Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[bill smith]

It's a simple conservation of momentum calculation, and it's pretty well irrelevant what the plane was made of. A 150 ton paper plane hitting at the same speed, in the same place, would have produced exactly the same amount of oscillation.



Dave

..And destroyed 33 steel box columns and up to 10 of the massive steel core columns ? One three-hundredth of ONE PERCENT did this ?

 

[funk de fino]

..And destroyed 33 steel box columns and up to 10 of the massive steel core columns ? One three-hundredth of ONE PERCENT did this ?

Destroyed the bolts. Which weigh a lot less than the plane.

duh

 

[Dave Rogers]

2. What do you think would happen if the top 10% of WTC1 was stationary two miles up in the sky and the bottom 90% took off like a rocket and smashed into it at say 800 mph ?

Which would survive ? How different are the physics ?

The physics would certainly be different, because the bottom end of the lower block would not be restrained by a mass sufficiently large as to be considered immovable. The means by which the upper part was held stationary in the sky would also be relevant; if the entire collision occurred between unrestrained objects in free fall, then the results would be expected to be radically different.

In the case where both objects are in freefall, I'd expect some bidirectional crushing, followed by arrest of relative motion and the remains of the two blocks moving at a velocity determined by a simple conservation of momentum calculation. Since this collision lacks both the energy source and the asymmetry between the blocks provided by gravity, it's utterly irrelevant to any analysis of the 9/11 collapses.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

And he last one for now...

3.When I am told that one tenth of a structure crushes down the other nine-tenths of the same structure by gravity alone.I don't need any engineer to tell me that something is hideousy skewed and I am being sold a crock.

So you can explain all you like but until you can come up with any other structure, big or small in the entire history of this Planet in which the top and lightest one-tenth crushed the other and stronger nine-enths down flat on the ground by gravity alone all the explanations of 9/11 debunkers will be 100% disregarded.

This is a deliberate misrepresentation of your position. I've bolded the part that gives an accurate representation. You've decided on a conclusion, and you're now rejecting all facts that disagree with that conclusion. One of the things you're rejecting is the Law of Conservation of Momentum. By your own choice, you've reverted to the 15th Century in your thinking. This will harm nobody but you.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

..And destroyed 33 steel box columns and up to 10 of the massive steel core columns ? One three-hundredth of ONE PERCENT did this ?

Parroting meaningless statistics is not a sign of intelligence.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

This is a deliberate misrepresentation of your position. I've bolded the part that gives an accurate representation. You've decided on a conclusion, and you're now rejecting all facts that disagree with that conclusion. One of the things you're rejecting is the Law of Conservation of Momentum. By your own choice, you've reverted to the 15th Century in your thinking. This will harm nobody but you.

Dave

Just as any 15th-century citizen I am open to conversion. So convert me by providing an example other than 9/11 ?

 

[bill smith]

Parroting meaningless statistics is not a sign of intelligence.

Dave

NOT answering questions does not indicate a rocket scientist either.

 

[Toke]

Bill,
Have you considered how a single domino can tip over 10.000 of other dominoes?
There are youtube videos of domino competitions!!

 

[bill smith]

The physics would certainly be different, because the bottom end of the lower block would not be restrained by a mass sufficiently large as to be considered immovable. The means by which the upper part was held stationary in the sky would also be relevant; if the entire collision occurred between unrestrained objects in free fall, then the results would be expected to be radically different.

In the case where both objects are in freefall, I'd expect some bidirectional crushing, followed by arrest of relative motion and the remains of the two blocks moving at a velocity determined by a simple conservation of momentum calculation. Since this collision lacks both the energy source and the asymmetry between the blocks provided by gravity, it's utterly irrelevant to any analysis of the 9/11 collapses.

Dave

But at the point of impact- the interface- the physics would be the same regardless of which body was moving.

So the 450,000 tons would srike the stationary 50,000 tons (or vice versa if you prefer to see it that way). So which will be destroyed ?

I say both parts will suffer local damages but the smaller part will be gone first.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Bill,
Have you considered how a single domino can tip over 10.000 of other dominoes?
There are youtube videos of domino competitions!!

You don't get it. It's not a floor-by-floor decision. The whole building agrees to resistt the collapse, collectively. It's the democratic approach to skyscraper construction. No floor should have to stand alone!

Also I see Bill believes in the flash from In Plane Site. Do you know why that's funny, Bill? Do you know how dumb that video is? What color was the "pre-impact" flash? What connection does it have to "the pod" on the same plane?

 

[Brainache]

Just as any 15th-century citizen I am open to conversion. So convert me by providing an example other than 9/11 ?

Next time you are in the top third of a hundred storey skyscraper and a jumbo jet flying at 500 mph plows into one of the floors below you, why don't you just relax and stay where you are Bill? I mean, if it is so obvious that you are perfectly safe, you wouldn't be worried about the building falling down would you Bill?

The reason no one can explain the physics that led to the collapse to you, isn't because the collapse was impossible, it is because you refuse to even try to understand.

 

[bill smith]

You don't get it. It's not a floor-by-floor decision. The whole building agrees to resistt the collapse, collectively. It's the democratic approach to skyscraper construction. No floor should have to stand alone!

Also I see Bill believes in the flash from In Plane Site. Do you know why that's funny, Bill? Do you know how dumb that video is? What color was the "pre-impact" flash? What connection does it have to "the pod" on the same plane?

You better tell CNN- it's straight from their broadcast on 9/11..

 

[Brainache]

You better tell CNN- it's straight from their broadcast on 9/11..

So how many CNN reporters are qualified structural engineers or high-rise Architects?

How long had they studied the collapses when they made their generalisations to fill air time that day?

 

[Caustic Logic]

You better tell CNN- it's straight from their broadcast on 9/11..

No CNN just showed the yellowish flash of the plane's aluminum nose cone striking the building. They did not claim it came "just before" impact, like so close before you have to keep re-watching it unsure if it's just before or just after, given the resolution. They didn't clim it was a missile fired from "the pod" or laser guidance from same, or whatever else one might imagine.

So what mechanism is it by which the building should have re-distributed all its strength to one floor to stop it collapsing?

 

[bill smith]

No CNN just showed the yellowish flash of the plane's aluminum nose cone striking the building. They did not claim it came "just before" impact, like so close before you have to keep re-watching it unsure if it's just before or just after, given the resolution. They didn't clim it was a missile fired from "the pod" or laser guidance from same, or whatever else one might imagine.

So what mechanism is it by which the building should have re-distributed all its strength to one floor to stop it collapsing?

You can check it out yourself in this link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7PncGkdFPI Flash Analysis plus

 

[Dave Rogers]

Just as any 15th-century citizen I am open to conversion.

Wrong. Like many a 15th century citizen, you are a religious fundamentalist, determined to reject arguments counter to your beliefs regardless of the implications.

NOT answering questions does not indicate a rocket scientist either.

The question was already answered. The answer was "Yes". Would you like me to try and simplify it even further?

But at the point of impact- the interface- the physics would be the same regardless of which body was moving.

No, they wouldn't. Gravity may be neglected as both bodies are in freefall, so the forces transmitted to the point of impact are different. The outcome will therefore be radically different, and irrelevant.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

Wrong. Like many a 15th century citizen, you are a religious fundamentalist, determined to reject arguments counter to your beliefs regardless of the implications.





The question was already answered. The answer was "Yes". Would you like me to try and simplify it even further?



No, they wouldn't. Gravity may be neglected as both bodies are in freefall, so the forces transmitted to the point of impact are different. The outcome will therefore be radically different, and irrelevant.

Dave

I don't know where you are getting freefall from unless you are trying to confuse the issue. I theorised a stationary upper block of 10% floating in the sky at two miles altitude being struck by the 90% of the lower block travelling at an arbitrary 800 mph. (400 mph if you like)

You are not being very convincing so far Dave. Don't forget the readers.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I don't know where yu are getting freefall from unless you are trying to confuse the issue. I theorised a stationary upper block of 10% floating in the sky at two miles altitude being struck by the 90% of the lower block travelling at an arbitrary 800 mph. (400 mph if you like)

You are not being very convincing so far Dave. Don't forget the readers.

Hey, what if that block was floating, sort of bobbing up and down, while the 90% block came at it sideways, flying like a plane, but then turned to pudding right before impact?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I don't know where you are getting freefall from unless you are trying to confuse the issue. I theorised a stationary upper block of 10% floating in the sky at two miles altitude being struck by the 90% of the lower block travelling at an arbitrary 800 mph. (400 mph if you like)

So where is the Earth, to which the lower block was very strongly connected on 9/11, and what is holding the upper block stationary in the sky?

You dream up a physically impossible scenario with major points of difference to the events of 9/11, can't be bothered to consider the implications of the physical differences and impossibilities, and then say I'm not being very convincing? The only thing you'll convince anyone of is that you have no idea what you're talking about. Not that there was much room for doubt there already.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

So where is the Earth, to which the lower block was very strongly connected on 9/11, and what is holding the upper block stationary in the sky?

You dream up a physically impossible scenario with major points of difference to the events of 9/11, can't be bothered to consider the implications of the physical differences and impossibilities, and then say I'm not being very convincing? The only thing you'll convince anyone of is that you have no idea what you're talking about. Not that there was much room for doubt there already.

Dave

I don't have to tell any critical reader what's going on here Dave.

One point though- didn't Bazant essentially theorise a floating upper block in his desperate hypothesis ?