• 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.

Debunk This

imstellar28 said:
I was pointing out that its not silly to imagine objects falling faster than free-fall.
Click to expand...

That is, by definition, silly - and object cannot fall faster than it is falling.

If you throw a ball, it isn't falling.
 
I don't have a closed mind...the article seemed pretty solid in its usage/analysis I was just wondering what would be the rebuttal of those here.
 
imstellar28 said:
I don't have a closed mind...the article seemed pretty solid in its usage/analysis I was just wondering what would be the rebuttal of those here.
Click to expand...

What makes it seem solid to you? You don't even know who wrote it.

(by 'know', I don't mean know him personally, but to know some of his background, his credentials)
 
maccy said:
That is, by definition, silly - and object cannot fall faster than it is falling.

If you throw a ball, it isn't falling.
Click to expand...

Thats untrue because when you release a ball it "falls" because of the acceleration due to gravity, if you add an additional acceleration such as a rocket or give it an initial force downward its still "falling."

But lets forget about the whole free-fall time thing for a second because its not really the focus of the article I posted.
 
imstellar28 said:
Anyways....as is with every attempt to debunk these theories the focus has been completely brought of what was originally asked and instead some other random point has been discussed. This whole free-fall vacuum building implosion thing was just a response to one of the posters not even reading the article because of one of the comments about something falling faster than freefall being nonsense (which it isnt).
Click to expand...

Had you agreed with the complainant, we wouldn't have derailed like this. It is important to understand the role of gravity in these matters. Since you clearly did not, I think it's good we did this.

Any questions? Do you agree that:

1) controlled demos do not make a building fall faster than freefall; and

2) the WTC buildings did not fall faster than freefall. In fact, objects falling free from the collapse zones hit the ground much earlier than the floors did.
 
Pardalis said:
What makes it seem solid to you? You don't even know who wrote it.

(by 'know', I don't mean know him personally, but to know some of his background, his credentials)
Click to expand...


I don't understand why the identity of the author is relevant. We are all critical thinkers here right? If it was a scientist or a fifth grader we shouldn't just accept his arguments as fact. Information is widely available on all the topics discussed so you should be able to form your own conclusions.
 
imstellar28 said:
Thats untrue because when you release a ball it "falls" because of the acceleration due to gravity, if you add an additional acceleration such as a rocket or give it an initial force downward its still falling.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. It is being propelled.
 
imstellar28 said:
Thats untrue because when you release a ball it "falls" because of the acceleration due to gravity, if you add an additional acceleration such as a rocket or give it an initial force downward its still "falling."

But lets forget about the whole free-fall time thing for a second because its not really the focus of the article I posted.
Click to expand...

so when you said in the OP
imstellar said:
Debunk This
covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/09/great-must-read-but-loooooong-and-very.html


Seems pretty solid to me, can anyone provide some reasons as to whats wrong with it?
Click to expand...

you didn't really mean that you wanted the members of JREF to look at what is wrong with the article (because that claim is wrong) - you meant you wanted us to look at something else? Why didn't you say so in the first place?
 
imstellar28 said:
"Which is total garbage. There are numerous photos of the walls of the WTC towers bowing inward, and floorslabs sagging. The bowing was also reported by an NYPD helicopter."

He addresses this in the article, did you read it?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Brent Blanchrad of Protec wrote a paper that explains very clearly why the conspiracy liars talk nonsense when they babble about controlled demolition. Obviously you haven't read it. Show us a few errors when you do.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC COLLAPSE STUDY BBlanchard 8-8-06.pdf
 
"1) controlled demos do not make a building fall faster than freefall; and"

From what I have heard, building implosions fall faster than free-fall. I know at the very least:

1. It falls faster than free fall with air resistance because the air is blown out of the floors.

I may have been misconstruing it, but I also thought it fell faster than free-fall in vacuum because of the pressure differences created by the explosions. I have been looking and went to implosionworld.com but found nothing to explicitly refute or state this. If someone could post a link somewhere which explicitly refutes or confirms this I would gladly concede the point.
 
imstellar28 said:
PE joules= xx kg * 9.8 m/s2 * xx m

energy is force over distance
force is mass times acceleration
therefore energy = mass * acceleration * distance
Click to expand...

Ok, thank you...but how does the numbers in that particular formula relate to WTC 1?
 
imstellar28 said:
covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/09/great-must-read-but-loooooong-and-very.html


Seems pretty solid to me, can anyone provide some reasons as to whats wrong with it?
Click to expand...
He was wrong in his first 34 words.

Sorry but if you like your post, you will love http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/ , she even has beam weapons.


Edited and infracted for breach of CT-specific rules. Germane post content untouched.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Regarding Wayne and his paper, it was published in September 2005 and is apparently version 0.4, Wayne includes this disclaimer:

Keep in mind that this is a DRAFT version of a paper. A rigorous peer review is necessary before anyone firmly accepts this paper's findings. A careful frame-by-frame analysis of videos, a more detailed modeling of the fire, collapse, and clouds, should be done to confirm measurements and observations.
Click to expand...
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpman/CoreAnalysisFinal.htm

In the 18 months since the paper was submitted, it hasn't been peer reviewed or revised. Neither has it been submitted to any peer-reviewed scientific publication. There are no contact details supplied for Wayne, and no details of his his qualifications or experience.
 
beachnut said:
He was wrong in his first 34 words.

Sorry but if you like your post, you will love http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/ , she even has beam weapons.
Click to expand...


I don't see what my education, or the education of the author of the article has to do with forming a reasonable hypotheses and providing iterative evidence/calculation to arrive at a conclusion. If these theories are so wrong, why does the discussion always lead to insults of those proposing them or diverting the argument away from its central focus so as to lose track of what is even being discussed?


Edited to remove uncivil remarks from quoted post
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
imstellar28 said:
"1) controlled demos do not make a building fall faster than freefall; and"

From what I have heard, building implosions fall faster than free-fall. I know at the very least:

1. It falls faster than free fall with air resistance because the air is blown out of the floors.

I may have been misconstruing it, but I also thought it fell faster than free-fall in vacuum because of the pressure differences created by the explosions. I have been looking and went to implosionworld.com but found nothing to explicitly refute or state this. If someone could post a link somewhere which explicitly refutes or confirms this I would gladly concede the point.
Click to expand...

Yes, you have badly misunderstood what a controlled demolition is. What you know "at least" is completely wrong. Therefore you know nothing about this subject, and should take the time to learn from those who do.

Even if a small amount of air is expelled from a floor in an instant, that volume of air will be rapidly replaced. A building –especially one to be demo'd – is an open system and is not like a vacuum pump. Further, most structural supports remain in place in a CD, and are crushed by the collapse. That's the idea. Gravity is put to work quickly demolishing what would take days or weeks to demolish by hand or wrecker. Resistance is involved. Work is done. No freefall. No faster than freefall. No vacuum.
 
Last edited:
maccy said:
Regarding Wayne and his paper, it was published in September 2005 and is apparently version 0.4, Wayne includes this disclaimer:

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpman/CoreAnalysisFinal.htm

In the 18 months since the paper was submitted, it hasn't been peer reviewed or revised. Neither has it been submitted to any peer-reviewed scientific publication. There are no contact details supplied for Wayne, and no details of his his qualifications or experience.
Click to expand...

It's not even copyrighted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom