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

[Andy_Ross]

I can think of a motion that describes this thread.

 

[Sunstealer]

Here is an experiment with a model that has some structural features similar to the WTC twin towers:

snipped for brevity and repetition

That's actually a pretty good demonstration all considering. I'm not familiar with metabunk, but that effort shows a number of similarities with the WTC especially in slow motion. If it were much taller (which may be difficult due to the scale) then I think it would be much clearer how structural elements falling outside of the collapse actually hit the floor before the collapse front and how the outer colums "peel" away, whilst the inner columns are the last to topple.

Good effort.

 

[GlennB]

I can think of a motion that describes this thread.

"A motion of no confidence"?

Nah, don't think that's what you had in mind

 

[Oystein]

You know why scale is relevant, and what is dependent on scale and what is not dependent on scale.

That's correct: I do know
You don't

Similar accelerations, similar directions of net forces, and similar sequences of net forces are not dependent on scale.

All of this is false

I'm not going to bother discussing scale in your video.

Funny - I knew you wouldn't. Because you can't

My point was to show that skeptics are discussing it, either.

a) You mean "are not", right?
b) That would be wrong. We are discussing it

Why is that?

Since that isn't, the question is moot. However...

Is it because scale is not an issue,

...scale is an issue, of course

or is it because they like the conclusion so they ignore the obvious?

What is the obvious?

 

[abaddon]

Not this again. Haven't you read all the posts in this thread? Clearly you haven't.

ORLY? Clearly you are unfamiliar with the wayback machine.
The mods do not matter and you do not matter.
Kindly go foxtrot oscar.

Don't criticize YouTube when you skeptics routinely use it to post videos that you misinterpret to support your absurd claims.

That is all sorts of wrong. It appears you have reached the level of quantum wrong. Well done.

 

[abaddon]

Too late to go home now.

 

[jaydeehess]

If flight 93 has nothing to do with building 7, then why would ae911t investigate it? You need to respond to Noah Fence's posts, not mine.

You are asking the wrong people.

This response is, for me, the absolutely most laughable the FF has come up with so far.
Noah had no intention of linking Flight 93 and the specifics of the collapse of WTC 7 yet FF ties them together.
Can we really believe that FF did not understand Noah's post?

 

[Mark F]

OK, this is a joke, but it's really creepy that my connection drops every time I try to view something about WTC. It happens all the time, and it's odd. It doesn't happen any other time. Stay out of my computer!

Sure your name isn't Katsung?

 

[jaydeehess]

delete

 

[jaydeehess]

This message is to the illuminati guys and the guys who work at the CIA and NSA and the other letter agencies.

Can you please stop killing my PC when I try to download an on-topic video? It's getting quite tiring.

OK, this is a joke, but it's really creepy that my connection drops every time I try to view something about WTC. It happens all the time, and it's odd. It doesn't happen any other time. Stay out of my computer!

John 7737 and Benjamin 8153, quit it please. Let this one slide for a while.

 

[tfk]

The most frustrating barriers to reasoned discussion I see are two "memes":
1) "Truthers are always wrong" - even if a truther says 'The cloudless daytime sky is blue' by definition the truther is wrong therefore that assertion must be wrong.

2) "Bazant is always right" - despite co-authoring papers which apply "crush down crush up" 1D simplifications to WTC.

Stick to your guns - don't concede BUT also don't waste energy. Simply withdraw after the second time round the same circle of derailing evasion.

Oz,

A couple of questions, since this post appears to be directed at me…

I’ve seen you claim to be an engineer in several of your posts, such as here.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11200100&postcount=1909

I thought that you were an engineering manager, not an engineer.
Do you have a degree in engineering?
If so, which branch?
If you worked as an engineer, how long did you do so before becoming a manager?

My curiosity is piqued by your continued insistence, your incorrect insistence, that Bazant’s "crush down, then crush up" theory is wrong.

It is not wrong.
You are wrong.
Just like the kids over at the911forum are wrong.

They’ve been told that they are wrong about this every single time that they have asked someone who knew what they were talking about, such as Frank Greening, Greg Benson. Or me.

They (& you) didn’t listen to those guys. They (& you) didn’t listen to me.
They (& you) are simply wrong.

Bazant’s theory is “substantially correct”.
Read that as "90% correct”, just like most empirical & math models.
It captures, accurately, one of the key features of any such vertical collapse: the destruction is vertically asymmetric.

The model is not perfect.
The upper block does not drift magically down, pristine & wholly intact, like Dorothy’s house in the other Land of Oz.

But the destruction is dramatically asymmetric.

On the other hand, the theory of symmetric destruction is 100%, wholly wrong.

I am curious…
You've read Bazant’s CV & his list of accomplishments.
Presumably you understand, even as you deny it, how friggin’ smart that guy is.

And, yes, I understand completely how “even really smart people make mistakes”.
But, world class experts on a particular topic do not make trivial errors … on simple topics that are WITHIN the specific field of their expertise.

Here is of the current description of Bazant’s work, from him website:

My interests lie in new interdisciplinary problems of the mechanics of solids and structures, with applications in structural, mechanical and aeronautical engineering, materials science and geophysics. My research group has worked on nonlinear fracture mechanics, size effects and scaling of failure, stability of structures, micromechanics of damage in materials, inelastic constitutive laws, creep and hygrothermal effects in nanoporous materials, chemo-mechanics, failure of fiber composites, hydraulic fracture, impact problems, probabilistic mechanics of quasibrittle structures, plasticity and finite strain, with related numerical methods. Our research, which emphasizes mathematical modeling based on experiments, has been focused on concrete, rock, sea ice, braided and woven composites for automobile crashworthiness, hybrid joints for ships, rigid foams, shape memory alloys, dry snow slabs, fracking of gas shale, probabilistic analysis of quasibrittle failure, especially the tail distribution strength, predictions of creep and shrinkage effects in concrete structures, and applications to gas shale, fiber-polymer composites for aircraft and ships, metallic thin films, reinforced concrete structures and granular materials.

I've bolded the parts that are directly applicable to this discussion.

Absent in that summary is the fact that Bazant is likely the world's foremost expert in the collapse of large structures.
__

Do you think that either you, or the 911forum kids, understand "crush down/crush up", or any aspect of structural engineering better than Bazant does?

Do you think that any of the 911forum kids understand Bazant’s equations or derivations on this matter?

Do you think that Bazant is ignorant of the limitations of his theory?

Do you think that he believes that the upper block descends, pristine, as in a fairy tale?
__

As for “1D simplification” … what part of “simplification” escapes you?

I would tell you why you are wrong, here, but you’d protest to the mods that my explaining your error is a derail, doesn’t belong in this thread, and should be moved to AAH.

This has happened several times between us in the past.

Which leads to an “interesting" dichotomy.
You get to make an assertion, like the one above, that is wrong. That assertion stands, unopposed, in the original thread. Partly because neither I nor anyone else is inclined to attempt to get things stripped away.

But a correction to your error becomes a “derail” and, because of your complaints, gets stripped out of the thread.

That’s a curious situation, don’t you think?

So, in a few days or so, I’ll start my own thread & explain why you are wrong.

If you're inclined, feel free to respond why you think I’m wrong.
I promise I won’t attempt to get your post removed.

 

[tfk]

Has anyone been able yet to explain to False Flag why his assertion on equal & opposite forces is wrong?

Reading 18 more pages of idiocy is more than I can stomach, if there is any way that I can manage to avoid it.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Has anyone been able yet to explain to False Flag why his assertion on equal & opposite forces is wrong?

Reading 18 more pages of idiocy is more than I can stomach, if there is any way that I can manage to avoid it.

We've explained it. Comprehension, on the other hand, seems to be slow in coming.

 

[Mark F]

Has anyone been able yet to explain to False Flag why his assertion on equal & opposite forces is wrong?

Reading 18 more pages of idiocy is more than I can stomach, if there is any way that I can manage to avoid it.

Explain? Yes.

The comprehension part on the receiving end is severely lacking, probably deliberately so.

 

[tfk]

I have already shown that I can admit I am wrong.

Just the latest in a long, Long, LONG line of things about which you're completely wrong.

Is Richard Feynman wrong? Is his statement that is the title of this thread wrong?

No, Feynman is not wrong.

But you're interpretation of what he said IS wrong.

It should read, "If COMPETENT experiments don't agree with your theory, then your theory's wrong."

And Feynman would be the very FIRST one to tell you that you butchered the substance of his quote.
Feynman had TONS of experience with flawed experiments, which negated no theory whatoever. He wasn't as clueless about the realities of these matters as you are.

I have provided you with one objective proof after another, all of them backed by thousands of experiments, of exactly why Cole's experiments are not only wrong, but laughably clueless.

I've provided you with text books that prove he's wrong.
I've provided you with lecture notes that prove he's wrong.
I've provided you with experimental procedures that prove he's wrong.

Your only response to all the above has been <crickets>.

And then turning around & insisting that you "understand the physics".

Have you figured out, yet, why your assertions about the force of gravity being counteracted by the electromagnetic repulsion is wrong?

 

[Seymour Butz]

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?

So then you admit that you didn't know what you were arguing about. Good.

The question NOW is, what else might you be misinterpreting? What else are you wrong about?

Debunkers already know the answers.

Will you find out too some day?

 

[tfk]

All right, I'll give a shot at trying to make him understand. I expect no better results than anyone else.

First, let's get some terminology straight.

"The force of gravity" of an object is most commonly called its "weight".
Do not confuse this for mass.

In physics & engineering, a "normal" force is simply a force acting at 90° to some surface. Or it is the component of some larger force, which is acting at some angle, that is acting "normal to" (at a 90° angle to) some surface.

The proper term, in the case of the force of the ground acting on the building, is a "reaction" force. Not a normal force.

There are 1000s of buildings & structures that are built on the sides of hills.

The reaction force is always in a direction radially outward from the center of the earth thru the structure.

The reaction force is NOT, in these cases, 90° to the ground. It is not, in these cases, a "normal" force.
__

Next, let's take the towers off of the ground & place them in air, say 500' above the ground and release them.

At this point, there is a gravitational force acting on the building, pulling it towards the earth. The value of that force is given by F1 = G M m / r^2, pulling the building towards the center of the earth, where M = the mass of the earth & m = the mass of the building, & r = the radius of the earth (~4000 miles).

Similarly, there is a gravitational force pulling the entire earth up towards the building.
F2 = G M m / r^2.

The two objects BOTH accelerate towards each other.

The acceleration of the building is: a_b = F1/m, directed down.

The acceleration of the earth is: a_e = F2/M, directed up.

Since M is huge, a_e ≈ 0.

Since m is small, then a_b ≈ g. (32.2 ft/sec²)
__

Now, put the building back down, gently, onto the ground where it belongs.

The force of gravity is still pulling the building downwards.
The force of gravity is still pulling the earth upwards.

Nothing cancels out those forces. Nothing makes them go away.

But now, you have TWO, (not one, two) additional forces.

The force of gravity between the earth & the building compresses a bunch of the earth below the building... and to the side of the dirt below the building. This force is NOT "just downward". If the earth below the building were not restrained from the side, then the dirt would be shoved laterally outward.

Similarly the force of gravity between the earth & the building compresses a bunch of steel in the building's support structure. If the columns of the building were not laterally constrained, then there is a very high probability (approaching certainty) that the columns would be forced outward or inward, depending on the slight asymmetry of the reaction force.

The point is that the electromagnetic forces do NOT counteract the gravitational force. Nor does they counterbalance that force.

The electromagnetic forces act in multiple directions, with large horizontal components, while the gravitational force acts ONLY straight towards the center of the earth.

Nothing counteracts the gravitational forces. They are still there & undisturbed in the building, just as they were when the building was "let go" 500' above the ground.

The electromagnetic forces associated with the compression of the ground counteracts (in magnitude & direction) the electromagnetic forces associated with the compression of the steel.

THIS is what gives an ultimate "force balance of equal & opposite forces", which results in zero acceleration of the building.

That force balance does NOT give you, however, zero vertical motion of the building.

That is given by the initial condition (established around 1968 or so) that the supports started out motionless with respect to the ground.
__

Any prayer that any of this will penetrate your determined ignorance, FF?

 

[waypastvne]

What you should be asking me to do is explain thermite, thermate, and nano-thermite. You can ask all you want, though; I'm still not going to discuss the issue. If you want to learn more, perhaps you could consult the ae911truth.org website.

Sorry but, thermite is not going to give you the outward and then downward motion that you're on about.

Do you think they might have used firecrackers like Cole did ?

 

[ProBonoShill]

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?

LOL evidence exists in nearly every single post you make. It's abundantly clear you don't even understand simple physics. Not to mention you're an admitted liar. Your credibility here is non-existent.

You exist as a source of amusement for this sub-forum nothing else. I hope the lurkers are enjoying themselves.

 

[ProBonoShill]

No, you've proven precisely the reverse. You've clung to your misconceptions in the face of overwhelming proof to the contrary, insulted and threatened everyone who's tried to educate you, eventually conceded that your understanding of two very basic pieces of physics was completely wrong, and claimed sole credit for correcting your own misconceptions. At present, all that you've proved is that you are capable, after sufficient use of blunt instruments, of accepting that two specific findings of physics are correct as described by almost everyone else (except Criteria, of course) in the thread. You continue to demonstrate that you are incapable of generalizing these findings to a better understanding of Cole's errors by continuing to pretend these don't exist. What you've proven is that you're ignorant, incompetent, resistant to acquiring knowledge, and almost incapable of changing an opinion once you've formed it.

But there's no need to argue any further, really. You've insisted that a new investigation is necessary; the majority disagrees with you, but why let that stop you? You could simply join a group of like-minded individuals and carry out the investigation yourselves, maybe by raising funds and commissioning some expert to do an independent study. What could go wrong with that, right?

Or you could waste your own time whining to people who understand all this far better than you and are laughing to themselves at your ignorance and stupidity, and pretend that you can somehow tell enough blatant lies, play enough word games and throw around enough insults to convince them that all they know is in doubt. Why on Earth you would choose such a pointless course of action is beyond me, but in what universe do you expect it to get the new investigation that you claim you want?

Dave