• 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.

Care to Comment

As someone who has a pool table the very first comment is wrong*. When you get the very first thing that you say wrong I'm not going to pay any more attention to you.

*Put some decent top spin with follow through on the cue ball and you can make the cue ball accelerate after hitting an object ball.
 
rsalinger said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s&feature=player_embedded

was sent to me recently. Has anyone else commented on this latest video?

Rgrds=Ross
Click to expand...

Oh can I?

If a building is standing 1000 feet in the air, please describe how *********** gravity impacts a pool ball.

Worthless. The first truther who acknowledges that Newton's laws apply in a closed system gets a *********** cookie. Or to put it another way, calculate the freaking potential energy of a ten ton steel beam placed 1000 feet in the air.

Idiots.
 
Actually I am more interested why everyone who narrates these videos seems to always sound like Frank Oz
 
In the words of Arnold J Rimmer, "Wrong, wrong. Absolutely brimming over with wrongability."

This video has everything, ice models, mortar models, wood models and cinderblock models, a few cherry picked failed demolitions, appeals to authority and physics with no supporting maths.
 
Oh holy crap. The many errors are so easy to spot! :rolleyes:

The most important being: they completely ignore the constant acceleration of gravity. Since the collapses were all slower than free-fall (i.e.: acceleration < g), that means there was a resisting force that decelrated the collapse. Indeed, the momentum lost du to inelastic collisions of falling upper block with resting lower block is the main reason for this upward force and HAS been properly taken into account by everybody who ever modelled the collapse.

The experiments conducted are cute and good enough to convince me that upward and downward crushing occur simultaneously. I am not at all convinced that this refutes Bazant, and it has nothing to do with speed of collapse.

The videos of failed demolitions are quite irrelevant as we are shown reinforced concrete structures that ar much much smaller and of entirely different designs and design loads that the WTC skyscrapers.

It is very telling that they reference the finding of eutectic iron and iron-rich microspheres to FEMA and the USGS, but fail to identify Jones, Harriet ed.al. as "finders" of "high explosive active nano thermite".

At 9:06: "Perhaps there are experiments that support the official hypothesis ... but I cannot think of one" -> HAHAHA yeah, that's the problem with twoofers: There is so much that they are simply unable to think.
 
Comment? You want comment? That was hilarious. I love how these people scale down a 1,100 foot tall tower weighing 50,000 tons into some silly little experiment, in this case using ice or mortar or wood and then definitively state that there! Its proven! The towers were blown up!

Go back to space-based destructo beams. Makes more sense. Reminds me of Spook and his fire/paver experiments.
 
There is some validity to the argument raised, that the top X% should not be expected to collapse the bottom 9X% of the building. But the two towers essentially unzipped, which accounts for the faster-than-expected-if-not-quite-freefall acceleration of the disintegration of the building. The exterior columns were being pulled away from the floors a floor or so below the major collapse zone, so they offered little or no resistance to the general collapse.

I suspect a more standard design might have survived. Maybe if the WTC had been constructed with a concrete core or concrete level breaks like the Windsor Towers in Madrid. Although even there the troofers underestimate the effective load on the floors at the WTC.
 
:eye-poppi:jaw-dropp

that is just so wrong!

the line that made me lol was when he said something like 'the tower's collapse did not slow down, so they must have had some external force like explosives.'

you can't compare a small concrete structure to a 47 or 110 floor steel structure!

also any idiot can tell that the twin towers aren't solid!:confused:

how can anyone possibly believe this stuff?
 
People that are devoid of any facts and relevant expertise can make up crap faster than reality-based people can explain what is wrong.
 
Immediate things I noticed were...

Ignores Verinage, just like Heiwa!
Treats the WTC like a solid object again,
 
Yup, definitely funny how this guy tries to say physics are on his side and then goes on to completely misunderstand or ignore critical things like acceleration from gravity.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
As someone who has a pool table the very first comment is wrong*. When you get the very first thing that you say wrong I'm not going to pay any more attention to you.

*Put some decent top spin with follow through on the cue ball and you can make the cue ball accelerate after hitting an object ball.
Click to expand...

Well, I think he is just talking about conservation of momentum, where the secondary object receives momentum from the first. In this case, the 8 ball gets some of the momentum of the cue ball.

But what about gravity? If we are going to use a pool table as a demonstration, where is gravity in the equation?

I think we should put the pool table at an angle, and shoot the cue ball down hill at the 8 ball, and watch both of them speed up.

Does he address this at all? I am not going to waste my time with the whole thing when his first point is so pathetically stupid.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
As someone who has a pool table the very first comment is wrong*. When you get the very first thing that you say wrong I'm not going to pay any more attention to you.

*Put some decent top spin with follow through on the cue ball and you can make the cue ball accelerate after hitting an object ball.
Click to expand...

Took the words out of my mouth :)

Additionally, if the cue ball fell downwards and impacted a (secured) object ball, the two fell further and impacted another (secured) object ball ... and so on ... then it isn't like a pool table at all. Starting with a junk analogy marks the whole video as poop.
 
See JREFers, I Told You I Was Right

rsalinger said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s&feature=player_embedded

was sent to me recently. Has anyone else commented on this latest video?

Rgrds=Ross
Click to expand...

“9/11 Simple Experiment”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBuH8NNIBys&feature=related

In this experiment ,since 3 plastic file trays dropped on 8 plastic file trays do not crush the 8 plastic file trays, this convincingly proves 30 WTC floors dropped on 80 WTC floors could not have crushed the 80 WTC floors.

“Model Train Runs Over Lego Man”
In this video a model train runs over Lego man with no damage to the Lego man. This convincingly proves a lifesize train can run over lifesize man with no damage to the lifesize man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqcRttgZoO0&feature=fvw

We lack the youtube lifesize Train-Legoman confirmation of this theory.

rsalinger , would you be so kind as to perform the lifesize train can run over lifesize man with no damage to the lifesize man video confirming this model=lifesize theory and post it on youtube.
Label it “See JREFers, I Told You I Was Right,” so we can easily find it.

Thanks

.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom