[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/scientific-fraud-failure-nist...'d from here[/url]
NIST 9/11 pseudo-science? - Truth Deniers vs. Isaac Newton
Tue, 2010-03-30 17:50
#1
NIST 9/11 pseudo-science? - Truth Deniers vs. Isaac Newton
Tue, 2010-03-30 18:02
#2
It's funny. You all say that you've "shown" this, but somehow you're never able to point to the post where your proof lies. And than you're all always too busy or inconvenienced to actually go find this debate-ending proof of yours, but somehow not too busy or inconvenienced to post dozens more grade-school taunts.Show me where you scientifically demonstrate that 90 highrise floors do not need to provide more than 4 seconds of resistance. Otherwise I'd suggest you're getting into the realm of Creationist physics.
You said that towers fell at almost the speed the gravity (since then you have said that they fell at the speed of gravity). I showed you that using your own numbers (which I stated I didn't know or care if they were correct) that the acceleration would be half the speed of gravity.
I don't really care to spend my time trying to prove anything to someone who could never be convinced, and at best it would just lead to a moved goal post (whether I could prove it, I don't know, but the pile of posts in these threads shows that evidence has no effect on you and that the troofers still don't have a single piece of meaningful evidence to support their claims which are all over the place, contradictory and continue to become more absurd). If people want to do everything in their power to convince themselves of something mind-numbingly stupid whether it is that climate change is a hoax, the world is 6000 years old, homeopathy, or that 9/11 was an inside job then they have every right to ignore all the evidence and reality which conflicts with their worldview and I have every right to laugh at them.
Tue, 2010-03-30 18:14
#3
You said that towers fell at almost the speed the gravity (since then you have said that they fell at the speed of gravity). I showed you that using your own numbers (which I stated I didn't know or care if they were correct) that the acceleration would be half the speed of gravity.
Trevor, the question was, how could 91 highrise floors provide only 4 seconds of resistance?
Tue, 2010-03-30 18:17
#4
This is what's so bogus: our defenders of "science" answer the questions in oblique, half-true (but wholly irrelevant) statements and then sigh and say that they "simply can't be bothered" to argue it any further. Hours or days later, they're back with the drive-bys and nyah-nyah-nyah's.
You're not credible.
Tue, 2010-03-30 18:19
#5
Thanks, Fidel!
Someone in the thread just closed was quoting some amateur "debunking" site with b.s. sources about the issue of molten steel.
Here is something that has actually been researched:
However, when John Gross, one of the main authors of NIST's reports, was asked about the molten steel, he said to the questioner: I challenge your "basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel," adding: "I know of absolutely no . . . eyewitness who has said so."[33]
However, in addition to Ruvolo and Tully, the eyewitnesses who said so included:
• Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the Twin Towers.
• Dr. Ronald Burger of the National Center for Environmental Health. [35]
• Dr. Alison Geyh of The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, who headed up a scientific team that went to the site shortly after 9/11 at the request of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. [36]
34. James Williams, "WTC a Structural Success," SEAU News: The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, October 2001
http://old.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf [fixed link].
35. Quoted in Francesca Lyman, "Messages in the Dust: What Are the Lessons of the Environmental Health Response to the Terrorist Attacks of September 11?" National Environmental Health Association, September 2003
(http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html).
36. "Mobilizing Public Health: Turning Terror's Tide with Science," Magazine of Johns Hopkins Public Health, Late Fall 2001
(http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm)
Tue, 2010-03-30 18:23
#6
Well some of us prefer to stick to Newtonian physics not the nouveau Okkam's philosophy for NISTs list of wild assumptions changing several times since 9/11/01.
Some of us are capable of using reason and elementary logic, and we don't buy the dubya regime's fairy tale that rogue Cessna pilots dominated NORAD air space for 90 minutes and brought down three steel frame buildings with only two planes. That theory is for naives and gullible dupes not thinking people.
Tue, 2010-03-30 18:28
#7
This is what's so bogus: our defenders of "science" answer the questions in oblique, half-true (but wholly irrelevant) statements and then sigh and say that they "simply can't be bothered" to argue it any further. Hours or days later, they're back with the drive-bys and nyah-nyah-nyah's.You're not credible.
If someone like you (or Fidel) thought I was credible that would concern me greatly.
Tue, 2010-03-30 18:32
#8
So Trevor can't answer the question:
How could 91 highrise floors provide only 4 seconds of resistance?
I wonder why.
Tue, 2010-03-30 18:37
#9
So Trevor can't answer the question:How could 91 highrise floors provide only 4 seconds of resistance?
I wonder why.
Jon Stewart once said: I'm not going to be your monkey.
I explained to you the most basic concept of how your claim that the buildings were falling at or near free-fall speed was not true based on your own numbers. You were completely incapable of understanding that. Why the hell I should be expected to explain anything more complicated to you is beyond me. Especially when you have shown to be basically saying "explain to me why my deluded fantasy is wrong, but I will only accept explainations which confirm my deluded fantasy is true. Why won't anyone answer the question?"
Tue, 2010-03-30 18:49
#10
jas, from your interpretation of the event - did the buildings come down, structurally, all at once or was it a process that proceeded gradually?
Tue, 2010-03-30 18:51
#11
So Trevor can't answer the question:
How could 91 highrise floors provide only 4 seconds of resistance?
I wonder why.
He's afraid to say that he does not know why. But that's good enough for deniers. They don't know, and so let's send some troops to Afghanistan regardless. Dubya's foreign policy for YEEHAW! is Bananada's foreign policy, and that's ALL they know.
Trust and obey, it's the only way for sheeple.
Tue, 2010-03-30 18:59
#12
Yes jas, Chandler made a mistake, a really really big mistake and you know the scary bit? This guy is teaching physics to kids.
So, you're still stuck on the molten "steel" and phony quotes are you, how 2006.
You're still not going to believe that when the twoof movement attributes a quote to someone like Leslie Robertson saying that "molten steel was still running" then someone else actually takes the time to write Leslie Robertson and ask about the quote and publishes the reply that the original "source" of the quote was maybe, oh I dunno, LYING?
If phony quotes and reports of molten "steel" are your idea of evidence, all I can say is I hope you never get called in for jury duty.
Tue, 2010-03-30 19:05
#13
I think someone nailed up a video of what shows some red to white-hot molten something or other leaking out the side of the WTC2, What could possibly look exactly like molten steel flowing out the side of a steel frame building that was about to collapse into its own footprint? Duh!
Tue, 2010-03-30 19:06
#14
LADIES and GENTLEMEN !!!! Won't you put your hands together and give a warm babble welcome to
THE VOICE OF THE TRUTH MOVEMENT !!!!!
Yaaaaay !!!!!
Tue, 2010-03-30 19:08
#15
think someone nailed up a video of what shows some red to white-hot molten something or other leaking out the side of the WTC2, What could possibly look exactly like molten steel flowing out the side of a steel frame building that was about to collapse into its own footprint? Duh!
Duh, we already been there, psssst, it was a plane.
Tue, 2010-03-30 19:15
#16
Timebandit
LADIES and GENTLEMEN !!!! Won't you put your hands together and give a warm babble welcome to
THE VOICE OF THE TRUTH MOVEMENT !!!!!
Yaaaaay !!!!!
That's utterly horrifying, Salsa.
However, this is my favourite 9/11 conspiracy video:
Tue, 2010-03-30 20:26
#17
Wow. So much bullshit. I'm not sure I have time to address it all.
Trevor, you did no such thing. You claimed that 91 floors provided 4 seconds of resistance. Everyone with half a brain knows that's ridiculous, and that's a ridiculous hypothesis. You didn't show anybody anything. And .I'm not the one making the numbers up. If you don't like the numbers, find the numbers that you think are real.
And then you say something like "acceleration would be half the speed of gravity." What are you even talking about?
Acceleration of what? Through what? Do you even understand the question?
And Salsa, you don't understand the Chandler article. I'm not convinced you even read it. (Salsa picks the word "counter-intuitively" out of a sentence, and concludes that Chandler must be "debunking" himself. If it wasn't so funny it would be pathetic.)
Tue, 2010-03-30 20:43
#18
Probably another reason why more people in those professions are now supporting the call for a proper inquiry is because if they didn't, physics and engineering books might soon have to be rewritten to accommodate NISTs "miracle". If I was a scientist, that would driive me nuts, knowing that this stupid Bush fable is now having to be accommodated as an "anomaly" (or "miracle"?) in the history of building engineering and mechanical physics.
Maybe we should be calling these guys "the Believers", because, really, it's an act of faith to believe in something that silly. Defenders of the Faith?
Tue, 2010-03-30 20:58
#19
jas, from your interpretation of the event - did the buildings come down, structurally, all at once or was it a process that proceeded gradually?
You haven't seen any videos of the collapses, Papal Bull? You haven't read any of the articles that I've posted? Have you read the NIST report even?
Is this what Believers are arguing? That the towers didn't come down in virtual free fall? If this is all it is, then there's no point arguing. You don't have a case.
I thought we were arguing about how to explain near free fall with the obvious problem of intervening building (75? and 91 largely highrise floors, respectively).
Tue, 2010-03-30 21:17
#20
think someone nailed up a video of what shows some red to white-hot molten something or other leaking out the side of the WTC2, What could possibly look exactly like molten steel flowing out the side of a steel frame building that was about to collapse into its own footprint? Duh!
Duh, we already been there, psssst, it was a plane.
So, pssst! Why then would [url=http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501#]John Gross, lead engineer for the NIST report[/url] deny the existence of molten steel in the rubble of the trade towers? How did "molten steel from planes" end up in the basement of building 7? Was it an invisible stealthy type aeroplane that flew into number seven? HEL-lo?
I think there's a failure to communicate from one quack denial web site to another and contradicting the official lies at times. They should all get together and decide to quack denial in perfect harmony, or something. Dddduhhhh!
Tue, 2010-03-30 22:21
#21
That's is jas, you got me. I just saw that "i" word in the sentence, thought of you and simply pulled something from betwixt my buttcheeks and slapped it up there hoping nobody would notice. Damn, busted.
Tue, 2010-03-30 22:27
#22
Fidel, why are you so obsessed with what NIST says on things that are outside their mandate. Remember we've been here before and we all know NIST was only tasked with studying what happened up until the collapse. One might begin to think you're using the "throw enough shit and maybe some of it will stick" style of debate.
If you have evidence of molten STEEL under all three buildings, produce it. BTW, planes are made of aluminium.
Hey did you know that iron can actually burn ?
Tue, 2010-03-30 23:45
#23
Fidel, why are you so obsessed with what NIST says on things that are outside their mandate. Remember we've been here before and we all know NIST was only tasked with studying what happened up until the collapse. One might begin to think you're using the "throw enough shit and maybe some of it will stick" style of debate.
If you have evidence of molten STEEL under all three buildings, produce it. BTW, planes are made of aluminium.
But the slip-shod FEMA report did make one reference to a "mysterious high temperature corrosion of steel" found in the rubble and basements. Steel is not aluminum and has a higher melting temperature. If there was a real investigation, there were all kinds of first responders and emergency workers there on the scene for weeks and who reported seeing molten metal in the basements of all three of the demolished buildings, including that one which avoided all jumbo jets flown by amateur Cessna pilots on 9/11 under the watchful eyes of igNORAD.
"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD.[url=http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm][i] "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."[/i][/url]
[url=http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/cutter_charges_brought_down_wt.htm... Tully of Tully Construction[/url] at the scene said that there were hot spots where he observed ‘literally molten steel.’
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engine... in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.
Molten steel not aluminum and not liquid jelly beans. Steel. And there are more eye witness reports describing molten steel in all of the rubble piles. I'd sooner believe the hundreds of firefighters and first responders than people who weren't even there and speculating on what happened.
Jeddediah Okkam's wild assumption number 955: Assume eye witnesses are lying
Wed, 2010-03-31 01:03
#24
jas, from your interpretation of the event - did the buildings come down, structurally, all at once or was it a process that proceeded gradually?
You haven't seen any videos of the collapses, Papal Bull? You haven't read any of the articles that I've posted? Have you read the NIST report even?
Is this what Believers are arguing? That the towers didn't come down in virtual free fall? If this is all it is, then there's no point arguing. You don't have a case.
I thought we were arguing about how to explain near free fall with the obvious problem of intervening building (75? and 91 largely highrise floors, respectively).
Nah, I've never seen the footage. I didn't know about 9/11 until a few threads ago!
Wed, 2010-03-31 01:16
#25
Jas, regards the possible molten steel explanation I gave in a previous post. Those were my theories. I have looked over only a few reports on this issue, and did not see it mentioned in any of them. But it seem quite plausable to me. Remember the top ten floors were heated by the burning airplane And large amounts of carbon were very likely present and the water for the steam could have come from the fire hoses spraying the debise pile.
You seem to have a difficult time with pancaking floors. If my memory serves me right the floors were designed to carry a load of 300lbs per square foot with a safety factor of 3, thus a uniform loading of 1000lbs per square foot would likely shear the floor from its columns and drop on the floor below, which then would fail instandly since it too was desighned for a load of 300 lbs per square foot, and now it was subjected to the load of the failed floor falling on top of it. Its downward acceleration would only be slowed for a distance of 4 to 6 inches to break its bonds with the columns and to give a share of its kenetic energy to attain the same downward speed. This is a great simplyfication of what realy happen. Looking at the video I suspect that buckling columns on one side were the leaders in the structural failure.
Wed, 2010-03-31 02:47
#26
[url=http://world911truth.org/60-aerospace-engineers-call-for-a-new-911-inves... Vogt[/url], Graduated from Univ of NH in 1979. Design engineer for Raytheon Missile Systems Division. Self-employed as programmer since 1985.“After 5 semesters of physics in college it is clear to me that these buildings were brought down via controlled demolition.”
Wed, 2010-03-31 08:31
#27
I wonder why he is self-employed?
Wed, 2010-03-31 10:26
#28
Fidel, I do not deny that there might have been demolition charges placed, but they are not a prerequisite for pancaking floors.
In fact there might have been charges placed there for safety reasons. Can you imagine the carnage that would result if one of those buildings toppled right over hinging from the base. Then charged placed so that the building would come straight down would save many lifes. They could be activated when the building starts leanig or coming down. Mind you this is pure speculation on my part. It might make more sense to design the building so that it colapses down rather then topple. People might not want to work in a building with self destruct charges built in. Maybe they installed them after the first WTC bombing as an added safety feature.
Many things one can speculate about. Getting answeres is a different thing.
Wed, 2010-03-31 10:51
#29
Can someone clear something up for me?
What the heck is this about? Are people actually suggesting that the planes were not brought down by the two giant flying 747's flown into them at speeds reaching hbundreds of miles per hour?
Wed, 2010-03-31 11:06
#30
Snert
Can you imagine the carnage that would result if one of those buildings toppled right over hinging from the base.
The building's framework wouldn't be stiff enough for something like this to happen. Make a ten foot tall stack of books. Now try to make it topple from the bottom book, like a tree being cut down. Best of luck!
This was always my favourite truther question, though: "Why didn't the towers fall from the bottom like a refrigerator tipping over??". I loved that one.
Wed, 2010-03-31 11:24
#31
Can someone clear something up for me?
What the heck is this about? Are people actually suggesting that the planes were not brought down by the two giant flying 747's flown into them at speeds reaching hbundreds of miles per hour?
Do your really believe those rumours about aeroplanes hitting the buildings, or are you just another pro-Bush neo-con?
Wed, 2010-03-31 11:56
#32
Fidel..you appear to be accepting the idea that the molten substance under the rubble may be something other than the steel truthers insist it was...excellent.
Alison Geyh didn't take a sample, she just assumed it was steel.
Peter Tully didn't see anything, he was told this on the phone.
Johnathan Barrett was cited with that quote in 2001 and has since acknowledged that it was the corrosive environment in the high temperature pile of rubble that caused the steel ( yes steel ) to appear evaporated. Of course he's not trying in any way to connect the collapse mechanism to that steel recovered weeks later.
No, Jeddiah Okkams shaving device causes one to wonder just how they knew they were looking at molten steel rather than any other substance. You can tell molten steel from, say molten zinc just by looking at a heap of it?
Weren't the pilots trained in some sooper seekret US military installation ? Now you're saying they were Cessna pilots ?
Wed, 2010-03-31 12:02
#33
That's is jas, you got me. I just saw that "i" word in the sentence, thought of you and simply pulled something from betwixt my buttcheeks and slapped it up there hoping nobody would notice. Damn, busted.
At least you admit that what you said was the exact opposite of what the author said. Glad you can read now.
Wed, 2010-03-31 12:04
#34
What the heck is this about? Are people actually suggesting that the planes were not brought down by the two giant flying 747's flown into them at speeds reaching hbundreds of miles per hour?
Towers, brought down, you mean.
Yes, only they were 767s Most of the "no planer" stuff applies to the Pentagon attack.
Wed, 2010-03-31 12:16
#35
You seem to have a difficult time with pancaking floors.
Bubbles, I have no difficulty with pancaking floors. Pancaking floors would be a more reasonable expectation of the buildings' collapse, and the collapse would have been much slower and more punctuated. You would still have the problem, at least in the case of WTC 1, where there is no plausible mass pressing down to create the pancaking, because the floors we see in that building had burned for 90 minutes or more and were a mere fraction of the remaining intact building.
Problem is, we didn't see pancaking. For the most part we saw pulverization. NIST also confirms that the buildings did not pancake. They had to admit this because pancaking would have worked much more damningly against the fall time that everyone witnessed. If they were pancaking, the buildings probably would not have collapsed to the ground, and certainly not in the time that they did. You can't explain that fall time with pancaking.
At this point, it's more helpful if we can all stick to the same fact situation. Speculating about what might have happened without reading what has been confirmed by NIST (whether that confirmation is true or false) is fine, but beyond the scope of this discussion (as I define it, anyway - you can ask Fidel what he wants to discuss). I am discussing the set of facts that NIST confirms--even though some of them are false--and the progressive collapse theory that NIST has devised to explain the collapses.
Wed, 2010-03-31 12:31
#36
prisonernumberone
My understanding is that over one thousand architects and engineers have signed their names stating that planes striking the twin towers could not be the cause for what occurred to the towers. It is useful to review the existing videos of the destruction of the two towers just so ones comments can be guided by evidence. If one continues to assert a position where by jet fuel burning for twenty minutes followed by office furniture fires can damage structural steel and then initiate the dustification of 110 stories of concrete and steel well I guess one can convince oneself of pretty much anything. That must come in handy when the falling of Building 7 is reviewed. I guess it is just a small step to reason if kerosene fire can turn two 110 concrete and steel buildings to dust in 10 seconds then having a 47 story office tower collapse into its own footprint needs no realistic reason either.
It is also worth mentioning that the carnage at ground zero is only one part of the 911 event, cover-up and aftermath. Many different professional groups have stepped forward questioning virtually all aspects of the official 911 lie.
So keep yukking it up, while the murders of 911 remain beyond justice, literally millions of scapegoats are vilified, tortured and/or murdered and the planet itself is poisoned with depleted uranium in the name of western civilisation by those who actually caused the events and now believe they profit from them and are quite willing to drop nuclear bombs.
bc
p.s. nice anti-war march in California today 
Wed, 2010-03-31 12:31
#37
You might be right Snert, but I would not be surprise that the WTC would topple if undercut by about a third. The slenderness of the building might make it act more like a beam.
Wed, 2010-03-31 12:38
#38
OK Jas I will stay out. I have no intention to read reports. My interest is more in personel opinions and ideas of the members here.
Wed, 2010-03-31 13:10
#39
Oops towers brought down by plane I meant.
Wed, 2010-03-31 13:55
#40
I wonder why he is self-employed?
No idea. But I don't wonder if the guy wouldn't be made after having worked just a few years with Raytheon. That company is a preferred contractor for the US military. I know someone from the indian reserve who did an advanced degree in electronics, worked less than seven years for a US car company. He's living off royalties from a patent today in the states. And he sometimes takes contract jobs when he feels like it. It's not a bad life at all.
Wed, 2010-03-31 14:37
#41
Fidel..you appear to be accepting the idea that the molten substance under the rubble may be something other than the steel truthers insist it was...excellent.
And you seem to be accepting the idea that eye witnesses weren't observing melted aluminum at all of the sites. According to the NYTimes in 2001, one engineer reported seeing pieces of structural steel in the rubble that appeared to have been vaporized.
Alison Geyh didn't take a sample, she just assumed it was steel.
Now you're questioning eye witnesses, which is what news agencies should have done all along at the very least. There needs to be a real investigation. I think some of the scrap metal Rudy Giulliani had shipped out of the country for processing may still be tracked down by a team of sleuths. It's obvious that both bipartisan war parties in the US are avoiding public calls for a new investigation.
Observe how seriously the Lockerbie bombing was treated. That incident occurred in the 1980s and involved jusy one passenger plane. And it was dragged out for years. Team gladio still has no proof. I think 9/11 is a whopper of a coverup.
Thu, 2010-04-01 10:21
#42
I'm still getting a kick out of Caissa's insistence (in a previous thread) that if you drop a book on a table, it will "accelerate" through the table, and possibly even through the floor. This is the kind of intellectual rigor we deal with here on Babble from the "science" crowd.
Perhaps Trevor would modify that statement, saying that it would still "accelerate", but only at half the rate of gravity!
Just thought I'd share those laughs on a day for laughs.
Thu, 2010-04-01 10:28
#43
Can you point out where I said that JAS? I believe you have me mistaken for someone else or are misreading my comments.
ETA: I re-read the comment you will refer to which was in response to 4 questions you posed. My answer was to the first. The other three I didn't bother answering.
Thu, 2010-04-01 10:44
#44
Many different professional groups have stepped forward questioning virtually all aspects of the official 911 lie.
And there are professional organizations for creationism, denying the big bang. There are all sorts of crack pots in any field - anyone who can work hard enough to get the paper can keep on claiming whatever they want, whether or not their particular professional specialization has a damned lick to do with the issue.
Thu, 2010-04-01 11:10
#45
Well I'm convinced. I looked into this and it is my belief that the US government called in a favor with long time friend OBL to organize an attack.
The planes may or may not have actually hit the building. Apparently there is no shadow of a plane in some footage- maybe holographic projectors projecting an image of a plane slamming into the building? Either way, bombs set up inside the building went off and brought the buildings down.
Why? Because then the US could [attempt to] justify an invasion into Afghanistan and Iraq where their evil company KBR [A subunit company of Haliburton] could set up shop and begin reaping in hordes of cash.
Also hollywood. The US which is largely funded by hollywood was finding that people were getting sick and tired of vietnam movies so they needed another "hollywood" war where they could make war movies.
At first the plan was only to invade Afghanistan but quickly they understood that you couldn't really product any good Afghanistan movies. Lambs and Lions? How can you compare that to Green Zone & Hurt locker hello!
Thu, 2010-04-01 11:31
#46
Rambo III?
P4 YOUR HOLLYWOOD-AFGHANISTAN ARGUMENT FALLS APART!!!!!!!1
Thu, 2010-04-01 13:28
#47
that was fighting the russians WITH the taliban or something wasn't it? [LOLz] I don't know if I seen Rambo 3 or not.
My argument stands! Iraq is better for Hollywood than Afghanistan.
I wonder when hollywood will make a movie about 9/11..
Thu, 2010-04-01 14:18
#48
Wow the pro-Dubya war criminal whackos are trying to make funny again.
Q: What's Al & CIA'duh's favourite football team?
A: New York Jets
Thu, 2010-04-01 16:28
#49
Can you point out where I said that JAS? I believe you have me mistaken for someone else or are misreading my comments.
ETA: I re-read the comment you will refer to which was in response to 4 questions you posed. My answer was to the first. The other three I didn't bother answering.
Caissa says his reply was to the first question. Here's what I asked:
Very good, Caissa. What does your high school physics say about acceleration of an object through a much larger object of the same or stronger density? If you were to drop a book on a table, would it "accelerate" through the table? Possibly through the floor, too? Would it "pancake" it? Would it pulverize the table? 9/11 physics tells us that, now, it would. What does your high school physics tell you?
Here's what Caissa replied:
Hey, JAS my high school physics says the acceleration would just continue on. What does your's tell you?
Thu, 2010-04-01 16:31
#50
Care to explain what newfangled brand of physics you are referring to here, Caissa? Where objects can accelerate through larger objects of similar or greater density? Is this the new "Believer" physics?
Thu, 2010-04-01 16:41
#51
Here was my reply, with the obvious question that must follow Caissa's peculiar brand of absurdity:
Hey, Caissa, my high school physics tells me that an object in motion will only stay in motion if no outside force acts upon it. Since there are 91 lower floors in the way of our plummeting mass of 12 upper, fire-ravaged floors, my high school physics tells me the 12 upper, fire-ravaged floors would either stay where they are and keep burning, topple off the side of the building, or crumple into the impact zone, leaving the rest of the building standing. Incidentally, this is what most people's high school physics would tell them.
What principle of physics would explain continuing acceleration ?
Which Caissa, of course, was unable to answer. That didn't stop him from spouting the next day: "I'm amazed that this conspiracy crap continues to be spewed on Babble."
Caissa can't answer a dumbfoundingly simple, grade-school level physics question, but he has the nerve to continue spewing his completely ignorant, shockingly stupid opinions in these threads.