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

[jaydeehess]

Do we?

Here is your original post.



Now that you watched the video you still won't correct yourself. You are also not paying any attention to the words they are using.

Ah yes the continually changing details. I do not fault him for it. Traumatic experience for sure, being trapped in a burning building, smashed Windows all along the south face, dust, smoke, sirens.

In other statements, Jennings or Hess both say the stairwell was so dark, pitch black, full of dust and smoke, that they had to feel their way back up. Explosion at the sixth floor but they exit to the eighth. Why not the seventh? Climbed right past it in the dark? Maybe.
At any rate, Hess is on record saying it was NOT an explosion. So Jennings' characterisation is certainly not the slam dunk testimony you are trying to say it is since it's directly contradicted by the guy standing there with him!

 

[PhantomWolf]

Now that you watched the video you still won't correct yourself. You are also not paying any attention to the words they are using.

Jennings talks about hearing explosions the entire time he was in the building. How many CD's occur by setting of one charge at a time over a period of hours?

When compared with the fact that many, many, many people report explosion like noises in fires, and we know that WTC 7 was on fire while Jennings was inside awaiting rescue, which is the more likely. A sadistic CD team was taunting him by setting of charges in the building one at a time, or that the explosion like noises he could hear were associated with the huge office fires busy engulfing the building above him?

 

[PhantomWolf]

If there was no explosion, what threw him from the 6th floor to the 8th? Are you trying to say there were poltergeists in the building?

Nothing. He stated that they were on a landing on the 6th floor and there was an explosion and the landing fell away leaving him dangling, that he was pulled up and then they climbed back up to 8th floor. At least get what he says right.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Oh, one last thing. You have made claims about explosives regarding what should be heard and not heard. Please list your qualifications to make such statements.

You didn't bother watching the video I posted of real CDs did you? Including the one where the explosion is unmistakable 3km from the site?

Watch the reaction to Cement Truck explosion from a mile and a half (2.4km) away, and the explosives used in this are a tiny fraction of what would have been required for the WTC.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Redwood
Cole's "experiment" is self-debunking. But why bother with experiment when reality will suffice?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2RgTz_vJA7w

Really? Why do you even bother?

The verinage discussion is such a waste of time. Show me a verinage collapse where acceleration remains constant, or near constant, throughout the collapse. Once you show that, then we can talk.

According to AE911T's resident expert, David Chander (high school math teacher), WTC 1 fell at an average of 0.64 g. Since it must, by definition, have fallen at g in between floors. it could not have fallen at a constant acceleration either. You debunk yourself again. Why do I bother? Let's say I have a misplaced faith in the ability of even the most stupid and most deluded people to learn.

The point is that once a collapse begins, nothing in the world will stop it from continuing. Someday, when you grow up, you may understand...

 

[PhantomWolf]

I guess the call should be, prove Greening wrong.

 

[Redwood]

Still looking for some math, guys
dv/dt=acceleration, d(mv)/dt=Force
m of a falling body don't change. without delta-v, there ain't no force...

The problem isn't calculus. The problem is in looking at the reference frame of a falling body as though it were an inertial reference frame. It isn't.

Step back and observe a falling body from an inertial reference frame. The falling body is constantly under the force mg. For a body falling through air, or hitting an insubstantial object that can't support even its static load, like a brick on a piece of tissue paper, the NET force is mg - air resistance, or resistance of the tissue. The NET force remains positive, and there is no deceleration.

If, OTOH, our brick encounters an object that could support its static load of mg (say a pane of glass), the glass will apply a force equal to its ability to carry a static load. If the brick, by dint of its dynamic load, exerts a greater force, the glass breaks but the brick experiences a net force temporarily greater than g and the brick actually decelerates, then accelerates after the glass is broken.

This just brings me back to my main point: Newton's Laws of Motion are useless for studying the WHY of a progressive collapse!

 

[ozeco41]

The problem isn't calculus. The problem is in looking at the reference frame of....[the assertion or claim]

So true so often.

Step back and observe...

Good advice in many situations - not just this one.

This just brings me back to my main point: Newton's Laws of Motion are useless for studying the WHY of a progressive collapse!

Maybe not entirely useless BUT only relevant AFTER you have decided HOW the collapse progressed - otherwise you don't know WTF you are discussing or explaining. THEN - a step or two later - the "WHY" comes into play - and Newton's MAY be relevant for some of the details.

BUT NOT for the whole big picture.....

Safest default position - if a truther mentions "Newton" you can be near certain that what follows will be wrong.

 

[ozeco41]

I guess the call should be, prove Greening wrong.

An interesting challenge. I don't know that he was. Nor to I know that he was right with his reasoning - his answers - gross conclusions - certainly were right.

Greening was one of that group of early pioneers who did some great work. Some of them got bits of mechanism right. Some got "right answers for wrong reasons" - a pernicious error that is often hard to spot.

Do we have a link to explanations/discussion of his momentum based calculations?

Could be on The911Forum but I cannot locate it there. The TV video of the YouTube link is too bland to show his foundation assumptions of mechanism.

 

[pgimeno]

Step back and observe a falling body from an inertial reference frame. The falling body is constantly under the force mg. For a body falling through air, or hitting an insubstantial object that can't support even its static load, like a brick on a piece of tissue paper, the NET force is mg - air resistance, or resistance of the tissue. The NET force remains positive, and there is no deceleration.

If, OTOH, our brick encounters an object that could support its static load of mg (say a pane of glass), the glass will apply a force equal to its ability to carry a static load. If the brick, by dint of its dynamic load, exerts a greater force, the glass breaks but the brick experiences a net force temporarily greater than g and the brick actually decelerates, then accelerates after the glass is broken.

Everyone keeps forgetting that whatever was at the bottom has mass, even the tissue.

Therefore conservation of linear momentum applies, and unless the materials are so flexible as for the maximum deceleration during their compression to be < g, which happens very seldom (think crash tests, for example - typical accelerations of the occupants are >g), the net result is that the top object must decelerate. And that's independent of the connections. Even if the tissue is thrown upwards in a vacuum in such a way that when the brick reaches it, the tissue is on the top of its ballistic trajectory (vertical speed zero), you'll get deceleration of the brick. Probably not measurable, because of the differences in mass, but it will be there. In the case of a floor slab, the mass will be far bigger, and not negligible at all, and the materials are obviously not compressible enough to dampen the fall. The deceleration must be present.

This just brings me back to my main point: Newton's Laws of Motion are useless for studying the WHY of a progressive collapse!

Still agreed.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Greening was one of that group of early pioneers who did some great work. Some of them got bits of mechanism right. Some got "right answers for wrong reasons" - a pernicious error that is often hard to spot.

Do we have a link to explanations/discussion of his momentum based calculations?

Try http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html - I think it's all linked from there.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Aerodynamic forces are necessary to explain flight. Cole is discussing downward motion. Those are two different concepts.

So downward motion, or the lack of it, is irrelevant to flight, throwing a plastic kit across a room results in motions identical to those of a flying airplane, and an experiment to compare the directions of motion of a model and a real airplane has nothing to do with directions of motion. And anyone who disagrees with all of this cannot possibly be a trained physicist.

Keep going, FalseFlag. I'm sure this sort of brilliance will convince the experts to give you a new investigation in no time.

Dave

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

An interesting challenge. I don't know that he was. Nor to I know that he was right with his reasoning - his answers - gross conclusions - certainly were right.

Greening was one of that group of early pioneers who did some great work. Some of them got bits of mechanism right. Some got "right answers for wrong reasons" - a pernicious error that is often hard to spot.

Do we have a link to explanations/discussion of his momentum based calculations?

Could be on The911Forum but I cannot locate it there. The TV video of the YouTube link is too bland to show his foundation assumptions of mechanism.

It was on physorg where most of the early work was done. The computer program uses floor impact and overloading to strip the floors and destroy the connections using mathwell's equation for a pinned beam.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

An interesting challenge. I don't know that he was. Nor to I know that he was right with his reasoning - his answers - gross conclusions - certainly were right.

Greening was one of that group of early pioneers who did some great work. Some of them got bits of mechanism right. Some got "right answers for wrong reasons" - a pernicious error that is often hard to spot.

Do we have a link to explanations/discussion of his momentum based calculations?

Could be on The911Forum but I cannot locate it there. The TV video of the YouTube link is too bland to show his foundation assumptions of mechanism.

Greening was experimentally proven correct, connection failure dooms the buildings.

 

[ozeco41]

Try http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html - I think it's all linked from there.

Dave

Thanks Dave. Copied the paper - read it - and remembered that I read it some years back

Mmmm...

Now what do I say?? Given the PA's I cop every time I dare to commit lèse majesté.


Greening seems to have got some right answers.

I recall reading the paper some years back.

It did not stay in my memory...

Nudge nudge - wink wink.

Further comment can await a more appropriate opportunity.

 

[ozeco41]

It was on physorg where most of the early work was done.

Thanks - I've read the paper from the link Dave gave. And recalled how I read it many years back. And realised why it did not stick in my memory.

The computer program uses floor impact and overloading to strip the floors and destroy the connections..

That is the first part of the paper and if that is what the spreadsheet was based on it will be in the right ballpark - i.e. right answers for right or near enough right reasons. I haven't seen discussion of the spread sheet.

using mathwell's equation for a pinned beam.

?? So? The joists stripped off. Whether by Maxwell's theories or Santa's Custard.

So that is all in the early part of paper. BUT I also read the later part of the paper - did you?

Greening was experimentally proven correct, connection failure dooms the buildings.

"experimentally" - why? Reasoned analysis by many persons has explained the mechanism - and with better clarity of the staged mechanisms and without the modelling of mechanism confusions Greening reveals in the second part of his paper. It was good work for the day. Whether it stands the test of time is a different issue.

Bottom line AFAICS he was correct on the first part of the paper - as have been several others. And that is the aspect relevant to the reference a few posts back in this thread.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Thanks - I've read the paper from the link Dave gave. And recalled how I read it many years back. And realised why it did not stick in my memory.
That is the first part of the paper and if that is what the spreadsheet was based on it will be in the right ballpark - i.e. right answers for right or near enough right reasons. I haven't seen discussion of the spread sheet.

?? So? The joists stripped off. Whether by Maxwell's theories or Santa's Custard.

So that is all in the early part of paper. BUT I also read the later part of the paper - did you?

"experimentally" - why? Reasoned analysis by many persons has explained the mechanism - and with better clarity of the staged mechanisms and without the modelling of mechanism confusions Greening reveals in the second part of his paper. It was good work for the day. Whether it stands the test of time is a different issue.

Bottom line AFAICS he was correct on the first part of the paper - as have been several others. And that is the aspect relevant to the reference a few posts back in this thread.

Correct he was right on the first part, the confusion comes because of simplification, to reduce data points to allow the machines of that era to do the calculations with the limited memory and speed available.

 

[Jaytje46]

Wow, this thread is still going strong I see

So Cole made a video to show the force behind the motion, called "9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion". We can all agree that his experiments have nothing to do with 9/11, because he mentions the following in his video description.

This is not an attempt in any way to build a scaled model of the towers. Rather, dissimilar objects can be used to study the motion of large objects as the direction and sequence of net force are both independent of scale.


For example, the motion of a bucket on a rope whirled around your head is similar to the motion of the moon orbiting earth. The direction (not the magnitude) of net force acting on the bucket and the moon is similar, even though the bucket is not a scaled model of the moon.

Any objects observed to accelerate similarly, will have the same direction and sequence of net force, regardless of scale.

No one has been able to make a real model demonstrating the fundamental motions observed of the towers fall, using gravity alone.

Not sure why he called it a 9/11 experiment then.

So according to Cole, he could have used a 10T block to drop on his "floors", because scale don't matter.

So why is this in a 9/11 thread again?

 

[Jaytje46]

FBI research done at Fresh Kills.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdMqX_F66rE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgt5a-HoPPo

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

According to AE911T's resident expert, David Chander (high school math teacher), WTC 1 fell at an average of 0.64 g. Since it must, by definition, have fallen at g in between floors. it could not have fallen at a constant acceleration either. You debunk yourself again. Why do I bother? Let's say I have a misplaced faith in the ability of even the most stupid and most deluded people to learn.

The point is that once a collapse begins, nothing in the world will stop it from continuing. Someday, when you grow up, you may understand...

Do you think FF is after the Award for the highest number of self debunking in one thread?