Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

page: 50
34
<< 47  48  49    51  52 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
BTW esdad I thought this might help you understand a little better, as you either won't believe me, or I don't explain it well enough...



Note what is said, when internal friction is present (observed by flying debris, noise etc.) then momentum is conserved (both objects push against each other, as they both want to maintain their momentum equally), but energy is NOT conserved (potential, kinetic). That is why the collapse can not be complete, unless another external energy was present that is not being accounted for.

Also note he said that any kind of collision can be figured out using the law of moment conservation, and yes that includes buildings collapsing.

The only time energy is conserved (potential, kinetic) is in a perfect elastic collision such as two spheres.

Now please try to understand that, and stop with the nonsense eh?

edit on 5/19/2011 by ANOK because: physics don't lie, only people do




posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


No, you cannot decide if you want to debate, you already accepted. I set it up (after you replied 7 times that you should not have too) and now you are creating the exit so you can say you do not agree on the topic and will go haunt another thread.

I will give you this chance to back out or you have to stand up and enter this debate. I suggested a topic but I will damned if I am going to run things by you so you can choose what you want to debate on. Very lazy. You are not in control, you are along for the ride. I will ask you one more time...

Do you want to debate, yes or no, regarding the NIST report?



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Again, you are using parts of the laws of physics and not applying others. There are 3 basic laws but there are subsets and variations of each. Just like when I asked about a frame of reference to use to apply a physical example and no one can give me answer of what they feel it is but it is applicable.

I think you should review the The law of conservation of linear momentum to see where your arguments are incorrect.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK
 


No, you cannot decide if you want to debate, you already accepted.


Oh for peats sake read. I said I will decide if I want to debate the topic you choose.


I set it up (after you replied 7 times that you should not have too) and now you are creating the exit so you can say you do not agree on the topic and will go haunt another thread.


I did not reply saying I didn't have to set it up. Man you twist everything in your favour don't ya? You tried to weasel out of it by claiming it could not be done. It was never up to me to set it up, so don't even try to make that claim.


I will give you this chance to back out or you have to stand up and enter this debate. I suggested a topic but I will damned if I am going to run things by you so you can choose what you want to debate on. Very lazy. You are not in control, you are along for the ride. I will ask you one more time Do you want to debate, yes or no, regarding the NIST report?


Now you're acting like I'm the one who is reluctant to debate lol. How many replies did it take for you to finally reply to my acceptance of your challenge?

You have to pick a topic, just the NIST report is too broad. How about we debate 'the laws of motion, and moment conservation, in regards to the collapse of buildings'? Or words to that effect. That is really all I am interested in debating with you, as that is what brought on this in the first place. I want to debate facts, not opinions and assumption that can not be proven using known physics.

BTW I am taking your word for it at the mo, but I have yet to hear anything official from the mods.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK
 


Again, you are using parts of the laws of physics and not applying others. There are 3 basic laws but there are subsets and variations of each. Just like when I asked about a frame of reference to use to apply a physical example and no one can give me answer of what they feel it is but it is applicable.

I think you should review the The law of conservation of linear momentum to see where your arguments are incorrect.


What do you mean I'm wrong? Did you watch the video? Is he wrong also lol? He talks about 'The law of conservation of linear momentum' in the simplest possible way. How can you still fail to understand?

3 basic laws? What are those exactly? Do you mean the 3 laws of motion? Newtons laws of motion, that you keep dismissing?

According to you all it needed was KE and gravity, how is that addressing all the relevant physics?

You have to explain what you mean, not just throw words out there and think they make any sense.

What is the point of us debating outside of this thread, it will consist of this same nonsense? It would serve as a good reference for all your nonsense claim though, like 'there are no impossible physics'. You still stick by that claim, or was it just more nonsense in order to argue with people that you forget you even said?

edit on 5/19/2011 by ANOK because: physics don't lie, only people do



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Why would you continue to say things like I will take your word on it?
Here is the msm I got back from Semper...


from: semperfortis
sent: 19-5-2011 at 01:02 AM
Yes it is possible as long as the other party is willing and acceptable


Where any laws of physics not applied during 9/11? How about that...I will be done in the debate forum so I if you have not been in a debate contest on ATS then please make sure to check out the format.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com... this was my last big debate to give you a taste....

If you agree with the above subject, we can go into the debate forum and see what comes to the surface.



and yes, I still believe that on 9/11, due to airplane impact, the ensuing fires and the damage caused led to the initiating event that led to the collapse. The WTC shook for over several minutes after it was hit and if was a 6.7 earthquake they would still be here. We are comparing two totally different things in this thread...



