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

No, it's the sound of facepalm

Jas, you failed physics, right?

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

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.

[quote=Fidel]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

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, 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

 

 

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]

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?

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.

 

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.

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!

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?

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.    

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.