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

What electromagnetic forces?

Since when is gravitational force not a function of mass?
 
MikeG said:
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?
Click to expand...

OK. This goes back to something I said at the very beginning, or near the beginning of this thread. You can claim the collapse was started by whatever you want. The issue is not that the collapse occurred. The issue is what was observed during the collapse.

Let's take this further.

This entire thread is about Cole's experiment. Cole does not make any attempt to show what started the collapse, and neither have I. Cole's experiments are only to try to replicate the motion observed during the collapse, and nothing else.
 
FalseFlag said:
I have never said that one needs to understand Newtonian mechanics to understand what happened during the collapse. I have never said that.
Click to expand...

FalseFlag said:
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.
Click to expand...

No comment necessary.

Dave
 
FalseFlag said:
This entire thread is about Cole's experiment. Cole does not make any attempt to show what started the collapse, and neither have I. Cole's experiments are only to try to replicate the motion observed during the collapse, and nothing else.
Click to expand...

Yes, and Cole fails to succeed in accomplishing that for reasons already outlined in detail.

The experiment is fundamentally flawed, possibly deliberately so or possibly from mere incompetence. Either way, the experiment fails in what it purports to set out to do but does succeed in fooling its target audience - those unfamiliar with the physics and mechanics of the event.
 
FalseFlag said:
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.
Click to expand...
Stated in a simplified way, the reaction force of a floor when another floor falls on it is not necessarily equal to the force the other floor exerts on it. IF it is equal THEN the falling floor will stop. When the maximum reaction force the floor can exert is exceeded (the connections break), that now detached floor will accelerate, due to the force of the upper floor and gravity.

Magnitudes matter. And Cole makes mistakes with magnitudes due to scaling issues and maybe others.
 
FalseFlag said:
If you have even a basic misunderstanding of basic physics you can watch the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 and realize fantasize that what you are being told does not match what you are seeing. You only have to have a basic misunderstanding of basic physics to know imagine you are being lied to.
Click to expand...
FTFY.
 
MikeG said:
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.
Click to expand...


Help a layman out here.

Cuz my understanding is that they do indeed experience an equal and opposite force.

It's just that the impacted floor can resist let's say 100 Newtons of force, but the falling part brings 400 potential newtons to the collision.

So the fall continues
 
FalseFlag said:
You are entitled to your opinion. When you consider that you are still discussing scale when it has been prove to be irrelevant is proof that you might be the one fantasizing about something.
Click to expand...

No, it absolutely hasn't. It is absolutely relevant.
 
FalseFlag said:
I never said I was an expert, and your link still does not show that I have ever said that.



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.
Click to expand...

You have to understand more than just the basic principals, you also have to understand the energy values, and how they change from model to real event, Forces exert energy on mass, the way they do so is exstreamly important in understanding the Action, reaction principles.
That is where you have failed.

Electromagnetic bonding does not change with mass accumulation, Gravity and Inertia do.

Resistance of materials to collapse is stronger than gravity the smaller the model weaker the bigger the model.

Cole's energy values are ridiculously Amusingly so.

A mathematically correct model would show that!:)
 
FalseFlag said:
You are entitled to your opinion. When you consider that you are still discussing scale when it has been prove to be irrelevant is proof that you might be the one fantasizing about something.
Click to expand...

OK, lets say scale doesn't matter (Mark said, barely holding back laughter) and Cole's experiment is wholly accurate and correct.

That must mean the Twin Towers are still standing.

Or,...
 
Seymour Butz said:
Help a layman out here.

Cuz my understanding is that they do indeed experience an equal and opposite force.

It's just that the impacted floor can resist let's say 100 Newtons of force, but the falling part brings 400 potential newtons to the collision.

So the fall continues
Click to expand...

I'm guilty of over-simplification. It was FF's contention that equal and opposite meant that whatever the floor above brought to bear on the floor below the lower one could withstand it.

I am only an architect, not a physics guy. For precision with the language, see the posts of the various physics professionals, PhDs etc in this thread.
 
Criteria said:
What electromagnetic forces?
Click to expand...

There are only four forces: electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear and gravitational. When objects collide, the forces between them are electromagnetic.

Criteria said:
Since when is gravitational force not a function of mass?
Click to expand...

It is, which is one of the many reasons why scaling is critical to accurate modeling.

Dave
 
Criteria said:
What electromagnetic forces?

Since when is gravitational force not a function of mass?
Click to expand...

Steel and Concrete are held together by the electrons that form the chemical bonds, haven't you studied Maxwell, and Electro Chemical bonding of Materials?

The Electromagnetic bonds hold the building together the stronger the bonds the stronger the material, the strongest are carbon to carbon bonds in Diamonds.

I thought you were a student of Science, oops must have got that wrong.
 
Seymour Butz said:
Help a layman out here.

Cuz my understanding is that they do indeed experience an equal and opposite force.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do.

Seymour Butz said:
It's just that the impacted floor can resist let's say 100 Newtons of force, but the falling part brings 400 potential newtons to the collision.
Click to expand...

That's a useful way of putting it, yes. What actually happens is that the falling and impacted parts exert forces on each other which are zero at initial contact, but then increase as both deform, the details of the increase depending on the nature of the deformation which in turn depends on the structure and the materials. At some point, one of two things must happen: the falling part stops, or the impacted part's supports break so it starts falling. If the stopping point would be at 400N force but the structural strength of the impacted part's supports is only 100N, then the impacted part will break and start falling.

Seymour Butz said:
So the fall continues
Click to expand...

Correct.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom