The NIST report, start to finish

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK

 

I meant I have sent it to mods before and nothing happens or I have been told it cannot be done. I made the challenge. If you want it, take it. If not, I could care less. No hiding, no running.

Set it up or back down???

edit on 13-5-2011 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

You make a challenge knowing you can't set it up? I already 'accepted' your challenge. It's up to you to set it up, or back down from the challenge, what is so funny esdad?

You already hid for a week, and now this is you running...

reply to post by ANOK


There is no running. I told you. I have tried it before and the mods would not set it up. So I asked you to try. If you did you would have the meeting or tell me they would not do it. There is no fear. Look at my debate history in the debate challenges.

Set it up ANOK for all the truthers out there or are you scared? I am not...I made the challenge, not you.

So, you gonna bark all day little doggie, or you gonna bite?

As far as the thread, it is a shame that once again it has been derailed. Someone actually wanted to go start to finish and all we get it posts from people stating they do not need to read it as it is garbage.

Sad...

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK

 

There is no running. I told you. I have tried it before and the mods would not set it up. So I asked you to try. If you did you would have the meeting or tell me they would not do it. There is no fear. Look at my debate history in the debate challenges.

Set it up ANOK for all the truthers out there or are you scared? I am not...I made the challenge, not you.

So, you gonna bark all day little doggie, or you gonna bite?

As far as the thread, it is a shame that once again it has been derailed. Someone actually wanted to go start to finish and all we get it posts from people stating they do not need to read it as it is garbage.

Sad...

LOL why are you calling me scared? You made the challenge, I accepted it, it's up to YOU to set it up, not me.

But you are telling me you made a challenge knowing full well you could not set it up. You didn't expect me to call your bluff and now you are running. Why else would you make a challenge you know you could not carry out.

Who's barking? YOU made the challenge, it's not up to me to set it up. I called you on it and now all you do is throw insults back at me. Well guess what? I will be contacting the mods, I don't appreciate being called a dog.

Again esdad this is you running, from your own challenge lol....

reply to post by esdad71


Didn't you and I try to set up a debate before, and we couldn't agree on a formal topic? I think moderators also ask for a very narrow issue, and don't like setting up debates about 9/11 in the first place because of how polarizing the issue is.


But for the record I would also still be willing to participate in something like this. "What exactly has the NIST report proven?" should be a narrow enough topic assuming we are given the privilege of the formal scientific method being acknowledged as the standard for proof. It would even be relevant to this same topic.

Originally posted by bsbray11
But for the record I would also still be willing to participate in something like this. "What exactly has the NIST report proven?" should be a narrow enough topic assuming we are given the privilege of the formal scientific method being acknowledged as the standard for proof. It would even be relevant to this same topic.

edit on 16-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

I would agree with that.

C'mon esdad put your money where your mouth is...

I should know pretty soon from the mods if you can set this up, doing your work for you btw. Either way you still lied, either in your first challenge, or now you're trying to weasel out of it.

reply to post by ANOK


You are not doing any work. I am not lying and it was never set up. Your quote was accurate from BS. The mods would not allow it. I tried and i have no fear. I am in a losing mans forum with my views but I am not here for stars, I am here to find the truth.

It is actually the truthers and the disbelievers who do not want the debate because you have nothing to debate with but conjecture and opinions.

As BS says, we tried, and it never came to fruition. As far as the dog comment, it is from Reservoir Dogs.

www.youtube.com...


As far as calling me a liar, drop it...no lies from me...no running...save it for the debate if it happens....

reply to post by bsbray11


Yes, you are correct. It was in everyones best interest to not do it if I recall the message from the mods. If we need a more precise topic, fine, and it will be done in the form of debates on ATS.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by ANOK

 

You are not doing any work. I am not lying and it was never set up. Your quote was accurate from BS. The mods would not allow it. I tried and i have no fear. I am in a losing mans forum with my views but I am not here for stars, I am here to find the truth.

Esdad let me remind you of what you said...

Originally posted by esdad71
How about a private debate on 9/11? Just me and you strawman...any subject you want...

I never said it was set up, I just accepted your above challenge, it's up to YOU to set it up.

