If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

[NoahFence]

Do they need to talk about the hijackers? No. Do they need to talk about flight 93 or the Pentagon? No.

They only need to talk about the evidence which indicates the 9/11 CR and NIST reports are not accurate or complete.

Wrong.

9/11 was more than NYC.

Quick question - how many planes were hijacked on 9/11?

 

[PhantomWolf]

OK. I stand corrected. The cat is out of the bag. I stand by my statements that were highlighted.

Controlled demolition is the only way to explain the motions observed during the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.

Please provide Evidence of the use of explosives in the collapses. Explosive reidue, explosive deformed columns, eye witnesses to the explosives in their offices, the explosions caught on tape, det cord... all of these would back up your claim.

Being able to show how much explosives would have been required would also be useful.

 

[FalseFlag]

Gravity.

You have edited my post.

Your tricks are transparent and sophomoric.

 

[DGM]

Why would anyone need to do this? If you are performing an experiment to replicate similar directions of motion and accelerations, why would anyone need to do this?

Your argument is that no experiment would ever be accurate unless they built an exact replica of the twin towers. This is nonsense if your experiment only seeks to replicate the observed motions during the collapses.

You've been shown the experiments done on Metabunk. Funny how you dismiss them although they are far better in scaling the collapse.

 

[FalseFlag]

Right here in this forum.

What do you think about troofer "peer review" now?

Post a link to his error.

 

[Oystein]

Here is an experiment with a model that has some structural features similar to the WTC twin towers:
- three floors per column length
- floors spanning between perimeter and a core
- floors attached to columns such that the connections (in this case: permanent magnets that create friction between floor end and column) can resist a few times the static weight of a floor
- Columns joined with splice plates (also held together with magnets)
- Floors provide lateral support to the tower such that the entire structure can resist some lateral loading (such as wind or the impact of a heavy object); it then swayes a few times back and forth

The choice of magnets may seem odd - the main reason is for the model not to be damaged when connections "break" - the tower can be re-assembled many times to repeat the experiment.

The collapse in this experiment is started by offsetting the columns of the top segment's (three floors) left wall and core by about acolumn width and letting go. This makes the falling columns impact the floor below near its connections, and at the time makes the bottom floor of the falling top section impact the standing column below.

As you can see, the floors quite easily shear off, and the entire structure collapses completely.

In the slo-mo, you can see the right wall of the top section break completely loose after having dropped less than it's own length; from then on, it descends at free fall acceleration. It reaches the ground first, but barely ahead of the internal collapse front.
The core and the left wall zig-zag down with some delay after all floors have rushed down, while the right wall is pushed outwards by falling floors, and its lower habe topples over.

This simple model shows a number of features of the real WTC collapses:
- Floors falling ahead of columns
- Floors collapsing with an acceleration not far from g
- Wall peeling and toppling outwards
- Core failing last

 

[FalseFlag]

And you are still in denial that Cole's experiment shows anything other than that his structure required firecrakers to form a progressive collapse.

It says nothing about the WTC structure, because the WTC Structure is different.

You still seem to be failing at this point.

Let's say I have I have a basketball and a bowling ball, both are approximately the same size and shape. If I drop the basketball from a height of 2 m onto a concrete floor and observe the result, then what does that observation tell me about what will occur when I drop the the bowling ball? The accelerations, and velocities of impact will be identical. The floor they hit is identical, the size and shape of the ball are identical. So why can I not predict anything about how the bowling ball will react based purely on the Basketball's action?

If you can answer this, then you are on you way to understanding why Cole's experiment is of no value beyond Cole's experiment.

You have to be kidding me, right?

Do I really need to respond to this?

OK, fine. I will respond.

If you drop a basketball from a height of 2m, here is what will happen. There will be an acceleration of g downwards minus the force created by air resistance in the opposite direction. The direction of the net force will be down. If you then drop a baseball, or any other similar object, the following will be true. There will be an acceleration of g minus the force created by air resistance. The direction of the net force will be down.

In every scenario, the accelerations will be similar. In every scenario the directions of net force will be similar. In every scenario the sequences of the net forces will be similar. Every. Single. Time.

What will be different are the magnitudes of the forces. Cole was not demonstrating magnitudes. He was demonstrating similarity between accelerations, directions of net force, and sequences of net forces.

The discussion is over. Deny this all you want, I have clearly shown what Cole is demonstrating. If you think he is wrong, fine. Until you perform an experiment proving he is wrong, your words are meaningless.

 

[NoahFence]

You have to be kidding me, right?

Do I really need to respond to this?

OK, fine. I will respond.

How's about you respond to Oystein's post directly above this one.

 

[FalseFlag]

Bazant's paper simply shows that no extra energy was required for the collapses to occur as observe, that's it. It isn't trying to tell us which gravity driven mechanism is right, just that a gravity driven mechanism had the energy to cause the global collapse without any help from the like of explosives.

OK. What paper explains the observed motions? If this paper exists, have the authors performed any real-world experiments to prove their conclusions are true?

 

[abaddon]

I asked for a peer review of the welder paper. Have you submitted that?

I asked for your evidence. Have you submitted that?

 

[Belz...]

Did anyone bother doing an experiment to try to confirm their theories?

How's willful ignorance working out for you?

NIST was supposed to investigate the collapses. They had the burden to investigate. They made claims. They have the burden of proof to prove those claims. In some cases, they have failed to provide the necessary proof.

How's lying working out for you?

Controlled demolition is the only way to explain the motions observed during the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.

Other than the fact that they look nothing like controlled demos? Seriously, when are you going to realise that you simply don't have enough knowledge of any relevant field to reach such a conclusion?

At least now it's clear that you're a conspiracy theorist.

 

[FalseFlag]

I see he doesn't even have the decency to reply to these.

What will the lurkers think? HAHAHAHA

He's done as much if not more to debunk Cole's idiocy than we ever could. Hope the lurkers are taking note.

If you want to claim that my understanding of physics was wrong, there is evidence to support that. What evidence exists now to prove that my understanding of physics is still wrong?

 

[abaddon]

OK. What paper explains the observed motions? If this paper exists, have the authors performed any real-world experiments to prove their conclusions are true?

Have you?

 

[FalseFlag]

Cole's "experiment" is self-debunking. But why bother with experiment when reality will suffice?

Really? Why do you even bother?

The verinage discussion is such a waste of time. Show me a verinage collapse where acceleration remains constant, or near constant, throughout the collapse. Once you show that, then we can talk.

 

[NoahFence]

OK. What paper explains the observed motions? If this paper exists, have the authors performed any real-world experiments to prove their conclusions are true?

To what end?

Are you asking for an experiment to show where every piece of rubble landed and why?

It's frickin CHAOS. Simple.

 

[abaddon]

If you want to claim that my understanding of physics was wrong, there is evidence to support that. What evidence exists now to prove that my understanding of physics is still wrong?

Your posts demonstrate this.

Furthermore, you proudly declaim you have no more than a kindergarten understanding of physics.

Somehow, those who are educated in physics are supposed to succumb to your layman's ignorance. Why is that?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Why would anyone need to do this? If you are performing an experiment to replicate similar directions of motion and accelerations, why would anyone need to do this?

Your argument is that no experiment would ever be accurate unless they built an exact replica of the twin towers. This is nonsense if your experiment only seeks to replicate the observed motions during the collapses.

because, once again, the observed motion tells us nothing about the mechanism causing the motion.

You keep failing to get this.

All that the experiment does is show that Cole's Model structure can be collapsed with Firecrackers. That's it. It is entirely invalid to try and apply that to the WTC towers due to their having a different structure and scale.

It's also not the only way to collapse Cole's structure. Had he dropped a bowling ball on it he could have collapsed it without the crackers. It still would not be useful for determining the WTC collapse mechanism.

You have been pointed to Lectures, lecture notes, books and more on this subject, but you refuse to learn it. After being proven wrong three times now after vowing and declaring that you were right and you would destroy us before realising, opps, you weren't, one would think you'd be willing to approach this with a little less bluster and a bit more readiness to consider what you are repeatedly being told.

 

[NoahFence]

Really? Why do you even bother?

The verinage discussion is such a waste of time. Show me a verinage collapse where acceleration remains constant, or near constant, throughout the collapse. Once you show that, then we can talk.

You know we can see you ignoring Oystein's video... right?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The direction motion will be the same. The impacts won't be. Why would you waste your time doing this? Cole is not demonstrating impacts; he is demonstrating direction of motion. In your experiment, accelerations will be similar, the directions will be similar, and the sequences of the net forces will be similar, regardless of what two objects you drop on another.

Only if and when the energy values are maintained exactly between the two experiments, any difference in energy values will produce a difference in motion.

Since Gravity obeys the Rules of the inverse square laws Cole's energy values are ridiculously off.

In the real even gravity is stronger than Em bonding,

In Cole's experiment Em bonding is stronger than Gravity.

It is really just that simple.

As you just admitted in your reply debunking Cole again if the impacts do not match in energy value between two events the motion can not be duplicated.

You have admitted such, have a wonderful day.

 

[MikeG]

......After being proven wrong three times now after vowing and declaring that you were right and you would destroy us before realising, opps, you weren't, one would think you'd be willing to approach this with a little less bluster and a bit more readiness to consider what you are repeatedly being told.

Does that include the structural ignorance, where he said that each floor supports all the floors above? Or does that make it up to 4?