It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Enough with the dishonest behaviour Truthers - I'm calling you out.

page: 38
60
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Liejunkie has been reading up on Newton's Laws.

I will soon have a Physics challenge with Bones and Anok.

This has got to stop. What I am reading and what them two are saying do not colesce too well.

Newton's third Law does not explain everything guys.

What about the second law? We can calculate the amount of force, velocity, and mass. Something that Lj01 is about to spend some time on when I get the time......

I actually have been reading and I have been noticing things, things that I will make a thread about so all the time and effort does not get lost in this thread


I suggest if anybody else wants the truth to read up on Newton's Laws because it ain't jive'n with what I have been reading around here.....

The popularity contest means nothing when it comes to brain juice.
edit on 16-9-2011 by liejunkie01 because: I took out "of physics". Did'nt go there




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

You're more than welcome! Just in case the readers are interested here is the entire un-cherry picked statement:

www.enfp.umd.edu...





Yes, people should read that. It will not inspire confidence that NIST knew what it was doing or proceeded logically.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Elbereth

Originally posted by hooper

You're more than welcome! Just in case the readers are interested here is the entire un-cherry picked statement:

www.enfp.umd.edu...


Yes, people should read that. It will not inspire confidence that NIST knew what it was doing or proceeded logically.


Actually, I think it will inspire confidence in the notion that these are professional people too busy and too knowledgeable to be chasing around conspiracy fantasies.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Actually, I think it will inspire confidence in the notion that these are professional people too busy and too knowledgeable to be chasing around conspiracy fantasies.




That the NIST failed in its mandate is no conspiracy fantasy and the best argument I know for a new investigation.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I forgot to add that I think alot of the dust that everybody says is all concrete is actually a good amount of sheetrock(drywall) dust. Everybody always forgets about the carpenters.


Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core.

www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm
I did check that with a couple of other informational sites.

That is just in the elevator shaft. How many elevators were there? How many rooms were there in them towers? Wow I bet that is alot of drywall.

People want to argue this and that..............But all and all it comes down to how the buildings were constructed....really constructed not just I beams and trusses.............

Like I said everybody always forgets about the capenters.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I think that's irrational...of course it wouldn't be every ticketing agent...actually, with computers, it wouldn't have to be any. Just as any "glitch" would occur without any need for supervision, a purposeful change in a computer file would require no more knowledge than the party conducting the change, especially with back doors in the internet.

I'm just saying that while you might not agree, it's a bit of a logical fallacy to sarcastically snowball into assuming that all of AA and their ticketing agents are also involved.

Keep in mind, my comments are not really about the whole 9/11 business, rather your manner of debunking them. I mean, I'll give ya that it's a debate and all and so I suppose anything goes. However, you logic is stretching it a bit - generalizing what does not need to be generalized in order for the fact to be plausible. In effect, I'm saying you are not really debunking what he said.

Example:
Statement of conspiracy: There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
Attempt to debunk: The report on yellow cake from Nigeria - are you saying all Nigerians were in on the conspiracy to invade Iraq?[i/]



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by spw184
 



Plenty of paper items survive an airliner accident. IIan Ramon's notebook survived the break-up of Space Shuttle Columbia....it was singed, but many of the pages were still readable.


How is the shuttle breaking up into pieces under its own malfunction in unobstructed atmosphere analogous to a jet airliner hitting all that concrete and steel? Also, how is the interior and exterior construction of a shuttle analogous to that of a jet airplane? Is there aluminum on the front of the shuttle? What about the ceramics on the shuttle?

How do all of these differences affect a posited shared outcome between the two vis-a-vis impact, break-up, combustion, and explosion?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Elbereth
 



That the NIST failed in its mandate is no conspiracy fantasy and the best argument I know for a new investigation.


Sorry, the idea that there is a professionally conducted disagreement is not evidence of "mandate failure" and does not require any new investigations. Knowledgeable professionals, will, from time to time disagree. This is not evidence of a conspiracy, but real evidence of appropriate conduct.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sphota
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I think that's irrational...of course it wouldn't be every ticketing agent...actually, with computers, it wouldn't have to be any. Just as any "glitch" would occur without any need for supervision, a purposeful change in a computer file would require no more knowledge than the party conducting the change, especially with back doors in the internet.

I'm just saying that while you might not agree, it's a bit of a logical fallacy to sarcastically snowball into assuming that all of AA and their ticketing agents are also involved.

Keep in mind, my comments are not really about the whole 9/11 business, rather your manner of debunking them. I mean, I'll give ya that it's a debate and all and so I suppose anything goes. However, you logic is stretching it a bit - generalizing what does not need to be generalized in order for the fact to be plausible. In effect, I'm saying you are not really debunking what he said.

Example:
Statement of conspiracy: There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
Attempt to debunk: The report on yellow cake from Nigeria - are you saying all Nigerians were in on the conspiracy to invade Iraq?[i/]


These guys had passports and as such would have to present them, and I never said all ticket agents, that was a rhetorical statement to the person I was responding to. But Atta never left the airport once he got to Boston, so he was there to board AA 11.

Tickets are always given to the agent just before boarding. So if it was a theory that he was not even on the plane to begin with, I mean a plane they say never even existed, then there was no ticket agent at the gate. Those gates have real people and not computers. When you are walking on the walkway to the get on the plane, a person takes your ticket to verify you should be on that plane.

So the rhetorical statement was, if this was not a real plane that hit the building, then the boarding agent was not real either. I wanted to know if they believe that since this is a government conspiracy, then that boarding agent would be in on it. How do 4 commercial airliners that can be verified to have flown away from their airports, suddenly not exist at all? That means the airport security would have been involved, American Airlines would be involved and every person that loaded luggage and refueled the jets would be involved. Either these planes existed or they did not. If they did, then the coverup involves those who made the planes disappear, and if the government did it, then American Airlines would also be involved. I really don't think American Airlines would cause 4 planes to disappear.

But that is the stretching imagination of the theories. No planes means 4 planes either never existed or they disappeared somewhere on the way. And who had the last control of the 4 non planes before they left the airports? American Airlines. So the conspiracy would naturally include employees of the airports.

I mean it is kind of hard to refuel a plane that does not exist, and all planes are refueled before take-off. If they want to take this as deep as they can, they have to take into account all the different variables. So they say no planes, then what happened to 4 commercial planes that took off from their airports? We should not forget that two were United Airlines and two were American Airlines. And Atta was checked through the computer system in Portland Maine.
edit on 9/16/2011 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Great post, I supposed I shouldn't have created my threads on such considering you've just pointed it all out in a much better way.

''Truthers'' Definition - To pass on lies and misinformation and call it evidence.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Elbereth
 



That the NIST failed in its mandate is no conspiracy fantasy and the best argument I know for a new investigation.


Sorry, the idea that there is a professionally conducted disagreement is not evidence of "mandate failure" and does not require any new investigations. Knowledgeable professionals, will, from time to time disagree. This is not evidence of a conspiracy, but real evidence of appropriate conduct.


That's how I see it because NIST failed to definitively establish causation.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
On a side note, this is the British version of the airplane that policemen stormed the plane just this past week...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

So these people were trying to get into the mile high club? Never, when you are flying to Detroit.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek

I love this one:
screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

Richard Gage Opposed to NIST Safety Regulations
Usually I just make fun of these idiots, but the recent debate between Richard Gage and Chris Mohr shows just how scary these people can be. I suppose we should be thankful that Gage is now a full time nutter and not an actual working architect anymore. Based just on this exchange regarding the NIST World Trade Center 7 report, he should have his license pulled. From around 1:52 into the debate.

Mohr: Do you also oppose the fire and safety regulations that NIST has proposed in these reports?

Host: Well we have one minute now for Richard to discuss that, perhaps Richard would like to…

Gage: In fact I do, there are billions of dollars that are spent needlessly as a result of the recommendations that NIST forced, that were forced on several other building codes.

Mohr: That would scare me.

Gage: It is needless, and architects and engineers, 1400 of us are crying for a new investigation.


---------------------------------

It is clear to me that the AIA agrees with Gage.

76,000 member AIA’s written testimony for the House Science Committee's hearing on NIST's Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse:

The World Trade Center collapse provided the design and construction industry with an opportunity to evaluate and reexamine its processes and practices. Based upon the outstanding success of these buildings under extraordinary circumstances, it is clear that the design community can be trusted to create redundancies for typical building emergency situations, that codes are developed in a manner that provides sufficient input from all quarters to ensure adequate life safety for typical emergency situations, and that no upgrading of code requirements is warranted given the performance of these buildings.
my bolding



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Sphota
 


The point is, some people have problems accepting that paper/cardboard items can survive an airliner accident. Columbia was mentioned because similar items survived being exposed to fire much longer and still survived.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Sphota
 


The point is, some people have problems accepting that paper/cardboard items can survive an airliner accident. Columbia was mentioned because similar items survived being exposed to fire much longer and still survived.


And in the FL 1771 crash, the guy that caused the crash - a disgruntled employee - wrote down his suicide note on a barf bag, and it was also found intact in the debris.

It is of note that 1771 was also flown into the ground at high speed and resulted in comments from searchers like those from Shanksville.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
Liejunkie has been reading up on Newton's Laws.

I will soon have a Physics challenge with Bones and Anok.

This has got to stop. What I am reading and what them two are saying do not colesce too well.

Newton's third Law does not explain everything guys.


Actually the three laws of motion do...


These three laws form the foundation of what is known as classical mechanics, or­ the science concerned with the motion of bodies being acted upon by forces. The bodies in motion could be large objects, such as orbiting moons or planets, or they could be ordinary objects on Earth's surface, such as moving vehicles or s­peeding bullets. Even bodies at rest are fair game..

science.howstuffworks.com...

Those three laws are all you need to describe the action of bodies and their motion. You have to understand all three laws but the important one for collisions, collapses, is the 3rd law that explains equal and opposite reaction, and what happens when objects collide.


What about the second law? We can calculate the amount of force, velocity, and mass. Something that Lj01 is about to spend some time on when I get the time......


The 2nd law does not contradict the 3rd law, they all work together. The 2nd law explain the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration. You have to consider the 3rd law in context. The 3rd law states that when two objects collide the forces on both objects is EQUAL, which is why 15 floors can not crush 95 floors. An increase of mass, or velocity, of one object increases the forces felt by BOTH objects, again equally.

The fact that you are confused over this is why you can't see a problem with the NIST explanation of the collapses. I know it's hard to get your head around, and just reading about it on line might not help you understand what you're reading.

Do they not teach this stuff in high school any more?



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

The fact that you are confused over this is why you can't see a problem with the NIST explanation of the collapses.


NIST didn't really investigate the collapse progression, so there's nothing solid for you to dispute there.They only investigated the collapse initiation, correct? It's a common criticism of truthers that they didn't, so it's not debatable.

You can dispute Bazant's paper if you like, and the myriad examples of papers examining the energetics/momentum transfer involved though.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
How hard is it not to believe that they've found passports of the terrorists. Its obvious if a plane crashes into a building, things will fall out of the plane.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


wow sad thing when your just reading up on them now....and you actually think that newtons laws of physics are going to change to suit your needs...amazing....

get reading...but to come in and say your going to read up on them....and then try and teach people the laws of physics....and your an OSer oh lord helps us all.

I can't wait till you make a thread and it gets destroyed....

here i will help you out a bit...

An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force. An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
This law is often called
"the law of inertia".

So lets see...the towers and buliding 7....ahhhh at rest all is soooo peaceful

Acceleration is produced when a force acts on a mass. The greater the mass (of the object being accelerated) the greater the amount of force needed (to accelerate the object).

hmmm now there is a disturbance in the force....they are no longer at rest....they are being...accelerated....

9.8m/s2 what is this accelerating force....none other than gravity.

For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.

well lets see...equal and opposite ....now ...hmmm...what thell has happened....the physics is all messed up now....how can this be.....this is madness....

upper block apparently fall...hits lower block...which is of far greater mass....SMASH....but all is not right...the equal and opposite reaction does not occur....the lower block does not appear to having an equal and opposite reaction with the upper block...where is all the resistance....the world has gone mad...absolutely mad.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube

upper block apparently fall...hits lower block..


No. It hits a floor. The inertia/momentum can be transferred to the columns, but only as much as the connections from the floors to the columns can transfer.




top topics



 
60
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join