TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Could the goverment have people on their payroll to post in forums like these?
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Uh, OK, Rumsfeld. Answer a question with a question. I don't think you understand what you're saying. The Official Story does not comply with the Conservation of Motion. Matter and gravity and their relation are absolute. See Exhibit A of your misunderstanding of Physics According to conservation-of-momentum laws, the block of approximately 34 floors on top of the South Tower should have continued to topple and fall through the path of least resistance: the air. It should have continued to topple and fall to the ground far outside the building�s footprint and NOT through the path of most resistance: the building itself. That same block which can be seen twisting at the start of the collapse should have kept twisting and obeyed the law of conservation of angular momentum but the rotation suddenly stopped. The stopping of both its rotation and its �toppling� can only be explained by the breakup of most of the block, which would have destroyed its moment of inertia. But there is no good explanation for the upper block to break up at the start of the collapse; unless of course, it was being broken up in a purposeful way as in a controlled demolition. This violation of physical laws alone virtually proves that the Official Story is a lie.

im the one that misunderstands physics yet youre the one that keeps saying "motion" instead of "momentum". in any case, physics is a less-important area of science than civil engineering re 911.

that said, i am very unschooled in both, so i must defer to my expert mr mackey

quote:

Dr. Griffin next turns to WTC 2, and claims that (1) the upper block should have fallen outside the building footprint, and (2) the block�s rotation should have continued as it fell, both according to conservation of momentum. This, perhaps more than any other passage, confirms Dr. Griffin�s poor grasp of elementary physics. Suppose we are treating the upper block, after all connections to the lower block have failed. If we treat it as a rigid object, it will be subject to two major forces: Gravity, acting through the center-of-mass and always pulling downward; and reactive forces from impacts with the lower structure, pushing predominantly upward, but acting at the point of contact and not necessarily through the center-of-mass. In our simplified model, apart from these two forces, the upper block retains its initial momentum, which is downward with some rotational momentum as well. Before breaking completely free, the upper block will tilt around a loosely-defined hinge point, as discussed previously. The hinge creates a �force couple� � gravity pulling through the center balanced by an opposing force, at the hinge, pushing upwards and off-center. This is what leads to rotation. However, at no time is there a horizontal force, unless the upper block rotates so far that a hinge is a poor model of the interaction. This is not predicted. The �hinge� is likely to be a surviving series of columns bending but still supporting their load. These columns are predicted to buckle, snapping off at or near the hinge point, after only a few degrees of rotation � NIST estimates that the upper block rotated 7 to 8 degrees in one axis, and 3 to 4 degrees in another, prior to breaking the hinge [160]. The steel columns simply cannot provide support after being bent ten or twenty degrees. Also, if the �hinge� is closer to the middle and thus the center of mass, horizontal forces will be even smaller. This is true in this case � the hinge is predicted to pass through the core at an offset and an angle, as shown in NCSTAR1-6D in Figure 4-89 on page 256. As a result of the central location and small rotational tolerance of the hinge, the horizontal forces applied to the upper block are small, and thus there will be little or no horizontal movement. The upper block would need a large amount of horizontal force in order to side-step the lower structure. Recall that the Towers were 208 feet, about 63 meters, across. This means that the upper block would have to be translated at least 104 feet before it would tumble over the side, and it would have to do so in only a few seconds � let�s assume five seconds. To translate 104 feet in five seconds would require a steady lateral acceleration of 8.3 feet per second2, and if we loosely estimate the upper block at around 25,000 metric tons, this means we require a continuous horizontal force of 14 million pounds (65,000,000 N), or approximately two times the thrust of the Space Shuttle at liftoff. It is not even clear if the upper block could survive such a force intact, let alone where it would come from. If this force was the natural result of gravity causing it to �slide off,� since this force is over 25% of the force of gravity, it implies that the reactive force must somehow work at an angle as if the upper block was sliding down a steep ramp. There is no reason whatsoever to expect such unusual behavior � the contact forces will be almost totally vertical. There is also not enough reactive force to provide this thrust, not even if it could somehow be applied at 90 degrees. We can estimate the maximum average resisting force from the speed of collapse. Because the lower structure is crushed within 11 or 13 seconds, according to Bazant et al., the average reactive force supplied by the lower structure is a small fraction of the static gravity load, and thus the total impulse is insufficient to supply the needed thrust, even if we could somehow explain why it is horizontal instead of vertical. Furthermore, if the upper block experienced such a lateral force, Newton�s Third Law requires an equal and opposite reactive force. While the lower structure would flex rather than translate (assuming this side force did not fracture the structure), there is simply no sign of this force in the lower structure, though admittedly the falling debris and dust makes it difficult to be certain. But the dust and debris provides further evidence of no such horizontal force. In one scenario, the debris accumulating below the lower block would be mainly cast the opposite way, accounting for the �thrust;� but as these pieces were smaller and less cohesive, some of them would have been thrown enormous differences. In another, the debris is carried along with the falling block, meaning the horizontal force required is much larger still. This simply did not happen. Instead, the smaller debris falls, snaps, and rebounds away with moderate but essentially random velocities in all directions, rather than being biased to any side as the toppling case would dictate. There is no support for toppling whatsoever. The argument from conservation of angular momentum is similarly flawed. Dr. Griffin and Mr. Hoffman both assume that conservation of angular momentum guarantees that the upper block would continue spinning at the same rate. But this is only true if the upper block does not come in contact with the lower structure � angular momentum is only conserved so long as there are no external forces affecting the mass off-center. Since the upper block tilts, it first comes in contact with the lower structure at the down-tilted corner. Impact here, off-center, provides opposite angular momentum. Similarly, as it falls a bit further, contact at the up-tilted corner will add angular momentum. This will tend to rock the upper block back and forth as it settles through each floor. However, if the block continues to rotate, the down-tilted corner will fall farther than the up-tilted corner, and experience more and larger impacts, which work against rotation. Because of this geometry, the rotation is a self-regulating process to some extent. What we expect, therefore, is that the upper block will slow in its rotational rate, but probably not all the way to zero. The impacts of floors below adding to and subtracting from this rate are going to be somewhat random and partially average out. This is, in fact, what is seen in the video � the upper block does rotate a bit further before it disappears from view. Because Dr. Griffin and Mr. Hoffman misapply the laws of conservation of momentum, either assuming horizontal momentum where there is none or neglecting other contributions to angular momentum, their expectations about the trajectory of the upper block are also wrong. The behavior of the upper block is as expected.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Mac..._review_2_1.doc

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Actually you should be paying more attention, numbers are everything. You are missing the point here and I am sure if the topic had no real interest it would have floated away in cyberspace a very long time ago. The general public is very aware of what has transpired and the most of the threads especially the 9/11 thread has the most views and replies for this exact same reason. The official 9/11 story is not anywhere good enough, it's not even close. If you cannot see this I really don't expect you to see the reality of the cover up. Real issues gather attention, nonsense topic's and threads do not stand the test of time.

Nonsense topics and threads? So you'd rather discuss nutjob conspiracies than policies that can and do affect millions of your countrymen?

Fair enough.

You and the three other people who regularly post in the 9/11 thread should keep up the good work in driving up your post counts though. Surely that will show that in the long run that your work is important to the four of you who have been clicking on that thread five times a day for three years without managing to convince anyone of your hair-brained theories.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Nonsense topics and threads? So you'd rather discuss nutjob conspiracies than policies that can and do affect millions of your countrymen? Fair enough. You and the three other people who regularly post in the 9/11 thread should keep up the good work in driving up your post counts though. Surely that will show that in the long run that your work is important to the four of you who have been clicking on that thread five times a day for three years without managing to convince anyone of your hair-brained theories.

stop ruining this thread with your logic, troll!!

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Let's continue the education. Life student, eh? PNW3D

Wait, Harley... you're just joking, right? This is a new hobby of yours and you're not being serious, right?

Right?

Right?!

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Please explain to me in as many paragraphs that you need, how the collapse of the towers complies with the Law of Conservation of Motion,

there is no such thing.

to add to that, no matter what initiated the collapse the laws of motion would still apply and did...unless youre implying there were supernatural forces applied

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN stop ruining this thread with your logic, troll!!

Their appearances in the PDD are strangely cyclical, aren't they?

All these truthers disappear for weeks at a time, during which there is actual interesting conversation going on, and then all of a sudden they appear at once, foisting upon us inane topics of utter banality and stupidity.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Their appearances in the PDD are strangely cyclical, aren't they? All these truthers disappear for weeks at a time, during which there is actual interesting conversation going on, and then all of a sudden they appear at once, foisting upon us inane topics of utter banality and stupidity.

Shut up troll.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Nonsense topics and threads? So you'd rather discuss nutjob conspiracies than policies that can and do affect millions of your countrymen? Fair enough. You and the three other people who regularly post in the 9/11 thread should keep up the good work in driving up your post counts though. Surely that will show that in the long run that your work is important to the four of you who have been clicking on that thread five times a day for three years without managing to convince anyone of your hair-brained theories.

The single most important topic in this part of the forum is the 9/11 thread. It has the most views/replies and yes it is presently heavily not in favor of the official story because of the outright bullshit the world was told.

This is after years of trolls mocking the subject, even the "professionals" who made a presence in the thread could not prove otherwise when presented with the facts of what actually occurred on 9/11.

Important? Yes absolutely. The most important in your lifetime.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut when presented with the facts of what actually occurred on 9/11.

Your rampant egotistical hyperbole aside, here's your chance to succinctly summarize that thread: what are the facts of what actually occurred on 9/11?

Try reading for yourself through the thread that has been here for years which the majority heavily favors in.

Not good enough of an answer? Too bad. I don't spoon feed babies.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Try reading for yourself through the thread that has been here for years which the majority heavily favors in. Not good enough of an answer? Too bad. I don't spoon feed babies.

Yup, as I thought. All you've got is "what happened on 9/11 is whatever the government isn't telling us."

But well in bud, obviously you're on to something. "Survivor" is the most important thing ever put on TV of all time because it is wildly popular and still running to this day. Surely that popularity is a testament to its importance in our society and not the fact that people like to be entertained by mind-numbing idiocy.

quote:

Yup, as I thought. All you've got is "what happened on 9/11 is whatever the government isn't telling us."

LOL, you obviously have no fucking clue then. Just goes to show you what happens when you can't read (think for yourself).

Maybe you have been paying to much attention to survivor instead of the important issues since 9/11.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut LOL, you obviously have no fucking clue then. Just goes to show you what happens when you can't read (think for yourself). Maybe you have been paying to much attention to survivor instead of the important issues since 9/11.

Important issues SINCE 9/11? By your own admission, those aren't very important.

And I know how to read just fine - probably the reason I don't buy into everything I do read. See, in college, people learn how to critically analyze and consume information. They also learn how to construct arguments based on valid fact and support.

I suggest you try it some time.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut LOL, you obviously have no fucking clue then. Just goes to show you what happens when you can't read (think for yourself).

For someone who claims to think for one's self, you sure are adept at plagiarizing other people's thoughts...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton For someone who claims to think for one's self, you sure are adept at plagiarizing other people's thoughts...

I think we just need to stop posting in that 9/11 thread to let it die its overdue death. Show just how many people really care about what's posted in that blight on the community.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Try reading for yourself through the thread that has been here for years which the majority heavily favors in. Not good enough of an answer? Too bad. I don't spoon feed babies.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

LOL, hey PKC has plagiarized that retarded list for what now like 96458784578 posts?

PKC everything for at least 2 fucking years is in that thread you moron, if someone wants to get answers they can go read for themselves. I already know he is not interested and is just trolling like you so I need not waste my time.

Tell me did the fine institutions feed you guys an education with a spoon instead of having to do the work yourself?

You guys should go back to school (if you are still no there) and try again because it is apparent you cannot handle the most basic fundamentals of logic.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN youre partly right. yes, i am indeed employed by a government agency.

Centrelink?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut LOL, hey PKC has plagiarized that retarded list for what now like 96458784578 posts? PKC everything for at least 2 fucking years is in that thread you moron, if someone wants to get answers they can go read for themselves. I already know he is not interested and is just trolling like you so I need not waste my time. Tell me did the fine institutions feed you guys an education with a spoon instead of having to do the work yourself? You guys should go back to school (if you are still no there) and try again because it is apparent you cannot handle the most basic fundamentals of logic.

See, this is where you're wrong. I actually was interested (intrigued even) to hear your argument - but I've never heard it. That thread is full of people poking circumstantial holes in conventional wisdom and never proposes anything believable of its own. I've given you years of opportunity on that front, and now I'm just kind of tired and bored of the whole exercise.

The burden of proof is on you, not on conventional wisdom... and you haven't done anything to prove much at all of yet. Have you cast some doubt? Yeah, maybe. But that's about all that entire thread has ever done.

So I'm sorry, but my spoon-fed college degree taught me to always be skeptical of any theory that doesn't have answers to the most basic questions.

Like I said go read for yourself if your interested of course.

The burden is not on me, it is in the official 9/11 story moron.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Well, there are simple exercises in logic I am more than capable of making re 911, but if you'll notice I havent posted about 911 for a while. There's only so long you can be bukkaked with stupid.

I have been avoiding any 'truth' reading at all for months now. Has anyone actually posted links to the American Society of Engineers analysis of the whole thing yet?

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Let's continue the education. Life student, eh? PNW3D

Oh, boy.

ah, sudent right.

So, conservation of momentum, failing material, and a host of other things that are very directly involved with the fall of the twin towers have a lot of calculus in thier proofs. They also have very few pictures, well maybe a free body diagram or two.

Please stop talking about 9/11 until you've spent the time to go over the studies that have been carried out by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Here is the link:

http://www.asce.org/asce.cfm

If you find problems in thier analysis of the destruction in 9/11 please feel free to write a quick thread about it and PM me so I can take a look at which parts of thier calculations you feel are flawed.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Important? Yes absolutely. The most important in your lifetime.

Just like prooving the killer of JFK is important?

What happened to that?

So, if this is so important, what should be done if a cruise missile hit the pentagon?

How does that change the election that's going on?

How does that figure into foreign policy?

How does it affect the response to a failing economy?

I do have a book recomendation that you'd probably like though:


The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder
http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/

I've yet to read it but I want to see how this guy puts the case together.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut The burden is not on me, it is in the official 9/11 story moron.

The burden of proof is always on alternate hypotheses... have you ever taken a science course? A law course? A logic course?

I'm actually paid by The Government to not post in this forum or to at least keep my responses to a minimum.

Well in, ********. Well. In.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.