Split Thread NIST did not utilize the scientific method?

[jaydeehess]

Spanx, Quick answer: "SHOCK AND AWE!" It etched/tattooed the spectacularly horrific picture, or should I say "movie," into every persons mind AND psyche ... worldwide. It provided the "blank check"

Suppose the planes hit the towers at 3 in the morning and there was no video. No video of the absolutely mesmerizing crashing of the large US airline airplanes carrying helpless passengers and crew into the those GRAND, MAJESTIC, TWIN ICONS of AMERICA!! No video of those utterly spectacular(!!) and ghastly(!!) collapses of those icons of America with so many helpless people inside!!

With the video, they forever altered, etched, tattooed the psyche of humanity. Hearing about it on the radio just wouldn't cut it.

Night flying being a tad more complicated, and finding the right building at night even more so, that would probably not be in the interest of suicide hijackers.

It is easy to see what they have done since and how easy it was for them to http://books.google.ca/books?id=CS2...X&ei=n5y4UsfiMojZ2AXhnIGADw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAAdo it. Almost everybody: "Its the devil himself is in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan. Get Osama! Send troops, weapons, whatever you need, spend as much as you'd like!"

WMDs! "Mushroom clouds! Attack Iraq! Send troops, weapons, whatever you need, spend as much as you'd like! What(?), no WMDs? That's okay! They deserved it!"

I tried to make this as dramatic as I could to try to clearly point out that 9/11 was designed to be as dramatic as possible for the reasons above.

Well since you put it that way,,, uh wait, hype up get Osama= attack Iraq?
Not that it did not turn out that way for a brief moment in time ( though GWB was careful to never actually try to blame 911 on Iraq) although it was an uphill battle that was eventually badly lost. I doubt that many people associate Iraq with 911. I know that it sounded utterly stupid to me the first time it came up waaay back 10+ years ago. Still does.
No Iraqi hijackers, and a fundamentalist Islamic group, that incidentally had offered to oust Saddam prior to the first Gulf War, supposedly cooperating with Hussien? That was weaker than WMD then and still is.

Of course, destroy WTC 7for that reason, a building almost no one knew of or cared much about. Oh wait WTC 7 was demolished to aid a building developer because its a good idea to bring in civilians like that when you are planning the greatest mass murder and treason in USA history.

 

[Mudcat]

The change is size, use of bold and underline, and caps do not help in your arguments any, david.watts...

 

[david.watts]

Object "A" is falling, object "B" is directly under object "A". "A" hits "B" instead of avoiding the obvious resistance to its path that "B" would represent.

According to AE911T "A" should zig zag around "B".

You understand physics. Many people here understand physics at a very high level. "Understanding physics at a very high level" is not required here. "Basic" physics will do the trick, as you say. That is what I was trying to say in my post. One of Newton's laws of motion is what you are saying when talking about objects "A" and "B." But while your "A" / "B" example applies well to the North tower, it does not apply so well to the South Tower.
Does it? (BTW, I am on your side, no zigzagging. Unless of course, some zigzagging external force is in play.)

Newton law for the "A" / "B" example:

The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.


North Tower. (I think I understand what was occurring, but I may not state it correctly. Even so, I would think you will understand what I am trying to say. I will give it a shot.) The large block at the top started tilting significantly to the side from the onset of the collapse. Therefore both the acceleration vector and the force vector were not pointing straight down nor were they pointing 90 degrees to the side. They were pointing somewhere in between.

So did the force vector really have a large enough downward component to plow seemingly easy straight down through the entire building? As the top of the building should have continued tilting, the force vector downward would increase with the acceleration of the top of the building, but would it not also move off to the side and not point directly down through the building?


Another Newton law of motion:
Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

My "continue tilting" phrase would be based on this law.

(Let me know if I'm all screwed up. But just on this response. I already know most of you think I'm screwed up on everything else I've said.)

 

[beachnut]

... The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.


North Tower. (I think I understand what was occurring, but I may not state it correctly. Even so, I would think you will understand what I am trying to say. I will give it a shot.) The large block at the top started tilting significantly to the side from the onset of the collapse. Therefore both the acceleration vector and the force vector were not pointing straight down nor were they pointing 90 degrees to the side. They were pointing somewhere in between.

So did the force vector really have a large enough downward component to plow seemingly easy straight down through the entire building? As the top of the building should have continued tilting, the force vector downward would increase with the acceleration of the top of the building, but would it not also move off to the side and not point directly down through the building?


Another Newton law of motion:
Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

My "continue tilting" phrase would be based on this law.

(Let me know if I'm all screwed up. But just on this response. I already know most of you think I'm screwed up on everything else I've said.)

Significant tilt. Please state the degrees to the degree. If you are to make up silly physics, back it up with the math. Go ahead prove it. Show all your work. Use some differential equations, etc.

The best you have is your "path of least resistance" law, and it leaves you unable to explain what you said so it makes sense. You made this up, like you did CD, with no evidence, no math, no physics. You don't need physics because fantasy behaves the way you say it does.

lol, the Google U approach, quote a web site, and make up some stuff. Skip the math and hard stuff.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html

It is cool, copy and paste 911 truth, the "path of least resistance". Make it up, don't do the math. Love it

 

[david.watts]

Mudcat: I agree. But did you read my entire reply (#765) above?

I ended it with:
"I tried to make this as dramatic as I could to try to clearly point out that 9/11 was designed to be as dramatic as possible for the reasons above."

I know none of you believe "inside job." But for the sake of argument, what if I am correct: "Inside job." Again, this is just for the sake of argument. Would not what I said and how I said it be a perfect way to get a "blank check?"

 

[david.watts]

Wow beachnut, I was only just asking a question.

The "tilting" tower thing I am sure must have been gone over in every conceivable inside out, up and down, and black and white fashion possible. I was not here. But this is what I would like to know/understand: beachnut, please tell me how much different were the vectors referred to in my post above, between WTC 1 and WTC 2? I would think you would know as you have convinced me you understand physics inside and out. Thank you.

 

[beachnut]

Mudcat: I agree. But did you read my entire reply (#765) above?

I ended it with:
"I tried to make this as dramatic as I could to try to clearly point out that 9/11 was designed to be as dramatic as possible for the reasons above."

I know none of you believe "inside job." But for the sake of argument, what if I am correct: "Inside job." Again, this is just for the sake of argument. Would not what I said and how I said it be a perfect way to get a "blank check?"

You lie about your lies to make them more dramatic? Got it. You make it sound dramatic, so your lies sound better.

 

[Richard the G]

Thanks David, I think I have got it, building 7 was an insurance job and the towers were to start a war.

It all makes perfect sense now.

I can see how terrorists wouldn't be clever enough to work any of that out.

Obviously cooked up by Cheney!

 

[david.watts]

You'll have to post LOUDER.

I actually first posted in the the largest size ('8') allowed. It was BIG! The reason being, the many comments I get from beachnut never respond to what I have said and he constantly makes fun of or belittles me. Trust me, I do not mind in the least. I do not care. I think it's funny. But I admit, I can not help but send back a shot or two and that is what I was doing. Since it is really between me and beachnut, I guess I should have done it in a PM but didn't think about it. That's it.

I did quickly go back to edit and reduced the size back to '2.'
I mean at size '8,' it was BIG!

 

[beachnut]

Wow beachnut, I was only just asking a question.

The "tilting" tower thing I am sure must have been gone over in every conceivable inside out, up and down, and black and white fashion possible. I was not here. But this is what I would like to know/understand: beachnut, please tell me how much different were the vectors referred to in my post above, between WTC 1 and WTC 2? I would think you would know as you have convinced me you understand physics inside and out. Thank you.

wow david, you made up claims, and can't back them with the math. Thus, your claims are exactly that, fantasy. You make up what you think should happen, copy and paste directly from a web site the law you think covers your simplified effort, but fail to realize the complexity of the collapse, and claim it does not take complicated math and physics, only needs your opinion. Now upset because you can't do the math, you essentially dismiss your own special physics of how it should happen, and now you say I have to explain why your nonsenses is not physics. Good one.

Show your math, or admit you are making up an opinion of what you think should happen.

One big hint, the shell of the WTC is essentially as strong at holding up gravity loads as the core, it was close to a 50/50 thing. Means the shell of the WTC was as strong at gravity loads as most building are to the distance it is to the core of the WTC. Need help with this one? Or, as I said the strong shell of the WTC is as strong as the core of the WTC at holding gravity loads. Got it?

Just say you will take the "path of least resistance" and not do the math, and skip the differential equations.

 

[Robrob]

So did the force vector really have a large enough downward component to plow seemingly easy straight down through the entire building? As the top of the building should have continued tilting, the force vector downward would increase with the acceleration of the top of the building, but would it not also move off to the side and not point directly down through the building?

No. It would continue through the next floor below it. Once it crushed that floor and added it to its mass, it would crush through the next floor, and the next, etc...

Mudcat: I agree. But did you read my entire reply (#765) above?

I ended it with:
"I tried to make this as dramatic as I could to try to clearly point out that 9/11 was designed to be as dramatic as possible for the reasons above."

I know none of you believe "inside job." But for the sake of argument, what if I am correct: "Inside job." Again, this is just for the sake of argument. Would not what I said and how I said it be a perfect way to get a "blank check?"

No. It would be one of the most difficult and dangerous ways to get a "blank check" not to mention most likely to be discovered and fail.

For some reason, every Truther theory for what happened on 911 sounds like something dreamed up by a not particularly bright ten year old.

 

[ozeco41]

You understand physics. Many people here understand physics at a very high level. "Understanding physics at a very high level" is not required here. "Basic" physics will do the trick, as you say.

David - wherever you got that "basic physics" idea from it is not true. The main problem is that you cannot treat the collapse as two blocks - one falling on the other.

The actual elements of physics are in fact quite simple BUT the interaction between and within your two blocks involves hundreds of individual structural elements.

And it cannot be validly understood or explained by simplifying to two blocks.

My most recent explanation relevant to this issue has been posted here on JREF and on another forum. It is aimed at forum members with a similar level of physics as you AND written for a high school physics level of understanding. I doubt that it can be expressed any simpler whilst still validly explaining the key features.

It is not an easy read. BUT if you are serious about understanding try this version. The original was posted here on JREF and was intended for one of our regular trolls. It has additional information for him and that could be more info than you need. It is here on JREF.

(Let me know if I'm all screwed up. But just on this response.

It's a lot more complicated than "two blocks". No point me critiquing your post further. Try reading the explanation I have linked as a first step - I can point you at a lot more but let's try one step at a time.

I already know most of you think I'm screwed up on everything else I've said.)

You are trying to understand something and you are caught between two camps of opposite opinion without sufficient grasp of the physics to choose which side is right.

No point me repeating "We are right" and "AE911 is wrong". You have to come to that conclusion for yourself. Step one - improve your understanding of what happened - the ozeco version THEN see if anyone on AE911 can give you a better explanation.

(If they can - I will have some work to do... )

 

[beachnut]

I actually first posted in the the largest size ('8') allowed. It was BIG! ...

I did quickly go back to edit and reduced the size back to '2.'
I mean at size '8,' it was BIG!

It is your ideas that are silly, not you. It is amazing I got it right; you are only here to spread the word, a disciple of 911 truth, spreading lies. Here to back in CD. Your only purpose is to explain the failed logic you used to figure out CD, as you avoid the free-fall stuff, and move right to the no evidence faith based CD junk with the "path of least resistance law", you claim is based on CoM. Can't wait for Flt 77 stuff, and how 911 truth can't do RADAR, etc.

Where is your evidence for explosives?

 

[david.watts]

ozeco, very simply, I made no statement saying that I was correct about anything. Basically, what I was attempting to say was with a question. I was just asking to see if I understood, or maybe just understood some of what was going on (basic) physics-wise. And that of course should be in agreement with what we observed.

I am sure you can help me:

One particular thing I asked:

"As the top of the building should have continued tilting, the force vector downward would increase with the acceleration of the top of the building, but would it not also move off to the side and not point directly down through the building?"

1. Do you understand what I am basically asking? All of what I was asking was since the very large mass was tilting, and was no longer 100% over the center of the building below, was not the force vector also off center? I would think that would have to be the case. Again, I am probably not saying it very well, but do you not understand what I am getting at?

Is this correctly said, using the S. Tower collapse: the greater the tilt of the now falling top of the building, the greater the center of mass has moved from its starting position in the direction of the tilt?

Do you understand what I am asking and did this not happen for the S. Tower to at the very least, some degree?

 

[NoahFence]

"As the top of the building should have continued tilting, the force vector downward would increase with the acceleration of the top of the building, but would it not also move off to the side and not point directly down through the building?"

No, it would go down.

As proof of that statement, I give you...
Reality.

 

[david.watts]

No, it would go down.

As proof of that statement, I give you...
Reality.

Of course it would go down. But since the center of mass of the top block of the building has shifted laterally due to the tilt, will the center of mass of the top block of the building not be going down "off center"?

 

[jaydeehess]

Upper block does tilt. Once it begins falling though, any angulkar momentum must transfer to a rotation about its center of mass.

It never does move more than a few degrees and thus its center of mass was always over the lower block meaning most of its mass would have to impact the lower block.

There is never any acelleration vector moving the upper block to the side!

 

[jaydeehess]

Additionally the rotation would be limited by the fact that the upper block columns are immediately spearing down into the lower block floors and being eroded as it impacts the bottom of the upper block thus moving the center of mass upward.

 

[NoahFence]

Of course it would go down. But since the center of mass of the top block of the building has shifted laterally due to the tilt, will the center of mass of the top block of the building not be going down "off center"?

It would appear not. Again, how do I know this?

I saw it happen in real-time.
in REAL LIFE.

 

[beachnut]

Of course it would go down. But since the center of mass of the top block of the building has shifted laterally due to the tilt, will the center of mass of the top block of the building not be going down "off center"?

You come with nothing but talk. You need numbers to study.
How many degree per second was the "rotation" of the tilt when the building began to fall? Doing a rough estimate of collapse time using a momentum model, how long will the top block be moving down before it hits the ground? Run the numbers for a simple model first and see what you got. Can you do some math?

What is the tilt angle, and degree/second of rotation at collapse start?