Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

AZCat

(8,338 posts)
241. You need to actually read the report.
Fri Dec 20, 2013, 09:12 AM
Dec 2013

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.

Good luck with that. zappaman Jan 2012 #1
I admit gyroscope Jan 2012 #2
"post-9/11 physics" William Seger Jan 2012 #8
According to you, Bush has explained them. zappaman Jan 2012 #3
True that gyroscope Jan 2012 #4
That drawing is incredibly prejudicial and wrongheaded. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #5
Then you can imagine the graphic without the cranes gyroscope Jan 2012 #6
what explosions? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #7
You know gyroscope Jan 2012 #9
So, the NIST was in on the coverup? zappaman Jan 2012 #12
Who do you believe? gyroscope Jan 2012 #14
interesting perceptions OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #20
Ricochets also account for debris propelled out. n/t Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #10
Propelled out 600 feet at 55 mph? Can you substantiate that? nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #66
Also, why "Bush Laws of Motion"? Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #11
apparently George Bush has discovered a new law of physics. zappaman Jan 2012 #13
Common understanding? jesters Jan 2012 #15
Excellent point, jester Ace Acme Dec 2013 #62
The title is a parody gyroscope Jan 2012 #16
The irony is, you've got the shoe on the wrong foot William Seger Jan 2012 #17
You consider the drawing an example of 'truther' science? gyroscope Jan 2012 #18
The language of physics is math, not cartoons and hand-waving William Seger Jan 2012 #19
Do you know the difference gyroscope Jan 2012 #21
The path of most resistance? AZCat Jan 2012 #22
Anywhere but down is unlikely? gyroscope Jan 2012 #23
You're forgetting the possibility of local failure. AZCat Jan 2012 #24
Nobody, anywhere, has explained how that would happen cpwm17 Jan 2012 #25
this is where the word "cartoon" is hard to resist OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #26
I like the car analogy cpwm17 Jan 2012 #28
I actually thought about something like that OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #29
The Bazant model bears no resemblance to reality. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #63
Do you prefer the PBS cartoon model? gyroscope Jan 2012 #30
(ducks goalposts) OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #31
No problem. gyroscope Jan 2012 #32
"In Bazant's drawing, the little block looks pretty intact to me." Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2012 #34
accepting your concession and continuing... OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #35
Since Bazant's model bears no resemblance to reality, there's no need to make any case at all. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #64
I gave you a link above William Seger Jan 2012 #27
Greening? gyroscope Jan 2012 #33
if one can trust Legge, then Greening made a good point poorly OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #36
A collision is a collision jesters Jan 2012 #37
You totally don't understand collisions cpwm17 Jan 2012 #38
Especially collisions between two non-solid structures with pieces to break off. n/t Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #39
You should really be asking AZCat these questions. jesters Jan 2012 #41
Really? Because IIRC you were the one making pretty bold statements... AZCat Jan 2012 #44
He doesn't understand impulse, either. AZCat Jan 2012 #45
try reading it again OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #42
unintelligible. jesters Jan 2012 #43
Obviously at some point the reaction force (structural resistance) is overwhelmed Ace Acme Dec 2013 #65
I don't think you're properly interpreting the NIST reports. AZCat Dec 2013 #236
And they did all that in one narrative paragraph with no calculations. Impressive! nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #239
You need to actually read the report. AZCat Dec 2013 #241
Greening was correct William Seger Jan 2012 #46
Chandler would not see your point about verinage OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #47
That was Chandler defending the Szamboti's "missing jolt" theory William Seger Jan 2012 #48
well, I was trying to get at that video, too OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #49
The 2/3 g is my own approximation William Seger Jan 2012 #50
OK, that's a pretty good response :) OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #51
With the kind of free fall drop jesters Jan 2012 #52
that is the assertion, yes OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #53
Chandler argues that impact involves a change in acceleration Ace Acme Dec 2013 #67
I dont think that is what you meant. AZCat Dec 2013 #69
First law of thermodynamics--otherwise known known as Ace Acme Dec 2013 #70
No, it isn't. AZCat Dec 2013 #71
I'm looking for conservation of energy, which is the first law of thermodynamics. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #72
That's funny. AZCat Dec 2013 #73
Oh aren't you the smoothie. I bet you say that to all the guys. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #74
I missed your little edit. AZCat Dec 2013 #75
Empty assertions must have worked very well for you over the years. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #76
Empty assertions? AZCat Dec 2013 #77
More empty assertions. That's all you've got, I guess. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #78
Oh, I have something else. AZCat Dec 2013 #79
You're not demonstrating any competent grasp of anything. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #80
Your inability to see this is both amusing (at least to me)... AZCat Dec 2013 #81
You defend your own blindness by projecting it on others, Mr. McGoo. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #82
You didn't say there was a difference. AZCat Dec 2013 #83
Only an obfuscating pedant would be interested in the difference. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #84
That's not correct at all. AZCat Dec 2013 #85
You're a cat. A cat can not be a qualified professional. And only a cat Ace Acme Dec 2013 #86
Now your posts are making less sense than before. AZCat Dec 2013 #87
I would tell you to think about stopping before you made a fool of yourself, Abe. zappaman Dec 2013 #88
There is nothing incoherent about pointing out that someone who pretends to be a cat Ace Acme Dec 2013 #89
Who is pretending to be a cat? AZCat Dec 2013 #90
The difference is irrelevant to the point, which it seems you are trying to obscure. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #91
Hmm. I think the point was more your unfamiliarity with the concepts. AZCat Dec 2013 #92
I wasn't wrong. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #93
Oh gosh, I guess we're not moving on. AZCat Dec 2013 #94
Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #95
Huh. This is the same problem Tony Szamboti had. AZCat Dec 2013 #96
Impacts necessarily reduce the kinetic energy. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #97
I don't think you have a very good understanding of basic physics. AZCat Dec 2013 #98
Maybe you should try making your points instead of merely implying that you have one. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #99
My point is quite simple - you are wrong. AZCat Dec 2013 #100
Your "point" is an empty assertion. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #101
If you think it's that simple... AZCat Dec 2013 #102
I don't have any work. You need to show yours. NIST needs to show theirs. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #103
Again, your unfamiliarity with basic physics concepts is showing. AZCat Dec 2013 #104
Again you are showing your reliance on empty claims. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #105
Kinetic energy and...? AZCat Dec 2013 #106
Kinetic energy and nothing. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #107
And that's where you're amazingly, blindingly wrong. AZCat Dec 2013 #108
Thanks for making empty claims Ace Acme Dec 2013 #109
I'm not the one butchering physics. AZCat Dec 2013 #110
More empty claims. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #113
Empty of what physics principle? AZCat Dec 2013 #118
The first law of thermodynamics, for one. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #122
The one you don't understand? AZCat Dec 2013 #126
More empty claims from someone who claims to be a cat. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #130
This one is clearly not empty. AZCat Dec 2013 #134
I am not interested in your obfuscation and vaporware. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #140
Of course it won't - you're impervious to basic physics! AZCat Dec 2013 #143
There is no need to write out KE=1/2mv^2 nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #146
Too bad that's not the only component. AZCat Dec 2013 #148
I'll look forward to seeing your Nobel when you invent Ace Acme Dec 2013 #150
Your post is as nonsensical as your claim to know basic physics. AZCat Dec 2013 #152
Says the poseur who thinks he's a cat. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #154
Nothing, huh? Is Google not even helping? AZCat Dec 2013 #156
As an aside, can you start making videos or diagrams? AZCat Dec 2013 #111
Ah yes... zappaman Dec 2013 #112
Cardboard boxes are subject to the same laws of physics as everything else. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #115
gee thanks Abe. zappaman Dec 2013 #116
Nobody said they were the same. They are, however, subject to the same physical principles. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #117
That'd be the same physical principles you don't understand. AZCat Dec 2013 #119
I understand the principles just fine. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #123
No, you don't. AZCat Dec 2013 #128
More empty claims from someone who claims to be a cat. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #129
I don't remember Tony Szamboti going this route. AZCat Dec 2013 #136
Nothing like cardboard for representational scaling of forces, huh? AZCat Dec 2013 #121
Nobody claims there is any scaling. It is a demonstration of principles. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #124
The principle that architects aren't engineers? AZCat Dec 2013 #142
The principles of the 1st law of thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd law, to which Ace Acme Dec 2013 #144
You've never done any study of scaling, have you? AZCat Dec 2013 #145
Scaling is not an exemption from the laws of physics. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #151
Of course, that's why you have to look at similitude. AZCat Dec 2013 #155
It's a demonstration of principles, not a model. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #158
Principles that rely on similitude. You're not getting it. AZCat Dec 2013 #159
It's a demonstration of principles that apply equally to cardboard boxes and buildings. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #160
Except for that whole square versus cubic relationship thing, of course. AZCat Dec 2013 #162
Square v. cubic affects the numbers. It doesn't change the principles. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #164
Huh. This isn't going to get better for you. AZCat Dec 2013 #165
They demonstrate laws of physics that apply to buildings thus as they apply to boxes. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #168
They really don't apply the same way. AZCat Dec 2013 #170
Nobody said they would behave the same. It's a demonstration of principles. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #172
I claim Gage doesn't understand the principles he was trying to demonstrate. AZCat Dec 2013 #173
The dynamic meme has been part of the landscape since Bazant ca. 9/13/01 Ace Acme Dec 2013 #176
None of my experience with you or what I've seen of Gage... AZCat Dec 2013 #179
Nobody who has publicly discussed the shortcomings of the NIST report can be unaware Ace Acme Dec 2013 #184
Gosh, it's almost like that matters! AZCat Dec 2013 #187
Can you name "all these professionals" who are "saying it" (whatever "it" is)? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #191
Haven't you read all the NIST literature? AZCat Dec 2013 #193
Nobody has read all the NIST literature. That would be like reading the dictionary. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #197
That's a neat way to dismiss a whole group of people... AZCat Dec 2013 #199
A whole secret list of a secret group of secret people you can't name because it's a secret. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #201
To be honest, it's been so long since I've looked at the NIST reports and their web pages... AZCat Dec 2013 #203
Standards about widening the stairwells are your claim to competence? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #208
It's amusing that you think something publicly available, but not spoon-fed... AZCat Dec 2013 #210
Oh, so the secret names you can't name are publicly available. I see. How long have you indulged Ace Acme Dec 2013 #212
It's been years since I saw the list. AZCat Dec 2013 #214
The reports are indisputably incomplete. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #215
Your ignorance of physics and building science specifically... AZCat Dec 2013 #218
Knowledge of building science is not needed to recognize that a report that set out to explain why Ace Acme Dec 2013 #225
The initiation is the key. AZCat Dec 2013 #226
NIST devotes one paragraph to describing the instantaneous propagation of the collapse Ace Acme Dec 2013 #230
2100 architects and engineers? Really? AZCat Dec 2013 #231
You see the list at ae911truth.org. Where else? nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #233
Ah - I haven't checked in a while. They've made progress. AZCat Dec 2013 #234
Apparently he died as a supporter. Why remove him? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #237
Can he still be counted as a supporter? AZCat Dec 2013 #238
How many architects and engineers for the NIST report are there? About 20? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #240
Who cares if they have ties to the NIST? AZCat Dec 2013 #242
If you don't know about conflicts of interest you're not much of a professional. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #243
Sure there are. Look in the comments to the draft NIST. AZCat Dec 2013 #245
Supporting NIST's recommendations to widen the stairways Ace Acme Dec 2013 #247
Now I remember where I saw them. AZCat Dec 2013 #221
Did the comments express support for NIST's collapse sequence, or did the comments Ace Acme Dec 2013 #224
Gosh, if only you could read them and find out. AZCat Dec 2013 #227
Who said anything about trust? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #244
You seem to think I'm going to spoon-feed you everything. AZCat Dec 2013 #246
To you a request that you back up your claims is a request for spoon-feeding. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #248
Of course not. The collapse was too complicated for diagrams. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #114
The collapses may have been, but your example shouldn't be. AZCat Dec 2013 #120
Let's just use NIST's free body diagrams as a point of discussion. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #125
Why wouldn't the NIST use free body diagrams? AZCat Dec 2013 #127
There's nothing sophisticated about not analyzing the collapse. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #131
Still haven't figured out what a free body diagram is, have you? AZCat Dec 2013 #132
Still trying to distract from the fact that NIST only did half an investigation, aren't you? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #133
Still trying to distract from your ignorance of physics principles? AZCat Dec 2013 #135
I'm not distracting from anything. I am refusing to traipse after your red herrings. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #137
Sure, just a little red herring that is essential to the whole energy equation. AZCat Dec 2013 #138
Repetition doesn't make an empty assertion any less empty. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #139
Repetition of the defense of your mistake doesn't make it any more right, either. AZCat Dec 2013 #141
There is no need to write out KE=1/2mv^2 nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #147
I don't think we're giving partial credit in this class. n/t AZCat Dec 2013 #149
If I took classes from a cat people would think I was crazy. They'd be right. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #153
At least I'm not trying to claim that kinetic energy is the only component... AZCat Dec 2013 #157
I didn't say it was. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #161
Yes you did. Repeatedly. AZCat Dec 2013 #163
You're talking in gassy riddles of pretend pedagogy, Perfisser. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #166
I've been quite clear. AZCat Dec 2013 #167
You shift the goal posts from an energy equation to an energy balance. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #169
Not really. AZCat Dec 2013 #171
You're not claiming that heat and entropy are significant factors are you? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #174
Gosh, so close and yet so far. AZCat Dec 2013 #175
So did Mr. Szamboti renounce the Holy Church of Controlled Demolition? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #178
What he does in church is up to him - that's none of my business. AZCat Dec 2013 #180
I'll take that as a "no". Ace Acme Dec 2013 #185
The "Missing Jolt" is relevant because Tony made the same mistake as you. AZCat Dec 2013 #186
Thanks for the tip. Maybe I'll look into it, but I don't see why. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #190
There's plenty of info about Tony's mistakes, but let me know if you need help. AZCat Dec 2013 #194
I'm not interested in Tony's mistakes. You only bring them up as a distraction from the Ace Acme Dec 2013 #195
Too bad, because you might learn something. AZCat Dec 2013 #198
I can learn many things. Your red herrings and empty claims aren't worth my time. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #202
That's amusing. You posted a blatantly obvious mistake, and are trying to deflect. AZCat Dec 2013 #204
You pretend that you have a gotcha but you won't say what it is. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #211
That's because there's no point in spoon-feeding you information. AZCat Dec 2013 #213
There's no point when you're on the wrong side of history, indeed. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #216
You have a funny definition of the wrong side of history. AZCat Dec 2013 #219
What about the incomplete and corrupt nature of the reports do you not understand? nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #222
I understand them. You don't. AZCat Dec 2013 #228
An anonymous internet poster understands the incomplete and corrupt nature of the reports. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #232
An anonymous poster understand the technical underpinnings of the reports. AZCat Dec 2013 #235
By the way - this is why I corrected you way back in post #69. AZCat Dec 2013 #177
So you're not going to respond to my challenge that you explain why Ace Acme Dec 2013 #181
Totally missed it, sorry. AZCat Dec 2013 #182
I wasn't talking about WTC7. I was talking about the towers. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #183
WTC7 was the one NIST modelled the collapse for. That's why it's relevant to the discussion. AZCat Dec 2013 #188
Modeling the collapses is not my job. It's the government's job. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #189
Actually, it is the job of every concerned citizen... AZCat Dec 2013 #192
It's the job of every concerned citizen to be aware of the fraudulent nature of the official reports Ace Acme Dec 2013 #196
I'm glad I'm being a concerned citizen, then. AZCat Dec 2013 #200
Your claims to a superior knowledge of physics are empty. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #205
I don't think you're qualified to assess anyone's physics knowledge. AZCat Dec 2013 #206
I don't need to assess your physics knowledge to see that your claims are empty. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #207
How quickly you forget. AZCat Dec 2013 #209
Oh, the pretend lessons that the pretend teacher has to give! Ace Acme Dec 2013 #217
Maybe that's why you didn't learn anything at school? AZCat Dec 2013 #220
More empty claims from someone who claims to be a cat. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #223
How's that research into the energy equation going for you? AZCat Dec 2013 #229
Just one little problem with the Verinage technique gyroscope Jan 2012 #54
What problem, for whom? William Seger Jan 2012 #57
You're twisting into a pretzel again gyroscope Jan 2012 #58
The question is, what was your point? William Seger Jan 2012 #59
Are you a laundry dryer? gyroscope Jan 2012 #60
are you a gyroscope? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #61
I don't see what the problem is. krispos42 Jan 2012 #40
Here's the "Myth Busters" episode where they try to rip the rear axle out with cable: cpwm17 Jan 2012 #55
Exactly krispos42 Jan 2012 #56
Tension and compression; apples and oranges. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #68
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»They shall be known as Bu...»Reply #241