And we'd show y'all the complete video phootage of whatever it wuz flew into thu Pentergone happenin', cept we'd have to kill yez all after seein it with nashunal secyurity ishoes an' all.
More 9/11: failure of progressive collapse theory to explain WTC collapse
Wed, 2010-03-24 22:14
#102
Wed, 2010-03-24 22:15
#103
I think youre confused.
Guilty as charged. Your foolishness would leave anyone confused.
Wed, 2010-03-24 22:17
#104
I must admit, Fidel, you're far more convincing when you type with an accent.
Wed, 2010-03-24 22:22
#105
I think youre confused.Guilty as charged. Your foolishness would leave anyone confused.
Do you have trouble with the words on cans of soup, too?
Wed, 2010-03-24 22:28
#106
I must admit, Fidel, you're far more convincing when you type with an accent.
Dubya's one of yours. You shouldn't insult him like this. Looks bad on all you semi-literate morans in general. 
Wed, 2010-03-24 22:47
#107
And that about doze it fer another addishun of 'We Fell Ohver Bakwords Agin and Agin Fer [size=28] neocon LLLLLLLIES!'[/size]
Thu, 2010-03-25 09:12
#108
I'm amazed that this conspiracy crap continues to be spewed on Babble.
What's next: Archduke Ferdinand is found alive and well in Bohemia.
Germany was invited into Poland in 1939 by Marshall Pilsudski who faked his death in 1935.
The US intentionally blew up the Challenger.
Thu, 2010-03-25 09:33
#109
Snert
Is there any chance that this can all be explained by Bush and Rumsfeld actually tinkering with the rate of acceleration due to gravity? I mean, they're pretty much our omnipotent masters, right? So nothing should be beyond their dark powers. Plus, for the life of me I can't prove that they didn't, which, to the nutters and kooks, is proof positive that they did. Look for it in Loose Change Part III.
Thu, 2010-03-25 10:58
#110
Is there any chance that this can all be explained by Bush and Rumsfeld actually tinkering with the rate of acceleration due to gravity?
Sure. It's just a constant. Open the source code, change the constant, and recompile. Release the code into production for the 30 seconds or so that it took each tower to fall, and go back to the previous versions afterwards.
No big deal
Thu, 2010-03-25 11:28
#111
Now the CIA controls the matrix. I'm not going to be able sleep knowing that. Where's that blue pill gotten to?
Thu, 2010-03-25 11:35
#112
once global research was accepted by Babblers as a legitimate source of information the floodgates open to all nutters that they are welcome here
Thu, 2010-03-25 12:01
#113
I again ask posters on both sides of this issue to please respect the mandate of this thread (and, now, its inevitable continuance) in sticking to the mechanical, science-based examination of the WTC collapses (we are in the humanities and sciences forum) and leaving out (for the most part) the jokes and the political discussion of it.
Secondly, to please be prepared to back up your claims with commonly accepted principles of physics (or your best, plain language explanation of) or at least some precedents from the real physical world that we all inhabit. Thanks.
Thu, 2010-03-25 12:07
#114
No.
Thu, 2010-03-25 12:11
#115
Some of the energy is expended sure. But enough remains to crush that floor by various means (shear the anchor bolts etc).
Sorry, Heywood, you can't just make this claim off the top of your head without the calculations.
I'm going to go back to Judy Wood to address this.
According to the pancake theory, one floor fails and falls onto the floor below, causing it to fail and fall on the floor below that one, and so forth. The "pancake theory" implies that this continues all the way to the ground floor. In the case of both WTC towers, we didn't see the floors piled up when the event was all over, but rather a pulverization of the floors throughout the event. (see pictures below) So, clearly we cannot assume that the floors stacked up like pancakes. Looking at the data, we take the conservative approach that a falling floor initiates the fall of the one below, while itself becoming pulverized. In other words, when one floor impacts another, the small amount of kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed (a) by pulverizing the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor. In reality, there isn't enough kinetic energy to do either.[Trumpman][Hoffman]
Thu, 2010-03-25 12:11
#116
double post.
Thu, 2010-03-25 12:14
#117
No.
Caissa, if you're unwilling to honestly examine the so-called science of the ridiculous theory you apparently support, then your contributions are not valid here, and I will seek moderator help to keep you from disrupting the thread.
Thu, 2010-03-25 12:16
#118
I will remind you that you were unable to answer even the most basic physics question upthread.
Thu, 2010-03-25 12:17
#119
Fire away JAS.
The fact that you label "my" theory ridiculous is the height of irony.
