How facts backfire

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
jas

So, now that you understand the Bazant/NIST hypothesis, you can begin to understand our objections to it. A very good first place to start is this video. Tell me, does the upper block in the video of what actually happened behave in any way like the upper block in the hypothesized model? Would you say the model resembles the reality? You have enough technical knowledge now to make this judgment yourself.

siamdave

jas wrote:

...I guess rubble has incredible crushing powers, and it also manages to stay vertically intact, despite weight from the alleged upper block.

 

- not only that, it's also spreading out all over Manhattan - this is a good trick, when you think about it - basic legerdemain, being two places at once. A bit of a problem, of course, as in all investigated cases legerdemain has proven to be a trick of some sort.. but those supporting the OCT seem to have a fairly selective view of what they admit as 'facts' ...

 

 

Pants-of-dog

This is not a continuation of the WTC collapse threads. Please stop hijacking this thread.

Yiwah

jas wrote:

Yiwah wrote:

When the discussion is technical, you have to have the ability to discuss the technical aspects.  If the dicussion is more general, you probably already have the background to engage in that discussion.

What's technical about Bazant's theory, Yiwah? It's basically comprehensible to 3-year-olds, dressed up with some redundant math. Is there something about it you don't understand? I can explain it to you if you're having difficulty.

I would also suggest that if you yourself don't understand what's being discussed, then you're not really qualified to judge whether others do, are you?

I did notice you had to ask what J stood for.  You also repeatedly asked the math to be simplified for you.

My girls, at 3, didn't understand what Joules were either, but they also don't claim to have expertise in areas they don't actually have.

jas

Actually, if you go back to that post, you'll see that I wasn't asking what J meant. I understand what joules are. I also understand what exponents are. I was asking where Pants got the values that he was plugging in, i.e., the actual numbers, and according to what formula. I think Pants was deliberately misunderstanding my questions at first so he could make a show of explaining "scientific notation" to me.

And this is twice now you have brought this up.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:
Actually, if you go back to that post, you'll see that I wasn't asking what J meant. I understand what joules are. I also understand what exponents are. I was asking where Pants got the values that he was plugging in, i.e., the actual numbers, and according to what formula. I think Pants was deliberately misunderstanding my questions at first so he could make a show of explaining "scientific notation" to me. And this is twice now you have brought this up.

You first ask about the scientific notation here:

http://rabble.ca/comment/1160175/I-am-wondering-if-we-can-get

You again ask about scientific notation here:

http://rabble.ca/comment/1160193/Pants-dog-wrote-14

And again here, even after Fidel and I discuss why scientific notation is used.

http://rabble.ca/comment/1160304/Pants-dog-wrote-jas

You seem to stop asking about the math here:

http://rabble.ca/comment/1160471/jas-wroteYou-dont-seem

Please note that this is the time that I did not use scientific notation in my math. Since you seemed to understand the math that time, I assumed that the problem you were having was with scientific notation. You can see why.

jas

Thanks for finding those, pants, because they show that I was asking about the numbers.

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.

Doees it look here like I don't understand what 10 to the 8 means?

The "I guess" was just being polite. Maybe I won't bother being polite any more since it's open to such rhetorical misrepresentation.

jas

Thanks for finding those, pants, because they show that I was asking about the numbers.

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.

Does it look here like I don't understand what 10 to the 8 means?

The "I guess" was just being polite. Maybe I won't bother being polite any more since it's open to such rhetorical misrepresentation.

siamdave

Since we're talking about 'facts' in general on this thread, and this seems to include probing whether or not jas understands math well enough to be qualified to comment on related things, I am just wondering about Yiwah, who seems to have assumed she is qualified to be judge and jury here - do you yourself have a reasonable understanding of the 'truther' position and are confident, based on your equal understanding of the official theory, that 'the truthers' are mistaken, or is your opposition based on the fact that the mainstream media, whom you seem to believe is populated by highly intelligent and wise and knowledgeable people whose integrity is beyond question who would never like or deceive anybody, supports the 'official conspiracy theory', and thus you follow the lead of your trusted advisors without really having any idea of the actual debate? Just curious ...

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:
[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/911-collapse-theory-discussio...'s delta-t and Garcia's delta-t seem to tb ethe same. Yours is not. Please note that Griscom and Garcia's definitions both involve a change in the velocity during a transfer of momentum. Your right angle calculation and the subsequent calculation assume a constant velocity and do not mention momentum at all.

If we start with F=ma, and the concrete slab with mass m falls at speed v when it strikes the concrete slab below. We assume it doesn't move when struck. Calculating dynamic force of the impact, we use a=dv/dt, where dt is the time it takes for v to drop to zero:

a=v/dt, and using dt=0.01 sec, dynamic force for a completely level impact becomes:

mv/0.01

But if dt=0.14 sec for the tilted concrete floor, the dynamic force drops to mv/0.14.

Therefore the ratio of the dynamic force of tilted impact to one of completely level impact becomes 0.01/0.14=0.0714.

If we take Garcia's word that the total static plus dynamic forces in his calculation is 6.1 times the static force alone, we can then normalize to static force=1.0 and making Garcia's dynamic force=5.1.

Dynamic force for the tilted block is then 0.0714 x 5.1=0.36

...and total static plus dynamic force becomes 1+0.36=1.36 times the static force.

But delta t is just a time interval for duration of collapse and variable term in Garcia's force balance equation. Garcia doesn't show where he he derived it from,but I'm looking at similar physics problems, and 0.01s seems to be a fairly common duration of impact when certain other factors are not accounted for, like coefficient of drag. Apparently Garcia never considered that the South tower's upper block tilted at all. It did according to the video evidence.

 

oldgoat

closing for length

Pages

Topic locked