Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Recommend me a great 9/11 online documentary. What is the very best 9/11 documentary?

1567810

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol I'm avoiding stuff?

    My answer is that you don't understand basic physics and engineering and you don't understand the report.
    I've been very clear on that.

    Again how long would it take for an object to fall from the roof of WTC7?
    If you can't answer this basic question why should anyone take you seriously?

    I'm done responding until you answer it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yup.
    You're not an engineer or able to do basic physics though.
    Yet you expect people yo believe you understand it?

    I Have good enough intelligence to understand what the complaints are. Maybe you should worry more about your own intelligence? That you seem unable to comprehend what happening maybe your just not that bright as you think you are?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol I'm avoiding stuff?

    My answer is that you don't understand basic physics and engineering and you don't understand the report.
    I've been very clear on that.

    Again how long would it take for an object to fall from the roof of WTC7?
    If you can't answer this basic question why should anyone take you seriously?

    I'm done responding until you answer it.

    That would have to be measured obviously it is a 47-floor building. Their empty space ( air resistance) when you let an object fall off the roof to the ground.

    Is this a serious question?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Next answer my question?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    That would have to be measured obviously it is a 47-floor building. Their empty space ( air resistance) when you let an object fall off the roof to the ground.

    Is this a serious question?
    Lol yes, it's a serious question.
    Let's assume a vacuum and a point mass as the numbers don't have to be too precise, and we should make it easier for you.

    Please show your math and give an answer in seconds.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol yes, it's a serious question.
    Let's assume a vacuum and a point mass as the numbers don't have to be too precise, and we should make it easier for you.

    Please show your math and give an answer in seconds.

    Kingmob avoids answering my question again. It very depressing that you can even answer one question.

    Why you here, what do you hope to gain? You don't want to debate the issues just be honest?

    The only thing affecting an object is air resistance if there is any. Lighter or heavy objects will fall at the same rate that how gravity works on planet Earth.

    I don't understand what you even demanding to know here? You talk about my English, but you waffle here asking for a vacuum and point of mass? What has this to go to with freefall occurring inside the interior of WTC7?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Kingmob avoids answering my question again. It very depressing that you can even answer one question.
    Lol. :rolleyes:
    The only thing affecting an object is air resistance if there is any. Lighter or heavy will fall at the same rate that how gravity works on planet Earth.
    Yes. Correct.

    So how long would it take an object to fall from the top of WTC7?
    but you waffle here asking for a vacuum and point of mass? What has this to go to with freefall occurring inside the interior of WTC7
    Vacuum and point mass are physics terms. People generally assume that things are in a vaccum and that the objects in question are just points when they are doing high school level problems.
    Again, you claim to understand high level engineering, so I wrongly assumed that you would understand these terms. I will simplify for you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol. :rolleyes:

    Yes. Correct.

    So how long would it take an object to fall from the top of WTC7?

    I don't know why you have lol this is your second post now and third overall and you have not talked yet about what I posted.

    The principle is different there are floors stacked on floors inside WTC7. An object can't just fall through if their structural resistance underneath.

    Will you answer my question now or we going to continue playing silly games?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    The principle is different there are floors stacked on floors inside WTC7. An object can't just fall through if their structural resistance underneath.
    We're not discussing the particulars of the event, we are trying to establish that you can do high school level physics.
    It seems that answer to that right now is: No, you cannot.
    Will you answer my question now or we going to continue playing silly games?
    I am not going to engage until you provide an answer to the simple physics problem i've been asking for pages.

    Otherwise you can admit you cannot do it.

    How many seconds would it take an object dropped from the roof of WTC7 to hit the ground?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,679 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    I think I'm gonna go read that report on the Lockerbie disaster, and if there is anything that I don't understand, or I don't get then I will be 100% convinced that it wasn't a terrorist attack. I don't give a **** what happened, it just definitely isn't what the report says it is. Why reach out to them for answers to my questions or go to relevant forums? I'll just go to conspiracy theory forums, those are a bastion of skeptical thinking, solid science, reason and rationale

    I mean I'm not an expert, but these individuals who actually investigated the attack, who have examined the evidence, who've worked in their fields for decades, who have reached consensus with the other experienced investigators working on the case, as well as corroborating other sources of intelligence and information.. what do they know? my layman's "hunch" is as good as theirs

    Anyway I've seen a few out of context conspiracy videos on the internet by people I don't know - I value their opinion more. One of those people even has a PhD, so they must know what they are talking about


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    We're not discussing the particulars of the event, we are trying to establish that you can do high school level physics.
    It seems that answer to that right now is: No, you cannot.

    I am not going to engage until you provide an answer to the simple physics problem i've been asking for pages.

    Otherwise you can admit you cannot do it.

    I don't care what your trying to establish your debating style is rubbish. I hope people are seeing how this guy, i assume is a guy debates 9/11.

    Three times now I have answered you.

    You asking me to calculate an object rate of speed when its thrown off the roof at WTC7? And What you think this will even show explain yourself? Why do you think this is important and has any bearing on freefall having happened inside WTC7?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob There three stages occurring in WTC7 collapse.

    Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).

    Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

    Kingmob this what you have to calculate
    At this rate, the object that was thrown from the roof is travelling at the same rate as the collapse!

    Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity



    You just want to ignore this and talk about something that shows absolutely nothing. The calculation will only be the speed an object falling off the roof and meeting no resistance but air. That did not happen in WTC7


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Three times now I have answered you.
    Where? You have not once provided a figure for an answer to the problem.
    You asking me to calculate an object rate of speed when its thrown off the roof at WTC7? And What you think this will even show explain yourself? Why do you think this is important and has any bearing on freefall having happened inside WTC7?
    It's relevant because it's showing that you don't know thing one about physics.

    You are unable to do a simple equation.

    As for why the answer itself is relevant, there's not much point getting into it, as it requires you to understand the level of physics this problem requires.

    Give us a number, in seconds and show how you worked it out, then we can move on.
    Otherwise, you can come clean and admit that you are unable to do the problem.

    Beyond that, there's no point in engaging your points, and you are just making a show of yourself by whinging and avoiding a problem you could have easily googled at this stage...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Where? You have not once provided a figure for an answer to the problem.

    It's relevant because it's showing that you don't know thing one about physics.

    You are unable to do a simple equation.

    As for why the answer itself is relevant, there's not much point getting into it, as it requires you to understand the level of physics this problem requires.

    Give us a number, in seconds and show how you worked it out, then we can move on.
    Otherwise, you can come clean and admit that you are unable to do the problem.

    Beyond that, there's no point in engaging your points, and you are just making a show of yourself by whinging and avoiding a problem you could have easily googled at this stage...

    You asking me to solve a problem that doesn't even need to be addressed. What don't you understand? Do you not understand gravity acts differently when there resistance in place? Outside the building is just air resistance it's empty space. Inside a building, you got floor resistance, steel columns, office furniture and so on. An object just can't fall down and keep going if there something in the way do you not get that?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Do you not understand gravity acts differently when there resistance in place?
    Lol, that's not how gravity works at all.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob. Since your so clever should have noticed that.

    NIST said
    Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).

    Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

    Which means your object that fell off the roof was travelling faster than stage 1 and 2 of the collapse. Gravity doesn't slow down objects it accelerates objects. So WTC7 was travelling 3 seconds slower than gravity (freefall)

    Can you answer my question are you going to keep on with these silly games?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol, that's not how gravity works at all.

    Are you trying to annoy me? It how gravity works in a building with structural resistance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    King Mob. Since your so clever should Gravity doesn't slow down objects it accelerates objects. So your object was travelling 3 seconds slower than gravity (freefall)

    Can you answer my question are you going to keep on with these silly games?
    You can't "travel slower than gravity" that literally makes no sense.
    Again, that's not how gravity works.

    This question is not silly games, it's a simple question that shows how utterly ignorant you are of physics.
    Now, in your attempts to sound clever while avoiding a high school problem, you are revealing even more ignorance and it's really, really funny.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    You can't "travel slower than gravity" that literally makes no sense.
    Again, that's not how gravity works.

    This question is not silly games, it's a simple question that shows how utterly ignorant you are of physics.
    Now, in your attempts to sound clever while avoiding a high school problem, you are revealing even more ignorance and it's really, really funny.

    Oh my god in a building gravity works differently. Outside it just air and emptiness there nothing stopping the object from coming straight down to the ground.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Are you trying to annoy me? It how gravity works in a building with structural resistance.
    Gravity does not "behave differently".

    This may be because English is not your first language, but saying this thing is abject nonsense that is not at all how you can describe something in physics.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Oh my god in a building gravity works differently.
    Yup. Point proven...

    You do not understand physics.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yup. Point proven...

    You do not understand physics.

    I have a headache trying to explain this to you.

    Just concentrate on what NIST is saying occurred ok

    Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).

    You notice they said for 1.75 seconds the collapse was slower than freefall ( which is slower than that of gravity? Do you not understand that means for 1.75 seconds your object outside was not travelling at the same speed, it was travelling faster?

    It's the same principle as stage 2

    Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob please now answer my question and stop trying to deflect.


    You have to implant in your head mate resistance affects the acceleration of gravity. Gravity does not itself change but when an object hits something gravity can not accelerate the object any longer.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    King Mob please now answer my question and stop trying to deflect.
    Ok, it's simple.
    You don't understand physics or engineering or the report, and you don't actually understand the problems you are finding and creating them from you lack of understanding.

    That's my answer to pretty much every point you've made.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, it's simple.
    You don't understand physics or engineering or the report, and you don't actually understand the problems you are finding and creating them from you lack of understanding.

    That's my answer to pretty much every point you've made.


    Whatever makes you sleep at night. I have answered your question.

    Please have the decency to answer mine?


    If you don't just leave the thread and let others debate the subject in peace or make your own thread


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Whatever makes you sleep at night. I have answered your question.

    Please have the decency to answer mine?


    If you don't just leave the thread and let others debate the subject in peace or make your own thread
    But I did answer your question. I've given my answer several times directly.
    My answer is: You just don't understand physics or engineering or the NIST report.

    You have not once answered the question set to you. The only answer you could have provided was a number in seconds. But you can't do this because you don't understand high school physics. You embarassed yourself further by showing how little about physics you actually understand as you don't seem to know how gravity works.
    You are too dishonest to man up and admit that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,679 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, it's simple.
    You don't understand physics or engineering or the report, and you don't actually understand the problems you are finding and creating them from you lack of understanding.

    That's my answer to pretty much every point you've made.

    "I selectively don't understand something therefore the whole thing is a conspiracy"

    In my opinion there have been several signs that this isn't a simple misunderstanding, it's all very deliberate

    What an incredibly dishonest type of thinking to engage in.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,218 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    "I selectively don't understand something therefore the whole thing is a conspiracy"

    In my opinion there have been several signs that this isn't a simple misunderstanding, it's all very deliberate

    What an incredibly dishonest type of thinking to engage in.
    It's also the reason that none of them want to actually put forward an alternative. They know their positive beliefs wouldn't hold up to basic questions, never mind the level of nitpicking they level at the real explanation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    But I did answer your question. I've given my answer several times directly.
    My answer is: You just don't understand physics or engineering or the NIST report.

    You have not once answered the question set to you. The only answer you could have provided was a number in seconds. But you can't do this because you don't understand high school physics. You embarassed yourself further by showing how little about physics you actually understand as you don't seem to know how gravity works.
    You are too dishonest to man up and admit that.

    Only person embarrassing himself is you. You don't know the NIST study even though you support it. You don't understand how motion and gravity are affected by resistance in buildings.

    The object would have travelled 2.4 seconds at the same speed as the collapse under freefall conditions.

    The building fell in 5.4 seconds. So 3 seconds was less than gravity. So the object
    your so interested in would have likely fallen in 6 to 7 seconds under freefall conditions

    How long would it take for an object thrown from a 47 roof to fall if we wanted to be more accurate?

    You have to measure the distance travelled, the speed, and the time it took. There is a math equation for that to be done accurately. Are you really asking me to do the math?

    Please answer my question.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    It's also the reason that none of them want to actually put forward an alternative. They know their positive beliefs wouldn't hold up to basic questions, never mind the level of nitpicking they level at the real explanation.

    I swear I live on a different planet. Are you stuck in the twilight zone?

    How can you think that the first image in any way resembles the actual collapse video?. Do you think NBC news was broadcasting a false image of WTC7 collapse on 9/11?

    462037.png


    Can you not see the place position of the right wall and the roof here as it's falling?

    462038.png


Advertisement