• 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.

A Truther writes...

bill smith said:
Oystein...when the top 13 floors fall onto the bottom 97 floors - is that a block of 13 floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors or is it an assembly of 13 single floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors ?
Click to expand...

Watch the verinage demolition videos once more, and while you do that and observe how story after story gets crushed by the top floors, ask yourself the same question.

Then consider the likelihood that the best conclusion is urrrr "inside job" or whatever it is you want to sell.
And consider the possibility that you do not understand structural engineering and dynamic mechanics.
 
Oystein said:
Watch the verinage demolition videos once more, and while you do that and observe how story after story gets crushed by the top floors, ask yourself the same question.

Then consider the likelihood that the best conclusion is urrrr "inside job" or whatever it is you want to sell.
And consider the possibility that you do not understand structural engineering and dynamic mechanics.
Click to expand...

Not very convincing are you Oystein ? Eh Readers ?
 
bill smith said:
Not very convincing are you Oystein ? Eh Readers ?
Click to expand...

About as convincing as your previous post. Eh Readers?

Maybe, next time you want make a claim of your own, back it up with facts, list assumptions, do work and discuss results, insteaf of just flinging suggestive questions across the table?

Would be a nice change - seeing a Truther do some real work and get it right.
(Of course "getting it right" would be the same as you finding out that in fact both twin towers and spaghetti towers are doomed to total collapse once you allow one floor to fail completely.)
 
Oystein said:
About as convincing as your previous post. Eh Readers?

Maybe, next time you want make a claim of your own, back it up with facts, list assumptions, do work and discuss results, insteaf of just flinging suggestive questions across the table?

Would be a nice change - seeing a Truther do some real work and get it right.
(Of course "getting it right" would be the same as you finding out that in fact both twin towers and spaghetti towers are doomed to total collapse once you allow one floor to fail completely.)
Click to expand...

[Sigh]..Just answer the dang question if you dare...

' Oystein...when the top 13 floors fall onto the bottom 97 floors - is that a block of 13 floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors or is it an assembly of 13 single floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors ? '
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
[Sigh]..Just answer the dang question if you dare...

' Oystein...when the top 13 floors fall onto the bottom 97 floors - is that a block of 13 floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors or is it an assembly of 13 single floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors ? '
Click to expand...

Ok - assembly dropping on assembly.

What's your point?

The assembly of 13 single floors falls (picks up velocity, momentum) as a block.
I guess the assembly consideration is not unimportant. However as long as the assembly is intact, it can push its momentum down on the next stuctural elements it hits. If the assembly comes apart, momentum is not acted against an parts keep falling.
Crush-up occurs.

You can't get away from the fact that once the top floors fall, the structure below must eat away all the momentum and kinetic energy, and will fail doing so.


But I sense you want make a point here? Please make it! Improve on the way I modelled your spaghetti tower! :)
 
Oystein said:
Ok - assembly dropping on assembly.

What's your point?

The assembly of 13 single floors falls (picks up velocity, momentum) as a block.
I guess the assembly consideration is not unimportant. However as long as the assembly is intact, it can push its momentum down on the next stuctural elements it hits. If the assembly comes apart, momentum is not acted against an parts keep falling.
Crush-up occurs.

You can't get away from the fact that once the top floors fall, the structure below must eat away all the momentum and kinetic energy, and will fail doing so.


But I sense you want make a point here? Please make it! Improve on the way I modelled your spaghetti tower! :)
Click to expand...

Well maybe we will revisit this some time Oystein. Block-assembly eh ? Interesting
 
No you won't, Bill. You will offer nothing of substance, just continue to spout the same nonsense, and run from questions and points you can't answer.
 
TheRedWorm said:
No you won't, Bill. You will offer nothing of substance, just continue to spout the same nonsense, and run from questions and points you can't answer.
Click to expand...

Well Red we will see in due course, in the fullness of time, at the appropriate juncture. You know how it goes.
 
Yeah, it will go exactly how I said it will go. Unless you plan to reveal yourself as a troll, and that you were stringing us along the whole time. That's the only thing I think you could possibly say that would give any of us pause.
 
A Truther Replies...

Oh well, here goes with the response to Oystein's response ("glenn" is the Truther in question) :

Hello Angry,

Jolly decent of you to take the time, may I respond to your responses.

glenn: “…We are expected to believe that as it suddenly (with a flash)lost all its structure and fell onto the floor below, ...”

Angry: ----It doesn't matter at all if the top section above the burning floors lost all their support in a flash or somewhat gradually. All that matters is that a cross-section of the tower crashed (columns/joints buckling and breaking) and the top section picking up some speed as it is accelerated by gravity.----

Actually, it's rather surprising to see such a large flash! But apart of that waving aside of an awkward observation, yourmate added nothing to the discussion there.

glenn: “…how does each new floor suddenly assume the accumulated velocity of the falling floors above?”

Angry: ----Strawman. It doesn not assume the speed, it assumes the momentum, thereby losing some speed (as some of the mass starts out at rest)----

Strawman my arse. If it did _not_ assume the speed, how does your mate account for the fact that we saw acceleration at virtually free-fall speed, which was the actual point? Slippery customer, this mate of yours.

glenn: “We're talking about a progressively heavy core structure (it having been built to bear the weight of the entire structure above, at each stage). So why did it not _substantially_ arrest the downward motion?”

Angry: ----As lower stories became progressively heavy (and strong), so did the weight and the speed of the already falling top part accumulate. So while the static strength of the lower stories increased basically in a linear function, the momentum of the fall increased basically with a function that contains a power of 2 - momentum increased faster than resisting static force.----

Ahem, your mate really needs to stop blowing smoke, and explain why the progression was not _substantially_ arrested. Your learned friend also forgets that a major component of that structure mysteriously turned into fine powder on the way down, so the momentum (weight x speed) of the falling structure was not accumulating to anything approaching the extent he pretends.

glenn:“As Frank Verismo points out, a great deal of the mass was pulverised in any case, so the full weight of the above sections were dispersed each time a new floor was reached by the downward progression.”

Angry: ----When we are looking at conservation of momentum, it doesn't matter if the mass you want to arrest is already pulverized or still structurally intact. If you want to arrest the collapse, you need to arrest the downward momentum of all the masses involved, as it wouldn't do much good to stop the intact parts and let the pulverized parts keep falling (all the way).----

Huh! For crying out loud, that pulverised structure was billowing out over half of Manhattan, not neatly falling in a vacuum tube! Has your
mate observed that under real-world conditions, dust doesn't fall quite the same way as bricks? Jesus!

glenn: “How did the really heavy mid to lower sections suddenly start moving at the same pace as the falling upper sections, unless they were
offering _virtually no resistance at all_ - unless they were already falling themselves immediately before the progression hit them.”

Angry: ----Because the dynamic load of n upper stories at velovity v with mass m is magnitudes greater than the static load these mid to lower
sections were designed to carry. They were designed to excert the upward force of several (3-5?) times the weight of all the floors above, but to arrest these floors within the short distance that the columns still remain elastic would require a force much more than 10 times the weight.----

Your mate has explained why the floors might have collapsed, not why they magically assumed the speed of the falling upper section without
slowing it down. Is your mate fond of answering his preferred questionto that asked?

glenn: “The towers did not come down quite at free-fall speed, but it was not far off it. It was way too close to free-fall acceleration to believe
even for a moment than a substantial structure of increasing strength was being crushed by the powdered remains of the floors above.”

Angry: ----Towers came down around 2/3rds of free fall speed which actually is a considerable distance off. Plus Argument from incredulity.----

Being incredulous at an explanation is not proof that the explanation in question is correct, you know. The precise time is difficult to
say, because the base was surrounded by a plume of dust that your mate thinks is entirely pressing downwards on the structure (and in a neat
column). It goes no way to altering the fact that a mild slowing (which I freely allowed for) is far removed from what we observed.

Think about your famous bowling balls, AS - would you expect it to fall to the bottom of a deep lake almost as fast (2/3rds, say) as it would
through the air? No? Do you think the structure of the towers should have offered even the resistance of water?

glenn: “If the motion was entirely downwards, with no other force than downward gravity operating after collapse was initiated, why do we see
massive steel girders ejected out laterally for hundreds of feet? Why did tiny body parts (sections of finger, etc.) appear on rooftops hundreds of
yards away?”

Angry:----Drop a paper bag full with assorted things (screws, tomatoes, marbles, toys) from your upper floor down onto your terrace. Watch what happens. See how some of the things are flung sideways?----

Your mate is an idiot. If I dropped a sack full of _heavy_ bolts which are not going to be blown around by the wind, they'll land pretty much
below where they are dropped. What made the 40-ton steel girders of the Twin Towers go laterally with such substantial energy - brownian motion, perhaps?

glenn: “In standard building collapses, one would find at least a few things intact. A chair, a monitor, something. How come the biggest items
found were fragments of telephone keypads?”

Angry:----Twin Towers were non-standard building collapses. They were just so very much bigger than anything we've seen so far. Potential energy of one tower, just standing erect, equals that of a formidable nuke. That is as much "standard building collapse" as Hiroshima was "standard bombing".----

Oh, crap. I'll agree on one thing - this was non-standard. But the idea that _nothing_ substantial survived due to this hand-waving explanation
is weak to say the least. Is this guy supposed to be a scientist? He should be ashamed of himself, pretending potential energy was neatly
converted into lossless explosive energy to pulverise everything.

glenn:“Look at the column on the last picture on this page: How did it acquire that precise cut, consistent with a controlled demolition?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.htm “

Angry:----As has been pointed out before: Welcome to the dark ages of trutherism.----


Angry: (Poster EDx writes: “lol he promotes the thermal lance cut column picture as evidence of thermite lol.”


Uh huh. Do you usually have firemen hanging around like that when a demolition clearance is well underway? So these lance-cutter
boys had rushed in (not bothering to clear a path), cut a bunch of core columns (why?), and rushed off again why firemen were still
scratching their chins at the sight? Uh huh.

glenn: “But back to conservation of momentum. Inertia dictates that a mass will not suddenly assume the velocity of the moving object falling onto it, even if it is so tenuously structured that a feather falling onto it would initiate its collapse. In this case, we are talking about an increasing substantial structure the further down the building we go. Yet it offered little more resistance than fresh air on the day of 9/11.”

Angry: ----Increasing substantial structure met even faster increasing momentum the further down the building we go.----

Which might have achieved some equilibrium what with losing all that structure mass to powder, flying girders an' all, but your mate ignores the point entirely, and is blowing smoke yet again. There is absolutely no way the falling structure would make the floors below assume the VELOCITY (and not just the momentum) and continue the progression.
*

Nice try, maybe worth 2.5/10 and it might even pass as plausible to someone completely ignorant about physics, but please get better help
than this if you seriously want to refute my argument on momentum.

But thank you again for taking the time. I admire your doggedness in sticking up for the Official Story through thick and very, very thin.
Click to expand...

A few hours later, the said Truther who goes by the handle "Glenn" added this:

Btw, Angry, how long do you think it'll take for you to relay my reply back to your mates at forums.randi.org, for them to make their various replies, and then for you to compile them all again?

Why are you so utterly uncritical of _their_ replies, while the knee-jerk thing happens for you at every word from an Official Story doubter?

One last thing puzzles me... and you can ask them this (fully attributed, if you don't mind!)... doesn't your nauseating obsequiousness bother them there at all, or do they actually get off on it?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
'm sure that's all very very interesting and the Readers can read it if they want. But I am appealing to people's personal experience and intuition here. To what they know in their bones.
Click to expand...

You are realling appealing to people's incredulity, lack of imagination and scientific laziness.

bill smith said:
And I believe that they know in their bones that one tenth of an object will never crush nine tenths of the same structure down flat on the ground by gravity alone as we saw on 9/11.
Click to expand...

This is something they just cannot know in their bones, for their bones are so extremely tiny compared to the dimensions of the tallest buildings in the world. The dynamics therein utterly defy intuition.


bill smith said:
You can maybe convince a few Readers by here and now describing a documented event in the entire recorded history of this planet where one-tenth of any object, large or small has crushed the other nine-tenths of the same structure by gravity alone.
Click to expand...

You dodge and ignore the examples we already provided, especially that of avalanches.
I give you another: cardstacks. Watch what happens around 2:00:


bill smith said:
For instance the collapse of the spagetti model will arrest almost immediately. It's intuitive you see ?
Click to expand...

It may be intuitive, but it's wrong. If people go only by intuition, they'd understand that the sun moves around the earth. And they'd be wrong. It takes more than intuition, namely some scientific rigor, to figure out that actually it is the spinning of the earth.

But I am fairly certain that Readers' intuition will understand that 6 packs of spaghetti may carry a static load of a whopping 1 ton if you build your tower carefully, but will come down crashing wildly if you break enough pieces near the top, when the weight of 2 grown men starts falling. And that it will continue to crash because it gets the mass of 10 more grown men along the way. Cause you see, that would be the necessary mass for the model to be near scale.
 
"Uh huh. Do you usually have firemen hanging around like that when a demolition clearance is well underway? So these lance-cutter boys had rushed in (not bothering to clear a path), cut a bunch of core columns (why?), and rushed off again why firemen were still scratching their chins at the sight? Uh huh."

What an offensive argument from incredulity. Your friend appears completely unaware that is a cropped picture, and IIRC, you can see a crew working on another vertical beam in the background. And yes, the FDNY was at Ground zero. You might remind your "mate" that hundreds of FDNY firemen died at Ground Zero and were there throughout the recovery activity at the pile.
 
16.5 said:
"Uh huh. Do you usually have firemen hanging around like that when a demolition clearance is well underway? So these lance-cutter boys had rushed in (not bothering to clear a path), cut a bunch of core columns (why?), and rushed off again why firemen were still scratching their chins at the sight? Uh huh."

What an offensive argument from incredulity. Your friend appears completely unaware that is a cropped picture, and IIRC, you can see a crew working on another vertical beam in the background. And yes, the FDNY was at Ground zero. You might remind your "mate" that hundreds of FDNY firemen died at Ground Zero and were there throughout the recovery activity at the pile.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what he is talking about but I do have a few pictures here of clean-up crews working on the site which I would like to add to:

http://angrysoba.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html

Do you know where I could find similar pictures which show the beams being cut?

---I should also have edited that part out of my mate's post because I don't want the focus to be on such easily distracting questions---
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom