RickWhite
Well-Known Member
NoDrama, I took two semesters of major level college physics. You on the other hand clearly don't understand physics or chemistry and you are saying things that just are not true.
The analogy I gave about the results of one accident not having to match that of another is a good one. Looking at the issue objectively for a change. You see that the Empire state building not falling proves nothing. Just because every building hit by a plane doesn't fall, in no way proves that it isn't possible. It is possible that 99 buildings are hit and don't fall and then the 100th could be the one that falls - the 99 prove nothing, the 100th proves everything.
On the other hand, if a single steel structure does fall as a result of fire, it proves that it is possible for this to happen. Two freeway overpass' that I know of have come down for no other reason than heat. This proves that fire does cause substantial weakening of steel and that it is enough to bring down some very, very strong structures. That is why beams in buildings have fireproofing on them - n the WTC this was ripped off.
My Quote:
"And as far as the plane disintegrating. The fact is, if an object is moving toward you and you break its mass into smaller pieces it still has the same mass and still impacts with the same force. If you have ever shot something with a shotgun you can see how this works. The wings of a plane while obviously softer and weaker than steel beams still have sufficient mass to sever those beams. To illustrate, a tiny BB traveling at the speed of light would disintegrate the planet."
Your response:
"Not even close, if you break something up you have already lessened it's impact because you have slowed its speed a considerable amount."
Here is a statement that proves you don't know the first thing about physics.
Clearly, you do not understand the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of mass. If you have a given object with a given momentum and you reduce that object's momentum the energy has to go somewhere. In this case we clearly have reduced the momentum of the objects and this energy was transfered into the beams - mass however remains the same. If you take the total energy of the moving plane and you subtract the opposing force of the beams you still have some net momentum and you still have the same mass. What you see coming out of the other side of the building is the net momentum of the plane debris.
It is also important to know that engineers have calculated the heat produced solely from the energy that is transfered from the plane into the building. They calculated massive amounts of heat just from the impact - this is sans jet fuel.
Now as for what I have or have not proved: Did you see my posts in which I blew the whistle on the sources of all the alleged "research" that you guys keep citing? Let me explain again what I found. The writings you guys keep referring to as proof all trace back to a small group of people centered around a single discredited professor. Now one thing you need to know is that there is a fairly rigorous academic standard when it comes to submitting research to the academic & scientific community.
How this works is that you first conduct research according to stringent academic guidelines. You then write up your research in a way that likewise follows academic guidelines. Once you are confident in your work you submit your work to a well respected journal. One you do that, the work is reviewed by the editors of the journal and they determine if the work is up to par. If they do decide it is worthy of publication, the work is then published and submitted for peer review. In peer review, other experts scrutinize your methods and your conclusions and either agree or disagree with your findings. The validity of your finding is determined by this last step. Of course in the future others may produce contrary research. This is the process that is endorsed by all of academia and the scientific community.
The reason I can say that the 911 conspiracy info lacks credibility is because none of it has gone through this process. Instead, what the authors have done, is produce papers that look legitimate, bypass the whole academic process and essentially just post them on line as fact. In order to fraudulently add an air of legitimacy, the authors have posted their findings in pseudo-academic, open source, internet "journals" and have even created their own expressly for this purpose.
Nothing could be less scientific than producing your own "journal" in order to promote your alleged scientific findings. To do so is monumentally absurd and clearly demonstrates that the author is a fraud. Not only does it demonstrate fraud, it also demonstrates a clear and obvious intent to convince others of you fraudulent work.
The bottom line is that the authors of this BS can not even manage to get published in a single respected journal and they certainly would never pass peer review because the lion's share of the scientific community disagree with their findings. Plus, when someone manufactures their own on line journal, posts their findings and calls upon the general public to conduct peer review, even the most uninformed among us has to see that it doesn't pass the smell test.
Really, at this point I think it is clear that you guys have argued yourself into a corner and you are arguing as a matter of pride.
The analogy I gave about the results of one accident not having to match that of another is a good one. Looking at the issue objectively for a change. You see that the Empire state building not falling proves nothing. Just because every building hit by a plane doesn't fall, in no way proves that it isn't possible. It is possible that 99 buildings are hit and don't fall and then the 100th could be the one that falls - the 99 prove nothing, the 100th proves everything.
On the other hand, if a single steel structure does fall as a result of fire, it proves that it is possible for this to happen. Two freeway overpass' that I know of have come down for no other reason than heat. This proves that fire does cause substantial weakening of steel and that it is enough to bring down some very, very strong structures. That is why beams in buildings have fireproofing on them - n the WTC this was ripped off.
My Quote:
"And as far as the plane disintegrating. The fact is, if an object is moving toward you and you break its mass into smaller pieces it still has the same mass and still impacts with the same force. If you have ever shot something with a shotgun you can see how this works. The wings of a plane while obviously softer and weaker than steel beams still have sufficient mass to sever those beams. To illustrate, a tiny BB traveling at the speed of light would disintegrate the planet."
Your response:
"Not even close, if you break something up you have already lessened it's impact because you have slowed its speed a considerable amount."
Here is a statement that proves you don't know the first thing about physics.
Clearly, you do not understand the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of mass. If you have a given object with a given momentum and you reduce that object's momentum the energy has to go somewhere. In this case we clearly have reduced the momentum of the objects and this energy was transfered into the beams - mass however remains the same. If you take the total energy of the moving plane and you subtract the opposing force of the beams you still have some net momentum and you still have the same mass. What you see coming out of the other side of the building is the net momentum of the plane debris.
It is also important to know that engineers have calculated the heat produced solely from the energy that is transfered from the plane into the building. They calculated massive amounts of heat just from the impact - this is sans jet fuel.
Now as for what I have or have not proved: Did you see my posts in which I blew the whistle on the sources of all the alleged "research" that you guys keep citing? Let me explain again what I found. The writings you guys keep referring to as proof all trace back to a small group of people centered around a single discredited professor. Now one thing you need to know is that there is a fairly rigorous academic standard when it comes to submitting research to the academic & scientific community.
How this works is that you first conduct research according to stringent academic guidelines. You then write up your research in a way that likewise follows academic guidelines. Once you are confident in your work you submit your work to a well respected journal. One you do that, the work is reviewed by the editors of the journal and they determine if the work is up to par. If they do decide it is worthy of publication, the work is then published and submitted for peer review. In peer review, other experts scrutinize your methods and your conclusions and either agree or disagree with your findings. The validity of your finding is determined by this last step. Of course in the future others may produce contrary research. This is the process that is endorsed by all of academia and the scientific community.
The reason I can say that the 911 conspiracy info lacks credibility is because none of it has gone through this process. Instead, what the authors have done, is produce papers that look legitimate, bypass the whole academic process and essentially just post them on line as fact. In order to fraudulently add an air of legitimacy, the authors have posted their findings in pseudo-academic, open source, internet "journals" and have even created their own expressly for this purpose.
Nothing could be less scientific than producing your own "journal" in order to promote your alleged scientific findings. To do so is monumentally absurd and clearly demonstrates that the author is a fraud. Not only does it demonstrate fraud, it also demonstrates a clear and obvious intent to convince others of you fraudulent work.
The bottom line is that the authors of this BS can not even manage to get published in a single respected journal and they certainly would never pass peer review because the lion's share of the scientific community disagree with their findings. Plus, when someone manufactures their own on line journal, posts their findings and calls upon the general public to conduct peer review, even the most uninformed among us has to see that it doesn't pass the smell test.
Really, at this point I think it is clear that you guys have argued yourself into a corner and you are arguing as a matter of pride.
Kind of why the Truthers are considered nutty.... rightfully so.
