Discussion in '9/11' started by Fangbeer, Jun 18, 2012.
You wouldn't know the NSA if it was talking to you right now.
Thank you for this.
So, you can source the air currents for that day in NYC?
Or perhaps you can perform the calculation for how long it would take for the air current to travel from the building striking the ground, and causing an up flow of air current to force particles heavier then air into the air, as shown in this picture below?
I mean you have a source that can show the time marking of this photo showing particles heavier then air rising, and the physics that that show the timing matches up?
Because all I have done is ask questions, it is you who has made the claim time and again that you have to be stupid to be asking questions, so the burden of proof is on you!!
I can answer the question. The problem is, you're asking me to answer the question that I asked you. It doesn't quite work that way. See you're the one that claimed to know that the laws of physics were being bent. In order to make that claim, I think it's appropriate that you demonstrate at least a novel understanding of physics. Are you trying to claim that there is no force that would cause gasses and aerosols suspended in those gasses to rise? You should call a weatherman. I'm sure they would be very interested to hear this new news.
Someone has difficulty understanding what a question is. Here's an example of something that is not a question:
That would be a statement. It's a false statement, if you include me in your "we" but I choose is simply include truthers in the "we." In that sense at least it has the possibility of being a factual statement.
See this is the problem right here. You live in a alternate reality.
Prove me wrong, go get my original post, and see if you can find the word "seems", in the phrase defy the laws of physics.
You then proceed to attack the sh#t out of me, for even suggesting such a thing.
You know what the common theme of 9-11 liars is?
That it isn't OK to ask questions!!
Nice, well lets start from the original quote, and go from there so we can have some actual context to how this conversation has went!!
You made the claim it is against the laws of physics for the debris to go higher than the structure, yet in the video the debris clearly goes above the structure. I showed you another collapse where the same thing happened. I explained to you about air currents. Now you want to play the part of the retard and demand that I show the air currents? Get real or get bent. You made the claim it is against the laws of physics for debris to go higher, yet you've been shown it is possible. So either you are wrong or mankind's understanding of physic is wrong. Frankly, my money is on you being wrong yet again.
maybe they were invisible aliens with giant hacksaws all hacking at once! Maybe thats what caused all that dust!
Look how well the corners are champhered on this one!
I didnt see that in the building specs anywhere! Maybe the debunkers can help me find it?
Since we all know and agree that a naturally aspirated fuel fire cannot melt steel to the point it drips off!
oh where oh where did the iron go
You're welcome to attempt to explore context if you like, but I hardly think it's necessary in a forum that records an entire conversation. People who are confused can simply go back and look. When they do, they'll see that I quoted your passage directly multiple times. They'll also see that you failed to demonstrate a working knowledge of the topics you were pretending to discuss. They'll see that the discussion began as an inquiry into exactly how well you understood the rules you believed had been bent by gasses and aerosols expanding. It turns out that I was right. You don't understand them at all.
Look, if you will, at this passage as an example:
This question is clearly framed on the premise that mass is the primary concern to determine flow, (the focus on particles "heavier then air") Someone who knew what they were talking about would not just be concerned with mass. There's another important factor that appears to be missing from this understanding. I gave them they clues they needed in order to figure out what they were missing by referencing Archimedes and Boyle, but clearly the expansion of knowledge was not a primary concern for some folks involved.
Since this thread is getting long in the tooth, and the truthers have floundered long enough, I think it's time to explain it to them. To understand what caused truthers such consternation one must know the difference between a gas and a solid. One must know the gas laws, and one must know Archimedes' principal regarding buoyancy. If you want to explore even deeper an understanding of the flow, an understanding of Rayleigh Taylor instability would be appropriate.
Let's start with gasses. The gas phase of matter is characterized by large spaces between molecules. These molecules are energetic, and constantly bounce around applying force to each other, and the walls of their containers. Their behavior is approximated with the ideal gas law. This law defines the relationship between volume, pressure, temperature, and number of particles within a sample of gas. Someone who knows this law knows, for example, that the pressure and volume of a confined gas are inversely proportional. As volume increases pressure decreases. They would also know that temperature and volume are directly related. If you increase the temperature of a confined gas you increase its pressure. What we're interested in for the purposes of this discussion is that as you increase the temperature of an unconfined gas you increase its volume.
Next, let's touch on the dust particles, or aerosols. Aerosols are finely divided solids and liquids that are suspended within gasses. Because the particles we're talking about are so small, they're not as affected by gravitation fields as they are by their own interaction, and the interaction with the gasses they are in contact with. Square cube law comes into play here. The ratio of surface area to mass gives the particle a relatively large surface area and relatively small mass in relation to the other particles it interacts with. In a total vacuum the particle would be attracted to the Earth by gravity, but the gasses surrounding the Earth impart kinetic energy by bouncing off with more force than is imparted by the gravitational field. The large surface area provides lots of places for things to bounce. In theory, a solid particle can remain suspended until entropy robs the entire system of enough energy to overcome the gravitational field. In practice we can look to hailstones for an example of how large a particle can remain suspended in a gas. Hailstones don't form in free-fall. In fact, their creation takes place as they move away from the Earth. They form around an aerosol that acts as a nucleation site for water vapor. This vapor then freezes into a solid as the hailstone bounces around in the atmosphere. It's not until the ratio of mass to surface area overcomes the buoyancy of the particle that it begins to fall to Earth.
That brings us to Archimedes. The upward buoyant force exerted on a body immersed in a fluid is equal to the weight of the fluid the body displaces. The ratio of weight and volume is called density. A less dense body will be buoyed upward by a body of greater density. This is why boats float on water. It's why hot air balloons rise into the sky, and it's why smoke from a fire floats away. If you crushed a boat into a solid cube it would certainly sink, being more dense than water but since a boat is made to displace a volume of water that is greater in mass it floats on water. This is the reason why I knew certain truthers here had no clue what they were talking about by using terms like "heavier than air" or more massive. The mass is meaningless if you don't know the volume the mass displaces. Felix Baumgartner's capsule was about 2,900lbs. Is that "heavier than air?" Does that last question even make sense?
Now back to gas. If the number of particles of gas remain the same during heating, another way to describe the situation is a reduction in density. The gas surrounding the collapse of the WTC was heated by the fires within the building, and by the heat generated by the friction of the collapse itself. This caused a reduction in density of that gas that forced it to be buoyed upward. This upward buoyancy was only limited by the density of the surrounding gas, and the density of the heated gas. When the densities became equalized, the gas stopped moving upward. This upward movement of low density gas through high density gas is governed by Rayleigh Taylor instability. This is why I thought it was so funny that certain people here thought it takes a "nuke" to make a "mushroom cloud." The method of heating (or the method of creation of the low density region) is irrelevant. All that matters is that low density gas is moving through high density gas.
no one thought that. it is your strawman construction now implication that it was stated as the "only" way, rather than in context. Nothing like grabbing at every opportunity to take a general statement and convert it to a strawman to appear to have a point to make.
Apparently you missed or simply decided to sidestep the original point, "heat".
Same MO as you did with my super heating response and why I refuse to dance.
typical deblunker strawmanning.
Yeah, I know. That's why I had to explain it to you. You thought the rules of physics had been violated. It's clear you thought that because you don't know, or understand the laws of physics.
Push while keeping to hold the red button to unlock up. I've read Japanese to English manuals that made more sense.
Where in context does the poster with the Guy Fawkes mask address heat, or even display an understanding of what heat is? Here's the post I responded to for reference:
I don't see any reference to heat in there. Do you? When I asked the poster to clarify, there were no references to heat made. Did you find any?
Again, as I JUST explained, gas does not require "superheating" to expand. Superheating, in fact is a term to describe the heating of a LIQUID beyond its sea level boiling point. It has nothing to do with the patterns created by buoyant gas. I didn't dance. I met your stupid comment face on and explained exactly why it was stupid. After doing so, this is your pathetic attempt to say "nuh uh"
yeh the dance!
inability to control ones self from posting their slice version to fit an agenda does not imply beneficial necessity and certainly not a superior understanding.
You are posting strawman arguments faster than I can even read them much less respond to the dance.
Now if you want me to dance lets see your calculations with that regard to "prove" that he is incorrect under the circumstances.
Otherwise I have to conclude that "instructive" post is nothing more than the usual that I get from debunkers and back yard physicists.
Beerfarts and belches.
By the way how about telling us what those funny looking steel splatters are that fema found inside some of the columns?
Forget the (*)(*)(*)(*)house theory and lets look at the real deal here shall we?
got lots more where that came from, hell the hard evidence is all over the web
If you think I've created a straw man, explain exactly how you think the rules of physics were bent by the observed phenomenon. I've asked multiple times. Maybe this time you'll answer. I'm not too hopeful. After all, you've done nothing but wallpaper the forum with photos you had laying around, and mangle the English language. Guy Fawkes rambled a little bit about gravity and mass which I addressed by teaching you both about buoyancy. Do you have anything else to add?
You're welcome to try to obfuscate and change the subject. I'm not going to address your subject change until we're finished with this dust cloud / laws of physics topic.
How do you even know what he's saying to reply too? I read those words and very few of them actually fit together, or made sense.
It's a gift.
Actually I think it has something to do with having been a foster parent to many 12-18 year old kids. Kids in that position typically don't have a strong educational foundation. Most of them struggle to learn how to express themselves in writing.
I cant tell you what went through his mind, though you seem to think you know.
when someone says that the rules of physics appear to have been bent they are not talking about the physics rules themselves but your interpretation of them within the conditions at hand.
Because you apparently created a straw man for him and definitely with regard to me I see no point in going on further with this UNLESS YOU GOT DA CYPHERIN to show you got more then....beer farts and belches.
I did not give Guy my interpretation prior to his comment. How could he be talking about my explanation of the rules that govern the phenomenon he observed? I gave both you and Guy ample opportunity to explain your interpretation of the physics within the conditions at hand. You both declined to support your claims. Now you're trying to say he was calling me wrong before I even stated my position?
Answer the question I asked.
How does the expansion of gasses and aerosols in the video he observed violate the rules of physics as I have explained them?
a sufficient answer requires an analytical mathematical response, did you post one that I missed?
otherwise its nothing more than debunker beer farts and belches. sorry.
Please direct me to it if you did.
A sufficent answer to:
How did Guy Fawkes come to his conclusion without math? How did you come to yours? Why would I believe you'd even understand the math if you can't understand the principal that the math describes?
I tell you what. Why don't you give me the data you used to run your calculations, and I'll show you the math.
I'll need the volume of air that you used in your calculations, the temperature of the air that you used, and the top end height that you measured and found to be too high. I should be able to find the barometric pressure from that day to approximate the density of the surrounding air, so don't worry too much about that.
I have no reason to respond to you on any level since you use that issue to refuse to comment on why spray droplets of iron are inside and outside these columns as reported by fema and asce as seen in these pictures, therefore I see no reason to respond to your questions. If you want to get on topic by addressing these issues rather than side stepping them, then I will entertain giving you further information on the matter you wish to discuss.
I want to see you deny it and explain to all the truthers out here how it cannot possibly be twu!
Look how well the corners are champhered on this one!
I didnt see that in the building specs anywhere!
Since we all know and debunkers agree and have screamed and tromped their feets on all the forums that naturally aspirated fuel fire cannot melt steel to the point it drips off! Well there you have it!
oh where oh where did the iron go
man will you look at that metal dust just pouring off those columns! You can see it pouring, well maybe YOU CANT.
I especially like this one because it sprays in 4 directions at once. unbelievable! Dust!
DUST! and its not bursting into flames. The irony! pun intended LMAO
probly just super rust though.
DUST OR RUST!
You are faced with a serious problem. Debunker friends have long closed all the doors to run and hide from this one and I want to hear something really creative.
Now you wanna talk ta me? Then do it by addressing this then the value of your response will determine the effort I put into mine and I will talk to you on the matter you want to discuss.
I think my point has been left sufficiently uncontested.
Especially since all koko has been coming up with is a healthy portion of Mrs Paul's™ crunchy,breaded red herring
You have your uncontested "theory" and I have an uncontested "demolition".
fair enough we will leave it at that.
Enter the techno babble now huh?
I ask simple questions and you turn into Reiver talking about finance all of a sudden.
Sounds a lot like how he speaks of Keynesian demand models, and worker innovation in reference to why we can't cut DoD spending. You know just a bunch of techno babble that you know no one will challenge.
Once again, feel free to continue this conversation in terms most people could actually understand!
Separate names with a comma.