Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Let’s Agree to Put an End to the Petty 9/11 Argument’s

page: 17
9
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


So you are using alledged evidence from an entire different building to prove that another building was blown up using explosives almost 6 hours later. Brilliant logic
edit on 25-1-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

No, just sharing the first hand visual record of what happened to the North Tower, and in the case of the twin towers, because of their sheer height, it can be shown that they basically exploded from the top down without any appreciable loss of momentum for the descending (and explosively ejecting) debris wave, to within mere seconds (three or four) of absolute free fall for any freely dropped object, like a steel safe or a grand piano, if dropped from the same height in nothing but air alone, whereas this explosive destruction occurred through the path of maximal resistance, something which, absent the use of explosives, is utterly impossible according to the laws of motion and conservation of energy.

Someday, grade 10 physics students, armed with nothing but some videos, a stopwatch and some basic equations, will prove it, time and time again, until it will become accepted, eventually, as historical fact ie: that the buildings did not in fact "collapse" at all, but were and had to have been intentionally demolished with explosives with the plane impacts serving as the apparent causal mechanism.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


but the building did not freefall. The debris that was falling was outpacing the collapse itself. 15-20 seconds it took for the initial collapse, plus another 10-15 seconds for the core collapse. Hardly a fast collapse.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 

Yeah, it's just over 10 seconds for absolute freefall with air resistence, so you must be right that it wasn't at freefall speed, "much much longer" in fact, my bad ..


Watch the videos, that's all I'm asking people to do, is to take a close look at it, a very close look, so that at the very least something of value can be learned from it in the rear view mirror of 20/20 hindsight, thus honoring the many victims and those generated in the wake of the event in the name of "justice" and "security" (salute!) gag.

The buildings did not "collapse" they blew up from the top down, the debris wave descending without any significant loss of momentum, all the way down the remaining length of structure, yes, to within perhaps several seconds from absolute freefall, although in the case of the south tower, it was down in 13, maybe 14 seconds max (anyone can see it for themselves).



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

So you are using alledged evidence from an entire different building to prove that another building was blown up using explosives almost 6 hours later. Brilliant logic

Just to be clear here is the seismic data analysis for the twin towers (not to be confused with that of WTC7).


Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by LaBTop
 

More here - Seismic Proof - 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version III)

Shows the same thing, namely, that the buildings were destroyed with large explosives, which reverberated right into the bedrock long before the "collapse" of the twin towers.

It's incontrovertible, now matter how much some may seek to obfuscate and confuse the issue while waving the OS flag and hoping to at the very least create reasonable doubt.

edit on 25-1-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
without any significant loss of momentum


In fact, there was a significant increase in momentum. Thats what falling stuff does.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
without any significant loss of momentum

In fact, there was a significant increase in momentum. Thats what falling stuff does.

Sure, in mid air, yeah, you're right.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Especially mid air. Though there was no mid air in the collapse. Except for the debris that fell to the side.
edit on 25-1-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   
So let's take another look



Hmph, I guess your right, falling stuff falls fast, and you would expect it to not only maintain uninterrupted, uniform motion, but to accelerate, all the way to the ground, especially the forcibly ejected material, and since it went down like a cascading mushroom, the exterior building material is certain to hit the ground first..

I had it all wrong. I surrender.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
So let's take another look



Hmph, I guess your right, falling stuff falls fast, and you would expect it to not only maintain uninterrupted, uniform motion, but to accelerate, all the way to the ground, especially the forcibly ejected material, and since it went down like a cascading mushroom, the exterior building material is certain to hit the ground first..

I had it all wrong. I surrender.


Sure, stuff that maintains uniform motion and accelerates. You can make up anything you like, its your party.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Sure, stuff that maintains uniform motion and accelerates. You can make up anything you like, its your party.


Ok, I shall hereby and henceforth refer to it (the actual occurrence of destruction) as "The Foot of God Hypothesis", because nothing less, according to the OS (official story in case anyone was wondering what all these acronyms mean), and absent the use of explosives, makes any sense, or holds up to any degree of scientific rational scrutiny and analysis - so that's what I'll call it since it's my party as you say. The truth of the matter, however, is that it's been no "party", at all.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


That is kind of funny because I think it was the FSM pushing everything down with his Noodly Appendages. For a more detailed explanation refer to this page:

belacquajones.blogspot.com...



