9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

ergo, I unhid your post, because I hoped that you would give thoughtful consideration to the excellent summaries of physics laws you had received. In the future, you should probably just post directly to this thread. It will save time on the cut / paste for things like "scale has nothing to do with it" or where you deny the law of conservation of momentum based on a video.
 
carlitos said:
It will save time on the cut / paste for things like "scale has nothing to do with it" or where you deny the law of conservation of momentum based on a video.
Click to expand...

Please explain how scale affects conservation of momentum.
 
This is the problem when someone does nothing but spout nonsense claims left right and centre.

You can take him to task on his claims. They generally don't even pass the say-it-with-a-straight-face test.

But then, the person has so many claim out there he will dance and wriggle and try to say that the claim was made with regard to another absurd claim, even though they are completely separate.

Look at his latest:
He claims scale doesn't matter.
When called out on it, the claim becomes instantly and retroactively modified to be "scale doesn't matter with regard to conservation of momentum".

Always adding layers.

Allowing ergo leeway to address multiple areas allow him to do this.

Lock him in to one claim. Don't let him weasel around until he admits to his error.

Then, if he ever uses the claim he admitted was wrong again, you can call him out on it.
 
I almost mentioned it before, but the World Trade Center towers weren't "blocks." Seems pretty obvious, but there you go. I think it was Judy Wood who kept comparing them to a tree, as if they were solid all the way through.
 
ergo said:
Thank you. Then you agree that, because of conservation of momentum, the smaller upper block could not crush through the larger lower block.
Click to expand...
You see Ergo, Your little straw-man is only valid if you ignore TIME.

We can't do that, can we?
 
ergo said:
Please describe where in the Twin Towers' collapses conservation of momentum is evident.
Click to expand...

Um... Everywhere. I don't think that conservation of momentum was ever violated in the collapse - if you think that it was, you are free to point out when and where and support your argument with calculations. Somehow I doubt you'll do that.


Please show us where in the videos of the collapse [The lower portion of the building doesn't get crushed all at once - it gets crushed one floor at a time] is evident.
Click to expand...

The collapse starts in the impact zone and moves downwards - you know, one floor at a time (rather than all at once).


If that's the way you want to play it, we have one floor on the upper block hitting one floor on the lower block.
Click to expand...

Yes, one floor of the upper block hits one floor of the lower block after which both floors move together according to conservation of momentum. Since they are still moving, this puts strain on the columns below to dissipate the energy and stop the impacted floors. Since the impacted floors are now moving slower than the rest of the upper block, strain is also placed on the columns above the impact. Assuming that they don't reach their elastic limit, they transmit that strain to the columns below resulting in much more stress being placed on the lower columns than is placed on the upper columns thus they fail first (crush down) and the columns above fail later (crush up). If you look at it from the point of view of the necessary conditions for building survival, then all of the 1.36 gigaJoules of kinetic energy must be dissipated in order for the upper block to stop moving - the lower block must do the lion's share of this work with the structure of the building misaligned due to the collapsed story (plus damage due to the jet impact). There's no way that those columns could avoid failing and they are the ones that we would expect to fail first.



I love the "...and so on." Very "scientifical". Just like Bazant.
Click to expand...

Thank you for comparing me to an outstanding engineer. The math of the collapse is inescapable. The upper block goes from something only a couple of times too big for the lower block to stop to the hand of god very quickly. It is patently obvious that if the first floor can't arrest the collapse, then no floor will be able to.


Um, no. As has already been explained to you folks ad nauseum, fourteen floors are not crashing onto just one floor. They are crashing onto the combined upward resistance of the entire lower block. You cannot have an impact from above affecting only one lower floor in isolation. That would mean that that first lower floor is not in any kind of contact with the structure it is attached to. Are you suggesting that each floor is levitating?
Click to expand...

The highest intact floor must absorb the kinetic energy and transmit it to the structure below in order for the building to survive - the amount of energy that it is being asked to conduct is well above the amount of energy the columns are able to handle. Thus they fail. It is possible to estimate the yield strength of the lower block columns - calculate it and tell me how those columns can possibly absorb and transmit 1.36 gigaJoules.


I'll just hand your silly statement right back to you: It's very clear that your lack of understanding of physics is causing you to make assertions that are ridiculous on their face.
Click to expand...

Show what each of us has written to any physicist (or structural engineer) and see which one makes him burst out laughing...
 
ergo said:
QUESTION ASKED: So why and how would the WTC express this dynamism differently from anything else? Where specifically is conservation of momentum demonstrated in the Twin Towers collapses?



The model structure may indeed not fail at the same point "in the sequence" as the original, but this doesn't change the fact that the upper portion must still decelerate in transferring the force of impact, and that it would crush up before it could crush any larger (and stronger) lower block--on any scale.
Click to expand...
I see you're laboring under the same misconception as Tony Szamboti - that the upper portion must decelerate in order to apply a force. This is incorrect. You also seem to misunderstand - there probably won't be any crushing in the scale model because the stresses in the structural members won't be large enough compared to the material properties, for reasons I pointed out already.

Scale actually has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Incorrect (see above).

Indeed. They might not, but not because of scale.
Click to expand...
Yes, because of scale. Go back and re-read the various explanations of the effect of scale on dynamic similitude.

"Everywhere"? Describe to us where in the video evidence of the Twin Towers' collapses we see the effects of conservation of momentum in action.
Click to expand...
Everywhere. It would be far more noteworthy if there were evidence that momentum were not being conserved.
 
ergo said:
Thank you. Then you agree that, because of conservation of momentum, the smaller upper block could not crush through the larger lower block.
Click to expand...
Heiwa said this and he was brave enough to send a letter to a real journal and real engineers said his work/letter/ideas were nonsense and delusional. He said the exact post you just made.

Ergo ergo your post is delusional and nonsense, and found to be by engineers who don't post at jref.

The mass of the top block was moving and was too much for the lower sections to stop and the time of collapse is modeled closely to a simple momentum transfer, which proves your statement to be nonsense and based on nothing but hearsay, lies or ignorance.

Are you using the p4t special Balsamo moronic 11.2g math to make up your failed ideas on 911?

9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010 is the topic! Believe it or not!
Why not pick something out of the Presentation and try using critical thinking to make a rational comment on why 911 truth fails?
We should do this before Dave ejects us from class for being off topic and into fantasy physics of 911 truth. You know how many beers or in kind payment I owe Dave if we meet? I am saving up now to ease the monetary drain on the castle's treasury.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Thank you. Then you agree that, because of conservation of momentum, the smaller upper block could not crush through the larger lower block.
Click to expand...


the law of conservation of momentum


In any closed system, the vector sum of all the momenta remains constant,
p1i+ p2i+ … = p1f + p2f + … ,


where i labels the initial and f the final momenta. (A
closed system is one on which no external forces act.)
Click to expand...

But what we see in the twin towers was not a closed system. Do you know what external force was acting upon the towers? its the slam dunk we have been explaining to ignorant truthers for years now.
 
A W Smith said:
But what we see in the twin towers was not a closed system. Do you know what external force was acting upon the towers? its the slam dunk we have been explaining to ignorant truthers for years now.
Click to expand...



Magnetism!
 
ergo said:
Thank you. Then you agree that, because of conservation of momentum, the smaller upper block could not crush through the larger lower block.
Click to expand...


It depends on how fast the upper block is moving.

You still haven't figured out conservation of momentum.
 
AZCat said:
I see you're laboring under the same misconception as Tony Szamboti - that the upper portion must decelerate in order to apply a force. This is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Please explain how this is incorrect.

You also seem to misunderstand - there probably won't be any crushing in the scale model because the stresses in the structural members won't be large enough compared to the material properties, for reasons I pointed out already.
Click to expand...

Guess what? Structural members are also subject to Newton's Third Law. What scale model are you talking about? A miniature Twin Tower? Both a model and the WTC are subject to conservation of momentum.

Scale actually has nothing to do with it.
Incorrect (see above).
Click to expand...

You haven't explained how scale would change how conservation of momentum is expressed.

Yes, because of scale. Go back and re-read the various explanations of the effect of scale on dynamic similitude.
Click to expand...

What explanations? You haven't provided any.

ergo said:
"Everywhere"? Describe to us where in the video evidence of the Twin Towers' collapses we see the effects of conservation of momentum in action.
Click to expand...
Everywhere. It would be far more noteworthy if there were evidence that momentum were not being conserved.
Click to expand...

Evasion noted. Still can't muster up an answer, eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom