Gravity Can't Do This!

There should be no objects or debri jetting out of the collapsing towers, at all, lets not forget these were allegedly office fires, nothing with the power to shoot beams and create the thin dust that is seen in all of the videos. So, how come no one is asking why are there ejected pieces of the building on the first place?

reply to post by Juanxlink


Why shouldn't there be any ejecting debris at all? On what exactly do you base this assertion?

As the building collapses the air inside blows out of the windows. Some burning object close to the window will be blown outside trailing smoke behind.

Why are the simplest things such a mystery to some people?

reply to post by -PLB-


Because when a building simply collapses, its has no extra force to blow things away in the manner they did in WTC, I see you cant grasp that concept, but hey you can still be happy with your lack of understanding, as they say, ignorance is bliss. Just check youtube foo falling buildings, you may get shocked...

Originally posted by Juanxlink
There should be no objects or debri jetting out of the collapsing towers, at all, lets not forget these were allegedly office fires, nothing with the power to shoot beams and create the thin dust that is seen in all of the videos. So, how come no one is asking why are there ejected pieces of the building on the first place?

There are people asking but that is something else that mostly gets ignored.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

If you had asked me in 2000 if something like this could possibly drag on for TEN YEARS I would have said, "No way!" and laughed. But this has practically change my entire opinion of Americans and most people in general. Especially those who CLAIM to understand physics.

It took me two weeks to decide airliners could not destroy buildings THAT BIG, THAT FAST. The worst that could happen was the portion above the impact fall down the side. Coming straight down it would have to arrest. But then the so called physics experts don't want accurate data on the steel and concrete distributions from OFFICIAL SOURCES.

Looking around the Internet the variation in the quantity of concrete in a single tower is from 90,000 tons to 300,000 tons. But plenty of sources from before 9/11 say 425,000 cubic yards for both buildings. That comes to more than 300,000 tons per building because there was 110 and 150 lb/cu ft concrete. But how much of each? And there had to be a lot in the basements and probably lower floors for the buildings to take 100 mph winds. But who explains all that? Richard Gage the supposed architect?

psik

Originally posted by samkent
As the building collapses the air inside blows out of the windows. Some burning object close to the window will be blown outside trailing smoke behind.

Why are the simplest things such a mystery to some people?

Got that right! Just backwards.

Yeah, like the air pressure is only going to increase slowly because of the volume of the building allowing air to flow down the elevator shafts and stairwells.

People that want to believe ridiculous crap can come up with ridiculous rationalizations.

4 ton girder hurled 600 feet by air pressure. ROFLMAO

psik

reply to post by Juanxlink


Aaah ok so I am too stupid and you are clever. Excellent argument, that settles it.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Juanxlink

 

Aaah ok so I am too stupid and you are clever. Excellent argument, that settles it.

Hmmmm now that is something open to debate...

Originally posted by -PLB-
You seem be confused about the meaning factual and logical. You can create a perfectly logical conclusions based on incorrect facts.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by ANOK


I am honored you placed it in your signature. But it is logic 101 really and I think most people know this.

reply to post by -PLB-


LOL no it isn't.

Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)[1] is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning.

en.wikipedia.org...



Seriously PLB how old are you?

reply to post by ANOK


I think you read the words by you don't really understand what they mean. An argument can be logically valid even when the premises are incorrect. If you do not believe this, actually read the link you just posted. It comes with examples even uneducated person like you can understand.

An example of a valid argument is given by the following well-known syllogism:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

What makes this a valid argument is not that it has true premises and a true conclusion, but the logical necessity of the conclusion, given the two premises. The argument would be just as valid were the premises and conclusion false. The following argument is of the same logical form but with false premises and a false conclusion, and it is equally valid:

All cups are green.
Socrates is a cup.
Therefore, Socrates is green.

No matter how the universe might be constructed, it could never be the case that these arguments should turn out to have simultaneously true premises but a false conclusion. The above arguments may be contrasted with the following invalid one:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is mortal.
Therefore, Socrates is a man.

In this case, the conclusion does not follow inescapably from the premises. All men are mortal, but not all mortals are men. Every living creature is mortal; therefore, even though both premises are true and the conclusion happens to be true in this instance, the argument is invalid.

When a paper is reviewed, it is checked whether the conclusions are logically valid. The actual premises (which often come from experiments) are not checked, as in many cases that isn't even possible.

Now to expose your arrogant ignorance, I will add this post:

LOL, hilarious. Logic is correct reasoning (rational thought), the logic form of any valid argument, you can not reason correctly if you use incorrect facts, or they are not valid. Where do get your reasoning from?

What you are referring to is the soundness of an argument. But determining whether a premises is true or not is outside the scope the the logical construct itself. That is something a person has to determine. A person can of course can make use of logic to determine that, but in the end you always come to an assumption that can not be proven true so is not sound (but this is getting very philosophical).

reply to post by -PLB-


That example explains valid argument, not logic lol.

Logic is the science of valid inference, derived from given facts, not incorrect information.

Logic is the formal science of using reason. It is considered a branch of both philosophy and mathematics. One of the aims of logic is to identify the correct (or valid) and incorrect (or fallacious) inferences. Logicians study the criteria for the evaluation of arguments. Logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. The scope of logic can therefore be very large, ranging from core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, to specialized analyses of reasoning such as probability, correct reasoning, and arguments involving causality.

en.wikipedia.org...

A conclusion derived from inaccurate information can not be correct, whether you consider it logical or not.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

4 ton girder hurled 600 feet by air pressure.

ROFLMAO

psik

Can you please tell me how much explosives it would take to hurl said girder?

thanks,

- S.S.

Originally posted by ANOK


A conclusion derived from inaccurate information can not be correct, whether you consider it logical or not.

The 9/11 Truth Movement summed up in one little sentence.

Thanks mate!

Yeah, like the air pressure is only going to increase slowly because of the volume of the building allowing air to flow down the elevator shafts and stairwells. People that want to believe ridiculous crap can come up with ridiculous rationalizations. 4 ton girder hurled 600 feet by air pressure.

This is an excellent point. Since the air was not confined to a small area and had somewhere to go (down the elevator shafts and stairwells), there is no way that it is going to blow out such an enormous girder or even the windows in a massive skyscraper which was designed to handle hurricane force winds. Of course, this can be easily tested and confirmed, however, do not expect such miraculous feats from the eternally spineless.

I don't know what is more idiotic - the dumbed down excuses being offered for the OS or the morons who believe them. The old saying 'life attracts life' comes to mind. Or in this case, 'braindead attracts braindead'.

reply to post by turbofan


Nice thread mate,
some good facts explained in laymans terms there,
I applaud you for your continued efforts in trying to bring the truth to the masses,
Sadly, many do not have the technical knowledge to appreciate the info you are putting across.
They would rather get their education from National Geographic and mythbusters.
Since 9/11 I have realized that there is not much hope for humanity.
Your average Joe is already far to programmed by the system to ever be able to see the truth.
keep up the good work.

S & F

PEACE,
RK

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

4 ton girder hurled 600 feet by air pressure.

ROFLMAO

psik

Can you please tell me how much explosives it would take to hurl said girder?

thanks, - S.S.

I don't try to explain what did it I only point out what could not do it. Because the next question would be, "How did they get there?" I am not pretending to know what I don't know.

The only force that should have been there was gravity so how could that get the steel from WTC 1 to the Winter Garden?

psik

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by turbofan
You need to learn how gravity accelerates objects toward Earth.

You obviously have never heard of wind resistance!

Even then, you picked one instance of this thread and totally disregarded the rest.

The rest? An arrow pointing to a boat, and a mast that fell down because the building supporting it fell down....

Is that the best you can do?
I watched the video content, and I saw some new issues that I feel need further consideration. Perhaps you can give us some calculations to back up your "wind resistance" theory. In any case, wouldn't wind resistance act to slow projectiles down rather than speed them up?

Perhaps your wind resistance theory is actually a hot air theory,

PEACE,
RK

Originally posted by Rigel Kent
In any case, wouldn't wind resistance act to slow projectiles down rather than speed them up?

Why do you claim that it sped them up? What do you base that silly claim on?

Originally posted by ANOK
That example explains valid argument, not logic lol.

Logic is the science of valid inference, derived from given facts, not incorrect information.

No it is not, you can create perfectly valid inferences based on false premises. Again from Wikipedia:

When a valid argument is used to derive a false conclusion from false premises, the inference is valid because it follows the form of a correct inference.

Logic is the formal science of using reason. It is considered a branch of both philosophy and mathematics. One of the aims of logic is to identify the correct (or valid) and incorrect (or fallacious) inferences. Logicians study the criteria for the evaluation of arguments. Logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. The scope of logic can therefore be very large, ranging from core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, to specialized analyses of reasoning such as probability, correct reasoning, and arguments involving causality.

And logic is not about determining whether premises are correct.

A conclusion derived from inaccurate information can not be correct, whether you consider it logical or not.

Wrong again, it can for example coincidentally be correct. But you are going in the right direction slowly. You can have a wrong conclusion even when your logic is correct.