Lateral ejection of debris trash

they weren't ejected they peeled away. and its 400-500 feet not 600 feet. You can determine the distance yourself using the ruler in google earth.
 
Quad4_72 said:
A woowoo recently presented me with this video as to why debris could not have been ejected from the towers over great distances. What do you think?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7304846209709908270&hl=en
Click to expand...

First question is where is his math? My initial impression is that he calculated the distance a weightless object falling 600 feet from the base using trigonometry. But the steel beams were neither weightless nor did they encounter no resistance from the air so I would really like to see how he could even make an honest extrapolation.
 
Quad4_72 said:
A woowoo recently presented me with this video as to why debris could not have been ejected from the towers over great distances. What do you think?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7304846209709908270&hl=en
Click to expand...

Because, Like most ijit CT'ers, simplicity is in the eye of the be-holder.
the fact is that air resistance is negtligible for the steel elements falling even from the top. I won't argue that. Over 9.2 seconds tiime (falling from the top, and that's an approximation for convenience) Velocity will be about 295 feet/second, or 201 mph. That is not going to be terminal velocity for a steel chunk--heck, even humans can reach that felocity jumping out of airplanes. So I won't argue that approximation--it's valid.
What they ignore is that there are lateral forces acting on beams/bars/chunks . Buckling loads cause lateral forces internal to the beam elements--or columns if you insist (they are mostly vertical, but buckling also occurred in horizontal elements)
F=MA, and F and A are VECTORS!. So, believe it or don't--I could not care less--a horizontal force due to buckling loads gives a horizontal velocity.
And one will have to get into those nasty "load path" and "load sharing" things that CT'ers refuse to believe in.
 
Last edited:
rwguinn said:
Because, Like most ijit CT'ers, simplicity is in the eye of the be-holder.
the fact is that air resistance is negtligible for the steel elements falling even from the top. I won't argue that.
Click to expand...
If the woowoos are going to try to be suddenly "proper" and use science and math. They do not deserve the leinency of ignoring ANYTHING after 5+ years of their lies.
 
~enigma~ said:
If the woowoos are going to try to be suddenly "proper" and use science and math. They do not deserve the leinency of ignoring ANYTHING after 5+ years of their lies.
Click to expand...

I think you need to change the "critical thinker" tag on your name to something else--like "I know what I want to know"
If an assumption is valid for an engineer, it is valid for a CT'er. Archetect, myself, Rmackey, -all the engineers, mathemeticians, and physicists here and elsewhere use assumptions that make the calculations a bit easier to understand.
The fact that the CT'ers have acquired a few folks with a smattering of math, and who can almost get it right, means we can now logically show them the error of their ways--if we do it right.
Attacking the messenger is a falacy whether applied to an ijit or a "skeptic".
 
rwguinn said:
I think you need to change the "critical thinker" tag on your name to something else--like "I know what I want to know"
If an assumption is valid for an engineer, it is valid for a CT'er. Archetect, myself, Rmackey, -all the engineers, mathemeticians, and physicists here and elsewhere use assumptions that make the calculations a bit easier to understand.
The fact that the CT'ers have acquired a few folks with a smattering of math, and who can almost get it right, means we can now logically show them the error of their ways--if we do it right.
Attacking the messenger is a falacy whether applied to an ijit or a "skeptic".
Click to expand...
How is that an ad hominem? Engineers, physicists and mathameticians play by the rules of science math and logic and they have been ever since 9/11 happened. Woowoos haven't so why should we be lenient with them? Now please tell me how I attacked the messenger? On the other hand you attacked me for no reason other than I disagree with your allowing woowoos to ignore air resistance.
 
~enigma~ said:
How is that an ad hominem? Engineers, physicists and mathameticians play by the rules of science math and logic and they have been ever since 9/11 happened. Woowoos haven't so why should we be lenient with them? Now please tell me how I attacked the messenger? On the other hand you attacked me for no reason other than I disagree with your allowing woowoos to ignore air resistance.
Click to expand...
Please re-read my comment:
" If an assumption is valid for an engineer, it is valid for a CT'er."
You cannot have different rules for "them" and "us"
Applying a double standard makes it Ad Hom.
 
His alternate theory has a few gaps itself. He says that gravity is not enough and that explosive charges are needed to explain the horizontal velocity of the girders.

What his theory does not explain is a) why no other controlled demolition has thrown girders sideways, and b) why a person in charge of such a demolition would go out of his way to place charges in such a way that anyone with a smattering of physics (and no more than a smattering, apparently) could bust the whole consipracy wide open with a few applications of Newton's laws of motion.
 
NobbyNobbs said:
His alternate theory has a few gaps itself. He says that gravity is not enough and that explosive charges are needed to explain the horizontal velocity of the girders.

What his theory does not explain is a) why no other controlled demolition has thrown girders sideways, and b) why a person in charge of such a demolition would go out of his way to place charges in such a way that anyone with a smattering of physics (and no more than a smattering, apparently) could bust the whole consipracy wide open with a few applications of Newton's laws of motion.
Click to expand...
yeah, i always find it amusing how the CTers throw out all these anomalies, but completely fail to explain how they are any less anomalous for any conspiracy theory
 
rwguinn said:
Please re-read my comment:
" If an assumption is valid for an engineer, it is valid for a CT'er."
You cannot have different rules for "them" and "us"
Applying a double standard makes it Ad Hom.
Click to expand...
If the woowoos had been using science, logic and math since 9/11, I wouldn't have different criteria for them. Just as I would have different criteria for reading Stephen Hawkins versus Stanley Pons. So is that an ad hominem?

ETA - So was you asking me to change my critical thinker tag just a logical fallacy you made?
 
Last edited:
A guess is a guess is a guess is a guess. It doesn't matter who is making the guess... it is still a guess. Your appeal to authority tells you that a guess from an, "expert," has more value than a guess from a layman. If an assertion is supported by nothing more than an assumption, than it must be viewed as equal, regardless of who is making it.

Trusses sagging is a guess. It cannot be proven with a scientific equation. Columns bowing is an assumption, it cannot be proven with a scientific equation. Therefore... these assertions hold no more water than a layman saying explosives brought down the towers. It's yer ego (elitist attitude) and prejudices that distort your viewpoint... by telling you that all opinions are not created equal.

NIST's report is a whitewash. None of the theories in it, can be proven with science. You cannot prove that trusses actually sagged on both towers, or that they (trusses) caused the outer columns to bow... or that this bowing caused all four sides on each tower to fail simultaneous... These are all guesses... based out of a cornucopia of scientific improbabilities.
 
28th Kingdom said:
A guess is a guess is a guess is a guess. It doesn't matter who is making the guess... it is still a guess. Your appeal to authority tells you that a guess from an, "expert," has more value than a guess from layman. If an assertion is supported by nothing more than an assumption, than it must be viewed as equal, regardless of who is making it.
Click to expand...

No.

NIST's report is a whitewash.
Click to expand...

No.

None of the theories in it, can be proven with science.
Click to expand...

No, they can.

How's the limo driving going?

Nice talking to you.
 
28th Kingdom said:
A guess is a guess is a guess is a guess. It doesn't matter who is making the guess... it is still a guess. Your appeal to authority tells you that a guess from an, "expert," has more value than a guess from a layman. If an assertion is supported by nothing more than an assumption, than it must be viewed as equal, regardless of who is making it.

Trusses sagging is a guess. It cannot be proven with a scientific equation. Columns bowing is an assumption, it cannot be proven with a scientific equation. Therefore... these assertions hold no more water than a layman saying explosives brought down the towers. It's yer ego (elitist attitude) and prejudices that distort your viewpoint... by telling you that all opinions are not created equal.

NIST's report is a whitewash. None of the theories in it, can be proven with science. You cannot prove that trusses actually sagged on both towers, or that they (trusses) caused the outer columns to bow... or that this bowing caused all four sides on each tower to fail simultaneous... These are all guesses... based out of a cornucopia of scientific improbabilities.
Click to expand...

You are 100% wrong.

Trusses sagging and columns bowing is confirmed by photographic evidence.
As for scientific equations, ever heard of Euler?

'or that this bowing caused all four sides on each tower to fail simultaneous...'

This never happened. One side failed first and the towers leant over towards that side. You are wrong. Super wrong. Mega wrong. Infinitely wrong. You take wrong to a new plateau of stupidity.
 
28th Kingdom said:
:words:

NIST's report is a whitewash. None of the theories in it, can be proven with science.

more :words:
Click to expand...
How can you, off all people, know that???
You have shown a total lack of understanding of what science is! You don't even understand primary-school concepts like acceleration!

And who are you to accuse without any evidence respected scientists of a whitewash, when you are known to cheat here on this forum with your own posts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom