Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

[rwguinn]

The "over g" acceleration in all that you are discussing comes from the fact that you have created a hinge at the supported end of what was a cantilever beam. The center of mass is falling at g, or some fraction of g, while the hinge end is not moving. The free end, by simple geometry, is going to have a velocity, vf, at some time t that is in excess of what a freely falling beam would have.
Second, a dynamic transient event is going to generate instantaneous accelerations above ground, if the structure being acted on is flexible, and if the exciting force occurs over a time span less than 1/fn, where fn is the natural frequency of the structure being acted upon.

 

[ozeco41]

Where the gibberish effect comes in is the "Over-g" statements.
In any g field, you cannot achieve acceleration greater than g without an additional force input.

...."external to the sub-system you are explaining"

Take care. The risk of confusing the "system boundaries".

My several times posted thought experiment*:

I put you in a box feet on floor and head in contact with the top of the box. Put a ball in your hand and drop the lot off a tall building - box, you with head in contact with top of box AND the ball in your hand.

You have nothing to do for a few seconds so you throw the ball towards the floor of the box.

Now trace the accelerations of:
1) The total system of "you plus box plus ball" BEFORE you move arm preparatory to throwing the ball (that is why I said "head in contact with top of box".)
2) ball before it leaves your hand which is moving in the throw;
3) Box plus your head at that same time;
4) Ball after leaving hand but before bouncing off floor;
5) Total system of box plus you but not ball during time "2)"; AND
6) ditto for time period "3)"
7) Forget events after "ball impacts floor and bounces back" - it get's more complicated than we need.

So - anyone:
a) What is the acceleration of the box before you swing arm to throw ball?
b) What is acceleration of box immediately you release the ball?
c) etc
d) etc

A good "thought model" in "free body physics".

*(Whenever I post it I risk getting at least one answer wrong - something to do with the ozeco41 )

(ask jaydeehess - IIRC I either got one wrong with him OR went dangerously close. It was a year or two back )

 

[ozeco41]

The "over g" acceleration in all that you are discussing comes from the fact that you have created a hinge at the supported end of what was a cantilever beam. The center of mass is falling at g, or some fraction of g, while the hinge end is not moving. The free end, by simple geometry, is going to have a velocity, vf, at some time t that is in excess of what a freely falling beam would have.

And even that example in its simplest isolated form ain't as straight forward as it looks.

And this one:

...Second, a dynamic transient event is going to generate instantaneous accelerations above ground, if the structure being acted on is flexible, and if the exciting force occurs over a time span less than 1/fn, where fn is the natural frequency of the structure being acted upon.

...goes up a layer or two of complexity. The squeaky noises you may hear are the rusty Mk1 Skull Embedded Grey-cell Module - '41 vintage - deciding whether or not to comment.

Meanwhile:

On a related tack.

Look at many arguments denying "over G" whilst asserting (both sides) that the acceleration averaged "G".

That is the shortest - and almost certainly unintended - argument I've seen for "over G occurred"

 

[rwguinn]

The "over g" acceleration in all that you are discussing comes from the fact that you have created a hinge at the supported end of what was a cantilever beam. The center of mass is falling at g, or some fraction of g, while the hinge end is not moving. The free end, by simple geometry, is going to have a velocity, vf, at some time t that is in excess of what a freely falling beam would have.
Second, a dynamic transient event is going to generate instantaneous accelerations above ground, if the structure being acted on is flexible, and if the exciting force occurs over a time span less than 1/fn, where fn is the natural frequency of the structure being acted upon.

Above "ground"? Sheepshead. I hate autocomplete
Above 'g'.

 

[pgimeno]

The "over g" acceleration in all that you are discussing comes from the fact that you have created a hinge at the supported end of what was a cantilever beam. The center of mass is falling at g, or some fraction of g, while the hinge end is not moving. The free end, by simple geometry, is going to have a velocity, vf, at some time t that is in excess of what a freely falling beam would have.
Second, a dynamic transient event is going to generate instantaneous accelerations above ground g, if the structure being acted on is flexible, and if the exciting force occurs over a time span less than 1/fn, where fn is the natural frequency of the structure being acted upon.

Thanks for the clarification. So I take it your objection was with my way of describing the mechanism, not with the mechanism itself nor with over-g of the façade. Is that a fair assessment?

 

[jaydeehess]

...."external to the sub-system you are explaining"

Take care. The risk of confusing the "system boundaries".

My several times posted thought experiment*:

I put you in a box feet on floor and head in contact with the top of the box. Put a ball in your hand and drop the lot off a tall building - box, you with head in contact with top of box AND the ball in your hand.

You have nothing to do for a few seconds so you throw the ball towards the floor of the box.

Now trace the accelerations of:
1) The total system of "you plus box plus ball" BEFORE you move arm preparatory to throwing the ball (that is why I said "head in contact with top of box".)
2) ball before it leaves your hand which is moving in the throw;
3) Box plus your head at that same time;
4) Ball after leaving hand but before bouncing off floor;
5) Total system of box plus you but not ball during time "2)"; AND
6) ditto for time period "3)"
7) Forget events after "ball impacts floor and bounces back" - it get's more complicated than we need.

So - anyone:
a) What is the acceleration of the box before you swing arm to throw ball?
b) What is acceleration of box immediately you release the ball?
c) etc
d) etc

A good "thought model" in "free body physics".

*(Whenever I post it I risk getting at least one answer wrong - something to do with the ozeco41 )

(ask jaydeehess - IIRC I either got one wrong with him OR went dangerously close. It was a year or two back )

Oy Vey ( a phrase I use simply to bug some people.)
Yes I recall this and similar physics qyestions. Don'the ask me to find the posts though.

Over 'g' is effected by either another, separate force being employed, strap on rockets for eg., or a transfered force created within the system.
The "falling ladder" and "pivoting beam" are two systems that demonstrate that over 'g' of specific locations in a structure are very possible. In the former, the 'rungs' are offset which means that in hitting a table/ground the lower end transfers force by acting as a pivoting beam, pulling down on the other end.
Can't be bothered to find the video at the moment. However, it's my personal belief that this is very much what was causing this excursions to over 'g'.
WTC7 collapse was characterized by a tilting of all north side floors downwards at the 'kink'. In addition, the core support was gobe and thus they also tilted diwn towards the core. THEN, the corners gave way. That means that the lower parts if this 3d 'ladder' hit ground before the other ends of those floors in very much the same manner as the 'ladder' video of over 'g'.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

Why are we even talking to someone who can say something this idiotic?

Dave

 

[MicahJava]

For what it's worth to this thread, this author found that upon close examination of WTC 7, part of the perimeter actually briefly falls faster than freefall.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view_page&PAGE_id=293&MMN_position=622:622

 

[MileHighMadness]

For what it's worth to this thread, this author found that upon close examination of WTC 7, part of the perimeter actually briefly falls faster than freefall.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view_page&PAGE_id=293&MMN_position=622:622

Old news...

 

[ozeco41]

For what it's worth to this thread, this author found that upon close examination of WTC 7, part of the perimeter actually briefly falls faster than freefall.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view_page&PAGE_id=293&MMN_position=622:622

Well known bit of history Micah subject of a wide range of forum discussions including several sets of "thought experiments" demonstrating how "over-G" can arise - see my example a few posts back up the thread.

A couple of interesting points:
1) The finding of "over-G" was disputed by many - both "truthers" and "debunkers".
-- Some didn't understand - and tended to deny - the physics of how "over G" is generically possible;
-- Quite a few rejected the specific finding - the JREF "meme" that "truthers are always wrong even when they are right" - the person who did the accurate measurements was regarded as a truther.

2) An ironic point missed by many for several years -again "both sides". Most members were accepting "average == G" BUT denying the possibility of "over-G" - which of course are mutually incompatible. "Average = G" to near 100% probability proves "over-G"

 

[JSanderO]

-- Quite a few rejected the specific finding - the JREF "meme" that "truthers are always wrong even when they are right" - the person who did the accurate measurements was regarded as a truther.

I know this is OT... but I am not an old timer here and missed a lot of the fun from before I joined several years ago.

I see this come up now and again... people who are not really in the 9/11 truth movement are disparaging regarded as truthers and dismissed as incompetent idiots.

What is the basis for these assertions?

It seems that anyone who does some sort of independent research or "thinking" and does not parrot the NIST report is considered a persona non grata on this forum... What's with that?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I know this is OT... but I am not an old timer here and missed a lot of the fun from before I joined several years ago.

I see this come up now and again... people who are not really in the 9/11 truth movement are disparaging regarded as truthers and dismissed as incompetent idiots.

What is the basis for these assertions?

It seems that anyone who does some sort of independent research or "thinking" and does not parrot the NIST report is considered a persona non grata on this forum... What's with that?

It goes back years before Ozzie or you joined the forum, to when Loose Changers would constantly challenge this forum, trying to support Dylan Avery's false hoods, a constantly
Repeating disruption of trolling and sock puppets.
Many here long long timers have whack a truther syndrome, see a truther anything that even looks
Like a truther whack before it spreads the infection, ask questions later.

 

[Criteria]

"It seems that anyone who does some sort of independent research or "thinking" and does not parrot the NIST report is considered a persona non grata on this forum... What's with that?"

Pat-on-the-back group think and bullying have always been a favourite pastime here.

That should not come as a surprise since you have done much to support the "persona non grata" attitude you speak of.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Pat-on-the-back group think and bullying have always been a favourite pastime here.

That should not come as a surprise since you have done much to support the "persona non grata" attitude you speak of.

Should we look at the past of truther forums like Loose Change, or Democratic Underground,
and all the completely stupid garbage on them?

 

[NoahFence]

Should we look at the past of truther forums like Loose Change, or Democratic Underground,
and all the completely stupid garbage on them?

How about all those truther forums or facebook pages that insta-ban anyone who may hint that they're living in reality?

 

[ProBonoShill]

Pat-on-the-back group think and bullying have always been a favourite pastime here.

How about all those truther forums or facebook pages that insta-ban anyone who may hint that they're living in reality?

I predict crickets from Criteria.

MM was a moderator at one of those forums and banned so many people he was left basically talking to himself. Hilarious!

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I predict crickets from Criteria.

MM was a moderator at one of those forums and banned so many people he was left basically talking to himself. Hilarious!

Now you know he will always be able to talk to the voices in his own head, so he will never be lonely with a forum of the mind.

 

[GlennB]

I predict crickets from Criteria.

MM was a moderator at one of those forums and banned so many people he was left basically talking to himself. Hilarious!

I've seen it a few times; the Loose Change forum and the UK 9/11 forum spring to mind.

Is MM's forum still running? It would be quite amusing to see the arch-complainer about anti-truther moderator bias actually in action doing some moderating

 

[Dave Rogers]

I've seen it a few times; the Loose Change forum and the UK 9/11 forum spring to mind.

Which one was it that banned the whole of Germany?

Dave

 

[GlennB]

Which one was it that banned the whole of Germany?

Dave

Multi-quote doesn't seem to be working here, but it was JREF's Oliver, over at LCF. In trying to ban his IP they banned much of Germany

SUCCESS!!! THEY (IP) BANNED NEARLY WHOLE GERMANY!!!

Anyone with "T-online", give it a try and send me a message!
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum

eta: Blimey. Some names from the past to conjure with there, names you don't see around any more.