| 73Q Music Videos | Vote On Clips | Submit | Login   |

Help keep poeTV running

And please consider not blocking ads here. They help pay for the server. Pennies at a time. Literally.

Comment count is 15
dancingshadow - 2010-08-30

Still with this truth stuff? Why can't these people just ignore hundreds of years of fairly basic physics and accept that gravity alone pulverized a million tons of concrete and steal in to a fine dust.... in seconds... and also generated the energy to keep pools of steel molten 8 weeks later.

baleen - 2010-08-30

To your points:
1. Gravity: Yeah, ever heard of a mass driver? .
2. "concrete and steal" Freudian slip? ZOG.
3a. generating energy sort of like oh I don't know a certain research facility in Switzerland that's been getting a lot of press lately?
3b. molten steel => Military plasma?!?!

What can't you see here?

Riskbreaker - 2010-08-30

The moon landing is way older than this, and that doesn't keep people from believing it was fake.

Aoi - 2010-08-30

Your arguments are bad and you should feel bad for making them.

^The only acknowledgment "Truthers" should ever get.

dancingshadow - 2010-08-31

My argument is simple.

The energy output observed when the towers exploded far far exceeded the gravitational energy contained in the towers.

This is pretty obvious to an objective observer, but it can also be understood plainly by considering Newton's 3rd law as you observe the top portion of the tower fall in to the main body of the tower.

HarrietTubmanPI - 2010-08-31


No. It didn't. The steel was never turned into a fine powder. The buildings were not a solid lump of concrete. There was a lot of space in the buildings due to the way it was constructed. There was never molten steel. The fires that were in the rubble that burned for weeks were due to combustible material that was still combustible so it combusted. The steel that was in the building got very hot and weakened considerably due to the heat. Steel does that when it's hot.

The buildings weight plenty enough to create enough kinetic energy to pancake the rest of the buildings and to collapse the entire structure.

The thing is the energy output from the falling buildings did not exceed the gravitational energy contained in the towers. You think they did because you add things that didn't happen - like it 'exploding' or steel being turned into 'a fine dust'.

There was no explosion after the planes hit the buildings. The weight of the top section above the impact could eventually no longer be supported by the structure around the impact.

Are you also going to say they 'feel neatly into their own footprint' like another truther I know? The strange thing with him is that in spite of me showing him an areal photograph of the destruction to show that the buildings' debris fell in a pretty wide area, he still sticks to this claim today.

I don't think the problem is the explanation, dancing. The problem is that you want to believe - evidence be damned.

dancingshadow - 2010-08-31

The top portion of the tower is not solid either. On average we could say the density of the tower is uniform. (The bottom is actually denser.)

So let's say there is some sort of massive structural failure and the top portion accelerates due to gravity downward. Lets also say that this force is enough to begin crushing the portion below it. Newton's 3rd law tells us very clearly that that same crushing force is being excerted upwards on the falling portion of the tower.

The top portion then is being crushed as well. It MUST be affected by the upward force. (Again we are assuming it is pushing down with such force to crush a longer stronger version of itself.) The way it could dissipate this force is by deforming, breaking apart, or decelerating. So it would itself have either entirely broken apart or decelerated to a stop no where near the bottom.

This is very simple, very concrete physics. We don't have to get caught up arguing about steel, or fires, political arguments. The energy is simply not there. You can do simple experiments to prove this to yourself.

I won't talk about the fire and stuff until I review how temperature works. But to clarify, you believe the little fires way up there survived the fall all the way to the bottom and the was so much combustible material where they landed that they just burned and burned (even with six weeks of dousing). Seems far fetched, but I digress.

I agree the explanation isn't the problem. All the evidence overwhelmingly points to one obvious conclusion. And I never wanted to believe this.

TheOtherCapnS - 2010-08-31

dancingshadow, you keep invoking 'basic physics' yet you seem to have a very poor grasp of that subject. Among your myriad of mistakes and omissions: you don't really seem to understand how gravitational potential energy works (or maybe you do, but your 'calculations' (re: crayon scrawlings on circles of paper (sorry, couldn't resist a little ad hominem)) were obviously not done very carefully), you're treating the structure like a solid object with a mean density (it's mostly hollow, applying a mean density is a big error here), and you're ignoring the fact that each part of the building (even the intact parts) contains gravitational potential energy.

Unfortunately for you, I agree with Aoi so rather than try and explain things to you further I must say that your arguments are bad and you should feel bad for making them.

HarrietTubmanPI - 2010-08-31

The top portion had a lot of mass. It would not have started disintegrating until it ran into the other part of the building.

What you fail to realize is that no matter if it disintegrates or stays together it's going to add a lot of force to the bottom part of the building because it will accelerate for several floors before it runs into a substantial amount of mass.

The energy is there.

Also, the fires could have survived the fall and they could have been ignited once everything collapsed. You had electrical faults, gas lines, etc. that could have started combustion and a lot of fuel and material that was combustible like papers, furniture, etc.

dancingshadow - 2010-08-31

Hahaha.. circles of paper !!

CaptainS, you certainly can, for purposes of energy conservation, treat the towers as having a mean density. (you could do the same analysis with teapots.) (With the real towers, it's even more optimistic because the columns will all line up with one another.)

Obviously the entire tower has gravitational potential. The force of gravity at any height is balanced by the force pushing up against it. That's the whole point!! Where did that force go? The upward force that held the building up its whole life (along with all the people in the building, plus the massive safety margin.) The whole design of any building is to produce this force. That force vanished as the tower fell.

Thanks for 'trying to explain' things to me, but the two points in your post that are not attacks, are addressed above.

TheOtherCapnS - 2010-08-31

So you're either a subtle troll, or you are really, really misinformed about physics. Either way, just stop talking. You addressed nothing. Most of what you just typed doesn't even make a damn bit of sense.

Here's a riddle for you: what has a mass of about 6x10^24 kg, and is part of the system you're trying to describe? Another riddle: what's the difference between force and energy? (It's not a trick, there is a difference!)

dancingshadow - 2010-08-31

Not a troll, everything I said is good physics. Simple too. You're riddles don't change anything.

But yeah... I will stop talking. Thanks Harriet and CapnS for posting intelligible comments. I expected it to be mostly personal attacks. Cheers.

Space Helicopter - 2010-08-31

But... Nobody dies from Building 7, so who cares?

dancingshadow - 2010-08-31


It's hard to be forced to accept that the world is the way it is rather than the way you knew it to be. It took me years to come to grips with 911 after the evidence forced me to.

The real kick in the teeth for me was the victory of propaganda over science. I just thought science was stronger. After I got over my mental block I thought it was a matter of months before a massive uprising. I mean... the video is right there - it exposes the lie!! But the months turned in to years and now it's almost 10 years later.

Those creatonist vs science videos used to be fun to watch so I could feel a guilty superiority for awhile. But after personally experiencing my own mind's ability to delude, I have a new respect for the difficulty in changing such ingrained and important beliefs.

It's worth it tho. It's hard, but once you get over the mental block you will see it's pretty obvious. And after you get over some depression, you can start to observe the world just a little more clearly.

Space Helicopter - 2011-09-27

Yes, yes, the evidence is there but we can't accept the truth because we're just too damn stubborn!

PS you're the creationist in this particular topic.

Register or login To Post a Comment

Video content copyright the respective clip/station owners please see hosting site for more information.
Privacy Statement