• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

Since it's going to show me what you can't seem to explain to me using your words, why don't you draw it?
 
ergo said:
Since it's going to show me what you can't seem to explain to me using your words, why don't you draw it?
Click to expand...
You have to prove your point, which is delusional. You have now state cars can't total each other because they made of the same material.

You win, the WTC can't fall even if the top section falling is more energy than used by explosives in CD, it can't do enough damage to destroy the WTC. WRONG!

But the top section had more energy than the lower section could handle and the towers collapsed.

The chief structural engineer of the WTC agrees with me! You lost!

Unless you can prove it with a paper, YOU LOST! End of story physics fraud! You can't do anything but repeat idiotic nonsense from those who lack knowledge. Failure.
 
Why are you bringing up the topic of "free body diagrams"? What does it have to do with Newton's Third Law?
 
beachnut said:
You have to prove your point, which is delusional. You have now state cars can't total each other because they made of the same material.
Click to expand...

I've never said this. Once again, completely misunderstanding the argument. In fact, what you state is closer to my argument than it is to yours. But I don't necessarily expect you to recognize that.
 
beachnut said:
You have to prove your point, which is delusional. You have now state cars can't total each other because they made of the same material.
Click to expand...
Actually, what I understand from his claims is that if one car falls on another, only the falling one will be crushed and the other one will be intact.
 
ergo said:
It's clear this entire argument is based on this childish notion of Supermegagigajoules!! of energy being available, somehow via gravity alone. Bazant's calculations are designed to produce this supernatural abundance of kinetic energy. But it's simply not true in real life.
Click to expand...
/me facepalms

I prefer not to abuse the recurring theme in Stundie nominations.

Newtonian Physics were superseded by Special Relativity, Special Relativity was superseded by General Relativity, and General Relativity will be superseded by Ergotical Physics, the physics that more accurately describe how things happen in real life.

With a small problem, though: ergo hasn't said how things happen in real life, merely that they are different, which, alas, is not a description.
 
pgimeno said:
Actually, what I understand from his claims is that if one car falls on another, only the falling one will be crushed and the other one will be intact.
Click to expand...

My claims? No. That's the Bazant theory. That a gravitational collision would have only downward impact.
 
ergo said:
Since it's going to show me what you can't seem to explain to me using your words, why don't you draw it?
Click to expand...
I think it would be a far better lesson if you learned it on your own.
 
physics newbie question

pgmiento said:
Newtonian Physics were superseded by Special Relativity, Special Relativity was superseded by General Relativity, and General Relativity will be superseded by Ergotical Physics, the physics that more accurately describe how things happen in real life.

With a small problem, though: ergo hasn't said how things happen in real life, merely that they are different, which, alas, is not a description.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, the twin towers were constructed using diesel generator-powered cranes. If we add up all of the work that was done by those cranes to lift structural elements from ground level to however many stories high, would that number resemble the available energy in a gravity collapse back to ground level?

ETA - If you just google "Newton Free Body Diagrams" there are actually some pretty good powerpoint presentations out there. Here is one.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Why are you bringing up the topic of "free body diagrams"? What does it have to do with Newton's Third Law?
Click to expand...
Quite a bit. Why don't you give it a try and if you have questions we'll work through the process?
 
carlitos said:
If I recall correctly, the twin towers were constructed using diesel generator-powered cranes. If we add up all of the work that was done by those cranes to lift structural elements from ground level to however many stories high, would that number resemble the available energy in a gravity collapse back to ground level?
Click to expand...
Well, ignoring inefficiencies in the process, yes.
 
The Almond said:
Ergo,

You're right. Everything you've said is the absolute truth, and you've finally uncovered the truth about how the towers fell. But the people here on JREF, like me, are just idiots who don't understand basic physics. As a person pretending to be a civil engineer, I want to applaud you for finally pointing out my fraudulent claims of education. Clearly, you are the only intelligent person that has ever visited JREF, and you were instantly able to see through all of our hot air.

Now it's time for you to take the next step. I think you should take your ideas and submit them as a 1 page abstract for the 2011 Architectural Engineering Conference in Oakland, California. Specifically, you'll be submitting to the Structural Systems, Progressive Collapse symposium. Since you might not be familiar with the abstract guidelines, I've created one for you. Please feel free to submit it with your name and your credentials on it. You need give no credit to me or to JREF.


The collapse of the World Trade Center towers on September 11th, 2001 was a great tragedy for the U.S. But what really makes this a tragedy is the conspiracy, directed by the Bush Administration and Larry Silverstein, to hide explosives in the towers and in World Trade Center Tower 7, in order to force the buildings to collapse. Explosives were placed at each floor, timed to explode as the tower collapsed, removing the structural support at each floor before the falling material reached the floor. Explosives were a necessary part of the plan, since without removing the structural support prior to the collapse, the collapsing structure would have been arrested at the first floor. While this theory may contradict the official theory set out by FEMA and NIST as part of the NCSTA Reports (and based on the work of Benzant et al.), a simple analysis of the forces involved proves that this structure, and no other structure built according to modern design codes, will ever collapse.

As the collapse began, much of the material at the collapse initiation zone began to pulverize. This pulverized material exerted less kinetic energy due to a change in the shape of the material. Although an energy analysis of the collapsing upper sections of the towers showed more than 1 GJ of kinetic energy, when the shape and size of the rubble pieces are taken into account, in addition to the material that was ejected upwards and outwards, the actual kinetic energy of the system was less than 1 kJ. By applying Newton's third law to the collapse front of the material, we find that with 1 kJ of energy being directed downward, the lower structure of each tower, which was stronger than the upper structure by a factor of 10 or more, will exert 1 kJ of energy upwards. The summation of the force/energy vectors results in a net 0 acceleration, thereby proving collapse arrest. Building codes are all designed to handle, due to factors of safety, any amount of material to be dropped onto each floor without any damage to the structure below. The amount of material dropped during the collapse of the towers was well under the collapse threshold, which for a building of this size, was over 100 times the actual material dropped.


Ok, feel free to edit and submit, ergo. It's your time to shine!
Click to expand...

Almond,

What a nice gift for Ergo - I suggest he try to get it published in the Journal of Irreproducible Results... (all he has to do it make up some math to go with the abstract and viola!)
 
ergo said:
It's clear this entire argument is based on this childish notion of Supermegagigajoules!! of energy being available, somehow via gravity alone. Bazant's calculations are designed to produce this supernatural abundance of kinetic energy. But it's simply not true in real life.
Click to expand...
Good we have a starting point here! Just show us the math that refutes the available energy. At the very least, give us your theory of amount available. Should be simple. GO!


To the sane:
I don't really expect any maths from E.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom