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

[tfk]

The observed motions are out and then down. Explain that by performing an experiment.

Explain? Easy.
Experiment? Not required.
But I can pull up a YooToobez video of Gallagher, if you want...

Answer these questions, and you'll have your answer:

First, learn to do a force diagram.

What was the weight of the upper block of, say WTC 1, prior to collapse initiation?

What was the average acceleration of the upper block, once it started to collapse?

What was the weight of the upper mass after 10 stories of collapse, assuming 20% of the mass of each floor was ejected?

What was the downward speed of the upper block after 10 stories of collapse?

What was the force between the bottom of the compacted debris & the uppermost floor of the lower block after 10 stories of collapse, assuming a uniform downward acceleration of the upper block?

When the comedian, Gallagher, hits a watermelon with a 15 pound mallet, moving at about 15 mph, the table converts almost all of the downward energy of the mallet into horizontal velocity of melon pieces.

Given that the weight of, say a three column wide x 3 story tall external column assemblies on the impact floor, 10 stories into the collapse was about 4 tons.

Assuming that the structure of the tower can convert only 10% of the downward energy into horizontal velocity, and assuming that the force is constant over a drop of 3 stories, how far could the dropping mass throw one column assembly? How far could it throw 10 of them?

These assemblies are NOT the ones that impacted into the Winter Gardens or the World Financial Building.

What percent of the energy from the descending mass did it take to get the 20 external column assemblies that did impact the Winter Gardens & the World Financial Building to their final landing spots?

You've assured us that you understand the physics.
Let's see what you can do.

 

[PhantomWolf]

FF you keep claiming that Cole's video matches the motion of the WTC.

Please explain the following.

1 - In Cole's Video, the firecrackers cause the floor above them to lift. Where is this motion seen in the WTC videos?

2 - In Cole's Video, the Paper, which represents the steel columns, is shredded and thrown horizontally from the model's structure. Where is this motion seen in the WTC videos?

3 - In the WTC videos we see the columns bend inwards during the collapse initiation, as in the video below (1:20 mark). Where does Cole's video replicate this motion?



4 - In photos and videos of the collapse, including the one above, we see the outer columns topple from the side of the building and fall in a slow velocity parabolic arc. Where does Cole's Video replicate this motion?

Bonus Questions:

5 - In Coles video the sounds of the firecrackers are quite distinctive, as as those of demo charges as seen in the video below. Where are there explosions in actual WTC video? And no, "we need another investigation" is not an appropriate answer. Please explain how no videos have the sounds of explosives going off during the collapses.



5a - Not that you have to watch them all, but at around 6:30 there is a chimney being dropped. We can work out that since it takes ~8 seconds for the sound to arrive after the explosion is seen, that the camera is nearly 3 km away from the chimney and the explosion is quite distinctive. How then were such explosives as those in the above footage not heard being used during the collapses by people as far away as Hell's Kitchen, Jersey City, and Brooklyn?

6 - Hundreds of tonnes of steel was shipped off site and then painstaking gone over by hundreds of FBI agents and other investigators, checking every piece for damage and residues, and determining what part of the structure the steel come from. Yet not one trace of explosive damage or residue was located on any of the WTC Steel and not one of the thousands of first responders, clean up crew, or investigators have leaked any hidden evidence of such being found. How would no traces of explosives be found despite the thousands of man hours and thousands of people involved in the cleanup and investigations without any leaks what-so-ever?

And no, "we need another investigation" is not an appropriate answer, The question is, why did the extensive investigation not find any sign of explosives the first time?

7 - Why do the seismic recordings of the collapses not evidence of record any explosions even though in other cases or large explosions they have done so?

8 - What qualifies Cole or any of the other sources you link to as reliable?

9 - Why should NIST have considered CD when there is no real world physical evidence of it?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

FF you keep claiming that Cole's video matches the motion of the WTC.

Please explain the following.

1 - In Cole's Video, the firecrackers cause the floor above them to lift. Where is this motion seen in the WTC videos?

2 - In Cole's Video, the Paper, which represents the steel columns, is shredded and thrown horizontally from the model's structure. Where is this motion seen in the WTC videos?

3 - In the WTC videos we see the columns bend inwards during the collapse initiation, as in the video below (1:20 mark). Where does Cole's video replicate this motion?



4 - In photos and videos of the collapse, including the one above, we see the outer columns topple from the side of the building and fall in a slow velocity parabolic arc. Where does Cole's Video replicate this motion?

Bonus Questions:

5 - In Coles video the sounds of the firecrackers are quite distinctive, as as those of demo charges as seen in the video below. Where are there explosions in actual WTC video? And no, "we need another investigation" is not an appropriate answer. Please explain how no videos have the sounds of explosives going off during the collapses.



5a - Not that you have to watch them all, but at around 6:30 there is a chimney being dropped. We can work out that since it takes ~8 seconds for the sound to arrive after the explosion is seen, that the camera is nearly 3 km away from the chimney and the explosion is quite distinctive. How then were such explosives as those in the above footage not heard being used during the collapses by people as far away as Hell's Kitchen, Jersey City, and Brooklyn?

6 - Hundreds of tonnes of steel was shipped off site and then painstaking gone over by hundreds of FBI agents and other investigators, checking every piece for damage and residues, and determining what part of the structure the steel come from. Yet not one trace of explosive damage or residue was located on any of the WTC Steel and not one of the thousands of first responders, clean up crew, or investigators have leaked any hidden evidence of such being found. How would no traces of explosives be found despite the thousands of man hours and thousands of people involved in the cleanup and investigations without any leaks what-so-ever?

And no, "we need another investigation" is not an appropriate answer, The question is, why did the extensive investigation not find any sign of explosives the first time?

7 - Why do the seismic recordings of the collapses not evidence of record any explosions even though in other cases or large explosions they have done so?

8 - What qualifies Cole or any of the other sources you link to as reliable?

9 - Why should NIST have considered CD when there is no real world physical evidence of it?

FF has already stated, that energy values matter, in motion, and since Scale matters in energy values, he has debunked himself and Cole's ridiculous experiments, so what is the point of further comments, he either accepts the truth or not he understands the concept.

 

[pgimeno]

You seem to be making the same mistake again. Newton's First Law says that if they accelerate (or decelerate), it's because the forces are not in equilibrium, therefore they are not equal and opposite. This should be bleeding obvious. There's a limit to how much opposing force the connections can exert to oppose the movement of the falling floor. Past that, you get acceleration (=imbalanced forces). That's a case where the magnitude of N+ and N- does not equal that of G+ and G- (using PhantomWolf's terminology).

Okay this isn't quite right. All forces between two objects have a force pair that are equal and opposite. This means that when a weight falls on the floor, the floor will respond with an equal and opposite force. Now if that floor has a limit to the amount of force it can respond to before it deforms or breaks, or the wall connections fail, and the falling weight exceeds that force, then that will still be the maximum force that can be applied to it, and the total force that it will apply back on the object that has fallen on it. Once it fails, the weight will continue to apply excess force to it, and it will continue to apply an equal force until they are moving at the same velocity.

Note that these force pairs act on different objects.

Acceleration occurs when an object has a unbalanced force action on it, not when the force pairs are unbalanced.

For example if we placed a book on the floor, the book would have gravity pulling it down, and the floor pushing it up. These would be equal and opposite meaning that they cancel out and the book remains stationary, but they aren't a force pair. Now if we disintegrate the floor leaving the book with nothing to rest on, it will still have gravity pulling it down. The equal force pair is still there, with the book attracting the Earth upwards, but since there is only a single force acting on the book now, it will accelerate downwards.

You are actually making the exact same mistake that FF made, getting Force Pairs mixed up with combined forces acting on a single body.

I fail to see how we're not saying the same thing. I didn't say there's an imbalance in pairs of forces. G+ and G- are always balanced, and are one pair of forces. N+ and N- are always balanced, and are a pair of forces. I said that N- does not need to equal G+ (maybe I should have said that N- + G+ does not need to equal zero), and when that happens, you get acceleration. Note that there's a third pair of forces that enters the game when the objects collide, due to the inertia and compressibility of each object, and like in a Newton's cradle, these forces can be huge, causing a tremendous acceleration if the objects are hard to compress. The normal force would then be equal to gravity plus the force exerted due to elasticity and inertia, therefore not equal to gravity, which is what I said.

If I'm wrong, can you explain how, please?

Bump for PhantomWolf.

 

[FalseFlag]

I have read every single one. The inevitable conclusion is that you have not the foggiest clue when it comes to physics, engineering, chemistry, et al..

Discussing the inevitable conclusion is against forum rules, but I can discuss the following.

The 9/11 CR does not include vast amounts of evidence. There exists vast amounts of eyewitness testimony that is not included in the 9/11 CR. This testimony is not included. This testimony is evidence, and it is not included.

When you exclude evidence that you know exists, what does that do to your investigation? It makes the investigation incomplete. If an investigation is incomplete, are the conclusions credible? The answer is, "No."

You claim you are an engineer, but you support the conclusions of an investigation that is undeniably incomplete.

It would be a huge mistake to give any credibility to any "expert" who thinks it's OK to believe the conclusions of any investigation that is clearly and undeniably incomplete.

Your posts discredit any letters you have after your name. You certainly have proven you deserve some letters after your name, but I am certain the letters I think are appropriate don't match the letters you claim you have.

 

[FalseFlag]

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Similar accelerations, similar directions of net forces, and similar sequences of net forces are not dependent on scale.

All of this is false

Until you prove that your statement is true, and Cole is wrong, I will not provide any further responses.

Your words alone don't count. Please provide to a link to a credible source that supports your claim. Then, if you can, please provide a link to an experiment that supports this claim.

If this evidence actually existed, you would have posted in about 2500 posts ago.

 

[FalseFlag]

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

No, Feynman is not wrong.

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

If Cole is wrong, perform a competent experiment to prove he is wrong.

You have only provided links to documents that you want to distract me. If you claim Cole is wrong, then copy and paste the relevant text in one of the links you provided that proves he is wrong.

 

[GlennB]

Until you prove this statement is true I will not provide any further responses.

Your words alone don't count.. Please provide to a link to a credible source that supports your claim. Then, if you can, please provide a link to an experiment that supports this claim.

If this evidence actually existed, you would have posted in about 2500 posts ago.

Please provide links that show:

1. All the non-metallic WTC contents were turned to dust.

2. The first detected motion at collapse onset was outwards.

Many thanks.

 

[FalseFlag]

FF has already stated, that energy values matter, in motion, and since Scale matters in energy values, he has debunked himself and Cole's ridiculous experiments, so what is the point of further comments, he either accepts the truth or not he understands the concept.

I have never said what you claim I have. Either show exactly where I have said this, or retract your claim.

 

[FalseFlag]

Please provide links that show:

1. All the non-metallic WTC contents were turned to dust.

This is a lame trick. You ask me to prove that "all the non-metallic WTC contents were turned to dust." No such evidence exists. The lack of this evidence proves nothing.

What you can see, undeniably, is massive amounts of WTC contents turned to dust. You are trying to say this means nothing because "massive amounts" does not mean "all".

I'm not playing your games.

2. The first detected motion at collapse onset was outwards.

Many thanks.

Again, this is another lame trick.

You have asked me to provide proof of something that will never be agreed on. I'm not wasting my time playing your games.

 

[FalseFlag]

2 - In Cole's Video, the Paper, which represents the steel columns, is shredded and thrown horizontally from the model's structure. Where is this motion seen in the WTC videos?

This motion is seen in the video you posted. You just deny it exists.

I'm not going to continue to waste my time debating people who refuse to accept facts. It's a waste of time.

9 - Why should NIST have considered CD when there is no real world physical evidence of it?

This last statement is extraordinary denial. You are just trying to drag me into discussing topics which have already been discussed.

Cole's video stands on its own.

Until you, or anyone else, performs an experiment that proves his experiment is wrong, and his conclusions are wrong, every single word you post to rebut his experiment is meaningless.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Until you prove that your statement is true, and Cole is wrong, I will not provide any further responses.

Your words alone don't count. Please provide to a link to a credible source that supports your claim. Then, if you can, please provide a link to an experiment that supports this claim.

If this evidence actually existed, you would have posted in about 2500 posts ago.

Here is your proof.

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

Actually the impact of the hammer is what governs the speed the can is crushed.

So you admitted energy values and thus scale matter since in both the Twin Towers and Cole's experiments the impact resistant governs acceleration, and motion.

Each individual impact requires energy, the top mass of the buildings has sufficient energy to crush the lower structure, Cole's top mass simply does not.

The motions require the falling mass to do work in space time, break though the resistance of the lower structure, the greater the energy value involved, the easier the work is completed by the falling mass.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

This motion is seen in the video you posted. You just deny it exists.

I'm not going to continue to waste my time debating people who refuse to accept facts. It's a waste of time.



This last statement is extraordinary denial. You are just trying to drag me into discussing topics which have already been discussed.

Cole's video stands on its own.

Until you, or anyone else, performs an experiment that proves his experiment is wrong, and his conclusions are wrong, every single word you post to rebut his experiment is meaningless.

Yes fortunately you yourself debunked it for us.

 

[fagin]

...
Until you, or anyone else, performs an experiment that proves his experiment is wrong, and his conclusions are wrong, every single word you post to rebut his experiment is meaningless.

How to explain this in very simple terms, using very simple words.

If Mr Anycole suggests that sticking your hand in boiling water won't hurt, and does a simple experiment with a stove, a pot, and some water, bravely sticking his hand in the pot, and exclaiming excitedly that it didn't burn, after forgetting to actually turn the heat on, would you prove him wrong by heating up the water and sticking your hand in, or just point out the obvious flaw in his experiment?

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

No. What is wrong is the assertion that the motions of the WTC don't agree with Cole's experiment. To agree or disagree with each other, two accounts must have sufficient commonality to be worth comparing. If I say that I can't eat a whole elephant in one sitting, and someone else pointed out that yesterday he saw me eat a whole egg in one sitting, these two statements do not disagree with each other. If I point out that my Airfix kit of a Boeing 747 doesn't fly when I throw it across a room, this doesn't disagree with the observation that a real Boeing 747 can in fact fly. The difference, in both cases, is that the scales and the materials involved are so different that it's not reasonable to expect the two cases behave the same. Only an idiot would think otherwise in either of these cases; what does that say about people who think Cole's "experiment" is somehow exempt from scaling?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Actually, that's a great example. Take an Airfix kit of a Boeing 747, and throw it across the room. You will note the following:

The Airfix kit has the same aerofoil shapes on its wings as a real Boeing 747.
The Airfix kit experiences the same force of gravity as a real Boeing 747.
The Airfix kit experiences the same laws of aerodynamics as a real Boeing 747.
The Airfix kit experiences the same set of Newton's laws as a real Boeing 747.

If scaling and materials are irrelevant, we would expect the Airfix kit, which is subject to the same laws of physics as a real Boeing 747, to exhibit the same motions. FalseFlag, can you explain why it doesn't?

Now, string a wire across the room from one side to the other, slightly angled downwards. Fix threads to the wingtips and tailplane tips of the Airfix kit, tie them together above the wire at the higher end so that the kit is pointing towards the downward end, and give the kit a gentle push. You will note that it now replicates the motion of a real Boeing 747 quite accurately.

FalseFlag, can you explain why this experiment does not prove that real Boeing 747s are held up by cotton threads attached to their wingtips? Remember, if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

Anyone intelligent and honest will of course realise that the above experiment is worthless for precisely the same reasons that Cole's experiment is worthless. I do not expect FalseFlag to achieve this realisation.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

This is a lame trick. You ask me to prove that "all the non-metallic WTC contents were turned to dust." No such evidence exists. The lack of this evidence proves nothing.

Again, this is another lame trick.

You have asked me to provide proof of something that will never be agreed on. I'm not wasting my time playing your games.

You made both the claims I mentioned, with no evidence offered.

Then you demanded that those who disagreed with you provide evidence to support their claims (I, among others did, and offered more if it was required).

All I'm asking is that you live by the same rules that you demand others follow.

 

[FalseFlag]

How to explain this in very simple terms, using very simple words.

If Mr Anycole suggests that sticking your hand in boiling water won't hurt, and does a simple experiment with a stove, a pot, and some water, bravely sticking his hand in the pot, and exclaiming excitedly that it didn't burn, after forgetting to actually turn the heat on, would you prove him wrong by heating up the water and sticking your hand in, or just point out the obvious flaw in his experiment?

Would you provide proof that Cole is wrong if it existed?

Yes.

Your word salad is meaningless.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Your word salad is meaningless.

You keep using the term "word salad" to describe pieces of writing that I, for one, am perfectly capable of understanding. I suspect most of the other posters here are similarly capable of understanding them as well, because they are in fact quite clear and simple. So what do you think it says, to those of us who are capable of understanding them, that you are not?

Dave

 

[waypastvne]

Take an Airfix kit of a Boeing 747, and throw it across the room.

Dave

You just need to buy the AirFix 1/72 scale air molecules and fill your room with them first.