Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[Christopher7]

Dude, you have no evidence of any kind.

Dude, you are in denial.

 

[Myriad]

You're comparison is irrelevant. The top part of the building was not made of glass nor did it hit a solid floor.

Gravity acts the same way on glass as it does on on other substances. My comparison is completely relevant.

Solid floors was precisely what the falling top part of the building hit.

Drop a hammer on a glass instead, and pieces of glass will still be propelled laterally. Drop a glass on another glass (which is a better comparison still) and broken pieces of both will be propelled outward.

The framing sections that were ejected laterally at speeds up to 70 mph were not the result of gravity "pushing" multi-ton framework sections out of the way.

It was the result of chaotically falling rubble "pushing" multi-ton framework sections out of the way.

Gravity provided the power; the falling and breaking structures provided the lateral push, just as with a falling and breaking glass.

This is completely normal and unsurprising. Have you not noticed, in your lifetime of observing everyday phenomena, that when something (no matter what it's made of) falls and hits something or is hit by something falling on it, and the impact is hard enough to break it into separate pieces, some of the pieces are propelled laterally just about every single time? How could anyone have failed to notice this ubiquitous phenomenon?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Christopher7]

Science Experiment Time!!

- Place four, 12 inch 2x4's in a square...preferably on your kitchen table.

- Do not glue or otherwise attach them together.

- Now pour a bag of sand into your makeshift box

What happens to your 2x4's, Chris?

OMG

I just tried the experiment you described and sure enough, the 2x4s were ejected laterally at 50 mph.

 

[carlitos]

Yeppers. You could give endless analogies and examples, and they wouldn't do any good. Drop a coin on the floor, and see where it ends up. Pile of toothpicks. Popsicle-stick tower. As I suggest 55000 posts ago, a jenga game. Doesn't matter, you are hitting your head against a brick wall of willful ignorance.

Do I win the $1,000,000 prize for my prediction yet?

ETA - I have experience with someone with a certain type of personality, whereby they are unable to apply a concept from over here (get good grades) to over here (lower car insurance rates). I thought that most people grow out of this phase, but it seems to be deeper seeded. Maybe that's why analogies don't work in illustrating basic concepts of physics. The only way to satisfactorily demonstrate "what happened" on 9/11 is apparently to rebuild the buildings, fly planes into them and see what happens. And even then, there will be questions...

 

[Sabretooth]

OMG

I just tried the experiment you described and sure enough, the 2x4s were ejected laterally at 50 mph.

Edited by LibraryLady: 

Edited for Rule 12

Address the argument, not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[Christopher7]

Gravity acts the same way on glass as it does on on other substances. My comparison is completely relevant.

You dropped a glass on a solid floor. Try dropping a solid floor on a solid floor and see if you get the same result.

Solid floors was precisely what the falling top part of the building hit.

According to the official theory explanation, the upper part was coming straight down.
The exterior framing sections that were ejected laterally at speeds up to 70 mph were supposedly being crushed between the descending columns and the columns below.

It was the result of chaotically falling rubble "pushing" multi-ton framework sections out of the way.

The flaw in this hypothesis is that the exterior framing sections were not free to be "pushed" out of the way at 70 mph, they had to first be torn loose from the surrounding interlocking framing sections while supposedly being crushed.

As Dave demonstrated in his video, a framing section would have to be falling at speed greater than the lateral ejection speed because some of the energy would be absorbed by the impact. That was not the case in the gravity collapse hypothesis. The upper portion supposedly remained in tact while crushing the lower portion so it could not be a framing section from the upper portion. The framing sections in the "collapse zone" were not falling, they were being crushed.

 

[Christopher7]

Try this experiment:

Take two identical glasses.
Put on on the floor bottom up.
Drop the other glass directly centered on the one on the floor, bottom down.

Both glasses will be destroyed as per Newton's third law.

 

[Sabretooth]

Try this experiment:

Take two identical glasses.
Put on on the floor bottom up.
Drop the other glass directly centered on the one on the floor, bottom down.

Both glasses will be destroyed as per Newton's third law.

...and?

 

[Christopher7]

...and?

Clean up the glass on the floor and come to grips with the fact that the upper portion would be destroyed at the same rate as the structure below.

 

[lapman]

Your assertion that they are more qualified to hear an explosion than anyone else is silly.

Nice avoidance tactic. They are more qualified to determin if the sound of the explosion was made by an explosive.

You accept this second hand account a gospel and ignore the first hand account made right after the collapse.

Pot meet kettle.

 

[Sabretooth]

Clean up the glass on the floor and come to grips with the fact that the upper portion would be destroyed at the same rate as the structure below.

Are you saying the WTC should have cracked and shattered like glass?

 

[triforcharity]

False. There are details that need to be corrected but the abundance of solid scientific evidence of CD is correct.

Typical straw-man, add a very specific qualifier and cry foul.

There are numerous credible professionals who have confirmed the existence of molten steel/iron at the WTC site. This is supported by the USGS and RJ Lee Group reports of molten iron that was created during the event. There is also this photo:

[qimg]http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/9400/clawph1.jpg[/qimg]

You will deny all because that's what you do. No worries mate.

How is it picking it up, if it's molten? That is a claw attachment.....

 

[triforcharity]

What on Earth were so many demolition experts doing at WTC7 on 9/11 ?

Getting ready for the huge task of cleaning up the site. But, you already know that.

 

[Christopher7]

Nice avoidance tactic. They are more qualified to determin if the sound of the explosion was made by an explosive.

Are you saying they did hear explosions?

 

[triforcharity]

Are you saying they did hear explosions?

No, he is saing that they did not hear explosives going off capable of cutting any of the columns of the WTC.

 

[lapman]

No, he is saing that they did not hear explosives going off capable of cutting any of the columns of the WTC.

Thank you.

 

[Christopher7]

How is it picking it up, if it's molten? That is a claw attachment.....

Molten does not necessarily mean liquid. Iron, like lava is considered molten until it has completely solidified. The molten iron/steel in the crab claw is orange hot and solid enough at the top to be picked up as a glob. The bottom is white hot and dripping. That's why you can see thru it.

 

[Christopher7]

Are you saying they did hear explosions?

No, he is saing that they did not hear explosives going off capable of cutting any of the columns of the WTC.

Double talk.

That does not preclude hearing any explosions. On the contrary, the qualifier "capable of cutting any of the columns" implies that they heard an explosion that sounded like something else, like a transformer perhaps.

Which is it? Did they hear an explosion or not? We can't be sure because the second hand account does not specify one way or the other.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Holy crap!!! You can see though metal? Are you Superman?

 

[lapman]

Double talk.

That does not preclude hearing any explosions. On the contrary, the qualifier "capable of cutting any of the columns" implies that they heard an explosion that sounded like something else, like a transformer perhaps.

Which is it? Did they hear an explosion or not? We can't be sure because the second hand account does not specify one way or the other.

Completely irrelevant diversion from the fact that nobody heard explosives go off that day. More importantly, no sound of explosives were recorded as well. Your "7000 video" diversion ignores the fact that the sound of explosives would have been clearly recorded on 100% of all audio recording devices in the area. That did not happen. Did things explode or make sharp sounds that could be interpreted as an explosion? Yes.