Science still failing: NIST physics tells us resistance is only mental?

114 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2010-06-24 07:13

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Their argument isn't with you or me. Greening's and Bazant's argument is with Isaac Newton.

I have shown how Newton's laws are respected by the Baznt model if we look at things in terms of conservation of momentum rather than Newton's third law. Since Newton's third law is derived from the principle of the conversation of momentum, we effectively show that the 3rd law is respected as long as momentum is conserved. We have seen that Bazant and Greening's work does deal with conservation of momentum (remember our discussion of concrete pulverisation?).

Therefore, there is no conflict between Bazant's work and Newton's work.

Well no because Newton's laws state that the energy required to deform and break through the first floors, and the conservation of momentum in the acceleration of the upper floor of the lower block due to the descending upper, would cause a significant reduction in the negative velocity of the upper block. In fact what happened was that the upper block never decelerated through the collapse. The upper block continued to accelerate until reaching constant velocity.

Bazant and Greening are trying to pull the wool over your eyes. And it appears they've succeeded.

Thu, 2010-06-24 11:10

#53

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

Well no because Newton's laws state that the energy required to deform and break through the first floors, and the conservation of momentum in the acceleration of the upper floor of the lower block due to the descending upper, would cause a significant reduction in the negative velocity of the upper block. In fact what happened was that the upper block never decelerated through the collapse. The upper block continued to accelerate until reaching constant velocity.

Bazant and Greening are trying to pull the wool over your eyes. And it appears they've succeeded.

Newton's law and the conservation of momentum dictate that there will be a reduction in the downward acceleration of the upper block due to the impact with the lower storeys. Whether or not there will be a significant reduction in velocity or acceleration depends on the exact situation.

Now, by simply looking at photos of the collapse, we see columns and other debris falling faster than the upper blocks. If we assume that the columns and other debris were falling at free fall velocities, then the upper block of storeys was falling slower than free fall, i.e. there was a reduction in the downward velocity and acceleration of the upper block of storeys.

Thu, 2010-06-24 11:44

#54

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:
If we assume that the columns and other debris were falling at free fall velocities, then the upper block of storeys was falling slower than free fall, i.e. there was a reduction in the downward velocity and acceleration of the upper block of storeys.

So what were the elapsed times for WTC 1&2 to collapse if there was deceleration as you claim?

Because [url=http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm]NIST[/url] stated that:

Quote:
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 [color=red]essentially in free fall[/color], as seen in videos

Bazant is supposed to be a designated mouthpiece for the official conspiracy theory. So why, then, do his lies not jive with NIST's official conspiracy theory?

Thu, 2010-06-24 12:01

#55

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

So what were the elapsed times for WTC 1&2 to collapse if there was deceleration as you claim?

Considering thenumber of times I have responded to this question from you and jas, I should simply bookmark my post where I answered it. This would make it easier to repeat my answer in the future.

Here is the link to my previous post: http://rabble.ca/comment/1149239/jas-wrote-And-then-whatever

Here is what I said:

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf (see page 5/32)

WTC 1

tc = (11.6 + 1.0) sec = 12.6 sec

WTC 2

tc = (9.7 + 1.8) sec = 11.5 sec

Fidel wrote:

Because [url=http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm]NIST[/url] stated that:

Quote:
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 [color=red]essentially in free fall[/color], as seen in videos

Bazant is supposed to be a designated mouthpiece for the official conspiracy theory. So why, then, do his lies not jive with NIST's official conspiracy theory?

I already responded to this exact statement here:

http://rabble.ca/comment/1150066/jas-wrote-Pants-all-video

I will repeat my response from that post:

"...you have a link to this webpage:

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

That webpage quotes from this report:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201.pdf (the text can be found on page 196/298, or page 146 of the report.

Please note that the report does not give any specifc times or calculations. Therefore it is impossible to make any quantitative comparison between actual collapse times and theoretical free fall collapse times.

I hope that clarifies everything."

Thu, 2010-06-24 12:54

#56

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Fidel wrote:

So what were the elapsed times for WTC 1&2 to collapse if there was deceleration as you claim?

WTC 1

tc = (11.6 + 1.0) sec = 12.6 sec

WTC 2

tc = (9.7 + 1.8) sec = 11.5 sec

NIST wrote:
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately [color=red]11 seconds[/color] for WTC 1 and approximately [color=red]9 seconds[/color] for WTC 2 ...

"...the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." ...

"In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) [color=red]was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass."[/color]

[url=http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm](NIST)[/url]

Pants-of-dog wrote:
I hope that clarifies everything.

It sure does. I think what's needed is to have Bazant and NIST officials to get together so they can hash out which of their lies don't corroborate the other's. As Bill Christison says below, 9/11 is now a matter for the World Court.

io911Truth.com wrote:
"Powerful forces both in the United States and in some allied nations undoubtedly want a clash of civilizations with Islam. Some of these forces may have acted secretly before and during 9/11 -- and may still be working -- to create situations real or false to bring more warfare to the world while the United States retains its overwhelming global military superiority. After considerable study, I am quite certain that significant parts of the “official 9/11 story” put out by the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission are false. It seems very possible to me that some unnamed persons or groups with ties to the U.S. government succeeded in creating a “Pearl Harbor” event to gain public support for the aggressive foreign policies that followed -- policies intended to “transform” the entire Middle East, strengthen the already close U.S. - Israeli partnership, and broaden the power of the American global empire. This is why we need an entirely new investigation, one perhaps under the auspices of the World Court (or at least one not dominated by the United States), to determine what actually happened on September 11, 2001." -- [url=http://www.io911truth.com/people/all]Bill Christison[/url], 28 year CIA veteran

Thu, 2010-06-24 13:15

#57

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

NIST wrote:
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately [color=red]11 seconds[/color] for WTC 1 and approximately [color=red]9 seconds[/color] for WTC 2 ...

"...the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." ...

"In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass."

[url=http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm](NIST)[/url]

It sure does. I think what's needed is to have Bazant and NIST officials to get together so they can hash out which of their lies don't corroborate the other's. As Bill Christison says below, 9/11 is now a matter for the World Court.

....

Are you aware of the difference between a qualitative statement and a quantitative statement?

A quantitative statement, according to Wiki:

"... is one that exists in a range of magnitudes, and can therefore be measured. Measurements of any particular quantitative property are expressed as a specific quantity, referred to as a unit, multiplied by a number. Examples of physical quantities are distance, mass, and time." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_property)

A qualitative statement, again according to Wiki:

"... is used to describe certain types of information. This is almost the converse of quantitative data, in which items are more precisely described data in terms of quantity and in which numerical values are used. ...

Qualitative data describes items in terms of some quality or categorization that may be 'informal' or may use relatively ill-defined characteristics such as warmth and flavor." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitative_data)

The NIST quotes you are providing are qualitative, while the ones I am presenting are quantitative. I would say that it is comparing apples to oranges, but it is more like comparing the number of oranges to the colour orange.

Thu, 2010-06-24 13:34

#58

Fidel

In any event, NIST and Bizarko Bazant are so full of ssshit! that their eyes must be a deep brown in colour by now.

NIST wrote:
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

Yep, I should really want to consider the controlled demo scenario if I was one of them. They don't sound very positive about their whacky theories. And they should prolly distance themselves from Bazant and Greening asap.

Thu, 2010-06-24 16:19

#59

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

....

NIST wrote:
This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

Yep, I should really want to consider the controlled demo scenario if I was one of them. They don't sound very positive about their whacky theories. And they should prolly distance themselves from Bazant and Greening asap.

It is important to note that scientific hypotheses are, by definition, not held to be absoltuely certain. In fact, a scientific hypothesis is simply a testable explanation for any observed natural phenomena. Both the claims of some sort of controlled demolition and the gravitational collapse theory of Bazant qualify as hypotheses in that respect, and any intelligent scientist or engineer would look at alternate hypotheses.

All hypotheses will change as they are tested, and new information comes to light. Some hypotheses will be shown to be completely implausible, or even false.

The only thing I see in this NIST statement is a clear knowledge of the scientific method and the way in which hypotheses will inevitably change as new data is incorporated. It would be far more suspicious if the story didn't change at all.

Thu, 2010-06-24 17:26

#60

Fidel

What they need now is a legitimate investigation with people held accountable. They already have more than one-thousand independent professionals in the USA alone providing them with reasonable doubt about their version of collapse events. They can't continue to ignore so many professional architects and engineers who've basically told them how it probably did not occur.

How many people have been murdered by the US Military and NATO allies as a result of 9/11? It's been a lot more than 3000 and counting. There have been war crimes committed. There are more countries on their hit list, which was created at the start of the 1990s.

Thu, 2010-06-24 17:37

#61

Pants-of-dog

I want to show that this idea that the upper block of storeys collapsed through the lower storeys at free fall speeds is wrong.

I would like you to look at this image:

[img]http://911review.org/brad.com/skydrifter/ny_4_jpg.jpg[/img]

Please note that the columns are falling faster than the cloud of debris. Also note that the parts of the building that they are falling beside are still untouched (i.e the upper block as not impacted them yet, which means the upper block is still above those parts of the building). That indicates that these columns are falling at free fall, and the debris could and upper block are falling slower than free fall.

You see that? That is direct photographic evidence that the upper block of storeys did not fall at free-fall speeds.

Allow me to repeat that:

That is direct photographic evidence that the upper block of storeys did not fall at free-fall speeds.

Thu, 2010-06-24 19:18

#62

jas

That's ok, pants. you already stated that the buildings fell in 11 and 12 seconds rather than 9 or 10. I have no big argument with that. Do you think it's plausible to state that 90 and 78 intact floors of concrete and steel framing provided 2 to 3 seconds of resistance to the supposed falling upper block? And if so, can you point to any other examples historically or in nature where matter descends through itself at that rate?

Thu, 2010-06-24 19:26

#63

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

That's ok, pants. you already stated that the buildings fell in 11 and 12 seconds rather than 9 or 10. I have no big argument with that. Do you think it's plausible to state that 90 and 78 intact floors of concrete and steel framing provided 2 to 3 seconds of resistance to the supposed falling upper block? And if so, can you point to any other examples historically or in nature where matter descends through itself at that rate?

Before I answer any questions, I would like to clarify something.

Are you agreeing with me that the WTC towers did not collapse at free fall speeds?

Thu, 2010-06-24 19:38

#64

Pants-of-dog

double post

Thu, 2010-06-24 19:46

#65

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Are you agreeing with me that the WTC towers did not collapse at free fall speeds?

Jim Hoffman stated that if the original pancake theory is to be believed, the towers should have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to collapse. And that's if the building's steel structure provided zero resistance to the falling upper block.

Thu, 2010-06-24 19:57

#66

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

Jim Hoffman stated that if the original pancake theory is to be believed, the towers should have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to collapse. And that's if the building's steel structure provided zero resistance to the falling upper block.

That's not what I am asking.

Do you or do you not agree that the photo above provides photgraphic evidence that the buildings did not collapse at free fall velocities?

Thu, 2010-06-24 21:57

#67

Fidel

I agree with the NIST report and truthers when they all say that the two towers and WTC7 collapsed at close to freefall velocities and were not so much as slowed by the lower parts of the buildings during descent. And I think NIST's concluding remarks were designed to cover their asses in the event that the truth is revealed in future.

Thu, 2010-06-24 23:49

#68

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

I agree with the NIST report and truthers when they all say that the two towers and WTC7 collapsed at close to freefall velocities and were not so much as slowed by the lower parts of the buildings during descent. And I think NIST's concluding remarks were designed to cover their asses in the event that the truth is revealed in future.

So, you are denying he photographic evidence that clearly shows columns and other debris falling at free fall speeds and the majority of the building falling at a slower rate? A simple yes or no will suffice.

If you are unclear as to what my question is discussing, please look at my post with the photo above.

Fri, 2010-06-25 00:55

#69

Fidel

Yes, I mean no. Wait, I didn't go yet. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!

Fri, 2010-06-25 06:40

#70

E.P.Houle

For temporary relief of reading engineering documents, I would suggest watching u-tube"building demolition" to see how structures really work. Pax

Fri, 2010-06-25 09:45

#71

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Before I answer any questions, I would like to clarify something.

Are you agreeing with me that the WTC towers did not collapse at free fall speeds?

Yes. I have always said "near free fall" or "within seconds of free fall", unless I've been lazy. It doesn't change my argument. It is NIST that uses the term "virtually in free fall" which I think is accurate.

Fri, 2010-06-25 09:47

#72

Fidel

I was going to post a link to video of a collapse which shows any one of WTCs 1,2, or 7 coming down in a real big hurry. But this one of Rosie O'Donnell vs The Colder War Propaganda Machine™ is even better:

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptsQwSyobCs&feature=related]An entire generation mind-fucked by an invisible enemy[/url]

JAS:

Jas, someone posted this one in the Burden of Proof thread: [url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fahrenheit-2777]SCIAM: Fahrenheit 2777[/url] by Michael Shermer. Shermer claims to have debunked truther conspiracy theory. It looks like crazy George Bush and co. were right all along about the shadowy group known as Al-QIA'da having perpetrated 9/11. I think we'd best just pack it in at this point. Looks like truthers are out of business. I was ready to give up trying to convince people anyway, what with Pants dogging us and now this. I just need confirmation from a fellow truther comrade that it's a roger green light go on the surrender...

Fri, 2010-06-25 10:13

#73

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:
Yes, I mean no. Wait, I didn't go yet. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!

It is very simple, Fidel.

Do you think the towers collapsed at free fall speeds?

Fidel wrote:

I was going to post a link to video of a collapse which shows any one of WTCs 1,2, or 7 coming down in a real big hurry. But this one of Rosie O'Donnell vs The Colder War Propaganda Machine™ is even better:

....with Pants dogging us and now this. I just need confirmation from a fellow truther comrade that it's a roger green light go on the surrender...

The discussion is not about Rosie O'Donnell or the CIA or Al-Qaeda. It is about collapse times of the WTC towers.

Fidel, I would like it if you could tell me how long you think the towers took to collapse. I have provided this information to you and jas, and I do not believe that it would be too much to ask you to do the same.

Please provide answers in seconds, and please provide some sort of evidence in terms of observed data and verifiable calculations.

jas wrote:

Yes. I have always said "near free fall" or "within seconds of free fall", unless I've been lazy. It doesn't change my argument. It is NIST that uses the term "virtually in free fall" which I think is accurate.

How long did the towers take to collapse, jas?

Please provide answers in seconds, and please provide some sort of evidence in terms of observed data and verifiable calculations.

Fri, 2010-06-25 10:25

#74

jas

I am happy to go with your numbers, pants, which you have provided in several posts.

Fri, 2010-06-25 10:58

#75

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

I am happy to go with your numbers, pants, which you have provided in several posts.

So, then you are agreeing that the towers did not collapse at free fall speeds.

Are you also agreeing with the methodology in terms of how those numbers were calculated?

Fri, 2010-06-25 11:18

#76

jas

AS I said here, I have always said "near free fall" or "within seconds of". I cannot evaluate the methodology of how the numbers were calculated - or at least I haven't taken the time to consider it. I don't really care, since the outcome is still within seconds of free fall.

Fri, 2010-06-25 11:23

#77

Fidel

That's right, because from videos we can clearly see, aside from all of the massive dust cloud produced from pulverizing of concrete into powder and indicating massive energy consumption in the process, that there was ample energy left over to snap ALL of the 250 massive steel columns throughout descent while the upper block achieves constant velocity. It all happened according to Fig Newton's laws of the natural world, which are themselves massive.

Fri, 2010-06-25 12:31

#78

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

AS I said here, I have always said "near free fall" or "within seconds of". I cannot evaluate the methodology of how the numbers were calculated - or at least I haven't taken the time to consider it. I don't really care, since the outcome is still within seconds of free fall.

"Within seconds of free fall" is a vague term.

Free fall is 9 seconds. If the towers had taken 27 seconds to fall, that would be within 18 seconds of free fall. It would also be 3 times longer than free fall. Yet, it would still fit your description of being "within seconds of free fall".

i will tell you why it is important to determine the exact (or as close as possible) time of collapse in seconds. Your premise is that the towers fell so fast that the lower floors must have provided little to no resistance.

Now, let us look at this quote from the PDF that gave me those original numbers that you have agreed are more or less accurate.

Quote:
We have re-calculated the descent velocity after the impacts on every floor and
determined a revised collapse time that now includes the effects of the energy lost in
crushing the support structures. ...Based on an assumed value of 0.6 x 10 to the 9th power J for E1 we
have the following revised estimates for tc:
WTC 1
Previously (E1 = 0) tc = 12.6 sec
Revised (E1 = 0.6 x 109 J) tc = 12.8 sec

WTC 2

Previously (E1 = 0) tc = 11.5 sec

Revised (E1 = 0.6 x 109 J ) tc = 11.6 sec

Please note that the numbers you agreed are accurate are within 0.2 seconds of the time calculated when resistance is taken into account.

Unless you can show that the math or the assumptions involved in the PDF I quoted are somehow faulty (link: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf ), you would have to agree that your premise about the towers falling quickly because of a lack of resistance is wrong.

Fri, 2010-06-25 12:35

#79

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

That's right, because from videos we can clearly see, aside from all of the massive dust cloud produced from pulverizing of concrete into powder and indicating massive energy consumption in the process, that there was ample energy left over to snap ALL of the 250 massive steel columns throughout descent while the upper block achieves constant velocity. It all happened according to Fig Newton's laws of the natural world, which are themselves massive.

You have yet to answer my question about collapse times, Fidel.

As soon as you give me those times, I will address your concerns about energy consumption during collapse. I will do this because the two are related.

Now, may I please have your answer as to my question concerning collapse times for the towers?

Fri, 2010-06-25 13:14

#80

jas

pants, do you have a point? I am not arguing with you if you believe the towers fell in 11 or 12 seconds. This is within 3 seconds of free fall, as I have been saying all along. In some threads I have referred to the fall time as being under 15 seconds. This speed is still impossible through gravity alone considering there were 91 and 78 intact floors in the way. Even if it were 15 seconds, that suggests only 6 seconds of resistance. With the alleged causes of collapse, I maintain this is not physically possible.

At post #61 I asked you a question which you agreed to answer. I answered your question. Please answer mine.

Fri, 2010-06-25 13:18

#81

Fidel

I'm with Jas on the rate of descent, which was virtually unimpeded. There was no noticeable resistance to collapse.

Fri, 2010-06-25 13:37

#82

jas

It seems, with pants, it's taken us two and half threads just to get back my original question. I wonder why that is.

Fri, 2010-06-25 13:43

#83

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

pants, do you have a point? I am not arguing with you if you believe the towers fell in 11 or 12 seconds. This is within 3 seconds of free fall, as I have been saying all along. In some threads I have referred to the fall time as being under 15 seconds.

I am glad we agree.

jas wrote:
This speed is still impossible through gravity alone considering there were 91 and 78 intact floors in the way.

No, it is not. I linked to a PDF that showed the energy consumption in the process of destroying the lower floors gave us a time very close to the numbers you have accepted. The speed is possible through gravity alone, according to that PDF.

I will also remind you that you already agreed that the times given in that PDF were accurate.

jas wrote:
Even if it were 15 seconds, that suggests only 6 seconds of resistance. With the alleged causes of collapse, I maintain this is not physically possible.

It is not impossible. It is the basis for a demolition technique used in France called verinage. A series of structural supports are removed, thereby causing the upper block of floros to collpase onto th erest of the building, bringing it down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GNhEpHfgfI

jas wrote:
At post #61 I asked you a question which you agreed to answer. I answered your question. Please answer mine.

Your post 61 said this:

jas wrote:
...Do you think it's plausible to state that 90 and 78 intact floors of concrete and steel framing provided 2 to 3 seconds of resistance to the supposed falling upper block? And if so, can you point to any other examples historically or in nature where matter descends through itself at that rate?

I believe that it is plausible that 90 and 78 intact floors of concrete and steel framing provided 2 to 3 seconds of resistance to the supposed falling upper block.

If you would like more real-life examples of the same thing happening in controlled conditions, look up verinage techniques of demolition, as I suggested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY3nj728WPY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-npt5s&feature=related

Fri, 2010-06-25 14:05

#84

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

I'm with Jas on the rate of descent, which was virtually unimpeded. There was no noticeable resistance to collapse.

You seem to have trouble answering my question, Fidel.

Would you like me to repeat it?

I would like it if you could tell me how long you think the towers took to collapse. Please provide answers in seconds, and please provide some sort of evidence in terms of observed data and verifiable calculations.

Thank you.

jas wrote:

It seems, with pants, it's taken us two and half threads just to get back my original question. I wonder why that is.

That is because I have asked a specific question that challenges one of the basic premises in your opening post. I did this because I realised how ineffective it is to ask you to provide evidence of your own. Consequently, I decided to change tactics. Rather than continue to provide evidence that the NIST and other scietists have strong evidence to supprt their side, I have decided to provide evidence to show that your claim is inaccurate.

That is why I asked you to look at the photo. It is direct evidence that the towers collapsed at velocities slower than free fall.

We can now agree that the WTC falled at slower than free fall speeds, can we not? Therefore, there must have been some resistance.

I will look at the issue of resistance next, if the discussion continues the way I think it will.

Fri, 2010-06-25 14:15

#85

Fidel

And don't forget that NIST later changed their story on WTC7 in order to admit freefall rate of collapse for that building. And it was due to truthers puttin' the presh on them. So that's all three buildings NIST has admitted to falling unimpeded.

Fri, 2010-06-25 14:17

#86

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

And don't forget that NIST later changed their story on WTC7 in order to admit freefall rate of collapse for that building. And it was due to truthers puttin' the presh on them. So that's all three buildings NIST has admitted to falling unimpeded.

You seem to have trouble answering my question, Fidel.

Would you like me to repeat it?

Thank you.

Fri, 2010-06-25 15:55

#87

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:
That is why I asked you to look at the photo. It is direct evidence that the towers collapsed at velocities slower than free fall.

So, are you saying you disagree with statements made by official conspiracy theorists? A simple yes or no answer will do.

Fri, 2010-06-25 16:09

#88

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

So, are you saying you disagree with statements made by official conspiracy theorists? A simple yes or no answer will do.

This is the fifth and final time I ask you, Fidel.

As I have previously mentioned, I will answer your questions as soon as you give me those times. The reason for this, as I have said, is that the answers to your questions will be part of my reply to your collapse times.

If you can not or will not answer my question about the exact collpase times, I will be forced to conclude that you are unable to discuss the issue of collapse times in a quantitative manner. Since the whole premise of this thread is that the buildings collapsed too swiftly for gravity alone to cause the collapse, the only logical conclusion is that you are unable to defend this premise in a quantitative manner as well.

If that is the case, then there is little purpose in continuing the dsicussion with you as you are basically admitting that you are unable to provide quantitative evidence for your claims that the WTC collapses were not driven by gravity.

Now, I would like it if you could tell me how long you think the towers took to collapse.

Fri, 2010-06-25 16:13

#89

Fidel

Okay, I won't ask again. I understand now that it's a sensitive issue as far as you're concerned.

Fri, 2010-06-25 16:22

#90

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

Okay, I won't ask again. I understand now that it's a sensitive issue as far as you're concerned.

Now that we have concluded that you are incapable of defending your argument in a quantitative manner, I will consider the discussion about collapse times closed and assume that you, like jas, now agree that the buildings did not collapse at free fall velocities.

Anyone who claims that the buildings fell at exactly free fall velocities is simply wrong.

Anyone who claims that the buildings fell at near free fall velocities is vague and contributes nothing to any scientific discussion.

Shall we move on to the topic of resistance?

Fri, 2010-06-25 17:04

#91

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Anyone who claims that the buildings fell at near free fall velocities is vague and contributes nothing to any scientific discussion.

And that goes double for [url=http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm]these dummkopfs[/url] when they make statements like this:

Quote:
"...the building section above came down [color=red]essentially in free fall[/color], as seen in videos." ... and,

"In other words, the momentum... falling on the supporting structure below ... so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it... [color=red]was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass.[/color]"

Because after reading your reply to me, I now realize that they were merely making vague references to, and might I be correct in saying, a somewhat qualitative statement concerning an arbitrary rate of freefall? (iows not to be confused with the actual Newtonian gravitational rate of descent but something that looks a lot like it in US news videos of the events)

Fri, 2010-06-25 17:05

#92

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Anyone who claims that the buildings fell at near free fall velocities is vague and contributes nothing to any scientific discussion.

And that goes double for [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/science-still-failing-nis... when they make statements like this:

Quote:
"...the building section above came down [color=red]essentially in free fall[/color], as seen in videos." ... and,

"In other words, the momentum... falling on the supporting structure below ... so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it... [color=red]was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass.[/color]"

Because after reading your reply to me, I now realize that they were merely making vague references to, and might I be correct in saying, a somewhat qualitative statement concerning an arbitrary rate of freefall? (iows not to be confused with the actual Newtonian gravitational rate of descent but something that looks a lot like it in US news videos of the events)

Yes, the NIST quotes that you and jas keep referring to are vague, qualitative statements. That is why you should stop using them as evidence in a scientific discussion.

Fri, 2010-06-25 17:11

#93

Fidel

I'm with you. I think we should ALL cease referring to official statements made by NIST as resembling anything scientific. Roger that.

Fri, 2010-06-25 17:18

#94

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

I'm with you. I think we should ALL cease referring to official statements made by NIST as resembling anything scientific. Roger that.

No, that is not what I am saying. Nor would it make sense to say such a thing.

I am saying that we should not take their subjective, vague and qualitative statements as quantitative statements of evidence.

Fri, 2010-06-25 17:30

#95

Fidel

I don't think it was entirely subjective. Because they were Truthers who pressured them into admitting as much. I don't think they would have voluntarily. NIST only made those public statements after a lot of pushing and prodding.

Fri, 2010-06-25 17:40

#96

Pants-of-dog

Even if that were true, it would not be relevant.

The type of statement is not affected by why they made the statement.

Fri, 2010-06-25 18:04

#97

Fidel

Yes, and how else could the term free fall in addition to "unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass" be interpreted wrt WTC buildings 1&2? It doesn't matter because no steel frame sky scraper has ever collapsed due to fire.

And, in addition to [url=http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19891]omitting, falsifying and fabricating evidence[/url], NIST affirmed a miracle regarding free fall collapse of building 7.

Fri, 2010-06-25 20:19

#98

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

That is because I have asked a specific question that challenges one of the basic premises in your opening post. I did this because I realised how ineffective it is to ask you to provide evidence of your own. Consequently, I decided to change tactics. Rather than continue to provide evidence that the NIST and other scientists have strong evidence to support their side, I have decided to provide evidence to show that your claim is inaccurate...

We can now agree that the WTC falled at slower than free fall speeds, can we not? Therefore, there must have been some resistance.

I'm not sure what part of my argument you don't understand, nor even what claim of mine you think you have proven false. Yes, we can agree that the towers fell at speeds 1 - 4 seconds slower than free fall. We could have agreed to that right when you first joined this discussion, but I suppose you just enjoy typing, or something.

This is a point that I had "agreed" upon with Trevormkidd long before you showed up. You are not showing anything new here. The question I have been asking is, given that it is not plausible that 91 and 78 intact highrise floors would provide only 1-4 seconds of resistance to the allegedly falling upper block of floors, what removed that resistance, and why does NIST not bother going into any detail on this singlemost important question of the investigation? But I know what you're going to say, anyway. It's becoming senseless to argue with someone who believes that "gravity" will pull a lighter mass through a heavier mass at a velocity that is mere seconds faster than it would pull something through air.

I would like to view the videos you posted, but have not had a chance to on the connections I've been on today.

Fri, 2010-06-25 21:08

#99

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:

Yes, and how else could the term free fall in addition to "unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass" be interpreted wrt WTC buildings 1&2? It doesn't matter because no steel frame sky scraper has ever collapsed due to fire.

And, in addition to [url=http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19891]omitting, falsifying and fabricating evidence[/url], NIST affirmed a miracle regarding free fall collapse of building 7.

I have no idea what you are trying to claim here.

jas wrote:

I'm not sure what part of my argument you don't understand, nor even what claim of mine you think you have proven false. Yes, we can agree that the towers fell at speeds 1 - 4 seconds slower than free fall. We could have agreed to that right when you first joined this discussion, but I suppose you just enjoy typing, or something.

This is a point that I had "agreed" upon with Trevormkidd long before you showed up. You are not showing anything new here.

Yes, thank you for pointing out, yet again, that you agree that the WTC towers did not collapse at free fall speeds. The reason I came back to this, as I said, was because I decided that a different approach would be better. Getting you to admit that free fall speeds never occurred was the first step. Now we can move onto the second one.

jas wrote:
The question I have been asking is, given that it is not plausible that 91 and 78 intact highrise floors would provide only 1-4 seconds of resistance to the allegedly falling upper block of floors...

Now we come to the second one. How do we decide if this is plausible or not?

One way is by looking at conservation of energy. If the upper block dropped down the height of a few stories, it would pick up kinetic energy as it fell. We can calculate this number pretty easily. We could then use this amount of energy to calculate whether or not the upper block even has enough energy to crush the rest of the building. If it does, then we can use that number to calculate how long it would take.

If that number happened to be 1-4 seconds, that would be strong evidence that it was plausible.

If that number turned out to be 403 seconds, or something like that, you would then have strong evidence for your claim that it is not plausible.

It should also be possible to confirm this time using other methods of calculation.

I will try to find some simple and clear evidence that this time interval is plausible, but probably not tonight. I feel like watching Casablanca.

jas wrote:
what removed that resistance, and why does NIST not bother going into any detail on this singlemost important question of the investigation? But I know what you're going to say, anyway. It's becoming senseless to argue with someone who believes that "gravity" will pull a lighter mass through a heavier mass at a velocity that is mere seconds faster than it would pull something through air..

I would like to view the videos you posted, but have not had a chance to on the connections I've been on today.

So, if we find that such a time interval is quite plausible, we don't even need to talk about what removed the resistance.

Fri, 2010-06-25 21:49

#100

jas

I'm not that much interested in what might be mathematically calculable, especially if you're just going to cut and paste from someone else's calculations, and pick figures out of the air for what the mass might be of the supposed falling block, and then make some statement about how the falling block will gain rather than lose mass etc...and other statements that require a suspension of known physical principles.

I also wouldn't go so far as to say that free fall did not occur. How do we know? For portions of the descent, matter may have indeed been in free fall. Can you show that it didn't occur for any portion of th descent? But I also don't care that much. None of this is as important as acknowledging that, in this case, free fall and virtual or essentially free fall are, for our purposes, the same impossible thing.

Sat, 2010-06-26 11:13

#101

jrootham

Yes, I'm late with this one. The FAQ says that the failure happened when the outer vertical columns were pulled inwards. That would imply that the vertical collision was inside the outer columns, ie the floor.

Fidel wrote:

jrootham wrote:

That's not an accurate description of what the NIST report said.

The point of impact was the floor. The floor was not designed to to carry 3 to 5 times the weight of the upper stories.

But the floor was not a separate structure independent from the rest of the building. Weight of the upper block was distributed over 250 massive steel columns at each floor level.

In David Griscom's essay, he estimates a significantly lower figure than five times the weight of the descending upper block impacting the top floor of the lower.

And besides, that is how Chandler described it to Greening, and Greening didn't object. The towers were built in three sections, and the weakest of the steel columns were designed to withstand a 2000% increase in live loads for brief moments. Iows, there was tremendous reserve strength in the steel structure. The upper block passed through everything below it as as if it wasn't there.

Do you have a link for us, jrootham?

Pages

Topic locked