TruthSeeker1234
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,756
To James "Amazing Randi" Randi
Dear Mr. Randi,
It is with great disappointment that I see you embracing paranormal explanations for real-world events. Specifically I refer to the twin tower "collapses" of 9/11, in which two 110-story skyscrapers are alleged to have disintegrated under their own weight.
I was a teenager during the 1970's, my parents and I used to love your appearances on talk shows. I enjoyed your debunking of fakes like Uri Gellar. You built a successful and well-deserved career on reassuring us that claims of paranormal abilities are, in fact, tricks. Objects that "disappear" are actually slid up the sleeve, or under the false bottom. No laws of physics are violated, but clever illusionists create the impression that they are.
Taking my lesson from you, I learned that whenever something appears to violate the laws of physics, it must be a trick. The so-called "official" explanation of 9/11 asks us to believe something physically impossible.
It is a "theory" fundamentally at odds with itself, for it requires both very high resistance, and very low resistance, at the same time. On the one hand, we are supposed to believe that the undamaged, intact structure below the impact zone offered so little resistance to the falling mass from above, that the roof came down to earth in just over free-fall time. On the other hand, we are supposed to believe that the intact structure offered so much resistance that almost the whole building and everything in it were systematically crushed into fine powder.
Having a falling mass pulverize macroscopic objects below into powder positively requires that the falling mass encounters stout resistance. Whatever is in between the falling mass and the stout resistance can be pulverized. If the falling mass does not encounter stout resistance, impacted mass will not pulverize. A hammer requires an anvil. A mortar requires a pestle.
We shall see that a building cannot fall anywhere near free fall speed and still have enough energy left over to pulverize much of anything. This is the principle of conservation of energy. The energy for this problem comes from Gravitational Potential Energy, GPE. This one source of energy must account for all of the work that we observe to have been done.
The first work is simply accelerating the mass of the building downwards. If the entire building had come down in free-fall time, there would have been zero energy left to explain anything else. The total collapse times were slightly longer than free-fall, but not much. Thus we are beginning with some small fraction of the total GPE.
This small fraction of total GPE must then account for the shredding of the steel superstructure into small pieces, and pulverizing 99% of the non-metallic mass of those buildings into fine powder, (including 100,000 tons of steel reinforced concrete), then systematically ejecting the shredded steel and powder sideways with great force, enough to hurl hundred-ton chunks up to 600 feet laterally, then rapidly expand the dust cloud many times the volume of the intact towers, forming a flow which greatly resembled the pyroclastic flows of a volcano, and finally forming a strong gas chimney with mushroom top where the building had just stood. All of these phenomena require large energy inputs.
Various independent scientists have done energy balance sheets and come up short every which way from Sunday. Simply put, there is not nearly enough GPE present to explain the observed work, therefore some other source of energy must have been present. That means explosives of some kind.
The official government reports, like NIST, do not find evidence of explosives, but then again, they didn't test for them. Having mentioned NIST, it would be a good time to mention that NIST did not even attempt to model the behavior of the towers during the so-called "collapses". Thus the most mysterious and interesting aspects of this event remain officially unstudied. Could this be because a correct twin tower model will show that a local collapse of the upper 12 stories (of any etiology) will arrest itself and not lead to a total progressive collapse? Even if progressive collapse is induced somehow, surely this would not lead to the systematic shredding of the core structure, nor would it lead to the near-total disintegration of all the non-metallic mass.
To believe that a building (or anything else), has the ability to crush and obliterate itself under its own weight, and throw off a mushroom cloud just for good measure, this is to believe in the paranormal. It defies all experience with the world as we know it, and I cannot understand how anyone accepts it.
When two objects collide, one of three things can happen:
1. A remains intact and destroys B
2. B remains intact and destroys A
3. Something between these two extremes.
It is imperative to understand that the amount of damage that A can inflict on B is reciprocally related to the amount of damaged suffered by A. The more damage sustained by A, the less damage to B, and vice versa. A and B do not annihilate one another. The hammer crushes the ice cube on the floor, but the hammer does not shatter, nor does the floor. If the floor is made of thin glass, then the floor shatters, but the ice cube doesn't. Do you see the relationship?
The official story of the twin towers has it that the upper part of the building fell down like a sledgehammer through the floors below. In the case of WTC2, this is about 30 stories. But what happens to that 30 story sledgehammer? Where does it go? Where are the 220 acre-sized steel floor pans full of concrete? Why does falling steel appear to be evaporating into dust as it falls?
It looked as though two 110 story buildings almost totally disappeared, but, that would appear to be magic, and to violate the laws of physics, so we know it must be a trick. We know because you, Mr. Randi, taught us how to spot the tricksters (sometimes they use a lot of smoke to obscure things, for instance).
In reality, the top parts of the buildings were shattered before they ever started falling down through the lower structure, as all the photos and videos reveal. Look at the video of WTC1. The top part of the building compresses to half its size before the lower part ever moves one inch. By the time the "collapse" is half-over, the top of the building has completely disintegrated. Look closely Mr. Randi, the illusionists used a lot of smoke.
There are a litany of other specific observations which are at odds with the official government paranormal narrative, perhaps we can discuss those in the future if you are interested.
Mr. Randi, you may have thought that even the most clever sleight-of-hand artist would never be able to pull one over on you, but sir, you've been had.
Sincerely,
TruthSeeker1234
Dear Mr. Randi,
It is with great disappointment that I see you embracing paranormal explanations for real-world events. Specifically I refer to the twin tower "collapses" of 9/11, in which two 110-story skyscrapers are alleged to have disintegrated under their own weight.
I was a teenager during the 1970's, my parents and I used to love your appearances on talk shows. I enjoyed your debunking of fakes like Uri Gellar. You built a successful and well-deserved career on reassuring us that claims of paranormal abilities are, in fact, tricks. Objects that "disappear" are actually slid up the sleeve, or under the false bottom. No laws of physics are violated, but clever illusionists create the impression that they are.
Taking my lesson from you, I learned that whenever something appears to violate the laws of physics, it must be a trick. The so-called "official" explanation of 9/11 asks us to believe something physically impossible.
It is a "theory" fundamentally at odds with itself, for it requires both very high resistance, and very low resistance, at the same time. On the one hand, we are supposed to believe that the undamaged, intact structure below the impact zone offered so little resistance to the falling mass from above, that the roof came down to earth in just over free-fall time. On the other hand, we are supposed to believe that the intact structure offered so much resistance that almost the whole building and everything in it were systematically crushed into fine powder.
Having a falling mass pulverize macroscopic objects below into powder positively requires that the falling mass encounters stout resistance. Whatever is in between the falling mass and the stout resistance can be pulverized. If the falling mass does not encounter stout resistance, impacted mass will not pulverize. A hammer requires an anvil. A mortar requires a pestle.
We shall see that a building cannot fall anywhere near free fall speed and still have enough energy left over to pulverize much of anything. This is the principle of conservation of energy. The energy for this problem comes from Gravitational Potential Energy, GPE. This one source of energy must account for all of the work that we observe to have been done.
The first work is simply accelerating the mass of the building downwards. If the entire building had come down in free-fall time, there would have been zero energy left to explain anything else. The total collapse times were slightly longer than free-fall, but not much. Thus we are beginning with some small fraction of the total GPE.
This small fraction of total GPE must then account for the shredding of the steel superstructure into small pieces, and pulverizing 99% of the non-metallic mass of those buildings into fine powder, (including 100,000 tons of steel reinforced concrete), then systematically ejecting the shredded steel and powder sideways with great force, enough to hurl hundred-ton chunks up to 600 feet laterally, then rapidly expand the dust cloud many times the volume of the intact towers, forming a flow which greatly resembled the pyroclastic flows of a volcano, and finally forming a strong gas chimney with mushroom top where the building had just stood. All of these phenomena require large energy inputs.
Various independent scientists have done energy balance sheets and come up short every which way from Sunday. Simply put, there is not nearly enough GPE present to explain the observed work, therefore some other source of energy must have been present. That means explosives of some kind.
The official government reports, like NIST, do not find evidence of explosives, but then again, they didn't test for them. Having mentioned NIST, it would be a good time to mention that NIST did not even attempt to model the behavior of the towers during the so-called "collapses". Thus the most mysterious and interesting aspects of this event remain officially unstudied. Could this be because a correct twin tower model will show that a local collapse of the upper 12 stories (of any etiology) will arrest itself and not lead to a total progressive collapse? Even if progressive collapse is induced somehow, surely this would not lead to the systematic shredding of the core structure, nor would it lead to the near-total disintegration of all the non-metallic mass.
To believe that a building (or anything else), has the ability to crush and obliterate itself under its own weight, and throw off a mushroom cloud just for good measure, this is to believe in the paranormal. It defies all experience with the world as we know it, and I cannot understand how anyone accepts it.
When two objects collide, one of three things can happen:
1. A remains intact and destroys B
2. B remains intact and destroys A
3. Something between these two extremes.
It is imperative to understand that the amount of damage that A can inflict on B is reciprocally related to the amount of damaged suffered by A. The more damage sustained by A, the less damage to B, and vice versa. A and B do not annihilate one another. The hammer crushes the ice cube on the floor, but the hammer does not shatter, nor does the floor. If the floor is made of thin glass, then the floor shatters, but the ice cube doesn't. Do you see the relationship?
The official story of the twin towers has it that the upper part of the building fell down like a sledgehammer through the floors below. In the case of WTC2, this is about 30 stories. But what happens to that 30 story sledgehammer? Where does it go? Where are the 220 acre-sized steel floor pans full of concrete? Why does falling steel appear to be evaporating into dust as it falls?
It looked as though two 110 story buildings almost totally disappeared, but, that would appear to be magic, and to violate the laws of physics, so we know it must be a trick. We know because you, Mr. Randi, taught us how to spot the tricksters (sometimes they use a lot of smoke to obscure things, for instance).
In reality, the top parts of the buildings were shattered before they ever started falling down through the lower structure, as all the photos and videos reveal. Look at the video of WTC1. The top part of the building compresses to half its size before the lower part ever moves one inch. By the time the "collapse" is half-over, the top of the building has completely disintegrated. Look closely Mr. Randi, the illusionists used a lot of smoke.
There are a litany of other specific observations which are at odds with the official government paranormal narrative, perhaps we can discuss those in the future if you are interested.
Mr. Randi, you may have thought that even the most clever sleight-of-hand artist would never be able to pull one over on you, but sir, you've been had.
Sincerely,
TruthSeeker1234
