It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

page: 59
274
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Krusty the Klown
 


How is a discussion between the authors and two experts known by full name anonymous? It seems you ignored that part, choose the least relevant, and started picking on that as if that is the main reason I reject Jones work. It isn't. It is the least significant reason. Nevertheless it has some influence on my opinion. If some anonymous person on an internet forum is able to reproduce Jones results, it would also influence my opinion. I would be a lot more inclined to support further experimentation.




posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Krusty the Klown
 


How is a discussion between the authors and two experts known by full name anonymous? It seems you ignored that part, choose the least relevant, and started picking on that as if that is the main reason I reject Jones work. It isn't. It is the least significant reason. Nevertheless it has some influence on my opinion. If some anonymous person on an internet forum is able to reproduce Jones results, it would also influence my opinion. I would be a lot more inclined to support further experimentation.


Yeah, you're right I took to the extreme to prove a point.

But even so, a discussion between a few people who reach a consensus is not conclusive evidence. If you were to use this method fairly you would have to take the 9/11 Architects and Engineers seriously also and not reject them because they do not suit your conclusion.

Like I said earlier I haven't reached a conclusion yet, I'm merely looking for consistency in the approach to investigation as you are.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
How can gravity make a mass fall through another mass without being effected by resistance of that mass?
In other words, how did Ke increase to overcome increasing mass and resistance?


Tupac is correct, that is impossible. But your notion of how the collapse occurred is wrong in about every aspect.

A simplified version of what happened is that mass 1 fell on top of mass 2. The dynamic load made the connection that held mass 2 fail. Still, this force slowed down mass 1 a bit. After the connections failed, mass 1 and mass 2 fall further together to the next floor. The additional mass actually has a positive effect on Ke and Momentum during the fall. And the resistance was hardly increasing, if at all.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Krusty the Klown
 


For me, discussions about Jones work on the internet is more or less a second chance. I know the scientific community is not perfect. I know that it happened before that someones work was ignored and rejected, just to be rediscovered years later. A good example that comes to mind is the work of Boris Belousov.

So from a scientific point of view, my conclusion is that Jones work is not accepted and ignored. From a non-scientific point of view, my conclusion is that his work contains many issues and needs more work. Over all conclusion, his work is inconclusive.

But now we get to a really interesting part in my opinion. If his work is inconclusive, then why aren't there any additional experiments to convince critics? This may not be a "scientific" reason to think Jones work is junk, but to me it is a very reasonable one. I can only think of one reason we do not see additional experimentation, and that is because the results are not in favor or earlier conclusions. The rest are all lame excuses that simply are irrelevant in a matter as important as this.

To you this may be irrelevant, but we simply differ in opinion here. To me this is pretty much the nail in the coffin of Jones work.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




A simplified version of what happened is that mass 1 fell on top of mass 2. The dynamic load made the connection that held mass 2 fail. Still, this force slowed down mass 1 a bit. After the connections failed, mass 1 and mass 2 fall further together to the next floor. The additional mass actually has a positive effect on Ke and Momentum during the fall. And the resistance was hardly increasing, if at all.


Round and round we go.

You are describing a progressive "pancake" collapse. We know that this collapse was not a progressive "pancake" collapse. Therefore what you are describing is not what happened.

But please don't move along so quickly before proving the existence of gravity or acknowledging that Ryan have just shown you that unreacted residue of the type observed in the 9/11 dust will be left after a reaction of this type?

Can we keep it to one fallacy at a time?




So from a scientific point of view, my conclusion is that Jones work is not accepted and ignored. From a non-scientific point of view, my conclusion is that his work contains many issues and needs more work. Over all conclusion, his work is inconclusive.


Nanothermite does not exist - Falsified by the fact that it does
The paint theory - No physical paint analogue exists
The sphere's in fly ash theory- Not even remotely similar
The exotherm theory - Falsified by your own example
The simple combustion theory - Falsified by by the production of the sphere's
The residue theory - Falsified by the scientific literature, and now a direct experiment as well

So now you have a DIRECT unambiguous example of this type of reaction with this type of thermite and you STILL say "inconclusive"?
edit on 25-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Only truthers think that is was not a progressive "pancake" collapse. The rest of the world (who has more or less studied the subject) does.

The really weird thing is that truthers then come with all kind of weird ideas of what they think the official explanation says, and then conclude that it is impossible. That is a classic straw man argument. What else could happened besides the top section falling down on the floor below it? Anything else makes no sense. Even if you think explosives were used, the top still falls straight down on the floor below. Even with explosives there would be a "pancake" collapse. Even more so because the resistance is lower.

And then we come in the realm that so many explosives were used that the building literally exploded. Of course the used explosives were hush-a-booms with invisible shockwaves made in lala land. You do realize that this can not have been thermite right? If you think that this is more likely than the official explanation, be my guest.


As for your "areguments" about Jones being conclusive, I am not going over it again. I see you ignored my last post that science required confirmation. Lets just leave it at that, to me that is telling enough.
edit on 25-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
A simplified version of what happened is that mass 1 fell on top of mass 2. The dynamic load made the connection that held mass 2 fail. Still, this force slowed down mass 1 a bit. After the connections failed, mass 1 and mass 2 fall further together to the next floor. The additional mass actually has a positive effect on Ke and Momentum during the fall. And the resistance was hardly increasing, if at all.


Sure you have a point, assuming office fires make skyscrapers fall.

Lol, I think its funny you guys get all scientific about this stuff.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
But now we get to a really interesting part in my opinion. If his work is inconclusive, then why aren't there any additional experiments to convince critics?


I think we are more kindred spirits than our discourse has played out although I don't necessarily agree that the paper of Dr Jones et al is inconclusive. And that is important. It was not just one academic, there were others involved in the production of this paper. He was just of the highest standing.



I can only think of one reason we do not see additional experimentation, and that is because the results are not in favor or earlier conclusions.


Isn't this putting the cart in front of the horse though? Did they conduct experiments but did not publish their results because they refuted Dr Jones results? That sounds like a good reason TO publish.

For me a more reasonable reason is that, like I stated earlier, other academics or institutions will not risk their tenure, career, funding or reputation by being IN ANY WAY INVOLVED. This is known as reputational risk and is quite common in business risk planning.

To me this is a far more practical and explanation for someone with a mortgage and three children to raise, than
any other reason like scientific ethics.

DON'T ROCK THE BOAT - the first thing you are taught when you work for ANY institution be it government or business.

edit on 25/7/1111 by Krusty the Klown because: Kan't spell



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




Only truthers think that is was not a progressive "pancake" collapse. The rest of the world (who has more or less studied the subject) does.


You mean except for NIST?

But we were discussing something else PLB, if you cannot admit when you have obviously been wrong how can I know when you are right?
edit on 25-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Krusty the Klown
 


My point is, even if you are right (although it is pretty much speculation you must agree), it is only more reason for Jones doing any experiment any critic comes with. That is if your goal is to get the truth out. Seemingly, Jones has a different agenda.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





As for your "areguments" about Jones being conclusive, I am not going over it again. I see you ignored my last post that science required confirmation. Lets just leave it at that, to me that is telling enough.


CONFIRM GRAVITY FOR ME PLB.

It should be simple enough, I have asked you many times now.

If science requires confirmation then it should be easy enough for you to do.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Can you at least admit that you were wrong about the residue, the evidence is right there along with instructions on how to reproduce the experiment (which is itself a reproduction of a published experiment).



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by -PLB-
 
CONFIRM GRAVITY FOR ME PLB.

It should be simple enough, I have asked you many times now.

If science requires confirmation then it should be easy enough for you to do.



Any experiment that shows a ~9.8m/s acceleration of a falling mass in a vacuum confirms it. And please don't come with "that is not proof". If you still do not understand that confirmation is not the same as proof, you are a moron.
edit on 25-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


How am I wrong about that? I have yet to see someone igniting a piece of sol-gel nanothermite or alike with a blowtorch and show pieces that are both partly reacted and partly unreacted. If you can show me that, I admit I am wrong about that.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Posted by PLB
A simplified version of what happened is that mass 1 fell on top of mass 2. The dynamic load made the connection that held mass 2 fail. Still, this force slowed down mass 1 a bit.


What stopped the connections that held the floors in the top section from failing? If you were for once in your life actually include the equal opposite reaction laws, that you keep ignoring, you would have to address the fact that the falling mass is less then the impacted mass, and would fail before it could cause the impacted mass to completely fail.

That it was a 'dynamic load' is irrelevant, it is a falling mass and has to abide by the laws of physics no matter what you call it. You think it makes you sound smart keep calling it a 'dynamic load' but fail to realise how irrelevant the term is in this context. It's also irrelevant that columns, or trusses failed, when it come to resistance, the floors and the steel pans they sat in would create resistance as they stacked up. If you have no stacking floors then you have no pancake collapse, where are the floors to do any pancaking?

The collapse did not slow down at all btw. You can pretend it did, but in fact if you believe it was a pancake collapse you would have to conclude the collapse had to speed up in order to not be slowed from the loss of Ke to other energy such as friction/resistance, deformation, sound, heat etc.

You do understand Ke HAD to be lost right? IF the collapse had started to slow it would have continued to slow. So how could the collapse NOT have slowed? Where did all the floors that you claim built up and continuously added weight go, they just disappeared afterwords? You can't have it both ways, floors can not both pancake, and be ejected out of the footprint.


After the connections failed, mass 1 and mass 2 fall further together to the next floor. The additional mass actually has a positive effect on Ke and Momentum during the fall. And the resistance was hardly increasing, if at all.


Again you ignore equal opposite reactions law, the fact that the lower floors will push back equally on the falling floors, and will resist the collapse. There will be no mass added because you would be losing as much mass from the top as the bottom, and the top would run out of mass before the bottom. 110 floors resisting the collapse of 15 floors, it's not rocket science.


edit on 7/25/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
My point is, even if you are right (although it is pretty much speculation you must agree),


Of course.



Seemingly, Jones has a different agenda.


As that too is speculation also.......


You know what happens when you assume.

Maybe he didn't anticipate the fallout....

Maybe he wants to live a quiet life from here....

Maybe academia abandoned him after the fact....

Maybe he has moved on to a new subject of study.

We can only speculate.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Krusty the Klown
 


We don't need to speculate. Jones jumped onto another controversial fringe subject, over unity energy devices. The circuit he uses is a well know circuit to increase voltage. By making a couple of measurement errors he thinks he achieved over unity.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:43 AM
link   
This will be my final attempt, just for the record.


Originally posted by ANOK
What stopped the connections that held the floors in the top section from failing? If you were for once in your life actually include the equal opposite reaction laws, that you keep ignoring, you would have to address the fact that the falling mass is less then the impacted mass, and would fail before it could cause the impacted mass to completely fail.


The lower floor also included the load of the floor itself plus the mass of the floor falling on it. The connections of the upper floor only had to endure the dynamic load. Draw a free body diagram.


That it was a 'dynamic load' is irrelevant, it is a falling mass and has to abide by the laws of physics no matter what you call it. You think it makes you sound smart keep calling it a 'dynamic load' but fail to realise how irrelevant the term is in this context. It's also irrelevant that columns, or trusses failed, when it come to resistance, the floors and the steel pans they sat in would create resistance as they stacked up. If you have no stacking floors then you have no pancake collapse, where are the floors to do any pancaking?


Asserting that dynamic load is irrelevant is not an argument. You seem to think that the first lower floor that is impacted remains in position. It does not. The connection fail and it falls, together with the top section.


The collapse did not slow down at all btw. You can pretend it did, but in fact if you believe it was a pancake collapse you would have to conclude the collapse had to speed up in order to not be slowed from the loss of Ke to other energy such as friction/resistance, deformation, sound, heat etc.


I am not pretending it slowed down, but the resistance made it accelerate less. Loss in Ke from resistance is gained again as the mass falls further down.


You do understand Ke HAD to be lost right? IF the collapse had started to slow it would have continued to slow. So how could the collapse NOT have slowed? Where did all the floors that you claim built up and continuously added weight go, they just disappeared afterwords? You can't have it both ways, floors can not both pancake, and be ejected out of the footprint.


No they did not disappear. They became part of the falling mass. Falling mass gains momentum and Ke. The greater the mass, the higher the momentum and Ke gain.


Again you ignore equal opposite reactions law, the fact that the lower floors will push back equally on the falling floors, and will resist the collapse. There will be no mass added because you would be losing as much mass from the top as the bottom, and the top would run out of mass before the bottom. 110 floors resisting the collapse of 15 floors, it's not rocket science.


The lower floors will only push back for a very short moment. When the connections fail, it stops pushing altogether and you have a moment of free fall.


Anyway, it has been explained to you countless times. I don't really think this will help. I am not sure where your issue lies, as it seems to shift all the time.
edit on 25-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




Any experiment that shows a ~9.8m/s acceleration of a falling mass in a vacuum confirms it.


WRONG!!

It fails to falsify it. You have proof it was gravity and not evil demons that did it. You haven't even shown me a picture of what gravity looks like yet.



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


An experiment capable of falsifying a theory but fails to falsify it is confirmation. Confirming is not proving. How many times have I explained that by now? Why do you ignore this? What is it you do not understand?
edit on 25-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
274
<< 56  57  58    60  61  62 >>

log in

join