Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[Dave Rogers]

So, cmatrix, since you've demonstrated...

With a free falling object all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy.

...that you don't understand simple Newtonian physics, and proved...

WTC 7 did fall straight down. It didn't fall sideways it fell straight down.

...that you don't know how WTC7 fell, could you remind us which bit of your argument, on the Newtonian physics of how WTC7 fell, we were supposed to be taking seriously?

Dave

 

[DGM]

So, cmatrix, since you've demonstrated...



...that you don't understand simple Newtonian physics, and proved...



...that you don't know how WTC7 fell, could you remind us which bit of your argument, on the Newtonian physics of how WTC7 fell, we were supposed to be taking seriously?

Dave

Dave:
I believe you are being very unfair! He is using the highly respected (mostly Youtube) "gut" version of Newtonian physics. Although highly controversial it "works for him".

 

[twinstead]

For someone who is totally clueless, you sure are arrogant.

ugh! Those are the WORST kind of truthers IMO.

 

[T.A.M.]

Unjustified arrogance ROCKS.

But seriously, when do we get to see some math from you cmatrix. People here have been askings you to provide mathematical proof of your allegations for months now...please comply.

TAM

 

[scrummie02]

Hey, here is a novel idea. If you are so smart, and are so dead set on proving NIST wrong, why don't you be the FIRST TRUTHER EVER to write it up in a paper, put your math together, and submit it to any of the RESPECTABLE journals on engineering.

I reccomend:

Journal of Structural Engineering

Journal SEI - IABSE

Advances in Structural Engineering

JOM


Any of the ASCE journals.

We await your abstract.

^This...this is it.

All of the twoofer theories can't hold weight under peer review. I have yet to find one twoofer submit anything of merit that is peer reviewed and at least considered half way valid.

 

[bill smith]

You know, that's a pretty difficult and complicated question. I mean, you'd actually have to watch and understand the video to be able to "get" it.

So, I'll try to state it as a simpler, but equivalent, proposition.

In this picture:
[qimg]http://www.nmsr.org/freefall.jpg[/qimg]

Are the red lines next to A (earlier in the collapse) closer to each other than the red lines next to B (later in the collapse)?

If so, and since the the Ball (the upper object in both snapshots) is clearly falling at freefall acceleration, g, what does that mean...?

Does it still work if you lay one metre stick on another metre stick ?

 

[bill smith]

Maybe this'll help ergo...


I've marked four points on the ruler, and the ball...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/1/783280521.png[/qimg]

...and plotted the vertical position of each...

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/1/423782847.png[/qimg]

...you should notice that only one of the points on the ruler closely matches the displacement profile of the ball.

Re-read what folk have told you, ergo, and then state which point on the ruler it is that matches up.

What would happen if the stick was 20 meters long and you placed the coins on the end as in this experiment ? What would we see that is different ?

 

[excaza]

What would happen if the stick was 20 meters long and you placed the coins on the end as in this experiment ? What would we see that is different ?

Dear god, how dense can you be? Read the freaking link! IT GIVES YOU THE MATH

http://sciencedemonstrations.fas.ha...ram_name=indepth.html#a_icb_pagecontent194037

 

[ergo]

The answer, put as simply as possible, is that the average acceleration experienced by the stick is g. Since, however, some parts of the stick are restrained so that they accelerate less than g, some other parts must be accelerating more than g.

Wouldn't this then technically be describing an additional force other than just gravity?

 

[excaza]

oy vey...

 

[Mince]

My open letter to Dave Thomas:

Dear Mr. Thomas;

Please bring back the Big Classic. It was the bestest sandwich in the industry.

Thanks in advance.

 

[ergo]

oy vey...

I'll take that as a yes. Thanks.

 

[alienentity]

Wouldn't this then technically be describing an additional force other than just gravity?

Exactly - I believe it was described by Dr. Jones as 'thermite'.

ps thanks for the physics lesson, guys. Love this stuff..

 

[excaza]

I'll take that as a yes. Thanks.

What's that force called? F_ergo?

 

[tfk]

Wouldn't this then technically be describing an additional force other than just gravity?

Ergo,

I don't want to be, uh, unkind.

How old are you?
What is your background?

The situation is different if you're someone honestly looking for info, versus someone who is just trolling.

At the moment, it's not clear which is the case.


tom

 

[ergo]

F_ergo?

 

[excaza]

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[ergo]

Ergo,

I don't want to be, uh, unkind...

So the fact that the stick is secured at one end to the surface provides no other force that accelerates its descent?

 

[excaza]

What force other than gravity, exactly, would be accelerating the ruler?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Wouldn't this then technically be describing an additional force other than just gravity?

What other force could there be? Do you see any rockets attached to that board perhaps? Are you alleging that the board is secretly made of ferrous material and it is being pulled down by magnets?