9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

[uke2se]

Are you claiming that you don't see something being ejected up out of the building in the picture I post above?

Yes, that's what I'm claiming.

No, it cannot. This has already been explained to you.

Yes it can. It's basic physics. You should pick up a high school physics text-book.

 

[uke2se]

My argument is that a system of particles will not have the same impact force as an intact system 1) because the mass has changed due to loss and due to a radically changed form. And 2) relating to the radically changed form, rubble behaves differently than an intact block would. When rubble falls into a containment, such as a dumpster, it fills the container. In doing so, it pushes itself out from where it's falling onto until it hits the sides, and then piles up. Impact is being deferred laterally and in many other different directions, according to the variant sizes of chunks in the rubble. Force is being deflected in many different directions, not just down. Rubble simply isn't an efficient way to crush a large area. It's not even very good for crushing small things, as the force cannot be applied directly.

Got math?

Because this seems like a pretty amazing physics fail.

 

[TruthersLie]

But I'm glad people didn't dogpile on my moon comment. I saw the moon tonight and thought, "Hmm, yeah, that's a pretty big body... I may have to retract my statement."

[qimg]http://www.free-emoticons.co.uk/emoticons/Music/note3.gif[/qimg]
A moonful of rubble makes the medicine go down...medicine go down.. medicine go down....[qimg]http://www.free-emoticons.co.uk/emoticons/Music/note3.gif[/qimg]

Have you managed to pick up a stop watch and figure out how to use it yet?

 

[TruthersLie]

I'm sorry that you're unwilling to read what I've already posted in this thread. As for the math, why would you need me to re-present math that has already been presented by qualified skeptics? You claim to know the "truther" arguments inside out. Apparently you don't. You have some reading to do.

YOu have NOT provided evidence. You have posted 2 peoples names and said "they have shown." You have not provided a reference to any paper, you have not provided a single citation of math from any of them. So you might just want to dig into those "papers" and support your argument...

But then again, from you why should we expect that.

p.s. have you figured out how to use a stopwatch yet?

 

[TruthersLie]

Oh, Jesus Christ...

I hope that's a joke.



/Edit: Screw it! This is too much comedy gold to pass up. STUNDIED!

oh the irony... since this is stundie it is rather appropriate...

It can't run down a lane and knock ten pins over. However, it can fall down and enact the same force as a whole bowling ball can. This has been explained to you before. This is basic physics.

Yes... But considering that he doesn't understand that loose particles of water will crush a car, or that an avalanche can knock down buildings.... go figure.

 

[BigAl]

Why are you talking about rubble from the core? Who said anything about rubble from the core being ejected horizontally in four directions? Although, while we're talking about it, there is obviously some matter being ejected upwards:

[qimg]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/02/10/nyregion/33302049.JPG[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/site1102_1.jpg[/qimg]

Optical illusion. It's smoke and the finest dust hanging in the air while the building falls underneath.

 

[TruthersLie]

If you read Slarti's post, you'll see he was responding to pgimeno, not to me. I have never tried to make any claim about energy loss into heat and sound in the WTC. It was a strawman put forward by the Almond in an effort to ignore the obvious and very significant energy sinks that were ignored in the Bazant model.

Stopwatch? Didn't think so.

And from a person who doesn't know how to use a stopwatch (or the video timer on youtube), he thinks he understand the "energy sinks" from the engineering of Bazant?

ORLY?

 

[excaza]

My argument is that a system of particles will not have the same impact force as an intact system 1) because the mass has changed due to loss and due to a radically changed form. And 2) relating to the radically changed form, rubble behaves differently than an intact block would.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass

 

[pgimeno]

I have never tried to make any claim about energy loss into heat and sound in the WTC. It was a strawman put forward by the Almond in an effort to ignore the obvious and very significant energy sinks that were ignored in the Bazant model.

That's another lie. All the energy sinks you have mentioned have been taken into account in Bazant's model, as you were already informed. You have not pointed out any single unaccounted energy sink.

 

[TruthersLie]

My argument is that a system of particles will not have the same impact force as an intact system 1) because the mass has changed due to loss and due to a radically changed form.

So then the video of the car being crushed by the water is a valid refutation . Got it.

And 2) relating to the radically changed form, rubble behaves differently than an intact block would.

no one is disagreeing in theory with you that rubble would behave somewhat differently.. just with how off base you take your conclusions.

When rubble falls into a containment, such as a dumpster, it fills the container. In doing so, it pushes itself out from where it's falling onto until it hits the sides, and then piles up. Impact is being deferred laterally and in many other different directions, according to the variant sizes of chunks in the rubble. Force is being deflected in many different directions, not just down.

and did the car get hit by ALL the water? no... was it still crushed by the mass of the water? Yes. Physics is fun.

Rubble simply isn't an efficient way to crush a large area. It's not even very good for crushing small things, as the force cannot be applied directly.

No one ever said it was... nice strawman you keep trying to build. The force of the falling water wasn't applied fully and directly to the car... what happened to the car again? OH it was crushed. Amazing how that happened.

P.s. have you figured out how to use a stopwatch yet?

 

[pgimeno]

1) because the mass has changed due to loss and due to a radically changed form.

Now THAT's a Stundie!

 

[carlitos]

Did you actually expect Stundie ergo to actually read and understand your posts?

First show me other highrise buildings built like the WTC that were hit by airliners or burned uncontrollably for 7 hours.

Um, WTC 1 and 2 burned for less than 90 minutes. WTC 7, which did burn for 6 or 7 hours, was not hit by a plane.

1) a significant quantity of mass is lost in the WTC, 2) mass changes when the density and quantity of something changes.

Where did the "lost mass" go?

 

[ergo]

Got math?

Because this seems like a pretty amazing physics fail.

It "seems" that way to you, does it? But you can't really show how it is, can you? Like most of your comments.

 

[excaza]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass

 

[X]

A fraction of a second. Good.

So the rubble of the upper section impacts the uppermost floor of the lower section over a fraction of a second. Let's take that as, oh, (off the top of my head) 0.10 seconds.

Let's assume the rate of impact is constant.
That is, over said fraction of a second, the rate at which the rubble is hitting the floor is constant.

Now, approximately how much does our impacting mass mass?
Let's just pull another number from thin air, say 100 kg.
...

I = F*dt = m*v_f - m*v_i

where
I = impulse (kg*m/s)
F = Force (kg*m/s²)
dt = change in time (s)
m = mass (kg)
v_f = final velocity (m/s)
v_i = initial velocity (m/s)

We have two scenarios:
a) upper block is intact
b) upper block is rubble

Let's assume an initial velocity (v_i) of 1 m/s
Let's assume a maximum impulse case. That is, the vinfal velocity (v_f) is zero.

For case a), we have the following:

I = 100 kg * (0 m/s - 1 m/s) = -100 kg*m/s

dt, if you'll recall, is known.

Thus, F = I/dt = (-100 kg*m/s) / (0.10 s) = -1,000 N

Remember that number.

For case b), we have to look at the rate of mass impact.

I believe you're looking at impact in both cases, are you not?

Impulse and force, yes.

To do this, we'll need to adapt some terms into a time-based form. Sadly, I cannot recall the forum's equation writer coding, so I can't give you dots. So pay attention to the units!

m_rate = 100 kg / 0.1 s = 1,000 kg/s
Therefore, the rubble is coming down at a rate of 1,000 kg/s.

This makes no sense. "1,000 kg/s" does not describe a distance. It doesn't seem to describe anything.

Distance?
Where did you get distance from?

I said, very plainly, that I was adapting the terms into a time-based form. Which is why I designated them as being rates.

Time. Not distance.

kg/s describes the mass of rubble [in kilograms] impacting per second.

I_rate = 1,000 kg/s * (0 m/s - 1 m/s) = -1,000 kg*m/s²
Guess what? kg*m/s² is a common unit of measure. It has another name. The Newton. It is a measure of force.

So, remember that number from a)?

Yah, they're equal.

Thus, your claim that rubble does not behave the same in an impact scenario as does a solid object of equal mass is wrong.

Thank you for the math and your explanation. I'm not sure if your math is completely correct. Perhaps someone else could evaluate it. What I notice though is that the math doesn't actually show that rubble will have the same impact force as an intact block because you're simply running equations based on the same number for the mass. Which is inaccurate for two reasons: 1) a significant quantity of mass is lost in the WTC, 2) mass changes when the density and quantity of something changes.
My argument is that a system of particles will not have the same impact force as an intact system 1) because the mass has changed due to loss and due to a radically changed form. And 2) relating to the radically changed form, rubble behaves differently than an intact block would. When rubble falls into a containment, such as a dumpster, it fills the container. In doing so, it pushes itself out from where it's falling onto until it hits the sides, and then piles up. Impact is being deferred laterally and in many other different directions, according to the variant sizes of chunks in the rubble. Force is being deflected in many different directions, not just down. Rubble simply isn't an efficient way to crush a large area. It's not even very good for crushing small things, as the force cannot be applied directly.

emphasis mine


Deferred laterally? You're just making terms up, aren't you?
Anyways, changing the flow of rubble from vertical to horizontal ("deferring it laterally", I believe) represents a change in velocity. A change in velocity is known as acceleration, and requires force.
Where does the force come from?
It comes from the impact.
You haven't really made a point.


Understand this: the simple scenarios I showed you illustrate that there is very little difference between a load of rubble and a solid object.
You still have mass hitting you, whether it is one solid lump or many smaller pieces hitting over a very short time frame.

It's a summation thing.


As for the hilighted portions, my only response is that you need to go bck to elementary-school level physics.
You know, the rule that mass can be neither created nor destroyed.

If you truly believe that the mass changes with form, you are beyond anyones help.

 

[uke2se]

It "seems" that way to you, does it? But you can't really show how it is, can you? Like most of your comments.

Try reading other posts than mine.

 

[alienentity]

1) because the mass has changed due to loss and due to a radically changed form.

Hopeless.

Go stand in front of a tidal wave next time there is one. I'm sure it will have little impact on you.

This just in from Ergo Research:

We no longer need to evacuate villages in danger of landslides
We no longer need to worry about avalanches
We no longer need to worry about tidal waves devastating communities

None of these things can do any real damage as their mass has ben 'changed due to loss and due to a radically changed form'.

What a relief for humanity!

 

[DGM]

It's a summation thing.


As for the hilighted portions, my only response is that you need to go bck to elementary-school level physics.
You know, the rule that mass can be neither created nor destroyed.

If you truly believe that the mass changes with form, you are beyond anyones help.

If you really want him to follow, your going to have to hold his hand. You lost him at "kg*".

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I do believe that Ergo, like some many Truthers that frequent this forum, is here for comic relief.

Ergo can go all year without presenting evidence that the 9/11 Commission or NIST was wrong. Given that Ergo has made so many 2006 related theories, it's obvious he's just here trolling around.

But I just like to laugh at all the rediculas comments that have been debunked before. Ergo should really learn to present evidence instead of being like a loud mouthed bridge troll.

 

[ergo]

Distance?
Where did you get distance from?

I said, very plainly, that I was adapting the terms into a time-based form. Which is why I designated them as being rates.

Time. Not distance.

kg/s describes the mass of rubble [in kilograms] impacting per second.

You're talking about a flow rate.

Deferred laterally? You're just making terms up, aren't you?

I kind of liked that one. It's like "deflected" and "referred" put together. And even in its correct meaning, it still applies.

Anyways, changing the flow of rubble from vertical to horizontal ("deferring it laterally", I believe) represents a change in velocity. A change in velocity is known as acceleration, and requires force. Where does the force come from? It comes from the impact.

Wow. What leaps of logic! You're some kind of "debunker" Superman! Except that your powers don't work!

Corrections:
1) A change in velocity can be an increase or a decrease.
2) Lateral movement of rubble would not be an acceleration. That was my point.

Everything with you guys has to "accelerate".

You haven't really made a point.

Yes, I have. You haven't understood it, or are pretending not to.

Understand this: the simple scenarios I showed you illustrate that there is very little difference between a load of rubble and a solid object.

They show nothing of the kind. All they show is that you've ascribed the same mass to one as to the other, and nothing about their respective abilities to do the same work. Which is what I asked for. Your calculations don't show this. They simply try to assert that both forms of matter can do the same work based on an assumed comparable mass. A comparability, moreover, that is not supported by the visual evidence. So you've missed the base on two counts.

You still have mass hitting you, whether it is one solid lump or many smaller pieces hitting over a very short time frame.

Yes, you still have "mass" hitting you. Again, which would you rather be hit by? A bowling ball, or pieces of a bowling ball? Please answer the question. It is not just a "summation thing." Different kinds of matter behave differently. Obviously.

If you truly believe that the mass changes with form, you are beyond anyones help.

If we are talking about elastic materials or closed systems, then no, it doesn't change. But we are talking about brittle materials and an open system in which mass has been lost, and we are talking about the kind of force that different forms of brittle material can impart. If you don't understand that, you are the one who is beyond help.