Thu, 2010-03-25 12:29
#120
I'm amazed that this conspiracy crap continues to be spewed on Babble.
What's next: Archduke Ferdinand is found alive and well in Bohemia.
Germany was invited into Poland in 1939 by Marshall Pilsudski who faked his death in 1935.
The US intentionally blew up the Challenger.
It's worse. the Illuminati have us so duped that we believe the myth created by Amerigo Vespucci, a Medici banker and secret Papal operative, that the western hemisphere really exists.
Columbus did not land at Hispaniola, or anywhere. The Niña, Pinta and Santa Maria fell off the edge of the world.
Everything you think you know is an illusion. You actually live in a plague-infested corner of Galicia and are under the mind-controlling influence of the Benedictine monks of the Monastery of San Martín Pinario in Santiago de Compostela, whose clever use of the psychotropic properties of wheat ergot, Gregorian chant, and holograms have convinced you that you live in a place called "Canada".
Thu, 2010-03-25 12:42
#121
Snert
Caissa, if you're unwilling to honestly examine the so-called science of the ridiculous theory you apparently support, then your contributions are not valid here, and I will seek moderator help to keep you from disrupting the thread.
I'd love to see that. Perhaps a thread in reactions might make this a transparent discussion.
Because if threads now have "mandates" that must be respected, and if these mandates apply no matter how nutty the so-called discussion, then I'm going to open a few dozen threads with some topics that generally get very short shrift on progressive boards, and we can similarly go back to first principles -- supported by that moderator-enforced mandate -- and we can discuss some stuff. Example:
"Prove to me, to my satisfaction, that Trickle-down Reaganomics isn't the way to go"
Ordinarily such a proposition would be met with laughter and jeers. But no more! Not now, with mandates ensuring that no matter how ridiculous my premise and my doubts, only respectful posts will be permitted!
Flat taxes. A gold standard. The pure perfection of modern western science. The responsibity to bear arms and prepare a citizen militia. Oh, this should be fun.
Thu, 2010-03-25 12:49
#122
Snert, explain the mechanics of progressive collapse using real physical principles and real life precedents (even analogously). It's perty simple. None of you have been able to do it. Or you haven't even tried.
Show me how resistance which occurs in every other building collapse is factored out of the WTC collapses and I'll read your post. Otherwise, stfu.
Thu, 2010-03-25 12:50
#123
Is anyone who has posted here even an engineer or anything close?
Thu, 2010-03-25 12:53
#124
My F-I-L was an engineer.
Thu, 2010-03-25 12:56
#125
NIST and Popular Mechanics is all they're riding on, p-sto.
They pretend to be defenders of science. They don't even understand the articles they quote.
Thu, 2010-03-25 13:05
#126
Witha apologies to Al-Q
Thu, 2010-03-25 13:23
#127
Hi
First, asking people to respect mandates of threads around here is kinda like herding cats, but it's not unreasonable to ask that we give it a better effort. We can certainly do it without adhominems.
My own opinion as someone with a BA in ...ummm...... whatever my declared major was the day I handed in my final work of sophmoric nonsense, History I think, is that I tend not to subscribe to conspiracy theories. That's just my nature. However, as I become more informed not in physics or engineering, but by the absolute depths of immorality incompetence and mendacity that our leaders and their puppet-masters are capable of, I've learned to try to keep an open mind.
So my bias is that open minds are good. I encourage others to do likewise.
Thu, 2010-03-25 13:29
#128
Hey, 126 posts!
The dudes in black suits and sunglasses, (not to mention the two Shriners) standing over my shoulder are encouraging me to close this thread.
Feel free to start a new o..*HEY...SLAM..thunk!*
Thu, 2010-03-25 13:31
#129
Thanks, oldgoat.
With respect to thread mandates, posters here frequently state the parameters of the discussion in the OP and respectfully ask that those contributing keep their contributions on topic. This is hardly unusual. It is also not uncommon for the OP to seek moderator help if the thread is being derailed, whether that's intentional or unintentional. We went through this a year or so ago, when some of the same posters were disrupting a 9/11 thread because they disagreed with the content. A moderator at the time upheld (heh) that not only are 9/11 threads permitted on Babble, but that OPs have a right to ask posters to stick to topic.
This is a thread on the science of a particular theory about the WTC. If you don't like the content, don't read it.
Thu, 2010-03-25 13:32
#130
remind
Some of the energy is expended sure. But enough remains to crush that floor by various means (shear the anchor bolts etc).Sorry, Heywood, you can't just make this claim off the top of your head without the calculations.
I'm going to go back to Judy Wood to address this.
According to the pancake theory, one floor fails and falls onto the floor below, causing it to fail and fall on the floor below that one, and so forth. The "pancake theory" implies that this continues all the way to the ground floor. In the case of both WTC towers, we didn't see the floors piled up when the event was all over, but rather a pulverization of the floors throughout the event. (see pictures below) So, clearly we cannot assume that the floors stacked up like pancakes. Looking at the data, we take the conservative approach that a falling floor initiates the fall of the one below, while itself becoming pulverized. In other words, when one floor impacts another, the small amount of kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed (a) by pulverizing the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor. In reality, there isn't enough kinetic energy to do either.[Trumpman][Hoffman]
Hmm thanks for this Jas......
Thu, 2010-03-25 13:33
#131
I have to run off now to attend a Strength of Materials seminar. The topic today is "Headwear: tinfoil."
Thu, 2010-03-25 13:43
#132
Snert
I'm finding this requirement that I analyze something that happened nearly a decade ago, that I watched on television, using my recollection of highschool physics to be a little odd. This has all been done and done and done again by reputable experts. Are you suggesting, jas, that you feel free to ignore their findings, but you hold out hope that somehow we here on this board, cobbling together the best of our old notes from high school, plus a few "cheats" from Wikipedia, will arrive at some kind of breakthrough that has eluded ACTUAL physicists for the last 9 years?
I'm not sure I really see much merit in that. Frankly, one of my beefs with the "truthers" is that most of them feel free to pontificate about physics while holding a B.A. in Literature. It would be a bit inconsistent of me to start returning to first principles, being that I'm also not a physicist (nor, I understand is anyone else in this thread). That, and how do you expect even the very best logic and support that I could muster to defeat your "intuitive" feeling that buildings cannot fall the way the towers did? Your intuition, like all intuition, isn't based on evidence, so evidence cannot counter it.
That said, you know what else is intuitive? Trickle-down economics! Doesn't it just "feel" like it should work? Isn't it obvious that any economist who says it doesn't must have their own agenda? Most importantly, are you ready to prove to me, in your own words, that it's a failure of a theory? Screw those university educated economists who've been studying things like this their whole lives! Let's you and me figure this one out ourselves, once and for all.
Thu, 2010-03-25 13:44
#133
Denier troof starts wit Dubya
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/Capture-35.gif[/IMG]
![http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/Capture-35.gif[/IMG]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/Capture-35.gif[/IMG]){kind=link}
In crazy-crazy George they trust and obey
Thu, 2010-03-25 13:50
#134
Journal of Engineering Mechanics; Oct. 2008, Vol. 134 Issue 10, p892-906
Abstract: Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. However, it remains to be determined whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not.
The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse is shown to agree with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but, despite uncertain values of some parameters, it is totally out of range of the free fall hypothesis, on which these allegations rest.
It is shown that the observed size range (0.01–0.1 mm) of the dust particles of pulverized concrete is consistent with the theory of comminution caused by impact, and that less than 10% of the total gravitational energy, converted to kinetic energy, sufficed to produce this dust (whereas, more than 150 t of TNT per tower would have to be installed, into many small holes drilled into concrete, to produce the same pulverization). The air ejected from the building by gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, the speed of almost 500 miles per hour (or 223 m/ s, or 803 km/h)on average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains the loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and other fragments, and shows that the lower margin of the dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front.
The resisting upward forces due to pulverization and to ejection of air, dust, and solid fragments, neglected in previous studies, are indeed found to be negligible during the first few seconds of collapse but not insignificant near the end of crush-down. The calculated crush-down duration is found to match a logical interpretation of seismic record, while the free fall duration grossly disagrees with this record.
What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center
Twin Towers in New York?
Thu, 2010-03-25 13:54
#135
Snert
It's a common tactic among the "just asking questions" breed of truther to "not understand".
Of course Judy wood has to go with the concrete being pulverised idea, she needs it as part of her space beams hypothesis.
Anybody read the conclusion of the Trupman paper? Yep, even the author admits he could be off the wall with his analysis. yet Judy Wood still cites it.
Thu, 2010-03-25 13:56
#136
I'm not sure I really see much merit in that.
You are free to completely ignore this thread, Snert.
Thu, 2010-03-25 13:56
#137
I think Oldgoat forgot to hit the close button. Maybe that's not how it works...
Thu, 2010-03-25 14:00
#138
Space Beams? Really? Ouch!
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3