Results 40 to 52 of 396
09-28-2012, 04:10 AM #40
Then there's this poor f*ck who died mysteriously before giving testimony and making waves...
America; first we fight for our freedom,
then we make laws to take it away.
-Alfred E Newman
09-28-2012, 04:12 AM #41
09-28-2012, 07:15 AM #42
Why people choose to believe in the governments story rather than independent professionals and eye witnesses is beyond me. What I do know, is that if I were King, these are the kind of people I would want plowing the fields in my Kingdom."If anybody can draw on the power, where do we put the meter?" - JP Morgan before pulling Tesla funding
09-28-2012, 07:41 AM #43
09-28-2012, 08:20 AM #44
Because all eyewitness' can do is provide 1st person accounts. Which is as valuable as people who say they've been abducted by aliens, had encounters with ghosts, etc.
Again, DID ANY OF YOU read the actual science? Right. Didn't think so. Just as I predicted.
Why don't you at least take a look? You'll notice something very different in approach from either eyewitness accounts or youtube videos. Things like diagrams, formulas and math BACKING UP WHAT IS SAID. See the difference? Yeah, right, you'll find agenda ways to gloss over it.
So, given that none of you will read, or is actually interested in the truth of what actually happened, I think I'm going to have to use a method suggested by someone in congress a few years ago. I will have to explain it to you like you're 5 years old, since, apparently, a large number of you slept through middle school science.
First to the matter of the building toppling or not. Again, this is simple basic physics regarding mass and kinetic energy. A regular science book will do ya, you don't even have to look at anything to do with this particular incident to get in the know.
The planes did not topple the buildings becauce they had insufficient mass. The same reason that you won't topple the fence post in your yard with a bullet. But what they do have, similar to the bullet, is sufficient kinetic energy to achieve penetration. When the building fell, due to the laws of motion and physics, there would have had to have been a force of some kind to intitate any sort of sidewards movement, because the intertia was going DOWN from the word go, not to either side.
Your comparison to an actual demo is amusing, since you obviously fail to understand that topic as well. Demo seeks to use the weight and mass of the building to do the dirty work (initiate a PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE) as it were, and that's just what happened here too, it is simply that process was initiated by something other than a demo charge.
Each of the towers had 110 stories. Let's take a close look at one. At 8:45 AM on that day Flight 11 hit the North face of the North tower and penetrated the 96th floor.
Please note that while there was not a situation where the joists supporting the floors could melt, there certainly was enough heat to make them brittle and deformed ESPECIALLY because the heat was not evenly applied. When that happened, the floors above the point of penetration fell. The joists holding the floor beneath were rated to only hold the weight of THAT particular floor, not the weight of all the floors above it falling on top of it. That's why the inertia was STRAIGHT DOWN, there was no force that would even suggest a sideways movement, and even if there were, there would have been insufficient time for it to "grow", if you will, in to anything meaningful. The fall took mere seconds.
Scientifically speaking, in other words, there was ZERO lateral load. I'm scratching my head here in an attempt to figure out what is so hard to understand.
Also, since the building was 95% air, it was in a situation where implosion was the only thing that *could* happen given the governing laws of physics.
I love the quality of your evidence. Such as the claim that there was insufficient damage to building 7. What exactly do you base that on? Why, nothing. Nothing at all. It simply sounds good to you so you eat it for lunch. You obviously have ZERO standards for what you believe to be true, other than someone simply making a statement. In the science articles you will see the proofs of math. You will see that progressive collapse is built in BY DESIGN (that's why we can safely have skyscrapers stand next to each other. DUH!). You will see that what happened to building 7 was nothing at all unusual IN FACT IT WOULD BE EXPECTED.
In addition, please note that one of my links about progressive collapse has nothing to do with 9/11, it simply discusses what it is AND HOW IT IS BUILT IN BY DESIGN all over the world.
I see some pop singer has claimed she had sex with ghosts. This has the same "quality" of evidence as anything you folks have presented here, so I suppose that sex with ghosts now becomes a new truth in your lives.
You people are effing nutjobs.
When will I learn that a forum full of creationists and conspiracy theorists is not exactly a bastion of science? lol
Last edited by scrogdog; 09-28-2012 at 08:49 AM."Social networking" is an oxymoron.
09-28-2012, 08:25 AM #45
You would be a good tiller of soil in the Kings fields."If anybody can draw on the power, where do we put the meter?" - JP Morgan before pulling Tesla funding
09-28-2012, 08:49 AM #46
Perhaps so, but I'd also have a very comfortable grip on a little thing called reality."Social networking" is an oxymoron.
09-28-2012, 09:35 AM #47
And did you see the way gb looked as if he wasn't surprised?...Which makes more sense to you?
CONSERVATION - turning your thermostat back and being uncomfortable. Maybe saving 5-10%
ENERGY EFFICIENCY - leaving your thermostat where everyone is comfortable. Saving 30-70%
DO THE NUMBERS! Step on a HOMESCALE.
What is comfort? Well, it AIN'T just TEMPERATURE!
Energy Obese? An audit is the next step - go to BPI.org, or RESNET, and find an auditor near you.
09-28-2012, 09:45 AM #48
09-28-2012, 09:48 AM #49
None are so blind as those who will not see."If anybody can draw on the power, where do we put the meter?" - JP Morgan before pulling Tesla funding
09-28-2012, 09:52 AM #50
If having standards means that I'm blind, OK. I'll take that over believing in things just because someone told me I should.
Instead, I'll take this path every time...
Things like diagrams, formulas and math BACKING UP WHAT IS SAID. See the difference?"Social networking" is an oxymoron.
09-28-2012, 10:03 AM #51
If you read Orwell, you would not trust the government.
Have you not read the testimony of independent engineers and scientists?....after all, these are men of science too. Why is it that you exclude their findings and back those of a government who's liar mouth is larger than the Grand Canyon?
09-28-2012, 10:11 AM #52
Because, as I've often said, scientists are human beings with human agendas. Just like we all are.
That's is PRECISELY why there is such a thing as the Scientific Method. ITS EXACT PURPOSE is to minimize human failings with regards to research. Like that guy in South Korea who claimed to clone humans. Once his methods were exposed by his peers, his statements became junk.
Does that mean that he is without qualifications? Nope. It means he's a human being and he was obviously seeking underserved glory, something that we see humans attempt on a regular basis.
Scientists are not exempt from being human. If they were, then we would not need the standards of science that describe what a fact is, and what the proper methods are. Without those things, you are only left with the "junk science" that you folks put forth as actual evidence.
It is not.
If your youtube scientists wish to make a relevant contribution, then they will have to adhere to the methods just like every other scientist in the world. What a scientist may say outside of that realm is as suspect as any other first person account.
I await their white papers with baited breath. You know, the ones with diagrams, formulas and the proofs of math that have all been peer reviewed.
Incidentally, Orwell's work had nothing at all to do with government, but rather, the danger of human failings run rampant.
Last edited by scrogdog; 09-28-2012 at 10:27 AM."Social networking" is an oxymoron.