to pursue this topic? so what if you expose the gubbamint? don't we already know that they don't really care about us?

we already know what their plans are or who they are but... do we really know? are we the really _awakened?_ or we are farther than the truth than the _sheeples_?



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Go Here

Quite a lengthy article to cut and paste but try this.



posted on May, 2 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by psyop911
 


Again - Different buildings, different construction methods


You always use this excuse, and yet you often make crazy analogies about things dropping on peoples heads etc. Yeah buildings are different, and can't be compared, but a weight dropping on someones head is a perfect comparison...



Actually WTC 5 did sustain internal collapses from the fires


Do you understand the difference between a complete global collapse and a partial collapse?


Both WTC 5 & 6 were low (8 story) steel frame buildings


Explain why you think the height makes a difference? All buildings are designed and built with their height in mind, a 47 story, or 110 story building would have the same ability to hold itself up as an 8 story building.


WTC 7 was 47 stories - it used a series of long spane cantilever trusses to span a Con ED substation The long span trusses were under tremendous strees - estimaed at 2000 lbs per foot


Another point that has nothing to do with how WTC7 managed to land mostly in its own footprint, evidenced by the outer walls being on top of the rest of the demolished building, only possible from an implosion style demolition. As explained before ad nauseum, but as usual you ignore the facts in favor of fantasy.


Somehow keep missing the point that an 8 story low raise is NOT COMPARABLE to a 47 floor high raise
especially if the high raise uses some fancy engineering to build it.


Yes it does compare you just don't understand it. WTC7 did not act like a building collapsed from fire and asymmetrical damage, no matter what you compare it to. WTC 5&6 did act the way you would expect.
Difference in design has nothing to do with it. Physics doesn't change along with the design.

edit on 5/2/2011 by ANOK because: the feeding of the 5000



posted on May, 8 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Watch this, episode 1 of Car Science.

www.hulu.com...-p2-so-i0

Not the same vid I saw, but similar results.

edit on 5/8/2011 by ANOK because: physics trumps faith



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
Dave, WTC 7 was demolished. It has been admitted by the lease holder who stated in CNN that they decided to "pull" the building which is a term used in demolition. Penthouses do not collapse into their structures for no reason.
Also it was the third steel building in history to supposedly collapse due to a fire. The first two were the towers.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by FDNY343
Fine, Replace foot with cinder block. It will still work just as I described. You can even lower the cinder block to 6 inches if you would like. It doesn't matter.


Again you seem to miss the point entirely.

Why do you keep using two different objects when the collapse of the towers was not two different objects?

Your cinder block will crush a can because it has far more mass than the can. The top block of the WTC did not have more mass than the bottom. Unless you also insist it was 30 floors falling on one floor, which it wasn't, you have to look at it as either 30 floors falling on 80 floors (both were of the same construction) or one floor falling on one floor, otherwise your analysis will be flawed.

Try dropping two objects of equal mass to be closer to one floor dropping on one floor, or take a one third smaller mass and drop it on the larger mass for 30 floors falling on 80 floors, from as high as you like.

edit on 3/27/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)
Actually, the falling section had almost thirty times its regular mass when it hit the the lower section. Objects in motion increase mass. Ask any physics teacher if a 1kg weight dropped from 10 ft is going to impact with 1kg of force.

www.politicalforum.com...



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by homebrew8537
Dave, WTC 7 was demolished. It has been admitted by the lease holder who stated in CNN that they decided to "pull" the building which is a term used in demolition. Penthouses do not collapse into their structures for no reason.
The reason being that the inside of the building collapsed. The OS doesn't claim it was "no reason."

Silverstein was referring to pulling firefighters out of the building. Remember, he's been fighting insurance companies for almost 10 years to collect. If he had admitted to demolition, do you think they'd be paying him? Wouldn't they bring that up in court?

You neglected to mention that the "pull it" statement was made after the building was already on fire and had been evacuated. Given that it takes weeks to prepare for a demo, and that involves tearing down walls, I doubt the FDNY could do it in a few hours.


Also it was the third steel building in history to supposedly collapse due to a fire. The first two were the towers.
Nope. The towers supposedly collapsed due to damage from the plane impacts and fire. Truthers like to strawman it into one or the other. Also, something being unpecedented doesn't make it impossible, or else you've never flown on a plane, had a penicillin injection, or turned on a light bulb.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join