General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

I mean it does not even make sense. And what about the other planes? Vaporizing on impact and the second one created a 10 meter wide hole with no debris.

Oh awesome we have an expert on aircraft crashes in the thread. This shall be very helpful in clearing up some things. So first, where did you study?

Also Acomb I think Mullanimal was saying that if you're sample size is 3, and with much smaller impacts, it isn't a really a supporting point at all. 3 small impacts shouldn't be a predictive blueprint to understand how all hug impacts work. Tbh I thought the number would have been way higher than that with how hard you were pushing that point, although that's to blame on my own ignorance/laziness in not following it up.

Say he is into space engineering, or say he is a bin man - What difference does it make?

You are basically saying that having an authoritarian position is important in this regard (where you studied and perhaps what you studied), but then on the other hand completely disregard the authoritarian position when it comes to structural engineers (ae911truth.org), demolition experts (jowenko) and military servicemen who have all studied for years upon end at some of the best institutions in the world. It's essentially a contradiction in terms.

Say he is into space engineering, or say he is a bin man - What difference does it make?

You are basically saying that having an authoritarian position is important in this regard (where you studied and perhaps what you studied), but then on the other hand completely disregard the authoritarian position when it comes to structural engineers (ae911truth.org), demolition experts (jowenko) and military servicemen. It's a contradiction in terms.

It matters in regards to actually knowing what you are talking about, but the evidence stands on its own merits and you have chosen to ignore any evidence that doesn't support your preconceived understanding of how the world works.

It matters in regards to actually knowing what you are talking about, but the evidence stands on its own merits and you have chosen to ignore any evidence that doesn't support your preconceived understanding of how the world works.

I haven't ignored anything mate. I have looked into everything as much as I can.

What specifically have I ignored in your view?

You have just ignored the above three examples I posted in your own quotation!

Go ahead and ignore this too

Say he is into space engineering, or say he is a bin man - What difference does it make?

You are basically saying that having an authoritarian position is important in this regard (where you studied and perhaps what you studied), but then on the other hand completely disregard the authoritarian position when it comes to structural engineers (ae911truth.org), demolition experts (jowenko) and military servicemen who have all studied for years upon end at some of the best institutions in the world. It's essentially a contradiction in terms.

He seemed to state it from a very layman's perspective like... "planes don't vaporize (it didnt vaporize but whatever) on impact! I saw a plane crash on the news and it was in one piece". And I agree with him, from my completely uneducated perspective it seems like there should be big pieces of the plane after a crash. But here's the deal.... I have no idea about aeronautics, much less aeronautics merging with groundonautics , so I'm not going to put my own biases on things of how the world should seem to work. I can skeptically look at arguments from each side and come to a decent conclusion, but lets be honest it's not perfect. I think the evidence is much stronger that it was a plane, but I'm still open to the possibility that hey maybe it was a missile and maybe it is super weird that there was no large debris and I everyone just totally misunderstood the situation. I'm not going to give that position any legitimacy though if it's pulled out of thin air and I think it should be exposed wherever it's made. Now if wtfpwnage is making this assertion based on what he sees as strong supportive evidence then I apologize and that's obviously fine, I would recommend he include that when he makes his arguments.

Further on me being contradictory that I disregard an authoritarian position, yes you're right I don't fall into the trap of argument from authority. Obviously just because someone has experience in a field doesn't strongly strengthen whatever they say. Of course it has some bearing, and then somewhat more the larger the group in a field that are in consensus on a point. I guess to sum it up although I think you need to have knowledge in a field to make a strong informed opinion it doesn't assume that all knowledgeable people in a field have strong informed opinions.

Oh sorry Acomb I completely misunderstood your statement (<- retarded). No I don't care where people studied, I was just facetiously asking a question. Kind of like I said above, whilst people's credentials/experience/etc hold a little weight, as long as it's past a certain threshold their arguments to me mainly stand by themselves.

I am beginning to see a consipacy but it is not the same one as Acombfosho, in fact Acombfosho seems to be spreading this. Lots of this web material is farcical in it's analysis. I am not a structeral engineer but I can see a lot of the posts are using really bad science to support their claim - I suspect a few of these people are seeing these 9/11 events in a faith style belief like Acombfosho.

or even this simple experiment video which explains the basic laws of physics ?

I as mentioned earlier, this seems like a stupid experiment to me. In the real event 27 to 30 floors of the building fell onto the say 79th floor in their entirity and yet this man decides to make a tube to drop one ice cube, or concrete block, onto several others to model the effect. I would say a very obvious way to get a better model of the event is to drop 27 to 30 icecubes onto several below. This would still not be a great model but a great deal better than his. He seems to be a structural engineer and yet has gone to the trouble of demonstrating a silly model, I would say he wants to try to show his faith view and not try to use science in a reasonable way.

Please refer to Dr.Judy Wood's Billiard Ball Explaination

Here again somebody (I have no information on who Dr Judy is) is using science in a strange way with her pancake analysis. She shows several graphs of different scenarios and these, except perhaps the first freefall one, basically have no bearing on what happened.

Case 1, fine - she uses the fall from the top floor case where earlier I used the 80th floor drop, but there wont be a great deal in this as by the time you have collapsed 80 the mass is moving very fast probably 20 floors per second.

Case 2: I suggest this is done for effect. The time to drop 10 floors is
t = sqrt(2d/g)
each floor is about 3.9m.
t = sqrt(2*10*3.9/9.8) = 2.82s
I agree with this time but in this graph as can be seen the 100th floor starts from a zero velocity and it takes another 2.82s to reach and start the next. This is clearly rubbish, this 100th floor would not completely bring to rest the mass of the 10 previous floors and so the 90th floor would be hit sooner, starting somewhere in between the time for the blue and red line, I wouldn't be able to accurately guess where. By the time the 30th block is hit it has the mass of 30 floor hitting it pretty fast I would doubt it would slow the fall up by much at all and yet in this diagram it again comes to a complete rest and is given the 2.8s time to reach the next (???).
It is true the that way building are constructed the lower floors are stronger than the higher ones but this graph cannot be taken as any model of the way that the Twin Towers collapsed. It is put in only for effect to try to influence some people.
Case3:
Well what can I say exect even more extreme stupidity than case 2.
The time for one floor to collapse
t = sqrt(2*3.9/9.8) = 0.796s
This falls onto the floor beow momentarily comes to a standstill and then falls onto the floor below momentarily comes to a standstill.....
This is truely bizzare but has been put on the page to confuse. In this case the time to collapse is shown as 87 to 97.6s, in my reckoning it is 110 * 0.796 = 87.56s
I suspect the difference is that Dr Judy is using as slightly larger size for each floor.
Anyway, it is not a likely model of floor collapse in any way and so I wonder why this has been added to the web page.

Case4: Fine, if you want to get all the floors to collapse at freefall speed this is what you would do. (Or simultaneous if you didn't mind the lower floors getting to the ground first.)

It seems to me that the pancake collapse that ocurred does so in a is a very believable time. I would not personally be suprised at any time between from 10 seconds to 20 seconds. This Dr Judy web site has been dilliberately trying to make the case for an unbelievable collapse by showing very poor models and fancy graphs. An underhand approach and not science.

There are people that want to believe that some sinister agency aided the collapse but there appears to be very little chance of doing it after the Towers where hit, you would have to get some people in (persumably experts at demolition) up to the 70th+ floor and give them time to wire the building and get out. They would probably have to dress as firemen to avoid notice on the way up (I suspect it would take an age to go up that far against the flow of people) and down and also get them primed and briefed in the space of perhaps 1 hour. You may get away with such a plot for a Mission Impossible film but in real life this just simply can't be done.

I suspect a few of these people are seeing these 9/11 events in a faith style belief like Acombfosho.

This is clearly false. There is no faith style belief system on my part when I am talking about the collapse of the towers at free fall being unprecedented and impossible due to fire. It's a fact.

I don't know who did it. I suspect that the Saudis with collaboration from Mossad, the ISI and elements of the CIA are responsible. That's irrelevant what I believe though. What is relevant are the laws of physics and to follow the evidence. The evidence does not point to fires. Simple.

Here is a talk show aired on SKY channel 200 in UK from a few months ago for more information on Judy Wood.

She doesn't care about 'whodunnits' but only about the science, here's a quote from her page on her 500 page book 'Where did the towers go?'.

This book contains physical evidence, not theories or speculation, but physical evidence that is overwhelming and conclusive as to what happened. But for the record, I do not believe that our government is responsible for executing the events of 9/11/01; nor do I believe that our government is not responsible for executing the events of 9/11/01.

This is not a case of belief. This is a crime that should be solved by a forensic study of the evidence. Before it can be determined who did it, it must first be determined what was done and how it was done.
The order of crime solving is to determine.

1) WHAT happened, then
2) HOW it happened (e.g., what weapon), then
3) WHO did it. And only then can we address
4) WHY they did it (i.e. motive).

Let us remember what is required to (legally) convict someone of a crime. You cannot convict someone of a crime based on belief. You cannot convict someone of a crime if you don’t even know what crime to charge them with. If you accuse someone of murder using a gun, you’d better be sure the body has a bullet hole in it. And yet before noon on 9/11/01, we were told who did it, how they did it, and why they did it (they hate us for our freedoms); before any investigation had been conducted to determine what had even been done.

Several members of various parliaments have signed a petition calling for a new investigation. These are or were elected representatives from countries around the world. Let's take a look at what they are saying and actually study the evidence critically with an independent investigation which looks at, who funded the attackers, addresses wtc 7, shows how the Saudis got fast track visas and explains the massive dustification of the twin towers. The 9/11 commission did not address any of these points.

Are you suggesting that saying no other buildings have collapsed due to plane impacts or fires is false? Because it clearly isn't. Therefore I should and will phrase it in such a way, because it is a fact.

With regard to planes, I'm suggesting what you are saying is misleading, in that when one reads the sentence, "No other building has ever collapsed due to being hit by a plane", it gives the impression that such a collapse is statistically unlikely or impossible. So it may be a fact, but it is a misleading one if not expanded upon, and a completely irrelevant one once it is expanded upon, as with regard to 9/11, there is no precedent for a plane as large as a 767 hitting a skyscraper at 500mph, so our sample size is 2, and 2 buildings fell.


And from debunking 911.com, here is some of the differences between Building 7 and some other buildings that also had large fires:

For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

.

WTC7 -- "This is an Orange" by Anthony Lawson

there is no precedent for a plane as large as a 767 hitting a skyscraper at 500mph, so our sample size is 2, and 2 buildings fell.

Since you want to talk about semantics (don't say XYZ), it is also misleading for you to say that they 'fell'. They didn't fall. The buildings were completely pulverized into dust through themselves at free fall speed. This defies what we know about physics.

Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy

Conservation of Momentum:

The amount of momentum (p) that an object has depends on two physical quantities: the mass and the velocity of the moving object.
p = mv

where p is the momentum, m is the mass, and v the velocity. If momentum is conserved it can be used to calculate unknown velocities following a collision.
(m1 * v1)i + (m2 * v2)i = (m1 * v1)f + (m2 * v2)f

where the subscript i signifies initial, before the collision, and f signifies final, after the collision.
If (m1)i = 0, and (v2)i = 0, then (v2)f must =0.
So, for conservation of momentum, there cannot be pulverization.

____________________________________

If we assume the second mass is initially at rest [(v2)i = 0], the equation reduces to

(m1 * v1)i = (m1 * v1)f + (m2 * v2)f

As you can see, if mass m1 = m2 and they "stick" together after impact, the equation reduces to ,

(m1 * v1)i = (2m1 * vnew)f

or vnew = (1/2) * v1

If two identical masses colliding and sticking together, they will travel at half the speed as the original single mass.

Conservation of Energy:

In elastic collisions, the sum of kinetic energy before a collision must equal the sum of kinetic energy after the collision. Conservation of kinetic energy is given by the following formula:

(1/2)(m1 * v21)i + (1/2)(m2 * v22)i = (1/2)(m1 * v21)f + (1/2)(m2 * v22)f + (Pulverize) + (Fail Floor Supports)
where (Pulverize) is the energy required to pulverize a floor and (Fail Floor Supports) is the energy required to fail the next floor.

If (1/2)(m1 * v21)i + (1/2)(m2 * v22)i = (Pulverize) + (Fail Floor Supports), there well be no momentum transfer.
In reality, (1/2)(m1 * v21)i + (1/2)(m2 * v22)i < (Pulverize) + (Fail Floor Supports),

So, for conservation of energy, we must assume there is some additional energy such that,

(1/2)(m1 * v21)i + (1/2)(m2 * v22)i + (Additional Energy) = (Pulverize) + (Fail Floor Supports),

where (Additional Energy) is the additional amount of energy needed to have the outcome we observed on 9/11/01.

The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity. The over 10-fold disparity between the most conservative estimate and the gravitational energy is not easily dismissed as reflecting uncertainties in quantitative assessments.

The official explanation that the Twin Tower collapses were gravity-driven events appears insufficient to account for the documented energy flows.

Please check out this brilliant paper in full at http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html

Since you want to talk about semantics (don't say XYZ), it is also misleading for you to say that they 'fell'. They didn't fall. The buildings were completely pulverized into dust through themselves at free fall speed. This defies what we know about physics.

You talk about what we know about the laws of physics, and the scientific method, whilst in an above post linking to someone who thinks a magnetic field energy weapon, using an offshore hurricane as its source of energy caused the dustification of the towers, rusting of cars and steel to bend. This is cloud cuckoo land stuff.

To me it's fairly obvious. Buildings don't, and never will, collapse through themselves without an outside agent like a form of explosives.

Those points aside, I welcome discourse on the issue and again I am open to being wrong about this entirely.

And fwiw I'm open to being wrong about this.

Playings devils advocate here, I said I am open to being wrong, and so far rather than address the points I raised you've chosen to talk about something else.

I am probably wrong, and for what I consider to be good reasons, and I have held on to these ideas for quite some time.

I haven't ignored anything mate. I have looked into everything as much as I can.

that about sums it up i think.