NIST 9/11 pseudo-science? - Truth Deniers vs. Isaac Newton

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
jas

Ah, the sound of peace and quiet.

A really great way to get the Believer crowd to disappear: ask them to explain what they are claiming.

Salsa

No, it's the sound of facepalm

Jas, you failed physics, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_gravity

jas

Haven't you embarassed yourself enough here, Salsa?

Hey, Salsa! "COUNTER-INTUITIVE!"Surprised!!!

 

Salsa

Hey jas

Why do you claim to want to talk physics when you haven't the faintest idea of how science works ?

Density.......Oi !!!

You are the weakest link.

jas

Salsa wrote:

Density.......Oi !!!

Lol.

Yes, folks! New hit single, "Density!...Oi!" by....the Believers!

Fidel

Jas, theyre using phyzics 101 according to crazy Jorge dubya de la yeyo II. And they were in the bottom half of the gradjeeatin' class.

Sineed

Ah, but Salsa, don't you know that gravity is only a theory?  

Some folks assert there's no such thing as gravity - the earth sucks.

Fidel

Ya and according to crazy Jorge dubya de la yeyo fizzics, Newton's third law of motion becomes Newton's law fer YEEHAW!

Papal Bull

Fidel wrote:

Ya and according to crazy Jorge dubya de la yeyo fizzics, Newton's third law of motion becomes Newton's law fer YEEHAW!

 

And I call the 7 deadly sins my 'to do' list. the text of the item doesn't change.

Fidel

[url=http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0601-01.htm]The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies[/url]

Salsa

Sineed wrote:
Ah, but Salsa, don't you know that gravity is only a theory?  

Some folks assert there's no such thing as gravity - the earth sucks.

 

Yes, I know, I read it on a bumper sticker and if you can't trust what you read on bumper stickers....

 

My intuition tells me that if the Earth keeps sucking, we're going to run out of atmosphere in the near future. Maybe as soon as, as OMG, no....2012.

Better stock up on scuba tanks.Tongue out

Salsa

Fidel wrote:
The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies
Quote:

 

Ah, so you've finally given up on all this MiHOP nonsense and switched to LiHOP..excellent

Fidel

MiHOP, LiHOP, what's the diff?  Either one is a criminal act of gross negligence and requires serious investigation. With either scenario, Salsa, there were and continue to be serious war crimes committed as a result. And I have to agree with even some of the former cold war hawks in America now saying there needs to be a real and thorough investigation, and it should probably happen at an international level and taken out of the hands of US government administration entirely.  

remind remind's picture

jas wrote:
A really great way to get the Believer crowd to disappear: ask them to explain what they are claiming.

Ah, you spoke to soon,  of course they had to come back and personally attack you, one wonders why they "believe" that they get to do that failing have anything concrete to say?

 

 

Fidel

I think LiHOP at a minimum. And I think they probably have something to hide wrt MiHOP.

[url=http://www.alternet.org/story/19046/]The Ali Mohamed-FBI Bungle[/url] The name "Ali Mohamed" came up briefly in 9/11 Commission hearings, but his embarassing relationship with the FBI – and al Qaeda – was brazenly covered up.

Salsa

Fidel, there's a huge difference between LiHOP and MiHOP. I can't give you much of an argument against LiHOP, what with Hanlon's razor an all and nor can i try to deny any relationships between various US government factions and "terrorists" in the decades preceding 911.

I'm skeptical as to just how much an investigation into LiHOP would reveal. Sure it could be argued that they probably knew something, maybe even something to do with planes being used in an attack but there's not much anybody could have done to prevent such an attack without prior knowledge of the specifics.

It could have been an attack like 911 or it could have been something else entirely, like crashing a private plane into a large crowd, like at a football game. Let's face it, 911 wasn't a sophisticated operation by any stretch of the imagination. Some guys, some flying lessons, a flight simulator program and they were good to go. None of that complicated take off and landing stuff required.

What was that novel where one guy used the Goodyear blimp to attack a stadium crowd ?

One thing's for sure though, right after 911 there must have been an awful lot of paper shredding, and awful lot of hard drives replaced as anyone who's ever worked for government can tell you CYA is a daily mantra.

jas

Yeah, this gravity business is a real bitch. Why, just the other day, I was watching a woodpecker pecking at a tree, and, wouldn't you know it? The tree started collapsing! Top down into itself, with the trunk pancaking, or pulverizing, or something. Maybe pancaking and pulverizing. Yeah, that's it. The woodpecker obviously had compromised the tree's structural integrity. And the darn gravity took care of everything else - whoosh! Before you could say, "Mother of Isaac Newton!" it was gone. Just a pile of pulverized pulp and leaves.

And then this little bird-sized passport floated down through all the dust where the tree once was, and landed on top of the  pile.... aye, 'twere the strangest sight...

Fidel

Salsa wrote:
Fidel, there's a huge difference between LiHOP and MiHOP. I can't give you much of an argument against LiHOP, what with Hanlon's razor an all and nor can i try to deny any relationships between various US government factions and "terrorists" in the decades preceding 911.

But what are the implications for a criminal trial? These aren't night watchmen who were derelict of duty during a heist. These people were in charge of national security and have financial interests in war industries, security companies, awarding no-bid government contracts as spinoff benefits of war etc. Those are direct conflicts of interest.

Salsa wrote:
I'm skeptical as to just how much an investigation into LiHOP would reveal. Sure it could be argued that they probably knew something, maybe even something to do with planes being used in an attack but there's not much anybody could have done to prevent such an attack without prior knowledge of the specifics.

Oh, I think the US is not short on justice. The US may have developed a bad reputation over the years(very bad) but they wrote the book on justice and criminal science. I have faith in US justices if they were allowed to do their jobs. US constititional law is revered among left and right around the world. They would tear the war criminals to shreds if unleashed.

Salsa wrote:
It could have been an attack like 911 or it could have been something else entirely, like crashing a private plane into a large crowd, like at a football game. Let's face it, 911 wasn't a sophisticated operation by any stretch of the imagination. Some guys, some flying lessons, a flight simulator program and they were good to go. None of that complicated take off and landing stuff required.

I'm at the other end. I think it was a sophisticated intelligence black op. But they didnt pull it off. A lot of Americans and Canadians don't believe it. Nevertheless, they didn't have to fool everyone. Their's is an economy that is largely based on war. War industry profits are anywhere from 300% to 1000%. About 8000 military contractors rely on government contracts. With that kind of demand for war, there will be lobbying for war, and ultimately, more war.

Salsa wrote:
What was that novel where one guy used the Goodyear blimp to attack a stadium crowd ?

Two Minute Warning? Maybe not, but it was a good movie jts. Have you ever seen The Parallax View with Warren Beatty? Short film. Very good.

Salsa wrote:
One thing's for sure though, right after 911 there must have been an awful lot of paper shredding, and awful lot of hard drives replaced as anyone who's ever worked for government can tell you CYA is a daily mantra.

Very good. Your best post in these threads imo.

Salsa

We don't know which people to investigate, sure we can speculate, but anyway you slice it even the slightest inkling of MiHOP (ignoring the Cd hypothesis because it's still ridiculous ) would involve a very small number of people. How much money would you want to participate in the murder of 3000 innocent civilians ? a million, five million, 10 million...name a figure and any conspiracy of any size is soon going to incur a budget that makes the cost/benefit ratio not worth it.

As I said before, why did the buildings need to come down ? An attack, any attack, on American soil would have "woken up the American public" and galvanised them into action, if indeed that was the goal. Why needlessly complicate the whole scenario by involving the usual laundry list of suspects that CTers like to cite.

Yes, they would tear the perpetrators to shreds, whoever was involved would become the most hated person/people in the history of the US. It might even spawn a new holiday, the American equivalent of Guy Fawkes day but until there's some real evidence, not Siebel Edmonds, but someone with documents, we'll probably never know anything regarding LiHOP.

The corporate guys? They just slide a big bribe to the politicians out on the golf course, they don't "need" to get involved in crap like MiHOP.

Fidel

I think you're right. I think for one there will be no second investigation. Not like there were subsequent investigations into the JFK assassination, the last of which concluded that it probably was a conspiracy and Oswald probably did not act alone even if he wasn't a patsy.

What we're looking at is a country that has been led by war criminals for a long time, since at least the doctor and the madman of the 1970s. Nixon and Kissinger wrote the book on war crimes and orchestrating mass murder. The American elite have dreamed of war for decades because of how profitable war is. Corruption in American government and finance has become rampant. It's a country that is falling apart at the seams today as a result. And I think it will ultimately be up to the large majority of Americans to decide whether they want to endure it for very much longer.

An Italian businessman once told John F. Kennedy that America would have to some day deal with fascism. Personally I think that day has arrived.

siamdave

It's obviously of no use talking to the committed believers in the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT), but for anyone a bit new to the idea that just maybe our leaders and media, however uncharacteristically, were and are not giving us quite the whole story about some very odd things that happened on Sept 11 01, I took some time one day awhile back and laid out as clearly as I could my own reasoning for coming to the conclusion that the OCT is about as credible as creationism or other things some people believe on faith, refusing to turn on lights and ask some hard questions. I'm not a sound bite sort of writer - thinking things through is difficult to do in 50 words or less - the full version starts here - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/lgi/911-thoughtex.html . I'd be interested if anyone can point out any serious flaws in my reasoning .

Salsa

Fidel, you'll get very little support for American foreign policy from me. The time is ripe for the anti-war movement to start gaining grounf with the American "viewing public" and aligning themselves with the truthers as they did during last weekend's anti'war rallys in both SF and LA is, IMO, a grave mistake.

siamdave...You spend to much time on the impact, as we know the towers survived the impact, too little time on the fires, and when you mentioned melting steel, I shut down the page as that's a classic piece of CT non sequitur.

Sineed

salsa wrote:
One thing's for sure though, right after 911 there must have been an awful lot of paper shredding, and awful lot of hard drives replaced as anyone who's ever worked for government can tell you CYA is a daily mantra.

Having worked for the government for 13 years, I feel that CYA is a source of much of the conspiracy theorizing.  The actions of civil servants trying not to get fired and lose their health care coverage may look more sinister from the outside.

jas

With all due respect, I don't see what Cover Your Ass has to do with 91 and 75 floors disintegrating in under 15 seconds. Or let's give it 30 seconds, for Heywood's benefit, since he kind of likes those alleged hesitating floors at the bottom.

Sineed, since you seem to fancy yourself a debunker of different kinds of nonsense, how do you explain, in your own words, the absence of plausible resistance that these floors presented in this gravitational acceleration? Because it appears only some of us know that gravitational acceleration occurs only in a vacuum, and not in cases where something is having to crush through something larger down to the ground. How is it that floor 40, for example, can start its descent at almost the same time as floor 70? What is under (or what is not under) floor 40 that is allowing it to do this?

Have you found any specific post in any of these threads where someone has clearly and satisfactorily explained this? Because if it's so simple and obvious, someone should be able to explain it without us having to start thread after thread, right? This should have been immediately pointed out in the very first thread, how simple and obvious this is. But somehow, I can't seem to find anywhere in these threads, this simple and obvious explanation for the lack of resistance of 75 and 91 floors respectively. What is your explanation?

And thanks, siamdave. I saved your page for perusing later.

Fidel

Sineed wrote:

salsa wrote:
One thing's for sure though, right after 911 there must have been an awful lot of paper shredding, and awful lot of hard drives replaced as anyone who's ever worked for government can tell you CYA is a daily mantra.

Having worked for the government for 13 years, I feel that CYA is a source of much of the conspiracy theorizing.  The actions of civil servants trying not to get fired and lose their health care coverage may look more sinister from the outside.

What about a former head of the U.S. consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, who says he witnessed CIA agents insisting that terrorists be let into the US, even though their paperwork was incomplete?

 There are judges and lawyers for truth who are not conspiracy theorists saying that US laws were broken by US agencies. Paperwork was circumvented and ignored. And this is just one example of when proper procedures were not followed.

Sineed, if I want a few bottles of Oxycontin, do you think I would be successful in hustling a pharmacist to give me some without producing proper paperwork from a medical doctor or someone with the authority to prescribe? Maybe nine times out of ten? And if so, should the police be involved?

Trevormkidd

jas wrote:
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?

 

I understand that you are either dishonest or an idiot or both.  You are the one who is saying that the acceleration would be half the speed of gravity, while at the same time claiming that the towers fell at either free-fall speed or near free-fall speed.  If you are too simple to understand that when you say that a tower fell at near-fall speed while at the same time saying that it fell 416 meters in 13 seconds that the first statement completely contradicts the second one then you are beyond hope.  Does basic math still exist in troofer land?  Apparently not.  If an object falls at free-fall speed for 13 seconds it would fall 828 meters.  Even at any kind of reasonable near-free-fall speed it would fall 750 meters.  The max of 416 meters (and more likely 350 meters) that the tower fell in 13 seconds means that it was nowhere close to falling at free-fall speed which should be easily understandable to anyone when they see that the material falling outside of the towers was accelerating much, much faster.

 

As I already explained to you earlier if something falls 416 meters in 13 seconds it was accelerating at a rate of 4.9m/s/s which is half the rate of gravity.  This is first day of high school physics material.  Again that is not free-fall speed or near free-fall speed, or close to free-fall speed, or sorta close to free-fall speed and anyone who says that it is clearly has no idea what they are talking about, but yet like everyone in the truth movement they have never met a lie that will not continue to spread no matter how ridiculous it is. 

 

Quote:
Sineed, since you seem to fancy yourself a debunker of different kinds of nonsense, how do you explain, in your own words, the absence of plausible resistance that these floors presented in this gravitational acceleration? Because it appears only some of us know that gravitational acceleration occurs only in a vacuum, and not in cases where something is having to crush through something larger down to the ground.

Well at least it seems that may have figured out that gravity is an acceleration.  But you are still wrong, a dense object can accelerate amazingly close to the gravitational constant (Galileo calculated gravity to be 9.75 m/s/s over 400 years ago experimenting without the use of a vacuum).  You are also wrong where you say that the upper floors had to crush something larger.  The top 30 floors are not hitting 80 floors at once, but one floor at a time.  So it is 30 floors of mass and velocity hitting one floor (with no velocity) and then 31 floors of mass and velocity hitting one floor (with no velocity).  This is beyond obvious.  Using conservation of energy shows that by the time those 30 floors hit the top first floor it would have been traveling at about 9m/s:

=(.5)x(30,000)x(9^2)+(0.5)x(1000)x(0) = (.5)x(31000)x(?) which calculates to 8.85m/s (using a mass factor of 1000 per floor.  It doesn't matter which number is used).  Those 31 floors would continue to accelerate due to gravity over the 3.8 meters in about 0.3 seconds til they hit the next floor at about 12.4m/s:

=(.5)x(31,000)x(12.4^2)+(0.5)x(1000)x(0) = (.5)x(32000)x(?) which calculates to again a loss of about 0.15m/s while at the same time gravity is resulting in a gain of 9.8m/s/s.  Each floor is hit with not only more mass than the previous one, but also more velocity easily overcoming any resistance.  If you factor in about half of the total energy being lost to overcome resistance at each floor then it would take the time to fall that was seen.  Areas that experienced more resistance would have taken longer to fall.  Areas with less resistance would have taken less time.  All of which was the case.

Is this exactly what happened?  I don't know or care.  I don't have to prove exactly how something happened in order to counter the troofers pile of nonsense that has zero supporting evidence.

 

Fidel

Trevormkidd wrote:
Each floor is hit with not only more mass than the previous one, but also more velocity easily overcoming any resistance. If you factor in about half of the total energy being lost to overcome resistance at each floor then it would take the time to fall that was seen.

Mass influences energy and momentum but not velocity of the rate of fall, Fig Newton. And not only did the floors not fall in a vacuum, each floor represented several thousand times more resistance than factoring in just floors having to push away air resistance.

Of course as you say, you don't care. That's obvious too.

 

Trevormkidd

Fidel wrote:
Mass influences energy and momentum but not velocity of the rate of fall, Fig Newton.

Thanks for coming out.
The next floor is not hit with more velocity because it has more mass, but because gravity has been influencing it longer.
If you don't know what gravity is then look it up.
Mass influences energy and momentum.
Velocity influences conversion of energy (KE - 0.5MV^2) and momentum.
Gravity influences velocity.
Momentum is mass times velocity.

Fidel

Thanks for clarifying, but we're still not sure what you meant by this:

Trevormkidd wrote:
  If you factor in about half of the total energy being lost to overcome resistance at each floor then it would take the time to fall that was seen.

Can you explain that sentence mathematically, or are you just assuming we'll take your word for it?

jas

Don't have time to respond in full.

Four seconds difference in a span of 13 seconds is "nowhere near" free fall. Huh. So you are confirming that 75 and 91 floors provided 4 seconds of resistance. And you feel that this is perfectly plausible. Wow.

 

Quote:

But you are still wrong, a dense object can accelerate amazingly close to the gravitational constant (Galileo calculated gravity to be 9.75 m/s/s over 400 years ago experimenting without the use of a vacuum).  You are also wrong where you say that the upper floors had to crush something larger.

We know about dense objects. We're talking about those objects moving through other dense objects. Specifically, dozens of layers of those dense objects. And yet you say that should only cause 4 seconds difference from free fall. Unbelievable.

Fidel

Trevormkidd wrote:
It doesn't matter which number is used). Those 31 floors would continue to accelerate due to gravity over the 3.8 meters in about 0.3 seconds til they hit the next floor at about 12.4m/s:

Does NIST suggest that there is any physical proof/evidence that even the support columns of the first floors lost *all of their strength (from ceiling to floor) in the first moments of collapse?

We've all seen the fairy tale calculations describing collapse in a vacuum. But what about when air resistance is added to structural resistance? And force calculcations must change if the floors do not drop straight downward without tilting. And videos of the collapse clearly show that the upper structure did tilt by over 25 degrees at one point. Air and other resistances change when that happens causing forces to vary significantly.

Trevormkidd wrote:
The next floor is not hit with more velocity because it has more mass.

Not hit with more velocity? What about air resistance? Ever stick your hand out the car window while doing 60? Imagine doing it at several hundred km/hr.

Trevormkidd

Fidel wrote:
Can you explain that sentence mathematically, or are you just assuming we'll take your word for it?

Well I mistyped earlier.  The acceleration was half and the total energy was 1/4th.  Meaning that I a put the statistics into excel using those statistics above asssuming that no energy was lost for each of the 80 floors that would be hit - all the energy being transfered from potential into kinetic energy used in the fall.  Then I took that total energy and divided it by four meaning that 3/4 of the total energy would be transfered to overcoming resistance.  When I did this it gave the new time which was increased from a little over 9 seconds to 13 seconds.  Not surprising really.

 

Fidel wrote:
Does NIST suggest that there is any physical proof/evidence that even the support columns of the first floors lost *all of their strength (from ceiling to floor) in the first moments of collapse?

 

I have no idea what NIST suggests, but I did not suggest that they did lose all of their strength. The calculations for the loss of all the strength/no resistance provided an answer of the tower falling less than 0.1 seconds slower than free-fall, whereas the reality was that the tower fell much, much, much slower than free-fall.

 

Quote:
We've all seen the fairy tale calculations describing collapse in a vacuum. But what about when air resistance is added to structural resistance?

 

That resistance is part of the total resistance which would have been 3/4 of the potential energy (which I had mistakenly said as 1/2 the potential energy), 75% of the total potential energy from those towers is a whole lot of energy.

 

Quote:
And force calculcations must change if the floors do not drop straight downward without tilting. And videos of the collapse clearly show that the upper structure did tilt by over 25 degrees at one point. Air and other resistances change when that happens causing forces to vary significantly.

 

Yeah of course, but I am not doing a NIST report. It would also have to take into the account the large sections of the tower which took much longer than 13 to finish collapsing.

 

Quote:
Not hit with more velocity? What about air resistance? Ever stick your hand out the car window while doing 60? Imagine doing it at several hundred km/hr.

 

Air resistance is included in the 3/4 of of potential energy that was transfered to overcoming the resistance and not converted to the kinetic energy of the speed of the fall. That is part of the reason why the tower fell so slowly.

 

 

siamdave

All of the talk about gravity and acceleration and 'forces' and 'pancaking' etc is based on text book 'perfect situation' examples - a solid block of something falling through space.
But.
Very obviously, the falling floors of the WTC buildings were very much NOT solid homogenous blocks - thus attempting to argue, or arguing with the unspoken assumption that they were, is simply not relevant to the situation - worse, really, as it allows the attempted assertion of things that are simply not possible in defence of something equally impossible. Getting a bit more realistic with what we are talking exposes the OCTer 'arguments' as the infantile, Alice-in-wonderlandian nonsense they are. The OCTers well understand this, I think, at least the serious ones trying to keep people away from the truth for whatever reason, thus attempting to keep the discussion in the realm of theoretical physics and spouting great gobs of bafflegab whilst challenging people trying to understand what happened that day to 'prove otherwise or shut up and listen to the experts' etc is their only opportunity to avoid being ridiculed for the obvious defenders-of-the-indefensible they actually are.
Let's look just a bit closer at this 'pancaking' 'theory'. It doesn't take much 'feet on the ground let's have just a BIT of freaking common sense here' thinking to expose the whole 'theory' for the complete and utter nonsense it really is.
To have any kind of discussion that even begins to be relevant, we need to have a picture of what we are talking about - here is a good place to start - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/lgi/911-thoughtex.html#ctc .
Look at that central column - a matrix of 47 massive steel girders, running from the bedrock to over 1,000 feet into the air. For 'pancaking' to happen, what the OCTers are trying to say is that starting up around the 75th or 90th floor, depending on the tower, a section of that massive central steel matrix, all 47 steel beams, gave way, completely, all at once (along with the same-floor section of the outer steel walls, all the way around) and dropped, along with the floor between central column and outer wall, as if it was a single piece onto the floor below - and then on that floor the 47 columns of that central steel matrix (and outer wall) once again instantly snapped into pieces and gave way dropping to the floor next in line, and etc, 75-90 times until, a few seconds later, the whole building lay in ruins. The idea is simply ludicrous, if you put it into words like this, if the concept of 'steel' has any meaning in the real world.
(another idea that is being pushed is that the 'added weight' of each floor accelerated the whole process - but that weight would be much less than the weight of a floor section - most of the concrete is obviously being pulverized and flooding Manhattan, and the outer steel walls would be falling to the outside, thus not adding to the weight falling to the next floor - all you would really have in additional weight is the central columns, falling over like matchsticks - and again the ludicrousness of the whole pancaking idea becomes obvious)
Steel has certain properties, one of the more important being that when stressed it simply does not break into pieces like toothpicks or 2x4s. IF any particular section of a building like that was compromised to the point of collapse (which also is in no way even close to proven by the OCT and its boogabooga 'physics and science for the credulous'), that central column is going to offer a massive amount of resistance to any attempt by gravity or anything else to pull it down - the columns will bend and twist and look for a new equilibrium point of some sort, along with the outer steel walls - but more or less disintegrating so the whole floor falls en masse to the one below? Again and again and again? C'mon. You insult everyone by such obviously idiotic talk. Steel does not snap into sections like toothpicks, which is what would be required for the 'pancaking' theory to explain what happened.
This is really too ridiculous to spend much time on - what is so frustrating (and, really, scary as hell) is that so very few people in modern society have enough basic intelligence or ability to do a simple 'think for yourself' analysis to see this, and fall prey to the lies of the government and media and their well-compensated high-priest 'experts' telling everyone that the world is flat - don't listen to that crazy conspiracy theorist Copernicus!
(final challenge - in that web page there is another picture about 2/3s of the way down, of the two towers standing tall and strong with the blue sky behind them, with only a bit of smoke coming from them - I challenge any OCTer to say out loud (put in print, whatever) that "Sure! Anyone can see those two towers are obviously so compromised that they are on the verge of complete collapse! You bet! Absolutely - I believe that!"
haha)

 

 

 

Fidel

You make no mention of what force the lower blocks of floors were capable of resisting. Big hole in your rough estimation right there. Engineering records show that there was tremendous strength designed into the exterior columns of the trade towers.

And the south tower, for example, didn't fall "so slowly" as you describe. The 9/11 Commission's final report said it took the south tower 10 seconds from beginning of collapse to end. That's outrageous.

jas

Trevormkidd wrote:
The top 30 floors are not hitting 80 floors at once, but one floor at a time.

In the case of WTC1 it is the top 12 floors, which burned for more than 90 minutes, hitting 91 floors.

Trevormkidd wrote:
So it is 30

12

Trevormkidd wrote:
floors of mass and velocity hitting one floor (with no velocity) and then 31 floors of mass and velocity hitting one floor (with no velocity). This is beyond obvious.

Well, for one, it appears that you're describing pancaking. The buildings did not pancake. NIST tells us that the buildings did not pancake. So it's not “30, then 31” floors, etc... it's 30, and maybe even 29, then 28, 27,... as some video footage seems to suggest (one is on Judy Wood's site).

Also, you are ignoring upward normal force which is mentioned in Chandler's paper:

Quote:

For the current analysis we follow Bazănt's simplifying assumptions [4, 5, 6, 7] by treating the upper section of the building as a solid block with mass m. The only two relevant forces acting on the falling block are gravity (mg) and an upward normal force (N) due to its interaction with the lower section of the building.

Applying Newton's Second Law and solving for N, we get mg N = ma, so N = mg ma

Our data shows that from the sixth computed velocity data point onward, the upper block is accelerating uniformly (with an R2 value of 0.997) at a = -6.31 m/s2, or in other words, 64% of the acceleration of gravity. For this value of a, N = mg − 0.64mg = 0.36mg (4) Therefore the upward-acting normal force is 36% of the weight of the upper block, as illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Consider the upper section of the building to be a block of weight mg. Since the acceleration of the block is measured to be downward at 0.64g, the net force acting on it must be 0.64mg. The gravitational force is mg, so the upward normal force must be 0.36mg. The upper and lower sections of the building exert equal but opposite forces on each other, so the load on the lower section of the building is 36% of the weight of the upper block.

Explicitly invoking Newton's Third Law puts this result in another light. Since the forces in the interaction are equal and opposite, the falling block exerts a force of only 36% of its weight on the lower section of the building. In other words, as long as the falling block is accelerating downward we have the counter-intuitive result that the force it exerts on the lower section of the building is significantly less than its static weight.

 

jas

Your theory would make more sense if the impact zone had been near the bottom of the building, Then we have a greater weight bearing down on a lesser weight, and obviously crushing down the smaller portion of the building.

Trevormkidd wrote:
Using conservation of energy... =(.5)x(30,000)x(9^2)+(0.5)x(1000)x(0) = (.5)x(31000)x(?)

I'm skipping over the calculations because I can't evaluate them, but I did notice you're multiplying a portion of the equation by zero, which would get you a result of zero there, so I'm not sure how you came up with:

Trevormkidd wrote:
... which calculates to 8.85m/s (using a mass factor of 1000 per floor. It doesn't matter which number is used). Those 31 floors

No, still only 30, if not 29, 28 or 27 floors now...

Trevormkidd wrote:
would continue to accelerate due to gravity over the 3.8 meters

of core structure and other matter. And they are losing momentum in crushing the floor below. That is, if the mass hasn't, again, crushed up, causing it to lose another floor.

Trevormkidd wrote:
in about 0.3 seconds til they hit the next floor at about 12.4m/s:

Probably not, because you haven't factored in the loss of momentum or upward normal force here.

Trevormkidd wrote:

=(.5)x(31,000)x(12.4^2)+(0.5)x(1000)x(0) = (.5)x(32000)x(?) which calculates to again a loss of about 0.15m/s

Because of the incorrect model you're using, these calculations would already be off base.

Trevormkidd wrote:
while at the same time gravity is resulting in a gain of 9.8m/s/s.

Each floor is hit with not only more mass than the previous one,

Incorrect for the two reasons above.

Trevormkidd wrote:
but also more velocity easily overcoming any resistance.

Um, except that you haven't factored in the resistance yet.

Trevormkidd wrote:
If you factor in about half of the total energy being lost to overcome resistance at each floor then it would take the time to fall that was seen.

Like Fidel suggests, even if we were to take all the above to be true, which the models we're using indicate that it isn't, this is kind of brushing over the most important factor in this equation. Where do you get “half” the total energy being lost? Is that a guess? Why at this point do you stop the mathematical proof?

Trevormkidd wrote:
Areas that experienced more resistance would have taken longer to fall. Areas with less resistance would have taken less time. All of which was the case.

Except that NIST confirms free fall, which means that for at least a significant portion of the drop time whatever mass, if any, that still exists above the “crushing” wave (it gets obscured by the clouds of dust) is moving through matter of equal weight and density at the speed of free fall. This is physically impossible.

Jones et al, quoting from the NIST Report:

Quote:
NIST: [Question:] “How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)— speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?” [Answer:] …As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that: “… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos”[3]

jas

Another interesting thing I note in this bizarro exercise of trying to make physical laws conform to a hypothesis that does not itself derive from physical laws, is that, in fact, it's not so simple and obvious, is it? Yet the deniers come clomping into these threads sneering and joking and trying to shout you down, saying how "insane" it is to question this half-baked story, but look at what lengths Trevor went to in an attempt to find some scientific validity in the notion that 70 or 90 floors of the WTC can disintegrate in under 15 seconds from the sheer force of gravity - and actually, still be wrong.

So your theory isn't so simple or obvious, is it? Yet several posters here seem to think that, even though they themselves can't explain physically how this can occur, no one else should be questioning it. This is irrational. Moreover, from people who fancy themselves arbiters of rationality.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

PraetorianFour wrote:

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?

Finally, an explanation I can understand.

...so the Towers were knocked over sideways by airplanes, then?

Salsa

jas wrote:
Except that NIST confirms free fall

 

You are lying when you say this as Jones id lying when he mangles the reply from question #6 in the NIST FAQ.

 

Free fall is a concept invented by the twoof movement to mislead people, it's deliberate and dishonest but that's to be expected from a group that has absolutely nothing concrete to back up their accusations of mass murder except the hope that people watching their pathetic YouTube videos won't go out and do any real research of their own.

 

So total collapse was how long then. according to the source you quoted above ? That translates into "free fall" exactly how ?

 

This argument from incredulity thing is getting old, but it's all the twoof movement has and all they ever will have.

 

I can balance a concrete block on a styrofoam coffee cup, but what happens if I drop that exact same block from a height of two inches ? Really, this science stuff isn't that difficult.

 

 

Trevormkidd

jas wrote:
In the case of WTC1 it is the top 12 floors, which burned for more than 90 minutes, hitting 91 floors.

So what, all that would mean is that less than 75% of the energy was being used to overcome resistance.  As I said above, 75% of the energy in that building is a tremendous amount and it could have easily been much lower.
 

Quote:
Also, you are ignoring upward normal force which is mentioned in Chandler's paper:

To simplify this: the calculation in Chandler's paper is using the normal force, but does not calculate for resistance because that is included in the normal force. Normal force was included in resistance.  Same shit different pile. As normal force is a contact force I preferred to say resistance.   

 

Quote:
I'm skipping over the calculations because I can't evaluate them, but I did notice you're multiplying a portion of the equation by zero, which would get you a result of zero there, so I'm not sure how you came up with:

 

Of course I multiplied a part by zero in the KE equation. That is the whole point, as the floor wasn't moving before it was hit.

 

Quote:
Probably not, because you haven't factored in the loss of momentum or upward normal force here.

 

Yes I have done both. You just don't understand it.

 

Quote:
Incorrect for the two reasons above.

 

Both of your reasons are wrong.

 

Quote:
Like Fidel suggests, even if we were to take all the above to be true, which the models we're using indicate that it isn't, this is kind of brushing over the most important factor in this equation. Where do you get "half" the total energy being lost? Is that a guess? Why at this point do you stop the mathematical proof?

 

I factored in 75% of the energy being used to overcome resistance for the same reason that Chandler factored in 36% being the normal force, because based on the time of the fall it is the only possibility using the laws of nature.

 

Quote:
Except that NIST confirms free fall,

 

I wasn't using NIST's numbers. I was using yours. NIST does say that the first exterior panels from the towers struck the ground in 9 and 11 seconds. So what? Those exterior panels were falling outside the structure of building and didn't need to overcome much resistance at all and would have fallen closer to freefall. Those external panels were also falling from about 310 and 370 meters which still means only about 7.0m/s/s . NIST also says that significant portions of the core of both tower stood significantly longer which certainly doesn't support a CD.

jas wrote:

Another interesting thing I note in this bizarro exercise of trying to make physical laws conform to a hypothesis that does not itself derive from physical laws, is that, in fact, it's not so simple and obvious, is it? Yet the deniers come clomping into these threads sneering and joking and trying to shout you down, saying how "insane" it is to question this half-baked story, but look at what lengths Trevor went to in an attempt to find some scientific validity in the notion that 70 or 90 floors of the WTC can disintegrate in under 15 seconds from the sheer force of gravity - and actually, still be wrong.

So your theory isn't so simple or obvious, is it? Yet several posters here seem to think that, even though they themselves can't explain physically how this can occur, no one else should be questioning it. This is irrational. Moreover, from people who fancy themselves arbiters of rationality.

 

Again, it is not my fault that you are either dishonest or stupid or both. Or that you can't do simple calculations or understand physical laws. And that all you can go is search for a site in which did the calculation differently and then claim that mine is wrong. You could get a physics textbook and start reading at page one and then you might have a clue.

 

Trevormkidd

Salsa wrote:
I can balance a concrete block on a styrofoam coffee cup, but what happens if I drop that exact same block from a height of two inches ? 

Controlled demolition using thermite?

jas

You're pulling figures out of thin air, Trevor. And if the equations you're using are even valid for that kind of calculation, you're using these figures pulled out of thin air, assigning a random value of "1,000" to each floor, saying that "it doesn't matter" what value you assign them, and then you use those values in your equations, arriving at some result which doesn't seem to follow from your equation, plus you're building your equation on a pancaking model which is incorrect.

prisonernumberone prisonernumberone's picture

In a discussion of facts the truth depends neither upon who is the most eloquent nor longwinded. It depends upon a truthful correlation between what happened and what is  described. Before a description can be put forward actual observation must take place. Fortunately in the case of 911 there exists many primary sources to observe. Moreover these primary sources have been commented upon by various persons with expertise in the various aspects upon which they comment.

Here is a primary source video (24 seconds) showing an aspect of 911 that, I believe, defies all "high school physics" and therefor requires that the observer questions what they "know" about the official 911 lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goGGQhhTcDY&feature=relatedcheers

bc

ps In the foreground is building 7 (47 stories high) therefor the dissolving steel spire of central columns of WTC 1 is around 70 (?) stories high.Surprised

jas

Yeah, Salsa. We're talking about concrete blocks on styrofoam cups. That, in fact, would explain your top-down collapse theory.  If the bottom 91 floors were made of styrofoam cup.

Eureka!

jas

From NIST:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Quote:

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.

But apparently we're still "lying".

 

jas

Trevor, this is the equation you use apparently to represent the block of 75 and 91 floors below the descending mass:

Trevor wrote:

(0.5)x(1000)x(0)

Now, I recognize you're operating on the theory that the mass only has to overcome one floor at a time, a theory which I think is flawed to begin with, but can you explain to us where upward normal force is represented in the above equation?

Trevormkidd

jas wrote:
You're pulling figures out of thin air, Trevor. And if the equations you're using are even valid for that kind of calculation, you're using these figures pulled out of thin air, assigning a random value of "1,000" to each floor, saying that "it doesn't matter" what value you assign them, and then you use those values in your equations, arriving at some result which doesn't seem to follow from your equation, plus you're building your equation on a pancaking model which is incorrect.

It doesn't matter what mass I use for each floor if each floor weighs the same amount.  I can also make each floor progressively heavier than the previous and it changes the time by only a fraction of a second  Again I wouldn't need to use to the exact masses of each floor, but only the ratio of increase in mass.  As for the pancake model, I didn't say that it was the explaination used by NIST to best explain the data.  NIST has to explain why large parts of the core of the towers stayed standing much longer.  I didn't have to explain that because I was answering your claim where you said that the building completely collapsed in 13 seconds.  Therefore I can use a simple pancake model. 

For some reason you seem to think that if a perfect answer can't be posted in a manner so simple that even you can understand it then it therefore supports your claim which is supported by no evidence.  That is not how it works for anything.  In climate change they start with a simple model and then they make it increasingly complex adding and removing methods.  If the simple model does not explain the data perfectly that does not mean that climate change is a hoax, especially when the evidence to support the opposing claim is complete nonsense.

I'm out of here.  It's the long weekend, the weather is nice, and if I wanted to debate people making delusional claims it would be far more productive to debate holocaust deniers.

Trevormkidd

jas wrote:
Now, I recognize you're operating on the theory that the mass only has to overcome one floor at a time, a theory which I think is flawed to begin with, but can you explain to us where upward normal force is represented in the above equation?

Normal force is not represented in the initial equation because it is a conservation equation.  That is what you start with.  The normal force was added in afterwards as part of the 75% of the energy that became resistance.    

jas

.

jas

So this,

(0.5)x(1000)x(0)

you claim, is representative of the mass of 91 and 75 floors respectively.

Have you done the math on this, Trevor? Do you know what it works out to? How convenient! Zero!

Styrofoam, indeed.

Pages

Topic locked