OGCT True Believers Bullshit Excuses, Need help to sink OGCT True Believers BS Excuses Options

[FrankyGER]

Do you have any proof that any of the collapses were symmetrical?

If you compare any demolition video on youtube/google to those of 911, then those on that day are the least asymmetrical of all.
So what do want to tell us with "None of the collapses were symmetrical"?
And yes, it would be a difference.
For me it would have been no surprise if the intact top block would have toppled over the still standing rest of the towers.

[nicepants]

Maybe a few floors, but not certainly all of them in that short 10 seconds. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Hold up...

You agreed that the top section falling on the bottom section could crush "maybe a few floors" of the lower section.

I would agree with you on that. (And perhaps this is worthy of a new topic)

As that upper section falls through 1,2, 3 floors...gravity is still causing a downward acceleration. If falling 10 feet gave the upper section enough energy to smash through one floor and keep on moving, how much MORE momentum will there be when it falls another 10 feet with the additional mass of the first floor? Then falls another 10 feet (more speed) and gains the mass from the 2nd smashed floor (more mass).

If the top floor of the lower section couldn't resist the force, what makes you think any of the subsequent floors could resist an even greater force?

[nicepants]

If you compare any demolition video on youtube/google to those of 911, then those on that day are the least asymmetrical of all.

What do you even mean by "symmetrical"? The whole building falling at once? The left side doing what the right side is doing?

For me it would have been no surprise if the intact top block would have toppled over the still standing rest of the towers.

For anyone proficient in physics it would have been a HUGE surprise! There was nothing pushing it sideways, it went where gravity pulled it.

[Sanders]

I would agree with you on that. (And perhaps this is worthy of a new topic)

It's not. Please don't open another thread.

As that upper section falls through 1,2, 3 floors...gravity is still causing a downward acceleration. If falling 10 feet gave the upper section enough energy to smash through one floor and keep on moving, how much MORE momentum will there be when it falls another 10 feet with the additional mass of the first floor? Then falls another 10 feet (more speed) and gains the mass from the 2nd smashed floor (more mass).

"Smashing through floors" involves encountering resistance. That idea that gravity will result in the top section falling faster and faster, gaining momentum, with no regard to the resistance of the (rubust, undamaged!) floors beneath it which will rob the falling portion of it's kinetic energy, is complete fantasy.

[nicepants]

"Smashing through floors" involves encountering resistance.

Indeed.....encountering resistance doesn't mean that it's encountering ENOUGH resistance to greatly slow its acceleration. With 30 floors falling, the resistance of 1 floor isn't going to be enough to stop it. (30 train cars hit 1, what's going to happen?)

That idea that gravity will result in the top section falling faster and faster, gaining momentum, with no regard to the resistance of the (rubust, undamaged!) floors beneath it which will rob the falling portion of it's kinetic energy, is complete fantasy.

There is regard to resistance. Back to the whole momentum thing...the more mass it has, the more mass it takes to stop it. 29 floors falling aren't going to be easily stopped by 1, and when they're not, you have 30 floors falling, which aren't going to be easily stopped by 1, and so on. It didn't impact every floor of the tower at once, it did so sequentially.

[nicepants]

Because the upper section would NOT be acclerating as it fell! Upon hitting the lower floors, it would decelerate.

Don't forget, gravity is still accelerating it...and it's gaining mass

If the object is decelerating, the force becomes less. Therefore, the remaining structure would stop the downward trend due to resistance.

The presence of resistance doesn't mean there was enough to stop it. Think train vs car. Big mass vs small mass. Also remember gravity was still acting upon the building, so not only did the resistance have to be enough to decelerate the falling mass, it also had to be enough to counter the force of gravity.

This post has been edited by nicepants: May 30 2008, 05:18 PM

[grizz]

nicepants, I have a question about 'floors'. They seem to be integral to your arguments.

What floors? There were no floors in the rubble. If they crashed down on one another, driving the lower ones down, where did they go? How could they vanish and also provide the momentum to crush and spontaneously pulverize the ones below?

IOW, the mass that your theory requires was not there, as it was 'dustified' before it could push down on the lower structure.

I await your intelligent nonreply to a portion of my post.

[nicepants]

nicepants, I have a question about 'floors'. They seem to be integral to your arguments.

What floors? There were no floors in the rubble.

The floors were also integral to the towers, and their collapse.

Bolded your false claim. (Do you have a source for that one or was it just made up?)

There were floors in the rubble. Steven Jones has photos of them in his presentation, here's another:
(IMG:http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/911mysteries/caps/meteorite.jpg)

If they crashed down on one another, driving the lower ones down, where did they go? How could they vanish and also provide the momentum to crush and spontaneously pulverize the ones below?

Does this "pulverization" somehow remove mass? 1000lbs of dust weighs the same as a 1000lb chunk of concrete.

IOW, the mass that your theory requires was not there, as it was 'dustified' before it could push down on the lower structure.

Were the upper 29 floors "dustified" before the collapse began? If not then the bolded statement above is another false claim.

[nicepants]

Nicepants f*ck OFF! Seriously get lost! You are in NO position to be teaching physics.

Acceleration by gravity is constant. If there is resistance, the object falling through the resistance MUST slow down unless there is an additonal force acting upon it,

You don't quite have that right...

Resistance will slow the acceleration, but will not necessarily reduce the speed of the object.

For example...instead of accelerating at 32fpss, an object meeting resistance to gravity may only accelerate at 20fpss....either way, the speed at which the object is falling is increasing, albeit at a slower rate.

As for the mass accumulating comment, you need to get back to that experiment in the other thread: Drop a 10 lb. block and a 1 lb. block of wood at the same time from
the same height and tell which one hits the ground first.

They will both hit the ground at the same time.
Do you know which one has more momentum?

The upper section of the building did NOT increase in MASS as it fell. How could it? This is so stupid, I can't believe I'm replying to it!

Perhaps I should explain this better. The falling mass grew larger as the building collapsed.
Ex: The falling mass was 29 floors, then it crushed one floor...now the falling mass has increased by the mass of 1 floor, and so on. (Ever seen an avalanche?)

[dMz]

Is aluminum unable to penetrate a harder or denser material?

Thump! Thump! Is this thing on??

Perhaps you missed the
"I've heard plenty o' handwaving here, but where exactly is the evidence for WTC "penetration mechanics???"" part that you quoted, there Chuckles, Jr!

P.S. Why don't you look up the definition of "slow" you pathetic douche!?

[nicepants]

Perhaps you missed the
"I've heard plenty o' handwaving here, but where exactly is the evidence for WTC "penetration mechanics???"" part that you quoted

I didn't quote anything about "penetration mechanics".

[dMz]

I didn't quote anything about "penetration mechanics".

Exactly. You obviously don't know much about it either... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

So... does R.oark have "your" "login" tonight??

[nicepants]

Exactly. You obviously don't know much about it either... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Educate me. (I'm not too proud to learn from someone I disagree with...so long as they know the subject matter)

So... does R.oark have "your" "login" tonight??

No. I'm the only one who uses my account.

This post has been edited by nicepants: May 30 2008, 09:47 PM

[nicepants]

For example...instead of accelerating at 32fpss, an object meeting resistance to gravity may only accelerate at 20fpss....either way, the speed at which the object is falling is increasing, albeit at a slower rate.

Bzzzzz! Wrong again!

The speed would decrease as well.

No, you are wrong.

You don't seem to understand the important difference between a velocity (fps) and an acceleration (fpss).

Even if you decrease an acceleration, the objects velocity is still increasing as long as the acceleration is >0.

You need to understand this concept before any of what I'm trying to say will make sense to you.

Edit: To put it another way:

An acceleration measures how quickly a speed is changing. A lower value simply means that the rate of acceleration is less. (for accelerations >0)

in my above example....a 20fpss acceleration doesn't mean that the object is slowing down, it just means that it isn't speeding up as fast.

This post has been edited by nicepants: May 31 2008, 08:36 PM

[rob balsamo]

Hold up...

You agreed that the top section falling on the bottom section could crush "maybe a few floors" of the lower section.

I would agree with you on that. (And perhaps this is worthy of a new topic)

As that upper section falls through 1,2, 3 floors...gravity is still causing a downward acceleration. If falling 10 feet gave the upper section enough energy to smash through one floor and keep on moving,

So.. just to make sure we are clear. You feel people should believe the "highly damaged and heat weakened " (according to govt loyalists) ~30% steel structure "upper floor section" remained intact, almost like a "pile driver" pulverising the remaining ~70% intact structure below which was never comprimised, weakened, or hit by another "767" (including office furniture, stainless steel kitchens, core columns which were designed to progressivly increase thickness and strength along the vertical axis down to the base.).. you are seriously trying to sell to the american public (well, this forum) that the "upper ~30 floors which were already weakened enough to collpase)" pulverised the lower 70+ floors one by one, increasing in core column thickness, all the way down? Is that what you are really saying? You really expect people to buy that? Really?

(IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/WTC1CollapseLine.gif)

I dont know micepants.. but to me, it appears the "weakened damaged upper floors" (according to the govt story) took a beating trying to collapse the intact structure below... that is, until there was apparently a catalyst to help it along... I can dig up more pics.. but really, why waste my time with someone that isnt even smart enough to know he is getting ripped off on his flight training... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[rob balsamo]

(30 train cars hit 1, what's going to happen?)

See, now this is where we expose you for not being too bright (again). Either that, or intentionally deceitful. Which is it micepants?

Here is a realistic analogy with respect to micepants quote above.

30 train cars hit head on with 70 in the opposite direction. Im sure the first few wont survive on either side. But will the 30 plow through all 70 on the other side one by one? According to micepants, he says yes...


bright kid huh? And the kid still thinks he isnt getting ripped off in his flight training. Dont worry folks, i dont think he'll ever make it to the professional level. I seen alot of kids like him plow into a mountain long before earning a paychek in a cockpit. Micepants.. wise up! For your own sake.

[painter]

See, now this is where we expose you for not being too bright (again). Either that, or intentionally deceitful. Which is it micepants?

Here is a realistic analogy with respect to micepants quote above.

30 train cars hit head on with 70 in the opposite direction. Im sure the first few wont survive on either side. But will the 30 plow through all 70 on the other side one by one? According to micepants, he says yes...


bright kid huh? And the kid still thinks he isnt getting ripped off in his flight training. Dont worry folks, i dont think he'll ever make it to the professional level. I seen alot of kids like him plow into a mountain long before earning a paychek in a cockpit. Micepants.. wise up! For your own sake.

Well, but of course we know what licepants is going to say! If you turn the track so it is vertical and gravity is pulling the 30 car train down, YES, it is going to "plow through" the 70 car train, all the way to the caboose. OR he could say that, for example, even if the two trains were on a horizontal track, if the 70 car train were stationary and the 30 car train were being propelled by a rocket engine (an energy source for sufficient momentum) it, too, would go through all 70 cars.

Again, the problem vicepants has in reality is that the only energy source to produce ALL of the observed phenomena at the WTC is gravity acting on the MASS of the structure above the impact level. Of course he still maintains that that mass "accumulated" as it descended -- an assumption I see no evidence for and a lot of evidence against. He can not account for the fact that a large quantity of the steel was shot laterally and that the vast majority of the contents, including most of the concrete and everything else, was instantaneously pulverized into such fine powder that it could roil across lower Manhattan, blanketing it inches deep -- all not to mention the pools of molten metal witnessed beneath all the structures. He wants me to prove this with calculations suggesting that without such calculations I can't be certain about any of this -- that only mathematics can confirm common sense. I'll let someone else do those calculations as I'm not qualified but I do know that it takes energy to do work and that the only energy source he has to do ALL the work observed will be gravity acting upon mass. It doesn't take a mathematician or an engineer to grasp that, even though there is a lot of potential energy available, it is still insufficient to produce all the results observed. It takes a LOT of energy to overcome the integrity of an over-built steel and concrete structure, disassociating and warping its steel members, hurtling many of them laterally, turning all its contents, including people, into very fine powder AND leaving a super-heated residual below ground level. He also denies the symmetry of all this but the fact is the demolition plumes are visibly uniform on all sides cascading downward at a rate of about 10 floors per second. In the videos one can even see some of the exterior steel traveling many floors ahead of the demolition -- indicating that they are actually falling faster than free-fall -- and there can be only one explanation for this: Their descent is being accelerated by some force. Gravity can not explain hundred+ ton objects being hurtled laterally with such force that they impale themselves in buildings hundreds of feet away.

I want to ban psychopants because it is abundantly obvious he is not asking sincere questions. Anyone asking a sincere question is willing to entertain possibilities that may not correspond with his belief system. Apparently for dittopants there is nothing "anomalous" about any of the observed events at the WTC. He has no questions! Fine. It is a free country, or so we are led to believe, and anyone can damn well "believe" whatever they want. That doesn't mean we have to give them a soap-box in this forum.

[Sanders]

I want to ban psychopants because it is abundantly obvious he is not asking sincere questions....

I whole-heartedly agree. There is no reason for any of us to waste any more time with this character. Bye-bye, Nicepants, take care now. ( ... Be my guest, painter.)

[grizz]

I'm on board with allowing nicepants to go on his merry way. To be honest, this forum is a serious venue. It is for those who seek the truth, not for those who deny it.

Repetative retarded redundancy is nicepants tactic, and it has run it's course.

(I still think it's an experimental A.I. program.)

[mrodway]

(I still think it's an experimental A.I. program.)

Wouldn't that be an experimental A.S. program? (Artificial Stupidity)