• 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.

Care to Comment

Profanz said:
Have a good time. Then maybe you can answer. Because I don't understand debunker physics when it comes to the WTC.
Click to expand...
911 truth does not do physics, they make up dumb ideas about 911 and post woo; like you were going to save the idiot with some support. Not in the near or far future.

The video models support a gravity collapse, the idiot doing the demonstrations failed to make a rational conclusion. Like the rest of 911 truth clueless for 8 years. What a failure; too bad you can't support the dolt with your expertise in physics. If you understood physics you would not be weakly supporting idiots posting fantasy conclusions using physics. The billiard balls was funny. You really have no clue when it comes to physics and you prove it. Did your high school cut back on science?
 
Profanz said:
Hey dogtown? I want to know. Does the cue ball stop because of gravity, or because of the thing that it hits that is of the same size and mass of what it is being hit by?
Click to expand...

The cue ball stops because the collision between balls is very close to a perfectly elastic one, so no kinetic energy is lost to permanent deformation. The only available one-dimensional solution that conserves both kinetic energy and momentum is for the cue ball to stop dead and for the object ball to recoil at the same velocity as the initial velocity of the cue-ball. That's assuming there is no spin on the cue-ball; in real life, pool players can spin the ball to adjust the direction it moves after the collision.

Since we know from dynamic analysis of the collisions in the WTC collapses that the impact of the upper block produced sufficient force to exceed the elastic limit of the lower columns by a very large margin, we know that the collisions in the WTC collapse were significantly inelastic, and therefore a different one-dimensional solution is found in which both the object initially moving and the object initially stationary are both moving after the collision. We also know there was very little spin imparted to the upper block, and that it wasn't rolling along a flat baize cloth as it fell vertically, but that's just nitpicking. The elastic / inelastic distinction is sufficient to determine that the behaviour of pool balls is an extremely poor analogy for the behaviour of the WTC collapses.

That's not debunker physics. It's physics. And anybody with a basic competence in physics will find it, not just comprehensible, but immediately obvious.

Dave
 
Telltale Tom said:
Wow bravo, bravo... it's amazing proof and real ae911truth hard evidence. I guess the engineers that design these buildings either don't understand momentum or haven't seen the video. When they do, then I expect to get at least another 10 signatures on the petition.

As Richard Gage said a couple of weeks ago we have already got 40 structural engineers who have signed the petition. So out of the hundred thousand or so in the US we have a start.! Do you think they were not interested in the collapse of the WTC towers.

I really think that Richard should speak at the Structures Congress. A month or so ago there were 5,000 engineers in Orlando who went there to discuss things like fire and building safety.

We can't get less support in the industry so I really hope he goes to Pittsburg. It will be interesting to see what real engineers make of him.
Click to expand...

You must try harder,that is a very transparent attempt at trolling.
 
Profanz said:
Hey dogtown? I want to know. Does the cue ball stop because of gravity, or because of the thing that it hits that is of the same size and mass of what it is being hit by? The same thing that is standing still when it is hit. Can you follow?

I want to know what you think you know.
Click to expand...

If you ever had any physics lessons in school then you would know the answer.I learned about that when I was 13.Here is a hint,Galileo.
 
Dave Rogers said:
The cue ball stops because the collision between balls is very close to a perfectly elastic one, so no kinetic energy is lost to permanent deformation. The only available one-dimensional solution that conserves both kinetic energy and momentum is for the cue ball to stop dead and for the object ball to recoil at the same velocity as the initial velocity of the cue-ball. That's assuming there is no spin on the cue-ball; in real life, pool players can spin the ball to adjust the direction it moves after the collision.

Since we know from dynamic analysis of the collisions in the WTC collapses that the impact of the upper block produced sufficient force to exceed the elastic limit of the lower columns by a very large margin, we know that the collisions in the WTC collapse were significantly inelastic, and therefore a different one-dimensional solution is found in which both the object initially moving and the object initially stationary are both moving after the collision. We also know there was very little spin imparted to the upper block, and that it wasn't rolling along a flat baize cloth as it fell vertically, but that's just nitpicking. The elastic / inelastic distinction is sufficient to determine that the behaviour of pool balls is an extremely poor analogy for the behaviour of the WTC collapses.

That's not debunker physics. It's physics. And anybody with a basic competence in physics will find it, not just comprehensible, but immediately obvious.

Dave
Click to expand...

For the falling upper section to exceed the elastic limit of the lower columns by a large margin, since they were designed to support several times the static load of that upper section, a significant deceleration of the falling upper section is necessary, to gain an amplification of its load. The upper section of WTC 1has been measured by many researchers and it never decelerates.

While there may not have been a lot of spin on the falling building section there is obviously a lot of spin here by those who claim the lack of deceleration is not significant, or can somehow be explained away by other means and tortured logic.
 
Last edited:
Profanz said:
The gravity doesn't slow the cue ball down except when it is traveling. What the cue ball hits is what stops it. That would be the other ball. In fact the only time gravity is at work on the cue ball is when it is traveling at a high velocity before it even hits the other ball. Once it hits the other ball it's all over. It stops.
Click to expand...



...unless your table is tilted.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
For the falling upper section to exceed the elastic limit of the lower columns by a large margin, since they were designed to support several times the static load of that upper section, a significant deceleration of the falling upper section is necessary, to gain an amplification of its load.
Click to expand...

Wrong, and we've been over this more times than I can count. All that's needed for the falling upper section to exceed the elastic limit of the lower columns by a large margin is for it not to impact them simultaneously. This will be the case if either the top block tilted before beginning its descent - something which everybody in the world except you can see was the case for both WTC1 and WTC2 - or the initial failures took place over varying lengths of column, rather than lining up precisely at the level of a floor - which is highly likely, at least for the perimeter columns, because they were installed in staggered groups and were weakest at the joints between panels. No load amplification is necessary.

Dve
 
Profanz said:
In fact the only time gravity is at work on the cue ball is when it is traveling at a high velocity before it even hits the other ball
Click to expand...

This is the funniest thing I have seen a truther post for years. I guess screw back and topspin do not exist in 911 world pool or snooker.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
For the falling upper section to exceed the elastic limit of the lower columns by a large margin, since they were designed to support several times the static load of that upper section, a significant deceleration of the falling upper section is necessary, to gain an amplification of its load. The upper section of WTC 1has been measured by many researchers and it never decelerates.

While there may not have been a lot of spin on the falling building section there is obviously a lot of spin here by those who claim the lack of deceleration is not significant, or can somehow be explained away by other means and tortured logic.
Click to expand...

Still spinning those fairytales? Tell us the one about Larry Silversein admitting on TV that he demolished the WTC7 due to safety reasons. Thats my favourite.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
Man I want to go play pool with some of you people, then every time the cue ball doesn't stop dead upon contact I can laugh my arse off at you and every time I make the cue ball do something that you think is impossible I can laugh at you some more. I might even drink some aiming fluid to make it even more enjoyable... for myself.

The shot that makes the ball actually stop dead has a name, it's called a stun shot and it requires that the cue ball starts off with backspin and that, at the point of contact with the object ball, the back spin has just stopped. Stop the backspin too soon and the cue ball will follow through the contact point. Too much backspin and the ball will draw back towards the player (this is assuming a straight on shot of course).

If you hit the cue ball dead center it will always go past the point of contact because the friction between the ball and the felt will impart a forward spin to the cue ball very shortly after you hit it. Again this is assuming that you are hitting a single ball and not a cluster of frozen balls.
Click to expand...

And since most truthers only seem to speak youtube, here is a youtube video showing much of what Sam.I.Am discussed:

 
Profanz said:
How is gravity for instance automatically more powerful than a pool ball being shot at another pool ball? Are you saying that the cue ball is being slowed down by gravity? Nothing shot the upper part of the WTC down to the ground. Nothing. It started from a dead set position. And it was less in mass than what it is claimed to have destroyed.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:.... Hint: Mass is not equal to strength and the structural make up of the WTC was not remotely like that of a pool ball. Seriously this is high school physics!
In very simple terms (and simplified terms) A floor section of the upper section fall down onto the floor below. The impact force is greater than the floor is designed to take (floors are designed for static loads not dynamics ones) so it too fails and the two floors fall to the floor below. The impact is now at least twice as hard as before so that floor fails too, The three floors now fall etc etc. The impact increases with each floor as mass and velocity are both increasing. After a floor or two the resistance of each subsequent floor would be tiny relative to the downwards forces applied so that the collapse could, in theory, nearly reach (but not exceed) free fall

Now its the floor joists that keep the exterior and interior columns from buckling, so they fail and come down a few floors behind the floors.

The only mass that is important is the mass of the first falling floor/debris from the top section. If its momentum on hitting the floor below applies a force greater than the fail load of the lower floors supports, then the mass of that floor or the entire building below is utterly irrelevant.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Wrong, and we've been over this more times than I can count. All that's needed for the falling upper section to exceed the elastic limit of the lower columns by a large margin is for it not to impact them simultaneously. This will be the case if either the top block tilted before beginning its descent - something which everybody in the world except you can see was the case for both WTC1 and WTC2 - or the initial failures took place over varying lengths of column, rather than lining up precisely at the level of a floor - which is highly likely, at least for the perimeter columns, because they were installed in staggered groups and were weakest at the joints between panels. No load amplification is necessary.

Dve
Click to expand...

There was no more than about 1 degree of tilt in WTC 1 before descent. Much of the 8 degree tilt occurred after the descent began. This has been proven in the last six months.

If there were separate impacts, as you posit, then why doesn't the north face of the upper section decelerate when it comes down and meets the lower section?

The most explanatory postulation for the lack of observable deceleration anywhere in WTC 1 is that a majority of the column strength at the top of the lower section or at the bottom of the upper section was removed before impact. In every one of the Verinage demolitions, where a natural collapse occurs after the intentional removal of a couple of stories, a definitive deceleration is observed in the upper section when it falls onto the lower section.

Your attempt to now expand the multiple staggered initial impact postulation to individual walls, shows the need for ever more tortured explanations by those who are intent on maintaining the fantasy that these collapses were natural and caused by fire. It is simply incredible that you would even think this could explain the lack of deceleration.
 
Last edited:
Profanz said:
How is gravity for instance automatically more powerful than a pool ball being shot at another pool ball? Are you saying that the cue ball is being slowed down by gravity? Nothing shot the upper part of the WTC down to the ground. Nothing. It started from a dead set position. And it was less in mass than what it is claimed to have destroyed.
Click to expand...

Yes can you also answer why the first plastic car didn't bounce of the secongd but they both kept going together at apparently the same momentum. Doesn't that show why the upper portion shouldn't have demolished the lower portion. Nothing shot the upper part of the WTC down to the ground. Nothing. It started from a dead set position unlike the plastic car. And it was less in mass than what it is claimed to have destroyed,
 
Tony Szamboti said:
There was no more than about 1 degree of tilt in WTC 1 before descent. Much of the 8 degree tilt occurred after the descent began. This has been proven in the last six months.

If there were separate impacts, as you posit, then why doesn't the north face of the upper section decelerate when it comes down and meets the lower section?

The most explanatory postulation for the lack of observable deceleration anywhere in WTC 1 is that a majority of the column strength at the top of the lower section or at the bottom of the upper section was removed before impact. In every one of the Verinage demolitions, where a natural collapse occurs after the intentional removal of a couple of stories, a definitive deceleration is observed in the upper section when it falls onto the lower section.
Click to expand...

Uhm.. I dare say the impact of a plane + fire would weaken the steel significantly enough to lessen the strength of support in that area.

Your attempt to now expand the multiple staggered initial impact postulation to individual walls, shows the need for ever more tortured explanations by those who are intent on maintaining the fantasy that these collapses were natural and caused by fire. It is simply incredible that you would even think this could explain the lack of deceleration.
Click to expand...

Uhm... You know, nevermind.
 
Rika said:
Uhm.. I dare say the impact of a plane + fire would weaken the steel significantly enough to lessen the strength of support in that area.
Click to expand...

There is no physical evidence of high steel temperatures in the steel that NIST salvaged from the twin towers, in case you didn't know, and their analyses show the impact damage did not remove any more than 20% of the column strength. This cannot possibly account for a lack of deceleration in the fall. You should read the NIST report if you haven't, and if you have you may have missed those parts and should reread it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom