9/11 Collapse Theory Discussion III

158 posts / 0 new
Last post

jas wrote:

2002. They're assuming the FEMA hypothesis.

Pleae provide evidence that this is the case.


How about completing your analogy first, pants?



Jas, if you go to the glazier and ask for 130 panes of glass (and a roll of sticky-tape to reinforce the joints), because you want to build a house of cards out of sheets of glass, they won't let you buy them, because they won't want to see you in hospital covered in broken glass.


There are lots of imaginable configurations of materials in the natural world that won't support their own weight, and which will collapse, smashing themselves to pieces.


Pants-of-dog wrote:

Fidel wrote:
And do I? You are contradicting your own contradictory argument again. Your reasoning is circular and incoherent. Garcia does use instantaneous velocity in his equation for impulse momentum form of Newton's second law. You don't know what you're talking about.

Show me where Garcia uses an instantaneous velocity to calculate the amount of time it takes for the velocity to change.

Your questions reveal your general naivety of the subject at hand. Garcia does not use instantaneous velocity to calculate "amount of time it takes for velocity to change"
Garcia's instantaneous velocity calculation was explained to you several times, and you still don't understand. It would be nice if moderators here were following this thread better as they would understand you are simply spamming the board with nonsensical rhetoric over and over.

Pants-of-dog wrote:
Fidel wrote:
You still haven't answered me as to what quantum physics has to do with Newton's third law and three WTC buildings collapsing. Zany.

It doesn't have anything to do with quantum physics. I never said it did. I was discussing the difference between rigid and deforming bodies and why conservation of momentum equations made more sense to use than Newton's 3rd law.

You weren't discussing anything. You didn't appreciate us quoting Isaac Newton's laws of motion, and so [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/science-fail-x4-supporters-ni... you quoted wikipedia and something about Noethem's theory, Galilean invariance, force fields and quantum mechanics. And then when asked what quantum mechanics has to do with the laws of motion effecting building collapse theory, you were completely silent until now. You don't know what youre talking about.

Jas I suggest we simply stop replying to this person as it's clear he is not actually debating anyone nor is he dealing with reality. The mods seem to endorse this character for some reason. And I have no idea why.


Continued here.


About dt:


Pants, I think your argument about a constant or varying v is beside the point. Garcia uses v(initial)=-7.7m/s and dv=.5m/s. He then says that for the floors to fail, they (or any portion of them) need to be deflected by only ~7cm=~.07m. The time for this to occur is not more than the distance divided by the slowest velocity, which is ~0.01s.


Fidel, the dt in Garcia is the time for the floor to break, not the time for the entire tilted floor to pass through the position held by the lower floor before the lower floor broke. Thus, the argument using trigonometry is completely irrelevant.


(I'm using ~ to mean approximately. In this case, not off by more than 10%. Since there can never be complete certainty in estimate, this is commonly used in this sort of discussion. I expect this will be familiar to most readers, but I've not seen it used on the boards before, so I thought I'd say it now to avoid confusion.)

Maysie Maysie's picture

Closing for length. FYI I haven't read all of this thread. Please don't make me.


Topic locked