WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Astonishing this would have to be explained to someone.
But then again, Turbofan is special. He's a truther.
Fyziks 101
- Thread starter Turbofan
- Start date
But then again, Turbofan is special. He's a truther.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,960
Apples and oranges... can we compare apples and apples please?
Earth's physics please... where do you get this assertion?
I hope you realize that these columns were assemblies of several story sections, welded together, and not one long continuous single piece.
Because the dust is not shooting up and laterally.
It has been ejected laterally and is falling from the start, You ignored my post earlier as well as the video bje posted, as such you won't understand the concept at all.
Force a sufficient volume of air into compression faster than it can escape the containment... simple concept
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Well, it's not really correct to call the trailing segment a "vacuum". But it definitely is an area of lowered pressure, sort of like the area following a semi-tractor-trailer on a highway.
steve s
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Messages
- 5,865
It doesn't need to be totally devoid of air to be considered a vacuum. When you use a straw to drink, you're creating a vacuum, but not a total vacuum.
Steve S.
Last edited:
The WTC wasn't solid? 
I guess it's considered a gas, or fluid then?
Of course the steel and concerte as considered solid.
The analogy is fine. Both the sections above and below the impact zone
were created equal for the most part...except the lower sections were
stronger as you get closer to the ground level. This of course makes it
even more odd to completely collapse.
I guess it's considered a gas, or fluid then?
Of course the steel and concerte as considered solid.
The analogy is fine. Both the sections above and below the impact zone
were created equal for the most part...except the lower sections were
stronger as you get closer to the ground level. This of course makes it
even more odd to completely collapse.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Sure, okay. That definition does fit the system being described. I can go with that.
Yes, I was considering vacuums to be entirely evacuated areas when I wrote that. But either way, we both agree about the area being lowered in pressure, and both obviously agree on Turbofan's fallacy.
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,960
People need room to move around inside the buildingThe WTC wasn't solid?
Your bricks would work fine if the trade centers were uniformly solid like trees, but that is not the case here.... nice hand wave...
And you're using bricks as an analogy to tell me why a 110-story tower should not have collapsed... Where the structure is made up a tiny fraction of the interior surface area of the foot print.... this is Jone's cinder block experiment all over again
steve s
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Messages
- 5,865
The WTC wasn't solid?
Skyscrapers are more than 90% empty space. It would be difficult to fit any furniture or people inside of them if they were solid.
No, it's garbage.
Totally ignoring the fact that the mass of the collapsing portion is steadily increasing, thus its momentum is steadily increasing. Kind of tough to stop something when its momentum is constantly getting greater.
Steve S.
No it wasn't solid. The individual components were solid themselves but the complex wasn't solid. If you aren't stupid, why do you say so many majorly stupid things?The WTC wasn't solid?
I guess it's considered a gas, or fluid then?
Of course the steel and concerte as considered solid.
The analogy is fine. Both the sections above and below the impact zone
were created equal for the most part...except the lower sections were
stronger as you get closer to the ground level. This of course makes it
even more odd to completely collapse.
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
Heehee, reminds me of the Lucky Louie opening:
Man why couldn't that show have lasted longer? WHY?????
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
The WTC wasn't solid?
I guess it's considered a gas, or fluid then?
Of course the steel and concerte as considered solid.
The analogy is fine. Both the sections above and below the impact zone
were created equal for the most part...except the lower sections were
stronger as you get closer to the ground level. This of course makes it
even more odd to completely collapse.
That's sort of a false dilemna fallacy you're presenting. The Twin Towers were not solid in the same manner that a tree, for example, is. The towers were actually a large number of enclosed empty spaces.
Also, your analogy fails to consider the fact that the falling section never had to pit its momentum against the entire structure as a whole. It was facing single floors at a time, or to be more specific, single segments defined by where the columns were interconnected. It is a mistake to not consider the post-initiation system a series of floor-by-floor failures. That may be an oversimplification, but it is indeed in the right direction, whereas thinking of the lower section as a "whole" in the sense that a solid block is one, homogenous, continuous piece, is mistaken.
There are various imperfect analogies that can help understand the structure's difference from a solid object: House of cards, toothpick building, honeycomb, etc. (none really describing the towers properly, but getting the point of lack of solidity throughout the structure across), but the important thing is to remember that the Twin Towers are not solid like a tree trunk, or pillar, or some other object is that's solid all the way through. They are not.
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 8,368
In another thread, I suggested that it might be great if for just one time we completely ignored a Truther post and let it drop off the forum front page with nary a reply, just to show our impatience and disgust with posts that are obvious attempts to troll, consist of utter nonsense, make claims debunked years ago a million times, and were clearly written by people with no interest whatseover in actually engaging in meaningful discussion and learning anything.
In retrospect, this post (starting with its very title) would have made an excellent candidate for that.
In retrospect, this post (starting with its very title) would have made an excellent candidate for that.
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
Honestly though, the alternative is this forum dropping to two threads a day. And as circular and pointless giving these trolls the time of day is, it certainly passes the time on boring office Thursdays.
Uhmm...what calendar are you on? Today is Saturday....Honestly though, the alternative is this forum dropping to two threads a day. And as circular and pointless giving these trolls the time of day is, it certainly passes the time on boring office Thursdays.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
No wonder no one else came to the office today!
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
Yeah but right now the 9/11 forum's activitiy level isn't as important. I can leave here and go look at porn if I want.
It would be even tougher to create that space if the support structure
wasn't solid...wow...
No, I'm not ignoring it! I'm questioning it. That's the problem, the collapsing
portion is accelerating! No resistance! Conservation of Momentum!
At work?!?!?!Yeah but right now the 9/11 forum's activitiy level isn't as important. I can leave here and go look at porn if I want.
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
steve s
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Messages
- 5,865
Wow, what? Now it's obvious you're just trolling. Please go away.
What's your evidence that the collapsing portion is accelerating. Videos show that debris which falls away from the tower (debris which really is in freefall) accelerates away from the collapsing portion and leaves it far behind. The collapsing portion doesn't appear to be accelerating at all.
Steve s.