• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

9/11 Physics from Non-Experts

If you look at the YouTube links they will end in v=FKHG24G or something. Take the bit after the "v=" (so just the last series of numbers/letters) and put it in a YouTube tag (yt) (/yt), but square brackets [] obviously.

-Gumboot
 
From Gumboot's sig:

"My see-saw analogy renders any need for "calculations" moot." - Lyte Trip

How about this corrollary:

"My diet coke can demonstration renders computer simulation unnecessary" - YouTube moron.
 
Minadin said:
This is pretty amazing stuff. Has anyone else seen this one?



He's trying to model the collapse of the towers using (empty) coke cans. It's reminiscent of the glued together egg model.

I'm trying to decide if the guy is a real believer or just putting on a routine.
Click to expand...

This guy reminds me of
bill-murray-carl-caddyshack.jpg

"Licenced to kill gofers by the government of the united nations"
 
maccy said:
Also, from one of his earliest defenders, perhaps this:



was his inspiration?

It is a rare example of a Conspiracy Fantasist trying to be funny. I think he scores slightly higher than Kevin Barrett.

We have to deduct points for banging on about common sense, though.
Click to expand...

The towers below the collapse was "bigger" than the part above the collapse...so's it should have "bounced off". Fu#King unreal.
 
This is from episode one of "Beavis, Butthead and Bill Nye; The Science Guys" A short lived Nickelodeon spin off. Sadly, Bill Nye pulled out before the the first taping, leaving Nickelodeon under contract for three episodes. Episode 2: " Perpetual Motion, What the Government Doesn't Want You to Know" and Episode 3 : "The Moon, Friend or Foe?"
 
If it is real physics, it is testable

Totovader said:
I was waiting to post that one because I figured I have over-extended my YouTube posting for this week... but this is absolutely hilarious.

He's a real believer- even then I wondered, though. Burnvictim77 and I have both dealt with his claims before, and like this latest woo-aholic, he just blocks people who disagree with him. In one case he made such egregious errors that he made his videos private because Burnvictim77 had exposed some flat-out lies in his statements.

Perhaps the funnest thing of all is watching these conspiracists go through the process of cognitive dissonance. I know it's kind of like poking them with a stick- but it's hard to back off when you get such classic comedy like the "pop-can as a model for the Twin Towers" stuff. I just can't help but put more quarters in the machine...

I spend so much time laughing- though- that I'm a bit disillusioned when I see that people actually believe it.
Click to expand...

This is the new strategy for thruthseeking. Ban and pick.

First the physics guy banned me and now the diet coke guy banned me and removed my post answering his "If it is real physics, it is testable". So if we can't model it, it's not physics?
:eye-poppi
Someone should introduce him to Stephen Hawking.
If you tell him make sure he knows the difference between Steven Jones and Stephen Hawking. :D

Anyone that hasn't been banned by a thruther yet, isn't trying hard enough. These guys want science, but no peer-review, what does that tell you.
:rolleyes:
 
The coke can guy ...OMG

DOES HE REALIZE HOW FU&KING STUPID HE IS.

What more can i say...

TAM
 
If I was going to try to model the towers to test their collapse, using only common household items, I would probably use stainless steel tableware. Lots of it too, since you need to have a fairly complex lattice if you're going to do this properly. Forks could be used to represent the exterior columns, butter knives for the interior core columns. Bewteen the butter knives and the forks, place a spoon to act like sections of floor trusses. If I wanted to get really elaborate, a cloth napkin draped across the top of the spoons could represent the floors.

Each piece would need to be very carefully soldered to the others with a tiny bit of solder to make them stay together. Once the "structure" is built and I'm confident that it's more or less accurate, for what it's worth, I could take about 1/4 to 1/3 the amount of loose silverware I used originally, which I'd thoughtfully placed aside, and dump it out of a box onto the top of my "tower".

What do you think would happen?
 
T.A.M. said:
lol...I was adding my desire, along with gumboots, to have the science of it explained if possible, in relatively simplified Physics calculations...lol

I know it has probably been done before, but I havent seen it, although in this thread, it has been, somewhat, done...

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Ok, The kenetic energy was greater than the existing ability
 
Minadin said:
If I was going to try to model the towers to test their collapse, using only common household items, I would probably use stainless steel tableware. Lots of it too, since you need to have a fairly complex lattice if you're going to do this properly. Forks could be used to represent the exterior columns, butter knives for the interior core columns. Bewteen the butter knives and the forks, place a spoon to act like sections of floor trusses. If I wanted to get really elaborate, a cloth napkin draped across the top of the spoons could represent the floors.

Each piece would need to be very carefully soldered to the others with a tiny bit of solder to make them stay together. Once the "structure" is built and I'm confident that it's more or less accurate, for what it's worth, I could take about 1/4 to 1/3 the amount of loose silverware I used originally, which I'd thoughtfully placed aside, and dump it out of a box onto the top of my "tower".

What do you think would happen?
Click to expand...

It depends on how you apply the tiny bits of solder. If you try to use a solder gun or iron, the tiny drops of solder won't wet the flatware and it'll probably start collapsing when you try to build the third storey. If you use a proper torch, then the thing will be strong and rigid enough to climb on, and you'll become a critically acclaimed sculptor.

Don't use lead solder if you plan to continue using the flatware.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Minadin said:
If I was going to try to model the towers to test their collapse, using only common household items, I would probably use stainless steel tableware. Lots of it too, since you need to have a fairly complex lattice if you're going to do this properly. Forks could be used to represent the exterior columns, butter knives for the interior core columns. Bewteen the butter knives and the forks, place a spoon to act like sections of floor trusses. If I wanted to get really elaborate, a cloth napkin draped across the top of the spoons could represent the floors.

Each piece would need to be very carefully soldered to the others with a tiny bit of solder to make them stay together. Once the "structure" is built and I'm confident that it's more or less accurate, for what it's worth, I could take about 1/4 to 1/3 the amount of loose silverware I used originally, which I'd thoughtfully placed aside, and dump it out of a box onto the top of my "tower".

What do you think would happen?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you need flour or sugar for the "pulverized" or "dustified" concrete?
 
SYLVESTER1592 said:
This is the new strategy for thruthseeking. Ban and pick.

First the physics guy banned me and now the diet coke guy banned me and removed my post answering his "If it is real physics, it is testable". So if we can't model it, it's not physics?
:eye-poppi
Someone should introduce him to Stephen Hawking.
If you tell him make sure he knows the difference between Steven Jones and Stephen Hawking. :D

Anyone that hasn't been banned by a thruther yet, isn't trying hard enough. These guys want science, but no peer-review, what does that tell you.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It tells me, dolts who practice physics after one class in high school, even making an A, should not design high rise buildings. This kid was probably 13 or younger when the WTC was hit.

I was erased and banned. He is just like JDX, a censor NAZI, he has to answer the stuff and can not ignore it, kind of proves him wrong by default. He will now only have idiot posts to help his world of woo.
 
Last edited:
Net Force Zero

He is holding court and teaching a new form of NET FORCE ZERO physics.

(note from a rational being)Total nonsense. Place an egg on the ground and drop a brick on top of it. By your NetForce=0 argument the egg won't break because the egg (being attached to the ground) matches the downward acceleration.
Click to expand...


Answer from Yandros42 Physics Dolt--
Click to expand...
No idiot. The brick won't accelerate once it has reached the egg, because the net force is zero. The kinetic energy built up by the falling brick will most certainly shatter it. But if you were to take high speed recording of the brick smashing the egg you would find that the brick was not gaining velocity as it smashed the egg.
Click to expand...

I am not sure why the brick hitting the egg will not accelerate, unless the egg is made of something harder than the brick.

So I set out to test young Yandros42 new zero force, no acceleration theories in my own beachnut testing grounds.

I found an egg made of stone. I put egg on ground, gee young Yandros42 was right, the ground pushes up and the stone egg floats on a earth of sandy soil. Wow, yandros42 is right. Next the brick. I take brick and drop brick from a height unmeasured as of yet, but a height not the less. Or was it less the not. Drop brick it accelerated at 9/8 m/s*s it was amazing, but it hit the egg. As it hit the egg it seemed the initial impact velocity was a value x, and the instant it hit the egg, the egg started to move down (into the sand) at a new speed very close to x but it look like the speed was still consistent with the total initial momentum minus just a little energy missing. OMG, the brick is accelerating with the egg into the sandy soil, then it stoped.

Yandros is wrong, the brick did have a new velocity but it continued to accelerate until it was slowed by the ground impact after neatly driving the egg into the ground. That egg took off into the ground.

Now the real egg, not cooked not stone.

Wow, the brick barely changed speeds as it crushed the egg. The brick as it touched the egg continued to accelerate until the ground slowed it. What do I do with a sandy egg mess? Will cats eat fried egg on sand?

I have come to the conclusion something is wrong with Yandros42 new found physics ideas. They fell apart like a brick crushing an egg.
 
gumboot said:
I recall once someone said if superman tried to catch the falling towers in midair by grabbing hold of one core column, it would simply rip the building apart and the thing would keep falling down, with superman left sheepishly holding a single piece of column.
Click to expand...

IMPOSSIBLE. Superman would... er... his personal... protective shield would extend around the thing he held! Yeah! That's it!
 
No idiot. The brick won't accelerate once it has reached the egg, because the net force is zero. The kinetic energy built up by the falling brick will most certainly shatter it. But if you were to take high speed recording of the brick smashing the egg you would find that the brick was not gaining velocity as it smashed the egg.
Click to expand...



It seems to me he's finally made a testable prediction.

Anyone got a high speed camera, a brick and some eggs they don't like?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom