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

page: 66
272
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
What part of there being lateral ejections being present is verinage did you miss?

Verinage is designed to maximise the efficiency of a demolition of a pre-existing structure.

Engineered processes are nearly always more efficient than natural occurring random ones. Lateral ejection represents an inefficiency for a process designed to do work by having as large as possible a falling mass impact the lower structure as axially as possible.

So it is rather obvious that Verinages would be engineered to limit this inefficiency.


Verinage demolitions are not engineered, they use the existing structure to demolish the building.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


I knew this one would get you, you are SO predictable.

Didn't you say you studied electrical engineering HAHAHA, so enlighten us oh all knowing sage:
What role does the electromagnetic force have in macroscopic behavior of objects in our everyday experience (non-electric objects obviously).

You are such a hoot PLB, vcould you at least try to not be so easy to play around with?




Of course you can't answer and instead you make a fool of yourself with silly smilies. And I can tell you why, it is complete utter nonsense. The electromagnetic force is only of any significance on extremely small distances. It is basically what we call "contact" or "touch". The electromagnetic forces in the universe are more or less in equilibrium. This means it is a completely passive force, and only does something when another force is acting upon a mass.

On a macroscopic scale we simply say that mass is pushing another mass. There is no mechanism whatsoever that explains how the majority of the mass would be pushed out. Calling it an electromagnetic force does not explain it in any way. What you are doing is obfuscating the subject, or in other words, it is a red harring.

You are being disingenuous again because you can not explain this simple question: how is the majority of the mass pushed outside.



But wait PLB, I thought you said there was no force to eject the mass, changing your song so quickly? I was just starting to get into it.

So maybe YOU can explain to us which force is causing these ejections you now claim to be happening to occur.


I said there is no force that can eject the majority or all of the mass. There is more than enough mass left to make the floor you claim is arresting the collapse fail.

A straw man isn't going to get you out of this. How many more fallacies do you have in store? Don't worry, I will expose them all, one by one.
edit on 1-8-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




You are being disingenuous again because you can not explain this simple question: how is the majority of the mass pushed outside.


Of course I can.

I love your idea of a "passive" force though, that is a new one.

I still am not getting any clarity about whether you think things get pushed aside or not. Are you not saying that you think things DON'T get pushed aside?

Why does it matter which force is pushing them aside, the fact of the matter that you can see in any crush or interaction between physical objects for that matter is that unless the collision is perfectly aligned it will generate lateral ejections of some sort .



Notice that even though there is a rocket on that sled it doesn't just keep going straight?

But please, don't let me interrupt you, do carry on about the "passive" forces in the universe. I am enthralled.

Before you do though, let's just recap the definition of a force:

In physics, a force is any influence that causes a free body to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape


Okay, now you can carry on.

Just one thing more...

userpages.wittenberg.edu...


An example is the normal force, which can be thought of as a passive force, one that changes in response to other forces. Frictional and tension forces are other examples of passive forces. The passive nature of friction is obvious when you think of an object like a block being pulled along a rough surface. There is an applied force in one direction and a kinetic frictional force in the other direction that opposes the motion. If the applied force is discontinued, the block will slow down to rest but it will not start moving in the opposite direction due to friction. This is because the kinetic frictional force is passive and stops acting as soon as the block comes to rest. Likewise, tension forces, such as those exerted by a rope pulling on an object, can exist only when there is an active force pulling on the other end of the rope.


Okay, right, so you were talking about electromagnetism being a passive force...
edit on 1-8-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Of course I can.

I love your idea of a "passive" force though, that is a new one.

I still am not getting any clarity about whether you think things get pushed aside or not. Are you not saying that you think things DON'T get pushed aside?


No I am not saying that. That is you making things up.


Why does it matter which force is pushing them aside, the fact of the matter that you can see in any crush or interaction between physical objects for that matter is that unless the collision is perfectly aligned it will generate lateral ejections of some sort.



Notice that even though there is a rocket on that sled it doesn't just keep going straight?


In no way this is explaining that the majority of the mass is being ejected in the building collapse. You are just throwing stuff at the wall, hoping it will stick. Do you realize that your whole position that the collapse would arrest relies on the existence of a force you are unable to explain?



But please, don't let me interrupt you, do carry on about the "passive" forces in the universe. I am enthralled.

Before you do though, let's just recap the definition of a force:

In physics, a force is any influence that causes a free body to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape


Okay, now you can carry on.

Just one thing more...

userpages.wittenberg.edu...


An example is the normal force, which can be thought of as a passive force, one that changes in response to other forces. Frictional and tension forces are other examples of passive forces. The passive nature of friction is obvious when you think of an object like a block being pulled along a rough surface. There is an applied force in one direction and a kinetic frictional force in the other direction that opposes the motion. If the applied force is discontinued, the block will slow down to rest but it will not start moving in the opposite direction due to friction. This is because the kinetic frictional force is passive and stops acting as soon as the block comes to rest. Likewise, tension forces, such as those exerted by a rope pulling on an object, can exist only when there is an active force pulling on the other end of the rope.


Okay, right, so you were talking about electromagnetism being a passive force...
edit on 1-8-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)


With passive I mean that the force does absolutely nothing (on a macro scale) unless an external force is acting upon the mass. If there is any formal definition for a passive force that is different, then I did not know about that.
edit on 1-8-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




With passive I mean that the force does absolutely nothing (on a macro scale) unless an external force is acting upon the mass. If there is any formal definition for a passive force that is different, then I did not know about that.


This is classic stuff.

You are asking me to explain something that happens all the time and refusing to believe that it happens all the time without of an explanation.

How can I explain it to you if you do not understand the basic definition of a force?

A net force is something which causes an acceleration to occur. A passive force is a psuedo-force that only occurs as a result of the interactions between other forces. Friction is a passive force that only appears when there is a relative movement between objects. When there is no relative movement between objects there is no friction.

The passive force you are thinking of is the normal force.

It is the normal force that is generated by the interaction of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force when to objects interact, and it is the normal force that goes away when two things are no longer in contact.

Electromagnetism does not stop acting when I pick my cup off the table. It is a real fundamental force. It is the electromagnetic force that ultimately accelerates objects away from each other in an elastic collision, and so it is this force which is ultimately causing the ejections.

So do you think matter and/or energy gets ejected in collisions or not? Are all collisions perfectly inelastic in your universe?
edit on 1-8-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-8-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by -PLB-
 




With passive I mean that the force does absolutely nothing (on a macro scale) unless an external force is acting upon the mass. If there is any formal definition for a passive force that is different, then I did not know about that.


This is classic stuff.

You are asking me to explain something that happens all the time and refusing to believe that it happens all the time without of an explanation.

How can I explain it to you if you do not understand the basic definition of a force?

A net force is something which causes an acceleration to occur. A passive force is a psuedo-force that only occurs as a result of the interactions between other forces. Friction is a passive force that only appears when there is a relative movement between objects. When there is no relative movement between objects there is no friction.

The passive force you are thinking of is the normal force.

It is the normal force that is generated by the interaction of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force when to objects interact, and it is the normal force that goes away when two things are no longer in contact.

Electromagnetism does not stop acting when I pick my cup off the table. It is a real fundamental force. It is the electromagnetic force that ultimately accelerates objects away from each other in an elastic collision, and so it is this force which is ultimately causing the ejections.

So do you think matter and/or energy gets ejected in collisions or not? Are all collisions perfectly inelastic in your universe?
edit on 1-8-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-8-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)


No I am not talking about the normal force, but about the electromagnetic force you came with. That is something completely different. A normal force is an abstract concept. The electromagnetic force is a fundamental force in nature. Let me guess, you have been searching Wikipedia again.

Again you are obfuscating the subject. Explain how the majority of the mass is pushed aside. I am not asking how some mass is pushed aside, I am asking how the majority of the mass is pushed aside.

There simply is no mechanism for this. When the falling debris hits an intact floor, most of it more or less stays in its current path. There is nothing there to push it aside. Just some of it of falls to the side at the edge of the perimeter. The net result is an increase in mass with each floor that collapses. This happens until the crushing mass inside the perimeter becomes so big that there is just no more space inside the perimeter of the building. Only then the amount of mass pushed out will be equal to the mass gained with each floor that collapses. But for that to happen there needs to be a huge mass. It can't be pushed out by nothingness like you seem to be claiming.

You really have to ignore some very common phenomena we experience in every day life in order to come to your position. You are delusional, you create your own reality in order to make your conspiracy work. Anyway, since you are not going to come with an explanation, and keep coming with obfuscation, maybe we should just leave you at your delusion.

Edit: just to add, some posts ago I gave undeniable proof that the mass inside the footprint was significant, the LIDAR images and the collapse time. Both prove that the majority of the mass of the floors did not eject outside the perimeter. Well, it is undeniable for a rational person, for a truther anything is possible.
edit on 1-8-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




most of it more or less stays in its current path.


More or less?

The point is LESS, not MORE.

I love how you turn around and say exactly what I have been saying and then pretend that you were saying that from the beginning, deriding your original position as if it were mine...
edit on 1-8-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by -PLB-
 




most of it more or less stays in its current path.


More or less?

The point is LESS, not MORE.

I love how you turn around and say exactly what I have been saying and then pretend that you were saying that from the beginning, deriding your original position as if it were mine...


No, most is staying within the perimeter of the building. I gave undeniable proof for that. When something changes its path slightly it does not automatically means it falls outside the perimeter. That is just you failing at logic and physics again.

You have give no explanation why the majority of the mass would fall outside the perimeter of the building at all, and you have been presented with proof that it did in fact not happen. Yet you still choose to base your belief in a conspiracy on it. This is what we call faith.
edit on 1-8-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





I gave undeniable proof for that


No, you posted a picture that you sure thought look like what you thought it looked like.

It is irrelevant anyway, because it doesn't HAVE to be outside the perimeter, just not at the collapse front, do you understand the difference?
edit on 2-8-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


So all this time you were trying to make an irrelevant argument. But I take you made up a new fantasy. Lets hear it.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





So all this time you were trying to make an irrelevant argument. But I take you made up a new fantasy. Lets hear it.


It is not an irrelevant argument.

I am trying to explain to you why real world collapses progress in the way they do, while you are arguing that a figment of your imagination with no empirical support should outweigh real reproducible experimental data.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by -PLB-
 





So all this time you were trying to make an irrelevant argument. But I take you made up a new fantasy. Lets hear it.


It is not an irrelevant argument.

I am trying to explain to you why real world collapses progress in the way they do, while you are arguing that a figment of your imagination with no empirical support should outweigh real reproducible experimental data.


Except that this figment of my imagination is supported by evidence such as the known effect of gravity on a mass, Verinage demolitions, LIDAR images of ground zero and logical deduction from the collapse time.

What was your assertion that most of the mass would somehow no longer take part of the crushing front based on again? Oh yeah, it was based on absolutely nothing, it was something you made up and are unable to explain.

Darkwing, you failed at both logic and physics. You passed the truther exam.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




logical deduction from the collapse time.


Logical deduction actually requires you to perform all the intervening steps between your premises and your conclusion.

Simply stating the fist iteration and a hand-wave about what happened after does not a deduction make.

If you actually DID the iterations you would see that it doesn't add up.

Why do you keep going on about the LIDAR? It isn't conclusive of anything either way except if you try to deduce something invalid from it. Even if it was a valid and true reflection of the final rubble pile it doesn't tell you anything about the mass at the collapse interface. So it is irrelevant either way, so stop posting it.




Oh yeah, it was based on absolutely nothing, it was something you made up and are unable to explain.


Oh, I can explain it...

I just can't explain it to an electrical engineer who doesn't know the difference between the electromagnetic force and the normal force and who apparently is incapable of understanding that some interactions exist in this universe that are neither perfectly elastic nor perfectly inelastic.


How can I explain it to you if you don't understand that the elasticity of a collision is ultimately largely a result of the of the electromagnetic force?

You asked me what FORCE accelerates mass away from the collapse front? So you tell me then, what force is moving mass away from the collapse front in the delft collapse?

edit on 2-8-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


And some more denial, lies, projection and irrelevant mumbling. What is missing is any explanation. So what did you think? That when you keep telling that you have explained anything that after a while others will start believing it too? Sorry, does not work.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





And some more denial, lies, projection and irrelevant mumbling. What is missing is any explanation. So what did you think? That when you keep telling that you have explained anything that after a while others will start believing it too? Sorry, does not work.



Yes PLB, I am missing an explanation.

I asked you to explain what is providing the force to push the material aside in the delft collapse and all I get is this rant.

You want to know where the mass goes?

This is where the mass goes:
edit on 3-8-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01



A fire induced collapse initiation that didn't automatically result in the complete collapse of the building? Gotta be Photoshopped.




posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Do I really have to spell it out for you? Are you really that blind? Only half of that building collapsed. There was not a full floor failure, like in the WTC, or in Verinage demolition. What is it you are trying to claim here anyway?

Besides, that building has a completely different structure. I never claimed that every structure behaves exactly the same. For the pyramids of Giza a progressive collapse wont work. Nor would CD. Difference is, I can exactly explain to you why. That doesn't mean that progressive collapse or CD is impossible in general. That is typical truther logic. A fallacy called hasty generalization. For each case you will have to explain why it is or is not possible. The reason why progressive collapse is possible in the WTC (among other reasons): the absence of a mechanism that pushes out most of the mass. It is up to you to prove there is one. So far you have failed miserably. You just claim there is one, post some pointless video, and you think you are done.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


So does this straw man enforce your faith a bit? Good boy



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
Dude if the U.S. Gov did 911, that would be scary. But then again, wasn't Loose Change originally fictional? I think the guy said that. I wouldn't believe it.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by spotle99
 
Rookie.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





Do I really have to spell it out for you? Are you really that blind? Only half of that building collapsed. There was not a full floor failure, like in the WTC, or in Verinage demolition. What is it you are trying to claim here anyway?


Dude!

Have you been missing the argument?

YOU have been asking why the mass isn't all at the collapse interface (both spatially and temporally).
YOU have been asking what force causes mass to sideways instead of straight down.

Are you seriously now going to argue that WTC was related to verinage?

YOU should know better, because all the attributes of verinage is exactly what the WTC does NOT display. Verinage is one the MAIN arguments why WTC could NOT have been a natural event.

Man you are a piece of work.

I sincerely hope that you are trolling, is all I can say.
edit on 3-8-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
272
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in

join