Please don't close the thread Maysie.
It's what thread gladios do: disrupt and otherwise try their damndest to stop people from discussing the truth. And their agenda is very politically motivated, yes it is.
WTC collapses discussion thread V
Tue, 2010-08-03 23:31
#52
Wed, 2010-08-04 00:58
#53
prisonernumberone
Hi again, In a seemingly unrelated topic our government is deciding to do away with statistical analyses. CBC was commenting on this by relating one person who was for statistically enforced long form answers and one person who wasn't, and this passes for "information radio".
I believe Fidel is pointing out that arguments should be examined for content, idiocies (at best) deserve to be named as such, off the top of my head I remember someone saying some thing to the effect that " unique events can give unique results ". This was in reference to planes flying into buildings being able to cause symmetrical catastrophic dustification, the argument being, essentially, why not?) (Even though the bomber that flew into the empire state building circa WWII did no such thing)(I feel stupid even having to say that)
So anywhoo, to rabble Moderators in general and the one's gatekeeping 911 in particular, either inform yourself of the facts (yes it is possible to do this) or quit blindly thinking opposition to blatant appeals to cartoon characterizations of the actions which killed thousands of fellow humans and unleashed two illegal wars and literally millions of deaths immediately and millions more genetically and the scapegoating of over a billion muslims and has hastened the locking of the doors of a literal prison planet around us all is an unreasonable position.
There I feel a little better again. Thanks to Rabble.
As some wag said some time ago "He was much better informed, none the wiser but much better informed."
Give 911 its own preset so the truth can overwhelm these singular voices which demand we believe 1 plus 1 equals 3.
(or something like that)
bob
Wed, 2010-08-04 03:10
#54
... I never suggested that calculus is the only way to get an answer....
...
YOU are the only one saying that calculus needs to be used to calculate duration of initial impact for the upper block of floors of WTC2.
Maybe if I bold and edit my text, you will read it.
Allow me:
[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/911-collapse-theory-discussio..."Let us say that calculus is [size=16]NECESSARY[/size] to calculate delta-t.[/url]..Your calculation for delta-T involved no calculus. You claim (and I agree) that calculus is used to calculate delta -T, and then you assume that your delta-T is the correct one, even though you didn't use calculus to figure it out. Do you see how you are contradicting yourself?
And comparing that with this:
[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/wtc-collapses-discussion-thre..."I never suggested that calculus is the only way to get an answer."[/url]
Well? Is calculus necesary to calculate delta-t or not? Apparently you still don't know. Once again, calculus is not necessary in this case where neither Garcia nor Griscom use any calculus whatsoever in calculating delta-t. Calculus is irrelevant to discussion of duration of impact where Garcia has neglected to account for a whoppping 23 degree angle of upper block tilt wrt WTC2. Calculus makes a diff when calculating small rates of change and small values but not when a force vector as large as an extra metre of falling concrete slab 63 metres in length is in play. Forget the calculus at that point and resurrect Pythagoras fcs.
Considering how irrelevant the whole discussion about calculus is (i.e. it is highly irrelevant), I am not sure why you would bring it up again.
("Let us say that calculus is necessary to calculate delta-t")
You continue to post nonsense. Why do you persist in these threads? Do you remember posing the same insult in the form of this same question to the babbler jas a thread or two ago? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and so I think we should ask you what your purpose is here other than attempt to confuse and mislead people?
The normal force is equal to mass x acceleration due to gravity x the cosine of the angle.Of course, the normal force has nothing to do with duration of impact (not net force), so it seem like you are simply continuing to add irrelevant math to the discussion.
Of course it does matter to duration of impact and net force in this and other real world examples. Net force is maximized when force vectors are applied in the same direction. This law of nature is important to pilots when navigating through tail winds, cross winds, and flying into opposing wind.
Air bags in cars work by increasing the time it takes for your head to decelarate over 25 or 30 cm. Without the air bag to deal with all possible force vectors involving your skull in a head-on or broad-side car crash, the duration of impact of your relatively thin cranium against the dash or side of the car would be much shorter as that side of your skull compresses by a fraction of centimetres or more in absorbing the energy of impact. Either way the same amount if kinetic energy from your head accelerating forward has to be dealt with. Delta-t is a fairly important expression in this case but really just a single variable and-or algebraic term within the impulse momentum equation form of Newton's 2nd law - which is the same equation Garcia and I used to calculate balance of forces on the upper block upon impacting the lower.
And duration of impact matters to the WTC2 angle of tilt during collapse initiation and net force upon impact as Dr Griscom mentions in his Handwaving 9/11 Physics essay. As little as one degree of tilt changes Garcia's estimate of dynamic force of 6.1 the static weight of the upper block all the way down to 1.36 or 1.4 times. I've shown the math absent from Griscom's and Garcia's essays, and you can verify it with anyone who understands math and a bit of physics. Your anti-Newtonian, pseudo-scientific baloney is no more readable than before.
Wed, 2010-08-04 07:54
#55
I've already explained how numerous times.
Please provide a link to your evidence.
The fact that you can't find any other example in nature or engineering of a top-down collapse of something by a smaller portion of itself demonstrates this.
I have found several examples. So has PB66.
This kind of gravitational collapse doesn't exist because it violates Newton's First and Third laws.
Please provide evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a Newtonian law of motion. Thank you.
Wed, 2010-08-04 10:49
#56
[url=http://www2.ae911truth.org/info/3]"If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire[/url], it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire."
Unsupported roof spans collapsing due to snow accumulation aren't in the same class of building that the world trade centre towers were or apartment complexes exposed to fire for hours on end etc. Experienced firefighters and first responders had absolutely no reason to believe that the trade towers would collapse due to fire on 9/11. Those emergency response workers were murdered on 9/11 as well and firefighters for truth groups are calling for a real and transparent investigation into what caused the buildings to collapse as they did.
Snow accumulation atop an unsupported roof span was not a factor in NYC in September of '01. Please stick to the topic of discussion at hand.
Wed, 2010-08-04 11:28
#57
Allow me:
....
Well? Is calculus necesary to calculate delta-t or not? Apparently you still don't know. ..
Do you understand what the expression "for the sake of argument" means?
You continue to post nonsense. Why do you persist in these threads? Do you remember posing the same insult in the form of this same question to the babbler jas a thread or two ago? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and so I think we should ask you what your purpose is here other than attempt to confuse and mislead people?
....
....And duration of impact matters to the WTC2 angle of tilt during collapse initiation and net force upon impact as Dr Griscom mentions in his Handwaving 9/11 Physics essay. As little as one degree of tilt changes Garcia's estimate of dynamic force of 6.1 the static weight of the upper block all the way down to 1.36 or 1.4 times. I've shown the math absent from Griscom's and Garcia's essays, and you can verify it with anyone who understands math and a bit of physics. Your anti-Newtonian, pseudo-scientific baloney is no more readable than before.
I have looked at your math (i.e. your trigonometric calculation to get th evertical distance, and the subsequent algebra to get the delta-t), and while the numbers are correct, they do not represent anything that corresponds to reality. I have explained that this is because the delta-t that you have calculated is not the same as Garcia's.
Garcia's delta-t is based on the time that it takes for the structure to fail. The underlying idea is that once the lower structure fails, the lower structure will no longer be decelerating the upper block, and therefore will no longer be changing the velocity of the upper block.
In your trigonomteric calculation, there is no reason to assume that the lower structure will stop decelerating the upper block once it gets to the lower point of your vertical distance.
Think about it this way: you have a rafter in a roof. The rafter slopes from the ridge beam at the top of your sloping roof down to the eave at the bottm of the roof (the junction with the exterior wall). Now, let's say that we light the ridge beam on fire. After a few seconds the rafter also catches on fire.
Will the structure fail as soon as the fire reaches the lowest point of the rafter? No. It will fail when the fire has destroyed the ridge beam above, the fire has destroyed the rafter, or the fire has destroyed the exterior wall that the rafter sits on at the bottom of the roof. It has nothing to do with the time it takes for the destructive agent to reach some arbitrary point.
I hope that clarifies things.
Wed, 2010-08-04 13:35
#58
Allow me:
....
Well? Is calculus necesary to calculate delta-t or not? Apparently you still don't know. ..
Do you understand what the expression "for the sake of argument" means?
[size=12]You stated clearly and without mincing words that calculus "is necessary" to calculate delta-t, which is plainly falsifiable as I have shown. You didn't understand what you were talking about then, and you do not understand what you're talking about now with respect to Garcia's impulse momentum form of Newton's second law.[/size]
I have looked at your math (i.e. your trigonometric calculation to get the vertical distance, and the subsequent algebra to get the delta-t), and while the numbers are correct, they do not represent anything that corresponds to reality. I have explained that this is because the delta-t that you have calculated is not the same as Garcia's.
[size=12]I've explained clearly and concisely why Garcia does not account for angle of tilt of the upper block. Such an increase in dt would reduce overall force balance during initial impact by a significant amount.We have to remember that Garcia is trying to help Bazant scrounge for additional velocity and momentum and total force due to the incredible claims made by Bazant and NIST who tend to rely on less scientific explanations, like "global collapse" was "inevitable" after an an initial impact for which they are at a loss to explain how that occurred.
The ratio of the dynamic force of tilted impact to one of completely level impact becomes 0.01/0.14=0.0714. Accepting Garcia's calculation that total static plus dynamic force is 6.1 times the static force, we can normalize to static force equal to 1.0. Garcia's dynamic force is then equal to 5.1. Dynamic force for the tilted block is then 0.0714 x 5.1=0.36. Therefore total static plus dynamic force is then 1+0.36=1.36 times the static force.([url=http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html]See[/url] Manuel Garcia's impulse momentum form of Newton's 2nd law) [/size]
[b]Garcia's delta-t is based on the time that it takes for the structure to fail.[/b] The underlying idea is that once the lower structure fails, the lower structure will no longer be decelerating the upper block, and therefore will no longer be changing the velocity of the upper block.
[size=12]Actually, the delta-t that I calculated is based on Garcia's rate of instantaneous velocity at time of impact: -7.7m/s. Garcia does not say how he arrived at dt=0.01s. Perhaps you should contact Garcia and inquire if you're at all interested. But we both know that you struggle with junior level math and physics, and so I won't place an unfair onus on you to investigate further.
Dr Griscom, otoh, confirmed for me by way of Facebook that he calculated dt in the same way I did. And I challenge you to verify my math with any mature person of your choosing including math or physics teachers or other professionals who will know this stuff like the back of their hands.[/size]
In your trigonomteric calculation, there is no reason to assume that the lower structure will stop decelerating the upper block once it gets to the lower point of your vertical distance.
[size=12]Garcia says velocity took a hit of 0.5 m/s. Reduction of velocity should have been several times that figure even if the upper block had remained rigid and whole and which neither video evidence nor Newtonian laws of nature support.
And Garcia actually assumes something before time of impact. He assumes that ALL 250 steel support columns lost ALL of their structural strength simultaneously within the 0.78 seconds of the upper block's free fall descent over 3 metres. Griscom says Garcia has also neglected to factor in the different strength ratings of the columns and exposures to varying temperatures. The odds that ALL 250 steel support columns would fail simultaneously within a fraction of a second are outrageously astronomical against it happening.[/size]
Think about it this way: you have a rafter in a roof. The rafter slopes from the ridge beam at the top of your sloping roof down to the eave at the bottm of the roof (the junction with the exterior wall). Now, let's say that we light the ridge beam on fire. After a few seconds the rafter also catches on fire.
[size=12]Steel does not burst into flames like wood, or at least not until some incredibly high temperature is reached. Firefighters said the colour of the flames and amount of billowing smoke evident from video footage indicated fuel-starved fires and short-lived fires. Certainly none that were hot enough to weaken steel as claimed. There have been fires in high rise apartment and other steel framed towers of 15 floors or more and lasting hours longer than what occurred on 9/11 in NYC. But none of the steel columns in those steel frame buildings collapsed due to fires that were much higher in temperature and lasting hours longer.[/size]
Wed, 2010-08-04 13:48
#59
not all steel is created equal, nor functions equally under different circumstances.
Wed, 2010-08-04 14:35
#60
Of course not. WTC was built with the shoddiest of steel made by phony-baloney non-unionized steel manufacturers and certified for dog house construction at most in the 1960's. It's a wonder it even held up for the time it did after only being designed to withstand hurricane winds and passenger jet collisions at 600 mph. Steel performs a lot like wood and glass and wet Kleenex under super-duper heavy loads as our very non-partisan in-house experts on New York City building construction rules and regulations have stated a number of times before.
Nevertheless, NIST and the crazy George Dubya feds decided it wasn't necessary to thoroughly investigate what caused the worst building collapses in history. Why not?: Because they had a phony war to wage against pre-selected energy-rich and militarily strategic countries populated largely by desperately poor people.
Wed, 2010-08-04 14:37
#61
Of course not. WTC was built with the shoddiest of steel made by the most slip-shod streel manufacturers and certified for dog house construction at most in the 1960's.
In that case, it would seem that things were a little overdone with the nano-thermite explosives. Chances are it would have collapsed anyway.
Wed, 2010-08-04 14:51
#62
Different. Stronger along some lines, rather than others.
for a building to stand the strengths and weaknesses of component parts need to complement for resilience.
Wed, 2010-08-04 15:02
#63
The very non-partisan NIST people admit to not having tested any of the steel recovered(one percent of the total) or rubble/powder for pyrotechnics of any kind whatsoever. That was after FEMA was designated the investigation arm of the deal into 9/11, a US Gov. agency that had never investigated building collapses or anything of the sort before.
And Mr Manuel Garcia whose comments on 9/11 we have discussed here at some length might be a lot more familiar with military grade nanothermitic materials due to who his employers are, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, UCal-Berkeley and now contracted by the US Military and private sources to do basic research into what will likely be the most deadly biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction ever conceived. (See [url=http://911review.com/articles/ryan/nist_thermite_connection.html]The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites[/url])
Dr Zdenek Bazant is another interesting fall guy for NIST and bipartisan war criminal regimes past and present. Bazant came from the former USSR and stayed behind in America after the tanks rolled on Prague. He's a well respected research scientist, and Bazant has done very well for himself as a US Government lackey ever since. Very well indeed.
Wed, 2010-08-04 15:05
#64
Please provide evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a Newtonian law of motion. Thank you.
Wed, 2010-08-04 15:08
#65
I really don't believe you would recognize a Newtonian law of motion if you tripped over one.
Wed, 2010-08-04 15:10
#66
I really don't believe you would recognize a Newtonian law of motion if you tripped over one.
Insulting me is not evidence.
Please provide evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a Newtonian law of motion. Thank you.
Wed, 2010-08-04 15:47
#67
The fact that you can't find any other example in nature or engineering of a top-down collapse of something by a smaller portion of itself demonstrates this.I have found several examples. So has PB66.
You have found no examples. The bizarre examples you've supplied so far are inapplicable and seem to completely misunderstand what a top-down gravitational collapse of a structure by a smaller portion of itself is. That is understandable, however, since it doesn't exist.
It does not exist. You have provided no examples.
Please provide evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a Newtonian law of motion. Thank you.
Please finish your explanation of how conservation of mass and conservation of momentum apply to the crush-down, crush-up theory. Thank you.
Wed, 2010-08-04 15:54
#68
You have found no examples. The bizarre examples you've supplied so far are inapplicable and seem to completely misunderstand what a top-down gravitational collapse of a structure by a smaller portion of itself is. That is understandable, however, since it doesn't exist.It does not exist. You have provided no examples.
Please explain how the house of cards is not an example. Thank you.
Please finish your explanation of how conservation of mass and conservation of momentum apply to the crush-down, crush-up theory. Thank you.
Oh, I'll answer any question you want and concede any point you wish, as soon as you provide evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a Newtonian law of motion.
Thank you.
Wed, 2010-08-04 15:59
#69
Please explain how the house of cards is not an example. Thank you.
I have alrady explained this about six times. I'm sorry you're having difficulty understanding. Please review the last two threads. Thank you.
Please finish your explanation of how conservation of mass and conservation of momentum apply to the crush-down, crush-up theory. Thank you.
Oh, I'll answer any question you want and concede any point you wish, as soon as you provide evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a Newtonian law of motion.
I and we have already explained this. Every thread we start makes this argument and supplies the evidence, but I am happy to go into further detail once you explain to me how conservation of mass and conservation of momentum are used in the model you defend.
Wed, 2010-08-04 16:15
#70
I have alrady explained this about six times. I'm sorry you're having difficulty understanding. Please review the last two threads. Thank you.
I already have. I found no good reason why the house of cards does not work as an example. I am sorry that I have trouble understanding. Perhaps you could explain it again in a few short sentences.
I and we have already explained this. Every thread we start makes this argument and supplies the evidence, but I am happy to go into further detail once you explain to me how conservation of mass and conservation of momentum are used in the model you defend.
Please provide a link to your evidence. Thank you.
Wed, 2010-08-04 16:17
#71
In case some here are having trouble following this point --and I certainly don't blame you-- here's what Pants has offered as some examples of top-driven gravitational collapse:
1) a house of cards
2) a stack of wineglasses hundreds of millions of miles high
3) an exact replica of the WTC made of chocolate
He's very "scientifical" isn't he? Is he still your hero?
Wed, 2010-08-04 16:19
#72
Here was my reply.
http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/wtc-collapses-discussion-thre...
Wed, 2010-08-04 16:21
#73
Pants, please explain how conservation of mass and momentum are used in the model you defend.
Wed, 2010-08-04 16:33
#74
Here was my reply.
http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/wtc-collapses-discussion-thre...
Your reply was merely a refusal to acknowledge that a house of cards will fall over if you knock out a few "floors" near the top.
This is your "evidence" that it won't work:
The house of cards is not an example. If you want to use cards, use the analogy of a tall stack of playing cards, comprising several decks. Theoretically destroy a few cards in the upper portion of the stack. The upper stack does not crush through the remaining stack.
As you can see, there is no evidence that it won't work. Merely a repeat of your claim that it won't work.
You have yet to provide any evidence showing that a house of cards will always stay up if you knock out a few floors on it.
You have yet to provide any evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a law of physics.
Wed, 2010-08-04 16:36
#75
Your reply was merely a refusal to acknowledge that a house of cards will fall over if you knock out a few "floors" near the top.
We are not talking about things falling over.
You have yet to provide any evidence showing that a house of cards will always stay up if you knock out a few floors on it.
Nor have I ever made this claim.
Wed, 2010-08-04 16:37
#76
This is another example of Pants re-interpreting the argument in order to better fit his answers.
Wed, 2010-08-04 16:38
#77
We are not talking about things falling over.
....
Nor have I ever made this claim.
Please provide evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a Newtonian law of motion. Thank you.
Wed, 2010-08-04 16:40
#78
Actually, let's revisit this:
This is your "evidence" that it won't work:
The house of cards is not an example. If you want to use cards, use the analogy of a tall stack of playing cards, comprising several decks. Theoretically destroy a few cards in the upper portion of the stack. The upper stack does not crush through the remaining stack.As you can see, there is no evidence that it won't work. Merely a repeat of your claim that it won't work.
Is Pants claiming that the above experiment would produce a crushing down of the stack of cards by the top portion??
Wed, 2010-08-04 16:42
#79
Do you have any evidence that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a Newtonian law of motion?
Wed, 2010-08-04 16:43
#80
We are not talking about things falling over.
....
Nor have I ever made this claim.
Please provide evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a Newtonian law of motion. Thank you.
And post #76 is an example of when Pants never actually concedes a point, but instead merely changes the topic.
Wed, 2010-08-04 16:49
#81
Pants, you seem to want to change the topic again. Are you conceding the point we have been discussing, or do you want to answer my question from post #77?
Wed, 2010-08-04 16:54
#82
I really don't believe you would recognize a Newtonian law of motion if you tripped over one.
Insulting me is not evidence.
You can't rely on doing this entirely on a scrap piece of paper. What we're doing here is a rough estimation and using math that most people can understand without delving into calculus as even Dr. Manuel Garcia attempted to do in his Counterpunch essay. The problem with that one is that a large and significant error of omission was committed, and use of the calculus would not change delta-t or the result of his impulse momentum equation by enough to push his number for net force magnitude back to where Garcia claims it should be at the time of initial impact of the South Tower's upper block meeting the lower.
At some point a real investigative team has to acknowledge the numerous eye witness testimonials corroborating one another, and the video and other physical evidence ignored by NIST, Zdenek Bazant and his chemist partner in denying 9/11 truth, Frank Greening. Non-truthers certainly ask a lot of questions and ignoring the answers provided them by truth seekers. But sooner than agree that a legitimate investigation take place, they continue to obfuscate and deflect these inconvenient truths for the sake of delaying and denying that justice be done. All in all I think most people find non-truth seekers to be of [url=http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml]a certain mind set[/url] that tends to be dogmatic, intolerant of ambiguity, and tend to avoid uncertainty. And I think this may be why they tend to see Newtonian laws of nature as supportive of the official conspiracy theory rather than not supportive. How else could things be in their overly simplified world?
Wed, 2010-08-04 16:54
#83
All in all I think most people find non-truth seekers to be of [url=http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=19915]a certain mind set[/url] that tends to be dogmatic, intolerant of ambiguity, and tend to avoid uncertainty. And I think this may be why they tend to see Newtonian laws of nature as supportive of the official conspiracy theory rather than not supportive. How else could things be in their overly simplified world?
Dogmatic, yes. The other two I don't see in them. In fact, the official theory relies almost entirely on ambiguity and uncertainty. However, it is certainly strange and contradictory to see some of these people so certain and unambiguous in their opinions about a theory that is so uncertain and ambiguous.
Wed, 2010-08-04 17:02
#84
Pants, you seem to want to change the topic again. Are you conceding the point we have been discussing, or do you want to answer my question from post #77?
I just want you to give me the evidence that I have been asking for since the end of the last thread. We are now past the 80th post in this one and you still haven't shown me the evidence.I do not care about whatever point you may wish to discuss now, or your question from some post that is irrelevant to my demand for evidence.
Please present the evidence now, jas.
Wed, 2010-08-04 17:06
#85
.
Wed, 2010-08-04 17:07
#86
We've shown you overwhelming evidence. I will go into more detail about how it relates, imo, to newton's First and Third laws, if htat's what you want...
Yes, please.
However, a link to the evidence you have already presented will suffice.
Wed, 2010-08-04 17:08
#87
We've shown you overwhelming evidence. I will go into more detail about how it relates, imo, to Newton's First and Third laws, if that's what you want, once you provide an explanation of how your model uses conservation of mass and momentum.
Pants, are you conceding the point about your house of cards, or would you like to answer my question in post #77? Because I don't want to have to keep dealing with this stupid analogy, so let's get it out of the way now so it doesn't keep popping up like a clown out of a box in future threads. Thanks.
Wed, 2010-08-04 17:09
#88
Please answer the questions I ask in the post above.
Wed, 2010-08-04 17:12
#89
All in all I think most people find non-truth seekers to be of [url=http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=19915]a certain mind set[/url] that tends to be dogmatic, intolerant of ambiguity, and tend to avoid uncertainty. And I think this may be why they tend to see Newtonian laws of nature as supportive of the official conspiracy theory rather than not supportive. How else could things be in their overly simplified world?
Dogmatic, yes. The other two I don't see in them. In fact, the official theory relies almost entirely on ambiguity and uncertainty. However, it is certainly strange and contradictory to see some of these people so certain and unambiguous in their opinions about a theory that is so uncertain and ambiguous.
Reminds me of a comedic movie I once saw entitled, It's Pat! I'll bet not a lot of political conservatives enjoyed that one.
Wed, 2010-08-04 17:16
#90
This is an example of how Pants avoids answering questions: changing the topic suddenly, or asking other questions in lieu. We have sometimes gone through 25 - 30 posts like this, with Pants avoiding simple questions that he could quickly answer. It occurs frequently also when he asks for "evidence" that we've already provided and ask him to google himself. He's a classic timewaster.
Wed, 2010-08-04 17:16
#91
I love Pat! 
Wed, 2010-08-04 17:50
#92
Since I've given Pants plenty of opportunity to answer the question I pose in post #77, I'll take his silence to mean he's conceded the point about his house of cards, and therefore has conceded that there are no real-life examples of a top-down crushing of something by a smaller portion of itself. Hopefully he won't attempt to bring up this silliness again. I guess we can just refer him here if he does.
I guess we can get back to a discussion of how conservation of mass and momentum are supposedly used in the NIST/Bazant hypothesis. I may have to proceed without Pants, since he seems unwilling to provide any explanation beyond:
Conservation of mass tells us that the upper block does not magically disappear into thin air. So, once it started falling, all the mass had to go somewhere. Using the law of gravity, we know it went down. Using the law of conservation of momentum, we know that as it went down, it imparted energy to the lower floors.
I'll have to bone up on my physics a bit first, but will get back to this. I'm a little confused as to how he is using laws that are applicable only to isolated systems, for the WTC. The other confusing thing, regarding conservation of momentum, is that the NISTers supposedly use it in their argument, but it's actually this law that debunks their argument. This definitely causes confusion about whose theory is supported by what.
If anyone wants to help me or Pants out here, feel free to jump in. If Pants wants to jump in, I would ask him first to explain clearly how these laws are applied in the NIST/Bazant model. Thanks.
Wed, 2010-08-04 17:52
#93
Jas, [url=http://www.dailycommonsense.com/mit-engineer-jeff-king-says-911-official... Jeff King(YouTube)[/url] talks about the dust clouds as pyroclastic flows emitted from the collapsing towers as you mentioned before. King says complete failure of steel columns points more toward demolition than steel failing as a result weakening due to fire. It's a good video overall, but I couldn't crank the sound high enough on this PC to hear everything King said.
Wed, 2010-08-04 19:45
#94
[url=http://www.dailycommonsense.com/mit-engineer-jeff-king-says-911-official... Jeff King(YouTube)[/url]
I remember seeing this a couple of years ago. Yes, and the opening sequence points to the widepread reports of explosions.
Thu, 2010-08-05 10:00
#96
.... I'm a little confused as to how he is using laws that are applicable only to isolated systems, for the WTC. ...
Are you saying that conservation of mass and conservation of momentum are not universally applicable?
Please provide evidence for this claim.
Also, you have yet to provide any evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a law of physics.