Truthseeker1234's Education/Degrees/Qualifications?

DavidJames said:
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.
Click to expand...


oh, on more than one forum I frequent, have i pointed this fallacy out.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The reason this looks like a bomb crater is because it is.
Click to expand...

Really ?

Let me show you something.

dhah1.gif


Here is the carter that this bomb caused

eeis_02_img0616.jpg


This is what you think GZ looks like yes\no?

This was an eight story building called the Khobar Towers. It was attacked in 1996 and ended in the loss of 20 lives.

So why would I show you this?

Because this building was attacked with the equivalent of an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 pounds of TNT. Now I am no explosives expert but can imagine that when this amount of explosives goes off it would produce an almighty bang.

So the question is TS did you hear the almighty bang as explosives went off to produced the same effect on two 110 story buildings as with this 8 story building?

A simple yes or no is ok.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
yes
Click to expand...


Do you know what a bomb going off, and two buildings collapsing because of extensive airplane impact and fire damage have in common? Loud noises.
So it's up to you if you wan't to make up a crazy theory that picks and chooses only evidence that fits it, or make up a reasonable theory based on all the evidence.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
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.
Click to expand...

How very amusing.

Since you said this, then you must have an estimate of how much GPE, that's Gravitational Potential Energy, there was in each tower.

How much?

I've done this calculation in this forum for another doubter like yourself, and I'll be glad to trot it out again. I want to see what your guess is, and how you came to that conclusion.

Once you have that number, then you'll know what "orders of magnitude more" e.g. at least ten times, really means. It may surprise you.

Your bluff is called. Show your work.
 
R.Mackey said:
I've done this calculation in this forum for another doubter like yourself, and I'll be glad to trot it out again. I want to see what your guess is, and how you came to that conclusion.

Your bluff is called. Show your work.
Click to expand...

Troooofseekers brain is orders of magnitude too little to all that work.
 
R.Mackey said:
How very amusing.

Since you said this, then you must have an estimate of how much GPE, that's Gravitational Potential Energy, there was in each tower.

How much?

I've done this calculation in this forum for another doubter like yourself, and I'll be glad to trot it out again. I want to see what your guess is, and how you came to that conclusion.

Once you have that number, then you'll know what "orders of magnitude more" e.g. at least ten times, really means. It may surprise you.

Your bluff is called. Show your work.
Click to expand...

TruthSeeker1234 has been active on this board since you posted this. I guess he must have missed it! I would hate for him to miss the opportunity to demonstrate his understanding of the physics involved, so I'll bump this up for him.
 
Pythra said:
TruthSeeker1234 has been active on this board since you posted this. I guess he must have missed it! I would hate for him to miss the opportunity to demonstrate his understanding of the physics involved, so I'll bump this up for him.
Click to expand...

You could also say:

TruthSeeker1234! Answer de doggam question allready!!
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
[drone] Where does the energy come from to do all this work? [/drone]
Click to expand...
Loss Leader said:
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.
Click to expand...
uruk said:
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.)
Click to expand...
Well, 1234? Care to comment? Something like, "I see. I was mistaken then. No need for me to drone any longer" would be marvy.
 
There is nothing magical about the potential energy of the twin towers.
It's just the summation of the mass times height. For uniform distrubution the integral becomes trivial and you have in fact

P=(height center of mass wtc) * Mass_wtc

It is often mentioned that this huge and tremendous amount of mass is responsible for what happened. Of course the potential energy is proportional with the height, but the collapse process is not related with the total mass of the building. The implication of what happened is that for example a building of 20 floors with not much potential energy will also collapse in the same way if the same plane crashes at floor 10. That is very easy.
 
uruk said:
Oh and while your reading these post, How about answering these two questions:

How can a silent explosive generate a siesmic event?
And where is the siesmic event of the airplane impact 14 seconds after the explosion event?
Click to expand...

It's called Hushaboom and it along with Invsicrete are the culprits.

3" rebar on 4' centrers. That's all you ccan know for now
 
einsteen said:
There is nothing magical about the potential energy of the twin towers.
It's just the summation of the mass times height. For uniform distrubution the integral becomes trivial and you have in fact

P=(height center of mass wtc) * Mass_wtc

It is often mentioned that this huge and tremendous amount of mass is responsible for what happened. Of course the potential energy is proportional with the height, but the collapse process is not related with the total mass of the building. The implication of what happened is that for example a building of 20 floors with not much potential energy will also collapse in the same way if the same plane crashes at floor 10. That is very easy.
Click to expand...

PE of one tower = 95 tons of TNT.

ETA: And I disagree with your assertion that "the collapse process is not related with the total mass of the building". As structural support failed during collapse PE was converted to KE/heat/etc. All that needs to be shown is that the E at any point in the collapse was sufficient to cause structural failure to continue and for PE to continue to be converted to other forms.
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
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! :D
Click to expand...

I don´t care about his degrees or qualifications, but
he would be a good missinformation-agent. Everytime
i try to understand him, i end up in the thoughts he
tries to fool the people in here.

So, dear TRUTHSEEKER1234: Okay, you´re right - it was
a controlled demolition. So what? What now? What´s
next?

Did you ever thought about it? Even if every expert
would say this is a CD - so what? What now? What´s
next?

It´s a dead end. So stop kidding around.

PLEASE!
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Arkan baited

yes
Click to expand...

Hi Ts10

I have never seen anything that looked less like a CD than than the towers collapsing.

They looked to me just like buildings falling down under gravity after being hit by a plane and suffering fire damage.

Can you tell me the compression strength of a 4" I-beam?

Hint it varies with temp.

If the towers fell in thier own footprint, then they must have been elephants.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
PE of one tower = 95 tons of TNT.

ETA: And I disagree with your assertion that "the collapse process is not related with the total mass of the building". As structural support failed during collapse PE was converted to KE/heat/etc. All that needs to be shown is that the E at any point in the collapse was sufficient to cause structural failure to continue and for PE to continue to be converted to other forms.
Click to expand...

Do you know what the potential energy of the ground you're standing up now is if you compare it with the area 400 meter lower. I disagree with you for 100%. Everyone always mentions it started from the top, well let's assume this progressive collapse. It should also happen with a building of 20 floors if structural supports fails at floor #10.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom