Acceleration of the falling top blocks.

alienentity said:
Yeti fur is illegal since Yetis are an extremely rare and endangered species. Probably fake Yeti fur - I know mine is... ;)
On the other hand I have real powdered unicorn horn, smuggled in from truthertopia.
Click to expand...

Yeti are endangered? That's funny, I have to spend all of the long winter months here in Minnesota chasing them off with flaming sticks. Guess I didn't get that memo.
 
Animal said:
Your problem is the flaming sticks. You should use an Italian Carcano load with magic bullets :D
Click to expand...

They're endangered, we're not supposed to blow their heads apart.

Oh wait, that's right, we're NWO, we're okay with killing endangered species. Mmm, yeti steak for dinner!
 
The gravity collapse model is wrong in two different ways (at least).

You think a falling set of floors is going to continue to accelerate
at almost the same rate as gravity after crashing through dozens
of successive floors?

The model is silly, and it's not up to me to prove it to you. My role
is to point you in the right direction. It's up to you to go there
yourself.

Don't put words in my mouth, either. I didn't say anything about
stopping in its tracks.

Videos of the destruction of the WTC show the buildings being
destroyed while standing, not being destroyed sequentially floor
by floor from upper floors crashing down. By the time any pieces of
the WTC was headed in the downward direction, they were
already broken up.

The mechanism is important. How these buildings were destroyed
has been the most important research question for me for the
entirety of the last 10+ years.

If I'm wrong, believe me, I want to know about it ASAP. But telling
me I'm wrong because you added up a row of numbers correctly?
Big deal. The numbers came from a faulty model, so it doesn't matter
if the addition is accurate.

No floor is going to accelerate at the rate of gravity while crashing
through lower floors. It's going to slow down, in the odd world of
even imagining this happened. No floors crashed down onto other
floors, I'll tell you that right now. Read my sig.



DaveThomasNMSR said:
Ahem. Dr Blevins: the topic is not Richard Gage, it's acceleration of the collapsing towers.

I have shown that your statements here are wrong:



I have added up the falling times, and they are right on the mark.

Your statements that the collapse stops in its tracks at every single floor, and that it must take 3/4 second for the collapse to proceed from floor to floor, are WRONG.

You're welcome.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
The gravity collapse model is wrong in two different ways (at least).

You think a falling set of floors is going to continue to accelerate
at almost the same rate as gravity after crashing through dozens
of successive floors?

The model is silly, and it's not up to me to prove it to you. My role
is to point you in the right direction. It's up to you to go there
yourself.

Don't put words in my mouth, either. I didn't say anything about
stopping in its tracks.

Videos of the destruction of the WTC show the buildings being
destroyed while standing, not being destroyed sequentially floor
by floor from upper floors crashing down. By the time any piece of
the WTC was headed in the downward direction, they were
already broken up.

The mechanism is important. How these buildings were destroyed
has been the most important research question for me for the
entirety of the last 10+ years.

If I'm wrong, believe me, I want to know about it ASAP. But telling
me I'm wrong because you added up a row of numbers correctly?
Big deal. The numbers came from a faulty model, so it doesn't matter
if the addition is accurate.

No floor is going to accelerate at the rate of gravity while crashing
through lower floors. It's going to slow down, in the odd world of
even imagining this happened. No floors crashed down onto other
floors, I'll tell you that right now. Read my sig.
Click to expand...

You have an entirely flawed concept of how collisions work. The top block would NOT stop, sit there for a fraction of a second, and then continue accelerating downward at gravitational acceleration starting from 0 velocity. The fact that you think so tells us all we need to know about your inability to grasp reality. The fact that you believe the Towers were vaporized out from beneath the top block is just icing on the cake.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
I have added up the falling times, and they are right on the mark.
Click to expand...

I just have to make an analogy here. One time, a friend and I
got into an argument about him taking nutritional supplements
all the time.

I wanted to know why he was taking all these pills, so I kept
trying to ask him in different ways, but he wasn't responding
with what I thought was a legitimate reason.

In response to my question, "Why do you take all these pills?",
he kept pointing to the label describing the amount of
the various vitamins, etc. He considered the question answered,
but simply knowing how much of the supplements he was taking
is far and away different from the larger picture of why he was
taking the supplements.

It's like you saying that the addition was accurate. Big deal.
Mathematical models can be used, but if they are not
connected to real life constraints, they won't give you
reliable answers.

Adding up the numbers is not the same thing as evaluating
your model. I'm crossing my fingers you get this, but, remember
my friend? He actually didn't get it, and he never did, so I'm
not holding out too much hope for you. He was convinced that
taking a known amount of supplements was healthy for him,
and you seem convinced that floors could fall through other
floors in the WTC without slowing down significantly.

Your numbers might show this, but your model doesn't match
real life.
 
GOOD NEWS! I do not think any of the things you wrote down below.
Throw it out of your mind, because you aren't properly characterizing
my viewpoint.

thedopefishlives said:
You have an entirely flawed concept of how collisions work. The top block would NOT stop, sit there for a fraction of a second, and then continue accelerating downward at gravitational acceleration starting from 0 velocity. The fact that you think so tells us all we need to know about your inability to grasp reality. The fact that you believe the Towers were vaporized out from beneath the top block is just icing on the cake.
Click to expand...
 
Not really. I have examined all the videos of 9:03AM on 9/11/2001,
and have never seen evidence of floors falling. Things were falling,
yes, but not intact floors. Don't confuse me with other truthers.

Most 9/11 truthers are almost entirely wrong, but not me.


abaddon said:
That really seals the deal. The second pic is of 25 or so floors descending rapidly. Nothing is stopping total collapse at that point.

Perhaps, the truther disconnect with reality is that they believe "the floor below bore that weight for decades, and therefore should still be able to bear it".

It's just a thought, but might explain why they think as they do.

In any event, that is just my truther speculation. In reality, the floors are there so that you have floors for people to use, otherwise what would be the point of such an edifice. They are not load bearing, except in the sense of bearing the load of the occupants, and collateral material (more or less) and certainly not capable of bearing the load of 25 falling upper stories.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
Most 9/11 truthers are almost entirely wrong, but not me.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are wrong. You made this statement.
WTC Dust said:
If twenty floors of the WTC became detached and fell twelve feet
onto the next lower floor, I'd have expected some damage to the
floor, but it would have held.
Click to expand...

Please explain how these truss connections circled in red...
perimetercolumns.png


...were supposed to stop the descent of this.
collapse-1.jpg


You made the statement. Can you please explain why you think this?
 
WTC Dust said:
The gravity collapse model is wrong in two different ways (at least).

You think a falling set of floors is going to continue to accelerate
at almost the same rate as gravity after crashing through dozens
of successive floors?

The model is silly, and it's not up to me to prove it to you. My role
is to point you in the right direction. It's up to you to go there
yourself.

Don't put words in my mouth, either. I didn't say anything about stopping in its tracks.
...:words:
Click to expand...

Well, you certainly implied that, by saying stuff like this:
This is a serious misunderstanding of the gravity collapse model.
Floor 80 doesn't begin to fall until floors 81-110 reach it (taking
0.75 seconds, at a minimum). Then, floors 80-110 begin to
fall and take 0.75 seconds to reach floor 79. You can't fall
faster than that on Earth, if the only force is gravity.
Click to expand...

Fact: something falling in normal earth gravity (g) from rest will take ~0.88 seconds to fall a distance of 12 feet.

Fact: something falling in normal earth gravity (g) with an initial downward velocity of, say, 18 mph, will take less than ~0.88 seconds to fall a distance of 12 feet. (About 0.38 seconds in this case).

Your continued statements that the upper section takes 0.75 seconds to fall through each floor's height of 12 feet is tantamount to saying, yes, each of these 12-foot falls starts from rest. In other words, "stopping in its tracks."

If you agree that the upper sections didn't "stop in their tracks" at each floor, then you need to stop saying that the time to fall through each 12-foot floor was 0.75 seconds, and another 0,.75 seconds, and another, and so on.

I have stated it as simply and clearly as I can. If you persist with your misunderstandings, it's not on me any more.
 
WTC Dust said:
Most 9/11 truthers are almost entirely wrong, but not me.
Click to expand...

You are wrong yet again. You made this statement.
WTC Dust said:
We saw the buildings
go away in about a dozen seconds.
Click to expand...

Yet this photo of WTC2 proves you to be wrong.
southcorestands1.gif


The 40 or so stories of WTC2 in that photo was still standing 15 to 25 after the collapse was initiated.

Your "dozen seconds complete collapse" is "completely" wrong.
 
Easy. It's several places on the internet.
http://wtcdust.blogspot.com/



plague311 said:
Am I hearing argument by toilet here? The lack of toilets proves demolition?

WTC Dust, I have never seen you post here before, but I am curious what your "foam" looks like, literally. If you have a phone take a picture and upload your foam. That way I know it's something other than the dumbest thing I've heard in the last 30 years.
Click to expand...
 
Don't put words in my mouth, and read my sig.

The WTC didn't collapse, so I wouldn't say it was
a "complete collapse".

Gamolon said:
You are wrong yet again. You made this statement.


Yet this photo of WTC2 proves you to be wrong.
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/southcorestands1.gif[/qimg]

The 40 or so stories of WTC2 in that photo was still standing 15 to 25 after the collapse was initiated.

Your "dozen seconds complete collapse" is "completely" wrong.
Click to expand...
 
Not me. I'm sticking to Newton.



Myriad said:
You debunkers are all missing the point.

Isaac Newton was a white male European.

Consequently his laws of motion are long overdue for re-evaluation in the context of a new liberated multicultural feminist paradigm.
Click to expand...
 
Gamolon makes some excellent points above. I'd like to see WTC Dust address his questions.

Here's another angle of one of Gamolons pics

344914f99624710da3.jpg



Noticeable there is the debris falling well ahead of the main decsending block. Proof positive that Dr Woods' "faster than freefall" claims are complete and utter rubbish, the output of a sad, insane fantasist. Anyone else who subscribes to her 9/11 DEW delusions deserves all the derision they will inevitably recieve. Good luck Dusty.


Compus
 
Don't put words in my mouth. The buildings weren't "vaporized" because
vaporization is an actual process, and it wasn't that. Vaporization means
to become a gas from a liquid phase. The WTC was not vaporized.
The WTC was foamed. It was liquified. It was turned almost entirely
into dust. But it wasn't vaporized.

Secondly, since no floors collided with any other floors during the
final destruction of the WTC buildings, I guess it technically wouldn't
matter if I understood collisions or not. Right? Since they didn't happen.
But of course I have a good understanding of basic physics. You can't
get a science PhD of any type without passing at least a few college
courses in physics plus labs.

Get it right. The towers were foamed. Not vaporized. You could
correctly say that the towers were partially aerosolized, but not
vaporized. Vaporization implies excessive heat, which was not
evident on 9/11.

thedopefishlives said:
You have an entirely flawed concept of how collisions work. The top block would NOT stop, sit there for a fraction of a second, and then continue accelerating downward at gravitational acceleration starting from 0 velocity. The fact that you think so tells us all we need to know about your inability to grasp reality. The fact that you believe the Towers were vaporized out from beneath the top block is just icing on the cake.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom