911 The facts and the proof only.

reply to post by randyvs


Evidently "be nice" must mean something different to him than it does to me...alot like "be logical".

reply to post by Yankee451


Hey those are interesting. Gimme some time, I'm sure some of those can be added.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by randyvs

 

Evidently "be nice" must mean something different to him than it does to me...alot like "be logical".

Naw.

We disagree. It's unlikely that we'll find common ground but I still respect your opinion and think well of you.

You won't convince me, I'm not going to even try to convince you, so there it is. But I harbor no ill-will toward you.

reply to post by tangonine

You won't convince me

You don't say.

None so blind as those who will not see

Source

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by tangonine

 

You won't convince me

You don't say.

None so blind as those who will not see

Source

You do realize that you won't convince me? I know how it went down, I know who the players were.

and yes, I do say.

reply to post by tangonine


I do realize that, I just wanted to make sure readers did too.

It doesn't matter how good the evidence is for some people, they will not be convinced, therefore there's no need to look at anything that doesn't already agree with them.

I get that, and I get why. I don't have to like it.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by tangonine

 

I do realize that, I just wanted to make sure readers did too.

It doesn't matter how good the evidence is for some people, they will not be convinced, therefore there's no need to look at anything that doesn't already agree with them.

I get that, and I get why. I don't have to like it.

Don't get me wrong, I've read what you posted, I've looked for myself. I just came to a different conclusion than you did.

We've both been in enough of these types of discussions to know that convincing someone on a message board who holds a belief that runs at 90 degrees to your own is futile.

I know al queda brought down the towers, I know that plane hit the pentagon. I'm not going to waste yours and my time telling you facts about what I know because of the jobs I've held and the things I've seen: you wouldn't believe them and to you I'm just some dude on the internet that disagrees with you.

I respect your research, I think it's good that you care enough to dig. Most people don't or they just parrot what they've heard. I think you're wrong, and I think you're misled. You probably think the same of me.

It's all good. This country needs more people like you that don't just accept what they're told. You got this one wrong, in my opinion, but your heart is in the right place.

So far the facts are . Update

1.The core columns were compromised.

2. No images or photo's can be trusted, do to technological advancements, that are common knowledge. Without any mention, of those advancements that are not common knowledge.

3. The demolition of the twin towers had been previously planned in the late 80's. (yank)

So far we have these three and I'm hoping the OS peeps will at least make an effort. I would like to be able to show I can be unbiased no matter what I believe. Right now this is making me look prejudice.

Excellent Yank. That is a significant lil tidbit. I thank you .

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by tangonine

 

I do realize that, I just wanted to make sure readers did too.

It doesn't matter how good the evidence is for some people, they will not be convinced, therefore there's no need to look at anything that doesn't already agree with them.

I get that, and I get why. I don't have to like it.

You mean, like the evidence that when you suddenly drop a giant chunk of a building that weighs thousands of tons down onto the rest of the building, the remaining portion can't absorb the impact and a cascading failure occurs? You mean evidence like that? Evidence that every kid has experienced by the time he's two, with building blocks? lol

Yeah, I agree... It obviously doesn't matter how good the evidence is.

reply to post by dpd11

You said
[You mean, like the evidence that when you suddenly drop a giant chunk of a building that weighs thousands of tons down onto the rest of the building, the remaining portion can't absorb the impact and a cascading failure occurs? You mean evidence like that? Evidence that every kid has experienced by the time he's two, with building blocks? lol

Yeah, I agree... It obviously doesn't matter how good the evidence is.]

I can't put this up as a fact with out getting laughed off of ATS.

Can you restructure the wording or maybe? IDK.

Originally posted by dpd11
You mean, like the evidence that when you suddenly drop a giant chunk of a building that weighs thousands of tons down onto the rest of the building, the remaining portion can't absorb the impact and a cascading failure occurs? You mean evidence like that? Evidence that every kid has experienced by the time he's two, with building blocks? lol

Yeah, I agree... It obviously doesn't matter how good the evidence is.

That isn't evidence, it's a baseless assumption.

If you drop building blocks on building blocks they don't crush themselves into oblivion.

That 'giant chunk of a building' had an even more giant chunk of building underneath it. 95 is a 'huger' chunk than 15. Equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws prove that it could not completely collapse, something that every kid learns once they take classes in basic physics, and progress beyond 'building blocks'.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by dpd11
You mean, like the evidence that when you suddenly drop a giant chunk of a building that weighs thousands of tons down onto the rest of the building, the remaining portion can't absorb the impact and a cascading failure occurs? You mean evidence like that? Evidence that every kid has experienced by the time he's two, with building blocks? lol

Yeah, I agree... It obviously doesn't matter how good the evidence is.

That isn't evidence, it's a baseless assumption.

If you drop building blocks on building blocks they don't crush themselves into oblivion.

That 'giant chunk of a building' had an even more giant chunk of building underneath it. 95 is a 'huger' chunk than 15. Equal opposite reaction, and momentum conservation laws prove that it could not completely collapse, something that every kid learns once they take classes in basic physics, and progress beyond 'building blocks'.

F=MA

reply to post by ANOK


Would it be needless to say, I'm not going to post it. Can you give me a link. I may have to update again.

reply to post by ANOK


I must say Anok, you are far more patient than I am.

I get frustrated trying to explain the physics...seems so obvious to me...GAAA! I'm sure plenty of folks think the same of me.

The physics doesn't lie, but apparently plenty of physicists do.

You're a trooper though, gotta hand it to you.

The OSers can't even show proof of an airplane tire/wheel ? Anything ? Anything at all to show some proof that at least some part of the OS is factual ? Are we looking at a total skunk here ?

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by ANOK

 

I must say Anok, you are far more patient than I am.

I get frustrated trying to explain the physics...seems so obvious to me...GAAA! I'm sure plenty of folks think the same of me.

The physics doesn't lie, but apparently plenty of physicists do.

You're a trooper though, gotta hand it to you.

I'm a physicist. I don't lie! I'm just stubborn.
as a side note a BS in physics qualifies you to done thing: get a graduate degree. After 4 years of undergrad work we were still assuming horse is a sphere.

So I got my masters in engineering and still realized I don't know crap.

Education is necessary, but it's disappointing.

Originally posted by tangonine

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by ANOK

 

I must say Anok, you are far more patient than I am.

I get frustrated trying to explain the physics...seems so obvious to me...GAAA! I'm sure plenty of folks think the same of me.

The physics doesn't lie, but apparently plenty of physicists do.

You're a trooper though, gotta hand it to you.

I'm a physicist. I don't lie! I'm just stubborn.

Well that is a fact. Now can you find me one that pertains to the list Tango. Please.

Originally posted by tangonine
F=MA

That is the 2nd law of motion, what is your point?

All that means is the acceleration of an object is dependent on the mass of the object, and the forces acting on it.

But you can't take the 2nd law and ignore the 3rd law, equal and opposite reaction.

The only force acting to cause the top to drop was gravity according to the OS. The acceleration was minimal, and would not cause the force to increase enough to overcome the massive resistance of undamaged structure.

You still have 15 floors falling on 95 floors. Even IF those 15 floors suddenly weighed the same as 30 floors, the collapse would still not be complete. IF those 15 floors stayed as one block crushing 95 floors, what crushed the 15 floors? Did 14 floors crush one floor, then 13 floors crush the next floor until they were all gone lol?

The sad thing is this is so easily proven, take any solid object, like steel pans and concrete slabs, and try to get a lesser amount to crush a larger amount by simply dropping them. You can't do it. Physics is physics, and the laws do not change because it was WTC buildings.

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by tangonine

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by ANOK

 

I must say Anok, you are far more patient than I am.

I get frustrated trying to explain the physics...seems so obvious to me...GAAA! I'm sure plenty of folks think the same of me.

The physics doesn't lie, but apparently plenty of physicists do.

You're a trooper though, gotta hand it to you.

I'm a physicist. I don't lie! I'm just stubborn.

Well that is a fact. Now can you find me one that pertains to the list Tango. Please.

Sure. Your #2. It reeks of a massive media conspiracy that doesn't exist. You think every news network on the planet and all the private video of the attacks was a hoax? please.

You do realize that would involve thousands, hundreds of thousands, of people?

Silliness.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by tangonine
F=MA

That is the 2nd law of motion, what is your point?

All that means is the acceleration of an object is dependent on the mass of the object, and the forces acting on it.

But you can't take the 2nd law and ignore the 3rd law, equal and opposite reaction.

The only force acting to cause the top to drop was gravity according to the OS. The acceleration was minimal, and would not cause the force to increase enough to overcome the massive resistance of undamaged structure.

You still have 15 floors falling on 95 floors. Even IF those 15 floors suddenly weighed the same as 30 floors, the collapse would still not be complete. IF those 15 floors stayed as one block crushing 95 floors, what crushed the 15 blocks? Did 14 floors crush one floor, then 13 floors crush the next floor until they were all gone lol?

The sad thing is this is so easily proven, take any solid object, like steel pans and concrete slabs, and try to get a lesser amount to crush a larger amount by simply dropping them. You can't do it. Physics is physics, and the laws do not change because it was WTC buildings.

the downward acceleration was 9.8 m/s. What's the mass of 10 stories of concrete?