The Problem with Most Non-Truthers.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
Of course, it's poison in the punch bowl. Most people know the no plane theory is a distraction, and so when OSers cite this as a legitimate theory they are only showing their ignorance.

Most people also know controlled demolition, explosives planted during construction, nanothermite paint, mininukes, secret replacement planes, remote controlled planes, voicemorphing phone calls, secret shootdowns, intentionally delaying shootdowns, multibillion dollar insurance scams, multitrillion dollar defense spending scams, dancing Mossad officers, and the symbolic recreation of renaissance artwork are distractions. Yet these are all put forward as legitimate theories. So when truthers cite these as legitimate theories, are they showing their ignorance?


Pentagon - unlikely that a large plane of any size crashed into it

Didn't you just say the no plane theory was a distraction?




posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by Cobaltic1978



Moot point and needs no mention here, the no plane crap is beyond a fringe belief, it's actually a planted disinfo honeypot to make it much easier for people like Hooper there to completely Pwn you, and rightfully so.



Not where the Pentagon is concerned.

Now the Towers, sure we all saw planes go in and I am sure the no planes scenario relating to this, is planted disinfo.

Hooper will never, I guess you meant, own me. Not when he keeps citing the 9/11 commision, NIST report and no video of a Plane hitting one of the most secure building in the U.S.

WTC7? Why even try to convince OSers with this? If they can't see this for themselves, then it really is like trying to flog a dead horse.
edit on 13/9/11 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 



I'd like Hooper to explain why the laws of physics didn't apply to 3 skyscrapers in New york city on 911.

They did apply, that however, does not mean that you understand how physics works.

Hell, I'll even give you the twins, but you've GOT to explain WTC7 and how the entire building came down, at once, into it's basement.

Again, this is another case of you asking someone to try and explain your misunderstandings. It did not come down all at once, it did not come down into its own basement.

You can watch the videos and clearly side the side of the building (right side in the video) come down from the bottom in a single piece.

Well, your wrong. No other way to put it.

no plane hit that building, so there's no structural damage to the steel core, and only limited fires as evidenced in countless videos as well as FDNY audio recordings.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
hoop instead of swatting away questions can you just explain the original story you believe in.

Just the simple physics of it please. That is what I am looking for here.


I am yet to find anybody capable of doing it



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by readytorevolt
hoop instead of swatting away questions can you just explain the original story you believe in.

Just the simple physics of it please. That is what I am looking for here.


I am yet to find anybody capable of doing it



Its Hooper.

I guess I see your problem right in your own question. "Simple" physics is one, the second is that you admit that no one has been able to explain it to you. Maybe the problem isn't with the person doing the explaining?

Do you really think that the physics is "simple"? What is your background in "phsyics"? BS? Masters? PhD? Are you an engineer?



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Ill try and ask this question giving you the least amount of fuel for avoidance.


can you explain the physics behind any of the 3 buildings that fell on 911?

if you cant just say no.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by readytorevolt
Ill try and ask this question giving you the least amount of fuel for avoidance.


can you explain the physics behind any of the 3 buildings that fell on 911?

if you cant just say no.


Yes, can you understand it? Have you read the NIST reports? In full?



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
in my experience, most people who are blind believers are cowards.

the reason they don't know the facts about it is because they are afraid to.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by readytorevolt
Ill try and ask this question giving you the least amount of fuel for avoidance.


can you explain the physics behind any of the 3 buildings that fell on 911?

if you cant just say no.


Yes


Then do it please? I know you like being on the side of shooting things down instead of explaining yourself but trying to get a straight answer out of you is getting annoying.

either you are willing to explain some of the physics behind your claims or you are of no use to this thread and I would appreciate if you found another one to pollute
edit on 13-9-2011 by readytorevolt because: .



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by readytorevolt
 


Like your clever little edit. I said yes, but can you understand it? Have you read the NIST reports?

The building was damaged by fire, explosion and mechanical impact. The structural elements that were compromised by these conditions were no longer capable of fulfilling thier full design function. The function shifted to elements that did not have the excess capacity. Those elements then failed. You can only remove so many elements from a structure and have the structure continue to work.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


What I'd like to see you explain, or any OS supporter, is the 'equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum laws' in context with your 'pancake collapse' hypothesis. That NIST rejected btw. Until you do you have not address the physics of the collapses.

Can you do that Hooper? No BS, just explain the physics using the known laws of motion.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



What I'd like to see you explain, or any OS supporter, is the 'equal opposite reaction, and conservation of momentum laws' in context with your 'pancake collapse' hypothesis. That NIST rejected btw. Until you do you have not address the physics of the collapses.

My pancake collapse theory?????? Where the hell did you get that. I've seen your posts here, you have yet to show that you understand enough about physics to understand an explanation. I know you can spell "conservation" and "opposite" but that does not mean you understand what they mean. Maybe that should be the goal here - lets all get a better understanding of your mental limitations before we move to more complex matters like explanations.

Can you do that Hooper? No BS, just explain the physics using the known laws of motion.

