• 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.

Fyziks 101

Turbofan said:
Ladies, and gents.

Notice many of you (all but one) have not even attempted to answer the
original questions.
Click to expand...

All have been answered and you were shown to be wrong again.

Now, just WHEN are you going to answer MY question, Turbofan?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
He still misfired in his response as you were not comparing a collapse to the impact of two cars, you were comparing scale just as I was... (IE would the impact of two matchbox cars result in the same kind of debris field as in the crash of two full scale cars?)
Click to expand...


Oh, I know, but hey... it's Turbofan. I kind of figured he didn't grasp the point at all, which is why I assumed he was referring to me and offered up my previous comment. In fact...

Turbofan said:
Notice that many of you can use cars, trains, or whatever else to simulate the collapse, but bricks are not allowed here.
Click to expand...


He seems to be genuinely confused about the conversation in general.

Once again, Turbofan: The car analogy was to make a point about scale. In the same way that crashing two Matchbox cars together is not an accurate representation of what happens in a real-world car crash, dropping bricks onto each other is not an accurate representation of a real-world building collapse.

What is it about this point that you find difficult to understand or accept?
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Oh, I know, but hey... it's Turbofan. I kind of figured he didn't grasp the point at all, which is why I assumed he was referring to me and offered up my previous comment. In fact...




He seems to be genuinely confused about the conversation in general.

Once again, Turbofan: The car analogy was to make a point about scale. In the same way that crashing two Matchbox cars together is not an accurate representation of what happens in a real-world car crash, dropping bricks onto each other is not an accurate representation of a real-world building collapse.

What is it about this point that you find difficult to understand or accept?
Click to expand...


The problem is, you guys have it all backwards and can't see it.

Scale?

Which portion of the building was bigger? The section above the impact
zone, or below the impact zone?

I keep reading this crap about a freigh train hitting a car.

As a matter of fact, it's about 1/4 to a 1/3 of the tower in scale!

The top section is not only blowing apart and ejecting itself away from the
tower, there's nothing left to push down.

Are you not watching the videos, or still frame shots?! Unreal. Kids.
 
johnny karate said:
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?
Click to expand...

Psst... Turbofan?

You rather conspicuously continue to avoid this question.

Why is that?
 
Turbofan said:
The top section is not only blowing apart and ejecting itself away from the tower, there's nothing left to push down.
Click to expand...
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're claiming that there was a progressive series of bombs planted on each floor, each one powerful enough to blast every single bit of the floor outside the building footprint? And these bombs were silent, and didn't send any material upwards?

There's not enough laughing dogs in the world, so I'll just settle for five...

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:
 
Turbofan said:
Which portion of the building was bigger? The section above the impact
zone, or below the impact zone?
Click to expand...

Lets take it slow. There is not "small piece" of the tower destroyer a "large piece" of the tower.

I've got it explained for me a couple of times now and I think I got it right. The top 30 floors came down and destroyed one floor - then 31 floors destroys next floor -then 32 floors destroys the next floor - etc etc

So the example of one truck hitting two other trucks is false and very misleading.
 
Last edited:
Turbofan said:
Are you not watching the videos, or still frame shots?! Unreal. Kids.
Click to expand...

This is my line [yet again]. You are the one peddling a single still shot to peddle your nonsense about debris shoot 'up and out', when videos directly prove you wrong. What the hell are you relying on? Make up your mind... XD


Do you still want me to give you a sample calculation on the difference between load capacity of a 1,000 ft tall column braced every 12 ft vs a 1,000 ft column unbraced for the entire height? You still haven't given me a yes or no answer to that...
e110574.gif
 
 
Last edited:
Turbofan said:
The problem is, you guys have it all backwards and can't see it.

Scale?

Which portion of the building was bigger? The section above the impact
zone, or below the impact zone?

I keep reading this crap about a freigh train hitting a car.

