Care to Comment

[jammonius]

wrong. very very wrong.

gravity is ALWAYS acting upon the cue ball. before it is hit, as it is being hit, and after it is hit. the instant the cue ball leaves the pool stick, it immediately starts slowing down, due to the friction caused by gravity. When the cue ball strikes the other ball, the cue ball stops, due to the opposing mass of the other ball AND the friction of the table.

are Truthers and physics, mutually exclusive?

the force of gravity is, at most, a bit player in the annihilation of the WTC complex and it is absurd to assert otherwise.

 

[jammonius]

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

Thanks for telling us about the cue ball. I, however, am more interested in assessing the annihilation, in 11seconds, of the WTC Twin Towers. Gravity had next to nothing to do with those episodes of annihilation because gravity is too weak a force under the circumstances.

 

[jammonius]

With the impact of the airplane to remove insulation, and multiple floors on fire, there are plenty of problems for the steel.

No there aren't. Kerosene based fires are not ever a problem for structural steel. Further, there was no fire at all below, at most, the 60th floor of each tower. Further, as to the amount of kerosene involved, it was less than enough to fill a BACKYARD SWIMMING POOL, and that is BEFORE THE DIMINUTION of the kerosene as seen in the exterior explosive event (which is all that actually happened) is factored into the supposition that kerosene (jet fuel) was involved.

Have you considered the limitation's of NIST, that steel considered as evidence in the investigation had to be identifiable by it's chalk marks?

Is there a point you are trying to make? If so make it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Tony, your own data shows there were seperate and distinct jolts... the graph has been posted numerous times for you...

And, just in case everyone had forgotten, here it is again. I've taken the numbers from the table in Szamboti & McQueen, calculated the velocities using the balanced difference approach, and calculated the acceleration the same way.


There's a clearly visible jolt at 1.7 seconds, with an intensity of -0.8G, and another of about -0.5G at 2.3 seconds. Personally I think these are within the bounds of quantisation error, so I'm not convinced the apparent jolts are anything more than that; however, no genuine scientist could present the above data and seriously claim it proves the absence of any jolt. And, let me repeat, this is Tony Szamboti's data, and he's making that claim.

Dave

 

[jammonius]

"Explosion" is just a synonym for "loud noise". Lots of people heard loud noises when the buildings collapsed. Many of the quotes used by Twoofers are from firemen in the North tower when the South tower collapsed. Firemen heard a huge explosion and didn't know what caused it until later, sometimes much later.

"Explosion" is also used as metaphor and hyperbole but we know that Twoofers come up short in the understanding of English language when it is convenient.

Oh, No!, not again. Have you still not learned that it is inappropriate to lay unsubstantiated claims to "lots of people" in the context of either what was heard, let alone what was seen on 9/11?

In fact, the witnesses actually say the annihilation of the towers was quiet, as it was heard to be in the available audio of that part of the event of 9/11.

Because it was quiet, it requires another form of explanation as to what destroyed the Twin Towers. The sound, yet again, is an important epistemological consideration in this aspect of 9/11 (annihilation of the towers) just as sound is important in ruling out the claim jetliners were involved.

The sound of the annihilation process is utterly inconsistent with a gravity driven destructive phase and is also troublesome for explanations based on explosives, however, explosives cannot be fully ruled out, in my opinion.

As posters know, I assert DEW destroyed the towers, but that is just by way of saying what I hold to be true and is not an essential element in the discussion of the excellent video that informs this thread. I do not care whether people disbelieve DEW. I do, however, assert here that gravity did not have much of anything at all to do with the annihilation seen to have taken place.

 

[jammonius]

None of the noises heard were consistent with the existence with man-made demolition.

You need to complete your claim: None of the noises heard were consistent with the existence of a gravity-only annihilation either.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Thanks for telling us about the cue ball. I, however, am more interested in assessing the annihilation, in 11seconds, of the WTC Twin Towers. Gravity had next to nothing to do with those episodes of annihilation because gravity is too weak a force under the circumstances.

Your uninformed opinion on this topic is worthless. Try working out the gravitational potential energy of a single WTC tower, then explaining why this is a negligible amount of energy. Tall buildings are energetically unstable; this is a well-known fact of civil engineering. In other words, they are easily capable of annihilating themselves with nothing more than their own weight to do it, once their collapse is initiated.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

You need to complete your claim: None of the noises heard were consistent with the existence of a gravity-only annihilation either.

Again, your uninformed opinion is worthless. All the noises consistent with a gravity-driven collapse initiated by fire and impact damage were heard and recorded on 9/11. Pretending otherwise does not constitute evidence.

Dave

 

[Myriad]

You are not Torquemada conducting an inquisition.

That is correct.

What makes a Torquemada able to compel answers is that he will take actions (specifically, actions detrimental to you) if you do not answer.

Members here cannot do that.

But what they, along with journalists, prosecutors, politicians, heads of state, engineers, scientists, business leaders, historians, and the general public can do is not take actions (specifically, actions favorable to your beliefs) if you do not answer.

Have you noticed? Truthers do not answer the difficult critical questions about their claims, and no actions occur. Cause and effect. Or rather, lack of cause and lack of effect. No oars in the water, and the boat doesn't move. No shovels in the ground, and no well gets dug. No one can make you row. No one can make you dig. Your right to do nothing prevails. So nothing happens. Congratulations!

No published papers in peer reviewed journals. No rewriting of engineering textbooks. No "inside job" in history textbooks. No public executions. No prosecutions. No exposure of vast conspiracies or space-opera weapons programs. No civil judgments in your favor. No new investigations. No political shift in consensus. No labor union support. No favorable attention from the mainstream press. No grass roots swell of support. No riots, no marches, no demonstrations, no referenda.

So, here are more questions. You have every right to refuse to answer them, of course. Just keep in mind that by exercising that right, you necessarily indicate that you don't care whether anything ever actually happens or not:

Do you expect this situation to change? And if so, by what mechanism?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[triforcharity]

No there aren't. Kerosene based fires are not ever a problem for structural steel. Further, there was no fire at all below, at most, the 60th floor of each tower. Further, as to the amount of kerosene involved, it was less than enough to fill a BACKYARD SWIMMING POOL, and that is BEFORE THE DIMINUTION of the kerosene as seen in the exterior explosive event (which is all that actually happened) is factored into the supposition that kerosene (jet fuel) was involved.

Wait, what? So fire is not a problem for steel? Great. Someone tell every single engineer, fire safety expert, firefighter, and ifre proofing company that they are wrong.

Proof please? Thanks.

 

[triforcharity]

In fact, the witnesses actually say the annihilation of the towers was quiet, as it was heard to be in the available audio of that part of the event of 9/11.

Cite your source please? I have seen a few describe as it being quieter than they expected.

I can show you many different quotes that say that it was very loud, or some variation of that.

 

[leftysergeant]

No there aren't. Kerosene based fires are not ever a problem for structural steel. Further, there was no fire at all below, at most, the 60th floor of each tower. Further, as to the amount of kerosene involved, it was less than enough to fill a BACKYARD SWIMMING POOL, and that is BEFORE THE DIMINUTION of the kerosene as seen in the exterior explosive event (which is all that actually happened) is factored into the supposition that kerosene (jet fuel) was involved.

Utter bollocks. The kerosene was just an accelerant to ignite paper and other Class A fuels which burn a hell of a lot hotter.

But kerosene is, itself, a hazard to steel. It burns hot enough to melt aluminum, which is far more than hot enough to make steel expand and crack its joints.

Freakin sunlight will lift raiolroad tracks off the ties if they do not have adequate expansion joints.

 

[Toke]

No there aren't. Kerosene based fires are not ever a problem for structural steel. Further, there was no fire at all below, at most, the 60th floor of each tower. Further, as to the amount of kerosene involved, it was less than enough to fill a BACKYARD SWIMMING POOL, and that is BEFORE THE DIMINUTION of the kerosene as seen in the exterior explosive event (which is all that actually happened) is factored into the supposition that kerosene (jet fuel) was involved.

Have you ever seen a blacksmith hammering away at non-molten steel?
Or wondered why structural steel is insulated against the heat of a fire?

Is there a point you are trying to make? If so make it.

The steel that was softened by fire and caused the collapse were also the centre of the pile fire and therefore unlikely to survive for later identification.

 

[twinstead]

I'm shocked that jammonius is again attempting to debate about a subject he knows nothing about.

Shocked I say!

 

[carlitos]

the force of gravity is, at most, a bit player in the annihilation of the WTC complex and it is absurd to assert otherwise.

Stundied. When things fall down, it has nothing to do with gravity? Awesome.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Wait, what? So fire is not a problem for steel? Great. Someone tell every single engineer, fire safety expert, firefighter, and ifre proofing company that they are wrong.

Proof please? Thanks.

I have to wonder what he thinks fire-protection on structural members if for in the first place. Perhaps he thinks it's for thermite induced fires rather than kerosene accelerated fires?

 

[BigAl]

You need to complete your claim: None of the noises heard were consistent with the existence of a gravity-only annihilation either.

Here you go.

On the 56th floor, an architect believes the building was failing structurally. Architect Bob Shelton had his foot in a cast; he'd broken it falling off a curb two weeks ago. He heard the explosion of the first plane hitting the north tower from his 56th-floor office in the south tower. As he made his way down the stairwell, his building came under attack as well. "You could hear the building cracking. It sounded like when you have a bunch of spaghetti, and you break it in half to boil it." Shelton knew that what he was hearing was bad. "It was structural failure," Shelton says. "Once a building like that is off center, that's it."

http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande
​

Ignore away!

 

[carlitos]

He breaks spaghetti in half? Heresy.

 

[funk de fino]

No problem, he and his wife and the others can tell that to the investigators, if 911 is ever investigated properly. I would think he would have a little more proof than whether or not his wife said so though. I am not accusing Tom Kenney of wrongdoing but think the fact that there may be evidence of FEMA appointees of the Bush administration being conveniently on the spot to immediately control the investigation should be investigated.

You repeated an idiotic and pathetic lie. Why should he have to prove anything? There were no FEMA guys there before the attack ready to roll. Your usual delusional and fantastical claims with no support.

I think you meant to say "after working 48 hours under stressful conditions without a break".

By the way, FEMA contract employee Tom Kenney was interviewed by Dan Rather of CBS News on Sept. 12, 2001. If he had been working 48 hours without a break in NYC that has him there by Sept. 10, 2001. Is this something you might have gotten wrong?

Your claim was wrong, man up or do one.

 

[BasqueArch]

My bolding

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.

.
.

Tony Szamboti Disputes Tony Szamboti's Claim Tony Szamboti Wrong Says Tony Szamboti

______________________________________________________
.

"Doesn't look like a straight line to me." - Stevie Wonder​

And, just in case everyone had forgotten, here it is again. I've taken the numbers from the table in Szamboti & McQueen, calculated the velocities using the balanced difference approach, and calculated the acceleration the same way.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/147644c07b7c655b3f.bmp[/qimg]

There's a clearly visible jolt at 1.7 seconds, with an intensity of -0.8G, and another of about -0.5G at 2.3 seconds. Personally I think these are within the bounds of quantisation error, so I'm not convinced the apparent jolts are anything more than that; however, no genuine scientist could present the above data and seriously claim it proves the absence of any jolt. And, let me repeat, this is Tony Szamboti's data, and he's making that claim.

Dave