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.

 

"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

page: 35
17
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ANOK


You also forget to consider the potential energy of the bottom pushing up against the falling floors,


Potential energy pushing up ? This is what makes the Truth Movement so entertaining.

So in Truther World you can actually use the force of gravity to counteract the force of gravity. This has been scientifically proven, using Truther Math, in the Bob Sholtz equation:

(15x*9.8)-(90x*9.8) = -735

Truther Math + Truther Physics = Truther Entertainment

Seriously, is Truther World powered by perpetual motion machines ?


Nope.

Insanity, ignorance, trolling, and cognitive dissonance.

At least one of these factors are required to be a truther.




posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I didn't refuse any evidence. I have no obligation to respond to every single youtube video that someone interjects into the middle of a thread, pretending it is a response to something I said.

Start your own thread.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Potential Energy is mgh. Mass times gravitational acceleration times height.



ANOK believes that PE of the upper tower is zero.

Can you explain it to him please?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

This stupidity has been addressed.

LOL @ pushing up.....


No it hasn't.

Once again for those who fail to understand the laws of motion, when two objects collide the forces on each object is equal, equal and opposite in direction.

It doesn't matter which way the objects are moving, horizontally or vertically, the two objects push against each other. You can't just consider the force of one of the objects ignoring the other one, regardless of which direction they move, or whether the object moves at all. BOTH objects put a force on the other, but you want to insist that the only object creating force is the one moving, and the stationary objects puts no force on the moving object.

The static floor would push back, or 'resist' if you like that word better, with the same force as the falling floor puts on that static floor.

So laugh on mate, you are just showing you have no idea what you are talking about.


edit on 10/13/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


I had an amusing conversation about this with Darkwing in another thread. The "explanation" was that the mass would eject. When I asked him to explain how that would happen I got vague answers like "the electro magnetic force". At some point he agreed that "the electromagnetic force" wasn't an explanation at all. Later on he came with the theory that falling mass would somehow stick to the vertical supports.

By now, he has completely forgotten that conservation altogether, and is repeating all the same nonsense again he was completely unable to explain.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I didn't refuse any evidence. I have no obligation to respond to every single youtube video that someone interjects into the middle of a thread, pretending it is a response to something I said.

Start your own thread.


This is the post I was replying to. I was not "pretending it is a response to something I said".


reply to post by psikeyhackr

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

Psikey, physical models are not used to design the load bearing structure of any building, unless they are portions of the structure mocked up at near full scale. Engineers use computer models, mathematics, and empirically derived formulae to design buildings.

The reason that nobody has built a collapsible model of the twin towers is that only conspiracy theorists think that they can prove anything with a collapsing physical model. It's not impossible, but it would prove nothing, just as your washers and broomstick prove nothing.


Maybe next time I should directly quote what you say, so you won't go around accussing others of "shenaniganism". Seriously that is a pretty LOW tactic.

Anyway the reason for injecting my two pieces of common sense into this thread is because the topic of this thread is called "The towers couldn't have fallen that way..." and those videos are paramount to debunking the NIST report.

If I start a new thread it would be redundant, and the mods hate redundancy.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


And now, if you could only show, using actual physics (meaning you have to do calculations) that this force from the lower floors pushing against the top section as it fell was too large for the collapse to progress, you would actually have a point. As you may have noticed, nobody is arguing that there was no "equal and opposite force". The argument is that this "equal and opposite force" is way to low to arrest the collapse.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK


The static floor would push back, or 'resist' if you like that word better,


No we like "the potential energy pushing up" the best, keep using that phrase.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


I had an amusing conversation about this with Darkwing in another thread. The "explanation" was that the mass would eject. When I asked him to explain how that would happen I got vague answers like "the electro magnetic force". At some point he agreed that "the electromagnetic force" wasn't an explanation at all. Later on he came with the theory that falling mass would somehow stick to the vertical supports.

By now, he has completely forgotten that conservation altogether, and is repeating all the same nonsense again he was completely unable to explain.


Just because someone can't explain, to your satisfaction, how the rubble was ejected does not mean it wasn't.

The evidence is in the post collapse pics, not in how it happened. Photographic evidence proves the rubble was ejected. FEMA supports that fact. There is no need to provide any more proof to you.

You only hang on to this fantasy because otherwise your hypothesis falls flat on its face, Mr.Electrical engineer who can't answer simple physics questions. Prove me wrong PLB, answer these questions...


4. Which of the following statements are true about collisions?

a. Two colliding objects will exert equal forces upon each other even if their mass is significantly different.

i. When a moving object collides with a stationary object of identical mass, the stationary object encounters the greater collision force.

j. When a moving object collides with a stationary object of identical mass, the stationary object encounters the greater momentum change.

k. A moving object collides with a stationary object; the stationary object has significantly less mass. The stationary object encounters the greater collision force.

l. A moving object collides with a stationary object; the stationary object has significantly less mass. The stationary object encounters the greater momentum change.



edit on 10/13/2011 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

Psikey, physical models are not used to design the load bearing structure of any building, unless they are portions of the structure mocked up at near full scale. Engineers use computer models, mathematics, and empirically derived formulae to design buildings.


I didn't say build a model to design a building. I an talking about building one to see if it is possible to make a self supporting structure that can be collapsed by its top 15% crushing the rest.

Because if that can't be done then this entire issue has a problem.

The support structures would absorb kinetic energy of the falling mass in the process of being crushed thereby slowing it down. So why wasn't the top of the south tower slowed?

psik



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

Your youtube videos have nothing to do with the text you just quoted. If you don't want to address someone's statement specifically, there is a button at the bottom of each page of a thread that allows you to reply without quoting or replying to an individual comment.

Have a great day.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ANOK

The static floor would push back, or 'resist' if you like that word better,


No we like "the potential energy pushing up" the best, keep using that phrase.


There is nothing wrong with that statement.

I'm just trying to point out that the bottom floors would push back against the falling floors, and you are ignoring that part of the equation. You are ignoring the resistance of the stationary floors. You are ignoring the laws of motion that govern all objects, and how they react in collisions.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Ive read and heard, numerous times that WTC 7 was brought by a controlled detonation so after WTC 1 and 2 were hit who is to say there were also not brought down by a controlled detonation?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Right PSIKEY, so if we could build a model that was capable of collapse in a manner similar as you suggest, you would then believe that the collapse was caused by airplane impacts and fires-- is that correct?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ANOK

The static floor would push back, or 'resist' if you like that word better,


No we like "the potential energy pushing up" the best, keep using that phrase.


There is nothing wrong with that statement.


So it wasn't just a slip of the tongue, then, but rather just a bona-fide example of confusion.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Just because someone can't explain, to your satisfaction, how the rubble was ejected does not mean it wasn't.


But it definitely does not mean it was.


The evidence is in the post collapse pics, not in how it happened. Photographic evidence proves the rubble was ejected. FEMA supports that fact. There is no need to provide any more proof to you.


Yes, rubble was ejected. Everyone agrees to that fact. But all the truthers in the world can't demonstrate how much was ejected. Add to that the fact truthers can also not explain how it was ejected, and you have a theory that is completely baseless.



You only hang on to this fantasy because otherwise your hypothesis falls flat on its face,


Fantasies are thoughts that have no basis in reality. For example magically ejecting mass. I base my position on physics. Which is that mass falls down and not horizontally.



Mr.Electrical engineer who can't answer simple physics questions.


Again with your stupid slander. Didn't I demonstrate how unbelievably childish your line of reasoning is by asking you a extremely simple math question you did not answer to? Anok doesn't know simple math, na na.



Prove me wrong PLB, answer these questions...




4. Which of the following statements are true about collisions?

a. Two colliding objects will exert equal forces upon each other even if their mass is significantly different.

i. When a moving object collides with a stationary object of identical mass, the stationary object encounters the greater collision force.

j. When a moving object collides with a stationary object of identical mass, the stationary object encounters the greater momentum change.

k. A moving object collides with a stationary object; the stationary object has significantly less mass. The stationary object encounters the greater collision force.

l. A moving object collides with a stationary object; the stationary object has significantly less mass. The stationary object encounters the greater momentum change.



And here you are again with your silly elementary school questions (not strange as that is about your level). How much is 4+5/2? If you do not answer, you don't understand math. (just to prevent another childish charade from Anok, a is true, j and l are true when you consider it relatively, but I predict you do not understand that).
edit on 13-10-2011 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ANOK

The static floor would push back, or 'resist' if you like that word better,


No we like "the potential energy pushing up" the best, keep using that phrase.


There is nothing wrong with that statement.

I'm just trying to point out that the bottom floors would push back against the falling floors, and you are ignoring that part of the equation. You are ignoring the resistance of the stationary floors. You are ignoring the laws of motion that govern all objects, and how they react in collisions.


Correct. Its called inertia.


Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest, or the tendency of an object to resist any change in its motion. It is proportional to an object's mass. The principle of inertia is one of the fundamental principles of classical physics which are used to describe the motion of matter and how it is affected by applied forces. Inertia comes from the Latin word, iners, meaning idle, or lazy. Isaac Newton defined inertia as his first law in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which states:[1]

The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line.


It makes perfect sense to me and I don't even have a physics degree. It goes to show we have lots of trolls here that defend the Original Story for a living, ie get paid to post nonsense.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Correct. Its called inertia.


It makes perfect sense to me and I don't even have a physics degree. It goes to show we have lots of trolls here that defend the Original Story for a living, ie get paid to post nonsense.


So in Truther World inertia and potential energy are she same thing ?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Sure Anok, energy can push, especially potential energy, and especially upwards. In truther physics everything is possible. Ironically, you think you can lecture other people about physics.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Correct. Its called inertia.


Whoah. this thread can only have room for 2 "truther-physics" experts, or it will devolve into a confusing mexican standoff situation that can only end badly for you all...enter at your own risk.


Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
It makes perfect sense to me and I don't even have a physics degree.

Say it ain't so.



Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
It goes to show we have lots of trolls here that defend the Original Story for a living, ie get paid to post nonsense.


We deserve every penny that the illuminati can spare. Believe me, we are worth it. Imagine if Richard Gage could afford to pay us to troll for justice... we'd be much better than you guys, after all, we're professionals.
edit on 10/13/2011 by DrEugeneFixer because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join