Acceleration of the falling top blocks.

[Gamolon]

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".

You said this.

We saw the buildings
go away in about a dozen seconds.

Two things.
1. "We" didn't see anything. YOU supposedly saw the buildings do away in about a dozen seconds. Just as much as you don't like me "putting words into your mouth", I don't like when people speak for me.

2. The buildings didn't "go away" in a dozen seconds like you state. The proof is here in this photo. You are totally wrong.

 

[thedopefishlives]

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.

You spend the majority of this post quibbling over my use of the word "vaporized" instead of "foamed". Fine, whatever terminology you want to use. It's still a stupid idea, and I don't care how much WTC dust you have in your personal private collection. You can claim all you want about your "basic understanding of physics", but like all Truthers, you clearly don't have a grasp on collision mechanics. This is provable, and not just name-calling, as you like to label it.

 

[plague311]

Easy. It's several places on the internet.
http://wtcdust.blogspot.com/

Oh, it's on the internet. Well then it's got to be true. I digress.

Uhm, that's a truther blog.

For saying that you're "much different than the other truthers" you sure do seem to follow the same pattern of behavior. The only difference I see is that your ideas are much more "outer space" than the others. Keep up the "good work" you "accomplished scientist". I am sure you'll uncover the real truth soon.

(backs slowly away nervously laughing.

 

[WTC Dust]

Regretfully, I will never promise to answer all of your questions.
I will never satisfy you. I will never prove anything to you.
I will only ever be able to speak the truth, and so that's what
I'm doing. If you don't understand, that's you, not me.

Your question is a boring question. "How were these trusses
supposed to stop" the destruction of the WTC buildings.

Obviously, they didn't stop it. Those little trusses were
not enough to stop the building from being turned into
foam while standing there. One moment: building.
Next moment: foam. I don't see why you would even
expect those little trusses to be a defense against
an advanced weapon. Can you explain this?

Do you actually think that those little trusses could
prevent the building from being turned into foam by
an energy weapon? If so, why? I'd think those little
trusses would get turned into foam just like most of
the rest of the building did.

Yes, you are wrong. You made this statement.


Please explain how these truss connections circled in red...
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/perimetercolumns.png[/qimg]

...were supposed to stop the descent of this.
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/collapse-1.jpg[/qimg]

You made the statement. Can you please explain why you think this?

 

[Gamolon]

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

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/344914f99624710da3.jpg[/qimg]


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

Question for you WTC Dust.

In the photo above what "state" was the upper, tilted "block" in? Solid, liquified, or "foamed"?

 

[WTC Dust]

Ah, is this where the rumor started that I said something
"stopped in its tracks"? Because I will reiterate now that I
do not think this happened.

Nothing stopped. Once stuff started heading downward, it
kept going. Not all of the building was turned into foam at
the exact same moment, but once it turned into foam, it
started heading downward and didn't stop until it ploomped
onto the ground like a balloon filled with baby powder, or
actually like a balloon filled with foam, because the stuff
expanded once it hit the ground and rolled down the street.

Some of the building was aerosolized. After this happened,
the aerosol went up into the sky, not downward. But much
of the building did head in a downward direction AFTER it
had been foamed.

Collisions played no role in the destruction of the WTC.

The gravity collapse model is faulty on the numbers, yes,
as I'm sure you've at least heard me say. But it's also faulty
on the energy, as maybe I haven't emphasized enough.

I'll start another thread about the energy, because it isn't
acceleration.

Well, you certainly implied that, by saying stuff like this:


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.

 

[plague311]

Ok my fellow posters, this isn't for real, right? Like any minute that moron Ashton is going to come out and tell me I'm being punk'd right? I don't know WTC Dust but I feel like I'm missing out on a joke or something.

 

[WTC Dust]

The precise answer is that the upper part of the building
it that image was part solid, part foam. Liquified is a proper
descriptive term for the part of the building that was foam.

Question for you WTC Dust.

In the photo above what "state" was the upper, tilted "block" in? Solid, liquified, or "foamed"?

 

[WTC Dust]

My college professors amazingly gave me good grades in Physics.
I remember being very intimidated by that class, but somehow I
kept getting almost perfect scores in labs and decent test grades.
I remember the acceleration lab. I got a perfect score.

You spend the majority of this post quibbling over my use of the word "vaporized" instead of "foamed". Fine, whatever terminology you want to use. It's still a stupid idea, and I don't care how much WTC dust you have in your personal private collection. You can claim all you want about your "basic understanding of physics", but like all Truthers, you clearly don't have a grasp on collision mechanics. This is provable, and not just name-calling, as you like to label it.

 

[thedopefishlives]

My college professors amazingly gave me good grades in Physics.
I remember being very intimidated by that class, but somehow I
kept getting almost perfect scores in labs and decent test grades.
I remember the acceleration lab. I got a perfect score.

Good for you. And yet, you still get it so amazingly wrong.

 

[WTC Dust]

Can you repost that image and highlight the area where you
see floors falling on top of other floors?

I see a tilting building top that has angular momentum,
not especially downward momentum. I see a building becoming
foam. I don't see floors crushing other floors.

Judy Wood has nothing to do with it. My name is Tracy Blevins,
and I don't see any floors crashing down onto other floors.

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

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/344914f99624710da3.jpg[/qimg]


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

 

[WTC Dust]

You asked to see an image of the foam. It's there. On that blog.

Oh, it's on the internet. Well then it's got to be true. I digress.

Uhm, that's a truther blog.

For saying that you're "much different than the other truthers" you sure do seem to follow the same pattern of behavior. The only difference I see is that your ideas are much more "outer space" than the others. Keep up the "good work" you "accomplished scientist". I am sure you'll uncover the real truth soon.

(backs slowly away nervously laughing.

 

[Gamolon]

Regretfully, I will never promise to answer all of your questions.
I will never satisfy you. I will never prove anything to you.
I will only ever be able to speak the truth, and so that's what
I'm doing. If you don't understand, that's you, not me.

Your question is a boring question. "How were these trusses
supposed to stop" the destruction of the WTC buildings.

Obviously, they didn't stop it. Those little trusses were
not enough to stop the building from being turned into
foam while standing there. One moment: building.
Next moment: foam. I don't see why you would even
expect those little trusses to be a defense against
an advanced weapon. Can you explain this?

Do you actually think that those little trusses could
prevent the building from being turned into foam by
an energy weapon? If so, why? I'd think those little
trusses would get turned into foam just like most of
the rest of the building did.

The problem is with YOU and the way you "debate". You tried to bolster your belief of a "foamed building" by trying to make the collapse theory less believable with the following quote. A quote that is based on a lack of knowledge on your part.

I say that in real life, the floor would have provided some resistance
to any global collapse, and that it would be slowed.

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.

I responded to this incorrect quote to show you that your thinking is indeed flawed. In the real world, those floors and their truss connections would NEVER have been able to arrest the descent of that upper block.

Whether you believe the building was foamed or not, your statement above is still completely wrong.

 

[plague311]

You asked to see an image of the foam. It's there. On that blog.

I don't see any foam on any of the pictures at that blog. I don't see anything that even resembles foam. Unless, of course, you're referring to the plumes of dust coming out when the towers actually collapse. However, that is dust and smoke, not foam.

Maybe I'm just not understanding, how about you take some of those pictures and circle the "foam".

 

[Gamolon]

Can you repost that image and highlight the area where you
see floors falling on top of other floors?

Can you also please highlight the areas you see as being "foamed" or "liquefied"?

Thanks.

 

[Gamolon]

Can you also please highlight the areas you see as being "foamed" or "liquefied"?

Thanks.

Beat me to it plague311.

 

[plague311]

Beat me to it plague311.

I'm not just eye candy around here at the NWO offices. I got the star on my shirt because I'm special...quick...or something. I don't remember.

 

[WTC Dust]

It's not completely wrong because I'm not stamping it in stone.
I, as a scientist, expect that the lower floors would have held
(in the artificial scenario of floors falling).

Maybe the floors wouldn't have held, but they certainly would
have slowed the descent. That is written in stone.

But it actually doesn't matter because no floors crashed into
lower floors.

The problem is with YOU and the way you "debate". You tried to bolster your belief of a "foamed building" by trying to make the collapse theory less believable with the following quote. A quote that is based on a lack of knowledge on your part.


I responded to this incorrect quote to show you that your thinking is indeed flawed. In the real world, those floors and their truss connections would NEVER have been able to arrest the descent of that upper block.

Whether you believe the building was foamed or not, your statement above is still completely wrong.

 

[WTC Dust]

Will do, as soon as I see your highlighted image.
CAN'T WAIT to see what you think are floors falling onto
other floors. Go go!!

Can you also please highlight the areas you see as being "foamed" or "liquefied"?

Thanks.

 

[NoahFence]

Will do, as soon as I see your highlighted image.
CAN'T WAIT to see what you think are floors falling onto
other floors. Go go!!

Kiddo- how do you reconcile the thousands of photos of thousands of first responders and iron workers working and walking on what is CLEARLY steel and therefore not foam, not dust?

You've been shown these images over and over. I can only surmize that you are intentionally lying.