Randi - You've Been Had! TS1234 Email to Randi

I must say this forum is very humbling for me, intelligence-wise. I'll probably never make full membership.

My point would be that Truthseeker's "physical-impossibility theory" makes no sense on the face of it--for the simple fact that no one would deliberately insert miracles into their cover story.

At least you'll have to explain to me how they could do such a stupid thing--and somehow fool everyone in the world but these clever conspiracy guys.

Let's imagine the 9/11 conspirators sitting round the table, planning the whole thing.

"One thing before we start," the leader says. "Let's try to make our cover story sound convincing. For example, I suggest we not put out an official story that contains violations of the laws of physics. If we did that, we would be sure to get caught."
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The damage can be shared between the two objects, but cannot be increased by imagining that one object is demolished, then turns around and demolishes the other one.
Click to expand...

????

You're saying that two objects in a collision can't both be demolished? Or what?

When the top 14 floors of WTC1 fell onto the lower part, that top section was annihilated approximately while the next 14 floors of the remainder were. Then you had 28 floors worth of rubble, weighing around 250 million pounds, come crashing onto the remaining 80 stories, already moving at a high speed. You don't think this would finish the building off?
 
Christophera said:
Personally I think they are convinced. They know it was a demolition but cannot bring themselves to oppose the parental figures of government. Without them they would have nothing, no guidence to the future.
Click to expand...
Right, which is why most of the people here give Bush and his administration ***** every day in the politics sections.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
There is only one store of energy in this problem.

If a bullet cuts a clean hole through a wall, the bullet stays relatively intact. If the soft bullet splatters on the wall, the wall stays relatively intact. There is a reciprocal nature to collision damage. The total amount of damage is given by the energy directed toward it. The damage can be shared between the two objects, but cannot be increased by imagining that one object is demolished, then turns around and demolishes the other one.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that a falling object can only have enough energy in it to "demolish"* itself, or the other object. What happens when it has more energy than just the bare minimum to demolish itself? Does it damage the other, or does it continue to move, or some combination of the two?

Consider a setup of two large slabs of concrete, which we can position one above the other, with any given separation. If we drop one on the other, what happens? If the separation is small, probably not much. As it increases, more and more damage is done to one or both. Do you really contend that there is no amount of separation from which the dropped slab will demolish both slabs?



*We still need to establish exactly what you mean by demolish. Remember, no one else here (except maybe Christophera) believes that the Towers were entirely turned to dust.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
iirc, their estimates were based off of the construction. No idea how much energy was added over the years through office equipment, upgrades, est.
Click to expand...

i used 4,636,000 kg per floor, and 1/2 height of each floor in increments for the 110 floors for the height of the WTC.

you can do a quick check with the total weight and half the height, or you could take the expected velocity of each piece and then figure the KE as it hits the ground, etc

I know some people use NIST and say it could not crush all the stuff, I think I have seen estimates as high as my calculation. It was this CT junk that got me to calcualte it, I was seeing if I could understand the collapse starting and destroying the WTC as it did, since it did, yet some idiots said it could not happen.

Found out there is a lot of energy there, and I know that the wall board in the WTC, the tons of wall board were a big reason for the dust after destroying and remodeling houses. There was more wall board in the WTC due to it being used to cover the steel of the core, two layers 3/4 inch each.

physics, not sure the ct guys understand it
 
911garfieldvh5.jpg
 
CurtC said:
When the top 14 floors of WTC1 fell onto the lower part, that top section was annihilated approximately while the next 14 floors of the remainder were. Then you had 28 floors worth of rubble, weighing around 250 million pounds, come crashing onto the remaining 80 stories, already moving at a high speed. You don't think this would finish the building off?
Click to expand...

Right there is the problem. He seems to belive there was no rubble, that it all turned to dust. We've tried to show him otherwise, but he won't budge.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
You are missing the reciprocal nature. Of course what I said is highly simplified and stylized to make the needed point. Curt, you are trying to use the same energy over and over again, and it doesn't work that way. There is only one store of energy in this problem.

