2 questions re 1120 'Missing bodies' from WTC 1&2 & media complicity in mass murder

[ergo]

Why are you asking this question? The answer is the same whether the roof somehow pushed itself down through 80 - 90 floors of intact building or if it was destroyed before its descent by explosives, or spacebeams, or malicious unicorns.

I don't contest that the needle of WTC 1 ended up somewhere in the rubble. But the manner and state in which the roofs' mass ended up on the ground is critical to the model you are trying to defend here. If you can't back up your supposed "observables" with any evidence, then your "observations" are likely false.

 

[Oystein]

Why are you asking this question? ...

To figure out how fast that mass moved, on average.

To figure out the potential energy differential.


So you now, after many huffs and puffs and silly attempts to derail, admit that the mass of the roof did in fact drop 400 meters?
Do you also admit that iit dropped that distance in less than 20 seconds?

 

[carlitos]

It's not often that I sit in front of my monitor with my jaw literally dropped. That just happened. The roof disappeared? It's still there cloaked by a sky-colored hologram? What?

(Øy, this is where I remind you that I am the author of the moon-sized field of rubble analogy, and that you will have no luck here)

 

[ergo]

To figure out how fast that mass moved, on average.

To figure out the potential energy differential.

To do this, you need to decide in what state the roof's mass arrived on the ground.

So you now, after many huffs and puffs and silly attempts to derail, admit that the mass of the roof did in fact drop 400 meters?

Whatever I admit is irrelevant to the model you are attempting to defend. I would not admit to this anyway, since if the roof imploded some of its mass would have been suspended in air for quite some time, some if it might have been propelled laterally, etc.

 

[tsig]

Oystein, I understand your "logic" just fine. As I said here, you are working backwards from a result that cannot be explained gravitationally and trying to apply it to a post hoc gravitational model. I'm not sure if this is actually what a post hoc logical fallacy is, or if it's a logical fallacy of a different kind. I might look it up later. Regardless, it is a logical fallacy.

What forces other than gravity were acting on the buildings?

 

[Oystein]

To do this, you need to decide in what state the roof's mass arrived on the ground.

O Rly?

• Is the potential energy of 1 ton of solid steel 400 meters above ground the same as, or different than the potential energy of 1 ton of loose feathers 400 meters above ground?
• A ton of solid steel and a ton of loose feathers move 400 meters in 16 seconds. Which was faster?

Whatever I admit is irrelevant to the model you are attempting to defend. I would not admit to this anyway, since if the roof imploded some of its mass would have been suspended in air for quite some time, some if it might have been propelled laterally, etc.

Why do you bring up models? I am not talking about a model. I am trying to figure out what you think the reality of the collapse was.
How much of the roof's mass was still suspended high in the air after 20 seconds, in your opinion?

 

[ergo]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8980621#post8980621 (that was for tsig).

Oystein, you are the one defending your model here. What happened to the roof? Did it push down through 80 - 90 storeys of intact building, or did it float down in particles?

 

[tsig]

To do this, you need to decide in what state the roof's mass arrived on the ground.




Whatever I admit is irrelevant to the model you are attempting to defend. I would not admit to this anyway, since if the roof imploded some of its mass would have been suspended in air for quite some time, some if it might have been propelled laterally, etc.

Why did the roof implode?

 

[ergo]

tsig, please go start your own thread. Here we are discussing pulverization models for the WTC Twin Towers.

 

[Starving for Truth]

What forces other than gravity were acting on the buildings?

Elementary.

 

[carlitos]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8980621#post8980621 (that was for tsig).

Oystein, you are the one defending your model here. What happened to the roof? Did it push down through 80 - 90 storeys of intact building, or did it float down in particles?

Here's where this is headed.

ergo can't process analogies like avalanches or tidal waves. If stuff is loose, it magically loses its mass.

 

[Oystein]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8980621#post8980621 (that was for tsig).

Oystein, you are the one defending your model here. What happened to the roof? Did it push down through 80 - 90 storeys of intact building, or did it float down in particles?

My model will be insensitive to this consideration.
It is dead simple:
At t=0, the roof's mass was 415 m above ground and at rest
At t=16 s, the mass was (mostly, anyway) ca. 400 further below, and again at rest.
It follows that it (the mass) had moved at an average velocity of 25 m/s

You say a significant portion of that mass may still have hovered high above the ground after 20 seconds. How much? How high? Or do you retract that claim, since it is clearly silly?

 

[carlitos]

 

[Starving for Truth]

My model will be insensitive to this consideration.
It is dead simple:
At t=0, the roof's mass was 415 m above ground and at rest
At t=16 s, the mass was (mostly, anyway) ca. 400 further below, and again at rest.
It follows that it (the mass) had moved at an average velocity of 25 m/s

You say a significant portion of that mass may still have hovered high above the ground after 20 seconds. How much? How high? Or do you retract that claim, since it is clearly silly?

So how did you determine T₀...
[/femr]

 

[beachnut]

The answer is Physics: What is not used by 911 Truth?

http://www.wimp.com/demonstratescannon/

 

[ergo]

[*]A ton of solid steel and a ton of loose feathers move 400 meters in 16 seconds. Which was faster?

Oystein, perhaps you should answer your own question here. It might help you to sort out your difficulties. Do the loose feathers move at the same velocity as the solid steel? Can you crush a car below by dumping loose feathers into the air?

 

[beachnut]

Failed Physics from 911 Truth: Self-Bedunking

Oystein, perhaps you should answer your own question here. It might help you to sort out your difficulties. Do the loose feathers move at the same velocity as the solid steel? Can you crush a car below by dumping loose feathers into the air?

Gish Gallop? Why can't 911 truth do physics. Why can't you answer your question?

tsig, please go start your own thread. Here we are discussing pulverization models for the WTC Twin Towers.

You bedunked yourself a while back, remember?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6263596&postcount=621

Without some physics, or some knowledge in physics, which you have proved you don't have, how can you discuss models for the WTC? Completely unarmed, and full of BS.

When I see your explanation of 911, it reminds me of random words.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxtN0xxzfsw

ergo-physics: I'm not sure even a moon-sized field or mountain of rubble, dropped from a height of 12 feet would entirely crush the WTC. No. If you had it coming down from a higher height, in a steady stream over a long period of time, we would certainly see some major damage. Total collapse? I'm not sure.

When will your posts have some physics? Can you solve or understand E=mgh? You have been given the answers, and 11 years to solve 911; why have you failed to make progress?

 

[Starving for Truth]

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Entire post deleted for breach of Rules 0/12.

 

[Oystein]

Oystein, perhaps you should answer your own question here. It might help you to sort out your difficulties. Do the loose feathers move at the same velocity as the solid steel? Can you crush a car below by dumping loose feathers into the air?

I know the answers.
I am asking you:

• Is the potential energy of 1 ton of solid steel 400 meters above ground the same as, or different than the potential energy of 1 ton of loose feathers 400 meters above ground?
• A ton of solid steel and a ton of loose feathers move 400 meters in 16 seconds. Which was faster?

Why do you bring up models? I am not talking about a model. I am trying to figure out what you think the reality of the collapse was.

You say a significant portion of that mass may still have hovered high above the ground after 20 seconds. How much? How high? Or do you retract that claim, since it is clearly silly?

 

[ergo]

I know the answers.

If you knew the answers, you wouldn't ask such a silly question.

A ton of solid steel and a ton of loose feathers move 400 meters in 16 seconds. Which was faster?

Why do you bring up models? I am not talking about a model.

Yes, you are. You replied to a post of mine requesting a pulverization model for the Towers' collapses. You haven't defended your model. You need to stop asking and start answering some questions.