Here is another thread where I can cause a ruckus:
I will prove that the official story about 911 is false.
First, I will make an appeal to authority. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, but I find it amusing to use it on a “skeptic” forum, because it is the argument used most often by "skeptics". But I agree with the authorities in this case, so I should automatically win on a skeptic forum. Architects and Engineers for 911 truth don’t believe the original story either. You know, they have tried to have a public debate about 911, but the debate never took place because they could not find a Ph.D. in a related field to support the official position. So there is unanimous agreement among qualified people who have studied this subject.
Now, on to the evidence. I can understand that some of the details might be hard to understand for people who don’t have physics degrees like I do, but one should not need a physics degree to understand their core arguments. http://ift.tt/18KAkj2
1. Rapid onset of destruction,
2. Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
3. Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,
4. Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,
5. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,
6. Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”
7. Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
8. Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
9. Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,
10. Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.
To me, it seems pretty clear that there is something wrong here.
Now, for the second proof. This will be an absolute mathematical-style proof showing a contradiction between the evidence and the claim.
Claim: The weight of the floors above the collision caused the lower levels to collapse.
Assumption: F = ma
Assumption: The towers fell at free fall speed for a couple seconds during collapse
Assumption: Steel resists deformation (F, the force of the steel beams resisting collapse, is greater than 0)
Using these assumptions, I can set up a physics equation. Here m is the mass of the tower, g is the acceleration due to gravity, a is the acceleration of the tower as it collapsed, and F is the force of resistance from the steel beams.
ma = mg – F
m*9.8 = m*9.8 – F
m*9.8 - m*9.8 = F = 0
Conclusion: The last assumption was that F > 0. The other assumptions show that F = 0. 0 is not greater than 0, therefore there is a contradiction, and the claim is false.
Another note: “Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” is used as a meme to mock 911 truthers. Often, no rebuttal of this statement is offered; it is simply mocked, like how children mock each other by repeating what another child says in a silly voice. Sometimes, it is explained that steel does not have to melt in order to lose structural integrity. That explanation is totally superfluous, because it does not explain how the undamaged floors beneath offered close to 0 resistance as the tower collapsed, nor does it explain the steel beams found fused together in the wreckage, nor does it explain the molten steel seen pouring out the side of the building in footage shortly before collapse, nor does it explain the tons of molten steel found at the collapse site, nor does it explain how the concrete fused with the steel.
This is also a fun video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
I will prove that the official story about 911 is false.
First, I will make an appeal to authority. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, but I find it amusing to use it on a “skeptic” forum, because it is the argument used most often by "skeptics". But I agree with the authorities in this case, so I should automatically win on a skeptic forum. Architects and Engineers for 911 truth don’t believe the original story either. You know, they have tried to have a public debate about 911, but the debate never took place because they could not find a Ph.D. in a related field to support the official position. So there is unanimous agreement among qualified people who have studied this subject.
Now, on to the evidence. I can understand that some of the details might be hard to understand for people who don’t have physics degrees like I do, but one should not need a physics degree to understand their core arguments. http://ift.tt/18KAkj2
1. Rapid onset of destruction,
2. Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
3. Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,
4. Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,
5. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,
6. Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”
7. Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
8. Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
9. Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,
10. Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.
To me, it seems pretty clear that there is something wrong here.
Now, for the second proof. This will be an absolute mathematical-style proof showing a contradiction between the evidence and the claim.
Claim: The weight of the floors above the collision caused the lower levels to collapse.
Assumption: F = ma
Assumption: The towers fell at free fall speed for a couple seconds during collapse
Assumption: Steel resists deformation (F, the force of the steel beams resisting collapse, is greater than 0)
Using these assumptions, I can set up a physics equation. Here m is the mass of the tower, g is the acceleration due to gravity, a is the acceleration of the tower as it collapsed, and F is the force of resistance from the steel beams.
ma = mg – F
m*9.8 = m*9.8 – F
m*9.8 - m*9.8 = F = 0
Conclusion: The last assumption was that F > 0. The other assumptions show that F = 0. 0 is not greater than 0, therefore there is a contradiction, and the claim is false.
Another note: “Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” is used as a meme to mock 911 truthers. Often, no rebuttal of this statement is offered; it is simply mocked, like how children mock each other by repeating what another child says in a silly voice. Sometimes, it is explained that steel does not have to melt in order to lose structural integrity. That explanation is totally superfluous, because it does not explain how the undamaged floors beneath offered close to 0 resistance as the tower collapsed, nor does it explain the steel beams found fused together in the wreckage, nor does it explain the molten steel seen pouring out the side of the building in footage shortly before collapse, nor does it explain the tons of molten steel found at the collapse site, nor does it explain how the concrete fused with the steel.
This is also a fun video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2hCYA1e
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire