If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

[FalseFlag]

In other words, as we've being saying for weeks now, the issue isn't the physics, or the sources that FF links to, but in FF's interpretation of what those sources are saying. With the weight of contra-evidence to his viewpoint approaching "staggering", I've moved from thinking the refusal to accept this was just sheer ignorance to believing that it is simply game-playing.

I have posted links to multiple credible sources. Pick just one and use it to prove that one of my statements is wrong.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You have also failed to show why an understanding of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is even remotely necessary to see what actually happened during the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, WTC7.

Because you don't understand that gravitational forces are equal and opposite, you make the mistake of thinking that the normal force is the reaction force to the gravitational force on the building, which it isn't. As a result, you're unable to understand Newton's Third Law correctly, and clearly have some serious problems with the Second Law. This leads you to a misunderstanding of what forces are involved in a collision between a falling body and a stationary one, because you're unable to identify which forces are action-reaction pairs. It's all part of your total inability to grasp any part of Newtonian mechanics correctly.

Dave

 

[MikeG]

I have posted links to multiple credible sources. Pick just one and use it to prove that one of my statements is wrong.

I'll say again.........your sources may be 100% perfect and accurate in everything they say. However, they aren't saying what you think they are saying. The problem is you, not them.

 

[MikeG]

What does your statement try to prove? How does this affect what was observed during the collapses?

Really? After everything you've been told?

Let me help you. When one floor crashes into the floor below, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that there is an equal and opposite action/ reaction between the 2 floors.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I'll say again.........your sources may be 100% perfect and accurate in everything they say. However, they aren't saying what you think they are saying. The problem is you, not them.

True it is FF's understanding that is the problem, he has himself shown Cole's experiments are intellectually dishonest so what's the point in his continued defense of them?

 

[FalseFlag]

Because you don't understand that gravitational forces are equal and opposite,
Dave

OK. Please answer this one question. How does a possible misunderstanding of action-reaction pairs prove anything? Please explain how a misunderstanding of this one concept proves anything.

 

[JSanderO]

OK. Please answer this one question. How does a possible misunderstanding of action-reaction pairs prove anything? Please explain how a misunderstanding of this one concept proves anything.

What is your obsession with "proof"?

Don't you realize that one can't prove what actually happened as in a physical or mathematical model?

 

[FalseFlag]

What is your obsession with "proof"?

Don't you realize that one can't prove what actually happened as in a physical or mathematical model?

It is possible that there I have an issue with equilibrium forces, which would be addressed by Newton's first law, and action-reaction pairs, which would be addressed by Newton's third law. I do see an issue. Before I go back and correct a whole bunch of statements, I want to know why it matters, other than for the sake of being 100 percent accurate. I do understand the importance of that, but I want to know how it will substantially change things.

 

[Dave Rogers]

OK. Please answer this one question. How does a possible misunderstanding of action-reaction pairs prove anything? Please explain how a misunderstanding of this one concept proves anything.

This from the person who said:

Simple. Provide a sample statement by one of the so-called "experts", and I will tell you whether or not it conforms to or rejects basic science.

You have claimed to be the ultimate expert on whether any statement by any expert conforms to or rejects basic science, yet you have repeatedly been shown to be unable to understand Newtonian mechanics, which is about as basic as science gets^{[citation needed]}. Your misunderstanding of this concept proves, therefore, that you're an arrogant incompetent whose opinions on anything related to physics or engineering are worthless. And that's more or less what everybody's been telling you throughout both threads.

Dave

 

[FalseFlag]

Really? After everything you've been told?

Let me help you. When one floor crashes into the floor below, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that there is an equal and opposite action/ reaction between the 2 floors.

OK. What are the action-reaction pairs between the two floors? Let's start there.

Let me explain this using the the terminology I have been using up to this point. Consider an object resting on the surface of the earth. Gravity will pull on the object and it will exert a downwards force on the earth. This is the force due to gravity. At the point of contact with the earth, the earth will exert a force on the object. This is called the normal force.

Now, let's describe the exact same thing using action-reaction pairs.

The earth will exert a downward gravitational force on an object. The object will exert an upwards gravitational force on the earth. The magnitude of each force is equal. The vectors of each force are in the opposite direction. This is not the only force involved. Now, let's consider the normal forces, which prevent the object from accelerating towards the center of the earth. The object will exert a normal force on the earth, and the earth will exert a normal force on the object. The magnitudes of the normal forces will be equal. The vectors of the forces will be in the opposite direction.

Now, please explain how using the simpler first example makes it impossible to understand what happened during the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.

 

[FalseFlag]

You have claimed to be the ultimate expert on whether any statement by any expert conforms to or rejects basic science,

I have made no such claim. If you want to say this, then post a link to my statement.

yet you have repeatedly been shown to be unable to understand Newtonian mechanics, which is about as basic as science gets^{[citation needed]}. Your misunderstanding of this concept proves, therefore, that you're an arrogant incompetent whose opinions on anything related to physics or engineering are worthless. And that's more or less what everybody's been telling you throughout both threads.

How would a misunderstanding of action-reaction pairs affect my ability to understand what happened during the collapse of the three buildings?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I have made no such claim. If you want to say this, then post a link to my statement.



How would a misunderstanding of action-reaction pairs affect my ability to understand what happened during the collapse of the three buildings?

It does not allow you to see your obvious error in the energy balances between the Gravitational force exerted by the masses, and the electromagnetic forces exerted by the (structure) of the building to provide resistance to the gravitational force.

That is why you don't see your bloody obvious admitance of Cole's experiments being intellectually dishonest.

 

[JSanderO]

It is possible that there I have an issue with equilibrium forces, which would be addressed by Newton's first law, and action-reaction pairs, which would be addressed by Newton's third law. I do see an issue. Before I go back and correct a whole bunch of statements, I want to know why it matters, other than for the sake of being 100 percent accurate. I do understand the importance of that, but I want to know how it will substantially change things.

Both a CD and the non CD collapses of the WTC were driven by gravity...

For sure the buildings were not being exploded to dust and shattered mangled steel.

Truth guys need to make an affirmative case of where and how and so forth that CD "devices" were used.

They haven't. All the do is complain that the collapses couldn't happen.

They did.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have made no such claim. If you want to say this, then post a link to my statement.

It's the statement in the post you've just replied to. Are you trying to pretend you never posted it?

How would a misunderstanding of action-reaction pairs affect my ability to understand what happened during the collapse of the three buildings?

And this is simply bait-and-switch trolling. You've claimed repeatedly that your understanding of Newtonian mechanics is what enables you to understand the details of the collapse. You're now implying that your lack of any such understanding is irrelevant to your ability to understand the details of the collapses. From this point on, you're basically arguing with yourself.

Dave

 

[FalseFlag]

Both a CD and the non CD collapses of the WTC were driven by gravity...

For sure the buildings were not being exploded to dust and shattered mangled steel.

Truth guys need to make an affirmative case of where and how and so forth that CD "devices" were used.

They haven't. All the do is complain that the collapses couldn't happen.

They did.

I have never said the collapses couldn't happen. In fact, I know for sure I have said things like plane impacts and fires could cause collapses.

The issue is how the buildings collapsed, not that they did.

 

[MikeG]

OK. What are the action-reaction pairs between the two floors? Let's start there.......

No, let's not. Let's start with this:

It wasn't the floors that failed. It was the connections between the floors and the structure. Those connections had the strength to hold the floors up under normal loads, with a safety factor. Do you understand that theoretically there could be a safety factor so slight that someone jumping up and down on the floor could have caused the connections to fail?

 

[MikeG]

........I know for sure I have said things like plane impacts and fires could cause collapses........

I simply don't believe you have said this. Please quote yourself and I will happily apologise for calling you a liar over this small point.

 

[FalseFlag]

It's the statement in the post you've just replied to. Are you trying to pretend you never posted it?

I never said I was an expert, and your link still does not show that I have ever said that.

And this is simply bait-and-switch trolling. You've claimed repeatedly that your understanding of Newtonian mechanics is what enables you to understand the details of the collapse. You're now implying that your lack of any such understanding is irrelevant to your ability to understand the details of the collapses. From this point on, you're basically arguing with yourself.

Dave

Once again, I have never said that one needs to understand Newtonian mechanics to understand what happened during the collapse. I have never said that.

Let me make this perfectly clear, even though I know you will distort it.

If you want to argue with experts on structural mechanics or architecture, it would be pointless to do so unless you were also an expert. You do NOT need to be an expert to understand basic physics. If you have even a basic understanding of basic physics you can watch the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 and realize that what you are being told does not match what you are seeing. You only have to have a basic understanding of basic physics to know you are being lied to.

When people want to debate the minutiae of structures and the like, they are simply trying to distract you. Pay attention to what you can see, and don't get caught in the traps the skeptics set. If you are not an expert on structural mechanics or architecture, don't even waste your time trying to debate someone who claims they are when they want to discuss those topics. No one knows, or will know, what happened unless there is a real investigation. The skeptics on this forum will do whatever they can to try to convince you it's not necessary, and that what you can see with your own eyes really didn't happen.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I have never said the collapses couldn't happen. In fact, I know for sure I have said things like plane impacts and fires could cause collapses.

The issue is how the buildings collapsed, not that they did.

And Cole offers an experiment that has no value to understanding the collapses, because his energy values are unrealistic, to the real event, do the the inverse square law.

You have just totally debunked yourself, and proved Cole's experiments a Fraud, Good job.

 

[FalseFlag]

I simply don't believe you have said this. Please quote yourself and I will happily apologise for calling you a liar over this small point.

Do a search. I have said this within the past few days. It might not be in this thread, but I have said this.