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

page: 45
60
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
to keep rehashing theories has the people chasing tales.

To keep posting this BS about demanding peer review is more smoke up asses when the entire premise of peer review is utilizing peers that work for grants that would be revoked if they went against the grain so lets even avoid going down that route of fables and instead focus on undisputed facts., The evidence itself has shown the first tower going down and it is the manner of it that raises eyebrows not the "peer reviewed" accounting for it.

In short lets put it this way... in order for the pancake collapse to work a theory is put forth that the heat weakened the supporting braces of the floor and it gave, crashing into the floor below it which in turn kept to the rules of physics, an object in motion tends to stay in motion.

It also is implying an object at rest tends to stay at rest until an external force is applied to it and it is in this initial application of force that the entire issue lives. Lets expound on that initiation cycle then.

By the OS once pancake collapse started it cascaded down the entire tower, but this is highly suspect and is ignoring simple logic. The first tower to go down was hit a glancing blow by the plane and it had even started to topple. That is an important point to consider because it didn't
continue to topple over sideways, it fell back into itself and brought the rest of the tower down. It had to in order to fit the pancake theory. OK, logic dictates that for it to fall uniformly all the supports have to give at the same time otherwise the tower wouldn't come straight down nor would the combined energy of the "collapse" have the energy to bring the next floor out evenly and so on all the way down. That force was absent by observation alone since the plane didn't slice all the core columns and the fireball being on the outside of one side of the building only attests to that simple fact.

And yet there are people who would have us believe that we shouldn't believe our eyes and suspend all common sense so we can accept the pancaking of 3000 souls?

There is more than evil at work here, more than denial. What is evident here is that these criminals (and count yourself as one if you hide their crime) will stop at nothing to attain their goals. The motive was money, always has been, always will be. The modalities is a moot point that is only raised by gatekeepers who always need to steer credibility away from truth.

The truth here is there was foreknowledge of an impending attack... by years. The truth is the attack was capitalized upon to make money by numerous criminal acts, stock puts (insider trading) insurance fraud, Investment fraud and opportunity to coverup pending investigations by destroying records, creation of perpetual war that can never be won because there is never a defined enemy and never an end to the prosecutable and the damning evidence in all of this isn't even the events of that day although those events to anyone of logic is apparent.

No, the damning evidence is the subsequent actions taken in order to keep the lie alive and I again point out that the silence in explaining the damning evidence speaks volumes about where the truth is. You all know what that evidence is, I had posted it a few times and have yet to even be responded to... in truth there can be no response because the truth can't be explained away it is always the lies that need explaining so lets ask this again, explain why there is a need to lie if the truth is so blatantly obvious?

What is blatant is the perpetual attempt at keeping the lie viable. 911 was a cluster fail for several reasons. There was a track record, there was observation by other than the controlled media, there was miscued timing and unfortunate hastening of the plan due to the first tower needing to be brought down otherwise the top third of the building would have fallen off the remainder of the tower and that didn't fit the demolition plan. It also was hastened because the fires were subsiding and even the people waving through the hole in the building refute the heat weakening the floor.

How can a floor bracing totally collapse when only a section "supposedly" got weakened? Logic would dictate that the weakened part (and that is not agreeing with the pancake theory merely carrying that conjecture through to logical collapse) would fail before the unaffected part and yet it was so neat and uniform the observed failure was nothing like a section failing at a time.

again...


Google Video Link


why the need to lie if all was as the Official "theory" postulated?

Because it is all a lie and any attempt to negate truth is nothing short of evil when we are talking about murder. Every death then and since is on your hands too if you bear false witness. You may have beaten the law of man but a higher authority is coming and nothing is hidden.

I have Faith in truth and justice prevailing




posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


I have faith also. I am a Christian believer and trust what I saw on that day. What I saw was airplanes hitting the WTC. I believe the people who called their loved ones from the planes to say good-bye and even to pray with their loved ones shows me the faith they also had. The Jewish men who called their wives to give them "gets" so that according to their Jewish faith allowed the wives to remarry.

In one 911 call, a lady was about to die and the operator could not comfort her and just told her to say her prayers. There were calls made where the 911 operators were actually praying with those on the airplanes. I do not think that a person at the moment of their death would find any reason to lie about something like that. If we call them liars we have denied their relationship to the very Lord and Savior that you and I seem to call upon in our prayers. That is false witness.

Matthew 12:42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

This generation will be judged. When we stand before the Great White Throne to be held accountable for every thought and every word, how we reacted and spoke about 9/11 will be held accountable. If we have truly believed a lie, it will be required of us. That is why I do not call the witnesses of the airplanes and the hijackings to be liars because they met God with their faith spoken from their mouths.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube

the NIST report even says the fires did not get more than 600c in their own testing.

and the fires that appraoched 1000c was in a localized area which to me says it would not lead to global collapse.


Allow me to lend a brother a hand...


In general, steel retains strength and stiffness approximately equal to 50 percent of its strength and stiffness at ambient conditions at a temperature of 1,100 °F (593 °C).This is comparable to the strength and stiffness reductions for ordinary concrete. At 1,300 °F (704 °C), steel retains about 20 percent strength and stiffness. A near-total depletion of strength occurs at approximately 2,200 °F (1,204 °C)...

It can be said with confidence that structural steel does not melt in building fires, although such possibility is theoretically possible for certain conditions (comparable to melting furnace conditions). Building fires simply do not generate steel melting temperatures that are around 2,700 °F
(1,500 °C).




and



AISC Facts for Steel Buildings Sec.2 FIRE RESISTANCE OF STEEL SYSTEMS





These should help.... Posted for posterity











NIST NCSTAR-1

Next up, calcing out the stress redistribution from the P-Δ effect at the columns


Looks like you'll get a chance to show off those deriviative calculation skills after all...





but i will address your issues shortly....I must say you at least are one of the most sincere OSer's by presenting well with great information...and it is a pleasure to read through it.


Take your time, I am enjoying our exchange as well.

There may be hope yet...



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   

reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 
Lastly we have...



An perfectly inelastic collision between equal mass in 1 dimension demonstrating both conservation of total momentum and kinetic energy associated with some energy loss.

Look familiar yet?


Oh noes.....

You're gonna totally confuse the poor darlings with this. They're gonna look at this and say, " look at the evidence you provided for us !! This proves that the collapse should have decelerrated !!! Nyah nyah nyah !! Eleventy !!!11!!111!!!

But of course, those of us that actually understand physics will recognize that gravity isn't represented in that gif, and will just be amused by truther responses.

You're a big meanie......

edit on 15-10-2011 by Joey Canoli because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


Next up, calcing out the stress redistribution from the P-Δ effect at the columns


Actually, high temps aren't even necessary for the columns to fail.

From bazant's 2008 paper:

sites.google.com...

"Therefore, to decide whether the gravity-driven progressive collapse is the correct explanation,
the temperature level alone is irrelevant (Baˇzant and Le 2008). It is meaningless and a
waste of time to argue about it without calculating the stresses in columns. For low stress,
high temperature is necessary to cause collapse, but for high enough stress, even a modestly
elevated temperature will cause it."

So yeah, it is indeed necessary to determine load redistribution on the columns too.

And therein lies the answer to why 2 collapsed first: it was hit off center and resulted in columns in the fire region being closer to their failure load immediately after the impacts. NOT that it supported a heavier load....



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 
Lastly we have...



An perfectly inelastic collision between equal mass in 1 dimension demonstrating both conservation of total momentum and kinetic energy associated with some energy loss.

Look familiar yet?


Oh noes.....

You're gonna totally confuse the poor darlings with this. They're gonna look at this and say, " look at the evidence you provided for us !! This proves that the collapse should have decelerrated !!! Nyah nyah nyah !! Eleventy !!!11!!111!!!

But of course, those of us that actually understand physics will recognize that gravity isn't represented in that gif, and will just be amused by truther responses.



I'd like to see some truthers use this gif to show that they actually understand the laws of motion.

I want them to pint out where the equations given take into account that the equal and opposite law is represented here.

Failure to do so is proof that they do not understand to what they speak....



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


For one thing....just because you show this Gif again thinking it somehow represents anything to do with the collapse of the towers shows your ignorance again....and you do not show a source for the gif.....shame.

but besides your trying to lie again which your calling us truthers out on shows who is the deceiving force here yet again does it not.

that is a perfect inelastic collision...LISTEN TO THIS....in a perfect world in a vacuum ....NO friction involved either.....you see the two grey squares i aassume that is a connection point being represented...where the ststem joins and continues in the same motion......hmmmmmmm.

yup sure does represent what we are discussing.....NOT

here lets simplify yet again shall we instead of baffling with BS......

Consider the inelastic collision between the two freight cars shown here. The momentum before and after the collision is the same. The KE, however, is less after the collision than before the collision. How much less, and what has become of this energy?
Remember that the two freight cars have the same mass, which we'll represent as m. The initial kinetic energy is that of the single freight car moving at v = 10 (no units are given, so we won't worry about units):

½ × m × 102 = 50m. (The momentum is 10m.)

After the collision, the momentum of the total system is the same 10m, but since the moving cars now mass 2m, the final velocity is 5. The kinetic energy is found using these values:

½ × 2m × 52 = 25m,

or only half the kinetic energy before the collision!!!

What has become of this energy? It has been "dissipated" by the shock of collision, for example in the jolt and rattling experienced by the cars.



source

Inelastic collision:- The collision in which kinetic energy of the system is not conserved but momentum conserves, then that collision is known as inelastic collision.



In the case of inelastic collision only momentum of the system is conserved and kinetic energy of the system is not conserved.

Ex: Collision of a bullet with a block of wood.

One dimensional elastic collision:-Before and after collision, if the velocities of the bodies involved in collision are along the same straight line, then such collisions are known as one dimensional collision.

Coefficient of restitution: It is defined as ratio of relative velocity of separation (v2-v1) after the collision to the relative velocity of approach (u1 –u2) before collision. It is represented by the symbol “e”.

source

As you can see....who is not able to understand what is being stated.....but is simpler terms than going to wiki-pedia and just grabbing a GIF.......and saying this is so.....these are examples of physics in the simplist of terms....NOT ONE of my examples or yours are taking friction of the real world into account.....they are to show conservation of momentum laws....but they are not showing the energy tranfers and the loss of energy during the collisons....

thanks for your failed analysis again Joey Canolli......why not start speaking truthfully instead of trying to lie to people in a thread where the truthers are the ones that are apparently being called out...the reason no one bothered to answer you on this question is because it was so easy to show how it completely and utterly fails.

The whole collapse senario in the towers is about the amount of energy required to bring down the towers...the energy require to cause complete global failure.....thank you for trying though Joey.....but you keep on stumbling over yourself with your own belief in the OS as complete truth.
edit on 013030p://f33Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


For one thing....just because you show this Gif again thinking it somehow represents anything to do with the collapse of the towers shows your ignorance again....and you do not show a source for the gif.....shame.

but besides your trying to lie again which your calling us truthers out on shows who is the deceiving force here yet again does it not.

that is a perfect inelastic collision...LISTEN TO THIS....in a perfect world in a vacuum ....NO friction involved either.....you see the two grey squares i aassume that is a connection point being represented...where the ststem joins and continues in the same motion......hmmmmmmm.

yup sure does represent what we are discussing.....NOT

here lets simplify yet again shall we instead of baffling with BS......

Consider the inelastic collision between the two freight cars shown here. The momentum before and after the collision is the same. The KE, however, is less after the collision than before the collision. How much less, and what has become of this energy?
Remember that the two freight cars have the same mass, which we'll represent as m. The initial kinetic energy is that of the single freight car moving at v = 10 (no units are given, so we won't worry about units):

½ × m × 102 = 50m. (The momentum is 10m.)

After the collision, the momentum of the total system is the same 10m, but since the moving cars now mass 2m, the final velocity is 5. The kinetic energy is found using these values:

½ × 2m × 52 = 25m,

or only half the kinetic energy before the collision!!!

What has become of this energy? It has been "dissipated" by the shock of collision, for example in the jolt and rattling experienced by the cars.



source

Inelastic collision:- The collision in which kinetic energy of the system is not conserved but momentum conserves, then that collision is known as inelastic collision.



In the case of inelastic collision only momentum of the system is conserved and kinetic energy of the system is not conserved.

Ex: Collision of a bullet with a block of wood.

One dimensional elastic collision:-Before and after collision, if the velocities of the bodies involved in collision are along the same straight line, then such collisions are known as one dimensional collision.

Coefficient of restitution: It is defined as ratio of relative velocity of separation (v2-v1) after the collision to the relative velocity of approach (u1 –u2) before collision. It is represented by the symbol “e”.

source

As you can see....who is not able to understand what is being stated.....but is simpler terms than going to wiki-pedia and just grabbing a GIF.......and saying this is so.....these are examples of physics in the simplist of terms....NOT ONE of my examples or yours are taking friction of the real world into account.....they are to show conservation of momentum laws....but they are not showing the energy tranfers and the loss of energy during the collisons....

thanks for your failed analysis again Joey Canolli......why not start speaking truthfully instead of trying to lie to people in a thread where the truthers are the ones that are apparently being called out...the reason no one bothered to answer you on this question is because it was so easy to show how it completely and utterly fails.

The whole collapse senario in the towers is about the amount of energy required to bring down the towers...the energy require to cause complete global failure.....thank you for trying though Joey.....but you keep on stumbling over yourself with your own belief in the OS as complete truth.
edit on 013030p://f33Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)


You guys still need to rotate the gifs 90 deg and ad in the force of gravity. Sorry but you neglected to mention that.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Wow i am answering to Joey about the gif he presented....and your coming in and making a statement like that....we are talking about a acting force upon an object....therefore object A has kinetic energy.

so i will translate for you shall i ....Object A the upper part of the tower...which has potential energy.....a floor is completely removed(According to Bazant) which is then accelerated by a force...Gravity....Object A now has Kinetic Energy.....Object A still being accelerated by the only force acting on it impacts object B not in one case....but in all three cases ...north tower Steel structure...South tower steel structure....building seven steel structure....now all three building have a different amount of Potenial energy which means they all have variable amounts of Kinetic energy(i would go into more depth of the amounts but wont)....but most work done on the towers was done concerning South tower...WHY? simple...because The OS would have to try it to be proved to be the case that brought the towers down all the way to the bottom as it had the least amount of potential energy and if it could not be proved in the one with the least amount of Potential energy then i would be disastrous for the OS......well it is disastrous for the OS as they struggle to prove there was sufficient Kinetic energy to progress the collapse to the bottom.

So we do not need to turn these example onto the side as we know all the forces involved....we can get a fairly close approximation of the mass of the 16floors from the south tower so we know the Potential energy to a reasonable degree and we know what Bazant has stated and so we know with a fair degree of accuracy the Kinetic energy....but the thing that is more problematic is if there was enough kinetic energy to bring the building all the way down......Well It has been shown there was an energy deficit by Gordon Ross and others that there is not....but the OSer's only believe what they are told by the Government and connot seem to wrap thier heads around there own thinking.

you can read his paper here

Gordon Ross

But I am sure you wont as it might mean turning your ideas on their side.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by plube
 


Just randomly scanning through the paper I did find one incorrect sentence.


The only source of energy which is available to the falling mass is potential energy and unless that energy is released by collapse of further columns the falling mass will come to a halt.


I have corrected the sentence below.

The only source of energy which is available to the falling mass is potential energy and unless that energy can be transmitted into the columns by the strength of the truss seat connections the falling mass will continue.

Would you like me to check for more mistakes ?


edit on 3-11-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne
I have corrected the sentence below.

The only source of energy which is available to the falling mass is potential energy and unless that energy can be transmitted into the columns by the strength of the truss seat connections the falling mass will continue.

Would you like me to check for more mistakes ?


LOL that's more wrong than the original. I fact it makes no sense at all.

You do realise that force would hit the floors before the connections right, so you have to show that the floors were more able to withstand that force more than all the connections. (not just one connection btw)

Do you know what pressure the floor connections could withstand before failure? Or the concrete, or steel pans?

Unless you do you can not make the claims you are.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

I fact it makes no sense at all.



Forces placed on the floors are transmitted into the columns through the truss seats.

Yes or No ?



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by anoncoholic
 


If I offered you money to shut up about 9/11 would you?

Just as a matter of interest.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Energy is transfered throughout the structure...including the seats....also in deforming the trusses themselves...the deformation of the aluminimum floor pans...the pulverisation of the concrete....not just the truss seat themselves alsoe the truss seats would not transfer great energy as they are there to suppot the floors themselves not the structure which is yet another reason why the destruction of the core columns and the exterior columns does not make sense.....The lack of energy.....and your statement previous so incredulous as to be unbelievable.....It must be you and joey starring each other as you both struggle to present logic through total BS.

No worries though...you can keep on trying .......it is all about Energy ...the ONLY acting force on the collapse if we are to believe the OS is....GRAVITY.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
the truss seats would not transfer great energy


BINGO !



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube

that is a perfect inelastic collision...

Consider the inelastic collision between the two freight cars shown here. The momentum before and after the collision is the same. The KE, however, is less after the collision than before the collision. How much less, and what has become of this energy?

What has become of this energy? It has been "dissipated" by the shock of collision, for example in the jolt and rattling experienced by the cars.


Exactly. The ke has been "lost" to deformations, sound, etc.

Now, a simple question: Does this accounting of lost ke satisfy the equal and opposite reaction law in physics?


As you can see....who is not able to understand what is being stated.....but is simpler terms than going to wiki-pedia and just grabbing a GIF.......and saying this is so.....these are examples of physics in the simplist of terms....NOT ONE of my examples or yours are taking friction of the real world into account.....they are to show conservation of momentum laws....but they are not showing the energy tranfers and the loss of energy during the collisons....


Here's the problem: horizontal collisions are where truther knowledge ends. These gifs are only a starting point to the understanding of the energy transfers that happened on 9/11. They ON:Y help one understand what happens at impact.

For they do not account for the simple fact that the events were vertical, not horizontal.

Like we've been saying, turn this gif on its side, and consider the fact that once the second freight car is set into motion, it no longer, as ANOK states, result in an accumulating mass that will provide increasing resistance. Rather, it will result an increasing mass that will provide increasing ke.

Every piece of steel, concrete,furniture, etc had PE as a result of it being in the air. That PE can only act with gravity - down.


The whole collapse senario in the towers is about the amount of energy required to bring down the towers


Yep.

And bazant gave a very simple analysis that used energy analysis to show that a progressive collapse was inevitable, even when we assume the impossibility of core and ext columns experiencing perfect end to end collisions/buckling.

He did THAT to demonstrate that even assuming a condition that "uses" the most amount of energy, the progressive collapse was inevitable.

Do you agree that his assumption and conditions would "use" the most energy?



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube

Object A the upper part of the tower...which has potential energy.....a floor is completely removed(According to Bazant) which is then accelerated by a force...Gravity....Object A now has Kinetic Energy....


So far so good......


now all three building have a different amount of Potenial energy


No.

Towers 1 and 2 had roughly equal PE since they were roughly equal. Remember, PE is determined when an object is at rest.

7 was definitely different.


which means they all have variable amounts of Kinetic energy(i would go into more depth of the amounts but wont)


The different ke during the first moments of drop is accounted for by the differing mass that drops. Simple to explain.


but most work done on the towers was done concerning South tower


Bassackwards brah.

When compared to 1, there is less work to be done cuz it starts lower.


WHY? simple...because The OS would have to try it to be proved to be the case that brought the towers down all the way to the bottom as it had the least amount of potential energy and if it could not be proved in the one with the least amount of Potential energy then i would be disastrous for the OS......well it is disastrous for the OS as they struggle to prove there was sufficient Kinetic energy to progress the collapse to the bottom.


What is this gibberish? Is this your version of scientific proof?


So we do not need to turn these example onto the side as we know all the forces involved


We don't NEED to, but it does show just where the retarded statement of how "the progressive collapse will result in an accumulating mass that will provide increasing resistance" - ANOK - comes from...


we can get a fairly close approximation of the mass of the 16floors from the south tower so we know the Potential energy to a reasonable degree and we know what Bazant has stated and so we know with a fair degree of accuracy the Kinetic energy


Yep.


but the thing that is more problematic is if there was enough kinetic energy to bring the building all the way down......Well It has been shown there was an energy deficit by Gordon Ross and others that there is not
you can read his paper here


If you believe that Ross's paper shows that the progressive collapse couldn't have happened, then you are definitely wrong.

Bazant, Ross, and that other paper you're talking about all assume the same condition - that all of the core and ext columns were buckled and crushed all the way to the ground. They are upper bound limiting cases. That means that through a certain set of assumptions, they are determining the maximum amount of energy that can be "used" during the collapse.

And since it is trivial to prove that not all of the columns were buckled, only one conclusion can be gained through Ross's paper, even if we ignore the errors in it and take his numbers to be true.

That the limiting case needs to be thrown out, and a study that attempts to take in observables such as: ext columns were not buckled, etc should be done. And since I reject Ross's paper as erroneous on several accounts, then i see no need for that further study. If YOU believe it to be true, then you may indeed do it, or talk to someone that has that ability, and get it done.

Have fun....



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Do you know what pressure the floor connections could withstand before failure? Or the concrete, or steel pans?



NIST makes a statement about just this.

They give the weight that the truss seats could support before they shear off, IIRC.

Would you accept this?



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube

alsoe the truss seats would not transfer great energy as they are there to suppot the floors themselves not the structure


BINGO!!!

LOL.....


which is yet another reason why the destruction of the core columns and the exterior columns does not make sense


Making this claim doesn't make sense, since this didn't happen.

Ext columns peeled away from the towers, looking pretty intact. So any damage was done to them on hitting the ground.

the "spire" core columns prove that few were destroyed by the faling mass, and thus didn't "use" much energy.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Gotta love to see the fairytalers talk alone. Good talking to the wall joey?
Those look like shameless bumps to me, dont you thing you should let it go? I mean, if its just a truther story, why bother?





new topics
top topics
 
60
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join