Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 67
272
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Tolling would be claiming that the mass would disappear and then continuously failing to explain how that happened. Either stop being a troll and acknowledge you don't have a clue, or stop being a troll and explain it. Or be a troll of course.




posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


You are completely ridiculous.

If I gave you a cup you would ask me to explain how the cup came into existence before drinking from it.

Reality is staring you in the face and you refuse to accept it because you will not accept my explanation in terms of known and established principles and laws of physics, instead substituting a fantasy you conjured up on the spot which, provided you don't actually work out the details, ostensibly proves your pre-exsting politically motivated ideas.

Well, if it makes you happy I suppose, have fun with it.
edit on 3-8-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


The reason I do not accept your explanation is because there is nothing to accept. You haven't even come close to explaining anything. You posted a video without even making an argument, and thats it. But me accusing you of trolling was not entirely fair. Its either that you really believe you have done a great job in explaining it or you know it is all nonsense.
edit on 4-8-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




The reason I do not accept your explanation is because there is nothing to accept. You haven't even come close to explaining anything.


So do you accept now that elastic collisions do in fact exist?

This is indeed a good day then!



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Straw man of the deceptive type.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





Straw man of the deceptive type.


How so?

You are the one asking me to explain to you how elastic collisions work and what force drives the acceleration of mass observed in them.

You are the one who refuses to believe that a bouncy ball bounces until you are satisfied with an explanation that you will never accept.

It is not a straw-man because you know as well as I do that if the material is not at the right place at the right time the computed best case gravity driven collapse times cannot be achieved, and those times are commensurate with the observed data.

If you accept that collisions in the real world are never perfectly elastic nor perfectly inelastic your thesis falls apart, so how can you ever accept my explanation?



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Sure man, all that debris bounced all the way to the side like bouncy balls. Whatever works for you in lalaland.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Sure man, all that debris bounced all the way to the side like bouncy balls. Whatever works for you in lalaland.


Then you need explain where it all went, and how it was ejected in a symmetrical 360d arc.

Denying something, by being sarcastic, that did actually happen, just makes you look stupid, but then most of us know that already.

Do you really think anyone but you resident OSers are buying any of what you're saying? A guy who claims to be an electrical engineer?



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You are making it appear like explaining something to you makes any difference. Do you also believe nearly all the mass bounced away like little bouncing balls?



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




You are making it appear like explaining something to you makes any difference. Do you also believe nearly all the mass bounced away like little bouncing balls?


Here is an experiment you can do at your own desk:

Take a cup. Lift it vertically straight up to the height of one cup and drop. How much mass is left in the original footprint? Now lift it high enough so the cup breaks, how much is left in the footprint?

Now what is it about partially elastic collisions of frangible elements you are having trouble understanding?
edit on 4-8-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Now take a square of 5x5m filled with cups and drop an equivalent number of cups on it from 1m height. Where will the majority of the mass end up, inside of outside the 5x5 square? If you have trouble figuring this out, I advice you to do the actual experiment.

One note, I am just using your silly experiment to show how it backfires on you, not to describe what actually happened in the WTC.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Show me the intact floor element of the base of the WTC PLB.

Not at the base of the adjacent parking structure. At the base of the WTC.

You have to be blind if between the peeling perimeter elements and explosive ejections of dust and larger pieces of debris and the known conditions subsequent to the collapse you think that there was a "box" coming down.

You are confusing Bazant's crush-down hypothesis with reality. that is where the idea of the box comes from, not real life.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Why should I show intact floor elements? Where do I claim there should be intact floor elements? Where do I claim a "box" is coming down? (I am guessing these are all straw man arguments of the delusional type).

Lets put all these logical fallacies aside.You are claiming the majority of the mass is ejected. Explain how. Your cup falling on a desk is a complete failure.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





Where do I claim a "box" is coming down? (I am guessing these are all straw man arguments of the delusional type).


...meanwhile, two posts earlier...




Now take a square of 5x5m filled with cups and drop an equivalent number of cups on it from 1m height. Where will the majority of the mass end up, inside of outside the 5x5 square?


So you mean that a square filled with things refers to something other than a box, or did you think people forgot how to scroll?
edit on 5-8-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


I know that truthers have a very hard time reading, especially when there is more than one line of text. So I will repeat this one line, focus:


One note, I am just using your silly experiment to show how it backfires on you, not to describe what actually happened in the WTC.


You are so predictable that I already knew you would come with such a response. I could of course respond with how you think that the WTC was in the shape of a cup, but that would only help your obfuscation. By the way, a square it not a box. I know physics is hard for you so read those pages carefully.

Now back to the question. You are claiming the majority of the mass is ejected. Explain how.
edit on 5-8-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





I know that truthers have a very hard time reading, especially when there is more than one line of text. So I will repeat this one line, focus:


So what you are saying is that a falling box is NOT what happened, but a falling box is what needed to happen to get your pancake to happen...

So in what sense did you mean that "experiment" then?

Square vs. Box? Really PLB?



Explain how.


I have.

You have now made it perfectly clear that you experiment is not relevant, so the implication is mine was.

It is not even about mass ending up in the footprint (if you recall I mentioned this before). It is about mass being at the collapse INTERFACE.

It is not just where it it, but when and how it gets there.
edit on 5-8-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
So what you are saying is that a falling box is NOT what happened, but a falling box is what needed to happen to get your pancake to happen...

I am not claiming anything at the moment. Don't try to divert the subject.

So in what sense did you mean that "experiment" then?

You dropping a cup.

Square vs. Box? Really PLB?

Read the links and learn the difference.

I have.

No you have not.

You have now made it perfectly clear that you experiment is not relevant, so the implication is mine was.

Really nice fallacy (you have one or more in about every post you make, logic is not really your thing is it?). It is called a false dichotomy. No, your experiment is not relevant either, even less so as it is a lot less like how the collapse happened than the experiment I described.

It is not even about mass ending up in the footprint (if you recall I mentioned this before). It is about mass being at the collapse INTERFACE.
It is not just where it it, but when and how it gets there

No it is not. You claim the collapse would arrest. That means that mass is resting on a floor. How it got there does not matter. The mass can not both be within the perimeter of the building and not resting on something. You must understand that. What matters is how the majority of the mass did not ended up on the floor, or in other words, how it ended up outside the perimeter of the floor. Explain that.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 




The mass can not both be within the perimeter of the building and not resting on something.


Yes it can be be and it doesn't matter.

I will highlight it again for your pleasure: COLLAPSE INTERFACE!

That means that it need to be at the point where the damage is being done at the time that damage is being all the time, exerting its force at near ideal efficiency for pancaking to work.

All that time that the floors were falling it was in the perimeter of the building not resting on anything, think about it PLB...

I can' believe that you are actually going to sit there making the distinction between squares and boxes in this context. My position will apply either way after more than a couple of iterations, so the distinction is utterly irrelevant.
edit on 6-8-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Two options. You are either way too stupid to understand what we have been talking about, or you are trolling and obfuscating. We have been talking about the situation where the collapse arrested, which you claimed would happen. At that moment all mass is at rest. It is either resting on a floor inside the perimeter of the building or it fell to the ground outside the perimeter and is at rest there. There are no other options. The reason you introduced the term "collapse interface" is pure obfuscation. You do everything in your power to avoid addressing the issue at hand.



posted on Aug, 6 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





There are no other options.


Please refer to the Delft collapse aftermath again and repeat that line.

This isn't necessarily about whether the collapse or not, the point is moot because natural collapses can obviously be complete. This is about whether the observed collapse time is achievable in an iterated pancake collapse model.






top topics



 
272
<< 64  65  66    68  69  70 >>

log in

join