ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Dave Thomas , Michael Fullerton , wtc 7

Reply
Old 13th October 2010, 06:45 PM   #321
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by excaza View Post
What force other than gravity, exactly, would be accelerating the ruler?
If I knew the answer, I wouldn't have asked the question.

Since leverage and torque were mentioned, I wondered if these might be additional forces acting in this situation.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 06:54 PM   #322
excaza
Illuminator
 
excaza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,632
You really need to learn basic physics. Like, really, really, really need to. Torque is not a force, it's the tendency for a force to rotate an object around its axis. You can't act on something with a force and a torque. Your force produces a torque.

Leverage isn't even a physics term. It's just what someone used because they noticed a longer lever arm allowed them to lift more weight. Because of a higher torque. But I'm not going to complicate things for you.

The only force acting in the video is gravity. That is, unless you believe there are magnets, springs, or maybe even tiny little rockets.
__________________

Last edited by excaza; 13th October 2010 at 07:00 PM.
excaza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 06:58 PM   #323
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
If I knew the answer, I wouldn't have asked the question.

Since leverage and torque were mentioned, I wondered if these might be additional forces acting in this situation.
This is why most truthers just shouldn't comment on the collapses...at all.

He is right, go get some basic physics. Leverage can multiply or increase a force, it is not a force itself.

TAM

Last edited by T.A.M.; 13th October 2010 at 06:59 PM.
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 07:00 PM   #324
W.D.Clinger
Master Poster
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,810
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Wouldn't this then technically be describing an additional force other than just gravity?
That's an interesting question, ergo.

I have two related questions for you. The first involves my driveway, which has a bit of a slope to it. When I place a tennis ball near the top of my driveway, it rolls down to the street.

How can that be? The force exerted by gravity is downward, but the street isn't immediately below the spot at which I place the ball; the street is some distance away, and that distance is more horizontal than vertical. Some horizontal force must be pushing the ball toward the street. Where did that horizontal force come from?

The second question involves a propeller beanie. When I push horizontally on one end of my hat's propeller, the opposite end of the propeller goes in entirely the opposite direction from the direction I'm pushing. How can that be?

It's almost as though a solid object reacts to force exerted on one part of the object by transmitting a force to other parts...but that would violate common sense. Must be magic.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 07:14 PM   #325
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
I was perhaps picturing tension in the ruler, as if it was being slapped onto the surface, in which case, there would be some other force acting on it.

The final question I had about this example is that the ball is obviously falling from a higher elevation than the rest of the ruler, so could that, with air resistance, not account for why it hit the surface later?

I'm just skeptical of this "faster than g" claim, since the only other examples I can find involve other forces, like the Slinky example, where it can be said that the top is accelerating faster than free fall because of the spring action pulling it down.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 07:16 PM   #326
excaza
Illuminator
 
excaza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,632
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I was perhaps picturing tension in the ruler, as if it was being slapped onto the surface, in which case, there would be some other force acting on it.

The final question I had about this example is that the ball is obviously falling from a higher elevation than the rest of the ruler, so could that, with air resistance, not account for why it hit the surface later?

I'm just skeptical of this "faster than g" claim, since the only other examples I can find involve other forces, like the Slinky example, where it can be said that the top is accelerating faster than free fall because of the spring action pulling it down.
You do realize Femr2 made you a gigantic picture?

And that the math supporting the faster than g acceleration has been linked twice?

And that if the end of the ruler and ball were accelerating at the same rate, the ball would never leave the tee?
__________________

Last edited by excaza; 13th October 2010 at 07:19 PM.
excaza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 07:20 PM   #327
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by excaza View Post
And that if the end of the ruler and ball were accelerating at the same rate, the ball would never leave the tee?
That's better.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2010, 10:02 PM   #328
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 701
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
...
I'm just skeptical of this "faster than g" claim, since the only other examples I can find involve other forces, like the Slinky example, where it can be said that the top is accelerating faster than free fall because of the spring action pulling it down.
No. The top of the Slinky could accelerate at g or more only if all 58 coils were suddenly cut, with Thermite-Triggered Super-Quiet Ultra-High EXplosives, a.k.a. Titty-SquexTM, at exactly the precise same instant.

This Slinky clearly did not "collapse" naturally. There's no way to get around that. The Slinky was an Inside Job, plain and simple.
__________________
"This explanation is priceless, and wipes out Drosnin with laughter, which is the correct weapon to use here." - James Randi

Ergo beedunked here.

Skeptical Inquirer July/August 2011 issue on 9/11 Truth
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 02:54 AM   #329
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,931
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I was perhaps picturing tension in the ruler, as if it was being slapped onto the surface, in which case, there would be some other force acting on it.
Tension within the ruler is not an external force acting on the ruler.

There are two, and only two, external forces acting on the ruler. One is the downward force due to gravity. The other is the reaction force through the pivoted end, which is acting upwards. There is no downward force acting on the ruler other than gravity.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
The final question I had about this example is that the ball is obviously falling from a higher elevation than the rest of the ruler, so could that, with air resistance, not account for why it hit the surface later?
The ball starts out in a cup, which will experience a greater air resistance and will move the air around it so that the ball isn't slowed by air resistance. We see the stick fall away from the ball, so it's nothing to do with the height they start at.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I'm just skeptical of this "faster than g" claim, since the only other examples I can find involve other forces, like the Slinky example, where it can be said that the top is accelerating faster than free fall because of the spring action pulling it down.
They, also, don't involve any other external forces, just forces internal to the falling object. WTC7, as a connected object, also had internal forces. That, in fact, is the whole point; it's the internal tensile and compressive forces within the object that can accelerate parts of it at a greater rate than g, although the external force can't accelerate the whole of it, on average, greater than g. Since the acceleration measurements we're discussing were only on a specific point on WTC7, not averages of the whole structure, it's quite possible for the same thing to have happened.

Dave
__________________
"We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy."

- Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo

SSKCAS, covert member

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 14th October 2010 at 02:57 AM.
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 04:42 AM   #330
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,729
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Since the acceleration measurements we're discussing were only on a specific point on WTC7, not averages of the whole structure, it's quite possible for the same thing to have happened.

Dave


Which brings up an interesting question: all of the measurements I've seen have been of pixels at the roofline. How hard would it be to try such a measurement using pixles lower in the structure, perhaps an edge of a window, or something? Could we develop an acceleration profile for several points in the façade?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 09:12 AM   #331
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
The bolded part confuses me. Are you saying that no matter how many structural engineers DO say it was a fire-initiated collapse, any who do so are in your mind not trustworthy, or are you saying that only only a few structural engineers think it was a fire-initiated collapse, and those are just the untrustworthy ones?

I think you need to keep in mind just how much you are in the abject minority, and how many structural engineers DO agree that damage and fires CAN explain the collapses. Does it make you sleep better at night to simply hand wave them all away as "untrustworthy"?
I'm saying any structural engineer that said WTC 7 was a fire-initiated collapse cannot be trusted. Unlike you, I am not swayed by the number of people that state something. Stating doesn't imply belief. Belief doesn't imply fact.
__________________
JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.
cmatrix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 09:14 AM   #332
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
It developed a very noticeable lean to the south as it fell.
It sagged and fell straight down. At the end rolled to the south while staying in its footprint. Regardless of how it sagged and rolled it fell straight down into its footprint and this required extraordinary precision which is impossible from a fire-initiated collapse. Note that the sagging and rolling make the column failures immensely more precise than if the roof line stayed completely level during the entire collapse. Think what would be required to roll a building like that with explosives.
__________________
JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.
cmatrix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 09:16 AM   #333
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
Pwned by Youtube:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
You feel this video shows WTC 7 falling over sideways? I see a building falling straight down into its own footprint.
__________________
JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.
cmatrix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 09:18 AM   #334
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
That whirring sound you can hear is Isaac Newton turning in his grave.

Dave
Care to explain your statement?
__________________
JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.
cmatrix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 09:18 AM   #335
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,931
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
I'm saying any structural engineer that said WTC 7 was a fire-initiated collapse cannot be trusted.
Yep, standard faith-based reasoning - the trustworthiness of a source depends on whether it says what you want it to say.

Dave
__________________
"We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy."

- Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo

SSKCAS, covert member
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 09:19 AM   #336
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,931
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
Care to explain your statement?
I mean that your grasp of Newtonian physics appears virtually nonexistent.

Dave
__________________
"We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy."

- Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo

SSKCAS, covert member
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 09:22 AM   #337
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,828
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
You feel this video shows WTC 7 falling over sideways? I see a building falling straight down into its own footprint.
You are too far away to see it leaning, not falling straight down. Even the roof is falling not straight; gee whiz, 6 to 8 seconds before the roof moves more than inches, the Penthouse fell through the WTC 7 structure, you can see deformations in the walls and interior collapse though the windows. Oops, not straight, very not straight.

How do you get silent explosives with no blast effects? Please be specific.

"Its own footprint" is a sign you don't understand the collapse, and proof you have no evidence for your claims. Evidence please of its own footprint? Is hitting the building across the road, its own footprint?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 09:27 AM   #338
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,767
Beachnut, cmatrix doesn't agree with you, so that means you can't be trusted
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 09:27 AM   #339
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Please tell me you're not this clueless, while being this arrogant & insulting...

I just showed you something that you said was impossible: an object falling only under the influence of gravity, falling faster than G.

No other comment?

No, "whoops, perhaps my understanding of the situation was a little off. Maybe a little too simplistic"?



For once, you've said something right.

Yes, we are talking about a collapsing 47 story, massively interconnected steel structure. Not an isolated falling object.

For ALL falling objects (isolated or not)

Eqn 1: (Fg+ ΣFi) / m = a

where:
Fg= force of gravity
ΣFi= sum of all forces except gravity
m = mass of falling object
a = resultant acceleration of object.

For the special case of an "isolated falling object", by definition ΣFi= 0. And the above equation reduces to:
Eqn 2: Fg / m = a = G
where G = gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/sec^2 or 32.2 ft/sec^2)

Note that, if ΣFi≠ 0, then a ≠ G.

The balls & the coins are "isolated falling objects". They obey Eqn 2.

The cup & the end of the stick are not "isolated". They obey Eqn 1.

Now, let's see if you can take one, simple baby-step on your own …

Question 1: While it fell, was the north wall of WTC7 isolated from all other objects that might have imparted a force on it?

Question 2: Would it obey Eqn 1 or Eqn 2?

Question 3: Based on your answer to Question 2, is it possible for the north wall to fall at, or above, G?

Question 4: Using the variables shown in Eqn 1 above, describe how the north wall could fall "at G"?

Question 5: Describe how it could fall "faster than G"?



Yup.



The same clueless statements you bozos made about the WTC1 & 2 towers. Until others performed the same analyses that NIST did, and got the same results that NIST got.



You are making the same clueless error that some clueless "national security" bozo made when he declared the data "sensitive".

All the data is ALREADY OUT in the public domain. Dimensions, connections, assumptions, methodology, materials, material properties, etc. are all neatly tabulated in the NIST reports.

Anybody, who is not as clueless as you are, can recreate all that data easily.

This argument is simply the latest transparent smoke-screen, because all of your other transparent smoke-screens have evaporated. (Precisely why you bozos have abandoned WTC 1 & 2. All your "gotchas" have been answered.)



For someone who is totally clueless, you sure are arrogant.


tom
"I just showed you something that you said was impossible: an object falling only under the influence of gravity, falling faster than G."

What the hell are you talking about? I said no such thing. Please tell me you're not this clueless, while being this arrogant & insulting...

"All the data is ALREADY OUT in the public domain."

Really? So what was the FOIA request for? John Gross's phone number?

"Anybody, who is not as clueless as you are, can recreate all that data easily."

Well I certainly can't recreate it. But it sounds like you are saying it would be easy for you to recreate it. So let's see you do it. Unless you are completely full of crap, that is.
__________________
JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.
cmatrix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 09:32 AM   #340
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,128
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
You feel this video shows WTC 7 falling over sideways? I see a building falling straight down into its own footprint.
Just curious - if you were standing a couple of meters in front of the "footprint" of WTC7 while it fell (see the building falling down with the light blue line shown), do you think that you would be posting here today?


carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 09:39 AM   #341
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
The NIST theory outlines an 8-story failure of the columns. They provide no resistance at this point. You need to actually read and understand what the NIST theory is before you call it crackpot, mmkay?
Oh a simultaneous eight story buckling of all 58 perimeter columns? Well that's certainly not a crackpot theory. Especially when the only "evidence" they have to support the theory is a cooked computer model that does not show free fall or the eight story buckling and they refuse to release the data the model is based on. Yeah that's certainly not a crackpot theory.
__________________
JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.
cmatrix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 09:45 AM   #342
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,330
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
Oh a simultaneous eight story buckling of all 58 perimeter columns? Well that's certainly not a crackpot theory. Especially when the only "evidence" they have to support the theory is a cooked computer model that does not show free fall or the eight story buckling and they refuse to release the data the model is based on. Yeah that's certainly not a crackpot theory.
How do you propose NIST recreate random events exactly as they occurred during the collapse?

You do realize that is an impossible task, I hope....


Further, if brainiac truthers such as yourself, with your great technical knowledge can see thru all this instantly, why don't you use your amazing magical powers and create your own engineering model, showing exactly where the explosives or thermitics were placed, which result in a collapse which looks exactly like the real one?
You won't and you can't. And that's the end of it. Your whole counterclaim fails for complete lack of evidence and rigor.

Give it a rest already, you're very arrogant and repetitious.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 09:45 AM   #343
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Unjustified arrogance ROCKS.

But seriously, when do we get to see some math from you cmatrix. People here have been askings you to provide mathematical proof of your allegations for months now...please comply.

TAM
Unbelievable. You are asking me to prove your crackpot theory is wrong. That's like someone asking James Randi to prove there is no psychokinesis. No one here has proven the crackpot NIST theory is right. NIST hasn't, no one has. All anyone can do is wave their hands and make arrogant pronouncements that the theory is gospel. That is not science that is faith-based pseudo-science.
__________________
JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.
cmatrix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 09:49 AM   #344
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,218
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
Unbelievable. You are asking me to prove your crackpot theory is wrong. That's like someone asking James Randi to prove there is no psychokinesis. No one here has proven the crackpot NIST theory is right. NIST hasn't, no one has. All anyone can do is wave their hands and make arrogant pronouncements that the theory is gospel. That is not science that is faith-based pseudo-science.
If it's so obvious why can't you explain what they got wrong? You know with physics.

Oh wait it's a "gut" thing.

__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 09:49 AM   #345
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,330
My challenge to such pseudo-skeptics as cmatrix is to quit whining about what NIST should have done, coulda done and woulda done if only.... and just get off your lazy butts and do your own engineering model to prove your arguments.

Answer your own questions, instead of expecting everybody else to do the heavy lifting for you! Where were the explosives place, how much and what kind, how were they placed there, how were they detonated, and why weren't any pieces of steel recovered showing the evidence of them?

Go answer your questions and get back to us when you're done.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 09:51 AM   #346
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,330
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
Unbelievable. You are asking me to prove your crackpot theory is wrong. That's like someone asking James Randi to prove there is no psychokinesis. No one here has proven the crackpot NIST theory is right. NIST hasn't, no one has. All anyone can do is wave their hands and make arrogant pronouncements that the theory is gospel. That is not science that is faith-based pseudo-science.
That's an outright lie. The theory has been 'proven' by a detailed engineering model, and the parameters for the model are published and freely available online for anyone to examine.

Anybody can take the information and freely create their own model based on this, if they have the skills and inclination.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 09:53 AM   #347
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I mean that your grasp of Newtonian physics appears virtually nonexistent.

Dave
In other words you made a glaring mistake. You realize you can't show what I said was in any way wrong because what I said was in fact correct. Now you're trying to hide that mistake with bravado hoping everyone will be too stupid to notice.
__________________
JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.
cmatrix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 09:58 AM   #348
Newtons Bit
Philosopher
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,431
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
Oh a simultaneous eight story buckling of all 58 perimeter columns? Well that's certainly not a crackpot theory. Especially when the only "evidence" they have to support the theory is a cooked computer model that does not show free fall or the eight story buckling and they refuse to release the data the model is based on. Yeah that's certainly not a crackpot theory.
We've already discussed how it was not a simultaneous failure. Stop repeating debunked canards.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein

My website.
Newtons Bit is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 10:00 AM   #349
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Just curious - if you were standing a couple of meters in front of the "footprint" of WTC7 while it fell (see the building falling down with the light blue line shown), do you think that you would be posting here today?


http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/3685/picture13re.png
I doubt I would. I would have been burnt to a crisp from the the pyroclastic flow of hot dust. What wasn't burnt would have been sandblasted away.

Such rolls are done all the time in controlled demolitions in order to minimize damage to other structures. Nothing in the video shows the building fell over sideways. It rolled within its own footprint.
__________________
JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.
cmatrix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 10:01 AM   #350
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,218
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
In other words you made a glaring mistake. You realize you can't show what I said was in any way wrong because what I said was in fact correct. Now you're trying to hide that mistake with bravado hoping everyone will be too stupid to notice.
No it's more like you have no clue. Your post do support this.


__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 10:11 AM   #351
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
create your own engineering model
Can't be done without the plans.

Quote:
You won't and you can't.
Can't be done without the plans.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 10:20 AM   #352
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,128
delete, I mis-read something
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 10:27 AM   #353
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,330
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Can't be done without the plans.


Can't be done without the plans.
Get the plans. Problem solved.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 10:32 AM   #354
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
Unbelievable. You are asking me to prove your crackpot theory is wrong. That's like someone asking James Randi to prove there is no psychokinesis. No one here has proven the crackpot NIST theory is right. NIST hasn't, no one has. All anyone can do is wave their hands and make arrogant pronouncements that the theory is gospel. That is not science that is faith-based pseudo-science.
Sorry man, the nist report on WTC7 has been accepted by experts world wide. It is considered the top theory on the collapse. As a result, the burden of proof is on you and your "scientists" to present a better theory that more completely fits the evidence, and back it up.

Nice try though. You need to calm down though. Your name calling of nist and their report only makes you look juvenile...really.
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 10:36 AM   #355
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Sorry man, the nist report on WTC7 has been accepted by experts world wide. It is considered the top theory on the collapse. As a result, the burden of proof is on you and your "scientists" to present a better theory that more completely fits the evidence, and back it up.

Nice try though. You need to calm down though. Your name calling of nist and their report only makes you look juvenile...really.
So if psychic phenomena was accepted by experts world wide despite absolutely no evidence presented to support it's existence, James Randi would have to prove psychic phenomena does not exist.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html
__________________
JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.
cmatrix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 10:39 AM   #356
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14,128
cmatrix, do you have a theory that explains the collapse better than NIST? This might be a nice time to trot it out.

As an aside, the inability to correctly use "its" in a sentence is like a truther armband. Can't miss it.
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 10:40 AM   #357
HyJinX
Graduate Poster
 
HyJinX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,666
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
So if psychic phenomena was accepted by experts world wide despite absolutely no evidence presented to support it's existence, James Randi would have to prove psychic phenomena does not exist.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html
Can you please detail what the NIST got wrong and please provide your analysis, with the math to back it up?

I patiently await your reply.

Thanks,
HyJinx
__________________
What? You pooped in the refrigerator? And you ate the whole... wheel of cheese? How'd you do that? Heck, I'm not even mad; that's amazing. - Ron Burgundy
HyJinX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 10:40 AM   #358
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
So if psychic phenomena was accepted by experts world wide despite absolutely no evidence presented to support it's existence, James Randi would have to prove psychic phenomena does not exist.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html
No, but if a well educated group of experts in the given field used science to back up the claim, including analysis of photo and video evidence, as well as computer modeling, and their theory was accepted by the majority of people in the field, and no othee explanation or theory better explained the phenomenon in question, i would be inclined to accept their theory as the most valid one.

Is that hard for you to understand?

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 10:44 AM   #359
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,767
Besides, anybody who doesn't agree with the NIST is untrustworthy
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2010, 10:50 AM   #360
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,828
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Can't be done without the plans.


Can't be done without the plans.
It has already been done. Done without plans. Need to be more like that little old ant, and move the rubber tree plant. "Can't be done", a sign of failure. Research is the key, plus goals.




Don't you love physics?
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
You know, that's a pretty difficult and complicated question. I mean, you'd actually have to watch and understand the video to be able to "get" it.

So, I'll try to state it as a simpler, but equivalent, proposition.

In this picture:


Are the red lines next to A (earlier in the collapse) closer to each other than the red lines next to B (later in the collapse)?

If so, and since the the Ball (the upper object in both snapshots) is clearly falling at freefall acceleration, g, what does that mean...?
All my physics classes were alive, great teachers, physics teachers, save the ones who signed up for paranoid conspiracies. What would Mr Physics say to Chandler?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.