phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
Do you understand the difference between reducing speed (aka slowing down) and reducing acceleration?
Acceleration of the falling top blocks.
- Thread starter leftysergeant
- Start date
Do you understand the difference between reducing speed (aka slowing down) and reducing acceleration?
NoahFence
Banned
How could she?
She doesn't understand the difference between a pile of dust and a 2-story multi-ton mass of solid steel.
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
You "expect" that the lower floors would have held?
Ok, as you're a "scientist", what is the basis for you to "expect" this? Are you just assuming or do you have calculations?
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
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!!
How can I highlight something that hidden behind the perimeter columns?
As a scientist, I would "expect" that YOU would "expect" the floors to still be there inside the perimeter columns of that upper block until they were destroyed/ripped apart by colliding with other debris/structural components.
I mean there were solid floors attached inside previously correct?
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
<sigh>
That is a still picture. What you ask is not really possible. But many videos exist where you can see that top block falling and breaking apart the underlying structure. In the picture the area of that destruction is obscured by the resulting dust/debris from that process. For these reasons I believe your inquiry is less than honest.
Well Tracy, you seem to be parroting and even sometimes quoting chapter and verse from the Bible of Dr Wood. Let's recall briefly some of what she (Dr Wood) has previously espoused:-
The Twin Towers did not collapse they were "like two tall trees that turned to sawdust from the top down"
The WTC complex was destroyed by a space-based beam weapon.
The weapon was powered by a Hurricane.
There were no fires at the WTC on 9/11.
That the smoke we see in the pics above was generated by smoke machines.
That 99% of the steel at the WTC was vapourised/liquified/foamed/dustifiied.
Her book "Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11" contains no such evidence.
The "protective bathtub" beneath/supporting the Towers remained undamaged after 9/11.
Actual reports of the bathtub being damaged were "part of the cover story"
And on and on. There's no end to the madness.
It's quite plain who you've hitched a ride with. Get off before you hit Cloud Cuckoo Land.
Compus
Last edited:
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
It is?
Isn't the capacity for something to resist or somewhat resist a load from another object a relative thing?
Let's put this into perspective in regards to a object or structure providing visible resistance to varying loads being applied to it.
Let's take the cardboard core tube of a paper towel roll and stand it on end. let's take the following three scenarios.
1. Place on orange on the top end of the tube. Take a video of it
2. Remove the orange and drop a honeydew melon on it from three feet over the top of the tube
3. Get another tube and drop a 1 ton block of concrete on the tube
Are you trying to tell me that in the third scenario you would visibly see the concrete block's descent slow down do to the resistance of the cardboard tube?
So in other words, no matter what weight load is dropped onto another object or structure, some resistance will always be visible. That's what you believe? Or is there a point at which the load applied to the calculated resistance of a structure or object can be so overbearing as to cause the object or structure to provide no resistance at all?
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
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!!
You haven't addressed your "they went away in a dozen seconds" quote.
You've also been proven wrong on that.
Gamolon
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,702
How can you expect to "see" something that is behind the perimeter columns?
I suppose you can "see" someone's brain when you look at their head. Or maybe you can "see" people on the other side of a closed door.
X-ray glasses perhaps?
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
The "foam" that Dr Blevins found is just insulation. It was everywhere in the area, exactly like the paint chips. We already have a source. We expect it to be there. There is no identified process that could have created it out of the rubble.
It is also absurd to think that any directed energy could start effecting and interior space of a building without some external signature.
One of the reasons that people see an anomoly in the rate of acceleration in the collapse may be that we have been thinking of initiation as sort of a sudden event, a comedian doing a pratfall on a fragile chair would be a good parallel. It resists from an instant, then collapses.
What happened may be more like a grotesquely fat person sitting down carefully on a folding aluminum deck chair and causing it to fold slowly around himself.
No missing jolt.
It is also absurd to think that any directed energy could start effecting and interior space of a building without some external signature.
One of the reasons that people see an anomoly in the rate of acceleration in the collapse may be that we have been thinking of initiation as sort of a sudden event, a comedian doing a pratfall on a fragile chair would be a good parallel. It resists from an instant, then collapses.
What happened may be more like a grotesquely fat person sitting down carefully on a folding aluminum deck chair and causing it to fold slowly around himself.
No missing jolt.
Yes. Once the debris is in significant motion, it stops being a statics problem and turns into a dynamics problem. And that means any remaining resistance to the downward acceleration can be treated as a simple problem in vector addition.
Not what I saw.
If the entire building was equally weakened, where would the first failure occur? Where the load is greatest. If any floor below the progressive collapse had already been destroyed, then all of the building above that floor would be in motion. And that simply isn't observed.
At least you got that far in your orientation to the sciences. It isn't sufficient to show the existing paradigm has weaknesses. You need to provide a well-worked out alternative.
Concentrate on the positive, not the negative. How does YOUR theory explain the evidence? Does it do a better job? Does it account for more of it?
Do you understand the concept of validation of the model? One compares the output of the model to ALL appropriate observation, not just to the end state.
No-one is arguing against that. What you are failing to do is to quantify this slowing down.
We DO observe that the towers fell slower than free fall. What you haven't shown is that this progressive fall is still too fast. And you won't get anywhere with that argument until you can properly quantify it.
phunk
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,127
I am. Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but there is no reason anything had to slow down. It could just accelerate less.
Sorry...I was being imprecise.
I should have said "reduce the rate of acceleration."
In fact, for a first-order approximation I wouldn't even bother thinking in terms of floors; just treat the entire tower as a small counter-force, add forces, calculate total acceleration. It won't graph properly because the MV and Ke are vastly greater during the later stages of the fall, meaning the effective resistance is less, but for a one-line calculation on the back of an old bill...
Last edited:
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.
You realize that Nauga's went extinct in the early 70s, just so that old white men could snore-away in all those Naugahide LayZBoys...
Disgraceful...!!
tk
PS. Are you guys REALLY trying to "reason" with Dusty??
Really?
So you're equating that the mass, velocity, and resulting momentum of 20+ floors would be RESET to initial rest at every floor?!
Good lawd no!
At best that next floor would MAYBE offer enough resistance to slow the fall by the tiniest fraction of a nanosecond at that momentum.
Best case scenario the pillars and supports are intact, and the momentum is (as you put it) "disturbed" for double-digit milliseconds.
But the likelihood of that being true is very very VERY unlikely.
Your avalanche theory falls apart quite substantially as well, and I will tell you why.
By throwing a pebble into the avalanche, yes I would slow the avalanche's flow. Noticeably? Heck no.
What about a small rock? Uhm... nope.
Ok what about a boulder? Still no.
How about one twentieth of a dam? Ok, sure, if that twentieth of a damn fragment was COMPLETELY 100% intact and structurally sound, it will slow the avalanche by 0.0000001% for around 100 milliseconds...
Actually, Dusty is claiming that avalanches cannot exist. Although she probably doesn't realize it.
She acknowledges just one of the many factors that can slow down a collapse (or an avalanche): collision of the collapse front with a stationary (or slower moving) object.
She refuses to acknowledge the factors that can cause either a collision (or an avalanche) to gather size or speed (gravity & precariously supported mass).
And yet avalanches often start tiny & grow in both size & speed. Something that doesn't seem to exist in Dusty's unique physical universe.
The list of simply incorrect statement after incorrect statement is dumbfounding. (Dumb-finding?)
She says that acceleration has to increase gradually. Totally incorrect.
Position & velocity are continuous function (in the non-quantum world). In order to go from point a to point b, or from speed c to speed d, then an object has to pass thru every value of x, y & z in spacial coordinates between a & b, or every speed between c & d.
