Reply With Quote
Ted Olsen cell phone calls..
On cell phones...
Ted Olsen cell phone calls..
Molten metal, cell phones, free fall, demolitions, etc. Posting the same that has been discussed and refuted as if those discussions never took place is the stuff of WC and DarrinS. Good job.
Just because you ignored them before does not mean they are no longer anomalies...testimony of cell phone calls from 911 planes comes from the Zacarias Moussaoui trial not from some conspiratorial website as RG claims...The 911 Commission could only verify two cell phones calls made from hijacked planes, but clearly, just from testimony of family who received the calls, there were others...
Again your assertions have been rebutted before even in this thread. You just ignore them and regurgitate the same . It is exactly what DarrinS and WC do. Again good job.
You are waving your hands at the use of 'cell phone' in the transcripts and has been argued in this thread included the seat phones. You just ignore this like those heads do and then wait awhile to repeat the same again. You don't do anything do discount that possibility and then claim it's Cheney. It's kinda funny like watching a Jerry Lewis movie but at the end of the day all I can do is pity you.
Nothing has been 'rebutted' Fuzzy...you 'Bush got one right crowd' do everything you can to avoid talking seriously about anything....not once in this thread nor any other 911 thread has the cell phone call issue ever been settled....you guys just regurgitate the same old tired conspiracy theory moon-bat talking points...Again your assertions have been rebutted before
Debunked is not "ignored".
They are being ignored now, because they are just as debunked now, as the first 1,000 times you presented the material.
What is there to rebut? Some phone calls were made. and?
What do you think says? What theory does it support to you?
So now you make it about supporting Bush? You're flailing now with the Pee Wee routine.
Ok, thanks for the funny.
"why do falling things keep accelerating?"
HOLY that is funny.
The guy does some ill-designed experiments in his back yard, misses the main concepts, and then, like every other twoofer moron, buys into, and regurgitates every stupid theory and assertion about the towers collapse without spending an iota of time/effort doing any critical thinking.
The flaws in his experiment were readily obvious to me. Care to guess what the fatal one is? Or do you care?
The only thing this video is good for, aside from the laugh factor, is to demonstrate just how bad twoofers are at actually reasoning. The throw away line at the end, scoffing about the engineers with their "equations" was particularly telling.
I figured it out in rather short order. The guy in the video talks a lot about theories and evidence, then completely fails to understand gravity, kinetic energy, and the structure of the building.
He fails to understand the basic structure of the building, and seems to think he can adequately represent the hollow floors of the world trade center with a bunch of cinderblocks stacked on top of each other.
The buildings had floors, and open space between the floors.
X
X
X
X
Bam, first floor hits second floor, and they both start falling.
Dudes model looks like:
X
X
X
X
X
Of course the first cinderblock absorbs the falling mass. What the didn't get is that there was no solid support to keep the two crumbled, falling cinderblocks from simply falling again USING THE SPACE BETWEEN FLOORS TO ACCELERATE AND GAIN MORE KINETIC ENERGY on the floor below it, unlike his model where he stacked all the remaining cinderblocks directly on top of each other.
ing duh, just like I have been trying to get through your ing thick skull for years.
MORE fail.
"free fall debunked".
For NBADan
PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m
Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.
SOOOO
The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.
Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.
They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.
Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.
Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:
v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second
Subs ute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m
This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.
Think about this for a moment.
The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.
Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing.
STILL FURTHER
Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.
IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.
Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)
What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?
Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.
The funny thing about this bit is that even if you only consider the first 3 meters instead of the first 12 meters, there is still more than enough force to collapse the building.
In response to this, Dan produced a video from a nice young man who also did some calculations, but forgot that gravity didn't stop accelerating mass once it got moving.
So the best the truther movement can come up with are obvious beginners mistakes in physics to support their "it was too strong to collapse without explosives" bit.
Take bad physics, the inability to answer a straight question when asked, taking quotes out of context, outright making up, and what do you think a real jury would make out of that, Dan?
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing.
Twenty two times. (ok 29 actually, I built in an error that it took Dan years to catch).
That is a building five+ miles tall.
That is essentially what the conspiracy theorists are trying to say, because they want so desperately to rule out simple gravity-fed collapses. They are essentially implying that the world trade center towers could be five miles tall, something that would make any real building engineer laugh you out of her office.
That is what the ing dolt in the video doesn't want you to know or look up. "stupid equations"
Because those equations, incontrovertible rules of the universe, make the whole ing stupid goddamn "explosives are required theory" look like the ing bukkake of dumb that it is.
What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
No, he didn't.
What was claimed to be molten steel was just simply molten aluminum.
Molten aluminum, at the temperatures achieved in the fires in the buildings.
None of your eyewitnesses applied any chemical tests on the "molten" metal, did they?
They can honestly say they saw molten metal. Sure. Molten "steel" assumes quite a bit. A assumption that is never supported by evidence sufficient for any reasonable person to reach the conclusion that the claim holds up.
How did the witnesses in your video conclude that the molten metal was "steel"?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 06-14-2016 at 07:59 AM.
Twoofers make Flat Earthers look like geniuses.
The airframes of almost all modern aircraft are made of aluminum. So was the entire facade of the building itself. The wreckage where the jet fuel was centrally burning from would have been a big hunk of aluminum.
But but but steel . . . .
What is sad is he behaves just like Darrin. He knows all of this as he's been told at least half a dozen times. Very similar pathology as the God delusion. He wants to believe it.
Lol, at least 3rd mention of me. Obsessed much?
Rent free
Sometimes they are the same people. Dumb squared.
You are merely the tin standard when it comes to presenting someone who reaches bad conclusions on bad evidence, and prefers feeling good about what they believe over truth. twoofers of course being the gold standard, or maybe its the steel standard, we never know because they fail to test the mettle of their arguments.Lol, at least 3rd mention of me. Obsessed much?
Rent free
Theres an interview with Osama Bin Ladrn right after 9/11 in which he denies any involvement in the 9/11 attacks
Well, that settles that I guess.
Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true as it relates to the Muslim iden y.
Tawriya - Intentionally creating a false impression.
I don't think having a non-alarmist take on climate change is on par with 911 trutherism.
More plausible than one man outsmarting a $40 billion a year intelligence network.Well, that settles that I guess.
Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true as it relates to the Muslim iden y.
Tawriya - Intentionally creating a false impression.
Wasn't one man
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