If a bullet cuts a clean hole through a wall, the bullet stays relatively intact. If the soft bullet splatters on the wall, the wall stays relatively intact. There is a reciprocal nature to collision damage. The total amount of damage is given by the energy directed toward it. The damage can be shared between the two objects, but cannot be increased by imagining that one object is demolished, then turns around and demolishes the other one.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of a chain reaction? From what I remember from my science class if what you are saying about energy not being able to be used again, than a chain reaction would never work.
 
Truthseeker1234 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are seriously misinformed about basic physics so why would anybody believe you?
 
Horatius said:
Right there is the problem. He seems to belive there was no rubble, that it all turned to dust. We've tried to show him otherwise, but he won't budge.
Click to expand...
Hell, even the steel that he admits wasn't turned to dust would be enough to finish off the rest of the building.
 
CurtC said:
When the top 14 floors of WTC1 fell onto the lower part, that top section was annihilated approximately while the next 14 floors of the remainder were. Then you had 28 floors worth of rubble, weighing around 250 million pounds, come crashing onto the remaining 80 stories, already moving at a high speed. You don't think this would finish the building off?
Click to expand...


Which is what kids? the next link in a chain reaction.

BTW, TS1234 are you a goverment agent you'r self? just spreading these theories so the goverment can look more powerfull?
 
I've not much time for the forum, working long days etc. I think the most important questions are

- the initial moment
- the energy to break a floor.

Whether the block (or the part where the block falls onto) integrates during the fall does not really matter as long as the mass goes in the same directory, here we have to assume

- it all stays above the footprint
- the terminal velocity is never reached (i.e the dust goes as fast as the solid mass and gets no resistance from air and itself)
- the energy to break each storey is much lower than the kinetic energy of the bulk above, at that moment

In that case all gravitational energy is used for the collapse.

Further perfect symmetry should be assumed, the toppling south tower in fact disproves it, the north tower is more symmetric, but you see the antenna rotating aftter a couple of stories.

The 1,000,000,000,000 Joule/whatever is a lot of course but irrelevant by the assumption of a stepwise/traveling effect. It will also happen for a 20 storeys building if you remove floor 10 completely (and assume no material in order to get its kinetic energy)

Since pressure is only dependent on the height (like in water) you can in fact think of a similar building as high as the wtc but not having the same area, maybe 1 feet times 1 feet, if you remove the 3.8 meter high part at floor 96 then mr Eager will say it falls through the whole building. If you place 1000 x 1000 of those models next to each other and they go at the same time you have the same energy picture as the wtc.

Yes the energy picture is completely valid, but that is not a proof that the theory is also right.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The damage can be shared between the two objects, but cannot be increased by imagining that one object is demolished, then turns around and demolishes the other one.
Click to expand...
i suspect you play too much magic: the gathering

real life is not turn-based, an object will not inflict damage to another object and remain unharmed, then wait around for the other object to inflict what damage it can on the first object, they will damage and potentially destroy each other simultaneously
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
If a bullet cuts a clean hole through a wall, the bullet stays relatively intact. If the soft bullet splatters on the wall, the wall stays relatively intact.
Click to expand...

Fine, the tower fell into the Earth, and the Earth stayed relatively intact.


What is your point?
 
defaultdotxbe said:
i suspect you play too much magic: the gathering real life is not turn-based
Click to expand...
Oh man. Too funny.
defaultdotxbe said:
an object will not inflict damage to another object and remain unharmed, then wait around for the other object to inflict what damage it can on the first object, they will damage and potentially destroy each other simultaneously
Click to expand...
As per my clay balls analogy. Throw one clay ball at another one and watch the result if you don't believe us, TS1234. You can experiment here. If we're wrong, you can prove it to yourself with a test (the downside being that if you're wrong, the test will show that instead.)

Also, here is a pictorial argument against your hypothesis:
01.jpg

(image from http://www.daihatsu.com/motorshow/geneva05/sirion/bigimg/safety/img/01.jpg)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom