Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Undebunkable Video: Eliminate The Impossible

page: 35
172
<< 32  33  34    36 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 




Here is your fundamental problem with the whole issue, it wasn't a brick dropping on an egg more like 15% of a brick falling on a whole brick, or 10% of an egg falling on a whole egg.


In other words:

More like an egg falling on a brick than a brick falling on an egg.




posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


This is EXACTLY the kind of nonsense that truthers pass off as science and logic.

As I explained (and as anyone with a bit of common sense and knowledge understands immediately) the buildings got progressively less rigid and able to sustain the downward pressure as the collapse bit destroyed more and more of the outer shell. I'm not sure if you guys are wilfully misunderstanding the nature of the towers or if you actually just don't understand what a large role the shell had in keeping them upright...?

On top of that, if you watch those french demo vids, which are done WITHOUT explosives, you can see that a much smaller number of floors CAN and DOES destroy a larger number of floors. And it doesn't take much to make it happen.

Other issues with your beliefs:

- Welded/bolted steel is only as strong as the welds and bolts. The debris didn't have to go straight down through steel, but simply wreck the welds and bolts enough to make the structure, (not the beams them self) collapse.

- You're belief is predicated on a mystery technology. That's extremely silly. Those French vids show EXACTLY the same behaviour as the WTC, with no mystery tech.

- As the OP said, the collapse accelerated up to free-fall. In a demo, even one using your exciting new mystery tech, the collapse is essentially immediately at free-fall. In other words, there's no gradual acceleration. So unless the bogeymen in your fantasy have used their mystery tech in a way which gradually speeds up the collapse, your theory is false.

- There's no evidence of any of this exciting new mystery tech in any of the videos.



---

Again, one of the big problems with the whole truther world view is the circular nature of the logic. When you start pulling calling out the little bits of nonsense (mystery technology, unexplained demo techniques, dismissing other rational explanations, the buildings "looking like demos," etc etc) the whole thing falls apart.

The truther house isn't strong except for a few bricks; it's a house of cards. Each silly belief is just as silly as each other silly belief. None of it is backed up by evidence or common sense.

For the record, Bush and Cheney should be in jail, the neo-cons should be hunted down and ... a best locked up for ever... but... none of that changes ANY of the evidence.

Evidence:

No witnesses saw/heard the hundreds of TIMED explosions necessary to bring down a building. None of the these hundreds of explosions are visible on ANY video.

There is however lots of examples of buildings collapsing straight down, without explosives. Those collapses are started by removing ONE floor from buildings.

What's more likely?

- Accelerating collapse with NO evidence of how it's been accomplished, based on a belief in some mystery technology.

- Accelerating collapse caused by the removal of a floor of the buildings, exactly as the French do, which looks exactly like the French demos.

In the CT version all of the missing explosions and top down acceleration is accounted for with a bunch of "mystery tech," supposition and guesses.

In the real world, all of that mystery is removed by simply looking at the video and listening to the witnesses.




posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


It helps as a psych nurse to understand some of the posts. I understand yours.
edit on 30-8-2011 by aero56 because: typo
edit on 30-8-2011 by aero56 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
As I explained (and as anyone with a bit of common sense and knowledge understands immediately) the buildings got progressively less rigid and able to sustain the downward pressure as the collapse bit destroyed more and more of the outer shell. I'm not sure if you guys are wilfully misunderstanding the nature of the towers or if you actually just don't understand what a large role the shell had in keeping them upright...?


Again the core, and outer mesh, does not account for the floors both being ejected out of the footprint, and still having the ability to continue the collapse.

I am not misunderstanding anything. You are not applying the physics correctly.


On top of that, if you watch those french demo vids, which are done WITHOUT explosives, you can see that a much smaller number of floors CAN and DOES destroy a larger number of floors. And it doesn't take much to make it happen.


No you need to look again. Verinage collapse uses 50% of the building to collapse 50% of the pre-weakened lower structure. Also that method would not work on a steel framed building like the towers. 15 floors can not crush 95 floors, simple physics mate.


- Welded/bolted steel is only as strong as the welds and bolts. The debris didn't have to go straight down through steel, but simply wreck the welds and bolts enough to make the structure, (not the beams them self) collapse.


You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. The way the floors were attached to the columns is irrelevant, 15 free falling floors can not crush 95 static floors, and eject them out of the footprint at the same time, regardless of how the floors were held up.


- You're belief is predicated on a mystery technology. That's extremely silly. Those French vids show EXACTLY the same behaviour as the WTC, with no mystery tech.


Try to find one where about 20% of a steel framed building crushed the rest to the ground, while at the same time ejecting the mass in a 360d arc.


- As the OP said, the collapse accelerated up to free-fall. In a demo, even one using your exciting new mystery tech, the collapse is essentially immediately at free-fall. In other words, there's no gradual acceleration. So unless the bogeymen in your fantasy have used their mystery tech in a way which gradually speeds up the collapse, your theory is false.


I would disagree with that. Where is your evidence an implosion demolition starts immediately at free-fall.

But regardless the WTC towers should have not been at free-fall at all. The collapse should have slowed, and arrested, due to the loss of mass and Ke. You need to explain how your hypothesis explains the loss of Ke to resistance, deformation, sound, heat etc., didn't cause the collapse to slow and arrest.


- There's no evidence of any of this exciting new mystery tech in any of the videos.


What are you talking about? Lack of evidence does not mean your version of events must be correct. It's up to you to prove the WTC could collapse the way they did from fire, not just make lame attempts at debunking alternative theories thinking that your hypothesis is the default.


Again, one of the big problems with the whole truther world view is the circular nature of the logic. When you start pulling calling out the little bits of nonsense (mystery technology, unexplained demo techniques, dismissing other rational explanations, the buildings "looking like demos," etc etc) the whole thing falls apart.


You obviously don't pay too much attention to the arguments. No mystery technology, no unexplained demo techniques. Buildings simply do not collapse that way without help. Physics proves that, sorry if I can't tell you exactly how it was done, but it was. Because I can't tell you exactly how it was done doesn't mean your hypothesis is correct. You can't explain how the towers collapsed either, just like NIST couldn't. Your hypothesis is not based on physics, when have you ever explained the equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum laws in your hypothesis? Most of your reply is just a rant.


The truther house isn't strong except for a few bricks; it's a house of cards. Each silly belief is just as silly as each other silly belief. None of it is backed up by evidence or common sense.


Wrong, you simply do not have enough understanding of physics to see what is correct in this debate.


For the record, Bush and Cheney should be in jail, the neo-cons should be hunted down and ... a best locked up for ever... but... none of that changes ANY of the evidence.


Why even bring them up? Please stick to the discussion, physics of the collapses.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



....does not account for the floors both being ejected...


Please prove the floors were "ejected". For the record your opinion does not count and neither does your photoshop images with all the little circles and arrows.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


1. Floors weren't "ejected"

2. This 50% idea is both factually inaccurate and silly. The floors above only crush the floors below one floor at a time. If you don't understand why I'm saying that it's pretty obvious why you don't "get" the physics behind the tower collapses.

3. You can disagree all you want. Learn about demos and why they look like a building "falling into a hole". In addition to that, you're belief that the building never should have been at free-fall is utter BS. I imagine you're just parroting that from another truther. Once the debris above had the mass to crush the floor below and the floors below were significantly weakened by the progressively weakened skin of the building the collapse would OF COURSE hit free-fall speeds.

4. If you build your beliefs on something not based on evidence you are not being scientific or logical. Especially when you dismiss logical and sound explanations for illogical beliefs which you have no evidence to support.

5. You say buildings don't collapse that way w/o help. In fact, they had "help" in the form of a hey crashing into them and un-fought fires.

6. Man, your "understanding" of physics is laughable. There's a reason why only 1/10th of 1% of active architects and engineers sign onto this nonsense.

7. IF you don't get why I put that in, you're truly lost in this debate.



posted on Aug, 30 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by ANOK
 

3. You can disagree all you want. Learn about demos and why they look like a building "falling into a hole". In addition to that, you're belief that the building never should have been at free-fall is utter BS. I imagine you're just parroting that from another truther. Once the debris above had the mass to crush the floor below and the floors below were significantly weakened by the progressively weakened skin of the building the collapse would OF COURSE hit free-fall speeds.


I think "truthers" all think that the floors must slowly give way - they've seen demos of metal test pieces slowly stretching to destruction or something simlar & think that is how all metal failures occur.

They simply do not understand (whether willfully or through ignorance) that a massive overload of anything can cause a near instant failure in a fraction of a second, and so they will never understand how the buildings fell at the speed they did.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
They simply do not understand (whether willfully or through ignorance) that a massive overload of anything can cause a near instant failure in a fraction of a second, and so they will never understand how the buildings fell at the speed they did.


What massive overload? 15 floors falling on 95 is not a massive overload.

But regardless, even if it was, the collapse still has to follow the laws of physics.

15 concrete and steel floors can not crush 95 concrete and steel floors to the ground.

You still need to explain how the 47 core columns telescoped down through an increasing mass, an increasing path of most resistance also.

You have not explained anything. I have yet to hear any of you mention the laws of motion, equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation. Until you address those laws in your hypothesis then you have not addressed the physics. You are just repeating what you have read elsewhere.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

1. Floors weren't "ejected"


Yes they were...



If they were not then where did they go? 110 concrete floors, and the rubble pile was less than the height of the lobbies. The floors had to go somewhere, and they were not in the footprint post collapse. This is not 'truther' fantasy, it's fact, as observed and documented by FEMA.

It's sad that for you to cling to your OS fantasy you have to try to be deceptive about the facts.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



If they were not then where did they go?

They were in the pile of rubble and the tons of dust.

110 concrete floors, and the rubble pile was less than the height of the lobbies.

They were in the pile of rubble.

The floors had to go somewhere,

They did, in a big pile with all the tons of steel and all the other material that made up the World Trade Center towers.

and they were not in the footprint post collapse.

Yes they were.

This is not 'truther' fantasy, it's fact, as observed and documented by FEMA.

Please show us all were FEMA stated that all the floors disappeared and were never seen again.

It's sad that for you to cling to your OS fantasy you have to try to be deceptive about the facts.

Well, considering what is being passed off here as "facts" the OS is practically the word of God Almighty.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 

No they weren't.

Show us some photo of a floor ejected beyond the debris pile.
Since the building was 95% air why would you have a pile higher than a few floors? Don't forget the basement was crushed also.



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
They simply do not understand (whether willfully or through ignorance) that a massive overload of anything can cause a near instant failure in a fraction of a second, and so they will never understand how the buildings fell at the speed they did.


What massive overload? 15 floors falling on 95 is not a massive overload.


Each of those 95 floors has to take the impact on its own - you do not ge to add up the strength of 95 floors to prove that they weren't overloaded!

THAT massive overload.


15 concrete and steel floors can not crush 95 concrete and steel floors to the ground.


Because what? Because you say so??



You still need to explain how the 47 core columns telescoped down through an increasing mass, an increasing path of most resistance also.


A meaningless sentence - perhaps you could describe what you mean with some accuracy??



[You have not explained anything. I have yet to hear any of you mention the laws of motion, equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation. Until you address those laws in your hypothesis then you have not addressed the physics. You are just repeating what you have read elsewhere.


OK - since you require such simplistic concepts in any explaination I shall provide them for you.

Mass falling under the influence of gravity has velocity and kinetic energy and momentum. when 15 floors fall on the top one of 95 remaining floors, the impacted floor adds roughly 1/15th to the mass - so to concerve momentum hte mass has to slow down approximately 1/15th of its velocuty.

When the now 16 floors hit the next one down they only have to slow 1/17th to conserve momentum, then 1/18th for the next floor - each floor added to the falling mass slows it down less and less.

the equal and opposite reaction to the falling floors occurs when they hit the bottom- at that point the structure of the earth is able to provide a eraction equal to the falling mass without collapsing itself. Until then the structure is weaker than the force neaded to stop the falling amss - so it collapses itself.

Gravity is an outside force, as is one mass falling on or being supported by another. When those are out of balance somethign has to go up or down. In this case the force of gravity exceeds the ability of the damaged structure to support the mass above - so eth mass above is accelerated by gravity.

There you go - all your requirements are met


edit on 31-8-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

They were in the pile of rubble and the tons of dust.


What? 110 stories were in the rubble pile less than the height of the lobbies? Seriously?

So you disagree with FEMA?

Funny how when it's convenient you contradict your own OS huh?



They were in the pile of rubble.


Yes, the rubble pile that was in a 360d arc around the towers. It must be tough when you have to disagree with your own side in order try to debunk something.



They did, in a big pile with all the tons of steel and all the other material that made up the World Trade Center towers.


Again yes, a big pile that was in a 360d arc around the towers, not in the footprint where they would be if your pancake collapse hypothesis was true. Have you ever wondered that maybe this is why NIST rejected the pancake collapse hypothesis?


Yes they were.


No they weren't. 110 floors can not fit in a space less than the height of the lobbies.


Please show us all were FEMA stated that all the floors disappeared and were never seen again.


That is not what I said. FEMA stated that the floors were ejected in a 360d arc. That is what I said, do you have a comprehension problem? It would explain a lot.


Well, considering what is being passed off here as "facts" the OS is practically the word of God Almighty.


C'mon now. Anyone with eyes can see what I'm saying is based on facts. It is delusional to pretend WTC 1&2 landed in their footprints. You are being disingenuous, because you will argue that WTC7 didn't land in its footprint but the towers did? Anyone can see that is backwards, and you have to claim that to fit your OS fantasy.

In its own footprint....



Not in its own footprint...



Do you see the difference hooper?

edit on 8/31/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I have to assume you're just being dishonest at this point. One of the reasons why I don't engage with the Truther community is that I find that they behave like ideologues. They are guided by their beliefs, not their logic or common sense.

Here's an example:

You said the floors were "ejected".

They were not.

A lot of rubble fell in many different directions, as we all saw, but to leap the conclusion that entire "floors were ejected" is complete nonsense and not based on ANY evidence.

So, when we say that's not true, it's because there's no evidence of it.

You take that very specific poitn and turn it into:

- We disagree with FEMA
- We think all the rubble fell in the foot print of the building (which doesn't even happen in Demos, btw)

And on and on.

That's so frustratingly dishonest and childish and makes it impossible to have a sane discussion with you.

I could go through most truther threads and find thousands of contradictory truther claims, in fact there's many in this very thread. I could then use that info to mock all truther beliefs. In fact many do this exact thing.

BUT

That's not a discussion and it benefits no one.

If you want to have a discussion, act like an adult, otherwise I won't waste my time.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Have you ever thought in your head about what you would do if the government asked you to create an event that would trigger the Iraq war and the Patriot Act without getting anyone involved caught? Serioiusly sit down and think about it and tell me if you would have come up with something as intricate as 9/11.

Think about how you would start going about this. How many people are you going to have to contact to be involved on all levels for this to work. How are you going to begin contacting them and making sure they don't leak your plan. What are your security concerns.

Not one single person other than terrorists have been connected with this and the only proof people have is things like what color the molten metal is.

The odds of this actually happening with no one getting caught are astronomical. But as I said I won't argue your guy's proof so i'll just have to leave it at that.

Thanks for the lively debate though


you seems a bit naive overal.

compartmentalization.
This ends in just a few people that actually know what is being done.

But even then leaks will always remain possible from any level and so it has in the case of 9/11.Please dont pretend this has not happened in this case.Leaks about 9/11 have surfaced prior to it.Next to that if it was all so perfect you might have to re-read the OP.


edit on 2-9-2011 by Rafe_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Rafe_
 


Don't forget that the OPs video was repeatedly debunked and that if there was anything like definitive proof these conversations would have stopped years ago. ALSO don't forget that Steven Jones was busted forging evidence. Hardly the behaviour of a trustworthy individual.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 



Don't forget that the OPs video was repeatedly debunked and that if there was anything like definitive proof these conversations would have stopped years ago.
I don't think my OP has been debunked at all. Can you point me to the posts that undoubtedy debunked it?

There's the molten steel and iron spheres.

Then there's the missing jolt when the top section contacts the bottom section.

Then there's the fall of the spire which falls straight down.

Then there's the flawed Crush-Down/Crush-Up theory that supposedly explains the collapse.

Then there's the eutectic steel.

Then there's the free-fall acceleration during the collapse of WTC7.

Then there's the active nano-thermite chips that were found in the dust.

Tell me where all of those things have been debunked.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



There's the molten steel and iron spheres.

The molten steel has never been proven, it is debunked by a lack of evidence. The "iron spheres" were identified only in samples that no one else has access to. Debunked. There's no control group to determine if iron spheres may have other sources if they do exist. Debunked again.

Then there's the missing jolt when the top section contacts the bottom section.

Nothing is missing except an understanding of the physical world. This again falls into a "default debunk" because there is no evidence that would support it as a fact.

Then there's the fall of the spire which falls straight down.

Gravity works in a straight line here on Earth. Always has.

Then there's the flawed Crush-Down/Crush-Up theory that supposedly explains the collapse.

Your use of the word "flawed" does not constitute a fact that requires explanation.

Then there's the eutectic steel.

Plenty of heat and chemical reactions within the rubble to cause reactions.

Then there's the free-fall acceleration during the collapse of WTC7.

A) Estimated B) Limited duration.

Then there's the active nano-thermite chips that were found in the dust.

Opinion of a group of unqualified and bias group with one off samples that no one else has access to. Default Debunk.

Tell me where all of those things have been debunked

First some evidence has to be given in their support.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by kro32
Nobody has ever answered why they would go through all the trouble to stage 9/11 and at such great risk to exposure when something far simpler would have achieved the same results.

Why would the government go through all this trouble and complexity just for an excuse to invade Iraq or pass the Patriot Act when a simple plan would have acheived the exact same results with a far less risk of something going wrong?

A single Al-Quieda man setting off a dirty bomb or something along those lines would have given America all the reason they needed.

If the government asked you to create something that would mobilize the American people is 9/11 what you would come up with? There are 1000 different things that have to go perfectly right for this to be pulled off. The amount of people with knowledge is far too large for comfort.

Look at the history of government cover-ups and how successful they were.

Gulf of Tonkin, Johnson couldn't even keep one little bombing incident secret and it was leaked through the pentagon papers.

Bay of Pigs. A disaster by Kennedy that didn't involve nearly the complexity of a 9/11 operation, totally blown

Watergate, Nixon couldn't even hide 2 people stealing files yet our government is gonna pull off something involving 4 jetliners and 100's of people?

Get serious and look at the big picture. Alot of people get hung up on details and do not see the forest through the trees.


kro, the cfr even said it themselves that nothing short of a new pearl harbor attack would help them bring their plans about as expediently as they wanted....that's the guys on your side saying that, the cfr is not on the truther's side....



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by ANOK
 


1. Floors weren't "ejected"

2. This 50% idea is both factually inaccurate and silly. The floors above only crush the floors below one floor at a time. If you don't understand why I'm saying that it's pretty obvious why you don't "get" the physics behind the tower collapses.

3. You can disagree all you want. Learn about demos and why they look like a building "falling into a hole". In addition to that, you're belief that the building never should have been at free-fall is utter BS. I imagine you're just parroting that from another truther. Once the debris above had the mass to crush the floor below and the floors below were significantly weakened by the progressively weakened skin of the building the collapse would OF COURSE hit free-fall speeds.

4. If you build your beliefs on something not based on evidence you are not being scientific or logical. Especially when you dismiss logical and sound explanations for illogical beliefs which you have no evidence to support.

5. You say buildings don't collapse that way w/o help. In fact, they had "help" in the form of a hey crashing into them and un-fought fires.

6. Man, your "understanding" of physics is laughable. There's a reason why only 1/10th of 1% of active architects and engineers sign onto this nonsense.

7. IF you don't get why I put that in, you're truly lost in this debate.


it's very easy to just reply with put downs instead of actual evidence isn't it? you're whole post is nothing but put downs





new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 32  33  34    36 >>

log in

join