It is actually the truthers and the disbelievers who do not want the debate because you have nothing to debate with but conjecture and opinions.

What? I ACCEPTED THE CHALLENGE!

As far as calling me a liar, drop it...no lies from me...no running...save it for the debate if it happens....

No I won't drop it, you started this mate, if you want me to drop it then stop making empty challenges to people. It's like saying I'm gonna kick your ass as you run in the opposite direction. If you knew you could not set up a challenge before making it you lied. If you didn't know until after, you still lied trying to weasel out of the challenge once I called your bluff. Not to mention the personal insults.

Yes you are running by not doing what you challenged in the first place, and now you are just back peddling and making excuses. You made a challenge knowing full well you could not set it up, this is just typical of the OSers on ATS, you'll say anything but when pushed to support your claim, or carry through on a challenge, you have nothing but excuses and lies. You haven't even made the attempt to set it up, so I DID, that is doing your work for you mate. I haven't heard anything back from the mods yet but I have contacted them, which you obvioulsy haven't.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Yes, you are correct. It was in everyones best interest to not do it if I recall the message from the mods. If we need a more precise topic, fine, and it will be done in the form of debates on ATS.

So why did you make the challenge esdad? I suggested some specific topics. Didn't think I'd call your bluff huh?

Originally posted by esdad71
Yes, you are correct. It was in everyones best interest to not do it if I recall the message from the mods.

Everyone except for me, I guess? Speak for yourself.

If we need a more precise topic, fine, and it will be done in the form of debates on ATS.

That's what I thought we had asked about. The topic I've always been interested in is what the NIST report actually did or did not prove about those "collapses."

reply to post by ANOK


For the last time, I have tried this in the past, you have a witness of who it was. I was making a suggestion to see if you could try to set it up since there is a bias to the non OS poster in this forum. Use a little common sense and quit telling me to try.

You have responded to me SEVEN times since I asked if you would like to debate. If that is not stalling I do not know what is. If you are so confident, why have you not messaged them? I think you would rather try to put me down or chase me away and it will not happen.

So, this is what was sent to Semperfortis today.....

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.

Afraid? Man, you got the wrong guy.....

reply to post by bsbray11


yes, not yours BS...

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by bsbray11

 

yes, not yours BS...

You are in no position to claim BS when you say things like this...

Originally posted by esdad71

There are no impossible physics. However, you also cannot pick and choose what applies which is what you are doing. You cannot enforce one part of one law and call it a day.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

From the poster who claims, along with his buddies, that the laws of motion are not relevant to the collapses and all it required was KE and gravity.

reply to post by ANOK


The laws of motion are relevant. The problem is that you do not know how to apply them to correctly to real life. You ignore some very important aspects that completely destroy your argument. This has been pointed out to you over and over, but you ignore it and you repeat your flawed argument over and over. I personally do not see the use of setting up a debate, all the arguments are already on the table.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

The laws of motion are relevant. The problem is that you do not know how to apply them to correctly to real life. You ignore some very important aspects that completely destroy your argument.

Like what?

I think I've been keeping up with the conversation pretty well, but have I missed something?

reply to post by bsbray11


We have been over this enough times, what is the point really? Especially when you and ANOK decided that I am a liar and lack any basic understanding of physics? Just because I am so kind one quick example of many, I am not going to repeat this all again: ANOK is ignoring that gravity is an external force and for that reason conservation of momentum does not apply. Conservation of momentum only applies to closed systems. When an external force like gravity is acting on a falling body, momentum increases.

Originally posted by -PLB-
We have been over this enough times, what is the point really? Especially when you and ANOK decided that I am a liar and lack any basic understanding of physics?

Geez, I was just asking what you think ANOK got wrong.

You could have spent the same amount of words briefly mentioning it to us again instead of complaining.

reply to post by bsbray11


Well, this is what I mean basically, what is the point. I give a clear and direct example, and you just cut out that part of my reply and you pretend it isn't even there.

reply to post by -PLB-

Although originally expressed in Newton's Second Law, the conservation of momentum also holds in special relativity and, with appropriate definitions, a (generalized) momentum conservation law holds in electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, and general relativity. In relativistic mechanics, non-relativistic momentum is further multiplied by the Lorentz factor.

en.wikipedia.org...

Newton's 2nd law:

Second law: A body of mass m subject to a net force F undergoes an acceleration a that has the same direction as the force and a magnitude that is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass, i.e., F = ma. Alternatively, the total force applied on a body is equal to the time derivative of linear momentum of the body.

en.wikipedia.org...


This also applies to gravitational forces.


You seem to be trying to imply that once a floor starts falling, the laws of gravity somehow dictate that it can't possibly be stopped, no matter how rigidly supported the floors below are. Is that your argument?

Originally posted by -PLB-
ANOK is ignoring that gravity is an external force and for that reason conservation of momentum does not apply. Conservation of momentum only applies to closed systems. When an external force like gravity is acting on a falling body, momentum increases.

Gravity is not the force acting to stop the momentum, the colliding floors is, moment can not increase through another object. When a falling floor hits a static floor that is held by all the building bellow it, both floors want to maintain their momentum equally (3rd law). By maintaining their momentum you get damage to the objects, the object with the most mass will win. If both object have more or less equal mass, they will have more or less equal damage.

Your problem is once again you misunderstand, this time you misunderstand what a closed/isolated system is.

For a collision occurring between object 1 and object 2 in an isolated system, the total momentum of the two objects before the collision is equal to the total momentum of the two objects after the collision. That is, the momentum lost by object 1 is equal to the momentum gained by object 2....

A system in which the only forces that contribute to the momentum change of an individual object are the forces acting between the objects themselves can be considered an isolated system....

www.physicsclassroom.com...

In other words nothing is acting on the objects that was not part of the objects (gravity is always a given). IF there were explosives involved you would be correct, as that would be an external force that is enough to remove the resistance and momentum would not change.

Momentum is a product of velocity and mass. If you consider these physics laws correctly, and you look at the evidence available in many photos and videos of the collapses, and the post collapse distribution of building rubble, you will realise that the collapse could not have happened without an external force much more powerful than gravity had to have been involved.

We KNOW the floors must have been destroyed during the collapse, the majority of the mass was ejected out of the footprint. Taking that in mind along with the laws of psychics, you have to come to the conclusion that there WAS an external force other than gravity acting on the system. Because using the laws of motion, and IF floors were destroying floors ( if you believe it was gravity only it must have been), then the collapse would not have been complete as 15 floors can not destroy 95 floors, impossible. Unless those 15 floors were magic and could ignore the laws of motion and moment conservation. IF they did that then we would see the floors sitting in the footprint of the building.

This is why NIST rejected the progressive/pancake collapse you keep describing. They didn't offer an alternative though, they just ignored it and stopped at their collapse initiation hypothesis. Anything past initiation is just you, and your buddies, desperately trying to fill in the holes with any nonsense you can think up. All we are doing is pointing out the obvious fallacies in your arguments.

reply to post by ANOK


Do you realize that the potential energy stored in the building is equivalent to over 100 ton TNT? Saying gravity alone is not enough is a completely baseless assertion. The only reason you make this assertion is because of your presupposition that there were explosives involved. Just to get an idea how much damage 100 ton of TNT can do, Google it. As for that debris mantra, this is getting so old. I have shown actual evidence that the debris pile was highest inside the footprint by over 70 feet. You have been explained how debris can end up underground. You have been explained how debris can spread out after it has fallen. You are ignoring evidence and reasonable explanations for the simple reason it makes your explosives theory obsolete. On top of that, there is no reasonable explanation whatsoever that explains the claim that almost all debris was "ejected". Even in any explosives scenario it doesn't make any sense whatsoever, it is pure fantasy, required to hold to the position that gravity could not be the cause of collapse. For WTC 7 the fact that all debris fell into its footprint is put forward as proof that it was CD. Isn't that great? Wherever the debris falls, it is always proof of CD.

Bottom line is that you can neither come with any substantial argument nor any actual calculations why any law of physics was broken in NISTs collapse sequence. All you can come up with are arguments from incredulity which are as we all know fallacies. "I don't understand how sagging floors can cause a pull in force, therefore it is wrong", "I don't understand how gravity alone could make the building collapse, therefore it is wrong".