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Sure, stuff that maintains uniform motion and accelerates. You can make up anything you like, its your party.


To maintain a constant collapse speed it had to have accelerated, because resistance would be slowing it down.

One thing that OSers have never been able to explain is how the collapse maintained a constant rate of collapse against resistance. Even IF there was enough weight to overcome the resistance energy would be lost to breaking the connections, to heat, to sound, to friction etc. So the collapse would still slow due to a loss of kinetic energy, without a constant new outside energy acting on it.

And please don't come back with your usual argument, gravity. I have shown you a million time that gravity is not an outside force.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
To maintain a constant collapse speed it had to have accelerated, because resistance would be slowing it down.


Did you figure out yet how gravity is an external force? On this very topic, this is a very important realization. Given the nonsense you post here, I am affrain not.


One thing that OSers have never been able to explain is how the collapse maintained a constant rate of collapse against resistance. Even IF there was enough weight to overcome the resistance energy would be lost to breaking the connections, to heat, to sound, to friction etc. So the collapse would still slow due to a loss of kinetic energy, without a constant new outside energy acting on it.


Still not grasping the very basic physics concept of potential energy transforming to kinetic energy. The reason "OSers" have not been able to explain it to you is because you fail to understand the very basics of physics. Like that major blunder of thinking gravity is an internal force. And then quickly stop replying once you are confronted with it.


And please don't come back with your usual argument, gravity. I have shown you a million time that gravity is not an outside force.


Did you read the Nasa link I gave you yet? Of course not. Everytime someone post a relyable source that shows you are completely wrong you ignore it completely.
edit on 25-1-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


PLB gravity is not an external force, it is an internal force.


For our purposes, we will simply say that external forces include the applied force, normal force, tension force, friction force, and air resistance force. And for our purposes, the internal forces include the gravity forces, magnetic force, electrical force, and spring force. While this is a simplistic approach, it is an approach that will serve us well in our introduction to physics.


www.physicsclassroom.com...

Another source to be sure...


Internal forces

Internal forces are forces that can act on an object without physically
touching the object. Examples of internal forces include:

the force of gravity
electrical forces
magnetic forces
spring forces


cnx.org.../latest

I don't care how you try to spin it, this is physics 101. Stop spreading nonsense and learn something.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Your lack of understanding is staggering. Whether gravity is an internal force or an external force completely depends on the boundries of your system. Anyone with a basic knowledge of physics will be able to tell.

Your first source does not for nothing say "For our purposes". And your second definition has nothing to do with isolated systems. If you REALY believe that in any system electrical or magnetic forces are internal, then you are utterly completely clueless. No others words for it.
edit on 25-1-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

That is kind of funny because I think it was the FSM pushing everything down with his Noodly Appendages. For a more detailed explanation refer to this page:

belacquajones.blogspot.com...

Yes, that's more appropriate, and not incongruent with my beliefs whereby "the foot of God" explanation is appalling, because after all didn't Jesus himself say "I ask for mercy, not sacrifice."


"... sacrificed, on the alter, of freedom."

~ Rudolf Guiliani, September 11th memorial service, 2003 I think it might have been and he wasn't just referring to fallen soldiers overseas. He knew. Rolled with the punches like Bush and hoped to rise to the office of the POTUS on it's gruesome coat tails, as a "9/11 hero" who apparently was given a ten minute warning that the south tower was going to collapse (why didn't he order out the rescue workers and firemen if that were the case?). Ghouliani is befitting that man. Glad he didn't make it to the highest office along with that particular cadre of crazies. To that end, I honestly believe that the 9/11 truth movement helped generate the "vibe" by which such a thing would become utterly impossible for such a person.



edit on 26-1-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

The two mushrooms in your avatar are very interesting, maybe even dare I say it, synchronistic.




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Still not grasping the very basic physics concept of potential energy transforming to kinetic energy. The reason "OSers" have not been able to explain it to you is because you fail to understand the very basics of physics.


They cannot even understand a basic physics principle like KE and PE, so how can they post with any authority on 9/11!



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


So why don't you explain what Ke and Pe is then, I would love to discuss it with you, so then we can see who actually understands it?

Or are you going to just continuously make drive-by-postings? Snidey little know-it-all comments from the peanut gallery.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join