The building was at rest, it was acted upon by outside forces, therefore the building stayed in motion until it again was acted upon. The equal action and opposite action was the fracture of connected elements



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
The building was at rest, it was acted upon by outside forces, therefore the building stayed in motion until it again was acted upon. The equal action and opposite action was the fracture of connected elements


That is your explanation of the laws of motion?
And you have the nerve to tell 'truthers' that they do not understand the physics?

That is not an explanation of the equal opposite reaction and conservation of momentum laws, that I asked for.
All you've done is prove once again you do not understand those laws. You're not even close to explaining those laws, let alone in context.

Equal opposite reaction has nothing to do with the 'fracture of connected elements', who the hell would even say that? It is the law that says when two objects collide the forces felt by both objects is EQUAL, regardless of the velocity of either object. Which debunks the claim that the falling floors overcame the resistance because of its velocity, and dynamic loading. You ignore mass in your hypothesis, and the fact that mass is more important in this context than velocity, or dynamic loading. 15 floors has less mass than 95 floors, and when you apply the laws correctly 15 floors can not crush 95 floors.

Conservation of momentum means all objects with momentum want to continue that momentum. When two objects collide they both want to continue their momentum, equally (3rd law also comes into play here), the object with the most mass will lose less momentum than the lesser mass. So the larger mass will receive less damage than the lesser mass.

This is why the bug hitting the windshield of the buss question I keep asking is important, it proves that mass, not velocity, decides what receives the most damage.

Understand all that, and you can not fail to see that 15 floors can not crush 95 floors. Simple high school physics hooper.

edit on 9/13/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 



....15 floors can not crush 95 floors....


They didn't. That's not what happened on 9/11. Which is why trying to explain the "physics" of the reality if you don't even have the werewithal to grasp the concept of what happened is useless.

The 15 floors didn't crush the bottom floors. Until you understand that you can understand nothing.

As for your bug an windshield - what happens when the bug is travelling at 5000 fps? or 10000 fps? Maybe 20000 fps? Same reaction? Should be because according to you velocity doesn't matter - only mass.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
you are an avoidance pro.

and just like everybody else in your shoes you are either too lazy or too incapable to answer my question.


what a shocker.
edit on 13-9-2011 by readytorevolt because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

The 15 floors didn't crush the bottom floors. Until you understand that you can understand nothing.


So you have a difference hypothesis than pancake collapse now? Again for the floors to not be in the footprint stacked up post collapse means the floors were lost during the collapse, crushed, destroyed, deformed, whatever word you want to use. Floors being crushed on impact from mass is in accordance with physics, what is not is when the collapse continues despite the loss of mass and Ke.

We know the floors and the rest of the building was ejeced in a 360d arc around the towers footprints, FEMA confirmed this hooper and you know it...




As for your bug an windshield - what happens when the bug is travelling at 5000 fps? or 10000 fps? Maybe 20000 fps? Same reaction? Should be because according to you velocity doesn't matter - only mass.


The forces acting on both objects is the same, regardless of velocity. It's not according to me, it's according to the physics you obvioulsy fail to understand.

Regardless of how fast the bug moves, or the bus, the forces will still be the same, equal, on each colliding object. Velocity increases the forces on BOTH objects, not just the one moving. That is what you keep failing to understand.

The 3rd law states...


For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

Forces always come in pairs, equal and opposite in their reaction.

Why are you even arguing this, it is known fact hooper?

edit on 9/13/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
No idea, I found it while looking at impossible collapse videos.
I thought it was a good "example" of showing what SHOULD have happened to at least tower 1. It's not meant to be an exact example, just to point out that the buildings were built strong, and the floors below would have stopped the above floors from falling "all the way to the ground", which is ridiculous.


Therein lies the problem. There is no way that could have happened unless the towers were built like blocks. We're talking about a significant amount of mass falling down, and once it finishes reacting with the floors below, you have a significantly larger weight pressing down on the lower tower. The open floors and horizontal core beams were not designed for such sudden extreme weight, so they continued to collapse until they found a stronger resistance (the ground).

Remember that the towers were not solid blocks. They were connected trusses and beams and thin layers of concrete and flooring.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Um, you may be interested in reading about Kinetic Energy:

en.wikipedia.org...


In classical mechanics, the kinetic energy of a non-rotating object of mass m traveling at a speed v is mv2/2. In relativistic mechanics, this is only a good approximation when v is much less than the speed of light.


Mass times velocity-squared divided by two. That means that as velocity increases, your Kinetic Energy increases, which is why if a martial artist hits a piece of wood slowly, nothing will happen, but if he hits it very fast, it will break in half.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Originally posted by filosophia
Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by filosophia
 




Pentagon - unlikely that a large plane of any size crashed into it, most likely a missile, so no plane there


Then how do you explain (away) the eyewitnesses (at least 1 dozen) who *watched* the jet liner impact the building?
edit on 13-9-2011 by userid1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
and hoop is gone. not surprising in the least.





new topics
 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join