As a matter of fact, it's about 1/4 to a 1/3 of the tower in scale!
Click to expand...

Scale is only part of it. The other part is that the collapse was vertical.

Had the building been sideways, and somehow 1/4 mashed into the remainder (it's actually more like 7% in the case of WTC 1, but no matter), then it wouldn't have been totally crushed at all. But there are two important factors:

First, all the "destroyed" stuff still contributes to the collapse!
Second, with each floor that gets crushed, you lose energy due to breaking stuff. But you also gain energy from gravity. Another reason why the car ramming into a truck thing is totally irrelevant. Try it again where the car accelerates at 1 g as it works its way through the truck. You get a totally different answer.

Turbofan said:
The top section is not only blowing apart and ejecting itself away from the
tower, there's nothing left to push down.
Click to expand...

No. Look, you started a thread called "Fyziks 101," evidently with the intent of teaching us your superior understanding of physics. Yet you quickly reveal that you don't even understand conservation of momentum. Here you reveal that you don't understand conservation of mass, either.

So what physics do you know? I can't help if I don't know where to start.
 
Turbofan said:
The problem is, you guys have it all backwards and can't see it.

Scale?

Which portion of the building was bigger? The section above the impact
zone, or below the impact zone?

I keep reading this crap about a freigh train hitting a car.

As a matter of fact, it's about 1/4 to a 1/3 of the tower in scale!

The top section is not only blowing apart and ejecting itself away from the
tower, there's nothing left to push down.

Are you not watching the videos, or still frame shots?! Unreal. Kids.
Click to expand...

No. You are the one who has it backwards. As I said before:
ElMondoHummus said:
It is improper to think of the overall system as a smaller block impacting a bigger block. Ignoring the fact that those are completely solid all the way through, the fact is that the upper section is indeed larger than the floor immediately below the collapse initiation zone. And the upper section plus that floor is bigger still than the floor two down from the initiation zone. You draw an incorrect analogy when you draw a small block impacting a bigger block, or say things like "a truck hitting a freight train", or "one truck slowly bending into two stronger trucks". Both are incorrect modelings, neither properly model the Twin Towers on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Your continual attempts to characterize the collapse as a "a small portion hitting a big portion" demonstrates that you have no comprehension of the collapse mechanism. It was a big portion (the part of the Twin Towers above the impact/fire/collapse initiation zones) hitting a very small portion (the floor immediately below the impact/fire/collapse initiation zone), gaining that mass, not slowing down enough to counteract gravitational acceleration, then hitting the next floor, then the next, then the next, and so on. That's the model.

Until you provide some proof that you comprehend the actual mechanism of the collapse, or address any of the elements of that mechanism, there's nothing to debate. Your models, and therefore the argument you're trying to make, are simply incorrect. There's no other way to put it.
 
Turbofan said:
Anyone care to explain how the top section of the towers blew apart before
the decent of the support structure?

Check out the stop frame analysis. Why did 300 feet of tower eat itself
from the top down, without the support structure moving? Where is the
mass to pressure down the 1000 feet of building?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop2.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop3.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop4.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop5.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_stop6.jpg

In the above sequence, what happened to the 30+ inner core columns
within the upper and lower sections of the tower?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/tower_fall.JPG

If the towers fell by gravity, why is the dust and debris shooting UP and laterally
from the demo wave?

http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc_gravity1.jpg

Which object will win this battle in either scenario:
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/pressure_mass2.jpg

Bonus Question:

How did the squibs appear so suddenly upon 'collapse' if there were
large holes from the airplane entry/exit?

How did the compression occur to start squibs if the air would have
escaped through the large opening spanning several floors?
Click to expand...


I am writing this response having just decided to wade through this thread. I fearlessly predict that you will recycle every ancient, thoroughly discredited canard that gets trotted out by every loon.

Let the games begin!
 
Turbofan said:
How can you have compression and vacuum at the same time? :boggled:

I thought the tower was compressing the air to create the squibs?

Nice try.
Click to expand...


Don't you just love it when ignorant agenda-driven fools condescend to physicists and engineers?
 
Stellafane said:
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.
Click to expand...


Stellafane, your point is a good one. While shooting fish in a barrel is easy, debunking the same nonsense over and over gives the impression that we have nothing better to do. I am still on page one as I work my way through this thread, but I predict that we will end up refuting the same nonsense that Heiwa, realcddeal, and other jackasses have bored us with in the past.

It's 2008 and the dunce is babbling about "squibs"!
 
Porkpie Hat said:
This thread has to be a joke!

Pyroclastic flow?

Smashing bricks?

Beams ejecting up?

This guy is obviously taking the good people of JREF for a ride...no one, and I mean NO ONE is this stupid!

Edit: My wife wants to know if you need help contacting your magic unicorn spirit?

She's concerned!
Click to expand...


I'd be cautious about concluding that no one can be that stupid. My experience here has taught me that any sentence beginning with, "Nobody is dumb enough to...," is wrong. Somebody is just that dumb. The adjective "kirkmanic" was coined as a tribute to a poster who called himself "Malcolm Kirkman." You would think that any human making hundreds of comments over a hundred-page thread would accidentally get a few things right. You'd be mistaken. The fabulous idiot Heiwa was a truly kirkmanic dunce. Turbofan falls short of that twoofer ideal, as none of his spectacularly stupid pronouncements are his own inventions.

He merely stands on the shoulders of cretins.
 
pomeroo said:
Don't you just love it when ignorant agenda-driven fools condescend to physicists and engineers?
Click to expand...
Didn't Dylan Avery prove that it's possible to blow and suck at the same time? Wonder why TF has a problem with it?
 
Turbofan said:
What does it matter what shape the bricks are?

You guys are using cars and freight trains as anologies? You are all too
thick to even grasp the physics behind the analogy!

When one car crashes into three others, do all four cars fall to nuts and bolts
on the road?:rolleyes:

I can't believe I'm wasting my time trying to explain this stuff. Most of the
members here have double standards and just run around in circles.
Click to expand...


Psst. I don't want anyone else to hear me so I'll whisper.

The reason your analogy using bricks is being laughed at is that bricks are solid and the Towers weren't. Yes, I realize that you don't understand.
 
Turbofan said:
Ladies, and gents.

Notice many of you (all but one) have not even attempted to answer the
original questions.

Notice that many of you can use cars, trains, or whatever else to simulate
the collapse, but bricks are not allowed here.
Click to expand...



That's strange. The rest of us noticed that the original questions were ancient twoofer nonsense that has been demolished repeatedly in this forum.

Notice that you will be stopped cold every time you try to palm off solid objects as analogous to structures consisting mostly of air.
 
Porkpie Hat said:
This thread has to be a joke!

Pyroclastic flow?

Smashing bricks?

Beams ejecting up?

This guy is obviously taking the good people of JREF for a ride...no one, and I mean NO ONE is this stupid!

Edit: My wife wants to know if you need help contacting your magic unicorn spirit?

She's concerned!
Click to expand...

I doubt it, oh wait................

Turbofan said:
<snip>

No volcano, but here are explosives.

<snip>

Ask yourself why you don't see the pyroclastic flow as the building is
smoking....before collapse? Think about it.

<snip>

Why don't you try it for yourself.

Grab four bricks. Stack three of them end to end.

Get your video camera rolling...

Take the fourth and throw it down onto the three stacked bricks.

Observe the damage, and notice the debris left over.

Also be aware that you are throwing the brick much faster than free fall,
so the impact force will be much greater.
Click to expand...

Turbo, please stop, just stop.
 
Last edited:
TF has failed in this thread about as hard as this display...
 

Attachments

  • fail-owned-gift-fail.jpg
    fail-owned-gift-fail.jpg
    36.9 KB · Views: 5
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom