Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[uke2se]

I saw your edit, and indeed you ought to disagree, but the reasons are not to be found in the post above yours

To be honest, I'm tired enough to agree with anything. I should probably go to bed before I suddenly see the Twoof in a fatigue induced hallucination.

 

[dafydd]

I can't answer that question, nor is it relevant to my argument.

Oh yes it is. You are just too scared to answer it,your delusion would go bang.

 

[dafydd]

You said earlier:

dictionary.com says no such thing:

"rate of increase" <> "rate of acceleration". Rate of increase is homologous to speed, not acceleration.




I think you misunderstand something:
Chandler shows that the North Tower descended at an acceleration that is 64% of g.

This means that the acceleration of the falling mass is decreased by 36%, for the acceleration of falling masses is 100% of g.

This means further that there is resistance! The resistance adds -36% of g to the free fall acceleration of 100%g. In this sense, the acceleration is decreased. By resistance of the structure.

As I and others have told you already, this decrease by 36% is a fairly good match with theoretical expectation derived through several lines of reasoning (physics and engineering). This match is actually good evidence and supports the theory that the structure below the fire zone was sound and intact and not weakened by explosives or other means.

What is the point? Tempesta knows nothing about physics.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

To be honest, I'm tired enough to agree with anything. I should probably go to bed before I suddenly see the Twoof in a fatigue induced hallucination.

You'll understand it in the same way they do, though. Via hallucination.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

You'll understand it in the same way they do, though. Via hallucination.

You know that feeling that you get when you tip a chair that you're sitting in juuuust a little too far back on it's legs and almost but not quite tip over onto your back? I'll bet that's how truthers feel all of the time...

 

[Oystein]

What is the point? Tempesta knows nothing about physics.

That's why I am bolding the E in JREF.

 

[JohnG]

Of course you're satisfied with the official story. It means you don't have to face a harsh reality.

Oh, I don't know. The idea that a small but determined group of terrorists caught law enforcement, the military and airport security with their pants down, perpetrating the crime of the century is a pretty "harsh reality" if you ask me. One could argue that the idea that the government is corrupt and amoral but is also virtually omnipotent and omniscient is a strangely comforting idea to those of a certain mindset. Sort of like people who prefer the idea of a universe controlled by a ruthless and inscrutable God over that of a Godless universe.

You think you are attacking the government when in fact you are actually venerating it and elevating it to near demigod status. And of course since it is so powerful and unstoppable you can rationalize yourself to sleep every night with the idea that grumbling to a bunch of strangers on the web every day is the best (or at least the most) you can do to fight the power. Your perverse faith in the government would be almost poignant if it weren't for the despicable lies you tell here every day.

Conspiracy Theories are the opiate of the asses.

 

[000063]

Take 3 alphabet blocks.

Put 1 on top the other.

Put the 3rd one on top the other two.

Take a large glass of sand.

Pour sand over blocks.

Does sand go around blocks, or does sand go through blocks?

Sand must be at room temperature, not glowing from intense radiation.

Blocks are wooden solids.

This reminds me of the time I commented on a Gage box video on YouTube, and pointed out little things like the square-cube law, the fact that the towers weren't composed of blocks of one material, and how odd it was that no Truther ever just built a scale model of the towers and tried the drop experiment, even if it would still be wrong.

I got a comment linking me to a truther video of...concrete blocks being dropped on each other.

Then why didn't you ignore me?

One of the towers was hit in a corner of its structure. That's where the failure would have occurred, and that's where the upper structure would have leaned and fallen--NOT straight down through the path of most resistance.

Of course you're satisfied with the official story. It means you don't have to face a harsh reality.

The debris from the towers covered an area several times larger than their footprints. They did not fall "straight down". The "least resistance" thing has already been addressed.

No, I'm not. Deceleration in this case means a decrease in the rate of acceleration of the falling mass.

[...]

Deceleration in this case DOES NOT mean a decrease in velocity.

Um, IIRC, acceleration is the rate of increase in velocity. You can't have deceleration (the rate of a decrease in velocity) without a decrease in velocity.

 

[leftysergeant]

Why do you people keep telling me that the upper sections fell at less than g when that isn't even relevant to the argument I'm making? I'm referring to these masses' rate of acceleration remaining unchanged through the crash zones.

It is difficult to say that the rate of acceleration changed anywhere. Some of the movements through the crash zone were horizontal.

 

[000063]

Is that a joke?

It's amazing. The gall and audacity of the nonsense that the 9/11 hoax believers lay out.

Even worse, they hide neath the skirt of national pride.

I'm sorry, I can't read your rhetoric over the sound of your breaking of Rule 12.

SO why don't physicists in general say that the collapse wasn't possible as described in the commonly-held narrative? Where are the REAL scientists (not just internet warriors) who have a problem with this?

The resistance wasn't enough to decrease the rate of acceleration, much like the resistance of a gnat, while probably measurable, could never slow the rate of acceleration of a brick.

I think I ran into that word problem, actually; a mosquito hitting a windshield of a car at 60MPH on the freeway would decrease it's speed by a tiny, nearly-unmeasurable amount.

dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decelerate

–verb (used with object)
1.
to decrease the velocity of:

Odd that you didn't link.

 

[Animal]

Then why didn't you ignore me?

One of the towers was hit in a corner of its structure. That's where the failure would have occurred, and that's where the upper structure would have leaned and fallen--NOT straight down through the path of most resistance.

Of course you're satisfied with the official story. It means you don't have to face a harsh reality.

When will troofers come to terms with the FACT that the structure falling down WAS the path of least resistance?

 

[dafydd]

If we're going to talk physics, we should talk physics. Feel free to pick it to pieces. Let's start with

Sum Forces = ma.

Taking up as positive, on the forces side we have F(resistance) - mg, and on the negative side ma. Your claim is that F(resistance) changes, so we take some derivatives

dF/dt -m(dg/dt)-g(dm/dt)=m(da/dt)+a(dm/dt)

Now, we can take dg/dt = 0, since the change of g isn't much in the height of the WTC. You contention is that da/dt is also =0 since a is constant at some value less than g.

dF/dt = g(dm/dt) + a(dm/dt) = (g+a)(dm/dt)

Now a is known to be negative (lets call it A as our working value), since we took up as positive, and A is less than g, so we have

dF/dt = (g-A)(dm/dt)

Your contention is that an increase in F (positive dF/dt) HAS to result in an increase in A, however we see that if the mass is changing as it falls (dm/dt is not zero), then it is possible to have an increase in F with constant acceleration. Most of us think the falling mass increases as it progresses. How about you?

What are you doing tempesta? Checking the math? I will be interested in your answer.

 

[Animal]

The arrow of time prevents that. What I am saying is that calling this an investigation is a joke from a scientific point of view. This was just a story to cover something an innocuous as corruption. But to maintain that this was a thorough investigation, hah!

Think of the investigators as having to sneak into a junkyard and fight the junkyard dogs for the steel. That is closer to the reality.

The only joke is troofers constant erroneous claims. The WTC collapses have been some of the most studies building failures in history......the complete opposite of "a joke"

 

[Animal]

It's not really that curious at all, especially since that tower didn't tilt toward its damaged corner. Regardless, it isn't falling in that direction. It's still falling straight down through the lower structure. It's really only rotating through its collapse path, not toppling.

A "topple like a tree" troofer.

Your argument from willful ignorance noted.
Free hint to the terminally clueless......high rise buildings structural design resists lateral forces far more than gravity.

 

[Clayton Moore]

If we're going to talk physics, we should talk physics. Feel free to pick it to pieces. Let's start with

Sum Forces = ma.

Taking up as positive, on the forces side we have F(resistance) - mg, and on the negative side ma. Your claim is that F(resistance) changes, so we take some derivatives

dF/dt -m(dg/dt)-g(dm/dt)=m(da/dt)+a(dm/dt)

Now, we can take dg/dt = 0, since the change of g isn't much in the height of the WTC. You contention is that da/dt is also =0 since a is constant at some value less than g.

dF/dt = g(dm/dt) + a(dm/dt) = (g+a)(dm/dt)

Now a is known to be negative (lets call it A as our working value), since we took up as positive, and A is less than g, so we have

dF/dt = (g-A)(dm/dt)

Your contention is that an increase in F (positive dF/dt) HAS to result in an increase in A, however we see that if the mass is changing as it falls (dm/dt is not zero), then it is possible to have an increase in F with constant acceleration. Most of us think the falling mass increases as it progresses. How about you?

Another laugher. Acceleration, the going faster type, through 80 floors of resistance. With the last third, bottom, of building the strongest third of the building.

 

[Clayton Moore]

So where's the mass of papers in scientific journals indicating that the collapse of the WTC were physically impossible without active assistance from explosives or whatever you're trying to argue?

Serious question. Surely you don't believe every physicist in the WHOLE WORLD is "in on it" or is "afraid of losing his job"?

It's public knowledge that many people have lost their jobs for mentioning that 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[000063]

Such as...? Did any of them provide evidence?

 

[Animal]

It's public knowledge that many people have lost their jobs for mentioning that 9/11 was an inside job.

Yes....when stupid people represent themselves as something more than they are, make claims beyond their expertise, and / or represent that they are speaking for the company they work for without authorization.......they get fired.....and rightly so.


Notable examples......Steven Jones who was way out of his league and embarrassed the university he worked for and water tester Kevin Ryan who made claims about the parent company he worked for that were patently false.

 

[Animal]

Another laugher. Acceleration, the going faster type, through 80 floors of resistance. With the last third, bottom, of building the strongest third of the building.

Why do troofers always assume that the falling mass fell directly on the those portions of the building structure more able to resist the additional loading? The odds of that happening floor to floor are greater than that of a monkey randomly typing The Merchant of Venice on a typewriter.

 

[000063]

Also, why do they insist on considering the lower floors as a homogenous mass, instead of a complex structure?