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

Where any laws of physics not applied during 9/11? How about that...I will be done in the debate forum so I if you have not been in a debate contest on ATS then please make sure to check out the format.


You mean 'were' any laws of physics applied?

That is a pretty odd topic. Of course the laws of physics were applied. Our disagreement is in the application of those laws and which ones were applied when.

But whatever, just set it up I'm bored with this stalling. I will not say anymore on this until a mod contacts me to say the debate is on, OK?

I suggest you become real familiar with the laws of motion, and moment conservation, because that will be my main points, regardless of what you want to call the debate. You better have a good explanation as to how the collapses ignored those laws of physics, because so far you haven't even come close. Unless you play your usual tactic, and constantly ignore and change subjects, then the debate will be over after one reply. Unless you want to discuss the laws of motion and moment conservation, and why you think your understanding of the laws is correct and mine wrong.

Are you still going to claim there are no impossible physics?


www.abovetopsecret.com... this was my last big debate to give you a taste....


And you lost that debate lol, am I supposed to be impressed?

edit on 5/22/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You have to contact the mod and agree. I told you that. It is up to you. I am done ANOK. You have been running since this started and you still are. If you were so adamant that you could beat me in any debate you would have contacted a mod to show it but, alas, you have not. You are scared. But that is ok but no maybe you can start to realize that your theory is all talk.

The topic I provided was not broad, but perfect. You think they were not applied correctly and I know they are.

You let this thread sit for days with nothing when I told you it was on and showed you what you had to do...pathetic.

So, nothing to say from anyone on the viscoelastic dampeners and whether they could have played a final roll?



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
3 days to the minutes and no messages...no posts...nothing. No message to the mods. No messages to me. No messages from anyone. I see you have chosen to not move forward. No hard feelings.


and still nothing on the viscoelastic dampeners....
edit on 25-5-2011 by esdad71 because: sp



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



I will not say anymore on this until a mod contacts me to say the debate is on, OK?


Quit playing games. If you set up the debate like you claimed I would be contacted by a mod, right? Or at least a U2U from you saying your first post is up.

I have to do nothing at this point but wait on you, so stop stalling.

(btw I had contacted the mods long before you claimed to and I have still not heard from them, so I'm doubting you have even talked to the mods)

This is not the place for this discussion, so again I will say no more until I am contacted by U2U that the debate is started. Stop trying to make it look like I am backing down. If I hear nothing I will assume you were lying all along. So get on it big boy...

edit on 5/25/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by esdad71
 



I will not say anymore on this until a mod contacts me to say the debate is on, OK?


Quit playing games. If you set up the debate like you claimed I would be contacted by a mod, right? Or at least a U2U from you saying your first post is up.

I have to do nothing at this point but wait on you, so stop stalling.

(btw I had contacted the mods long before you claimed to and I have still not heard from them, so I'm doubting you have even talked to the mods)

This is not the place for this discussion, so again I will say no more until I am contacted by U2U that the debate is started. Stop trying to make it look like I am backing down. If I hear nothing I will assume you were lying all along. So get on it big boy...

edit on 5/25/2011 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



No, I gave you the name of the mod and showed you the message he sent and suggested a topic. It said you had to agree so you would have to contact the mod so we can set it up. You didn't.

Then I suggested topics and even told you to select one..and you could not.

Who is the mod you sent a message to? I am sure I could follow up and you are lying because the mods here, even if it takes a day or two, always respond. They have class.

I do not have to make it look like you backed down, because you did yourself. You can assume all you want but it is only you who is running ANOK. So take your big boy and grow a set and contact a mod...

Also, you have nothing to say about the viscoelastic dampeners?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
No, I gave you the name of the mod and showed you the message he sent and suggested a topic. It said you had to agree so you would have to contact the mod so we can set it up. You didn't.


No you did not tell me to contact any mod. You asked about the title and said whatever set it up. Nothing happened esdad. I gave you the go ahead, why would the mod need to hear from me?

Here it is, MODS I except esdads challenge, set it up


Then I suggested topics and even told you to select one..and you could not.


Again no, you suggested an odd title to me, and I said whatever you choose as long as we debate the physics we have been discussing, just set it up.


I do not have to make it look like you backed down, because you did yourself. You can assume all you want but it is only you who is running ANOK. So take your big boy and grow a set and contact a mod...


Again I excepted you challenge, you ignored that until I made a point of bringing it up 6 days later. Ever since then you have done nothing but stall.

You are supposed to make challenges via U2U. So for the third time use the U2U if you are truly serious about challenging me to a debate. Then you contact a mod, and then either you or the mod contacts me to say it's on and when you make your opening post.

Just set it up the correct way esdad I have no reason to lie. We can do this for ever, I keep excepting and you keep stalling, you have to get off the pot mate.


Also, you have nothing to say about the viscoelastic dampeners?


What? When did that ever come up and what do you want me to say about it?



posted on May, 28 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Where any laws of physics not applied during 9/11? How about that...


If you think anyone here is arguing that physics were actually suspended that day then I'm already putting my money on ANOK. What you are referring to is the sentiment that "official story" models of events assume suspended physics, such as when Bazant assumed that gravity loads were not transferred down the buildings during "collapse." That is impossible physics. For Bazant's paper to be accurate, physics as we know it would have had to have been suspended for at least 15 seconds. No one is seriously saying physics took a day off. That's what we say to mock models like Bazant's or NIST's. The fact that this has escaped you for so long...


What about,

Did the NIST reports prove why the WTC Towers came down?

or

Are Bazant's collapse models physically accurate?


I would be happy to debate you on either of those two topics myself, esdad. What do you say?



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


NO, i did, and you did not contact them as requested. You are a liar and afraid ANOK. Bottom line. I could care less. I gave you an option and did not take it.

I asked you to set it up because last time it did not come to fruition (ask BSbray, this is not a lie)
So, when you would not I did the leg work for you. Still nothing.
I showed you the message from the mods I sent and they sent.
I told you to contact them because THEY requested it, not me.
NO action on your part, just excuses...

Man, you turned out to be exactly what I thought you would be, a liar and a chicken. Like a bully who is called out and makes excuses.

Now, you want to talk about the dampeners on the WTC that apply to this thread or are your ready to go troll other threads where your friends can back you up with stars and more bs rhetoric?
edit on 29-5-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by esdad71
Where any laws of physics not applied during 9/11? How about that...


If you think anyone here is arguing that physics were actually suspended that day then I'm already putting my money on ANOK. What you are referring to is the sentiment that "official story" models of events assume suspended physics, such as when Bazant assumed that gravity loads were not transferred down the buildings during "collapse." That is impossible physics. For Bazant's paper to be accurate, physics as we know it would have had to have been suspended for at least 15 seconds. No one is seriously saying physics took a day off. That's what we say to mock models like Bazant's or NIST's. The fact that this has escaped you for so long...


What about,

Did the NIST reports prove why the WTC Towers came down?

or

Are Bazant's collapse models physically accurate?


I would be happy to debate you on either of those two topics myself, esdad. What do you say?


The fact is that if you do not believe what happened that day, that they should have collapsed after the initiating event, they you do not believe in physics and feel that the laws were suspended that day. They collapsed.

Now, arguing NIST's report aI feel is an empty argument as that was not the intention of the NIST report. Is was to make sure that would never happen again based on investigation of what happened and making recommendations. It was not 'taksed' with finding the reason but provided MORE than enough information to explain it.

Arguing Bazants report may be a little closer because he goes more in depth as to what happened. If we debate that, I am sure you will simply paraphrase your link to the man who discredits him and it would probably end the way all of these threads do. IN this forum ,any time NIST, or FEMA or JOnes or Bazant is included in a thread it is dead. You know that...

911research.wtc7.net...

Now, what he did say was

Read page 3 of the paper...

This is why, instead of debating specific papers, I suggested to argue how physics were NOT applied on 9/11. I was trying to create something that once again did not cone to fruition. I was trying to present 2 sides of a story that I think are finally designated.

There are those who feel physics were ok on 9/11 and those who do not believe it. I think most of us hopefully are past the laser beams, fake planes and missiles instead of planes. What that leaves us is should the wtc have feel after the plane impact.

That is the last debate to me...
edit on 29-5-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
The fact is that if you do not believe what happened that day, that they should have collapsed after the initiating event, they you do not believe in physics and feel that the laws were suspended that day. They collapsed.


And what physics are you basing this on? Don't just say "NIST" or "Bazant" either, but give me something specific, because those sources are both trash and as far as I can see you're just talking out of your rear end.

You've been shown in the past couple of days, repeatedly, that Bazant's model was physically impossible and yet you keep asserting that this is "physics" nonetheless. Maybe in the alternate universe your mind lives in, but not here.



Now, arguing NIST's report aI feel is an empty argument as that was not the intention of the NIST report. Is was to make sure that would never happen again based on investigation of what happened and making recommendations. It was not 'taksed' with finding the reason but provided MORE than enough information to explain it.


Are you saying that NIST proved why the towers "collapsed" or not? You can't have it both ways. I'm ready to debate you right now in the debate forums on this same topic, so why not save your efforts for that please?



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 


Nonsense, you have not followed the correct procedure and I have given you many chances. Your post did not tell me to contact anyone, it said you contacted a mod and then you threw at me to come with a title, which I had already suggested and you didn't comment on, so I'm not going to waste energy on it, you use whatever title you like as long as we discus the physics. Surely you can come up with something appropriate?

Do you know how to use the U2U feature because all you have to do is send me a U2U challenging me, I will except and then you contact a mod to set it up. Then hopefully either you, or a mod, contracts me via U2U to tell me your have made your opening post, otherwise how the hell am I supposed to know?

Quit trying to make it seem I am not responding to you, I do not need to contact a mod for YOU to set up a debate. You made the challenge I excepted, it's up to you to make the challenge official and contact a mod, not me, and you do that by U2U not the public forum.

I will challenge you to a debate if you want (using the correct method), but that means I get the opening post. Really I want you to make the opening post so I can reply to your claims, and because you challenged me.

Why is this so hard for you to follow esdad? Anyone can see I'm not the one continuously avoiding this with excuses, the ball has been in your court since I excepted your challenge many posts, and now weeks, ago.

(I'm starting to wonder if you guys are getting paid per word you type, because that sure would explain a hell of a lot)



posted on May, 29 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I told you to contact the mod I sent the message to. He said you had to agree. You never 'excepted'
and you also never wanted to agree on a topic.

Like I said, you asked me to set it up so I did, through the regular channels to make sure it was monitored correctly. Have you even been in an ATS debate? There is a structure and you cannot start until the other person accepts.

It is now up to you to set this up to show me you actually wanted it. Contact the mod at your discretion and I will anxiously await a u2u.



from: esdad71
sent: 18-5-2011 at 01:11 AM
Good evening,

I would like to see if there is a possibility to set up a debate with myself and another member regarding the NIST report and 9/11? I know that you were the moderator of a debate I was in and thought you would be the best to contact so I apologize if I overstepped my bounds.

this is the thread that started it..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I know that this can be a touchy forum but this is needed i feel for both sides of what is one of the largest conspiracies of our modern times to show that there are two sides of a story but only one truth. Please let me know at your convenience if this is possible. Thank you so much.


That is what I sent...

This is what I got...



from: semperfortis
sent: 19-5-2011 at 01:02 AM
Yes it is possible as long as the other party is willing and acceptable

reply forward save delete



Any questions? I told you to contact that mod and you never did but made up stories of others you talked to. Proof...it whats for dinner...
10 days man...going to try to say you have not been on here for 10 days...


edit on 29-5-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-5-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
You guys have debated in a way that makes my head hurt really much
but one of the best debate i have see on ATS in a while

the only thing i know for sure .. is that 9/11 was 100% a false flag event to create the war on terror
anyone who critic that fact is unpatriotic

the 3000 innocent victims who died to make wars .. have bacome martyrs
only the truth will honor them .. not to continu the lies while today there is still people being killed
because of 9/11

this need to stop .. thats why we need the real truth
if the lie continu .. many other people will suffer and will be killed


9/11 has to many fishy coincidence that sound the alarm for false flag
the most obvious one are that BOTH tower fell the same way TWICE
from 2 different impacts

it simply defies any logic

they really think people are that dumb to believe we will all believe in this fake hollywood script
edit on 6/3/2011 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
=======ATTENTION========

next comment will be the number 1000th

who will have the honor


to close this thread... once simple question

Did the planes really took down those towers down
or
Controlled demolition

no more need to debate

====================

Damn they should do that poll on CNN
they always put silly question there
its time to ask real mens question

im certain now that 50% of Americans think it was a controlled demolition false flag
the truth one day will come out
and we will remember the sad event to be Reichtag #2
the tactic of the nazi have re-emerge into the modern world

we need to really watch out
if my theories are all correct .. 9/11 wasnt planned for Afghanistan and Iraq
but the entire ME
edit on 6/6/2011 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
34
<< 47  48  49    51  52 >>

log in

join