9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

[DGM]

Yes, you still have "mass" hitting you. Again, which would you rather be hit by? A bowling ball, or pieces of a bowling ball?

It wouldn't matter unless you changed the time frame dramatically.

Next year when your in high school you'll learn why.

 

[ergo]

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

I love how "debunkers" try to ascribe to us the ridiculous, completely inapplicable errors of analogy that they continually put forward in their ignorance of everyday physics.

Would anyone like to talk about miniature chocolate replicas of the WTC? That was a "debunker" argument that I encountered.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

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.

Now when you say "brittle", does that mean you're talking about the rivets in Titanic?

 

[ergo]

It wouldn't matter unless you changed the time frame dramatically.

Next year when your in high school you'll learn why.

No, no. Please explain this deep insight of yours to all who care to read: If the bowling ball or pieces of a bowling ball are coming at you at the same velocity, which would you rather be hit by?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I love how "debunkers" try to ascribe to us the ridiculous, completely inapplicable errors of analogy that they continually put forward in their ignorance of everyday physics.

Would anyone like to talk about miniature chocolate replicas of the WTC? That was a "debunker" argument that I encountered.

Do you know high school physics? If you can't present any evidence to support the loony conspiracy theories, then my friend, that's ignorance!

 

[DGM]

I love how "debunkers" try to ascribe to us the ridiculous, completely inapplicable errors of analogy that they continually put forward in their ignorance of everyday physics.

Would anyone like to talk about miniature chocolate replicas of the WTC? That was a "debunker" argument that I encountered.

You do know your talking to yourself?

 

[ergo]

Now when you say "brittle", does that mean you're talking about the rivets in Titanic?

Um, no. We're not talking about the Titanic. You're in the wrong thread.

 

[carlitos]

This really is the reincarnation of Stundie isn't it? He/she hasn't done one piece of math while displaying incredulity throughout the thread.

ergo, have you looked back to see what the threshold for the force exerted by the rubble / top block would have to be to cause floor failure? It's a pretty simple math problem.

 

[DGM]

No, no. Please explain this deep insight of yours to all who care to read: If the bowling ball or pieces of a bowling ball are coming at you at the same velocity, which would you rather be hit by?

It doesn't matter! (personally I'd get out of the way).

Show us how it would (remember time)

 

[ergo]

I think I'll converse with people who actually answer my questions, thanks.

 

[DGM]

I think I'll converse with people who actually answer my questions, thanks.

Nice dodge!

The fact of the matter is, gravity propels objects down and if the time frame is not altered an intact or fragmented bowling bowl is the same thing.

None of your "hand-waves" are going to change this and everyone reading knows this fact.

 

[carlitos]

Full of sound a fury, yet signifying nothing. 300 posts in less than a month.

A real engineer prepared a limiting case on 13 September, 2001. This proved that the WTC tower would completely collapse once that collapse started towards the top. "Rubble couldn't do that" is not a rebuttal; it's just plain old incredulity. Your opinions are irrelevant, as you clearly don't even want to understand the basic physics.

 

[332nd]

No, no. Please explain this deep insight of yours to all who care to read: If the bowling ball or pieces of a bowling ball are coming at you at the same velocity, which would you rather be hit by?

It wouldn't matter. (unless the impact from the pieces was spread out over time.)

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Um, no. We're not talking about the Titanic. You're in the wrong thread.

Are you comparing the WTCs' steel to Titanic's iron rivets?

 

[BigAl]

2) Lateral movement of rubble would not be an acceleration. That was my point.

Wrong.

Everything with you guys has to "accelerate".

Yup, and you don't have a clue why.

 

[beachnut]

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!

No more damage from shotguns with buckshot! Particles have no mass.

 

[Lyrandar]

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.

Read the first two sentences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration. The second point is clearly wrong.

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.

Depends. If the pieces are coming at me one after the other, so that they'll hit me over the space of a few seconds, then I'd prefer that. That'll reduce the maximum force exerted on me (although not the total, assuming all pieces hit). If the pieces are going to hit me all at once, than it's not going to matter.

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.

As far as I know, anything from solid steel to water or snow is perfectly capable of imparting impact forces. Different things may behave differently when they hit something, yes, but in many cases that doesn't matter as much as you might think. If you're trying to say it will matter in this case... well, you should be able to prove that with math, yet you haven't. That makes me think you don't actually have such proof.

 

[TruthersLie]

No, no. Please explain this deep insight of yours to all who care to read: If the bowling ball or pieces of a bowling ball are coming at you at the same velocity, which would you rather be hit by?

Neither...I might get something in my eye..

Now have you figured out how to use a stopwatch yet? Have you bothered to time those collapses yet?

How about using any facts, figures or math from those vague "papers" (which you state you don't understand) to back up your claims?

Still waiting for those...

any day now...

 

[X]

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".

*raises eyebrow*

Velocity is a vector.
It is described by a magnitude and a direction.

Change in velocity therefore can be a change in magnitude (speed) or change in direction or both.

A car driving a circle at constant speed is accelerating, because the direction changes.

Changing the direction of the rubble is an acceleration, and therefore requires a force. Which means force is exerted on the lower section, not diverted. You haven't avoided that issue. You haven't made a point.




This is basic, fundamental-level physics. Junior-high level, at most.

If you are so ignorant of basic physical principals that you don't even know about conservation of mass or what acceleration is, then you have no hope of understanding more complex physics, such as the collapses on 9/11.

 

[TruthersLie]

*raises eyebrow*

Velocity is a vector.
It is described by a magnitude and a direction.

Change in velocity therefore can be a change in magnitude (speed) or change in direction or both.

A car driving a circle at constant speed is accelerating, because the direction changes.

Changing the direction of the rubble is an acceleration, and therefore requires a force. Which means force is exerted on the lower section, not diverted. You haven't avoided that issue. You haven't made a point.




This is basic, fundamental-level physics. Junior-high level, at most.

If you are so ignorant of basic physical principals that you don't even know about conservation of mass or what acceleration is, then you have no hope of understanding more complex physics, such as the collapses on 9/11.

We've already seen stundies grade school level physics... I'm sure he thinks that if he drive two cars together at 50mph each, they will equal the total force of one car driving into a wall at 100mph...

After all he has stated that loose particles/rubble can't crush down things... and has handwaved away the "loose particles" of water crushing the car I showed him.. then handwaved it away...

And we have seen that he can't even understand how to use a stopwatch... and you want him to understand velocity and vectors? Really?