TakeYouToTasker Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) "Conservation of energy?" Right there, you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the subject. ... You should stick to things you understand. No... wait... On second thought, I think I'd like to hear you explain something you clearly don't understand. I enjoy a good laugh. "Freefall can only be achieved when a falling object has no structural components beneath it. There is only one way for a building to have no structural components beneath it, and that is to physically remove those lower structural components with an external force. If this doesn't happen, the upper part of a building must resort to crushing its lower structural components in it's decent. By crushing them itself, in it's decent, a portion of it's energy will be spent on crushing, and cannot, therefore, be spent on motion. Given this, the "pancake theory" cannot possibly allow for freefall velocity." I ask you, as I asked B-Man, to explain how freefall velocity can be achieved without the absence of lower structural supports, then publish. Edited February 5, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 I still think that you are just doing this to get a response, so here are a few..................enjoy. New Rule: Crazy people who still think the government brought down the Twin Towers in a controlled explosion have to stop pretending that I'm the one that's being naïve. How big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours and then think, "Well, if you believe that was the cause?" Stop asking me to raise this ridiculous topic on this show and start asking your doctor if Paxil is right for you. - Bill Maher, Sept. 2007 http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/15/bill-maher-slams-9-11-truthers#ixzz2Jzozc1to They talk about how the collapse of the twin towers looked similar to controlled demolition videos of other buildings sometimes seen on television. Controlled demolition takes weeks or even months to set up, depending on the size of the building. In Detroit, a 33 level structure took three months to properly wire and set up for demolition. Controlled demolition requires cutting into nearly every beam and structural support. With two buildings over 110 stories tall that were open 24 hours a day, with billionaire businessmen paying thousands of dollars in rent per square foot, it would have been impossible to pull off without anyone knowing, as people would’ve wondered what was with all the construction crews. One of the biggest things to note of all is that while controlled demolition happens from the bottom up, the twin towers collapsed from the top down, proving it was a natural collapse and not a controlled demolition. http://www.policymic.com/articles/7677/9-11-truthers-are-idiots 9/11 TRUTHERS GUT PUNCHED BY HISTORY CHANNEL The implosion theory was debunked several times over. First, by the best forensic structural engineer in the country who, with the help of some excellent graphics and animation, showed exactly how the planes caused the towers to fall. An explosives expert (a young guy who was flabbergasted at the ignorance of the truthers regarding demolition) pointed out it would have taken weeks to rig the buildings for implosion and would have involved stripping drywall and ripping out walls . The nail in the coffin was supplied by one of the engineers who prepared the final report (working for the independent American Society of Civil Engineers) who showed how the collapse of the towers accounted for such things as the puffs of smoke seen in lower floors as the collapse was occurring as well as the speed of the collapse. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 ... You should stick to things you understand. No... wait... On second thought, I think I'd like to hear you explain something you clearly don't understand. I enjoy a good laugh. "Freefall can only be achieved when a falling object has no structural components beneath it. There is only one way for a building to have no structural components beneath it, and that is to physically remove those lower structural components with an external force. If this doesn't happen, the upper part of a building must resort to crushing its lower structural components in it's decent. By crushing them itself, in it's decent, a portion of it's energy will be spend on crushing, and cannot, therefore, be spent on motion. Given this, the "pancake theory" cannot possibly allow for freefall velocity." I ask you, as I asked B-Man, to explain how freefall velocity can be achieved without the absence of lower structural supports, then publish. Please go on the same vacation Daniel Pearl did. Listen man, don't blame your terrible work ethic, dead end job, and bottom third IQ on me. It's not my fault that you don't understand how applied mathematics work in our physical universe. Though it goes a long way towards helping me understand why you might wish physical harm, and even death, on myself, my friends, and my family over a disagreement about individual requirements before accepting proof of truth. That, and you're an incredibly small man. Incredibly small. Where do you live, !@#$er? I live on Long Island. I have been to the funerals. I have friends who were there. Who worked in those buildings. People I know and grew up with died in them. The next day, the train station parking lots were filled with cars from people who would not come home. Then there are people like yourself..who REFUSE to believe ACTUAL EVIDENCE of what took place. Who callously write off EYEWITNESS accounts from people, some right in this thread like Tom, just so you can go on with your "cynic" side that makes you feel "special" and like youre "smarter" than everyone else. Even IF you do have a high IQ, which I doubt, that doesnt make you any less of a total piece of ****. P.S. As far as my life...Im living in a great area and working as a senior manager for one of the best firms in the Country in my field, thankyouverymuch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Please go on the same vacation Daniel Pearl did. Where do you live, !@#$er? I live on Long Island. I have been to the funerals. I have friends who were there. Who worked in those buildings. People I know and grew up with died in them. The next day, the train station parking lots were filled with cars from people who would not come home. Then there are people like yourself..who REFUSE to believe ACTUAL EVIDENCE of what took place. Who callously write off EYEWITNESS accounts from people, some right in this thread like Tom, just so you can go on with your "cynic" side that makes you feel "special" and like youre "smarter" than everyone else. Even IF you do have a high IQ, which I doubt, that doesnt make you any less of a total piece of ****. P.S. As far as my life...Im living in a great area and working as a senior manager for one of the best firms in the Country in my field, thankyouverymuch. its a personal level with so many. So many people were affected by it and all of those so close don't see the angle those so far away do. Do not waste your time with anyone who calls themself a truth seeker yet denies any logistical and empirical information. Go on a bike ride... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 its a personal level with so many. So many people were affected by it and all of those so close don't see the angle those so far away do. Do not waste your time with anyone who calls themself a truth seeker yet denies any logistical and empirical information. Go on a bike ride... Thats a good idea..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 First step: Condition the public to believe that surrendering their constitutional right to privacy is the only way to guarantee the public safety. Second step: Take away all the guns and limit the populace's ability to fight back. Third step: Haha excellent picture, though i would have placed him in Goring's outlandish Hugo Boss uniform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Please go on the same vacation Daniel Pearl did. Where do you live, !@#$er? I live on Long Island. I have been to the funerals. I have friends who were there. Who worked in those buildings. People I know and grew up with died in them. The next day, the train station parking lots were filled with cars from people who would not come home. Then there are people like yourself..who REFUSE to believe ACTUAL EVIDENCE of what took place. Who callously write off EYEWITNESS accounts from people, some right in this thread like Tom, just so you can go on with your "cynic" side that makes you feel "special" and like youre "smarter" than everyone else. Even IF you do have a high IQ, which I doubt, that doesnt make you any less of a total piece of ****. P.S. As far as my life...Im living in a great area and working as a senior manager for one of the best firms in the Country in my field, thankyouverymuch. I'm happy it was your friends that died. I'm glad it caused you personal pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 ... You should stick to things you understand. I'm a published physicist. Want to try that again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 I will interrupt Kindergarten, to post an article about drones, in the drone thread. DRONE STRIKES ON AMERICANS 'LEGAL' Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S. The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) I'm a published physicist. Want to try that again? If that were true, you'd understand the subject matter. "Freefall can only be achieved when a falling object has no structural components beneath it. There is only one way for a building to have no structural components beneath it, and that is to physically remove those lower structural components with an external force. If this doesn't happen, the upper part of a building must resort to crushing its lower structural components in it's decent. By crushing them itself, in it's decent, a portion of it's energy will be spent on crushing, and cannot, therefore, be spent on motion. Given this, the "pancake theory" cannot possibly allow for freefall velocity." Explain an alternative. Edited February 5, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 If that were true, you'd understand the subject matter. "Freefall can only be achieved when a falling object has no structural components beneath it. There is only one way for a building to have no structural components beneath it, and that is to physically remove those lower structural components with an external force. If this doesn't happen, the upper part of a building must resort to crushing its lower structural components in it's decent. By crushing them itself, in it's decent, a portion of it's energy will be spent on crushing, and cannot, therefore, be spent on motion. Given this, the "pancake theory" cannot possibly allow for freefall velocity." Explain an alternative. That quote, wherever you took it from, does not accurately describe the situation, AND gets the physics completely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 I'm happy it was your friends that died. I'm glad it caused you personal pain. Not youre not. Youre just trying to one-up me. Its not working. Attend a public school in Belsan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) Not youre not. Youre just trying to one-up me. Its not working. Attend a public school in Belsan. I one up you every day by the nature of our very existence: I get to be me, and you're stuck being you. I'm just quite honestly very happy that you lost people you care about, and suffered real pain, because a !@#$ like yourself, who wishes death on the family and friends of others over a difference of opinion deserves to hurt, and quite frankly, those you lost are better off without your slimey ass. Cheers. That quote, wherever you took it from, does not accurately describe the situation, AND gets the physics completely wrong. The words are mine,and they describe the information as provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Edited February 5, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 The words are mine,and they describe the information as provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. That doesn't describe anything NIST said or researched. And you don't know what you're talking about. "Conservation of energy?" Take a damn physics class, moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 How big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours and then think, "Well, if you believe that was the cause?" - Bill Maher, Sept. 2007 IIRC the earliest 'Truthers' refused to admit that an airplane struck the north tower. It wasn't until the french guys unveiled that footage some time later that we stopped hearing about a missle. I'm just quite honestly very happy that you lost people you care about, and suffered real pain, because a !@#$ like yourself, who wishes death on the family and friends of others over a difference of opinion deserves to hurt, and quite frankly, those you lost are better off without your slimey ass. So much for your 'living well is the best revenge' posturing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 That doesn't describe anything NIST said or researched. And you don't know what you're talking about. "Conservation of energy?" Take a damn physics class, moron. It absolutely does, and I know this because I've read it, and taken many physics classes. Although now I'm beginning to doubt that you have, and I'm pretty sure the list of published works is limited to, Posting Nonsense on the Internet, by Tom. So much for your 'living well is the best revenge' posturing Living well isn't nearly enough when it comes to implied threats of violence against myself, my friends, and my family. I'm actually debating filing a police report against the board itself for permitting death threats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 Isn't the term conserve energy invalid? Once there is energy created it can either be static or kinetic. How would either be conserved? Im not a published physicist but I took 9th grade science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 I one up you every day by the nature of our very existence: I get to be me, and you're stuck being you. I'm just quite honestly very happy that you lost people you care about, and suffered real pain, because a !@#$ like yourself, who wishes death on the family and friends of others over a difference of opinion deserves to hurt, and quite frankly, those you lost are better off without your slimey ass. Cheers. Youre not telling the truth. Becuase I never said they were close. Or that I suffered pain. Youre making **** up. Rent yourself out as a crash dummy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 It absolutely does, and I know this because I've read it, and taken many physics classes. Although now I'm beginning to doubt that you have, and I'm pretty sure the list of published works is limited to, Posting Nonsense on the Internet, by Tom. No it doesn't. If you had taken any physics classes, you'd know that the collapse was a series of inelastic collisions, and kinetic energy was not conserved. MOMENTUM, however, is. From which you can calculate the impluse imparted to successive floors. From which you can calculate the time duration of each inelastic collision (on the order of a hundredth of a second). To which you'd no doubt respond "But that still adds a more than a second to the collapse!" Which would be true if the buildings pancaked from the top floor down. They didn't. The top fifth of each building went into free-fall, the "pancaking" started around floor 85 (roughly). So you not only don't understand the physics, you don't even understand how the buildings collapsed. Idiot. Isn't the term conserve energy invalid? Once there is energy created it can either be static or kinetic. How would either be conserved? Im not a published physicist but I took 9th grade science. ENERGY is conserved in any system, but KINETIC energy isn't conserved in a collision. It can be converted to other forms (heat, or used to reduce bigger objects to smaller ones). Easy enough to prove, too. If kinetic energy goes as velocity squared, and momentum goes as velocity, you can't conserve both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 5, 2013 Share Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) Living well isn't nearly enough when it comes to implied threats of violence against myself, my friends, and my family. I'm actually debating filing a police report against the board itself for permitting death threats. Ah, so you dont like it when the lives of others are minimized for a cause, do you? PWNED And where did I threaten you? Where did I say "Im going to" or "I will?" And where did I EVER mention your family? Oh....I DIDNT. So not only are you a truther hypocrite piece of **** punk, youre also a liar. Im done with you...rot in hell. Edited February 5, 2013 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts