Truthseeker1234's Education/Degrees/Qualifications?
- Thread starter Sword_Of_Truth
- Start date
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
Gravity: An all attractive force which in this case pulls things down.
Potential energy: Energy an object or system has due to its postion or arrangement within the system. (ie. as in; the potential energy contained in tons of building material suspended hundreds of feet above a surface within a gravitational field.)
Kinetic energy: The energy of a body or a system with respect to the motion of the body or of the particles in the system. (i.e the kinetic energy within tons of building material that is moving toward the ground at ternimal velocity and colliding with each other)
Fluid Dynamics: The branch of applied science that is concerned with the movement of gases and liquids. (i.e. the fluid dynamics involved when tons of moving building materials disturb or impart energy into the air around it.)
Last edited:
For the love of Pete, I implore you to either: engage your brain and start reading responses - really reading them, or better yet, get a proper education.
I rejected that for 5 years and still can't believe it (I mention it sometimes of course because I got some of the "Ct virus") , maybe there are other explanations. And the word CD is by definition wrong, then it should be an UD
and centre of gravity is the wrong expression, I mean center of mass.
Why wouldn't the block damage in the same way as the 14 floors below, assuming the connecting parts have the same strength (and also weakenings), this end result of mess will of course have the same mass and go down.
Last edited:
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Excellent question. The energy was, for the most part, imparted by hundreds of construction workers from 1966 to 1973 (and thousands more who brought in furniture and office supplies over a thirty year span). Every calorie of energy that the cranes exerted hauling I-beams up 1,000 feet in the air was cleverly stored in the towers until 9/11. Every bit of energy the Poland Springs guy spent hauling jugs of water up to the 87th floor the week before was trapped inside those water molecules.
It may be counter-intuitive to think of it this way because big monolithic towers don't appear to have any energy, but all of the energy that went into their construction was right there the whole time. It took seven years to add all of that energy during construction and it was all released in a matter of seconds.
Yeah, Truthseeker, you're an idiot.
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
Does the background of that linked website say "Truth Sucker"??? I gotta clean my glasses.
Sheesh these guys wrap themselves in the word "truth" more often than a rightwingxtianfundy wraps himself in the flag! Each of these groups treats truth and flag like so much toiletpaper.
-z
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,756
No, sorry GPE is orders of magnitude to little to all this work. It' s not even close. See Hoffman. Trumpman. Ross. The reason this looks like a bomb crater is because it is.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic88436.jpg
http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic88436.jpg
Last edited by a moderator:
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
very well put
its funny when CTs claim the laws of physics were violated, but they dont seem to understand that its just as possible their understanding of the laws of physics was violated
for expample:
a ball is released from 1m above the ground, it falls, hits the ground, and bounces 3m into the air. is this a possible scenario?
the obvious answer is no, a ball dropped from 1m would only have the energy to bounce 1m back up (assuming no energy is lost to entropy)
HOWEVER, i never stated the initial velocity of the ball, if it was greater than 0 this situation is entirely possible
so you see the laws of physics can seem to have been violated if you dont have all the information at your disposal
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
wanna cite some numbers instead of just throwing names out? and why is it that the vast majority of physicists dont see any issues with the notion of GPE releasing the energy to do this?
BTW wheres the bomb crater? same place as the mushroom cloud i suppose
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
These are bomb craters:
http://images.google.com/images?sou...LG:2006-23,GGLG:en&q=bomb craters&sa=N&tab=wi
None of which resemble the ground zero site.
Also CD does not leave craters. CD does not "blow up" a building. In knocks out key support structures so that gravity can bring the building down. In CD it is not the explosives that bring down the building, it is gravity and potential energy that brings the building down.
If it was the intention of bringing down the WTC in thier own foot print why use explosives that would throw a steel beam 600 feet from the site?
http://images.google.com/images?sou...LG:2006-23,GGLG:en&q=bomb craters&sa=N&tab=wi
None of which resemble the ground zero site.
Also CD does not leave craters. CD does not "blow up" a building. In knocks out key support structures so that gravity can bring the building down. In CD it is not the explosives that bring down the building, it is gravity and potential energy that brings the building down.
If it was the intention of bringing down the WTC in thier own foot print why use explosives that would throw a steel beam 600 feet from the site?
Last edited:
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Truthseeker1234,
I am going to pose to you a yes/no question. Please answer it directly. Failure to answer will been taken as a "no" response.
Do you have sufficient understanding of the sites you link to, such as Ross, to discuss them in detail?
If you answer "no" to the above question, please explain on what grounds you accept their work as accurate and valid.
Z
Variable Constant
Silly boy. Have you ever seen a bomb crater? It doesn't look like that, at all.
Try again, Liar.
Wait. The CTers don't even know how controlled demolitions work, or what one looks like? Even though 'looks like' constitutes the majority of their so-called evidence? WHAT?
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
Hang around and you will see convesations like this one.
CTist: The twin towers were a CD because it looked like one.
Skeptic: They looked nothing like a CD, here look at these links.
CTist: Exactly, they were designed to to not look like one.
Honest, that's happened.
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
happened to me too, lol
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
I don't understand why they have to believe that WTC was the result of a unbelievably complex and convoluted conspiracy which included hundreds of people, agencies, organisations and companies sworn to secrecy; placing tons of explosives in a very busy office building; commandeering huge commercial aircraft with remote control from airports; all of this unoticed, and all of this was mastermind and executed by someone who can barley talk without making a fool of himself for the purpose of invading some small country in the middle east? It truely boggles.
I guess it is a psycological need to believe in a devil of somesort that is responsible for all the bad things that happens in this world. It's almost like a religeous belief.
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
argumentum ad ignorantiam, they dont understand how it could have happened, so they invent some scheme by which it could happen, without having to admit that they were never really as safe as they thought they were pre-911
JayT
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2005
- Messages
- 319
Anyone care to speculate what they are?
I've asked and he won't say. He just keeps droning on about what he claims the laws of physics will allow.
So if he won't cough it up... let's make it up!
The complexity of the physical sequence of events is such that it would take a computer to study all the myriad variables involved. And even then we couldn't be sure, only more statistically certain of some scenarios over others.
I seriously doubt that any one person can reason it all out alone with any certainty. Too many factors are still unknown to be so confident with justification. This is evidenced by the fact that even knowledgeable experts cannot agree.
The laws of physics can only be applied to whatever extent that we know the variables involved. In this case, a lot is missing from the equation.
Knowledge is consistent, theories can fly in all directions.
Last edited:
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
As for me, I don't have "sufficient understanding" of the NIST report, but that doesn't prevent me from accepting their work as accurate and valid.
Reason being these guys are the experts in this field and were commissioned to do the work.
Then again, I don't discuss the NIST report in detail, because I don't have a sufficient understanding of it.