HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Offbeat » Creative Speculation (Group) » They shall be known as Bu...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 06:54 PM

They shall be known as Bush's Laws of Motion

from now on.

the events of 9/11 prove one thing: the known laws of physics are out of date and require immediate updating, in light of the official reports. because the laws of gravity are so 17th century. and Isaac Newton was obviously a conspiracy nut trufer.











248 replies, 11235 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 248 replies Author Time Post
Reply They shall be known as Bush's Laws of Motion (Original post)
gyroscope Jan 2012 OP
zappaman Jan 2012 #1
gyroscope Jan 2012 #2
William Seger Jan 2012 #8
zappaman Jan 2012 #3
gyroscope Jan 2012 #4
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #5
gyroscope Jan 2012 #6
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #7
gyroscope Jan 2012 #9
zappaman Jan 2012 #12
gyroscope Jan 2012 #14
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #20
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #10
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #66
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #11
zappaman Jan 2012 #13
jesters Jan 2012 #15
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #62
gyroscope Jan 2012 #16
William Seger Jan 2012 #17
gyroscope Jan 2012 #18
William Seger Jan 2012 #19
gyroscope Jan 2012 #21
AZCat Jan 2012 #22
gyroscope Jan 2012 #23
AZCat Jan 2012 #24
cpwm17 Jan 2012 #25
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #26
cpwm17 Jan 2012 #28
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #29
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #63
gyroscope Jan 2012 #30
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #31
gyroscope Jan 2012 #32
Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2012 #34
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #35
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #64
William Seger Jan 2012 #27
gyroscope Jan 2012 #33
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #36
jesters Jan 2012 #37
cpwm17 Jan 2012 #38
Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #39
jesters Jan 2012 #41
AZCat Jan 2012 #44
AZCat Jan 2012 #45
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #42
jesters Jan 2012 #43
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #65
AZCat Dec 2013 #236
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #239
AZCat Dec 2013 #241
William Seger Jan 2012 #46
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #47
William Seger Jan 2012 #48
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #49
William Seger Jan 2012 #50
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #51
jesters Jan 2012 #52
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #53
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #67
AZCat Dec 2013 #69
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #70
AZCat Dec 2013 #71
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #72
AZCat Dec 2013 #73
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #74
AZCat Dec 2013 #75
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #76
AZCat Dec 2013 #77
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #78
AZCat Dec 2013 #79
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #80
AZCat Dec 2013 #81
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #82
AZCat Dec 2013 #83
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #84
AZCat Dec 2013 #85
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #86
AZCat Dec 2013 #87
zappaman Dec 2013 #88
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #89
AZCat Dec 2013 #90
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #91
AZCat Dec 2013 #92
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #93
AZCat Dec 2013 #94
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #95
AZCat Dec 2013 #96
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #97
AZCat Dec 2013 #98
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #99
AZCat Dec 2013 #100
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #101
AZCat Dec 2013 #102
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #103
AZCat Dec 2013 #104
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #105
AZCat Dec 2013 #106
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #107
AZCat Dec 2013 #108
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #109
AZCat Dec 2013 #110
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #113
AZCat Dec 2013 #118
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #122
AZCat Dec 2013 #126
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #130
AZCat Dec 2013 #134
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #140
AZCat Dec 2013 #143
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #146
AZCat Dec 2013 #148
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #150
AZCat Dec 2013 #152
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #154
AZCat Dec 2013 #156
AZCat Dec 2013 #111
zappaman Dec 2013 #112
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #115
zappaman Dec 2013 #116
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #117
AZCat Dec 2013 #119
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #123
AZCat Dec 2013 #128
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #129
AZCat Dec 2013 #136
AZCat Dec 2013 #121
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #124
AZCat Dec 2013 #142
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #144
AZCat Dec 2013 #145
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #151
AZCat Dec 2013 #155
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #158
AZCat Dec 2013 #159
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #160
AZCat Dec 2013 #162
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #164
AZCat Dec 2013 #165
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #168
AZCat Dec 2013 #170
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #172
AZCat Dec 2013 #173
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #176
AZCat Dec 2013 #179
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #184
AZCat Dec 2013 #187
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #191
AZCat Dec 2013 #193
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #197
AZCat Dec 2013 #199
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #201
AZCat Dec 2013 #203
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #208
AZCat Dec 2013 #210
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #212
AZCat Dec 2013 #214
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #215
AZCat Dec 2013 #218
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #225
AZCat Dec 2013 #226
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #230
AZCat Dec 2013 #231
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #233
AZCat Dec 2013 #234
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #237
AZCat Dec 2013 #238
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #240
AZCat Dec 2013 #242
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #243
AZCat Dec 2013 #245
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #247
AZCat Dec 2013 #221
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #224
AZCat Dec 2013 #227
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #244
AZCat Dec 2013 #246
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #248
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #114
AZCat Dec 2013 #120
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #125
AZCat Dec 2013 #127
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #131
AZCat Dec 2013 #132
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #133
AZCat Dec 2013 #135
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #137
AZCat Dec 2013 #138
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #139
AZCat Dec 2013 #141
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #147
AZCat Dec 2013 #149
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #153
AZCat Dec 2013 #157
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #161
AZCat Dec 2013 #163
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #166
AZCat Dec 2013 #167
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #169
AZCat Dec 2013 #171
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #174
AZCat Dec 2013 #175
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #178
AZCat Dec 2013 #180
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #185
AZCat Dec 2013 #186
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #190
AZCat Dec 2013 #194
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #195
AZCat Dec 2013 #198
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #202
AZCat Dec 2013 #204
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #211
AZCat Dec 2013 #213
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #216
AZCat Dec 2013 #219
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #222
AZCat Dec 2013 #228
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #232
AZCat Dec 2013 #235
AZCat Dec 2013 #177
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #181
AZCat Dec 2013 #182
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #183
AZCat Dec 2013 #188
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #189
AZCat Dec 2013 #192
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #196
AZCat Dec 2013 #200
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #205
AZCat Dec 2013 #206
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #207
AZCat Dec 2013 #209
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #217
AZCat Dec 2013 #220
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #223
AZCat Dec 2013 #229
gyroscope Jan 2012 #54
William Seger Jan 2012 #57
gyroscope Jan 2012 #58
William Seger Jan 2012 #59
gyroscope Jan 2012 #60
OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #61
krispos42 Jan 2012 #40
cpwm17 Jan 2012 #55
krispos42 Jan 2012 #56
Ace Acme Dec 2013 #68

Response to gyroscope (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 08:16 PM

1. Good luck with that.

You have amply demonstrated you know nothing about physics and even less about gravity.
Would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 08:29 PM

2. I admit

I know nothing about the new fangled post-9/11 physics.

care to explain them to me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 09:55 PM

8. "post-9/11 physics"

... is exactly the same as pre-9/11 physics, despite the "truth movement" attacks. For example, you can find an actual-physics-based explanation for the "near free fall" acceleration of the collapse in this paper by Dr. Frank Greening. If you don't like that one, there are plenty of others that take completely different approaches and arrive at the same general conclusions.

The mere fact that you're baffled by the collapses doesn't mean any new physics are required to explain them. Maybe you're a little too willing to be baffled...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 08:32 PM

3. According to you, Bush has explained them.

Care to link?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 08:44 PM

4. True that

only problem is, I have a hard time understanding Bushspeak.

would you (or anyone else) care to translate? thanks in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 08:49 PM

5. That drawing is incredibly prejudicial and wrongheaded.

For one, making it seem that the upper section could have been supported by a crane. It totally throws your mind's perception of the event off.

For two, debris that fell out and was free to fall did indeed accelerate faster than the upper section.

There is nothing that violates the law of gravity about this event.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 09:26 PM

6. Then you can imagine the graphic without the cranes

what difference does it make?

the debris was propelled outward and downward by the force of the explosions.

it wasn't just gravity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 09:46 PM

7. what explosions?

Obviously your opinions don't have a lot to do with the laws of motion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 10:01 PM

9. You know

the explosions that were reported by hundreds of firefighters, journalists, and others on the scene. just the people who were there. that's all.

nothing to see here, move along.

because you know, the NIST people were not on the scene.
yet they somehow know better than all the witnesses who were?

yeah, that makes sense.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 10:06 PM

12. So, the NIST was in on the coverup?

Good to know.
How many people are we up to now that were in on this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 10:13 PM

14. Who do you believe?

A) NIST?

or

B) Innumerable on-scene witnesses who corroborate each other?



One of them is lying. Guess which one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:59 AM

20. interesting perceptions

I guess we could quibble about the definition of "explosions" -- that's been done extensively over the last decade.

But if you really believe (not that you said this) that many eyewitnesses share your opinion that the Twin Towers were demolished by explosives, then NIST is the least of your problems. The people who believe that generally aren't eyewitnesses; they seem disproportionately to be people who spend lots of time staring at videos. If eyewitnesses tended spontaneously to form the impression that the towers were demolished by explosives, then the movement wouldn't have to seine for a handful of people to say so at its events; people would have been saying so all over New York City.

It's logically possible that the eyewitness testimony could support an explosive demolition scenario. But it's remarkably hard to get folks to try to lay out such a scenario -- and I can't think of anyone who has tried to develop such a scenario around eyewitness statements. There must be someone, somewhere, but it rarely if ever happens here. I've interacted with a bunch of people who believe in CD, and I can't think of any who seemed to have formed their view based on eyewitness evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 10:01 PM

10. Ricochets also account for debris propelled out. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 06:27 PM

66. Propelled out 600 feet at 55 mph? Can you substantiate that? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Original post)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 10:06 PM

11. Also, why "Bush Laws of Motion"?

Since both Democrats and Republicans accept the common understanding of how these buildings fell, framing this as "Bush Laws of Motion" is needlessly political.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 10:07 PM

13. apparently George Bush has discovered a new law of physics.

but the poster who claims this can't point us to it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 10:17 PM

15. Common understanding?

The "common understanding" of how the buildings fell is still based on FEMA's pancaking model, which NIST declared non-viable. NIST never provided a collapse progression model of its own, and few "common folk" have bothered to read Bazant.

So there really is no "common understanding" of the WTC destruction that's based on any kind of realistic or credible model.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jesters (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 06:03 PM

62. Excellent point, jester

 

For three years, FEMA's zipper/pancake theory was conventional engineering wisdom. Then in 2005 NIST overturned the zipper/pancake theory--and with no debate, discussion, hand-wringing, or defenses, the column-failure theory becomes
conventional engineering wisdom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 10:21 PM

16. The title is a parody

of Dubya's well known general distaste for science and facts.
and that the official reports were produced under his administration.

I'm not accusing you or anyone else of being a Bush supporter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 10:48 PM

17. The irony is, you've got the shoe on the wrong foot

"Truth movement science" is an oxymoron.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 12:22 AM

18. You consider the drawing an example of 'truther' science?

I'm flattered but I think the term 'common sense' would suffice.

what do you think happens when the two blocks are dropped?

do they reach the ground at the same time?
or should only one of them reach the ground at all?

what do you think Sir Newton's answer would be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 01:30 AM

19. The language of physics is math, not cartoons and hand-waving

> do they reach the ground at the same time?

No.

> or should only one of them reach the ground at all?

No.

> what do you think Sir Newton's answer would be?

No.

That was easy.

> I'm flattered but I think the term 'common sense' would suffice.

You're flattering yourself, but the term is "nonsense."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 11:39 AM

21. Do you know the difference

between a cartoon and an illustration?



or should only one of them reach the ground at all?

No.


Upon being dropped from the crane, you're saying the left upper block reaches the ground after smashing through the entire length of the much more massive lower block? Going through the path of most resistance? How in the world does that work? By applying Bushonian laws of physics? Or should I say Nistonian? Magic? David Copperfield? Wow.

That can happen in a cartoon maybe not in the real world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 12:19 PM

22. The path of most resistance?

What kind of a bizarre argument is that? Anywhere but down is unlikely, considering the objects involved are all exposed to a (quasi)uniform gravitational field.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 01:13 PM

23. Anywhere but down is unlikely?

it isn't going anywhere.

the upper block isn't going anywhere (beyond the distance of the gap between it and the lower block). once dropped from the crane, it drops onto the top of the lower block and it rests there. period.


considering the objects involved are all exposed to a (quasi)uniform gravitational field.

the object involved is also exposed to a more massive object resting between it and the ground. did you forget to mention that little detail?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 01:14 PM

24. You're forgetting the possibility of local failure.

Happens pretty often, actually. The mass of the object isn't that important (except when considering momentum transfer).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 02:00 PM

25. Nobody, anywhere, has explained how that would happen

The towers when intact and static can support a few times their own weight. How then can the same tower withstand a force many times that after failure has already occurred and not collapse further. You are imagining some new type of physics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 02:28 PM

26. this is where the word "cartoon" is hard to resist

To put AZCat's point about local failure more vividly, you might as well argue that a brick can't smash through a car windshield because, after all, the car has so much more mass than the brick.

Let me attempt to anticipate a likely defense mechanism: yes, yes, of course that is not a good model of the tower collapses. It isn't intended to model the tower collapses; it's intended to illustrate the gaping hole in your reasoning. That "more massive object" isn't just an object; the "lower block" isn't just a block. Your model neglects a really basic fact about a building: it's, y'know, built. It isn't a point mass; it has components and structure.

Of course, the "upper block" isn't just a block, either. Damage is occurring to both the upper floors and the lower floors; ever more mass is falling, some of it within the footprint of the tower, some of it outside. The upper floors don't have to remain intact all the way to the ground (or the pile), nor do they have to smash everything in their path.

If you can't even wrap your head around this possibility -- if you can only imagine that the upper floors drop onto the top of the lower floors and rest there, because there are more lower floors than there are upper floors -- then I guess you'll be pretty puzzled by the professional literature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 02:53 PM

28. I like the car analogy

They might as well claim that the towers couldn't have collapsed because the towers were attached to the earth; and the earth is far more massive than the top sections of the buildings. It's essentially the same argument they are apparently already making taken to its logical extreme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #28)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 03:34 PM

29. I actually thought about something like that

I decided that it is more appealing (in general) to argue that the windshield is part of the car than that the towers are part of the "built earth." Either way, you have a model that would be fine for some problems, and fails miserably in others.

People who trash the various Bazant models, but seem oblivious to the holes in their own models, don't really seem to understand what models are for. I think that is unfortunate quite apart from any particular debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 06:09 PM

63. The Bazant model bears no resemblance to reality.

 

The persistence of 40 stories of the lower core structure after the outer floors had fallen down shows that Bazant's piledriver is a myth.
Had the piledriver remained intact, it would have impaled itself on the intact lower core.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 04:20 PM

30. Do you prefer the PBS cartoon model?

Here you go:




1) so how do you explain the total destruction of the core columns, which this NOVA documentary ignores in their ridiculous pancake model?


2) how do you explain that the core columns are very massive at their base getting progressively thinner as they rise toward the top? the 'components and structure' are much more robust at their base then they are at the upper block. how is it possible for the latter to destroy the former? do you have a model that can illustrate this phenomena?

3) how does the upper block remain intact all the way to the bottom without destroying itself on the way down and violating the third law of motion?

for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. remember?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 04:33 PM

31. (ducks goalposts)

Is there any point at which you take it upon yourself to respond to my points? Or is that for the little people?

I couldn't care less about the PBS animation, except as an apparent tacit concession that your previous argument is a smoking ruin.

OTOH: ...The upper floors don't have to remain intact all the way to the ground (or the pile)....

gyroscope: 3) how does the upper block remain intact all the way to the bottom....


OTOH: nor do they have to smash everything in their path.

gyroscope: 2) ... the 'components and structure' are much more robust at their base then they are at the upper block. how is it possible for the latter to destroy the former?...


It's true: no one ever said that you had to read my messages before replying to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 05:20 PM

32. No problem.

How about Bazant's model?

You like that one better?






In Bazant's drawing, the little block looks pretty intact to me.
How is that possible?


OTOH: ...The upper floors don't have to remain intact all the way to the ground (or the pile).


And what about the big block? Why does it disintegrate while the little block remains relatively pristine?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 05:53 PM

34. "In Bazant's drawing, the little block looks pretty intact to me."

--erm--

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 06:16 PM

35. accepting your concession and continuing...

In Bazant's drawing, the little block looks pretty intact to me, until it doesn't.
How is that possible?...

And what about the big block? Why does it disintegrate while the little block remains relatively pristine, until it doesn't?


FIFY.

Those questions are answered in the paper. Should I assume that they aren't serious questions, or that you haven't read the paper?

Against my better judgment, I'll try to answer in simple words. In that model, between the "top" and the "bottom" is a compacted zone of rubble, which increases in mass and is accelerated by gravity. As long as it is falling, that rubble is crushing the "bottom," not the "top." That is perfectly consistent with Newton's laws -- and if you can understand that the "top" isn't the only thing that falls, you'll be closer to understanding the professional literature, not to mention the video evidence.

It's not nearly enough to denounce the model as unrealistic. To justify your apparent concern with the timing of crush-up vis-a-vis crush-down, you'll not only have to make your case -- ideally with at least as much formal analysis as Bazant and Verdure -- but you'll also need to make a rigorous case that the timing matters to the fate of the towers. I am not holding my breath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 06:13 PM

64. Since Bazant's model bears no resemblance to reality, there's no need to make any case at all.

 

There's only the fact that NIST does not explain the collapses, and obviously Bazant doesn't either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 02:43 PM

27. I gave you a link above

... to a paper that explains that, using nothing but "old-school" physics, analyzed by someone who isn't even a U.S. citizen (Canadian) much less part of the Bush administration, and you completely ignored it. It seem not to occur to you that there are a LOT of people in the world who can understand that paper, and could also recognize a valid, science-based criticism of it if one were offered. Your personal incredulity, however, is not evidence of anything but itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #27)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 05:48 PM

33. Greening?

Oh I remember him now. Isn't he the guy who said the laws of physics were suspended on 9/11!?


Greening: "Newton's 3rd Law applies to bouncing billiard balls, not the interiors of collapsing buildings ........"


Where'd this guy get his degree? Bob Jones University?
To see more of Greening's brilliant mind at work, go here:

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/FGvsNewton.pdf


Jaw-dropping stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #33)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 06:37 PM

36. if one can trust Legge, then Greening made a good point poorly

Chandler had said, "Moving downward without deceleration while crushing columns designed to support several times the weight...now that's a problem" -- and Legge adds a bracketed gloss that "it would violate Newton's third law."

But it doesn't violate Newton's third law. As several of us have tried to explain, the acceleration of the falling mass will remain positive upon collision unless the reaction force of collision actually equals or exceeds the gravitational force upon the falling mass.

Greening could have said something like this: In high school physics classes, collisions between a moving object and a stationary object almost always cause the moving object to slow down -- because, generally, no other force is accelerating the moving object. (If it's a billiard ball, then gravity is trying to accelerate it right through the table, but the table is pushing back.) But if the object is falling, then the gravitational force does have to be taken into account. Newton's Third Law still applies to the collision, but contrary to Truth Physics, it doesn't dictate that a falling object has to decelerate when it collides with something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:05 PM

37. A collision is a collision

whether gravity is producing it or some other force. Newton's third law is not changed by the fact that gravity is creating the collision.

I can't believe you're trying to suggest this.

This is absurdity.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jesters (Reply #37)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 08:46 PM

38. You totally don't understand collisions

What's the property of collisions that causes a change of velocity of the colliding bodies? Could it be force?

What is the property of gravity that causes a change in velocity of bodies in a gravitational field? Is it also force?

So what happens when the force of gravity on a body is greater than the opposing force from the colliding object? Well that's easy. The body accelerates through the collision in the direction of gravity - only the acceleration during the collision is not as great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #38)

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 10:41 PM

39. Especially collisions between two non-solid structures with pieces to break off. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 04:12 AM

41. You should really be asking AZCat these questions.

He's the one who's having problems with this concept.

Nothing you have said here contradicts what I said. Do you understand this?

But then you're trying to take these everyday common sense principles and stretch them to imply that gravity can pull the top portion of a building through itself at a rate just a little bit under free fall. It cannot. There is no theory or model existing today that shows this can happen. It cannot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jesters (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:06 AM

44. Really? Because IIRC you were the one making pretty bold statements...

that directly contradict the SECOND law (and then got hostile when I pointed this out).

Your ignorance of physics fundamentals is going to constantly interfere with your understanding of the various models of the collapse. I suggest rectifying this, otherwise you're continually going to be a laughing-stock here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 09:07 AM

45. He doesn't understand impulse, either.

He tried to call it a force the other day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jesters (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 06:49 AM

42. try reading it again

Newton's third law is not changed by the fact that gravity is creating the collision.


I didn't say a damn thing about changing Newton's third law, based on the cause of the collision or anything else.

If you can't manage to respond to arguments I actually make in short, simple posts, why would you expect to be taken seriously when you attempt to critique JEM articles?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #42)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 07:45 AM

43. unintelligible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #36)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 06:26 PM

65. Obviously at some point the reaction force (structural resistance) is overwhelmed

 

by the gravitational force transmitted by the falling mass.

But neither NIST nor Bazant even tried to show us how they got a falling mass. They simply assumed it.

It fell because it was falling. Grandma died because death overwhelmed her fading vitality.

That's not good enough. Democracy demands a higher standard than circular arguments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #65)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 12:53 AM

236. I don't think you're properly interpreting the NIST reports.

By calculating DCRs in excess of 1 (based on their analysis of impact damage and subsequent fires) and examining the sequence of failures that likely resulted, the NIST demonstrated a probable collapse initiation (i.e. a falling mass).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #236)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:00 AM

239. And they did all that in one narrative paragraph with no calculations. Impressive! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #239)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 08:12 AM

241. You need to actually read the report.

If you did, you'd find a lot of your arguments to be incorrect. Like this one. I suggest you do more than read the summary as well, since that may summarize topics that get much more detail elsewhere in the supporting documents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #33)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 10:49 AM

46. Greening was correct

Last edited Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Newton's third law does not apply to collapsing buildings the way that Chandler is applying it. The irrefutable proof of that is that Chandler's analysis would predict that Verinage demolitions are impossible without weakening all the floors.



In fact, they proceed very much like the Greening energy transfer analysis that you would like to avoid discussing. I personally find it jaw-dropping that anyone could watch a Verinage demolition and still not see that Chandler's analysis cannot possibly be correct. In all the "third law" blather the "truthers" dumped on Greening in its frantic effort to find an excuse to dismiss his other arguments, I can't find much understanding at all of what he was really getting at, which was Chandler's obviously improper handling of the dynamic, gravity-driven scenario. "Truthers" seem to think that attacking Greening's attempt to explain what was wrong with it not only somehow validated Chandler's analysis, it also discredited Greening's collaboration with Bazant, Le, and Benson on a paper that "truthers" apparently can't refute and so resort to personal attacks on all of those authors. But when the smoke cleared, Chandler's interpretation of the collapses was just as idiotic as it always had been, whereas Greening's analysis explains both the WTC collapses and Verinage demolitions in a way that agrees with observation.

And, I see you would also like to ignore my point that Bazant and Greening aren't the only people who have analyzed the collapse and came to the same conclusion: There is no need to resort to bizarre explanations involving imaginary causes for which there is not a shred of credible evidence. On the other hand, you expect us to be impressed with YouTube videos that conclude that Verinage demolitions must be impossible because they violate laws of physics? No thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #46)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:04 PM

47. Chandler would not see your point about verinage

I think he would say that the Balzac-Vitry verinage proves his point, because the upper block decelerated after impact. In fact, that's what he seems to be saying in the video that jesters linked to in the NTA thread. Of course, his argument is a mess.

I may have the 'history' wrong, but it seems that Chandler shifted from arguing that impact entails a change in acceleration to arguing that it entails a period of negative acceleration, perhaps not even noticing that his argument had changed.

Yeah, trying to use Chandler vs. Greening to discredit Greening is... odd.

ETA: Forgot to mention that your verinage link seems to be broken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 12:34 PM

48. That was Chandler defending the Szamboti's "missing jolt" theory

... by saying a jolt was present in Balzac-Vitry so we should see it in WTC. What I'm referring to is his North Tower Acceleration video. Following the logic of that video, since the Verinage demolitions also show the buildings collapsing at about 2/3 g acceleration, then the structure below was only resisting 1/3 of the weight of the structure, whereas it had been designed to withstand 3 times the weight, leading to the conclusion that the Verinage people are secretly destroying the structures through some means other than dropping the top on the bottom and letting gravity do the rest. To the best of my knowledge, Chandler has never addressed that aspect of Verinage, but it would certainly be entertaining to see him try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #48)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 02:30 PM

49. well, I was trying to get at that video, too

I think part of the problem is that, as we discussed before, it's hard to tell what he intends to argue. In his Balzac-Vitry analysis, he says that the top is accelerating at -8.5 m/s^2 initially, then at -2.1 m/s^2 for about 0.8 s "as the contact begins," then at +3.3 m/s^2 (deceleration relative to gravity) for about 0.4 s when the two sections "fully engage." Hmmmmm. Wow, that's facially weak. (Just what does Chandler think is happening for all that time between the beginning of contact and full engagement?) But anyway, I mention the numbers because I'm not sure what you have in mind by "about 2/3 g acceleration" -- maybe an average, maybe different demolitions.

I imagine Chandler would say that you completely missed his point: his argument that the structure below is only resisting a fraction of the weight of the falling structure (to paraphrase your paraphrase) applies unless the falling block "actually impacts" the structure below (around 2:05 in the NTA video) -- and we know that it didn't because of the (supposedly) uniform downward acceleration.

Of course, that raises the question what Chandler thinks is happening to provide that resistance. (IIRC, Bolo tried to get at that.) Hell, I'm not sure I can enumerate all the questions it raises.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #49)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 08:31 AM

50. The 2/3 g is my own approximation

... as being about what you get if you consider just the total collapse time and distance, i.e. it's just the average acceleration. But again, I claim that the problem with Chandler's WTC analysis is that that's also just looking at an average acceleration, so if Chandler wants to claim it's fundamentally different from a Verinage, he needs to explain why the averages are so similar. A bigger problem is that apparently more careful measurements have detected decelerations in the WTC collapse, so Chandler's premise is simply disproved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #50)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 09:53 AM

51. OK, that's a pretty good response :)

It's another way of seeing why Chandler ought to be surprised that the towers are falling so slowly, if he thinks that the bases are being sequentially blown away (or whatever he believes). It might even reach someone.

Chandler doesn't think he is "just looking at an average acceleration." But even his own measurements indicate changes in acceleration, which he apparently rationalizes as within measurement error. (And, as I said in the other thread, maybe they are -- but either way, he obviously hasn't demonstrated "uniform downward acceleration.")

I've been idly curious how much one could conceivably infer from the closest possible analysis of the videos. Certainly Chandler's 5 Hz results seem compatible with actual deceleration, or not. I'd be wary of calling the finding you describe a "bigger problem," since I wouldn't want to risk helping Chandler move the goalposts the entire length of the field -- but, if it is any good at all, at least it underscores how weak his analysis is.

ETA: OK, I came across a thread where femr2 lays out the evidence for decelerations, and Tony Szamboti dismisses it as measurement error. About what I would expect.

ETA2: Oops, strike that: Szamboti dismisses it as deliberate obfuscation: "Anyone who really wanted to muddy the waters might claim to be MIHOP while offering confusing data and positions, which is all I have really seen you attempt to do." Damn those faux MIHOPers with their confusing data!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #51)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 10:12 AM

52. With the kind of free fall drop

that is posited by Bazant (and needed for collapse progression) there would be a massive jolt measurable instantly by the eye and obvious on a graph. This is the whole point. Tony Szamboti estimates a 45% loss of kinetic energy even if half the columns missed each other. The amount of resistance actually seen was less than what could support the static load. The upper section just fell through it while gaining velocity.

You can't have an amplified load without that impulse. Without an amplified load, you don't have collapse progression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jesters (Reply #52)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 12:04 PM

53. that is the assertion, yes

Can you imagine a scenario in which half the columns missed each other and the other half collided in the manner that Szamboti imagines -- one that in some way resembles the observations?

I've watched people try to explain to Szamboti what's wrong with his reasoning, and I even tried it myself. You may think there is some sinister reason why he hasn't won the debate, but I really don't think there is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnTheOtherHand (Reply #47)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 06:45 PM

67. Chandler argues that impact involves a change in acceleration

 

That's just the 1st law of thermodynamics. He's not going to argue otherwise.

He argues that impact involves a negative acceleration in the case of Balzac-Vitry because that's what the data show.

We have no way of knowing if the building in the video was subject to pre-weakening in the lower stories. Assuming there was none is bad science.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #67)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 09:33 PM

69. I dont think that is what you meant.

"1st law of thermodynamics"? Maybe you should stay out of discussions where you're not conversant with the lingo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #69)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 09:39 PM

70. First law of thermodynamics--otherwise known known as

 

the law of conservation of energy.

It's hard to believe that you guys have been able to convince anyone that you know what you're talking about when you so clearly don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #70)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 09:42 PM

71. No, it isn't.

It's a special case of the law of conservation of energy, and it's used for thermodynamic systems (that'd be heat and work).

Besides, you're looking for the first law of motion, which is not the same thing at all. Again, maybe you should stay out of discussions where you're not qualified to participate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #71)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 09:45 PM

72. I'm looking for conservation of energy, which is the first law of thermodynamics.

 

Don't tell me what I'm looking for. Clearly you don't even know what you're looking for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #72)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 09:45 PM

73. That's funny.

Keep digging the hole deeper - you're only hurting yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #73)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 12:48 AM

74. Oh aren't you the smoothie. I bet you say that to all the guys. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #70)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 10:18 PM

75. I missed your little edit.

So nice of you to double down on your mistake - it makes your ignorance all the more obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #75)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 10:29 PM

76. Empty assertions must have worked very well for you over the years.

 

I bet you say that to all the guys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #76)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 10:32 PM

77. Empty assertions?

I'm not the one confusing basic physics principles. I'm quite comfortable with my grasp of them. You, on the other hand, need to put in some work. Have you considered tutors? I've tutored a number of people and I find sometimes a one-on-one approach can be successful for those who don't have as much luck in a classroom environment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #77)

Thu Dec 5, 2013, 10:53 PM

78. More empty assertions. That's all you've got, I guess.

 

Last edited Fri Dec 6, 2013, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Besides bullying, pedantry, and your comfort with your illusions (otherwise known as solipsism), I mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #78)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 05:29 PM

79. Oh, I have something else.

A competent grasp of the principles of physics. If somehow that equates to bullying and pedantry, I don't get the connection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #79)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 08:42 PM

80. You're not demonstrating any competent grasp of anything.

 

Anonymous internet posters make grandiose claims all the time. Only fools think we should believe those claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #80)

Fri Dec 6, 2013, 08:50 PM

81. Your inability to see this is both amusing (at least to me)...

and an indication of your lack of familiarity with the subject matter. There's nothing grandiose about me pointing out the difference between the first law of thermodynamics and the first law of motion. There is, however, something grandiose about your repeated, heated defense of an obvious mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #81)

Sat Dec 7, 2013, 12:55 PM

82. You defend your own blindness by projecting it on others, Mr. McGoo.

 

I never said there was no difference between the first law of motion and the first law of thermodynamics.
You are constantly criticizing your own inventions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #82)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 12:39 PM

83. You didn't say there was a difference.

Instead you demonstrated you couldn't tell the difference, which is just as illuminating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #83)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 09:48 PM

84. Only an obfuscating pedant would be interested in the difference.

 

It's "you can't win" no matter what livery it's dressed up in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #84)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 09:52 PM

85. That's not correct at all.

To qualified professionals it's a relevant, and interesting difference. Your inability to distinguish (and your lack of concern) demonstrates your lack of qualifications.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #85)

Sun Dec 8, 2013, 11:30 PM

86. You're a cat. A cat can not be a qualified professional. And only a cat

 

would expect us to be dumb enough to mistake a cat for a qualified professional. Toonces can't drive very well, can he?



In the current context there is no need to distinguish between the law of conservation of energy and the
first law of thermodynamics.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #86)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 12:15 AM

87. Now your posts are making less sense than before.

Initially you were just wrong, now you're incoherent. Is this strategy intended to distract from your inability to differentiate between basic physics concepts? It is obvious to those with sufficient knowledge that the first law of motion (which you should have referenced) is substantially different from either the first law of thermodynamics or conservation of energy. You, on the other hand, continue to confuse them.

This difference between you (who can't tell the difference) and me (who can) means that we can't have an interesting conversation about the subject at hand, because you lack the foundational knowledge necessary to have a relevant opinion. Instead this subthread has degenerated into you becoming defensive and incoherent when challenged. That's not very worthwhile, unfortunately, and this subthread probably deserves to die a quiet death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #87)

Mon Dec 9, 2013, 10:41 PM

88. I would tell you to think about stopping before you made a fool of yourself, Abe.

But I think we passed that point some time ago.

Are you enjoying this latest stay here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #87)

Tue Dec 10, 2013, 03:59 PM

89. There is nothing incoherent about pointing out that someone who pretends to be a cat

 

can not also pretend to be a qualified professional who has all the answers but just can't be bothered to share them because they're oh so complicated.

That posture may have been very effective over the years in intimidating honest people with honest questions (and certainly it requires little energy of you--you can simply recycle the same vague grumbling as always), but it won't work on me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #89)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 08:57 PM

90. Who is pretending to be a cat?

That is a very strange claim, and doesn't appear to have anything to do with the topic of this sub-thread. What is of interest, however, is your apparent inability to understand the difference between a couple of basic physics concepts, and how that interferes with a productive conversation about the collapses of September 11th. Care to comment on that, or do you find a discussion of cats to be more your style? If so, I suggest you seek other areas of this forum - we're not particularly cat dense here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #90)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 09:20 PM

91. The difference is irrelevant to the point, which it seems you are trying to obscure.

 

The issue was changes in acceleration due to the absorbtion of kinetic energy in doing work processes on the buildings' structure, and the fact that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, and the need for an accounting of the energy budget of the collapses.

And you want us to run off after a pedantic red herring.

It seems that you are blind to the fact that anonymous internet posters have no professional credentials, and only a fool would believe that they do.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #91)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 09:22 PM

92. Hmm. I think the point was more your unfamiliarity with the concepts.

However, I'm willing to move on if you concede you were wrong. Is that so hard for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #92)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 09:49 PM

93. I wasn't wrong.

 

The first law of thermodynamics says energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
The law of conservation of energy says energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

For our purposes here, they are synonymous--unless our purpose is distraction and pedantry and a failed effort to intimidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #93)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 09:53 PM

94. Oh gosh, I guess we're not moving on.

Shall I quote your original statement? You said (in post #67):
Chandler argues that impact involves a change in acceleration

That's just the 1st law of thermodynamics.


Please explain how the first law of thermodynamics relates to changes in acceleration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #94)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 10:27 PM

95. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

 

Thus impact necessarily takes energy away from the kinetic budget.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #95)

Wed Dec 11, 2013, 10:38 PM

96. Huh. This is the same problem Tony Szamboti had.

Impacts don't necessarily reduce the kinetic energy. If you draw a free body diagram it should become obvious to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #96)

Thu Dec 12, 2013, 03:38 AM

97. Impacts necessarily reduce the kinetic energy.

 

That's the first law of thermodynamics.

That's the law of conservation of energy.

Maybe Tony Szamboti had a "problem" with a bunch of jeering clowns at JREF, but the laws of physics are on his side and mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #97)

Thu Dec 12, 2013, 08:29 AM

98. I don't think you have a very good understanding of basic physics.

Do you know what a "free body diagram" is? Maybe you should look up some examples, and then try drawing one for the situation you're trying to understand. Then maybe(!) you'll understand why you're wrong. You should probably write out the equation form of the law of conservation of energy while you're at it, and take a close look at the variables included.

Tony has a similar problem to yours, that his opinion of his technical skillset is far higher than actually warranted. Too bad for you guys that it is immediately obvious to qualified people who aren't afraid to correct your mistakes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #98)

Thu Dec 12, 2013, 01:30 PM

99. Maybe you should try making your points instead of merely implying that you have one. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #99)

Thu Dec 12, 2013, 10:00 PM

100. My point is quite simple - you are wrong.

The fundamental equations are quite simple, and your mistakes become apparent once you compare the equations to your claims, or if you draw a simple free body diagram.

A supplemental point is that your grasp of physics is so poor that you can't even work out why you're wrong, even with hints from me. That point doesn't need extra evidence from me - you're doing a fine job supporting it on your own.

Of course, the one thing I can't overcome is your (rather ironic) certainty that you're right, no matter how obvious your wrong-ness is to those who are more capable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #100)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 01:11 AM

101. Your "point" is an empty assertion.

 

The equations are simple, and the laws themselves are even simpler.

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Your attempts to drag equations and diagrams into the issue are red herrings.

I sense that this kind of bullying has served you well in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #101)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 01:16 AM

102. If you think it's that simple...

then why don't you show your work?

C'mon, you claim to be familiar enough with the laws of physics to make sense of them - this should be easy. What's the equation that you think supports your claim that "impacts necessarily reduce the kinetic energy"? Please write it out, so we can point out where you went wrong. Or you could draw a free body diagram - that should work just as well.

Or you could just admit you're unqualified to engage in the discussion and save a little face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #102)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 01:30 AM

103. I don't have any work. You need to show yours. NIST needs to show theirs.

 

Impacts necessarily reduce the kinetic energy.

1. impacts absorb kinetic energy
2. energy can neither be created nor destroyed

and thus

3. impacts convert some portion of the kinetic energy to the effects of the impacts: the work of breaking and twisting and pulverizing the structure


You are playing dumb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #103)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 01:39 AM

104. Again, your unfamiliarity with basic physics concepts is showing.

You keep talking about kinetic energy, but you are missing something else important. Why don't you think about what comprises the energy system for a falling body, and what concepts might be absent from your model?

Hostile retorts aren't going to improve the quality of your work, unfortunately. You should just relax and try to learn a little.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #104)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 01:43 AM

105. Again you are showing your reliance on empty claims.

 

If the fundamental laws of physics are wrong then publish your paper, collect your Nobel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #105)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 01:45 AM

106. Kinetic energy and...?

C'mon, all the smart kids are doing it. You could even use Google to help you solve the problem!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #106)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 01:54 AM

107. Kinetic energy and nothing.

 

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #107)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 01:59 AM

108. And that's where you're amazingly, blindingly wrong.

Your mistake involves physics concepts so incredibly basic that I'm not even sure there's a point in trying to help you understand where you went wrong.

This is why people with less than competent technical skills are irrelevant to the discussion. Thank you for proving my point once again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #108)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 02:21 AM

109. Thanks for making empty claims

 

based on nothing but your own non-existent authority.

It seems that it worked for you in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #109)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 08:14 AM

110. I'm not the one butchering physics.

Will no-one think of the children?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #110)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 01:59 PM

113. More empty claims. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #113)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 09:56 PM

118. Empty of what physics principle?

Oh wait, you don't know. That's right - how could I forget? You've left a trail of wrongness leading up to this post that should stand as a stark reminder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #118)

Sun Dec 15, 2013, 12:14 PM

122. The first law of thermodynamics, for one. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #122)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 09:37 PM

126. The one you don't understand?

How would you know that it's not in my posts? You can't even identify the missing piece from your own work!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #126)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 10:00 PM

130. More empty claims from someone who claims to be a cat.

 

Toonces don't drive so good, does he!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #130)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 10:33 PM

134. This one is clearly not empty.

Your posts are substantial evidence of your lack of understanding of physics fundamentals. You haven't even demonstrated an interest in exploring the error and possibly learning something in the process, instead choosing to waste time with irrelevant posts about cats. Why is that? Are you that concerned with admitting ignorance that you'd rather maintain an increasingly bizarre defense of your mistake?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #134)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:04 PM

140. I am not interested in your obfuscation and vaporware.

 

There is nothing bizarre about my arguments. Apparently you've been able to function as some kind of Great and Powerful Oz here on this board and frighten everyone away with your vague allusions to your own omniscience, but it won't work with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #140)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:06 PM

143. Of course it won't - you're impervious to basic physics!

That's why you won't write out the energy equation - it's repelled by your anti-physics field.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #143)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:10 PM

146. There is no need to write out KE=1/2mv^2 nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #146)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:11 PM

148. Too bad that's not the only component.

You're missing some bits, unfortunately for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #148)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:22 PM

150. I'll look forward to seeing your Nobel when you invent

 

the dynamic loading perpetual motion wheel.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/overbal.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #150)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:23 PM

152. Your post is as nonsensical as your claim to know basic physics.

Is that really going to be your response? Do you not have any clue what you're missing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #152)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:26 PM

154. Says the poseur who thinks he's a cat. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #154)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:31 PM

156. Nothing, huh? Is Google not even helping?

That's pretty bad - I'm not sure if your situation is recoverable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #109)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 08:27 AM

111. As an aside, can you start making videos or diagrams?

Usually that's when the most amusing content is created. If you try hard enough, you might end up in the category with such greats as spooked911's rabbit cage, petgoat's rake-on-rake, or Richard Gage's cardboard box video. I sincerely feel you have what it takes to succeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to zappaman (Reply #112)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 02:05 PM

115. Cardboard boxes are subject to the same laws of physics as everything else.

 

As any competent person knows. Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #115)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 03:48 PM

116. gee thanks Abe.

now will you demonstrate why a cardboard box and a 1700 foot tower of steel and concrete are the same?
remember to show your work!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #116)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 09:50 PM

117. Nobody said they were the same. They are, however, subject to the same physical principles. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #117)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 09:57 PM

119. That'd be the same physical principles you don't understand.

Just so we're clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #119)

Sun Dec 15, 2013, 12:15 PM

123. I understand the principles just fine. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #123)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 09:46 PM

128. No, you don't.

I'm not sure how many times I need to point you in the direction of a major mistake in your energy equation before you figure it out. It took Tony Szamboti somewhere around a year (IIRC) before he saw the light - are we going to see a similar delay with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #128)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 09:59 PM

129. More empty claims from someone who claims to be a cat. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #129)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 10:35 PM

136. I don't remember Tony Szamboti going this route.

He'd just disappear for a few months, then come back for another round. Sometimes he'd have an improved model, which at least showed he was learning from his mistakes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #115)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 10:01 PM

121. Nothing like cardboard for representational scaling of forces, huh?

That's the difference between architects like Gage and competent professionals - one group understands that you can't just stack a bunch of cardboard boxes and expect dynamic similitude, and the other doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #121)

Sun Dec 15, 2013, 12:16 PM

124. Nobody claims there is any scaling. It is a demonstration of principles. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #124)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:06 PM

142. The principle that architects aren't engineers?

I can buy that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #142)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:08 PM

144. The principles of the 1st law of thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd law, to which

 

cardboard boxes and buildings are subject regardless of scale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #144)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:09 PM

145. You've never done any study of scaling, have you?

Similitude is more than "looks like".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #145)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:23 PM

151. Scaling is not an exemption from the laws of physics. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #151)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:31 PM

155. Of course, that's why you have to look at similitude.

You can't just expect your boxes to be un-boxes, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #155)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:47 PM

158. It's a demonstration of principles, not a model. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #158)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:49 PM

159. Principles that rely on similitude. You're not getting it.

There's a reason Gage's presentation has entered into the internet's collection of amusing fails, along with spooked911's bunny cage and petgoat's "fork on fork".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #159)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:19 AM

160. It's a demonstration of principles that apply equally to cardboard boxes and buildings.

 

You're not getting it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #160)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:33 AM

162. Except for that whole square versus cubic relationship thing, of course.

It's only of minor impact, if all you care about is pandering to the uneducated. The rest of us will have to be excused while we obsess about dimensional analysis because we think it's important (which it is, kids - don't let Ace Acme lead you astray).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #162)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:40 AM

164. Square v. cubic affects the numbers. It doesn't change the principles.

 

There is no coefficient of scale to the 1st law of thermodynamics or Newton's 3rd law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #164)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:43 AM

165. Huh. This isn't going to get better for you.

The boxes fail as an analog for the towers because the physical principles rely on similitude. If you don't have that, then the boxes don't mean anything. This is why Richard Gage is mocked for his video, because he tried to use the boxes to say something that they simply can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #165)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:48 AM

168. They demonstrate laws of physics that apply to buildings thus as they apply to boxes.

 

A rope is not water, but a rope demonstrates principles of waves that apply to water, to ropes, and to sound waves in air.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #168)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:54 AM

170. They really don't apply the same way.

The relationship between the relevant aspects of the two objects (building versus cardboard box) is different. Mass and area scale differently (hence the square and cubic relationships), so even if you built your scale model of the same material it wouldn't behave the same as the larger object. Since Gage was trying to show physical similarity, he was relying on dynamic similitude, except he can't. Because his model doesn't have it.

So no, he can't use the cardboard boxes to demonstrate the laws of physics that apply to buildings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #170)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 01:02 AM

172. Nobody said they would behave the same. It's a demonstration of principles.

 

You have spent so many years pontificating on obfuscatory minutiae that you can't see the Big Picture.

Gage was not claiming any physical similarity. It was a joke. He had a dry, two-hour lecture, much of which was over the collective head of his audience, and he injected a moment of levity with a perfectly valid demonstration of physical principles that are applicable equally to cardboard boxes and to buildings.

There was certainly no claim of dynamic similitude. And yes, he can use cardboard boxes to demonstrate the 1st law of thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd law. Do you claim those do not apply to cardboard boxes? Do you claim those do not apply to buildings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #172)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 01:05 AM

173. I claim Gage doesn't understand the principles he was trying to demonstrate.

And I claim that you cannot use cardboard boxes to demonstrate how those principles apply to buildings (at least those buildings that are not constructed of cardboard and are of a similar size). This is because they lack dynamic similitude, a concept of which both you and Gage are (or were - you can at least type it now) apparently unaware.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #173)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 01:12 AM

176. The dynamic meme has been part of the landscape since Bazant ca. 9/13/01

 

So no, neither Mr. Gage nor I were ignorant of it.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the principles that Mr. Gage was legitimately demonstrating with cardboard boxes, but that's not my fault. Some guys can't see the forest for the trees--especially if they don't want to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #176)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 01:14 AM

179. None of my experience with you or what I've seen of Gage...

indicates either of you is aware of this at all. Thank goodness Gage isn't involved in buildings anymore. One can only hope you are similarly removed from the industry, for all of our sakes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #179)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 02:10 AM

184. Nobody who has publicly discussed the shortcomings of the NIST report can be unaware

 

... of the argument that Dynamic Loading Explains All. The buildings were just so huge, you see, that this huge mass at the top just irresistibly battered down the wimpy mass at the bottom!





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #184)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 07:43 AM

187. Gosh, it's almost like that matters!

All these professionals are saying it does, so maybe you should consider it rather than poo-poohing the idea. It may come as a shock, but you and Gage aren't the most qualified of people and if a large group of professionals disagrees with you then it's probably because you're wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #187)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 10:20 AM

191. Can you name "all these professionals" who are "saying it" (whatever "it" is)?

 

Or are these more secret people whose secret investigations have resulted in secret statements known only to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #191)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 09:34 PM

193. Haven't you read all the NIST literature?

It's somewhere in the mess of documentation, a whole list of people who support the report. Then you have the authors of the report itself, who are many in number. One assumes they count as "professionals".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #193)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 10:58 PM

197. Nobody has read all the NIST literature. That would be like reading the dictionary.

 

If the people who support the report are named in the report, they are hardly rendering an independent opinion, are they?

You can't name them. You claim they exist, but when you're challenged to name them, you say they're listed somewhere in 10,000 pages. No surprise there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #197)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 11:35 PM

199. That's a neat way to dismiss a whole group of people...

whose opinions would normally be worth considering. Pretty convenient, especially when the opinions of those people are contrary to the theories you'd like to promote.

There are plenty of people who have read all the NIST reports. Just because you can't imagine doing it doesn't mean it doesn't (and hasn't) happen. That's an "argument from incredulity" and is pretty common with people of your disposition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #199)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 11:43 PM

201. A whole secret list of a secret group of secret people you can't name because it's a secret.

 

Thanks for playing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #201)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 11:51 PM

203. To be honest, it's been so long since I've looked at the NIST reports and their web pages...

I'm not sure where the information is listed. You see, this is old news for building professionals. We stopped discussing the interesting stuff years ago, after we worked out the kinks with the implementation of the NIST recommendations in the relevant codes and standards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #203)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:12 AM

208. Standards about widening the stairwells are your claim to competence?

 

And you think that should distract from your inability to name the secret people in the secret group who say the secret things in secret that you want them to say?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #208)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:14 AM

210. It's amusing that you think something publicly available, but not spoon-fed...

is somehow "secret". This is quite telling about your general philosophy. Is this the same reason you're so bad at physics? Because nobody ever held your hand while explaining the fundamentals?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #210)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:24 AM

212. Oh, so the secret names you can't name are publicly available. I see. How long have you indulged

 

... this belief?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #212)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:28 AM

214. It's been years since I saw the list.

One would hope that a person like you who claims to be aware of the NIST's flaws would have come across the list as well. Or have you even bothered to read any of the reports you continue to disparage?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #214)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:12 AM

215. The reports are indisputably incomplete.

 

NIST claims they did not analyze the towers' collapses.

That's all that is necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #215)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 07:06 AM

218. Your ignorance of physics and building science specifically...

means that your opinion of the completeness of the NIST reports is irrelevant. Those of us who do have a better understanding do not generally agree with you. The reasons have been gone over multiple times, and just because you refuse to accept them doesn't mean they're any less valid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #218)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:32 PM

225. Knowledge of building science is not needed to recognize that a report that set out to explain why

 

Last edited Thu Dec 19, 2013, 01:24 PM - Edit history (1)

... and how two buildings collapsed, but which declined to analyze the collapses, is inadequate.

You may as well argue that unless I'm a firearms expert I have no right to be concerned that a dozen bullets were fired in the RFK killing, though Sirhan's gun only held 8 bullets.

Your argument from your own aggressively-undemonstrated authority has no legitimacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #225)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 08:59 PM

226. The initiation is the key.

The rest is obvious to experienced professionals. The NIST was not tasked with explaining basic physics to laypeople. I'm sorry if you don't grasp the principles involved, but I don't feel responsible for your incompetence. I'm pretty sure the NIST doesn't either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #226)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 09:36 PM

230. NIST devotes one paragraph to describing the instantaneous propagation of the collapse

 

across a robust structural core. And they provide no calculations to support this narrative.

That may be good enough for you, but it's not good enough for many of us. 2100 architects and engineers are now calling for new investigations.

Asymmetrical damage must yield asymmetrical collapse--especially when you consider that the antenna drop on WTC1 shows that the hat truss came apart before the collapse began.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #230)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 09:48 PM

231. 2100 architects and engineers? Really?

Where do I see this list? Because it isn't from AE911Truth - they don't have nearly those numbers. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of ill-informed laypeople chattering about something that they lack the technical chops to understand adequately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #231)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 11:39 PM

233. You see the list at ae911truth.org. Where else? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #233)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 12:26 AM

234. Ah - I haven't checked in a while. They've made progress.

Interesting, though, that they still haven't removed my late coworker. He's still listed as a supporter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #234)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:35 AM

237. Apparently he died as a supporter. Why remove him?

 

78 structural engineers, 40 highrise architects, 7 AIA Fellows, 40 PhD engineers, 11 Stanford engineers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #237)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:40 AM

238. Can he still be counted as a supporter?

I wonder if there needs to be some sort of a legacy page, where people like him can be kept separated from those who are still active or alive.

Are those numbers supposed to impress me? I've seen the efforts of some of that group, and it's not the highest quality work I've seen. It would be more impressive if they could come up with something more than an ad campaign after all these years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #238)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:02 AM

240. How many architects and engineers for the NIST report are there? About 20?

 

And can you name even one who has no professional ties to NIST?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #240)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 08:13 AM

242. Who cares if they have ties to the NIST?

Does that somehow invalidate their professional opinions? Oh right - you need that because it's convenient to your narrative.

You need to read the report. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of professionals who contributed to the NIST report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #242)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:19 PM

243. If you don't know about conflicts of interest you're not much of a professional.

 

If there were indeed a consensus in the engineering that NIST got it right, you would think that a few independent engineers could be found to say so, publicly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #243)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 09:24 PM

245. Sure there are. Look in the comments to the draft NIST.

Like I told you several posts ago, the comments are full of organizations and individuals who support the NIST work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #245)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 03:26 PM

247. Supporting NIST's recommendations to widen the stairways

 

... is not endorsing their collapse sequence, though some try to obscure the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #197)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 07:36 AM

221. Now I remember where I saw them.

It's in the public comments on the draft versions of the report. There are lots of organizations and individuals who responded during the comment periods, and you can find support for the NIST reports in those comments.

I had gotten rid of all the draft NIST report stuff I had years ago, not realizing that I didn't have a separate copy of the comments. That's why I couldn't find the names initially, because the comments weren't included in the final report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #221)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:25 PM

224. Did the comments express support for NIST's collapse sequence, or did the comments

 

merely express agreement with NIST's recommendations, such as widening the stairwells?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #224)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 09:00 PM

227. Gosh, if only you could read them and find out.

But I guess looking up the comments on the NIST website and finding out for yourself is not your intent? Would you rather trust the word of an anonymous internet poster instead of verifying on your own?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #227)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:25 PM

244. Who said anything about trust?

 

I asked you to clarify your claim. You prefer to be cryptic rather than be clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #244)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 09:25 PM

246. You seem to think I'm going to spoon-feed you everything.

Go read the comments - it's for your own good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #246)

Sat Dec 21, 2013, 03:28 PM

248. To you a request that you back up your claims is a request for spoon-feeding.

 

Now there's a bot's talking point if I ever heard one. You sound like the magic 8-ball.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #111)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 02:03 PM

114. Of course not. The collapse was too complicated for diagrams.

 

Or so NIST tells us. Of course maybe computers are more powerful now, and maybe modeling software is better, so maybe instead of hiding behind the legend that their computers weren't up to the job, maybe it's time to open up a new investigation.

I would be curious to hear your rationalizations in opposition to trying to model the collapses. Too much money, right? One Chinook helicopter costs $30 million, but we can't afford $15 million for proper investigations of 9/11.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #114)

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 09:59 PM

120. The collapses may have been, but your example shouldn't be.

Why don't you just make a simple free body diagram? It shouldn't take very long. Or it shouldn't, provided you're a competent person. Other people might have to resort to other methods, like obfuscation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #120)

Sun Dec 15, 2013, 12:20 PM

125. Let's just use NIST's free body diagrams as a point of discussion.

 

Oh right, there aren't any.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #125)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 09:42 PM

127. Why wouldn't the NIST use free body diagrams?

Oh right, they are more sophisticated, and used complicated software tools that do the same thing (only a million times over). Free body diagrams are a tool more useful for simple problems, like our discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #127)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 10:16 PM

131. There's nothing sophisticated about not analyzing the collapse.

 

And one needn't be sophisticated to recognize that fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #131)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 10:29 PM

132. Still haven't figured out what a free body diagram is, have you?

Or what the NIST might have used instead of them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #132)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 10:32 PM

133. Still trying to distract from the fact that NIST only did half an investigation, aren't you?

 

They did the easy half--they could reverse-engineer all the parameters to make the numbers turn out right.

But for the second half they had to deal with what actually was, and that didn't work out so well for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #133)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 10:34 PM

135. Still trying to distract from your ignorance of physics principles?

Unfortunately it's too obvious to ignore, at least for anybody who is competently trained in those principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #135)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 10:35 PM

137. I'm not distracting from anything. I am refusing to traipse after your red herrings.

 


NIST's report is incomplete, and the empty "trust me, I know" assertions of a guy who claims to be a cat are no substitute for a thorough and honest and complete report.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #137)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 10:49 PM

138. Sure, just a little red herring that is essential to the whole energy equation.

Nothing big, of course. That's why you keep ignoring it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #138)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 10:52 PM

139. Repetition doesn't make an empty assertion any less empty. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #139)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:05 PM

141. Repetition of the defense of your mistake doesn't make it any more right, either.

Why don't you just write out the energy equation? It should be obvious what you're missing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #141)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:10 PM

147. There is no need to write out KE=1/2mv^2 nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #147)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:11 PM

149. I don't think we're giving partial credit in this class. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #149)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:24 PM

153. If I took classes from a cat people would think I was crazy. They'd be right.

 

Especially a cat that tries to substitute cryptic marsh gas for substance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #153)

Tue Dec 17, 2013, 11:33 PM

157. At least I'm not trying to claim that kinetic energy is the only component...

of an energy balance. You might try taking a class or two - it could improve the quality of your posts, then you wouldn't have to rely on strange commentary about cats and gases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #157)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:31 AM

161. I didn't say it was. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #161)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:34 AM

163. Yes you did. Repeatedly.

It's all there in your post history, so denying it only makes it more painful when you eventually have to confront your mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #163)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:44 AM

166. You're talking in gassy riddles of pretend pedagogy, Perfisser. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #166)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:47 AM

167. I've been quite clear.

I am not going to take the blame for your failure to understand what is a rudimentary physics concept. You've repeatedly shown this failure in this thread, and now you're claiming that you didn't say what you said? It's all right there, conveniently placed in the title of your posts multiple times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #167)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:49 AM

169. You shift the goal posts from an energy equation to an energy balance. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #169)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 12:58 AM

171. Not really.

The first law of thermodynamics is an energy balance. Or are you going to reverse course and now claim that wasn't the equation you were thinking of? Regardless, claiming kinetic energy is the only quantity of interest is quite... illuminating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #171)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 01:07 AM

174. You're not claiming that heat and entropy are significant factors are you?

 

Maybe you are. It would be your style.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #174)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 01:09 AM

175. Gosh, so close and yet so far.

Nope, you're still not getting it. Oh well, like I said - it Tony Szamboti quite some time to figure this out, and he had the benefit of relevant schooling to rely on. Unfortunately Tony has an attitude similar to yours, and is resistant to correction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #175)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 01:14 AM

178. So did Mr. Szamboti renounce the Holy Church of Controlled Demolition?

 

Did he admit that the NIST reports were complete and honest?

When and where?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #178)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 01:15 AM

180. What he does in church is up to him - that's none of my business.

He did finally realize the "missing jolt" wasn't, and that's relevant to our discussion (very much so, even if you don't realize it).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #180)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 02:28 AM

185. I'll take that as a "no".

 

And no, the Missing Jolt is not particularly relevant to the discussion.

The missing jolt merely refutes Bazant, who has nothing to do with reality.

It doesn't change the official story's problems with the first law of thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #185)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 07:40 AM

186. The "Missing Jolt" is relevant because Tony made the same mistake as you.

It doesn't refute anything, because it's wrong. Just like your argument. And for the same reason, which you can't seem to figure out even though it should be trivial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #186)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 10:18 AM

190. Thanks for the tip. Maybe I'll look into it, but I don't see why.

 

NIST claims they didn't analyze the collapses. That right there indicates the need for further investigations. You trying to poke holes in in some guy's theories does not change the fact of NIST's inadequate work even if you're right about the theories. I'm not interested in alternative theories. I'm interested in getting complete and honest government investigations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #190)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 09:35 PM

194. There's plenty of info about Tony's mistakes, but let me know if you need help.

It can be difficult going for someone who is not very familiar with the concepts or terminology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #194)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 10:54 PM

195. I'm not interested in Tony's mistakes. You only bring them up as a distraction from the

 

fact that NIST claims they did not analyze the towers' collapses, and thus they only delivered half an investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #195)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 11:33 PM

198. Too bad, because you might learn something.

Of course you could continue to bluster about anything other than your obvious error in basic physics, but that's all a distraction, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #198)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 11:48 PM

202. I can learn many things. Your red herrings and empty claims aren't worth my time.

 

Even if Mr. Szamboti is completely FoS (and your say-so certainly won't convince me) it changes nothing.

The NIST reports are incomplete and dishonest. That is indisputable.

Thanks for playing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #202)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 11:53 PM

204. That's amusing. You posted a blatantly obvious mistake, and are trying to deflect.

Your hostility and attempts to change the subject aren't going to make that go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #204)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:22 AM

211. You pretend that you have a gotcha but you won't say what it is.

 

Even if you had one, so what? It's immaterial to the fact that the official 9/11 reports are incomplete, dishonest, and even corrupt. You're on the wrong side of history, guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #211)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:25 AM

213. That's because there's no point in spoon-feeding you information.

I've seen how poorly received that is by you, and it's just not worth it. I'd prefer you actually figure out the mistake on your own (with perhaps a little guidance) because I think the odds are better that you'll learn something this way. See? With my method, everybody wins!

Your opinion is quite irrelevant on technical matters. Please either address topics where you can demonstrate competency, or perhaps work to increase your competency in the fundamentals of physics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #213)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:15 AM

216. There's no point when you're on the wrong side of history, indeed.

 

Thanks for demonstrating the indefensibility of your claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #216)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 07:07 AM

219. You have a funny definition of the wrong side of history.

How come the wrong side of history has the right physics, and your side is demonstrably lacking?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #219)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:21 PM

222. What about the incomplete and corrupt nature of the reports do you not understand? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #222)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 09:01 PM

228. I understand them. You don't.

Too bad, because it means you're going to continue propagating this misinformation for years, maybe for the rest of your life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #228)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 11:38 PM

232. An anonymous internet poster understands the incomplete and corrupt nature of the reports. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #232)

Fri Dec 20, 2013, 12:28 AM

235. An anonymous poster understand the technical underpinnings of the reports.

Someone who doesn't might mistake their misunderstanding of technical arguments for some dark plot to deceive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #174)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 01:13 AM

177. By the way - this is why I corrected you way back in post #69.

The first law of thermodynamics is going to get you on the wrong path. You really need to use a different relationship in order to see what you're missing. Perhaps now that you're thinking about the problem a bit more this mistake will become apparent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #120)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 01:17 AM

181. So you're not going to respond to my challenge that you explain why

 

... we shouldn't run new computer models, taking advantage of advanced computer power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #181)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 01:23 AM

182. Totally missed it, sorry.

The limitations on modelling don't have to do with computing power (much, anyway - there are some recent developments that might help out), they have to do with the nature of the collapses. Or any nonlinear phenomena, really. It's the same reason that the billions (trillions, possibly) of dollars spent to model the weather all have the same crappy failure rate. Minute differences in the initial states of the systems (real versus modelled in our case) can result in rapid differences in the outcome. This is why it's meaningless to dissect the WTC7 simulation, because it's not going to be a very good representation of the collapses no matter how sophisticated the model gets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #182)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 02:06 AM

183. I wasn't talking about WTC7. I was talking about the towers.

 

And again, the problem is not the complexity, but the simplicity of the collapses.

One approach would be to see how many inputs of sudden structural weakening would be necessary to keep the collapse centered and "essentially in free fall" and then gradually reduce the number of those inputs to try to approach a model of a natural collapse behaving in that way.

As to WTC7, why not construct a model based on the theory that the collapses of the penthouses were achieved by cutting beams at the top of the building, and the building was then brought down by cutting core columns. Why not do it? What are you afraid of?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #183)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 07:45 AM

188. WTC7 was the one NIST modelled the collapse for. That's why it's relevant to the discussion.

The problem is the complexity of the collapses. It's a common modelling problem, and saying differently doesn't change the nature of modelling. It just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

If you want to model the collapses then what's stopping you? As I've said time and time again, do your own work rather than relying on the NIST to do it for you. It's obvious you're going to dismiss any of their results anyway, so why not skip that step and get right to the interesting part?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #188)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 10:14 AM

189. Modeling the collapses is not my job. It's the government's job.

 

You might as well suggest that I reconvene the Warren Commission.

It was NIST's job to provide believable reports. Their failure to do so is corrosive to democracy.

What makes you think I'm going to dismiss their results? Let's see them do an investigation that is free of dishonesty and reverse-engineering before we decide how I'm going to react.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #189)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 09:33 PM

192. Actually, it is the job of every concerned citizen...

to check the claims of government organizations. Obviously not everyone is going to be qualified for technical tasks, but that doesn't relieve the responsibility to do what we can as active participants in a democracy to keep our elected and career public servants honest.

If you can't model the collapses because of your limitations to your technical skillset, that's understandable. But please don't try to claim it's not your job - that denigrates the whole concept of an active citizenry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #192)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 10:56 PM

196. It's the job of every concerned citizen to be aware of the fraudulent nature of the official reports

 

... to demand honest and complete reports, and reject the sophistry of internet bullshitters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #196)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 11:37 PM

200. I'm glad I'm being a concerned citizen, then.

I like to think I'm doing my part to ensure arguments in this forum meet a certain standard. However, there are some posters who refuse to agree that making arguments that are based on a flawed understanding of physics is not acceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #200)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 11:56 PM

205. Your claims to a superior knowledge of physics are empty.

 

A lot of people who read the nonsense posted at JREF by anonymous internet poster then consider themselves qualified to pass on the same nonsense (anonymously) to others.

Your claims are not just empty, they are also immaterial. There is no need to argue the laws of physics when the 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST Twin Towers report and the WTC7 report are demonstrably incomplete and dishonest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #205)

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 11:59 PM

206. I don't think you're qualified to assess anyone's physics knowledge.

Do I need to remind you of your repeated posts where you claimed the definition of kinetic energy was the energy equation?

Your incompetence regarding physics pretty much negates any opinion you might have about the technical information included in the NIST works. Why don't you find something where you have some competency? Then you might have a relevant opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #206)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:09 AM

207. I don't need to assess your physics knowledge to see that your claims are empty.

 

I never claimed that the definition of kinetic energy was the energy equation. I don't even know what that means--if anything.

You asked me for an equation and I gave it to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #207)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:12 AM

209. How quickly you forget.

Too bad it's just upthread a-ways, where anybody who cares can go see exactly where that happened.

And now we're just continuing in the same vein, when you could have spent all this time learning how to correct your mistakes! Why, if you'd only taken the time you've likely spent arguing about physics without a clue, you could probably have earned at least a bachelor's degree in engineering. Then you would at least be marginally less irrelevant!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #209)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:30 AM

217. Oh, the pretend lessons that the pretend teacher has to give!

 

I'm so pretend impressed! It would seem that bluff and bullying has been working for you.

Well it won't work with me. Where I went to school we didn't grovel. We demanded that
our instructors earn our respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #217)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 07:08 AM

220. Maybe that's why you didn't learn anything at school?

You could have really used a little humility. It would serve you well here, especially since your knowledge is demonstrably lacking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AZCat (Reply #220)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:23 PM

223. More empty claims from someone who claims to be a cat. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Acme (Reply #223)

Thu Dec 19, 2013, 09:02 PM

229. How's that research into the energy equation going for you?

Have you figured out what's missing yet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #46)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 08:36 PM

54. Just one little problem with the Verinage technique

....it doesn't work on steel-framed buildings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #54)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 11:21 PM

57. What problem, for whom?

Vérinage is a technique suitable for any building with parallel load-bearing walls, but is not suitable for buildings with columns, because the basic technique is to use cables and jacks to cause pairs of parallel walls to fold and collapse simultaneously. It doesn't have anything to do with the material, e.g. it can be used on buildings with reinforced concrete load-bearing walls, but isn't suitable for buildings with reinforced concrete columns. So Vérinage isn't used on steel-framed buildings simply because those buildings have columns instead of load-bearing walls, not because steel is indestructible.

None of which has anything to do with what we've been discussing here. The relevance of Verinage to this discussion is that it's an actual example of the kinetic energy of the top of a building overcoming the structural strength of the bottom by simply falling on it, just as structural mechanics predict.

But now that you mention it, the fact that Vérinage isn't used on steel-framed buildings IS something of a problem for Chandler and Szamboti: They need to justify why they are comparing fine details of Vérinage collapse accelerations to the WTC towers and drawing conclusions from the differences if we're talking about building materials with different behavior characteristics. (That would be in addition to justifying doing "jolt" comparisons when Vérinage tops always fall squarely on the the bottoms, not tilted like the WTC towers.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #57)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 03:22 PM

58. You're twisting into a pretzel again



Verinage can't be used to bring down steel framed buildings, as you acknowledge,
so whats your point?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #58)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 04:24 PM

59. The question is, what was your point?

Specifically, you claimed there was some "little problem." I asked you, what problem and for whom is it a problem, and you haven't answered. Are you under the impression that anyone suggested Verinage at the WTC and you are refuting that? Or are you just pretending to have an argument, somewhere?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #59)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 05:22 PM

60. Are you a laundry dryer?


I'm getting dizzy from your spinning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Reply #60)

Sun Jan 8, 2012, 05:27 PM

61. are you a gyroscope?

Seriously, why not answer his question? What was your point in saying, "Just one little problem with the Verinage technique ....it doesn't work on steel-framed buildings"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gyroscope (Original post)

Thu Jan 5, 2012, 02:16 AM

40. I don't see what the problem is.

The impact of the planes ripped apart part of the load-bearing structure in the building. The load was re-distributed to the remains of the structure, creating localized areas of stress that were at or near the ultimate strength of the materials, the concrete and steel.

As the building swayed in wind, as the fire heated the concrete and steel, the structure progressively weakened as more and more joints deformed or failed. The affected area was in the immediate vicinity of the impact site, naturally.

Eventually, the structure in the affected area weakened enough to cause a very rapid chain-reaction failure of the joints, and the part of the building above the affected area tilted and began falling.

A couple of hundred thousand tons of steel and concrete dropped onto the rest of the building, which was unable to cope with the kinetic energy and momentum transfer. Especially when the dropped load isn't hitting even. The top of the bottom part of the building absorbed the full brunt of the equivalent of a supertanker slamming into it, the jolt shattering concrete, twisting and rending steel, and popping welds and rivets. The upper part of the building continues to fall, with the bottom part of the building crunching steadily downward under the accelerating mass of the upper part.

Every second, the enormous momentum and energy of the upper part is crashing into a structure designed only to hold static loads. The structure is continually overwhelmed all the way down to the bedrock by forces dozens or hundreds of times the design load.



It's like a rope breaking under gradually increasing strain. A few fibers might pop, then all of a sudden... catastrophic failure.

On an episode of "Mythbusters" they were trying to find out if you can rip the transmission of a car out by bolting a cable between the rear axle and, say, a telephone pole.

Despite the fact that the cable was plenty strong enough to pick up the car if it was, say, attached to a crane, the car was able to easily break the cable after getting a few dozen yards of acceleration.

There ya go. When static, the structure of the WTC towers was plenty strong enough to hold the weight. Add motion, and all bets are off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #40)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 08:58 PM

55. Here's the "Myth Busters" episode where they try to rip the rear axle out with cable:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #55)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 09:14 PM

56. Exactly

A cable, which was capable of lifting several times the car's weight if done slowly and smoothly, snaps when subjected to a shock load.


Never underestimate momentum and kinetic energy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #56)

Wed Dec 4, 2013, 06:49 PM

68. Tension and compression; apples and oranges.

 

Cables are not columns.

And again, saying momentum brought the buildings down is circular reasoning: It fell because it was falling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread