Apparently the tower had rockets connected that powered the acceleration. TF has totally snapped and is unconnected to reality.
Fyziks 101
- Thread starter Turbofan
- Start date
Right. For something that slow (slow means significantly less than the speed of sound), the static pressure doesn't change. What happens instead is the air is moving in one direction. This increases the dynamic pressure ahead of the air, and decreases the dynamic pressure behind the air. This is your "vacuum," and it can be quite strong, easily strong enough to entrain things like dust. Particularly if your "hand" is 64 meters across, and moving at speeds of up to 80 meters per second.
See the Bernoulli Equation for a numerical description.
The Towers did not "blow up." Anyone who ignores the extensive scientific reports to the contrary, ignores focused answers to her questions, but instead returns to the argumentum ad ignoratium that it "looked like it" -- as though all of us and the hordes of scientists who worked on the problem never actually saw a single picture of the phenomena in question -- is beneath notice.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
It is likely accelerating. And there is resistance, but the resistance is not nearly enough to stop the collapse from continuing to accelerate, and certainly not enough to stop it. Think of a truck getting struck by a freight train.
The collapsing portion is accelerating. It starts from rest, and it moves, ergo it must accelerate. A precise estimate of its acceleration is difficult but an average can be deduced from the "crush down" timing.
To the other individual who claimed this was suspicious, of course it's accelerating, and this does not violate Conservation of Momentum. Momentum is only conserved (e.g. stays the same) if there are no external forces on the system in question.
There is an external force -- gravity. I would have thought that was obvious, but there it is.
I'm having "Net Force = Zero" flashbacks here.
To anyone reading, if you can't understand the above, you know nothing about physics, and should avail yourself of this opportunity to learn from those here who do.
Last edited:
Anti-sophist
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 1,542
You get left with a really ****** analogy?
I have no absolutely no idea what this means.
In the piles of rubble.
Newton's third law makes it possible. His second law too. In fact, -all- of the laws of physics make it possible by the very nature of the event being completely consistent with it. Feel free to name the law of physics that is violated.
Everyone else has responded to this point by pointing out that you were in fact wrong when you stated things went upward. I'm less interested in that particular argument because, quite simply, even if things went up, there's absolutely no violation, at all, with any laws of physics.
Oh, in that case in both scenarios both pieces will destroy the other.
You don't need a sealed volume to create compression. Your mental model of physics is equally as awful as your mental model of FDRs.
Last edited:
Since Steve mentioned the debris at freefall, I figured he was talking about the collapse NOT accelerating more than what would be natural.
Mancman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 1,008
A collapsing mass of floors can accelerate over time whilst conserving momentum. This is very simple.
steve s
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Messages
- 5,865
Point taken. Instead of saying that it wasn't accelerating at all, I've should have said not nearly as much as the troofer claim. They're always claiming "freefall collapse" and it obviously isn't. As I mentioned above, debris which accelerates away leaves the collapse far behind.
Someone (probably Gravy) did an analysis showing how far some debris falls compared to the collapsing portion.
I'm heading out for lunch. See ya.
Steve S.
steve s
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Messages
- 5,865
Obviously at the very beginning it had to accelerate from a dead stop. But see my post immediately above.
Steve S.
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
Making a claim like "the debris was ejected upwards" and basing it solely on still frames is, honestly, mindbogglingly retarded. Why would you even attempt to use still frames to determine motion, when video is readily available? Dumb, dumb, dumb...
Take some flour and make a thin layer on your kitchen table. (Get permission from your mom, first!) Then, holding your high school physics book (hey, might as well get some use out of it) with the cover facing the table, drop it on the thin layer of flour.
What happens? What do you think caused it; thermite, demolition charges, or perhaps something else?
Take some flour and make a thin layer on your kitchen table. (Get permission from your mom, first!) Then, holding your high school physics book (hey, might as well get some use out of it) with the cover facing the table, drop it on the thin layer of flour.
What happens? What do you think caused it; thermite, demolition charges, or perhaps something else?
Last edited:
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,496
Turbofan: If the collapse of the towers was so odd and in such violation of the laws of physics that a layperson such as yourself can perceive these oddities and violations merely by looking at photos of the collapse, then why hasn't any of this been discerned and/or revealed by a single MSM outlet, law enforcement agency, or investigative body on the planet?
Making a claim like "the debris was ejected upwards" and basing it solely on still frames is, honestly, mindbogglingly retarded. Why would you even attempt to use still frames to determine motion, when video is readily available? Dumb, dumb, dumb...
I read this and was initially struck by its ignorance, rereading it didnt change my initial assesment.
You really dont think sequenced frames dont help in determining what is going on in investigating a multitude of incidents?
Better tell that to the official and conspiracy camps regarding the Zapruder film, who cited specific frames to make the points they did, in some cases.
Man, give me a break, the idiocy seems rampant around here. People actually type this stuff as believable
This is a beautiful illustration of a strawman argument. Observers will note that the original statement only referred to determining motion from still frames, whereas the respondent expanded this to include any usage of still frames. The respondent therefore is attacking the previous poster for something he never said.
I provide this since many in the Truth Movement have trouble with the terminology, and use the strawman argument incorrectly. With practice, this can be avoided.
Turbofan,
Why do you bother coming here, and asking these questions? You ask questions about a field of study which you have no knowledge of. People here can answer your questions over an over, but for you to understand the answers, you would need a certain degree of knowledge that, once again, you do not have. It's a dead end that always ends up the same way. Truthers have little or no knowledge of the fields in which they try to ask questions of, and so the default position for truthers is to simply assume that the people answering their questions are ignorant, when in fact, it's the truthers who are the ignorant ones. Add to that situation the fact that there is nothing anyone here can ever do, or say, to change the minds of truthers. So what's the point?
Why do you bother coming here, and asking these questions? You ask questions about a field of study which you have no knowledge of. People here can answer your questions over an over, but for you to understand the answers, you would need a certain degree of knowledge that, once again, you do not have. It's a dead end that always ends up the same way. Truthers have little or no knowledge of the fields in which they try to ask questions of, and so the default position for truthers is to simply assume that the people answering their questions are ignorant, when in fact, it's the truthers who are the ignorant ones. Add to that situation the fact that there is nothing anyone here can ever do, or say, to change the minds of truthers. So what's the point?
A W Smith
Philosopher
Read bazants paper, read gregory uriche's paper, will be back later with the link
Last edited:
Readers, what Mackey spouts is in fact a strawman. Nice spin, i gotta hand it to ya, your a smart guy.
Read this quote by the poster:
Why would you even attempt to use still frames to determine motion, when video is readily available? Dumb, dumb, dumb...
I think it makes my point. The Zapruder film was used to determine motion, frame by frame, and video was available. For all we know, the poster using the still frames may well have other forms of evidence to buttress his arguement. DUMB, DUBM, DUMB is this case squarely applies only to the guy who uttered this drivel.
Last edited:
Evilgiraffe
Scatterer of X-rays
Turbofan is a classic troll. No amount of patient explaining will ever get the point through to him. If he is shown to be wrong, he'll simply ignore the rebuttal and continue to claim that he's winning the argument.
It appears that his only purpose here is to bait arguments and "pwn" the JREF'ers.
Readers, what Mackey spouts is in fact a strawman. Nice spin, i gotta hand it to ya, your a smart guy.
... and this is not a "strawman," but a simple mistake. The sarcasm is also not an argumentum ad hominem, since it is not used as an argument; rather it is only a disjoint comment.
He may but I would say he's lying and ask him (her or it) if he (she or it) knew that withholding evidence in a murder was illegal?