Not so with acceleration. Accelerations can be discontinuous & instantaneous. Hang something by a thread, cut the thread, and the moment the thread is cut, the object's acceleration jump instantly, immediately from zero to G. And the acceleration need never have any value in between the two.
Her protestations of good grades in physics, notwithstanding.
Her assertion that an object that is accelerating will have the same time (.75 seconds) to transit one distance (1 floor) at an early point in its fall as the time it takes to transit the same distance at a later point in time is simply ludicrous.
Pssst, Dusty, if it took the same time to transit the same distance, then that is the very definition of an object was going the same speed at those two points in time.
But that is a false assertion for the early portion of the collapse of the towers. For all the time that the towers were visible. They were accelerating at about 2/3rds G. Which means that the resisting force was approximately mG/3.
[Note that, later in the collapse, it is highly likely that the towers reached a terminal velocity, attained because of the increased resistive force required to expel air from each floor at a higher & higher rate.]
They were accelerating (@ a = 2G/3). Not traveling at the same speed (in which a=0).
It seems that her perception of her own physics talents may be less than objective.
She acknowledges just one of the many factors that can slow down a collapse (or an avalanche): collision of the collapse front with a stationary (or slower moving) object.
She refuses to acknowledge the factors that can cause either a collision (or an avalanche) to gather size or speed (gravity & precariously supported mass).
And yet avalanches often start tiny & grow in both size & speed. Something that doesn't seem to exist in Dusty's unique physical universe.
The list of simply incorrect statement after incorrect statement is dumbfounding. (Dumb-finding?)
She says that acceleration has to increase gradually. Totally incorrect.
Position & velocity are continuous function (in the non-quantum world). In order to go from point a to point b, or from speed c to speed d, then an object has to pass thru every value of x, y & z in spacial coordinates between a & b, or every speed between c & d.
Not so with acceleration. Accelerations can be discontinuous & instantaneous. Hang something by a thread, cut the thread, and the moment the thread is cut, the object's acceleration jump instantly, immediately from zero to G. And the acceleration need never have any value in between the two.
Her protestations of good grades in physics, notwithstanding.
Her assertion that an object that is accelerating will have the same time (.75 seconds) to transit one distance (1 floor) at an early point in its fall as the time it takes to transit the same distance at a later point in time is simply ludicrous.
Pssst, Dusty, if it took the same time to transit the same distance, then that is the very definition of an object was going the same speed at those two points in time.
But that is a false assertion for the early portion of the collapse of the towers. For all the time that the towers were visible. They were accelerating at about 2/3rds G. Which means that the resisting force was approximately mG/3.
[Note that, later in the collapse, it is highly likely that the towers reached a terminal velocity, attained because of the increased resistive force required to expel air from each floor at a higher & higher rate.]
They were accelerating (@ a = 2G/3). Not traveling at the same speed (in which a=0).
It seems that her perception of her own physics talents may be less than objective.
Last edited:
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
- Messages
- 877
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
The floors would have held, but maybe not? Seriously?
Incredulity.
You made the claim, you support it.
False. Just look at any video of the TT collapses, and you'll notice the floors above the collapse zone still being intact for the start of the fall.
Prove the model is faulty.
You specifically asserted (by questioning) that the floors were falling slower than gravity in the very post I'm responding to.
WTC Dust
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 3,529
WTC Dust
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 3,529
As a scientist, I have considered this at great length. The main focus of mine for the last ten years has been an answer to the question, "What destroyed the World Trade Center?"
One thing you might consider are the instances where controlled demolition didn't work. There are some videos out there. You can look them up. The building slams down a bit but stops. It doesn't continue crushing all the way to the ground, as the faulty gravity collapse model suggests.
One thing you might consider are the instances where controlled demolition didn't work. There are some videos out there. You can look them up. The building slams down a bit but stops. It doesn't continue crushing all the way to the ground, as the faulty gravity collapse model suggests.