03-31-09, 03:18 PM #421
You are free to search for what I have ever said about explosives.
Maybe you should find something before you make accusations about it. The would be the non-clueless thing to do.
Engineering is applied physics. Saying they are separate is delusional.
An engineer can be expected to know things that a physicist would not but engineering does not cease to be physics. It is just a matter of how our educational system categorizes and teaches things. A structural engineer should know about how 36 foot sections of columns are connected together and how the beams are connected to the columns. A physicist would most likely know nothing about that. But the effects of mass, velocity, momentum and kinetic energy are all going to be the same for the engineer and the physicist. So the distribution of steel and concrete in analyzing the effect of a supposed gravitationally driven collapse of 16 stories on 93 stories will be mostly the same for the physicist and the engineer. I would expect the engineer to understand more about how much resistance the structure to put up due to its physical strength. And he should understand the construction industry jargon better.
I am supposed to listen to someone who talks about ten thousand TONS of airliner hitting a building trying to say something meaningful about physics. ROFL
Maybe you should stop lumping people together and putting words in their mouths. Have fun finding whatever i've had to say about explosives.
03-31-09, 03:22 PM #422
Psikey, like when you didnt know how to play chess when you were a freshman, the same applies here.
if you are attempting to come to some kind of determination by using your imagination (you call it physics) then that is ok but in the real world these types of conclusions are often wrong. and what happens? the person doing the visualization simply say 'well i was wrong' or something similar. The difference here is that we know what the result was.
03-31-09, 03:31 PM #423
03-31-09, 04:40 PM #424
Trying to explain things via psychological bullshit again.
You have no way of knowing how ACCURATE my imagination is.
I didn't need to build that first model with the impact, I can do that in my head.
That was built for other people's benefit. I thought about 9/11 for two weeks afterward and concluded the planes could not bring the towers down. It never occurred to me that it would not be settled SEVEN YEARS later. It is certainly curious that we still don't have accurate data regarding the reason I came to that obvious conclusion.
The vertical distribution of mass! The distributions for the steel and the concrete had to be different. But a less than 18 second drop crushed from the top is IMPOSSIBLE!. My second video should demonstrate to anyone with half a brain how the stationary mass would decelerate anything coming from above. So what is your objection to having accurate info on the building?
Don't want the facts because you hate the conclusion too much?
03-31-09, 04:45 PM #425
03-31-09, 04:47 PM #426
03-31-09, 04:56 PM #427
it's obvious that the buildings did indeed fall at that rate.
tony himself confirmed that the columns broke, not cut with explosives.
when i started pressing him on the details on how explosives were used to break the columns instead of cutting them he put me on ignore.
03-31-09, 05:01 PM #428
You washer model is still flawed, because nothing is to scale. Gravitational acceleration is time dependent. There's only a couple of inches between each of your floors...how much gravitational acceleration is regenerated with only a couple of inches drop? There was approx. 10 feet between each floor in the WTC for the mass to fall and gain speed. Your model doesn't reflect this.
03-31-09, 05:30 PM #429
a link with the word coverup in it?
doesn't that seem biased?
but to oblige you:
GREENSBORO – Following the collapse of the Twin Towers and five other buildings in the World Trade Center, the largest and costliest demolition-and-cleanup project in the nation's history was directed by an inner circle of just a half-dozen men.
I found this bit particularly interesting, and the article even named a few of those 6 names: "Following the collapse of the Twin Towers and five other buildings in the World Trade Center, the largest and costliest demolition-and-cleanup project in the nation's history was directed by an inner circle of just a half-dozen men."
Also, I mentioned before, Appendix D of the FEMA Report talks about their "collection" of the steel.
does nothing to disprove fact 6.
"Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation. "
So NIST went off video evidence rather than testing for explosive residues on the physical evidence then, since nearly all the steel was "recycled?" That wasn't YouTube video, I hope.
Well there's a problem- NIST thinks the movement was downward. If you look at Figures 1-7 and 7-2 of the FEMA Building Performance Reports (written by the Federal Agency who controlled access to and "recovered" the steel on-site), you see 2 radial distributions. Perimeter column sections were hurled into WFC3, the Winter Garden, and the Verizon Building. The FEMA report has some very interesting photos.
nice attempt to disprove the facts i've listed
You know, that pattern of referring to undocumented assertions as "facts" is actually a logical fallacy. According to Leo, anything that he says is considered "fact," and apparently anything I say will be considered as "bull." Frankly, that seems a little "grade school" to me, but Leo is free to "roll" that way, I suppose.
"As cognitive bias and logical fallacy
"Ad nauseam" arguments are logical fallacies relying on the repetition of a single argument to the exclusion of all else. This tactic employs intentional obfuscation, in which other logic and rationality is intentionally ignored in favour of preconceived (and ultimately subjective) modes of reasoning and rationality."
03-31-09, 05:40 PM #430aren't you assuming it to be impossible?
Isn't the alternative to assume it IS POSSIBLE?
We saw the videos of the planes flying into the buildings.
We saw the videos of the buildings collapsing.
Now do we question whether or not the planes and resulting fires could produce that result or do we BELIEVE it. If we BELIEVE then there is no reason to ask about the distribution of steel and concrete. But if that is true then what is the harm in knowing the distribution of steel and concrete? I can just as easily cast psychological aspersions on that. PHYSICS AIN'T PSYCHOLOGY!
I find it odd that people could think it is possible. What do they think holds skyscrapers up for 28 years?
03-31-09, 05:54 PM #431
so, did i believe the "official story"? not really, but i kept it in the back of my mind that perceptions can bite you on the ass if you aren't careful.
i looked, honestly looked, for corroborating evidence either way.
i simply could not find any evidence that explosives was used.
the 6 facts i listed earlier was a result of my search.
03-31-09, 05:55 PM #432
You just demonstrated you don't understand the physics with that statement.
Gravitational acceleration is not time dependent.
Gravitational acceleration is not regenerated.
You are confusing acceleration with velocity. They are not the same thing.
Acceleration is change in velocity. Gravitational acceleration is constant over short distances from large objects like planets.
Your problem is that you are trying to claim my DEMONSTRATION is based on SCALE. It is not.
The purpose of my demonstration is to compare the effect of dropping the mass on toothpicks without washers to the effect with washers. The scale is identical. It is the same dowel with the same holes. The effect is to demonstrate that the falling mass is slowed down by the stationary masses in sequence. So the same effect should have occurred in the WTC.
You keep thinking in terms of the distances between the floor slabs where there were no columns. The columns that supported the building were in the CORE and on the PERIMETER. Once the initial 12 foot drop occurred there were not more gaps. Your complaint about my model is invalid because you are not properly evaluating what happened in the WTC. That is why I make a habit of saying LEVELS not FLOORS.
You are just demonstrating that you don't know enough to evaluate what happened in the WTC. You don't like the obvious conclusions.
03-31-09, 06:04 PM #433i simply could not find any evidence that explosives was used.
the 6 facts i listed earlier was a result of my search.
So what have I ever said about explosive?
I am talking about mass falling on mass. Don't argue with me on the basis of what I did not say.
What is your explanation for how girders got 600 feet to the Winter Garden and stuck into the American Express tower? You don't want explanations for what did happen you just want to be content with what you prefer to BELIEVE did not happen. As long as ALL OF THE PHENOMENON ARE NOT EXPLAINED the case is open.
03-31-09, 06:10 PM #434
Yawn. More empty words from someone who has been exposed as a know-nothing.
Gee, maybe I didn't mean to say "pounds" instead of "tons." Maybe I really believe in aircraft a mile long and as heavy as a 30-story building. I guess it wasn't an obvious slip of the tongue after all.
So, it's 2009 and you are absolutely clueless about the contents of the NIST Report. This doesn't stop you from spouting mindless nonsense. I will repeat that terribly inconvenient question that ALWAYS sends fantasist frauds scurrying for cover: Why don't any engineers or physicists from countries unfriendly to the U.S. point out the "bad science" in the NIST Report?
Okay, we'll bite: what DO you think about the possibility of explosives in the towers?
03-31-09, 06:13 PM #435
03-31-09, 07:26 PM #436
03-31-09, 07:35 PM #437
03-31-09, 07:54 PM #438Your model only allows the falling mass just a fraction of a second in between floors to regain any speed..and thats not what happened. Put 2 feet of spacing between each of your floors and drop the weight and see what happens.
And I told you I was comparing the empty toothpicks to the ones with washers and the difference was obvious.
You would rather pretend not to notice that stationary mass caused the toothpicks to slow and stop the falling mass much sooner because it doesn't help your case. Isn't science about being objective no matter what?
So why don't you want to know the distribution of mass in the towers? I was asking about that long before I built any models.
03-31-09, 07:56 PM #439
03-31-09, 07:58 PM #440
By Simon Anders in forum General PhilosophyLast Post: 10-31-08, 11:28 PMReplies: 0
By stretched in forum Pseudoscience ArchiveLast Post: 09-14-08, 11:31 PMReplies: 26
By cosmictraveler in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 09-13-08, 05:19 PMReplies: 9
By Ganymede in forum PoliticsLast Post: 09-15-07, 12:44 AMReplies: 15
By Brutus1964 in forum PoliticsLast Post: 10-15-05, 04:22 PMReplies: 6