• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Peanut gallery: The WTC 1,2,7 collapsed from impact damage and fires

qarnos said:
Who's going to be out resident nutjob untill he gets back?

I don't think we can count Christophera on the grounds that he may actually need professional help.

Does anybodye else think Skeptic4Sure could be a TS1234 sock? He popped up about the same time TS was suspended...
Click to expand...

I was thinking the exact same thing.

1234 is seeking as much for the truth, as 4Sure is being skeptic.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
This is a debate about the official theory, not about alternative theories.
Click to expand...

Bull Sh|t.

If this were true, then you should open it up yourself with what's wrong in the official story.

If this were true, then posting the NIST report, a document full of research and reasoning, should be perfectly acceptable as a statement of the case.

Instead, you want someone to write up a woefully short, non-scientific text which is likely to contain some unintentional errors or unclear statements, so you can jump on these to claim the official story is wrong.

You don't want a debate, you want a propaganda piece. You aren't interested in truth, you're interested in stroking your own ego until you bukakke yourself with your own stupidity.

You're no scholar, and you're no truth-seeker. You're a callous, ignorant attention whore, afraid and unable to actually challenge those whose expertise and research led to uncovering the events of 9/11. You're a poser, a wannabe, who can't actually argue against the official theory but requires someone to create a caricature of it to stand any cahnce at anything that could be twisted around to resemble success. You're a vulture, feeding on the deaths of 3000 Americans for nothing but your ego and your pocketbook.

You're a sociopath who's too much of coward to do his own killing.
 
Chipmunk Stew began the debat, TS1234 is flip flopping around it.
 
So shouldn't TS1234 be given a reasonable time (maybe up to a week) to respond, and if TS1234 does not, then he forfeits the debate?
 
Agreed. What about it, TS1234? You had a week to come up with a rebutal of Chipmunk Stew's statement. Ready to tear him a new one? Or are you gonna forfeit?
 
umm...maybe I should have followed more closely, but why is TS1234 suspended?

TAM
 
well TS1234 has violated the terms of his own debate by posting his rebuttal to CS without posting his own case first

he also completely missed CS's challenge to debunk the NIST report, claiming that CS simply posted "naked assertations" with nothign to back it up
 
TS1234, that's also my conclusion, that they not really concentrate on the collapse process itself, if they do that they will burn their fingers and wake a sleeping bear. The block disintegrates into dust, the south tower's block (wtc2, secondly hit first falled) topples a little bit, there are movies from several angles. In two of them you clearly see that once the N stories fall about N stories lower there is nothing left of the initial block. I really have no idea how that could happen, if it is due to the fall on the building it's logically that it disintegrates but then the upper part of the building should also disintegrate in the same rate or less (by increasing strength to the bottom) which is not true. IMO it even looks that the whole floor where it should fall on is still intact after disintegration of the block. Since a lot of mass falls away from the building the vertical component of the total momentum is very low and it is not possible this process will continue to the bottom. But it happened, it's a kind of magic. The paper of Mrs. Wood is correct

This is in fact Greening's calculation

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/ModelA.jpg

And this is more realistic

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/ModelB.jpg

but that has never been done. Mrs. Wood is a friendly woman btw, was willing to answer some questions I had
 
einsteen said:
TS1234, that's also my conclusion, that they not really concentrate on the collapse process itself, if they do that they will burn their fingers and wake a sleeping bear. The block disintegrates into dust, the south tower's block (wtc2, secondly hit first falled) topples a little bit, there are movies from several angles. In two of them you clearly see that once the N stories fall about N stories lower there is nothing left of the initial block. I really have no idea how that could happen, if it is due to the fall on the building it's logically that it disintegrates but then the upper part of the building should also disintegrate in the same rate or less (by increasing strength to the bottom) which is not true. IMO it even looks that the whole floor where it should fall on is still intact after disintegration of the block. Since a lot of mass falls away from the building the vertical component of the total momentum is very low and it is not possible this process will continue to the bottom. But it happened, it's a kind of magic. The paper of Mrs. Wood is correct

This is in fact Greening's calculation

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/ModelA.jpg

And this is more realistic

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/ModelB.jpg

but that has never been done. Mrs. Wood is a friendly woman btw, was willing to answer some questions I had
Click to expand...
Einsteen, I've never seen this "upper block turns to dust" effect you speak of. I do see the upper blocks become obscured by smoke and dust once they fall a number of stories. Can you direct me to the two videos you mentioned?
 
Getting back to Judy Wood's joke of a paper, her points are:

1. If floor 109 falls down onto 108, and obliterates 108, making its mass vanish, then 109 will have stopped momentarily at the impact before it keeps going down towards 107.

2. Doing this 108 times will take way longer than 10 seconds.

The problems with her paper are numerous:

1. When 109 hits 108, 108's mass would not disappear. She's assuming it immediately turned completely to dust, and that the dust was ejected from the building so that it would no longer contribute to the avalanche.

2. If floor 109 falls onto 108, it would basically stop momentarily, but then their combined mass would fall onto 107, so (108+109) would not stop. As the collapse progresses downwards, it would build up speed.

3. The collapse didn't start at the top floor, it started at the plane's impact point.

In another post, I re-did her calculations the correct way, and making the (wrong) assumption that the collapse started at the very top floor only, I got 15 seconds for total collapse. I didn't bother to re-do the calculations with collapse initiation at the impact point, but that would significantly reduce the time it takes.
 
Gravy, a premature conclusion is not what we want of course and I admit that it is hard to see what happens, I got not all movies here, but it really looks like a part of the top, i.e. the edge is destroyed and falls away from the building.
 
The billiard balls example of course uses elastic collisions. momentum and kinetic energy are conserved. Greening assumes inelastic collisions, i.e. momentum conserved (even increased due to impulse which is correct) and kinetic energy not conserved because it is needed to break the structure, floors etc. The real picture should be something between these two extremities. It will be though, very though if you consider mass scattering/whatever (think about wtc7 which was hit) and the dust hanging in the air. Mrs. Woods thinks that cannot contribute to the total momentum and that is correct I think because it's obvious this is no one-dimensional problem. There are even people who mention waves traveling in the tower because of the impact, that should also be taken into account. No one on earth can calculate this exactly, realistic assumptions should be made.
 
einsteen said:
The billiard balls example of course uses elastic collisions. momentum and kinetic energy are conserved. Greening assumes inelastic collisions, i.e. momentum conserved (even increased due to impulse which is correct) and kinetic energy not conserved because it is needed to break the structure, floors etc. The real picture should be something between these two extremities.
Click to expand...

einsteen, I've corrected you on this before, and now it seems I must again.

"Inelastic" and "Elastic" are not opposite "extremities."

All collisions conserve momentum. All of them.

Some collisions conserve mechanical energy. These are called "elastic." These are in the minority. If any energy at all is converted into heat, causes deformation, etc., it makes the collision inelastic.

There is no such thing as a "semi-elastic" collision. It's called inelastic.

Greening's assumption is correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom