Breaking news! Truther Ignored by Senator!

[A W Smith]

I'm not going to wade through a video series that may or may not have any relevance to my argument. If you have specific information that relates to this argument then I suggest typing it like respectful people do.

I'm not in a position to watch videos anyway. I'm listening to music.

And that music is "nananananananana im not listening to you"

You're ignorant and that's all there is to it. The rebuttal to your claims is posted above for all to see. But you apparently.

 

[tempesta29]

You mentioned "measurable decreases in the rates of acceleration of said upper sections". The difference between actual collapse duration and free fall duration indicates a decrease in the rate of acceleration for some periods during the collapse. Since we can measure the collapse duration and can calculate the free fall duration (and therefore the difference between the two), the decrease is "measurable".

I'm talking about deceleration as a decrease in the rate of acceleration of a moving object. I realize the upper sections fell slower than gravitational acceleration. That isn't what I'm debating. What I'm saying is that as the upper sections passed through the areas most damaged by fire and plane crashes and reached virtually undamaged, lower floors, there is no decrease in the rate of acceleration of these upper sections.

This leads one to conclude that floors below the fire and crash zones offered equal resistance to said crash zones or that the upper sections weren't actually destroying the lower sections, but simply passing through them. I suggest the latter, as we all know fire and commercial airliners weaken buildings.

Strawman. They could only identify and verify the locations of the 3 samples that were near the impact floors. There was plenty of steel samples that were exposed to heat far in excess of "500 degrees F". (your claim)

But none over 1200 degrees F, just for the record.

 

[tempesta29]

And that music is "nananananananana im not listening to you"

You're ignorant and that's all there is to it. The rebuttal to your claims is posted above for all to see. But you apparently.

Posting a youtube video series isn't an argument, at least not where I come from, nor is posting links to information to which you've indicated no relevance.

 

[AZCat]

I'm talking about deceleration as a decrease in the rate of acceleration of a moving object. I realize the upper sections fell slower than gravitational acceleration. That isn't what I'm debating. What I'm saying is that as the upper sections passed through the areas most damaged by fire and plane crashes and reached virtually undamaged, lower floors, there is no decrease in the rate of acceleration of these upper sections.

This leads one to conclude that floors below the fire and crash zones offered equal resistance to said crash zones or that the upper sections weren't actually destroying the lower sections, but simply passing through them. I suggest the latter, as we all know fire and commercial airliners weaken buildings.

Thank you for clarifying.

Determining the instantaneous rate of descent for the upper section is not a trivial task. Tony Szamboti, author of "The Missing Jolt", is a poster here. There have been several discussion threads here at the JREF regarding the data he presents in the paper, his methodology, and his conclusions.

 

[TJM]

I'm talking about deceleration as a decrease in the rate of acceleration of a moving object. I realize the upper sections fell slower than gravitational acceleration. That isn't what I'm debating. What I'm saying is that as the upper sections passed through the areas most damaged by fire and plane crashes and reached virtually undamaged, lower floors, there is no decrease in the rate of acceleration of these upper sections

You mean, through the path of least resistance?

Yawn.

Gage-bot, reprogram thyself.

 

[tempesta29]

Thank you for clarifying.

Determining the instantaneous rate of descent for the upper section is not a trivial task. Tony Szamboti, author of "The Missing Jolt", is a poster here. There have been several discussion threads here at the JREF regarding the data he presents in the paper, his methodology, and his conclusions.

The Missing Jolt... sounds interesting. That's my question exactly: where is the jolt? Where are signs of an increase in resistance?

You mean, through the path of least resistance?

Yawn.

Gage-bot, reprogram thyself.

Gotta love cryptic posters. I think if you had a point you would have replaced your emoticon with it.

 

[AZCat]

The Missing Jolt... sounds interesting. That's my question exactly: where is the jolt? Where are signs of an increase in resistance?

When we looked closely at Tony's data (which IIRC was from Chandler) there was a jolt (or the data was coarse enough to allow for one, anyway). When Tony realized that his data wasn't particularly reliable he said he would get better data. I haven't seen any follow-up, but I've been pretty busy lately and could easily have missed the discussion.

 

[A W Smith]

I'm talking about deceleration as a decrease in the rate of acceleration of a moving object. I realize the upper sections fell slower than gravitational acceleration. That isn't what I'm debating. What I'm saying is that as the upper sections passed through the areas most damaged by fire and plane crashes and reached virtually undamaged, lower floors, there is no decrease in the rate of acceleration of these upper sections.

This leads one to conclude that floors below the fire and crash zones offered equal resistance to said crash zones or that the upper sections weren't actually destroying the lower sections, but simply passing through them. I suggest the latter, as we all know fire and commercial airliners weaken buildings.

what was the mass of the upper portion of the tower? and what was the capacity of floor below it? Why would you expect a decrease in acceleration for such a huge mass that tilted and did not impact a truss floors designed to carry 100 psf instantaneously? Are you searching for "the missing jolt"? You already know there was no column on column impact so don't go there.

I will be honest here and tell you that I am looking at another possibility that Dave Rogers, Ryan Mackey, and others have brought up. That is if the impacts are spread out over a long enough period of time then the continued fall could compensate for the velocity loss. This needs to be done with the precise measurements of the tilt vs. drop timing, which we now have. So we will see. I have to admit that I am rather dissappointed that those who have brought this up haven't done any precision measurements and calculations to prove the point, other than Dave Rogers' claim that he did while refusing to show his data.

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&...=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=83f87efc6f926f13

 

[fess]

I'm not really concerned with people's needs.
Thats good, because I can't think of one thing that I would need from you.

I'm here as a user, posting in the forum. And what is it you propose I learn from this thread? That it's enjoyable to attack people whom you perceive to be pitiful?

Well, first of all, you could have learned not to write things out of context. I never attacked you, nor did I perceive you to be pitiful.

What could we have learned from this discussion that I apparently interrupted? The site appears to be about critical thinking, but nothing in this thread seems to be true to that mission statement.

You haven’t said anything that would initiate critical thinking yet. I am sure you will, as soon as you are done beating around the bush.

It seems as though I've interrupted little more than a schoolyard bullying. So for that, I'm sorry. I'll go back to the swingset. If the principal asks, I didn't see anything.
All of this beating around the bush just to find out the rabbit wasn’t in there to begin with.

 

[ozeco41]

The Missing Jolt... sounds interesting. That's my question exactly: where is the jolt? Where are signs of an increase in resistance?...

Almost provably certain there was no increase in resistance. Certainly not a large one.

The expectation of an increase seems to come from a concept that somehow the 'top block' started to fall and fell through a space before coming into contact with an undamaged tower below. Let's call that concept "it fell through a gap THEN gained contact with a jolt".

The concept is false and there are two main problems with it.

I'll take the chronological second one first. The start of the fall of the 'top block' led into the 'global collapse' of the lower tower - plus the disintegration of the top block at some stage in the process naturally.

All the visual evidence of that global collapse is dominated by the pancaking collapse of the open office space floors. We can see the key factors. The core is hidden so let's deal with the bit we can see first. The open office space of the top block fell onto the floor space below. Not onto the columns but floor onto floor. Contrary to what is often claimed that falling mass took the line of least resistance. Below the falling 10 or 20 floors of top block was only one floor at a time and the falling weight was simply overwhelming - it sheared off the connections between the impacted lower floor and the columns - both ends - core and outer tube. And meeting very little resistance from those floor to column connectors there was very little to cause any slow down or significantly reduced acceleration.

Now Tony Szamboti for one went looking for a 'big jolt' of when the columns of the top block landed on the columns of the lower tower. There was no 'big jolt' and Tony concluded, wrongly, that the columns had been removed by 'unnatural causes'. Not so. The real reason was that the top block columns were already out of end for end contact with their lower tower halves. Proof extremely simple but leave that for now.

Now the chronological first problem with the "it fell through a gap THEN gained contact with a jolt" concept is that through the start of the fall of the top block there never was a gap to fall through. Start with a preconception of 'demolition' as Tony Szamboti did and the logic quickly circles to prove its own premise. i.e. "demolition removed a bit of column leaving a gap and there was no jolt because there was a gap in the columns." Not so. To be pedantic not necessarily so - another point for later elaboration if discussion continues.

So the 'initial collapse' mechanism which allowed the top block to start to fall never created gaps in the columns - whether they plastic buckled OR sheared OR fractured at bolted joints - however the columns failed and let the top block fall - they did so with the ends already bypassing and no re-alignment possible BUT no gap and no impact of column on column to cause a 'jolt' or, in your terminology, no "...signs of an increase in resistance". The shearing off of the floors involved much smaller forces. There were 'jolts' but many of them and far smaller that those expecting column on column contact were looking for.

 

[AZCat]

Almost provably certain there was no increase in resistance. Certainly not a large one.

Well, at least not until the very end. </pedant>

 

[ozeco41]

Well, at least not until the very end. </pedant>

Touché

 

[TJM]

Gotta love cryptic posters. I think if you had a point you would have replaced your emoticon with it.

Filed under "Other **** you can't comprehend."

 

[tempesta29]

what was the mass of the upper portion of the tower? and what was the capacity of floor below it? Why would you expect a decrease in acceleration for such a huge mass that tilted and did not impact a truss floors designed to carry 100 psf instantaneously? Are you searching for "the missing jolt"? You already know there was no column on column impact so don't go there.

If there was an increase in resistance then there would have been a decrease in the rate of acceleration of the falling mass. Very basic stuff.

Well, first of all, you could have learned not to write things out of context. I never attacked you, nor did I perceive you to be pitiful.

I wasn't talking about me. Look at the OP. This is about attacking one individual.

 

[A W Smith]

If there was an increase in resistance then there would have been a decrease in the rate of acceleration of the falling mass. Very basic stuff.

Well then you will have to show us at what point the top of the tower fell through the air before meeting resistance. hope you have your graphs ready. because there was resistance all the way down to the tune of approximately 66-70% of freefall acceleration. Truther graphs on another thread here even show that.

 

[DC]

i see so far he hasn't brought up anything that was not yet been brought up.

 

[ozeco41]

i see so far he hasn't brought up anything that was not yet been brought up.

And ignores the comprehensive reply I posted. So another one to forget about.

 

[DC]

And ignores the comprehensive reply I posted. So another one to forget about.

not sure, i think when i arrived here, i was pretty much the same closeminded know it all.

 

[ozeco41]

not sure, i think when i arrived here, i was pretty much the same closeminded know it all.

I tend to give all new comers a fair hearing by providing a bit more than the blunt dismissal or ridicule. Most of them don't know enough to even state the questions clearly so all we see is a mish mash of half understood propaganda which never made sense even in its original form.

We can but try. You can lead a horse to water........

My introduction to 9/11 truth was a lot safer. A colleague is a committed conspiracy nut and tried me on over the WTC Collapses of 9/11 - knowing that I an civil and military engineer qualified. So I looked into the 'demolition' claims and doing so learned about internet forums. So I already understood 'no demolition' and why before I ever posted on a forum. So never vulnerable to conspiracy crap. Google led me to the former Richard Dawkins forum in Aug 2007 looking for evidence. Started posting 14 Nov 2007 and was moderating the sub forum by Feb2008 - old enough to know better - and army experience should know 'never volunteer'

 

[DC]

I tend to give all new comers a fair hearing by providing a bit more than the blunt dismissal or ridicule. Most of them don't know enough to even state the questions clearly so all we see is a mish mash of half understood propaganda which never made sense even in its original form.

We can but try. You can lead a horse to water........

But patience is needed, can take a while until the horse is thirsty