It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 61
274
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 02:19 PM

Not really. When at one point the acceleration is 10m/s2 and at another point the acceleration is 6m/s2 the acceleration is decreased by 4m/s2. But there is still acceleration.
Right, there is still acceleration, and it continues to maintain this acceleration when it should be decelerating. It can't be pulverizing the building while continuing to accelerate at the same rate that it was before it contacted the building.

The falling mass is constantly decelerated by resistance and accelerated by gravity. The net result is a constant acceleration.
Then why does the acceleration remain the same if the resistance increases?

By the way, the 3 modes of collapse are described in one of Bazants papers: acceleration, constant speed, and deceleration. The conditions for each are explained there. All three are possible under the right conditions. There is no need to break any laws of physics.
That would be great if Bazants paper was scientifically accurate: Discussion of “What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York” by Zdeněk Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank Greening, and David Benson

Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1

The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis

Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 02:29 PM

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Right, there is still acceleration, and it continues to maintain this acceleration when it should be decelerating. It can't be pulverizing the building while continuing to accelerate at the same rate that it was before it contacted the building.

And it didn't. Once the top section started falling, it started contacting the building and demolishing it.

Then why does the acceleration remain the same if the resistance increases?

Because the resistance didn't increase?

That would be great if Bazants paper was scientifically accurate.

Whether you believe all of his paper or not, that specific explanation should give you more insight.
edit on 25-7-2011 by -PLB- because: ffs i never get those quotes right

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 02:38 PM

And it didn't. Once the top section started falling, it started contacting the building and demolishing it.
It started demolishing it outside of the realm of Newtons Equal and Opposite Law.

Because the resistance didn't increase?
Yes it does, changing from falling straight down before it contacts the building to actually contacting the building would increase the resistance.

Thought exercise: You have a cardboard box that's on top of another cardboard box and standing on four legs. If you pull the legs out that are supporting the top box, after it starts falling and makes contact with the bottom box, will the resistance increase? Yes.

Now, you have a top section of a building that's falling, and once it makes contact with the bottom section, will the resistance increase? Yes.

Does an increase in resistance mean an increase in acceleration? No, it means the opposite.

Whether you believe all of his paper or not, that specific explanation should give you more insight.
My idea of insight isn't exactly a scientific paper that has been ripped to shreds and debunked by many others.

Tell me, where are the papers that debunk Steven Jones paper? You'll support a paper that backs up your side of the story even though it's been debunked and proven to be false by many others, but oppose one that hasn't been debunked or proven to be false? That's a neat double standard.
edit on 25-7-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 02:47 PM

Originally posted by TupacShakur
It started demolishing it outside of the realm of Newtons Equal and Opposite Law.

No it didn't. That is a baseless assertion i have seen made truthers before.

Yes it does, changing from falling straight down before it contacts the building to actually contacting the building would increase the resistance.

This does not happen when the top section tilts. Which is what happened.

Thought exercise: You have a cardboard box that's on top of another cardboard box and standing on four legs. If you pull the legs out that are supporting the top box, after it starts falling and makes contact with the bottom box, will the resistance increase? Yes.

And what happen when you pull only 2 legs? Something different. (not saying that happened to the WTC, as the analogy isn't really accurate).

Now, you have a top section of a building that's falling, and once it makes contact with the bottom section, will the resistance increase? Yes.

The top section tilted. So one side of the top section is already contacting the bottom section, while the other side is still in its original position.

My idea of insight isn't exactly a scientific paper that has been ripped to shreds and debunked by many others.

Tell me, where are the papers that debunk Steven Jones paper? You'll support a paper that backs up your side of the story even though it's been debunked and proven to be false by many others, but oppose one that hasn't been debunked or proven to be false? That's a neat double standard.

I back his papers to a certain degree. I think they show that there was enough energy available. For the rest I don't find them that interesting.

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 03:00 PM

No it didn't. That is a baseless assertion i have seen made truthers before.
Maybe you forgot this thing that I've posted 3 times already?

But there are two instances where Newtonian physics break down. The first involves objects traveling at or near the speed of light. The second problem comes when Newton's laws are applied to very small objects, such as atoms or subatomic particles that fall in the realm of quantum mechanics.
So I'll ask you once again: Was the world trade center traveling at near light speed during it's collapse?

Was the world trade center the size of an atomic particle during it's collapse?

This does not happen when the top section tilts. Which is what happened.
Yes it does happen, the angle or tilt of the top section has no relavence in a discussion of universal physics concepts, universal meaning they apply to the tower tilted at 9* this direction, 27* that direction, or whatever. If it only applied to horizontal objects that are parallel to each other, then they wouldn't be universal, they would be relative to ideal conditions, which they are not.

Here's what some Physics professors have to say about whether or not Newtons Laws of Motion are universal or only relate to ideal situations:

Newton's Laws do not apply for relativistic situations or at small sizes where quantum mechanics is a better description.

Newton fails at small length scales where quantum effects dominate.

Newton fails at high velocities where relativity comes into play.

Anton,
Newton's laws are applicable in its domain of applicability. Einstein's theory of relativity showed that they must be modified in describing particle motion at speeds comparable to the speed of light. Schrodinger's and Heisenberg's theories of quantum mechanics implies that Newton's theory for microscopic scales fail when the particle momentum range times the positional range is comparable to Planck's constant equal to 10^-27 gm cm^2/sec. Then entirely different dynamics apply which has been used to accurately describe atomic phenomena. Interestingly, such concepts such as conservation of momentum, energy and angular momentum apply in more general theories, only the expressions for energy, momentum and angular momentum change form.
Prof. Berk

And what happen when you pull only 2 legs? Something different. (not saying that happened to the WTC, as the analogy isn't really accurate).
The same thing, the top box contacts the bottom section, and meets a greater resistance. The angle does not matter.

The top section tilted. So one side of the top section is already contacting the bottom section, while the other side is still in its original position.
OK, it's tilted, so what?
Newtons Laws of Motion still apply.

I back his papers to a certain degree. I think they show that there was enough energy available.
But those papers I linked you to have the calculations that prove Bazants paper to be false and inaccurate. Whatever floats your boat I guess.....

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 03:26 PM

The laws of motion are not broken in the official explanation. I fail to see you making any actual point. If you think they are broken, show the physics instead of baseless assertions.

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 03:33 PM

The laws of motion are not broken in the official explanation. I fail to see you making any actual point. If you think they are broken, show the physics instead of baseless assertions.
I've explained it over and over again. The top section should have destroyed itself as it destroyed the bottom section becaose of the equal and opposite law, but that didn't happen. "Show the physics", object A exerts a force of 100N on object B, but in accordance with the equal and opposite law Object B exerts the same amount of force on Object A.

The top section exerts enough force on the bottom section to pulverize it all the way to the ground, so the bottom section should also exert that amount of force on the top section, but that didn't happen.

The tower should have also slowed down when it makes contact with the more massive bottom section since it's meeting greater resitance, but it continued accelerating rather than slowing down, but there's clearly no getting through to you, so enjoy supporting an impossible official story and a false paper that's been debunked several times.

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 03:53 PM

It seems you me you just picked a different subject. But ok, I am used to that. You are wrong. The top section nor the lower section is a single object. Modeling it like that wrong, the forces are a lot more complex. Phenomena that are more complex than we can fully understand are not breaking any laws of physics. It is the reason we make models that simplify the phenomena. Your simplification no longer represents the phenomena. You may have heard of the spherical cow.

There is no reason the collapse should decelerate. You have not made it apparent that resistance increased by any significant amount, and the mass crushing the lower section did increased.

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:20 PM

Originally posted by -PLB-

It seems you me you just picked a different subject. But ok, I am used to that. You are wrong. The top section nor the lower section is a single object. Modeling it like that wrong, the forces are a lot more complex.

For someone who completely ignores the laws of motion, and claims it was simply gravity, to say that the forces are more complex is hilarious. That is what we've been trying to show you lol.

It doesn't matter if they are single objects, they were objects of the same construction, components all joined together, so technically they were two objects, and can be looked at as that to explain the physics.

Phenomena that are more complex than we can fully understand are not breaking any laws of physics.

Nonsense, there is nothing about this that is a phenomena. It is a simple physics problem of colliding objects.
You want to claim gravity was enough, but when shown it wasn't you want to claim it's more complicated than we're explaining it? You completely contradict your own reasoning. But then you reasoning changes every five minutes and contradicts itself anyway.

There is no reason the collapse should decelerate. You have not made it apparent that resistance increased by any significant amount, and the mass crushing the lower section did increased.

Says you who obvioulsy is just making stuff up. I'm as tired of saying this you are of hearing it, but again you fail to address equal opposite reaction laws, moment conservation, and the FACT that the top would be crushing as much as the bottom was, and 15 floors will crush sooner than 95 floors, do THAT maths. But of course that is assuming floors would have dropped in the first place, and that the resistance wouldn't arrest the collapse before the top section was completely crushed. That also assumes the collapse would have initiated at all which I find unlikely.

So whatever way you want to look at this you are wrong, you've been wrong in every post. I stand by that claim with complete confidence. I'm tired of explaining it, you are wrong, period.

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:26 PM

If I am not mistaken I made a detailed reply some pages back addressing most of your issues. But I know, it is useless.

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 08:56 PM

Again, confirmation is not about proving. Proving something true in science does not happen. Experiments are reproduced, and with each time it is reproduced successfully the hypothesis is confirmed, not proven. And with each time it is confirmed, it is more accepted in the scientific community until it reached the status of theory . That is how science works. And that is the process that Jones work is lacking.

So what part of Jones asking for a new proper investigation so that these tests can be conducted in a proper manner are you missing?

What part of Jones sending samples to independent labs are you missing?

Why is it that you cannot hold your own pronouncements to the EXACT SAME STANDARD?

Almost none of the OS claims have ever been reproduced.

until it reached the status of theory

Just on a point of order again, a theory is the starting point of a scientific inquiry, not the end. There is no end-point for a scientific theory where it turns into something that is more than a theory.

Creationism is a scientific theory if and only if it makes falsifiable predictions, though it may still be a weak one because the falsifications cannot be made by reasonable experiment.

Jones' thermite is a scientific theory because it makes falsifiable predictions, and a strong one because it makes predictions that are easily falsifiable. It is just that you're actively campaign against doing more.

Your paint theory is not a scientific theory because it makes no claims that are falsifiable. When your specific predictions are knocked down you continue claiming that it is paint, making it a psuedo-scientific claim.
edit on 25-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 09:10 PM

Originally posted by -PLB-

If I am not mistaken I made a detailed reply some pages back addressing most of your issues. But I know, it is useless.

You have a lot of nerve for someone who thinks PSF is a measurement of weight, and that we are not talking about mechanics. You wouldn't know the details if they slapped you silly.

Sorry PLB, but you have proven yourself incapable of addressing the points I make. I may have missed that post, I'll go back and look, but I highly doubt it says anything new or even logical.

posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 02:20 AM

Originally posted by Darkwing01
So what part of Jones asking for a new proper investigation so that these tests can be conducted in a proper manner are you missing?

What part of Jones sending samples to independent labs are you missing?

Why is it that you cannot hold your own pronouncements to the EXACT SAME STANDARD?

Almost none of the OS claims have ever been reproduced.

What do you mean by part? Every part is missing. Or maybe you should rephrase the question. What claim in the official explanation is not reproduced or not accepted in the scientific community according to you?

Just on a point of order again, a theory is the starting point of a scientific inquiry, not the end. There is no end-point for a scientific theory where it turns into something that is more than a theory.

Creationism is a scientific theory if and only if it makes falsifiable predictions, though it may still be a weak one because the falsifications cannot be made by reasonable experiment.

Jones' thermite is a scientific theory because it makes falsifiable predictions, and a strong one because it makes predictions that are easily falsifiable. It is just that you're actively campaign against doing more.

Your paint theory is not a scientific theory because it makes no claims that are falsifiable. When your specific predictions are knocked down you continue claiming that it is paint, making it a psuedo-scientific claim.

So, do you finally understand what confirmation means in the context of science? In general, a hypothesis is only accepted as scientific theory when it is confirmed (I know what you are thinking. no, that does not mean proved), especially when the authors are questionable. Jones work is not considered a scientific theory. But I guess in popular speech you can call it a theory.

posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 02:23 AM

So did you decided to make things up again, or are you unaware of it? Just for the record, I nowhere ever said that "PSF is a measurement of weight".

As for my post saying anything new, no it doesn't. Is were the same old misunderstandings I was addressing. My experience is that once you have no answer to it you ignore the posts and some time later you bring up exactly the same erroneous points again.
edit on 26-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 03:33 AM

Originally posted by -PLB-

So did you decided to make things up again, or are you unaware of it? Just for the record, I nowhere ever said that "PSF is a measurement of weight".

OK I just checked it was hooper, I apologize I thought it was you. You all say the same BS anyway.

As for my post saying anything new, no it doesn't. Is were the same old misunderstandings I was addressing. My experience is that once you have no answer to it you ignore the posts and some time later you bring up exactly the same erroneous points again.
edit on 26-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

I ignore nothing, that line is getting tiring. You have said nothing I need to avoid.

1. While driving down the road, Anna Litical observed a bug striking the windshield of her car. Quite obviously, a case of Newton's third law of motion. The bug hit the windshield and the windshield hit the bug. Which of the two forces is greater: the force on the bug or the force on the windshield?

Be the only OSer to be honest PLB, I am rooting for ya!

posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 03:46 AM

You have been ignoring several of my posts where I explain things to you in detail. As for your question, you can't be serious. It just shows your level of physics. I know, me not answering your stupid irrelevant question is proof to you I do not know physics. Your truther line of reasoning is noted.

I have a question for you. How much is (10+3-1)/2. If you do not answer this you do not know maths.
edit on 26-7-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 08:31 AM

What do you mean by part? Every part is missing.

So you think that the French guy just made up his report then?

Just how much of this stuff do you think Jones has?

Or maybe you should rephrase the question. What claim in the official explanation is not reproduced or not accepted in the scientific community according to you?

No claim of the official version has been reproduced.

The Cardington tests FALSIFIED the theory before it even got started. F.E.A. programmes for which the source code IS known fail to even begin reproduce the NIST theory. There is no physical model in reality that behaves or (I would argue) can behave in the manner stipulated by Bazant.

I don't care what the scientific consensus is, at the VERY best that is an inductive argument that cannot independently establish the truth of a fact.

YOU are claiming that the NIST theory is reproducible science, so show me how it can be reproduced. Even a little...

So, do you finally understand what confirmation means in the context of science? In general, a hypothesis is only accepted as scientific theory when it is confirmed (I know what you are thinking. no, that does not mean proved), especially when the authors are questionable. Jones work is not considered a scientific theory. But I guess in popular speech you can call it a theory.

There is only one test for a scientific theory and it has nothing to do with confirmation.

The ONLY standard is that the theory must make falsifiable predictions. The quality of science is separate but related issue.

Replicabilition has NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH, NIKS, RIEN to do with whether a theory is scientific because that is a post-theoretic activity. The results of EXPERIMENTS are confirmed in the manner you describe.

Let me repeat:

In general, an experiment is only accepted as confirmed when it is replicated.
edit on 26-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: fixes

posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 09:09 AM

Give it up man, you`re starting to look like a fool

posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 09:22 AM

edit on 26-7-2011 by Darkwing01 because: delete, no need to be mean

posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Darkwing01
So you think that the French guy just made up his report then?

Just how much of this stuff do you think Jones has?

You mean the french guy who was unable to reproduce the formation of any iron rich shperes and pretty much concluded that his red chips were not thermite?

No claim of the official version has been reproduced.

The Cardington tests FALSIFIED the theory before it even got started. F.E.A. programmes for which the source code IS known fail to even begin reproduce the NIST theory. There is no physical model in reality that behaves or (I would argue) can behave in the manner stipulated by Bazant.

I don't care what the scientific consensus is, at the VERY best that is an inductive argument that cannot independently establish the truth of a fact.

YOU are claiming that the NIST theory is reproducible science, so show me how it can be reproduced. Even a little...

You do realize that a scale model of a complete floor was made which confirmed that fire alone could have started initiation?

There is only one test for a scientific theory and it has nothing to do with confirmation.

The ONLY standard is that the theory must make falsifiable predictions. The quality of science is separate but related issue.

Replicabilition has NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH, NIKS, RIEN to do with whether a theory is scientific because that is a post-theoretic activity. The results of EXPERIMENTS are confirmed in the manner you describe.

Let me repeat:

In general, an experiment is only accepted as confirmed when it is replicated.

Just the first 5 hits Google:

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing.

A scientific theory or law represents a hypothesis (or group of related hypotheses) which has been confirmed through repeated testing, almost always conducted over a span of many years.

It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations.

en.wikipedia.org...

A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true.

wilstar.com...

In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over many independent experiments.

sci.waikato.ac.nz...

Hope that educates you a bit.

new topics

top topics

274