Tower Collapse Questions for Critical Thinkers

CORed said:
If "path of least resistance" were actually how electricity worked, every time your refrigerator kicked on, the lights (or actually light, since only the one with the least resistance would actually be working), would go off.
Click to expand...

if the one light was left on you'd spoil all the meat in the fridge lol
 
kylebisme said:
I know the structure of the building had provided over 100% of the resistive force necessary to hold up the roof before it started to fall, and falling with free fall acceleration can only be acomplished when the restive force is approximately 0% of that.

Rather, there is an instant of transfer of momentum, but that doesn't explain the whole roofline coming down with free fall acceleration over a period of seconds, which is the issue I was discussing in the quote you responded to.
Click to expand...
Study
 
Last edited:
kylebisme said:
(snip)I've seen plenty of examples to demonstrate the opposite, and just last night stumbled upon Stephen Colbert interviewing a man discussing one I had researched previously; our military's efforts to develop paranormal powers for use in warfare (the introduction to the topic starting at about 1:45). Considering examples such as that one, I've little doubt that structural engineers who believe Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear exist, and I would be happy to hire a PI to track such individuals down if I can be reasonably sure the evidence aquired will not simply be ignored.
Click to expand...

Lol, from my perspective its harder finding someone neutral. Everyones got an opinion. :) LashL is a lawyer and might consider being the keeper of the cheese. I can assure you she is an honest person, well respected here, and harbours no particular shine towards me or you. Then again she is a professional and lending herself to administrating bets on an internet forum isn't exactly in her job description. We might be able to convince her to referee this is we consider an even bet. $50 gets donated to the forum in LashL's name or person of her choice. Winner gets even money, loser gets the satisfaction of having indirectly donated to a worthy foundation. Just a thought.

As for the quoted statement, I think you've taken it too far once again. I think that was part of project Alpha, but I'm not sure. In any event there's a big jump for the Government looking into people with uncanny perception and believing in magic powers. There's a show on TV with Tim Roth (Resevoir Dogs) He plays an independent agent who can tell if a person is lying. It's called lie to me. His character is trained in reading people's faces for deception. I know what you are thinking - "Conspiracy!" Tim Roth was in Resevoir Dogs, directed by Tarrantino, who also directed True Romance, in which Christopher Walken plays a gangster who ties up Christian Slater's dad, played by that guy from the knock off from the novel Hearts of Darkness, who plays a gangster who can read faces to see if they are lying! I know, I know, too many coincidences. Anyways...most of what Tim Roth character does is based in science. He looks for little tells in people that indicate people are not being honest. These are natural things people do when they lie. They make weird faces, they touch their nose, they look to the left. All of the things he looks for are fairly well documented actions people do when they lie. Now he's been trained in this, but what if there are people simply gifted in this. What if there are people who can redily tell when a person is lying or hiding something as redily as a person can play the piano without lessons, or calculate pie to a hundred decimal points? Wouldn't they make great soldiers? Can't you see the asset they would bring to the team? I'm not saying there are or aren't sevant face readers. I'm just saying that if there are, maybe the government should find them. I don't need a guy that can bend spoons at the negotiating table, but a guy that can say "He's lying!" might be an asset. Get it?
 
beachnut said:
Great answer.

1) see photo
2) Looks like a chaotic gravity collapse.
3) Looks like a chaotic gravity collapse, RUN!

...Snipped
Click to expand...

More like

1:Wtf is that RUN MO-FO RUN!!!!!!!!! GOD ****** RUN!! EVERYONE RUN!!! ITS COMING DOWN!!!!

I think that is almost exactly what I said, but I get your point. One guy I grabbed and pushed to get going was just standing there like a deer in the headlights.
 
triforcharity said:
More like

1:Wtf is that RUN MO-FO RUN!!!!!!!!! GOD ****** RUN!! EVERYONE RUN!!! ITS COMING DOWN!!!!

I think that is almost exactly what I said, but I get your point. One guy I grabbed and pushed to get going was just standing there like a deer in the headlights.
Click to expand...

Tri, I have a question, you don't have to answer it if you don't want to and I'll understand completely if you don't. Where were you in relation to the first tower that came down? If you stayed where you were would you have made it? I saw the footage from the cameraman that didn't make it out and it didn't look to me like he and the firemen around him were all that close (obviously they were).
 
Sam, check your PMs.

I forgot to tell you, if I had stayed where I was for either one, I wouldn't be here today.

Pull up a google map of that area, and you will understand.
 
beachnut said:
Gee, after tons of building fall through the center of the building, then the facade begins to fall why cant a section of WTC7 be close to the speed it should be falling? Falling with g could be near g, since we fall due to g.
Click to expand...
We fall less than g when there is stuff in the way, and even if the lower portion of the remaining structure was only able to provide a constant 1/10 of the force needed to hold the up the roofline, it would have fallen about 2/3s of a story less during the 2.25 seconds it was in free fall. Besides, even if we were to make the leap to accepting that was the case, the idea that the fires and falling center of the structure weakened the outside evenly to allow the symmetrical descent of the roofline durring free fall is still absurd, as is the acceleration which the penthouses came down.
beachnut said:
No professional engineers who can build buildings as big as the WTC towers or WTC7 are surprised by the failures in fires of these buildings.
Click to expand...
Or so you claim anyway, but they can't rightly make a reasonable simulation of how they came down though impact damage and fire either, as the physics simply don't work with gravity alone.
3bodyproblem said:
I think that was part of project Alpha, but I'm not sure. In any event there's a big jump for the Government looking into people with uncanny perception and believing in magic powers.
Click to expand...
It started prior to Project Alpha, and included trying to bend spoons, and trying stop hearts with one's mind being another notable example. I highly recommend watching the video and checking up on it more, as I'm guessing you'd be as disappointed as I am as to what nonsense mysticism our government chased with our tax dollars.
3bodyproblem said:
These are natural things people do when they lie. They make weird faces, they touch their nose, they look to the left. All of the things he looks for are fairly well documented actions people do when they lie.
Click to expand...
Right, like this, and this.
 
kylebisme said:
Or so you claim anyway, but they can't rightly make a reasonable simulation of how they came down though impact damage and fire either, as the physics simply don't work with gravity alone.
Click to expand...

as beachnut would say "dirt dumb"
 
kylebisme said:
Tour Broca was a 15 story structure in which 2 stories being pushed out resulted in a period of free fall for about about 13% of its hight.
Click to expand...

Based on measurements, or are you simply guessing?

kylebisme said:
WTC7 was a 47 story structure which expeanced a free fall equvanlt to 8 stories, which comes out to about 17% of its hight.

Which part of that are you attempting to deny?
Click to expand...

Which 13%, and which 17%? I assume you're claiming that the Tour Broca fell at freefall for the first 13% of its height, then at a lower acceleration for the remaining 87%. Why you're claiming that, I'm not certain; have you measured the rate of collapse and determined the variation of acceleration with time, or are you just making assumptions? If the latter, then your reasoning is based on an absence of premise. In any case, that's a different collapse dynamic to WTC7, in which the acceleration was initially below 1G, increased to close to 1G, then decreased. Shouldn't it be obvious that such a radical difference in the collapse dynamics points to a different collapse mechanism? It is to me.

kylebisme said:
Can you exemplify the clear differences you allege?
Click to expand...

The building rotated to the south as a relatively solid block as it fell, as is clearly visible in the video. Deliberate building implosions are designed to make the building fall vertically into its own footprint. In other words, a central claim about WTC7 is quite simply untrue; it did not fall neatly into its own footprint like a CD. The rotation of the structure, in fact, indicates the same thing that the rotation of the upper blocks of both WTC1 and WTC2 - that the support columns did not fail simultaneously, but rather than an initial failure at a point of maximum stress propagated through the structure and imparted angular momentum to it in doing so. The argument of the truth movement has always been that the lack of any rotation in WTC7 is evidence of a carefully timed event. Since the rotation is observed, this argument is refuted.

kylebisme said:
I know the structure of the building had provided over 100% of the resistive force necessary to hold up the roof before it started to fall, and falling with free fall acceleration can only be acomplished when the restive force is approximately 0% of that.
Click to expand...

Please calculate the resistive force of an eight-storey section of building which has suffered a buckling failure and is now disconnected at both upper and lower ends as well as a third buckle point somewhere in the middle. You'll find that it's approximately 0% of the static strength, thus satisfying the above requirement.

kylebisme said:
Rather, there is an instant of transfer of momentum, but that doesn't explain the whole roofline coming down with free fall acceleration over a period of seconds, which is the issue I was discussing in the quote you responded to.
Click to expand...

The transfer of momentum doesn't have to be instant. Inelastic collisions proceed by plastic deformation and fracture of the colliding bodies, which can be an extended process. As for "the whole roofline", there wasn't even a well-defined roofline; it had a pronounced and visible kink in the centre. The observation is that the average acceleration over a period is close to 1G within measurement errors, which are significant.

But I don't expect you to understand the concept of measurement errors. I have yet to encounter a truther who does.

kylebisme said:
Rather, there is no other way it could have happened, which has been my argument all along. Your "most likely" makes me curious to know what less likely possibilities you are imagining.
Click to expand...

Since I've described them in posts that you've responded to, and you have indeed responded to them specifically in this post, I'm curious to know how you can claim not to know what they are. I can understand you failing to follow my arguments, but here you're failing to follow your own.

Dave
 
kylebisme said:
Or so you claim anyway, but they can't rightly make a reasonable simulation of how they came down though impact damage and fire either, as the physics simply don't work with gravity alone.
Click to expand...

It's not physics that's the problem, it's complexity. And I have yet to see an explanation for the freefall period based on something other than gravity that doesn't posit an utterly pointless and stupid process that would have complicated the planning and execution by orders of magnitude, had no effect on the final result of the collapse, and produced blast effects that would have been clearly observable and were not in fact observed.

kylebisme said:
It started prior to Project Alpha, and included trying to bend spoons, and trying stop hearts with one's mind being another notable example. I highly recommend watching the video and checking up on it more, as I'm guessing you'd be as disappointed as I am as to what nonsense mysticism our government chased with our tax dollars.
Click to expand...

Not my government or my tax dollars, but apart from that I agree with you wholeheartedly on this one.

Dave
 
kylebisme said:
We fall less than g when there is stuff in the way, and even if the lower portion of the remaining structure was only able to provide a constant 1/10 of the force needed to hold the up the roofline, it would have fallen about 2/3s of a story less during the 2.25 seconds it was in free fall. Besides, even if we were to make the leap to accepting that was the case, the idea that the fires and falling center of the structure weakened the outside evenly to allow the symmetrical descent of the roofline durring free fall is still absurd, as is the acceleration which the penthouses came down.
Click to expand...

Why is it that you keep using words that are NOT true?

symmetrical, again? really? How does a building fall symmetrically when the Northern Mechanical Penthouse falls 8 seconds before the rest of the building collapses? That isn't symetrical.

When the building collapses and there is a noticable kink in the center, that is not symmetrical.

when the building collapses so it hits buildings on opposite sides of it (the verizion building and fitterman hall) that is not symetrical.

Please stop using words that do not mean what you think they do.

any more than any of the towers fell into their own footprints. It is amazing that you keep on spewing that crap.

Or so you claim anyway, but they can't rightly make a reasonable simulation of how they came down though impact damage and fire either, as the physics simply don't work with gravity alone.
Click to expand...

Oh now it is the "they can't simulate it" crap. After all we know that you can simulate any event with a great deal of accuracy... I mean we all knwo they can tell you the weather with 100% accuracy from their simulations... do you want ot keep on with that BS line of reasoning?

Please feel free to show me (or anyone) the dozens of (if not hundreds of) peer reviewed journals saying NIST is full of crap, or that their simulations/findings are wrong. I'll wait.

YOu say the physics don't work.. great. PROVE IT. It should be simple. I mean there are only dozens of videos and hundreds of papers which support the common narrative. Feel free to write the peer reviewed physics paper which says it is impossible. (once you do that, you will never have to worry about work again, you will be hired by Harvard, Columbia, or any IVY league school... come on and PROVE IT.)


It started prior to Project Alpha, and included trying to bend spoons, and trying stop hearts with one's mind being another notable example. I highly recommend watching the video and checking up on it more, as I'm guessing you'd be as disappointed as I am as to what nonsense mysticism our government chased with our tax dollars.
Click to expand...

Yup... Major general stubblebine (sp) was one of the biggest proponents.. of course now he is a twoof... but he thinks he can walk through walls, and kill you with his thoughts.
 
kylebisme said:
It started prior to Project Alpha, and included trying to bend spoons, and trying stop hearts with one's mind being another notable example. I highly recommend watching the video and checking up on it more, as I'm guessing you'd be as disappointed as I am as to what nonsense mysticism our government chased with our tax dollars.

Right, like this, and this.
Click to expand...

I'd be more interested in who conducted the experiments and what they really thought about them. I doubt you will find any scientists that believed in the experiments you mentioned. In the comic books the ones that do are usually quite mad. :)

As for those links I didn't check them out but I think they are the NIST press releases. If it's what I'm thinking it's apparent that Dr. ? is confused.
 
TruthersLie said:
Oh now it is the "they can't simulate it" crap. After all we know that you can simulate any event with a great deal of accuracy... I mean we all knwo they can tell you the weather with 100% accuracy from their simulations... do you want ot keep on with that BS line of reasoning?
Click to expand...

Twoofers don't seem to realize that if we had the programs and the hardware to do such a simulation, we could input whatever parameters we wanted - so we could make g "fit the observations" if necessary. The computers and the programs don't give jack about physics. They just do what you tell them to.
 
Originally Posted by kylebisme
It started prior to Project Alpha, and included trying to bend spoons, and trying stop hearts with one's mind being another notable example. I highly recommend watching the video and checking up on it more, as I'm guessing you'd be as disappointed as I am as to what nonsense mysticism our government chased with our tax dollars.
Click to expand...

And just to remind people, one of those leaders was Albert Stubblebine who is now one of the leading dim bulbs of the Truth Movement.

 
sylvan8798 said:
Twoofers don't seem to realize that if we had the programs and the hardware to do such a simulation, we could input whatever parameters we wanted - so we could make g "fit the observations" if necessary. The computers and the programs don't give jack about physics. They just do what you tell them to.
Click to expand...

Ironically, this is the very point that some truthers use to discount the NIST pre-collapse modelling of WTC1&2 and to completely discount the pre and post-collapse modelling of WTC7.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Ironically, this is the very point that some truthers use to discount the NIST pre-collapse modelling of WTC1&2 and to completely discount the pre and post-collapse modelling of WTC7.
Click to expand...

In other words, damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Just like all the other phantom goalposts.
 
tsig said:
It just doesn't look right. The basis for all the truther claims. Problem is they can't give specific reasoning why must look different.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.
Kyle has said that yes he can "say" it should look different. I can "say" that WTC 7 was brought down by aliens from planet X, but that does not make it likely.
Now if I could show evidence that aliens, and specifically aliens from planet X were in the vicinity,and had the technology to cause the collapse witnessed, then perhaps I would have a case.

Now if Kyle can show specific reasons why a collapse;
a) could not occur as NIST hypothesized
and
b) would have looked significantly different that what was seen,
then he may have a case.

So far no 911 conspiracy speculator has managed either of the above let alone both.
 
kylebisme said:
Tour Broca was a 15 story structure in which 2 stories being pushed out resulted in a period of free fall for about about 13% of its hight.

WTC7 was a 47 story structure which expeanced a free fall equvanlt to 8 stories, which comes out to about 17% of its hight.

Which part of that are you attempting to deny?
Click to expand...

And eight floors of columns failed during the collapse initiation. Read the NIST report on WTC7. Read it for understanding, not just for quote mining.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom