Science fail x4: supporters of NIST physics still relying on faith, foggy notions, over logic

115 posts / 0 new
Last post
remind remind's picture
Science fail x4: supporters of NIST physics still relying on faith, foggy notions, over logic
Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Yes, that's what the Bazant mathematical model is.

LOL. Is it a theory, or is it "more like" a theory? Where, when and by whom was it "tested"?

The editors of the peer reviewed journal it originally appeared in, the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS.

 

pants wrote:
The picture itself shows that you're wrong. We make fun because there are no other words for your silly theories.

Please explain how the photo shows that I am wrong.

jas wrote:
pants wrote:

I never suggested it would not fall into the impact zone. The "hinge" is on the other side of the building from where the jet impacted.

Your technique is to wear us out with utterly nonsensical statements that require numerous posts to clarify what you mean. The tilting block is not falling into the impact zone. It is falling away from it. The "hinge" you speak of is on the opposite side of the impact zone.

jas, you do realise that you just agreed with me, right? Look at the bolded statements.

 

 

http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1160059/Pants-dog-wrote-You

jas wrote:
......The upper block would fall into the impact zone, not away from it. ....

Now, can you tell me if you think the tilting block falls into the impact zone or away from it? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Now, can you tell me if you think the tilting block falls into the impact zone or away from it? You seem to be contradicting yourself.

That you don't understand what I have been saying here indicates that you are deliberately obscuring this point, perhpas because you've made a factual error yourself, or you have a cognitive impairment. I have explained where I think the tilting block should fall, vs. where it does fall, in all my previous posts on this point. I refer you to those posts immediately above.

jas

I will also transfer the post I made here:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Please note that I have provided mathematical evidence for its existence, as well as a clear explanation why it would be impossible to get pictorial evidence.

You don't seem to understand what evidence is.

A mathematical model that relies on a hypothesized existence of something is not evidence. If this were not true, I could say that we have "evidence" of alien UFOs because it's theoretically possible to manufacture a flying saucer.

You have not provided any evidence that these upper blocks existed after the collapse initiation. Therefore, the only correct conclusion we can come to is that the upper blocks are hypothesized.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

You don't seem to understand what evidence is.

A mathematical model that relies on a hypothesized existence of something is not evidence. If this were not true, I could say that we have "evidence" of alien UFOs because it's theoretically possible to manufacture a flying saucer.

You have not provided any evidence that these upper blocks existed after the collapse initiation. Therefore, the only correct conclusion we can come to is that the upper blocks are hypothesized.

Bazant wrote an article that showed mathematically how having an essentially rigid upper block was consistent with the laws of physics. After writing it, he showed it to other engineering professionals whose job iwas to find all the errors in the paper. This is called peer review, and is one way in which a hypothesis can be tested.

The paper passed the peer review process.

Now, how many peer reviewed papers do you have showing that the destruction of the upper block during the crush down phase was consistent with physics? None. that's how many.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

That you don't understand what I have been saying here indicates that you are deliberately obscuring this point, perhpas because you've made a factual error yourself, or you have a cognitive impairment. I have explained where I think the tilting block should fall, vs. where it does fall, in all my previous posts on this point. I refer you to those posts immediately above.

Here you seem to be saying that the upper block falls into the impact zone:

http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1160059/Pants-dog-wrote-You

jas wrote:
......The upper block would fall into the impact zone, not away from it. ....

 

Here you seem to be saying the opposite:

http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1160080/Pants-dog-wrote-No

jas wrote:
...The tilting block is not falling into the impact zone. It is falling away from it....

 

Now, it seems that you are saying that the upper block should fall into the impact zone, but in reality it did not.

Please provide evidence that this happened as you describe.

jas

Pants, peer review of a hypothesis doesn't verify the existence of the hypothesized upper blocks. It is not evidence.

Furthermore, I have never said there was destruction of the hypothesized upper blocks. I have to point out to you, again, you said that. Why are you denying your own argument?

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:
Pants, peer review of a hypothesis doesn't verify the existence of the hypothesized upper blocks. It is not evidence.

Peer reviewed scientific papers definitely count as evidence. I will again point out the utter lack of evidence for your claims.

jas wrote:
Furthermore, I have never said there was destruction of the hypothesized upper blocks. I have to point out to you, again, you said that. Why are you denying your own argument?

If you are not claiming that the upper blocks were destroyed in the collpase, then what are you claiming when you say the upper blocks were not there?

They could not have simply disappeared as this would violate one of the most fundamental plrinciples of physics: conservation of mass. They must have gone somewhere. Where?

By the way, I am arguing that while there was some destruction of the upper blocks during the crush down phase of collapse, the upper block stayed essentially rigid during this phase.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

If you are not claiming that the upper blocks were destroyed in the collpase, then what are you claiming when you say the upper blocks were not there?

I am saying that they are not visible and I doubt their existence.

Pants-of-dog wrote:

They could not have simply disappeared as this would violate one of the most fundamental plrinciples of physics: conservation of mass. They must have gone somewhere. Where?

You've talked about conservation of mass before. It is used to discuss closed systems.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Peer reviewed scientific papers definitely count as evidence.

What would Bazant's mathematical model be evidence of?

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:
I am saying that they are not visible and I doubt their existence.

But you do agree that the upper blocks existed at one point, right?

Like, the photo we were discussing earlier that showed the tilting upper block. You do agree that the upper block of storeys existed when that photo was taken, do you not?

 

jas wrote:
You've talked about conservation of mass before. It is used to discuss closed systems.

It can be used in discussions of closed systems and open systems. In a closed system, no mass leaves the system and all the mass that was there at the beginning of the phenomenon has to be there at the end. In an open system, mass can leave the system.

Are you saying that mass left the system, and if so, what do you mean by that?

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Peer reviewed scientific papers definitely count as evidence.

What would Bazant's mathematical model be evidence of?

Bazant's mathematical model is evidence for the claim that the upper block maintained sufficient rigidity to crush the lower block of storeys during the crush down phase of the gravity driven progressive collapse of the WTC towers.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

jas wrote:

What would Bazant's mathematical model be evidence of?

Bazant's mathematical model is evidence for the claim that the upper block maintained sufficient rigidity to crush the lower block of storeys during the crush down phase of the gravity driven progressive collapse of the WTC towers.

No, it is not. Bazant's model is evidence that the collapse progression hypothesized is mathematically calculable. It is not evidence of the existence of the upper blocks through the collapse progression. I sincerely hope you are not employed in justice, law enforcement or science.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:
No, it is not. Bazant's model is evidence that the collapse progression hypothesized is mathematically calculable. It is not evidence of the existence of the upper blocks through the collapse progression. I sincerely hope you are not employed in justice, law enforcement or science.

Bazant's mathematical model is mathematically calculable, internally consistent, logical, and makes verifiable claims that agree with the empirical data, and has been verified as so by third parties. To me, that indicates strong support for his theory, and thus counts as evidence in our debate. Your proverbial mileage may vary.

I will point out, once again, that you have yet to provide any evidence for your claims concerning the disappearance or destruction of the upper block of storeys during collapse.

 

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Fidel wrote:
You mean this one?:

Pants-of-dog wrote:
"The upper block declerates during the impact with the lower block."...

If you didn't mean to use the word 'deceleration', and Bazant doesn't use it in favour of the empiricist words "fall through the height of at least two floors", then why did you carefully type the letters d-e-c-e-l-e-r-a-t-i-o-n with your little fingers above? Do you always contradict the people you nod up and down in rapid agreement with?

The upper block falls through a height (of two floors, according to Bazant) and then impacts the lower block of floors. During that impact, it decelerates. This has nothing to do with its acceleration at other times, such as during the fall preceding, which Bazant is describing.

Is that clear? Bazant is describing the fall before impact. I am discussing the deceleration during impact.

Well I can see now that you're just having trouble with Bazant's English on the matter. No Bazant is describing acceleration immediately after collapse inititation. Remember, non-truthers tend to avoid discussing collapse initiation because their arguments are so weak concerning what actually caused collapse in the first place. Collapse initiation is the event that triggered everything else that happened after that event.

And if you are discussing deceleration during initial impact of sections C and A(Bazant's terms), then, and once again, you are in direct contradiction to what Bazant and Greening have said. Dare I ask what part of your own argument still confuses you?

Pants-of-dog wrote:
This is the second time we have visited this discussion on normal force. Please quote the relevant text from this PDF showing where Greening erred with his units

Frank Greening wrote:
"We no longer have two distinct masses, M(upper) and M(lower). We have M(upper) =M(Initial upper) + dM/dt, and we have M(lower) = M(Initial lower) - dM/dt. And this is strictly true only in the absence of mass shedding.

Wherever Greening adds or subtracts units of different terms he is violating basic laws of arithmetic. What's the result when you add or subtract units of mass and dM/dt(time rate of change of mass)? The equation above might make sense for unscientific non-truthers like yourself but not for those of us who've studied and passed high school math. Then again, you have no issue with Garcia's dt=0.01s, so it doesn't surprise me.

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Feel free to start another thread about this topic, and I will be more than happy to reply in that thread.

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13189]Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say[/url]

 

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Bazant's mathematical model is mathematically calculable, internally consistent, logical, and makes verifiable claims that agree with the empirical data, and has been verified as so by third parties. To me, that indicates strong support for his theory, and thus counts as evidence in our debate. Your proverbial mileage may vary.

Counts as evidence toward what? If you were in a court of law and were asked to provide evidence of the existence of the upper blocks, would you say, "here, your Honour, this mathematical theory works really well with the hypothetical upper blocks! And because they are so crucial to my mathematical model, they must exist!"

Pants-of-dog wrote:

I will point out, once again, that you have yet to provide any evidence for your claims concerning the disappearance or destruction of the upper block of storeys during collapse.

The only claim I'm making about them right now is that they are not visible in their role as piledrivers. To support this claim, I refer you to all the photographic evidence of the towers during collapse: no upper blocks are visible after the first two or three seconds. Therefore, they are merely hypothetical until proven otherwise and demonstrate yet another leap of faith required by your theory.

Fidel

And his physics makes no sense either. Unfuckingbelievable!

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Counts as evidence toward what? If you were in a court of law and were asked to provide evidence of the existence of the upper blocks, would you say, "here, your Honour, this mathematical theory works really well with the hypothetical upper blocks! And because they are so crucial to my mathematical model, they must exist!"

The standards of evidence in law and science are not the same. But if we did have to go to court over this, I believe it would look pretty good compared to your lack of evidence.

I would also show them that photo of the upper blocks and point out that large sections of falling buildings don't simply disappear before they hit the ground.

jas wrote:
The only claim I'm making about them right now is that they are not visible in their role as piledrivers. To support this claim, I refer you to all the photographic evidence of the towers during collapse: no upper blocks are visible after the first two or three seconds. Therefore, they are merely hypothetical until proven otherwise and demonstrate yet another leap of faith required by your theory.

Have you ever seen an electron? No, neither have I. Therefore, electricity is only hypothetical. We can't really say it exists. What about the back of your head? You have never seen that. it is probably also hypothetical. Such faith you have about the integrity of your skull. And since we have never seen early hominids, homo sapiens are also entirely hypothetical.

You know what else I have never seen and is entirely hypothetical? Evidence that the upper blocks did not collapse onto the lower blocks.

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:
Well I can see now that you're just having trouble with Bazant's English on the matter. No Bazant is describing acceleration immediately after collapse inititation.

Yes. The collpase initiates, then the upper block accelerates for a short while until it impacts with the block of lower floors. When it impacts these lower floors, it undergoes some deceleration.

Fidel wrote:
Remember, non-truthers tend to avoid discussing collapse initiation because their arguments are so weak concerning what actually caused collapse in the first place. Collapse initiation is the event that triggered everything else that happened after that event.

Your arguments would be stronger if you showed how weak my arguments are, instrad of simply claiming that they are.

Fidel wrote:
And if you are discussing deceleration during initial impact of sections C and A(Bazant's terms), then, and once again, you are in direct contradiction to what Bazant and Greening have said. Dare I ask what part of your own argument still confuses you?

I do not believe that there is any contradiction. Please quote the relevant text from either of those authors that contradicts my assertion.

Fidel wrote:

Frank Greening wrote:
"We no longer have two distinct masses, M(upper) and M(lower). We have M(upper) =M(Initial upper) + dM/dt, and we have M(lower) = M(Initial lower) - dM/dt. And this is strictly true only in the absence of mass shedding.

Wherever Greening adds or subtracts units of different terms he is violating basic laws of arithmetic. What's the result when you add or subtract units of mass and dM/dt(time rate of change of mass)? The equation above might make sense for unscientific non-truthers like yourself but not for those of us who've studied and passed high school math. Then again, you have no issue with Garcia's dt=0.01s, so it doesn't surprise me.

This is the equivalent of a grammar error. Chandler only points this out because it is easier to challenge Greening's mathematical grammar than his physics.

jas

I am wondering if we can get back to this math, when it's convenient for you:

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Let us focus on one, WTC1, which is the smaller of the two upper blocks, and consequently the one with the least amount of kinetic energy. What this means is that if the WTC1 upper block had enough kinetic energy to overcome the resistance of the lower floors, the upper block of WTC2 which had more kinetic energy, would aslo have had enough kinetic energy to overcome the resistance of the lower floors.

So, right before it hit the lower block, KE (wtc1) = 14 x 1.67 x 10 to the 8 J = 23.4 x 10 to the 8 J

and the velocity was 8.5 m/s.

Can you tell us what the numbers represent?

"14" refers to the number of floors? Actually I thought it was 12, but I'm sure it doesn't make much difference.

1.67 refers to ...?

10 to the 8 J?

Would appreciate.

Then you go on to say

Quote:

So, we will subtract that energy from the kinetic energy, as it has been expended.

23.4-6.29=17.1

So, we have 17.1 x 10 to the 8 J. for the left over kinetic energy at the time of impact.

Now the new mass is equal to the upper block of storeys plus the floor just impacted.

m for one floor = (510,000,000 / 110) kg, so the new mass is 15 times that amount (the 14 upper storeys plus the newly added single lower floor).

m=15*510,000,000/110=69,545,454kg

What new mass are you referring to here? I hope you're not describing pancaking again. There is no added mass as the floor has just been pulverized, according to your theory. Remember?

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

The standards of evidence in law and science are not the same. But if we did have to go to court over this, I believe it would look pretty good compared to your lack of evidence.

I would hope, actually, that they are more stringent in science. Not here, apparently.

Pants-of-dog wrote:

I would also show them that photo of the upper blocks and point out that large sections of falling buildings don't simply disappear before they hit the ground.

But they didn't hit the ground - did they??

pants wrote:
Have you ever seen an electron? No, neither have I. Therefore, electricity is only hypothetical. We can't really say it exists. What about the back of your head? You have never seen that. it is probably also hypothetical. Such faith you have about the integrity of your skull. And since we have never seen early hominids, homo sapiens are also entirely hypothetical.

This is just anecdotal, but I have it on pretty good authority that the back of my head exists.

pants wrote:
You know what else I have never seen and is entirely hypothetical? Evidence that the upper blocks did not collapse onto the lower blocks.

I agree. I would like to see the evidence that the upper blocks did not collapse onto the lower blocks. I would also like to see the evidence that they did.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

I am wondering if we can get back to this math, when it's convenient for you:

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Let us focus on one, WTC1, which is the smaller of the two upper blocks, and consequently the one with the least amount of kinetic energy. What this means is that if the WTC1 upper block had enough kinetic energy to overcome the resistance of the lower floors, the upper block of WTC2 which had more kinetic energy, would aslo have had enough kinetic energy to overcome the resistance of the lower floors.

So, right before it hit the lower block, KE (wtc1) = 14 x 1.67 x 10 to the 8 J = 23.4 x 10 to the 8 J

and the velocity was 8.5 m/s.

Can you tell us what the numbers represent?

"14" refers to the number of floors? Actually I thought it was 12, but I'm sure it doesn't make much difference.

1.67 refers to ...?

10 to the 8 J?

Would appreciate.

Then you go on to say

Quote:

So, we will subtract that energy from the kinetic energy, as it has been expended.

23.4-6.29=17.1

So, we have 17.1 x 10 to the 8 J. for the left over kinetic energy at the time of impact.

Now the new mass is equal to the upper block of storeys plus the floor just impacted.

m for one floor = (510,000,000 / 110) kg, so the new mass is 15 times that amount (the 14 upper storeys plus the newly added single lower floor).

m=15*510,000,000/110=69,545,454kg

What new mass are you referring to here? I hope you're not describing pancaking again. There is no added mass as the floor has just been pulverized, according to your theory. Remember?

14 refers to the number of floors, yes.

1.67 x 10 to the 8 J means 16,700,000,000 Joules of energy.

The "x10 to the 8" part means we take the first number (in this case 1.67) and multiply it by 10 to the 8th power. 10 to the 8th power is equal to 10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10 (there are eight 10s there). So, we are talking about a number that is equal to 1.67 x 10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10, or 16,700,000,000. This is called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation]scientific notation[/url].

The J stands for Joules, which is a unit of energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule

While the mass of the impacted floor has been demolished and therefore is not a rigid structure, it is added to the bottom of the upper block as a pile of rubble. In this way, it adds to the falling mass as well as cushions the initial block of upper storeys from the impacts on the way down.

Fidel

Bazant's theory is shoddy. He wants us to believe things that photographic evidence betrays. His wild conspiracy theory is a mass of contradictions. Bazant is crazy George II's and NIST's fool.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

14 refers to the number of floors, yes.

1.67 x 10 to the 8 J means 16,700,000,000 Joules of energy.

The "x10 to the 8" part means we take the first number (in this case 1.67) and multiply it by 10 to the 8th power. 10 to the 8th power is equal to 10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10 (there are eight 10s there). So, we are talking about a number that is equal to 1.67 x 10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10, or 16,700,000,000. This is called [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation]scientific notation[/url].

I guess I'm asking on what formula this equation is based, and from where are you getting the values that you are plugging in. So, the 1.67 refers to what, and why do we multiply it by 10 to the 8 ? Thanks.

pants wrote:
While the mass of the impacted floor has been demolished and therefore is not a rigid structure, it is added to the bottom of the upper block as a pile of rubble. In this way, it adds to the falling mass as well as cushions the initial block of upper storeys from the impacts on the way down.

If the rubble is the crushed material between the two floors, with no space in between, why is it added to the top block? I would probably add it to the lower block, especially as it cushions the lower block from further acute impact.

The other fact we need to maintain in this is that very little actual rubble was created by the collapse compared to the pulverized material, i.e., the dust, that was ejected during the collapse. This is evidenced by the dust and debris clouds produced, as shown in the photo you provided in the previous thread (and that, we are assuming is at collapse initiation), as well as the disproportionately small volume of rubble at Ground Zero, and the unprecedented (for natural building collapses) volume of dust that was dispersed and settled over lower Manhattan for hours and days afterwards. The other evidence for pulverization is the hundreds of human bone fragments that were found on neighbouring buildings measuring less than an inch.

jas

jas wrote:

The other evidence for pulverization is the hundreds of human bone fragments that were found on neighbouring buildings measuring less than an inch.

Oops. Not to make light of this horror, but just to clarify:

the hundreds of human bone fragments, measuring less than an inch, that were found on neighbouring buildings.

jas

Oh, Fidel, I can see you were having the exact same discussion with pants in the earlier thread.

Just wanted to add my lol to this:

Fidel wrote:
quantum non-locality theory for spooky fire action

Kaspar Hauser

Is it possible to change the title of these threads? I think by now it's clear which side of the debate privileges "foggy notions" and "faith" over "logic", and it certainly isn't Pants-of-Dog's.

Fidel

I like Jas' thread title. It's even better than NIST and Bazant versus Isaac Newton. Bizarko Bizant and Green Franks are a great comedy team.  A real laugh-riot for sure.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:
I guess I'm asking on what formula this equation is based, and from where are you getting the values that you are plugging in. So, the 1.67 refers to what, and why do we multiply it by 10 to the 8 ? Thanks.

It's not a formula or an equation. It's a way of writing large numbers. Rather than writing 1,670,000,000 Joules every time, we write 1.67 x 10 to the 8 J.

 

jas wrote:
If the rubble is the crushed material between the two floors, with no space in between, why is it added to the top block? I would probably add it to the lower block, especially as it cushions the lower block from further acute impact.

Because it falls onto the lower block at the same time as the upper block falls onto the lower block.

 

jas wrote:
The other fact we need to maintain in this is that very little actual rubble was created by the collapse compared to the pulverized material, i.e., the dust, that was ejected during the collapse. This is evidenced by the dust and debris clouds produced, as shown in the photo you provided in the previous thread (and that, we are assuming is at collapse initiation), as well as the disproportionately small volume of rubble at Ground Zero, and the unprecedented (for natural building collapses) volume of dust that was dispersed and settled over lower Manhattan for hours and days afterwards. The other evidence for pulverization is the hundreds of human bone fragments that were found on neighbouring buildings measuring less than an inch.

After doing the energy calculations, both Greening and Bazant show that there is more than enough kinetic energy released by the fall of the towers to account for concrete pulverisation, as well as softer materials such as gypsum and human bodies.

Pants-of-dog

Michael Nenonen wrote:

Is it possible to change the title of these threads? I think by now it's clear which side of the debate privileges "foggy notions" and "faith" over "logic", and it certainly isn't Pants-of-Dog's.

Thank you.

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:
jas wrote:
I guess I'm asking on what formula this equation is based, and from where are you getting the values that you are plugging in. So, the 1.67 refers to what, and why do we multiply it by 10 to the 8 ? Thanks.

It's not a formula or an equation. It's a way of writing large numbers. Rather than writing 1,670,000,000 Joules every time, we write 1.67 x 10 to the 8

What do you mean "we" non-truther? I think you meant to type 10 to the exponent 9, but we really can't be sure considering the unscientific nonsense you've tortured us with through several threads.

Kaspar Hauser

Fidel wrote:

What do you mean "we" non-truther? I think you meant to type 10 to the exponent 9, but we really can't be sure considering the unscientific nonsense you've tortured us with through several threads.

 

http://www.karlwolfe.com/psychological-projection.htm

 

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:
jas wrote:
I guess I'm asking on what formula this equation is based, and from where are you getting the values that you are plugging in. So, the 1.67 refers to what, and why do we multiply it by 10 to the 8 ? Thanks.

It's not a formula or an equation. It's a way of writing large numbers. Rather than writing 1,670,000,000 Joules every time, we write 1.67 x 10 to the 8

What do you mean "we" non-truther? I think you meant to type 10 to the exponent 9, but we really can't be sure considering the unscientific nonsense you've tortured us with through several threads.

Yes, you are correct Fidel. It should be 167,000,000.

This is another reason why we (as in scientists, engineers and tradespeople used to working in scientific notation) use scientific notation. It beats counting all the zeros and inevitably getting one wrong somewhere.

Fidel

Well I'll cut you some slack. I admit to having worked at a job for a few years where a major cell phone company paid me to scream at their guys when their protocol frames were out of whack by a single byte and even by a single bit sometimes in communications protocol frames a kilometre and a half long when printed out. It was all in hex code, and so I was basically a babbling idiot by vacation time. I was hoarse by the end of the day and fingers blistered from replying to the usual frenzy of their emails expressing disbelief. I was right more often than not.  I prolly should have had professional help after too many months in the shit.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

jas wrote:
I guess I'm asking on what formula this equation is based, and from where are you getting the values that you are plugging in. So, the 1.67 refers to what, and why do we multiply it by 10 to the 8 ? Thanks.

It's not a formula or an equation. It's a way of writing large numbers. Rather than writing 1,670,000,000 Joules every time, we write 1.67 x 10 to the 8

You don't seem to understand what I'm asking. I understand exponents. What does the number 1.67 refer to? Why are you using that number, and according to what formula are you then multiplying it by 10 to the power of 8? Thank you.

 

Fidel

Michael Nenonen wrote:

http://www.karlwolfe.com/psychological-projection.htm

"Classic racism is an example of psychological projection; "It's all their fault that I feel they way that I do," says the racist. I am a victim of another persons thoughts or actions.

So now I'm a racist for refusing to believe an official conspiracy theory? That's a new one on me. I'm sure the German people thought that the Gleiwitz incident was real, too, and therefore justifying the invasion of Poland at the time. And there are still a fair number of Yanks and Canadians who still believe the Gulf of Tonkin lies used by the US Military as a foot in the door bullshit excuse to march into VietNam uninvited and resulting in the organized murder of millions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

Fascists used to say that murdering a thousand was easier than murdering one-million. Today it's the other way round. And I can almost see why it's true.

jas

By the way, here's another article which explains the improbability/impossibility of gravity overcoming the normal resistance of the larger intact block of floors.

Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Stories of the WTC

Quote:

Previous analysis of the momentum transfer in the collapse of the towers has viewed them as being floors suspended in space and have examined the momentum transfer as a series of elastic or inelastic collisions, which are independent of each other. This type of analysis takes the momentum transfer out of the context given by the other effects of the collisions. This is because this type of analysis assumes that the impacts have an effect upon only the topmost storey of the impacted section. The reality of the situation is that the impacts would have an effect upon several storeys in the lower section and for a valid analysis all of these momentum transfers must be included.

....

The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from Journal of 9/11 Studies 37 June 2006/Volume 1 the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the collision. The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02 seconds after impact.

A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point. The analysis shows that the energies expended during the time period of the plastic shortening of the first storey height of the vertical columns is sufficient to exhaust the
energy of the falling section and thereby arrest collapse.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

jas wrote:
If the rubble is the crushed material between the two floors, with no space in between, why is it added to the top block? I would probably add it to the lower block, especially as it cushions the lower block from further acute impact.

Because it falls onto the lower block at the same time as the upper block falls onto the lower block.

Why do I feel like I'm arguing with a third-grader?

Why does this alleged rubble "fall? Is it not the  result of the crushing action of the above floor? Where is it "falling" from?

pants wrote:
After doing the energy calculations, both Greening and Bazant show that there is more than enough kinetic energy released by the fall of the towers to account for concrete pulverisation, as well as softer materials such as gypsum and human bodies.

The analyses we've posted show that this is not the case.

Also, to suggest that human bones in soft bodies comprised of mostly liquid would shatter into hundreds of fragments less than an inch long and disperse from crushing action is, again, idiotic. Can you give us an example where this might have occurred elsewwhere, outside of an explosive event?

jas

Michael Nenonen wrote:

Is it possible to change the title of these threads? I think by now it's clear which side of the debate privileges "foggy notions" and "faith" over "logic", and it certainly isn't Pants-of-Dog's.

Really Michael? I haven't seen you taking part in this discussion. If you can explain to us clearly in what ways pants' argument, or NIST's argument, does not require several leaps of faith and a foggy notion of how buildings collapse, what gravity can and cannot do, how a tilting block behaves under gravitational pull, what evidence is, what fire does and does not do to a building, what resistance is, what conservation of mass is, even, then please enlighten us. So far it has been a torturous and tortuous path to understanding in this "debate" with pants.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:
You don't seem to understand what I'm asking. I understand exponents. What does the number 1.67 refer to? Why are you using that number, and according to what formula are you then multiplying it by 10 to the power of 8? Thank you.

Here is where I explain this particular number the first time;

http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1156932/Here-summary

What we are doing is calculating the amount of kinetic energy that one floor of the WTC towers would have if it fell one storey.

 

To do this, we use the equation for kinetic energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/4/1/4/4140f53f66a68e92afec2389ba289e25....

So, when we apply the above equation to our situation, we use the mass of one floor and the velocity that this floor would have after dropping from rest (v=0) for a distance of 3.7m.

 

Now, the mass of one tower is 510,000,000 kg. I got this number from Greening's report, but it is easily verifiable from many other sources. If we divide this mass by the number of stories (110), we should get the mass for one floor. For now we are simply going to write the mass as 510,000,000/110.

 

The velocity can be calculated as I did here:

http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1159712/jas-wrote-You-have-never

Now, to determine the velocity of an object falling from rest in free fall, we use this equation:

g=9.8 meters per second squared

d=3.7m

v = sqrt 2(9.8)(3.7)

v = 8.5m/s

 

So, now we know m and v. Let's plug these numbers into our equation so that we can calculate the kinetic energy:

 

For one WTC floor collapsing onto a floor below, the kinetic energy immediately
before impact is
Ti = ½{510,000,000/110} x (8.5) to the power of 2 Joules
Ti = 1.67 x 10 to the 8 J

 

Is that clear?

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

By the way, here's another article which explains the improbability/impossibility of gravity overcoming the normal resistance of the larger intact block of floors.

Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Stories of the WTC

Quote:

Previous analysis of the momentum transfer in the collapse of the towers has viewed them as being floors suspended in space and have examined the momentum transfer as a series of elastic or inelastic collisions, which are independent of each other. This type of analysis takes the momentum transfer out of the context given by the other effects of the collisions. This is because this type of analysis assumes that the impacts have an effect upon only the topmost storey of the impacted section. The reality of the situation is that the impacts would have an effect upon several storeys in the lower section and for a valid analysis all of these momentum transfers must be included.

....

The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from Journal of 9/11 Studies 37 June 2006/Volume 1 the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the collision. The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02 seconds after impact.

A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point. The analysis shows that the energies expended during the time period of the plastic shortening of the first storey height of the vertical columns is sufficient to exhaust the
energy of the falling section and thereby arrest collapse.

Ross is making the incorrect assumption tha the stresses imparted to the structure on impact would transfer themselves effectively through the structure without significantly weakening the structure. This is incorrect because the upper block of storeys did not land squarely on the lower structure, but instead landed at an angle due to tilting. This meant that the weight of the upper block landed on parts of the lower structure that were never designed to transmit such a heavy load to the lower floors. These elements would have failed before passing the stresses onto the rest of the structure.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:
Why do I feel like I'm arguing with a third-grader?

Why does this alleged rubble "fall? Is it not the  result of the crushing action of the above floor? Where is it "falling" from?

The rubble falls because it is no longer being held up by anything. The upper block of storeys impacts the lower floor, demolishing it. Then the upper block of storeys and the rubble that used to be the floor above fall on the next lower floor at the same time.

jas wrote:
The analyses we've posted show that this is not the case.

No. You have not posted any analyses that show that Bazant and Greening's calculations concerning concrete pulverisation are incorrect.

jas wrote:
Also, to suggest that human bones in soft bodies comprised of mostly liquid would shatter into hundreds of fragments less than an inch long and disperse from crushing action is, again, idiotic. Can you give us an example where this might have occurred elsewwhere, outside of an explosive event?

jas, may I suggest that instead of simply dismissing counter arguments as "idiotic" or anything else, you actually make an effort to show how they are incorrect. If you wish to claim that human bodies would not react this way, I suggest you do two things: first, you provide evidence that there were actually human remains found as you described. Then, after that, find some sort of evidence that shows that such a dispersal of remains is inconsistent with the model that I have been defending.

I am not about to go on time consuming chases looking for evidence that disproves each of your claims. You have the burden of finding your own evidence for your claims.

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Ross is making the incorrect assumption tha the stresses imparted to the structure on impact would transfer themselves effectively through the structure without significantly weakening the structure. This is incorrect because the upper block of storeys did not land squarely on the lower structure, but instead landed at an angle due to tilting. This meant that the weight of the upper block landed on parts of the lower structure that were never designed to transmit such a heavy load to the lower floors. These elements would have failed before passing the stresses onto the rest of the structure.

Tony Szamboti(Mechanical Engineer with 20+ years experience) has looked at frame by frame analysis of the WTC1 collapse and says no tilting was observed until sometime into the descent and after initial impact. The corners of tower and roofline were square with the lower block on impact, and it's evident from the symetry of the dust clouds ejected laterally during and after impact.

And the problem Szamboti has with collapse initiation is that it was as if the structural strength of 85-90% of the support columns of the top floor of section A(Bazant) was removed mysteriously. Szamoboti says that there should have been tremendous energy absorbed in crushing those columns and leading to a significant loss of velocity of descending upper block C. Another problem for NIST and Bazant is that there was no prior damage to the lower block - the plane impacted at a level above collapse initiation. How can more than 900 engineers be 100% wrong and a handful of government guys be correct beyond a doubt? Szamboti and even some of his opponents have suggested that a proper investigation needs to be carried out whether it was inside job or not.

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

 

Tony Szamboti(Mechanical Engineer with 20+ years experience) has looked at frame by frame analysis of the WTC1 collapse and says no tilting was observed until sometime into the descent and after initial impact. The corners of tower and roofline were square with the lower block on impact, and it's evident from the symetry of the dust clouds ejected laterally during and after impact.

And the problem Szamboti has with collapse initiation is that it was as if the structural strength of 85-90% of the support columns of the top floor of section A(Bazant) was removed mysteriously. Szamoboti says that there should have been tremendous energy absorbed in crushing those columns and leading to a significant loss of velocity of descending upper block C. Another problem for NIST and Bazant is that there was no prior damage to the lower block - the plane impacted at a level above collapse initiation. How can more than 900 engineers be 100% wrong and a handful of government guys be correct beyond a doubt? Szamboti and even some of his opponents have suggested that a proper investigation needs to be carried out whether it was inside job or not.

Please provide the evidence for Szamboti's claims, including a link to his calculations and a quote of the relevant text.

Fidel

In this essay, [url=http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/SzambotiSustainabilityo...(pdf)[/url] destroys NIST's conlcusions about fire weakening steel as their own evidence says temperatures were not hot enough to do what their own computer model says occurred. Szamboti has also debated non-truthers on a number of talk and radio shows.

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

In this essay, [url=http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/SzambotiSustainabilityo...(pdf)[/url] destroys NIST's conlcusions about fire weakening steel as their own evidence says temperatures were not hot enough to do what their own computer model says occurred. Szamboti has also debated non-truthers on a number of talk and radio shows.

Please quote the relevant text.

Fidel

Well there's quite a lot there in that pdf describing strength of the steel columns in technical terms, the Johnson Parabola equation used in engineering to determine the critical
buckling stress for inelastic buckling and so on. There's a lot to chew on really.

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

Well there's quite a lot there in that pdf describing strength of the steel columns in technical terms, the Johnson Parabola equation used in engineering to determine the critical
buckling stress for inelastic buckling and so on. There's a lot to chew on really.

Then summarise the argument into a few concise sentences, and add quotes from the text that support and clarify your summary.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Ross is making the incorrect assumption tha the stresses imparted to the structure on impact would transfer themselves effectively through the structure without significantly weakening the structure. This is incorrect because the upper block of storeys did not land squarely on the lower structure, but instead landed at an angle due to tilting. This meant that the weight of the upper block landed on parts of the lower structure that were never designed to transmit such a heavy load to the lower floors. These elements would have failed before passing the stresses onto the rest of the structure.

What are Bazant's calculations for the transfer of momentum through the floors, pants?

I don't think it's correct or valid to say that "the floors would have failed before transferring the stresses onto the rest of the structure." The stress would have been transferred immediately upon impact.

Also, according to Kevin Ryan, as linked to in the last thread,

Quote:
NIST... estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads.

So apparently you disagree with NIST again.

Also, you are still talking about the tilting block applying stress to one side of the floor it impacts (in your words, the "hinge" side) creating collapse on that side. Simple physics would tell us that then the block would topple over in the direction it is applying pressure as the "hinge" then breaks and the lower floor breaks below, failing to support it.

I asked in the other thread and I don't believe you've yet answered: why does the tilting block not fall in the direction it is tilting if it is destroying the structure beneath it?

jas

Thank you for providing the explanation of the equations and formula. I will need to spend some time looking at it.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

The rubble falls because it is no longer being held up by anything. The upper block of storeys impacts the lower floor, demolishing it. Then the upper block of storeys and the rubble that used to be the floor above fall on the next lower floor at the same time.

Just wanted to highlight the kind of arguments you put forward in the name of physics. At times you give the impression you understand what you're posting, and then there are the statements like this.

Pants, what "space" are you describing through which this rubble and the upper floor fall? You just said it demolishes the floor below. Therefore it is now meeting the next floor. You seem to be imagining some kind of drop from a height for each floor.

pants wrote:

No. You have not posted any analyses that show that Bazant and Greening's calculations concerning concrete pulverisation are incorrect.

And, on the other hand, the only analyses you've been posting are from Greening and Bazant, who have already been debunked, as far as I'm concerned.

pants wrote:

jas, may I suggest that instead of simply dismissing counter arguments as "idiotic" or anything else, you actually make an effort to show how they are incorrect. If you wish to claim that human bodies would not react this way, I suggest you do two things: first, you provide evidence that there were actually human remains found as you described. Then, after that, find some sort of evidence that shows that such a dispersal of remains is inconsistent with the model that I have been defending.

I am not about to go on time consuming chases looking for evidence that disproves each of your claims. You have the burden of finding your own evidence for your claims.

The news story was linked to in the "Can a car drive through..." thread. As I've stated before, I'm not going to be chasing after links just because you've come late to the conversation and can't be bothered to catch up or google a simple fact.

The question I asked was: "Can you give us an example where this might have occurred elsewhere, outside of an explosive event?" If you are making a claim that the crushing floors would easily explain the dispersal of hundreds of tiny fragments of human bone onto neighbouring buildings, I would expect you to provide an example of where else this has occurred, or at least some kind of analogy. Otherwise, I can only dismiss your comment as yet more uninformed conjecture.

Pages

Topic locked