9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

DGM said:
Why wouldn't rubble crush a building?
Click to expand...

Because the rubble is a loose and randomized collection of building fragments and tends to spill over the sides. Individual rubble pieces do not have sufficient mass to crush through intact building components.
 
ergo said:
Because the rubble is a loose and randomized collection of building fragments and tends to spill over the sides. Individual rubble pieces do not have sufficient mass to crush through intact building components.
Click to expand...

One more time:

"The linear momentum of a system of particles is the vector sum of the momenta of all the individual objects in the system"

http://en.wikipedia.orgwiki/Momentum
Click to expand...
 
BigAl said:
One more time:
Click to expand...

One more time:

"The linear momentum of a system of particles is the vector sum of the momenta of all the individual objects in the system"
Click to expand...

Please explain how linear momentum of a system of particles applies to rubble crushing a building.
 
ergo said:
A volume of rubble is not an integral unit. Its ability to apply force on something is mitigated by the differential actions of its thousands of independent components, all doing different things, many of them falling outside the crushing zone. Yes, it may have less air than an intact storey supported by steel columns, but force is distributed totally haphazardly on any structure below, and, as we can see, much of this results in a loss of mass to the system.
Click to expand...


Each piece of rubble is being pulled by gravity in the same direction. Slowing all of it down by a certain amount in a given amount of time (e.g. slowed enough in a short enough time to prevent it crashing through the next floor) requires the same force as it it were all attached together as one single object. Unless you can spread out the individual impacts over time -- but you cannot, because nothing is holding any of it up.

I don't have calculations. I know Bazant makes some, but obviously has to underestimate if his theory is to survive.
Click to expand...


That's a fail. If you don't have calculations then you have no real argument.

You see, people who actually make decisions about important things, like how to construct buildings and how to update building codes and whether to conduct new investigations and what to teach in engineering classes and what to write in history books, want to see the numbers.

In fact, in most cases the reason they get to make decisions about important things is that they are able to perform such calculations and/or evaluate the calculations of others.

And, it's important to note, the reason they want to see the numbers is because they want to maximize their chances to be right.

Waving away the calculations in favor of vague claims ("others' calculations must be wrong because they disagree with my guesses") and illegitimate analogies ("the towers didn't behave like a small stack of cinderblocks") is not a way to be right. It's good for only one thing: remaining unconvinced that you are wrong, when you are wrong.

An odd characteristic seen in many Truthers is acting as if being unconvinced that you are wrong is in some way difficult, inherently admirable, productive, and/or comparable to being right. It is none of those things.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
Each piece of rubble is being pulled by gravity in the same direction.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

Slowing all of it down by a certain amount in a given amount of time (e.g. slowed enough in a short enough time to prevent it crashing through the next floor) requires the same force as it it were all attached together as one single object. Unless you can spread out the individual impacts over time -- but you cannot, because nothing is holding any of it up.
Click to expand...

Your first premise is incorrect, so the bolded is incorrect for that and other obvious reasons.
 
ergo said:
No, it isn't.

Your first premise is incorrect, so the bolded is incorrect for that and other obvious reasons.
Click to expand...


Gravity pulls some pieces of rubble in some direction other than down? Please give an example.

The bolded, like the rest, is completely correct.

This is a good example of what I said before. It's quite possible that I lack the ability to convince you that you're wrong. Meanwhile you lack the ability to be right. In Truther world maybe that makes us even. But the people who make real decisions in the real world don't see it that way.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom