# 9-11 an INSIDE JOB?

Status
Not open for further replies.
1) How do you explain that this tilting top section of building arrested its momentum?

2) Would that, according to Newton's inertia laws, require some other (greater) force acting upon it?

You said something that seemed wrong. So I asked you to clarify. Obviously the beams would have a very LOW surface area to volume ration, which would tend to keep the heat in, not radiate it out. Which is the opposite of what you said. So does that change anything?

Obviously the beams would have a very LOW surface area to volume ration (sic) In relation to ....? wire wool, yes. An amoeba...yes. A cubic metre of steel?....

So I'm a little confused as to what you think IS arresting its momentum (by which I assume you mean rotational momentum).

I'm assuming for the sake of simplification you are treating the entire top of the building as a rigid body?

Don't be confused - just answer the question on Newton and what you think arrested its motion. I answer questions in the main; and pretty roundly - you spend a lot of time avoiding them, or just answering with more questions. What about the politics? The torture; the 'government lies' cited by members of the 911 Commission?

1) How do you explain that this tilting top section of building arrested its momentum?

It had very low rotational momentum. It was arrested by impacts from the floors below.

2) Would that, according to Newton's inertia laws, require some other (greater) force acting upon it?

See above.

Obviously the beams would have a very LOW surface area to volume ration (sic) In relation to ....? wire wool, yes. An amoeba...yes. A cubic metre of steel?....

In relation to just about everything. Can you actually find a pieces of steel with a higher ratio?

You said something that seemed wrong. So I asked you to clarify. Obviously the beams would have a very LOW surface area to volume ration, which would tend to keep the heat in, not radiate it out. Which is the opposite of what you said. So does that change anything?

What are you trying to say? That steel doesn't really conduct heat? Have you any experience at all with any of these materials?

What are you trying to say? That steel doesn't really conduct heat? Have you any experience at all with any of these materials?

You said

the large surface area to volume ratio (scale and dimensions again) of steel columns assists with the conducting of heat out as it travels along and through.

Since the beams actually have a a very low surface area to volume ratio, then surely the opposite would be true?

Have you any experience at all with any of these materials?
I have previously asked you for your qualifications, lee. I told you mine and offered to send you a complete resume.

If you want to ask for other's qualifications as a basis for disputing their words, you must reciprocate. You have failed to show you are any more qualified than anyone else, and in fact have shown NOTHING that descibes your qualifications for anything.

You are most likely a 14 years old girl who might know about hair styling and makeup. Prove otherwise or stop using this 'appeal to authority' ploy. It is soooo transparent.

The clear facts of the matter are that you cannot defend the position you have entrenched yourself in Re: aircraft damage to the towers' structure and the subsequent damage by fire which according to the Commission report was the reason for vertical collapse initiation. Now that your so-called evidence comes to light, it is easy to see that you align yourself with all official and mainstream sources of information which have been shown throughout history to be unreliable. The language you use to defend your video cartoon and videos of controlled demolitions indicates your inability to move one millimetre on what you believe. Then you try to nit-pick and dilute the discussion into oblivion. I'm presuming from your silence that you don't mind that evidence was garnered from torture; that senior members of the Report you said was a fair reflection of what happened, say it was based on govt lies; that Bush (or Cheney) refused to testify under oath or separately; you don't mind that the crime scene was destroyed. Presumably too, you don't mind that the perpetrators were named and found guilty without a proper investigation and within hours of the attacks taking place?

I'd appreciate if you'd answer these questions. It's getting harder to believe that I'm not dealing with someone whose position will never change due to some deep-rooted political beliefs. If that's the case we may as well quit now. I thought Reason was the reason for this site; if one ignores relevant aspects of a situation, then there is no point trying for a fully-rounded understanding.

I have previously asked you for your qualifications, lee. I told you mine and offered to send you a complete resume.

If you want to ask for other's qualifications as a basis for disputing their words, you must reciprocate. You have failed to show you are any more qualified than anyone else, and in fact have shown NOTHING that descibes your qualifications for anything.

You are most likely a 14 years old girl who might know about hair styling and makeup. Prove otherwise or stop using this 'appeal to authority' ploy. It is soooo transparent.

Your arguments and demands are pathetic. So what do you think of the film? Does steel conduct heat well? Have you heard of Isaac Newton? I show my qualifications in what I write. If you haven't worked it out yet, that's your trouble. Have you written any good poems lately?

I have previously asked you for your qualifications, lee. I told you mine and offered to send you a complete resume.

Ask all you want. I've never written a resume (cv) and never will. Can you do a bit of lateral thinking to work that one out? No resume, never, not once.

The question we are trying to address is if the impacts of the planes and the subsequent fires could have brought down the towers. You claim they could not. We can resolve that with hard science.

The questions of WHO flew those planes into the towers, and who arranged for them to be flow in, and who knew about it, are another question entirely. I do not wish to discuss that, because I actually have other things to do. I will not respond to questions on that subject.

Ask all you want. I've never written a resume (cv) and never will. Can you do a bit of lateral thinking to work that one out? No resume, never, not once.

A puzzle, hmm, who does not write resumes? People in academia? Novelists? The deliberately unemployed? People employed in a family business? The disabled? Members of the Royal Family? There are several possibilities.

Do you have some reason for being anonymous?

The question we are trying to address is if the impacts of the planes and the subsequent fires could have brought down the towers. You claim they could not. We can resolve that with hard science.

The questions of WHO flew those planes into the towers, and who arranged for them to be flow in, and who knew about it, are another question entirely. I do not wish to discuss that, because I actually have other things to do. I will not respond to questions on that subject.

And there's the rub...last time I checked, this forum was titled: 9/11 An Inside Job? Does this title preclude all references to anything other than 'hard science', whatever that is. Science is mutable.

A puzzle, hmm, who does not write resumes? People in academia? Novelists? The deliberately unemployed? People employed in a family business? The disabled? Members of the Royal Family? There are several possibilities.

Do you have some reason for being anonymous?

I think you'll find a lot, if not most, disabled people write resumes. Or is that not scientific enough?

Members of the Royal Family?
Do you have some reason for being anonymous?

Just call me Duke.

We can resolve that with hard science.

It appears that is not right. What is so 'hard' about these statements?

Originally Posted by Mick
Regarding the film, it shows what seems to be several central columns being severed. I think it's quite possibly that that is not an accurate representation of what happened.
On reviewing the film, you've gone from the above to: I don't know how accurate the Purdue simulation is.

Then: In a simulation, they set up a mathematical model of the structures and events. They then run it trying to get things as accurate as possible. You then create the "cartoon" from the mathematical results. In their simulation several inner columns were broken.

We don't know if they were broken or not.

Then: I've no reason to suspect they were being anything other than honest in their simulation. No reason? not one?

Then: Meaning they can't tell exactly what happened. But it's plausible that some columns were damaged.

Then: they showed that it was perfectly plausible that it might have happened, they just don't know the precise positions and angles, hence they don't know exactly what happened. and, finally: The point is that it's a scenario that actually makes physical sense.

Hardly resolved, is it?

Last edited by a moderator:
Those are all different ways of saying the same thing.

I kept changing my phrasing because you did not seem to be understanding what I was saying. It seems you still don't. I'm sure the fault is partly my poor communication skills, but I can't help feeling you are being a bit obtuse - maybe not though, let's persist.

Are you familiar with computer simulations at all? Maybe I'm making some assumptions in what I think you understand (my fault there, I'm used to talking to people who program similar simulations).

Perhaps because use the word "accurate" in two senses - the accuracy of the model and initial conditions, and the accuracy of how closely the runs of the simulation (and in particular the one visualized in the video) matches the end result.

On both there is some degree of uncertainty, and necessarily some approximations. But for the latter it's impossible to know, because the end result was later destroyed by the collapsing building.

Does that clarify at all?

Just a few more rounds Lee H Oswald, his knees are buckling, I can tell. Although I am afraid that he will stay up just long enough till the end. You can't reason with these people, they are too bloody brainwashed. They are saying that they are all about facts and when you give it to them, what do they do?......NOTHING.....just repeating their stupid mantra. Please don't spend too much time on these empty heads, they will suck you dry. If they don't get the 3 laws of thermodynamics........I usually give up.

What "facts", awake101?
And when did you invoke "the 3 laws of thermodynamics" in any of your posts?

Are you serious? The 3 laws of thermodynamics are the facts. You figure it out or go to sleep......oh wait you already are!

OK. One step at a time then.

... They are saying that they are all about facts and when you give it to them, what do they do?......NOTHING.
lee h oswald did not actually bring any facts. (Neither did you.) This is why I asked. "What facts?"

... If they don't get the 3 laws of thermodynamics........I usually give up.
You did not mention any laws of TD in your posts, which is whay I said, "And when did you invoke 'the 3 laws of thermodynamics' in any of your posts?"

Do you understand my post now?

Oh now I get it.....you're tired.....go back to sleep !!

I can perhaps see how the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) might be relevant, but I'm a little confused as to the applicability of the second (entropy always increases) and third (you can't get to absolute zero).

Perhaps you meant Newton's laws of motion?

Last edited:
Well, you are doing a really good job! Very convincing, dream soft.

OK. One step at a time then.

lee h oswald did not actually bring any facts. (Neither did you.) This is why I asked. "What facts?"

You did not mention any laws of TD in your posts, which is whay I said, "And when did you invoke 'the 3 laws of thermodynamics' in any of your posts?"

Do you understand my post now?

Er, pardon? Maybe you need a refresher: If I had a beer barrel, first I'd empty it. If I was stupid enough to fire a beer barrel full of beer at a steel girder, what damage was sustained to what object would be determined by which object is designed best to withstand those pressures. You have given a specific - a beer barrel, and something not so specific, a girder. What are we talking about, 20mm plate? a pfc? a uc? 152 or 300 or or or? What angle is the beer barrel hitting what? on which face? the edge? full-on? close to a coupling with another beam? right in the middle of the beam? It's hard to say exactly what damage would be caused - but, for example, if it was 50mm plate hit side on, the barrel would be split in two and wrapped around the steel would be scratched and gouged, but structurally intact. Hit on its full face, if it was, say 3000mm x 200mm x 50mm it would have more impact, but again depending where it hits the beam, high up, low down, bang in the middle - that would probably bend the plate a bit - depends what part of the barrel hits it. In both cases the barrel would be destroyed.
More important than all that is: A beer barrel, like a coke can, has a certain proportion and construction and dimensions that are designed to hold a certain amount of liquid which produces gas. The containers need to be strong enough to resist deformation due to increased pressure, and in turn be light enough to be manageable for people. The shape of a beer barrel/soda can and its dimensions are built for purpose. As are airplanes. The shape and dimensions and construction of the fuel tanks has, just as with the cans/barrels, been designed with the factor of weight being vital. Commercial airliners are built to carry people and goods. Also, there is no point to crash test a Boeing 767, it's obvious the thing will be destroyed. You saying: What about a fuel tank - like a beer barrel, but bigger, thicker metal, vastly more mass, also at 500 mph. Different dimensions are critical here, you said about scale, remember? Dimensions are critical to structural integrity and strength. And even more critical in this example is that tanks are in the wings, the weakest, most vulnerable part of an aircraft apart from the nose. If a plane tilts and touches down a wing, the wing usually rips off. Planes are made out of light stuff, so they can get in the air. Buildings are made of much harder stuff because they weren't designed to be flimsy - as we can see from the construction photos.

Those sound like facts to me - add to that Newton's third law - that's Isaac Newton, are you familiar? Here it is, verbatim: If one object exerts a force on another, the other exerts the same force in opposite direction. Fact.

Can't you remember where I made a figure for this? I'll point it out if you can't recall - here's a clue: bug and windscreen. We are talking about one of the most important laws of the physical universe as we understand it - where exactly is the 'no facts' in that? I look forward to your response.

Also, Mick - could you tell me how you reconcile these two statements, made about that animation you presented as evidence?

Regarding the film, it shows [what seems to be - we have agreed this edit] several central columns being severed. I think it's quite possibly(sic) that that is not an accurate representation of what happened.

and:

The point is that it's a scenario that actually makes physical sense.

You say you stand by all - but there's appears to be some opposing forces (F) at work....

Last edited by a moderator:
Let's say I toss a coin, but the coin lands out of sight.

I create a physical simulation of the coin and the surroundings in a computer, I run it, and it comes up heads. I then create a video of the simulation results.

Regarding that video, it shows what seems to be the coin landing on heads, it's quite possible that is is not an accurate representation of what happened.

The point is that it's a scenario that actually makes physical sense.

See?

So, implicitly you are saying that you think jet fuel can melt steel. Interesting theory. What's your evidence?

How do you get that from a comic? Come now, you know what the situation is with jet fuel, workstations, burn temperatures, and structural integrity. We should all be on the same page there.

let's say i toss a coin, but the coin lands out of sight.

I create a physical simulation of the coin and the surroundings in a computer, i run it, and it comes up heads. I then create a video of the simulation results.

Regarding that video, it shows what seems to be the coin landing on heads, it's quite possible that is is not an accurate representation of what happened.

The point is that it's a scenario that actually makes physical sense.

See?

lol

How do you get that from a comic? Come now, you know what the situation is with jet fuel, workstations, burn temperatures, and structural integrity. We should all be on the same page there.

Implied.

And no, we are most definitely not on the same page

Well, maybe that's the problem. We need to get on the same page regarding what we agree on, before we can effectively try to find out where the errors are in what we disagree on. Let's try to drill down until we can agree on something.

Would you agree that the fires burned at a temperature that would compromise the structural integrity of the steel columns? (Ignore for a minute if they burned long enough - just focus on the temperature).

And actually, you can quite easily calculate the force of the strike by the aircraft on the tower - or shall we say (staying in tune with Newton's third) you can easily calculate the force of the strike by the building on the aircraft. Yes, it's the baseball bat analogy again, only bigger: 1:1.
If one object exerts a force on another, the other exerts the same force in opposite direction - so it's safe to say that the plane may be static and the building is moving towards the plane at about, let's say, 500mph. We know all the values of the relevant parts, it's easy. Ofcourse, the exact angles are unknown. But they can't be far off.
Your assessment of the video and above statement to justify your fence-sitting (to put it politely) in the guise of being careful in consideration, are just excuses. You'll only consider science, but even that is twisted. How much work goes in at the planning stage of such a building project as wtc? You think the furniture in such a building could be its destroyer? You think they never bothered to think about some of these things, because...? Who could have thought that hi-jackers would fly planes into buildings?!!? (wasn't that a line pumped by the regime at the time?) Well, it's been thought about a lot, by a lot of people, a lot of the time. There are and have been 'no-fly' zones in certain areas for as long as there has been aircraft. Major sporting events, G8 Summits, Pentagon etc etc ad infinitum

OK. One step at a time then.

lee h oswald did not actually bring any facts. (Neither did you.) This is why I asked. "What facts?"

You did not mention any laws of TD in your posts, which is whay I said, "And when did you invoke 'the 3 laws of thermodynamics' in any of your posts?"

Do you understand my post now?

Actually, awake101 did mention thermodynamics, before you as it happens. And one of them is very relevant. Do you know which?

Let's say I toss a coin, but the coin lands out of sight.

I create a physical simulation of the coin and the surroundings in a computer, I run it, and it comes up heads. I then create a video of the simulation results.

Regarding that video, it shows what seems to be the coin landing on heads, it's quite possible that is is not an accurate representation of what happened.

The point is that it's a scenario that actually makes physical sense.

See?

let's say I put a monkey in a two room apartment in order to observe its behaviour. The monkey goes in the other room so I can't see what it's doing. I create a computer simulation of the monkey and the apartment and set the parameters of monkey behaviour into my program. I run the program and it shows the monkey masturbating in the other room. Now, we don't know if monkey was knocking one out or not, only he knows that. So we made the final cut out of it anyway.

let's say I put a monkey in a two room apartment in order to observe its behaviour. The monkey goes in the other room so I can't see what it's doing. I create a computer simulation of the monkey and the apartment and set the parameters of monkey behaviour into my program. I run the program and it shows the monkey masturbating in the other room. Now, we don't know if monkey was knocking one out or not, only he knows that. So we made the final cut out of it anyway.

Exactly! The point there is that the monkey could have been masturbating. It's quite possible. Nobody actually knows what he did.

You are claiming (in this analogy) that it's impossible for monkeys to masturbate. I'm claiming that it is possible, and the simulation demonstrated a possible outcome.

You think the furniture in such a building could be its destroyer?

Don't you think that sounds a little like an argument from incredulity?

Don't you think that sounds a little like an argument from incredulity?

It looks like a question to me

Yes, but it's a rhetorical question, so really it's an argument. Nobody thinks the furniture alone caused the building to collapse.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Replies
26
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
36
Views
9K
Replies
45
Views
8K