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

[Seymour Butz]

Where does Szamboti make the same mistake I did? Where are this statements that are incorrect?

Right here in this forum.

What do you think about troofer "peer review" now?

 

[waypastvne]

What do you think the results will be?

Force will double with the 8 pound.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Redwood
But what happens if, in a battle of giant robots, one of them attempted to use the real Eiffel Tower as a battle club? The whole thing would fall apart! It couldn't possibly survive the same accelerations as the miniature scale model. It's that damned scaling again! (Scaling would also make the existence of giant robots itself problematic.)

Works pretty well in Hollywood, they have giant Robots that can pick up a supertanker and use it as a club.

And it only weighs 2,500 tons! (About 1/6 that of a WWII Liberty Ship.) So it exceeds even the lifting ratio of an ant! I guess that scaling really doesn't matter!

 

[Drs_Res]

My first and last post in this thread.

No. If you can't explain to us how explosives work, then stop telling us it had to be explosives.

Where have I said the collapse had to be due to explosives?
I have said no such thing. I have asked questions to get you skeptics to come to that conclusion, but I have made no claim that the collapse had to be due to explosives. If anything, I would have said explosives are the most likely explanation of the observed motions. I never said they had to be the reason. There is a big difference.

The fact that I posted Cole's video and am explaining what he did does not make his assertions my assertions. I just agree with him. If you want an explanation, ask him.

Really?

FalseFlag:

Sad part, you accept Coles videos at face value and expect everyone to to prove him wrong.

I don't expect anyone to prove him wrong, because it can't be done. The issue isn't trying to prove Mr. Cole wrong, the issue is trying to prove that the laws of physics are wrong. That can't be done.

Mr. Cole's experiments prove that an object will decelerate as it impacts objects below it. This is expected because of Newton's third law. He proves this repeatedly. The only time this doesn't happen is when he applies external forces to remove the obstacles below the falling object. Why is this relevant? Simple. The top floors of the WTC should not have caused the entire building to collapse. The lower floors should have caused the top floors to decelerate and stop. This didn't happen. The only way it can happen is if the lower floors were removed by an external force. That is what the experiments demonstrate, and the conclusion is that controlled demolition brought the WTC towers down. You can see it for yourself. You don't need words to explain it, you can see the processes in action.

You just can't handle what you see, because it makes the tens of thousands of posts in support of the official story meaningless and pure nonsense. You just can't deal with that.

It must suck to be a skeptic, because, as I'm sure you've heard before, "The obvious stares you in the face."

You do know what that m means, yes?

Yes. M = mass. As mass changes, the force changes, but the formula stays the same.

Let me continue, because I know what your next argument is going to be.

You are going to claim that the mass of the WTC is much greater, so Mr. Cole's experiments are meaningless. This is nonsense.

If Mr. Cole dropped a two-ton steel beam onto his mock towers they would be crushed. This is obvious. But, if you had a super high speed camera, you would be able to see the two-ton steel beam decelerate as it impacted each of Mr. Cole's mock floors. This is expected because of Newton's third law.

When the WTC towers collapsed, they continued to fall at or near freefall speeds. The only way this could have happened is if an external force removed the lower floor before the falling part above hit it. Controlled demolition is the ONLY way the WTC towers could have collapsed the way they did. The laws of physics support this, and Mr. Cole's experiments demonstrate this as well.

Yes, and if you have two items with the same ratio of length, thickness, and width but one is twice as long, twice as wide and twice as thick as the other what do you think the difference in the mass between them will be?

Newton's formulas apply to solid point masses. Attempting to shoehorn a structural system of coljmns, beams, floors, and connecting mechanisms into Newton's formulas is horribly simplistic.

Absolute drivel.

Let me translate: Word salad intended to confuse the weak-minded.

The videos exist, and they should be watched. The conclusion to be made is simple: the only way to explain the motion seen in the WTC collapse is to remove the supports of the lower floors as the upper mass fell. The only way to achieve this is to use explosives. Using explosives to remove floors and building supports is called a controlled demolition. No other experiment or explanation can match the motion seen. Period.

Hahaha, wow. Coming up on 15 years and you still have no idea how the towers were constructed

http://i.imgur.com/mnW1wgW.jpg

See those dark columns in the middle. How come those weren't still standing after the collapse?

Once again, you are insinuating that the building had some sort of design flaw. It did not. The top floors, the upper center column, and the outer support structure of the towers all came straight down through the lower, undamaged structure of the building. The fall of the top part of the building should have been slowed down, and eventually stopped, by the undamaged, lower part of the building. This did not happen. The reason it did not happen is because the lower floors were removed in sequence as the top fell. The only explanation for this is controlled demolition.
In 15 years not one organization or person has performed a real-world experiment that supports the collapse as described in the official story. No one.

For clarification, all of the building didn't come straight down. Some of the building structure was blasted laterally, in sequence, as the towers fell. This also supports CD.

I'm out.

 

[NoahFence]

On the other end of the spectrum you have AE911truth. They examine all of the evidence. They do everything they can to be completely open and transparent. Their conclusions do not support those in the official story. All they want is a new investigation.

AE911 doesn't even acknowledge half of 9/11.
They don't even talk about 50% of it.

Unreal.
Of all the absurd statements you've made, that may be the most laughable.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

OK, so NIST does not investigate the collapse (after initiation) of WTC1 and WTC2. Instead they refer to the Bazant paper to explain what happens. Now, skeptics claim the paper doesn't necessarily apply to the collapses. If you take away the Bazant paper, then there is NOTHING that explains the collapse, other than skeptics on forums like this.

And skeptics have no problem with this?

Wow.

Actually the Greening& Benson computer model explains the collapses fairly accurately,
Though simplifications had to be made for the machine.

 

[Steve001]

What else explains the motions observed?

Once again, ask all you want. I am not an expert on gravity; therefore, I will not discuss the subject of gravity.

Gravity.

 

[waypastvne]

Really?

Thanks for that. Saved me a lot of trouble.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Your claim is that Cole doesn't show accelerations similar to those of the WTC towers, other than gravity? Are you sure about this?

There were two experiments were gravity driven theories were tested. Did the motions in those experiments match what was observed? No.

What experiment most closely matched what was observed? What force was necessary to duplicate the observed motion? Was it gravity? No. The necessary force was created by firecrackers which removed the supports so that the collapse could progress all the way to the ground.

Each time you deny this, you prove that you are in denial.

And you are still in denial that Cole's experiment shows anything other than that his structure required firecrakers to form a progressive collapse.

It says nothing about the WTC structure, because the WTC Structure is different.

You still seem to be failing at this point.

Let's say I have I have a basketball and a bowling ball, both are approximately the same size and shape. If I drop the basketball from a height of 2 m onto a concrete floor and observe the result, then what does that observation tell me about what will occur when I drop the the bowling ball? The accelerations, and velocities of impact will be identical. The floor they hit is identical, the size and shape of the ball are identical. So why can I not predict anything about how the bowling ball will react based purely on the Basketball's action?

If you can answer this, then you are on you way to understanding why Cole's experiment is of no value beyond Cole's experiment.

 

[PhantomWolf]

nor does Bazant's paper necessarily apply to the real collapse.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

OMG, that is the best one ever.

Actually pgimeno is correct here. Bazant's paper is an upper limit of the possible collapse. What it proves is that if in the worse case scenario for global collapse, the top of block of the building falls in such as way onto the lower part that the lower part can put up the greatest resistance it can, that the building still would have shown a global collapse.

Bazant's paper is not saying "This is what happened" but rather "these are the worse possible conditions for global collapse to occur, and see, it still has enough energy that would have occurred without anything other then gravity."

The basis of the paper is that if Global Collapse still would have occurred once the top block started falling even is everything had gone right to try and arrest that collapse, then any other scenario of a purely gravity collapse would clearly have the energy to do the same thing.

Bazant's paper simply shows that no extra energy was required for the collapses to occur as observe, that's it. It isn't trying to tell us which gravity driven mechanism is right, just that a gravity driven mechanism had the energy to cause the global collapse without any help from the like of explosives.

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

A more colossal lack of understanding could probably not be expressed.

I suspect it isn't that you can't get it but rather than you really don't want to. You certainly seem to go out of your way to avoid getting it.

He reminds me of Bob in that sense....uncanny. LOL

 

[ProBonoShill]

LOL, that video is a perfect illustration of what is taking place in this thread!

 

[ProBonoShill]

Ah, the old "I may have mis-spoken" pseudo-admission. You have steadfastly maintained over several pages that a falling body must experience a deceleration when it strikes any obstacle, however flimsy, and attacked, insulted and even threatened anyone who disagreed with you, and now that you've realised what an idiot you've been making of yourself you have the nerve to claim that you were actually right but used the wrong word here and there. And further down the thread I see that, even though you now admit that your understanding of the dynamics of a falling body was completely wrong, you still insist that Cole's video, which makes precisely the same error, is irrefutable. And you think that this somehow constitutes admitting when you're wrong.

Do you now want to follow through on your threat of exposing me as a fraud, now that you've admitted I was right and you were wrong all along? Or do you think, maybe, you owe me an apology?

Dave

Says the person who has just admitted that his understanding of physics was completely wrong.

Dave

Interpersonal skills, humility and basic decency.

Dave

I see he doesn't even have the decency to reply to these.

What will the lurkers think? HAHAHAHA

He's done as much if not more to debunk Cole's idiocy than we ever could. Hope the lurkers are taking note.

 

[ProBonoShill]

My first and last post in this thread.



Really?





I'm out.

LOL Hilarious, the free comedy never ends!

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Giordano
My apologies for not rereading the entire thread, but has anyone else already pointed out that the proper title for the OP is "If Falseflag doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."?

Show me an experiment that proves Cole is wrong. If you can't do that, your post is meaningless.

Cole's "experiment" is self-debunking. But why bother with experiment when reality will suffice?

 

[MikeG]

.........Your word is useless as you have demonstrated yourself to lie. Nobody with a brain will be taking your word for anything.........

Indeed (thanks to Drs_Res):

Where have I said the collapse had to be due to explosives? I have said no such thing..........

Here:

The only way it can happen is if the lower floors were removed by an external force. That is what the experiments demonstrate, and the conclusion is that controlled demolition brought the WTC towers down.

Controlled demolition is the ONLY way the WTC towers could have collapsed the way they did

the only way to explain the motion seen in the WTC collapse is to remove the supports of the lower floors as the upper mass fell. The only way to achieve this is to use explosives. Using explosives to remove floors and building supports is called a controlled demolition.

The only explanation for this is controlled demolition

Universally known as lying.

 

[jaydeehess]

Here:

Universally known as lying.

or perhaps

"I forgot"

 

[GlennB]

or perhaps

"I forgot"

"I mis-spoke" [/everydamnpoliticiancaughtinalie]

 

[Dave Rogers]

"I mis-spoke" [/everydamnpoliticiancaughtinalie]

He's actually used that one.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

Here is an experiment with a model that has some structural features similar to the WTC twin towers:
- three floors per column length
- floors spanning between perimeter and a core
- floors attached to columns such that the connections (in this case: permanent magnets that create friction between floor end and column) can resist a few times the static weight of a floor
- Columns joined with splice plates (also held together with magnets)
- Floors provide lateral support to the tower such that the entire structure can resist some lateral loading (such as wind or the impact of a heavy object); it then swayes a few times back and forth

The choice of magnets may seem odd - the main reason is for the model not to be damaged when connections "break" - the tower can be re-assembled many times to repeat the experiment.

The collapse in this experiment is started by offsetting the columns of the top segment's (three floors) left wall and core by about acolumn width and letting go. This makes the falling columns impact the floor below near its connections, and at the time makes the bottom floor of the falling top section impact the standing column below.

As you can see, the floors quite easily shear off, and the entire structure collapses completely.

In the slo-mo, you can see the right wall of the top section break completely loose after having dropped less than it's own length; from then on, it descends at free fall acceleration. It reaches the ground first, but barely ahead of the internal collapse front.
The core and the left wall zig-zag down with some delay after all floors have rushed down, while the right wall is pushed outwards by falling floors, and its lower habe topples over.

This simple model shows a number of features of the real WTC collapses:
- Floors falling ahead of columns
- Floors collapsing with an acceleration not far from g
- Wall peeling and toppling outwards
- Core failing last