For Einsteen, the Plasma Physics expert

[Hellbound]

IN response to this post.

That is true Huntsman, I cannot physically understand the process. I'm able to reproduce Greening's first stage of collapse result (without excel) but only using his theoretical simplified model.

For a new model you need new observations, new estimatioins, new calculations and you get new results. Ever seen this Huntsman ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5gMAHnm0UA

Forgive me if I cannot explain it with my limited knowledge of physics, I can't

Don't feel bad, the person who created it can't explain it with their limited knowledge of physics, either.

Try doing the analysis on the entire film, instead of a still shot where they are following the arc of a cloud created from multiple pieces of debris, and pretending it came froma single source.

Not to mention, as you continually point out in a desperate attempt to hold onto some shred of credibility, it was a highly chaotic situation. Or do you believe every piece of debris thrown out went out at a uniform speed and with non-intersecting paths, so each and every piece would make nice, parabolic arcs?

OF course, I'm sure with your plasma physics degree you knew this.

Edited to Add:

Not to mention that they ignore the fact that a HUGE FREAKING BUILDING is falling right in the middle of the cloud. And they apparently think this happens in a vacuum, and that the air it would pull down behind it doesn't affect the dust and smoke.

 

[einsteen]

I'm a software guy, about 10 years ago I finished my thesis and it had to do with 2d and 3d coulomb systems. I don't like these kinds of threads, I don't want to bluff with diploms etc. Have you not seen my comment in the video ? Please ask Tim to remove this. My only intention was the following picture, A=Greening=ideal theoretical model, B=more realistic

The choice is up to you

and what about this ?

 

[Pardalis]

and what about this ?

[qimg]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/WTC1_redLines.gif[/qimg]

The top section collapsed? Great find!

 

[Hellbound]

I'm a software guy, about 10 years ago I finished my thesis and it had to do with 2d and 3d coulomb systems. I don't like these kinds of threads, I don't want to bluff with diploms etc.

I'm not intending to bluff with diplomas, YOU started that. YOU made the claim that you were correct ebcause you knew physics. YOU based your evidence on your own expert opinion, bringing your qualifications into the discussion.

If you don't want this to be about diplomas, then SHOW THE D@MN MATH.

Have you not seen my comment in the video ? Please ask Tim to remove this. My only intention was the following picture, A=Greening=ideal theoretical model, B=more realistic

[qimg]http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/9884/image3lh2.gif[/qimg]

The choice is up to you

and what about this ?

[qimg]http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/WTC1_redLines.gif[/qimg]

No, that's not nor has it ever been your only comment. If that were your only coment there wouldn't be an argument.

Your comments have ranged across the board, and continually change whenever we show how baseless they are.

Your initial comments were about how it shouldn't have collapsed because to much mass was thrown out. Then you wen to "the top block couldn't stay together, so it couldn't collapse completely". Then you wen to "no global collapse if it didn't stay together". Then you quoted Mrs. "Keebler" Woods, who thinks buildings should fall like trees (a proposition which directly contradicts what you've put forth here).

My question is, how does your model B make the collapse any less likely? You have CONTINUALLY asserted that this is so, and have YET to provide ANY basis WHATSOEVER for this statement beyond a woefully inadequate understanding of conservation laws and momentum.

By the way, what about the second picture? I have NEVER argued that the top stayed in one piece, in fact, I've consistently argued the opposite. THat's just your STRAWMAN you're using because you don't understand logic and you're desperately trying to avoid admitting your errors.

So, tell me, why does any of what you posted mean the official story, as outlined in the NIST report, is incorrect? How does ANY of this support the idea of CD?

 

[einsteen]

Mackey said he got a physics degree, then I said I also had one. You started insulting me, with idiot, idiot and I indeed flipped out
at that moment. That's the story.
I gave a couple of examples about what I think what would happen without showing calculations, is that changing
arguments each time ? I even gave them numbers.
Mackey teached me that structures don't bounce, but what do we see ? Is it only a cloud that we see, from other
pictures you see that huge structures are ejected (think again about wtc7 who was hit) and there is no doubt about it
that a lot of mass is lost, steel beems are ejected. I would not expect that the upper structure disintegrates even before
falling a couple of stories, this was something I added to the discussion, I think we cannot ignore video evidence. Ok I had to
check what strawman means, you didn't say the top section didn't collapse,sorry about thatm, but then you now admit it does.
What do you want me to show, that a global collapse is impossible ? Everything in the whole process violates
the laws of physics and I'm not the only one who thinks that. Jim Hoffman, Gordon Ross, Steven Jones, Griffin,
they are much more better than you and me and they have totally other conclusions. I couldn't find NIST's global
collapse paper btw and I've searched my ass off.

 

[Dog Town]

there is no doubt about it
that a lot of mass is lost,

How much do you need?

 

[einsteen]

Hey NWO'er, give me as much as the Youtube boys got

 

[Hellbound]

Mackey said he got a physics degree, then I said I also had one. You started insulting me, with idiot, idiot and I indeed flipped out
at that moment. That's the story.

No, I calle dyou an idiot becaus eof your obvious lack of understanding of basic physics, which you countered by claiming a degree and a tehsis in plasma physics. Then I called you an idiot for not only your lack of understanding, but your lies attempting to back that up.

I gave a couple of examples about what I think what would happen without showing calculations, is that changing
arguments each time ? I even gave them numbers.

Yeah, you numbered them 1, 2, 3...

Sheesh.

Show the calculations to back up what you said.

Mackey teached me that structures don't bounce, but what do we see ? Is it only a cloud that we see, from other
pictures you see that huge structures are ejected (think again about wtc7 who was hit) and there is no doubt about it
that a lot of mass is lost, steel beems are ejected.

Yeah, and?

I would not expect that the upper structure disintegrates even before
falling a couple of stories, this was something I added to the discussion, I think we cannot ignore video evidence.

No one has been ignoring video evidence, but you've been doing a flimsy analysis of it based on incorrect and inappropriate phsyics (at least in the one example you've shown) and a lot of unsupported assertions.

Ok I had to check what strawman means, you didn't say the top section didn't collapse,sorry about thatm, but then you now admit it does.

I ALWAYS "admitted" the top section collapses, that was never at issue except in your mind, where for whatever reason you seem to believe that if it collapses it ceases to have mass.

What do you want me to show, that a global collapse is impossible ?

That's what you keep claiming,k so that'd be nice, yeah.

Everything in the whole process violates the laws of physics and I'm not the only one who thinks that.

How? Be specific. Show the D@MN MATH THAT PROVES YOUR BS STATEMENT THAT IT VIOLATES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. BE SPECIFIC IN WHICH LAWS ARE VIOLATED.

It's easy for you to claim this, but you've produced NOTHING to actually even hint that this is the case.

Jim Hoffman, Gordon Ross, Steven Jones, Griffin,
they are much more better than you and me and they have totally other conclusions.

Much better than you, maybe. I DON'T believe they are much better than me, because they gave up on scientific method in order to support their pre-concieved opinions. Their conclusions are wrong. They haven't shown their math, either.

I couldn't find NIST's global collapse paper btw and I've searched my ass off.

The NIST report leads to the start of the collapse. There's nothing that remains to be explained. With the exception of you and a few other idiots, every structural engineer in the world undersatnds that once the upper portion collapsed global collapse was inevitable.

You are an idiot. That's why I called you that, and why I continue to do so.

 

[Dog Town]

Hey NWO'er, give me as much as the Youtube boys got

Not how it works, "Physics" boy!

 

[einsteen]

As I said I'm in fact a no-faller, if that category of CT nutters doesn't exist already.

Let's take a concrete example, I just uploaded this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKc7szWd6nE

You cannot explain this behaviour mechanically as a falling block with an initial speed. Don't ask me for a formula because this is as basic as two cars that collide.

 

[Hellbound]

As I said I'm in fact a no-faller, if that category of CT nutters doesn't exist already.

Let's take a concrete example, I just uploaded this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKc7szWd6nE

You cannot explain this behaviour mechanically as a falling block with an initial speed. Don't ask me for a formula because this is as basic as two cars that collide.

I don't try to explain this as a falling block with an initial speed.

I explain it as a falling mass with an initial speed, which it is.

You should be able to show something to support that this somehow proves that a global collapse was impossible, right?

I mean, surely you can show that, because the top portion was collapsing at the same time as it fell into the tower, that this somehow means the mass it contained was no longer affected by gravity, right?

Just a slight notice, you can also clearly see on your video that there was VERY LITTLE debris ejected while the upper portion was collapsing so ALL the mass of this upper portion landed on the next floor down.

It helps to UNDERSTAND what you're posting, einsteen, that way you might actually have something that supports your side of the argument.

 

[WildCat]

As I said I'm in fact a no-faller, if that category of CT nutters doesn't exist already.

Let's take a concrete example, I just uploaded this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKc7szWd6nE

You cannot explain this behaviour mechanically as a falling block with an initial speed. Don't ask me for a formula because this is as basic as two cars that collide.

Your video shows the top collapsing intact until it strikes the floors below, then and only then does it break apart. And I wonder why you stopped the video when you did? BTW, you can post the video like this:

 

[uruk]

I wonder if anybody noticed this in the video linked in op of this thread. The "arc" of debris that the author claims is caused by material being eject upward. Is actually cause by the vacuum or downward rush of air following the falling material in the center. It wierd that the author ignores the dust trails being sucked down in the center of the collaps when the video in motion. It gives the dust trail the appearance of arcing upward later in the collaps sequence.

.

 

[Zygar]

I just want to know what "Plasma Physics" is.

 

[einsteen]

The movie is from 911eyewitness, it stops at that moment, those are all frames.

Huntsman, you only have to show one strange aspect of the whole, this is the weakest link of the chain. But allright this happens, next step.

the mass is indeed in the block but if you have such a behavior it's one big chaos, could you calculate the downward component of momentum ? There is nothing that can be said about that, you could estimate it only.

 

[einsteen]

Huntsman, I've send you a copy of my diplom.
I now throttle down a little bit because I often get a quarrel with my wife about my excessive computer usage, she is right. And these discussions don't make my life happier

 

[gmanontario]

The movie is from 911eyewitness, it stops at that moment, those are all frames.

Huntsman, you only have to show one strange aspect of the whole, this is the weakest link of the chain. But allright this happens, next step.

the mass is indeed in the block but if you have such a behavior it's one big chaos, could you calculate the downward component of momentum ? There is nothing that can be said about that, you could estimate it only.

Can you say "Shifting the burden of Proof" I know you can.

Why don't YOU calculate why the collapse was impossible. YOUR claim, YOU prove it. Huntsman doesn't have to prove anything. Surely a physics expert like yourself can show the basic math.

Didn't mean to speak for Huntsman of course but this tactic of the CTers makes me crazy trying to read it..

 

[Hellbound]

Huntsman, I've send you a copy of my diplom.
I now throttle down a little bit because I often get a quarrel with my wife about my excessive computer usage, she is right. And these discussions don't make my life happier

No, you sent me a jpeg of a diploma.

First, I don't read the language. I'll see about that.* But more importantly, it's a diploma. Could be anyone. With the info you've blocked out, there no way I know if it's yours or copied from a website.

In any case, it doesn't really matter, because diploma or not you're still wrong. You've yet to support your arguments and you still show a lack of understanding of physics, and I'll add to that a lack of understanding of scientific process.

You talk about "one weak link in the chain". That's all I'm asking for, a single weak link. So far you've shown a lot of unsubstantiated opinion, a lot of argumetns from ignornace and arguments from incredulity, a lot of ad hoc reasoning and strawman arguments, but nothing to support, in any fashion, your assertion that the towers could not or should not have collapsed.

You have spectacularly missed the point. You have spectacularly failed to support your claims. As such I expect you to show some integrity, and either show evidence for your claims or quit spamming the board with them.

*Duh...there's English on it as well, now that I've downloaded it where I can examine it in detail.

 

[Hellbound]

Just an addition...

the only thesis listed on UvA's doctoral thesis search that has to do with Coulomb is from a M.M. Kettenis, dated from 199.

Just PM me a yes or no if that's you, because an anonymous JPEG file doesn't do it.

That is, if you actually feel like proving yourself. I'd just as well have you support your arguments, I don't really care if you're a garbage truckdriver...I just find it hard to believe a physics major would make the elementary mistakes you have.

 

[alexg]

I wonder if anybody noticed this in the video linked in op of this thread. The "arc" of debris that the author claims is caused by material being eject upward. Is actually cause by the vacuum or downward rush of air following the falling material in the center. It wierd that the author ignores the dust trails being sucked down in the center of the collaps when the video in motion. It gives the dust trail the appearance of arcing upward later in the collaps sequence.

.

You are correct sir! I checked myself. Pause the film at about 1:46 and the 'arc' is horizontile. I left a comment about this, crediting uruk, of course.

Also, look at the seconday 'explosion' the narrator refers to. It's actually a hunk of smoke that 'sticks' in place for some reason. Maybe it was a hunk of wall still standing, leaning back and forth for a moment? It actually seems to rise a tad, much, much less than the video suggests.