Either Newton is wrong or the NIST is wrong... You decide!

Discussion in '9/11' started by SamSkwamch, Jun 8, 2016.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. SamSkwamch

    SamSkwamch Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2016
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Newton and the NIST cannot both be correct. Anyone who understands even basic laws of physics knows this. Please enjoy the following short video.

    [video=youtube;tejFUDlV81w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tejFUDlV81w[/video]

    Looking forward to any honest thoughts.
     
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I say Newton is wrong. NIST has to be right, they do whatever they have to do to make sure they're right. Newton? Not so much, he was wrong on 9/11, NIST proved him wrong for that day.
     
  3. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Not this dumb sh*t again?
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now there's a highly detailed technical response to the OP. And here I thought you posted a specific protocol invented by you for posters to follow just today. Is that how it works?
     
  5. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,464
    Likes Received:
    14,681
    Trophy Points:
    113
    considering the OP is a committed Holocaust denier, I see no reason why this argument should be given any regard.
     
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So feel free to disregard it then.
     
  7. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    The OP is obviously wrong, and the claim is 'dumb (*)(*)(*)(*)'. So, what's your fu*&ing problem THIS TIME?

    Your verb in the first clause (p.t.) is obviously incorrect.
     
  8. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,464
    Likes Received:
    14,681
    Trophy Points:
    113
    6 year old video.

    obviously didn't make a difference in 2010, doesn't make a difference today.
     
  9. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course not. It's a stupid premise.
     
  10. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    What? Like this dumb sh*t?

    Now there's a highly detailed technical response to the OP.

    People in glass houses should wear a towel upon exiting the shower.:roflol: Too easy.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I must have made a mistake, so is the above how you follow your protocol in practice then?

    Yeah that's possible, your grammar is such better quality as anyone can tell from the above.
     
  12. Zorroaster

    Zorroaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2016
    Messages:
    1,183
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This video is a complete fraud.

    It completely ignore several critically important factors. First is the structural weakness of steel at elevated temperatures, which would profoundly alter the upward resisting force. It also ignores the fact that the accumulated falling mass increases as each floor succumbs to the force of the total weight above it. It also ignores the kinetic energy of falling tons of concrete and steel which also increases at the same rate. This kinetic energy is far in excess of any purported explosive devices, and renders their existence unnecessary.
     
  13. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,464
    Likes Received:
    14,681
    Trophy Points:
    113
    also, the structures were designed to hold static loads, not dynamic loads.

    once a good 1/5 of the mass of the building moved down 10 feet, there was no stopping it.
     
  14. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Flamebait noted.


    Of course it is.
     
  15. SamSkwamch

    SamSkwamch Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2016
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    NEWTON WAS NOT WRONG. We have accepted this as fact since 1687. Stop believing in the impossible. Our schools suck.
     
  16. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male

    No-one said Newton was wrong. It's the false dichotomy that is the problem. Zorroaster made cogent points that should be addressed.
     
  17. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    3,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Truthers who make arguments couched in terms of "high school" physics tend to run away when asked to support their claims with the math. Will this truther run away like the last?

    Columns are geometric restraints of potential energy. In order to serve in this capacity they must retain their shape, their strength, and their position. A change in any of these variables will change a column's ability to restrain the potential gravitational acceleration of the mass it restrains. The column itself also has potential. It also is influenced by gravity. This means that once a column fails, it cannot restrain the acceleration of the mass it previously restrained & it also cannot restrain its own potential to accelerate.

    So, simple question. How do you determine how much slower the collapse should be due to energy required to change the shape, stregnth, or position of the restraints to potential?

    I ask this because it can be empirically shown that no building fell "at free fall speed" Once this is demonstrated, truthers typically shift their argument to claim that the buildings fell at "near free fall speed" and claim this is too fast. So put up or shut up. If this is "simple high school physics," show me mathematically how fast the building should have fallen.
     
  18. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    3,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
  19. SamSkwamch

    SamSkwamch Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2016
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The problem here is that people try to complicate the simple and simplify the complex to explain away what is actually quite obvious.

    Newton's work is fine for discussing this topic. Stop pretending this involves galactic clusters or accepting dark matter.

    And after the "truthers" beat the NIST down, even they accepted as fact that the middle of the collapse of WTC7 took place at freefall acceleration or at the same rate as gravity.

    A small child with no background in physics can tell you that the roof of a building will fall through air faster than it would fall through... well... a building.

    Some of these responses indicate that common sense seems to have become sadly uncommon.
     
  20. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    3,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No attempt to answer my question? I'll give you another. What is the area moment of inertia of the support system for a single floor & what is the area of an entire floor.

    You realize the building is mostly air, right?
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know of anyone who disagrees with NIST's free fall claim other than anonymous posters who defend the OCT. It is a non-controversial claim agreed to by NIST and many of those who question the OCT. The issue isn't even just about free fall, it's really about the accelerating drop of a building in seconds with no visible hesitation/jolts through its own massive structure. The same issue exists with the collapse of the twin towers, which dropped at an accelerating rate about 2/3 of free fall.
     
  22. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    3,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What does "visible jolts" mean? How much kinetic energy should be needed to buckle a single floor's worth of columns? Can you show the math please?

    Don't you think we need to know the expected delta before we can determine whether or not the resulting change in acceleration should be measurable on a 72 dpi video?
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You know as well as I do that colliding objects produce jolts or hesitation (i.e. a sudden slow down) for objects falling at an accelerating rate.

    That's irrelevant to this point.

    The only method of measurement available to my knowledge are the various videos and there are software tools available that have that capability. While they may not be 100% accurate, they are quite close and none of these jolts/hesitations were observed with any significance.
     
  24. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,873
    Likes Received:
    3,856
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's hardly the definition I'm looking for. I want a quantity. It's not enough to simply assume it should happen. You have to empirically demonstrate the magnitude of this effect you're talking about. To simply claim I should see a "jolt" in a video of a building the size of the WTC is not enough, expecially not in a video with a pixel resolution of a few feet.

    Kinetic energy is irrelevant to an analysis of the acceleration of a inelastic impact? I thought you wanted to talk about physics? What should we examine instead, the building's feelings?

    Then I suggest you should cede that your knowledge of the subject is too limited to form a conclusion. Even a 1080x1920 HD video does not contain enough resolution to measure a "6 inch jolt" in a building if the video is taken of just half the height of the building. It's worse if you have the whole building in frame.

    1377 / 2 = 688 feet represented by 1080 pixels is .63 feet per pixel (7 1/2 inches). That is to say, in HD the building has to move at least 7 1/2 inches if you have half of it over the entire frame in order to even see it move.

    So I'll ask again...calculate this "jolt" so we can tell if it should be able to be measured in a video.
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,595
    Likes Received:
    2,352
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't read your mind as to what "definition" you're looking for, I can only respond to a post. In any case, I think what I posted is pretty clear.

    The quantity is 0 or none (no significant visible or even measurable jolts/hesitation throughout the duration of the majority of the 3 collapses).

    It probably isn't but that's what did happen for all 3 collapses (i.e. no significant jolts/hesitation).

    I don't have to demonstrate anything. The evidence speaks for itself and I'm not the evidence.

    I'm not making any claims as to what YOU should see, the facts speak for themselves. If you believe what you see in the videos is a naturally occurring collapse for all 3 buildings, I'm not the one to contradict your belief system. IMO the idea makes absolutely no sense, there's no real world precedent for it, it can't be reproduced by experiment or computer modelling (at least no one has ever successfully done it). The same is not true for controlled demolitions, which are of course, not naturally occurring collapses.

    I want to talk about 9/11 in general and the official investigations and their results that contradict reality and also grossly violate universally accepted standard scientific investigation procedures/protocol in many ways.

    That depends what the subject matter is. I'm talking about 9/11, a subject I have been studying for about 12 years now give or take on a nearly daily basis. That's an awful lot of knowledge to accumulate and it is the topic being discussed in this section of the forum. So I'm only limited by what I haven't yet learned and what is being hidden from me (or rather all of us). That means I have no intention of "ceding" anything on that subject matter. And as to my conclusions, they are quite straightforward. We have been scammed by the US government and the official investigations were actually criminal coverups designed to mimic investigations to fool the general public and to protect the criminals involved.

    I don't need to calculate anything to understand what I'm looking at in many videos. I see 3 buildings being destroyed as smoothly as 3 massive buildings can be destroyed, there was nothing natural about it. In the case of the twin towers, they were blown apart top down beginning with a massive explosion that separated the smaller top section from the much larger and mostly unaffected lower section. In the case of WTC7, what is an incredibly amazing claim is that the official party line is that fire alone caused it to collapse just like a perfect controlled demolition. I've seen controlled demolitions that failed and so this one was near perfection, yet it is claimed that fire alone did that (NIST claims that the damage had no effect on the collapse other than igniting the fires, which is also a dubious claim).
     

Share This Page