NIST doesnt release their computer models (now they've done it!)

TjW said:
Are you familiar with a tool called a "dead blow hammer"? The name is probably different in french, but the purpose isn't. The hammer head is hollow, and filled with shot. It is more effective in transferring momentum to the thing it's hitting than a solid hammer, because the hammer doesn't rebound from the target.
The principal is the same as broken bits of building hitting other bits of building.
Click to expand...

Beautiful analogy.

I wish I'd thought of that in my attempts to educate Miragememories. This is a common misconception among the Troothers.
 
CptColumbo said:
So, is the basic premise that people caught in an avalanche have nothing to worry about?
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, the potentially most dangerous type of avalanche is one made of nearly all powder, rather that a somewhat coherant mass of snow.
 
Tbone said:
Funnily enough, the potentially most dangerous type of avalanche is one made of nearly all powder, rather that a somewhat coherant mass of snow.
Click to expand...

That was my understanding. However, there seems to be a some disagreement with this theory in this very thread.
 
Tbone said:
Funnily enough, the potentially most dangerous type of avalanche is one made of nearly all powder, rather that a somewhat coherant mass of snow.
Click to expand...
One truther used the physics on karate. The physics of a hand hitting wood, and how it works. The truther then takes the physics and say how only the hard parts of the plane make a difference and cause major damage, after showing with physics you can take a hand and break wood. I must assume he thinks the air from a tornado is incapable of destroying a brick house. Our physics truthers must protest the damage this past weekend as being an inside job, since soft air can not destroy a hard brick house. Why do 9/11 truth movement people tend to debunk themselves while they try to teach physics?

How dare you say soft powered could destroy a village! But then you are not a truther for 9/11, and you are capable of rational thinking.

Soft snow. A killer or just soft?
 
R.Mackey said:
Beautiful analogy.

I wish I'd thought of that in my attempts to educate Miragememories. This is a common misconception among the Troothers.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Do you ever get the impression that the twoofers with these misconceptions haven't used tools much?
 
oh my, yes.

The best example ever was Killtown, who complained that some poor woman he was harassing had to have been lying, because she started a barbeque while her electricity was out. I'll let you search for it...

Having said that, while common sense (the real kind gained through experience) goes a long way, it's not perfect, and we all have something to learn.
 
R.Mackey said:
oh my, yes.

The best example ever was Killtown, who complained that some poor woman he was harassing had to have been lying, because she started a barbeque while her electricity was out. I'll let you search for it...

Having said that, while common sense (the real kind gained through experience) goes a long way, it's not perfect, and we all have something to learn.
Click to expand...

Wait, that's what convinced him that Mrs. McClatchey was lying? That?! :jaw-dropp
 
R.Mackey said:
oh my, yes.

The best example ever was Killtown, who complained that some poor woman he was harassing had to have been lying, because she started a barbeque while her electricity was out. I'll let you search for it...

Having said that, while common sense (the real kind gained through experience) goes a long way, it's not perfect, and we all have something to learn.
Click to expand...
Whatever Killclown has is neither sensical (unfortunately) nor common (thankfully).
 
Tbone said:
Funnily enough, the potentially most dangerous type of avalanche is one made of nearly all powder, rather that a somewhat coherant mass of snow.
Click to expand...



Likewise with volcanoes. Pyroclastic flows containing larger pieces of volcanic rock are far less deadly and devastating that pyroclastic flows containing only ash and gases.

-Gumboot
 
But is Taboure argueing that as long as you're in a building you'll be okay, if an avalanche comes at you, because only large objects could do damage to a structure?

I'm just asking questions?:)
 
tabouere said:
The proof, because there's no proof for the temperature of the fire, only evaluation and modelisation.
Click to expand...

Yes. Something we call "proof".

Do you know how science works ?

Powder, small rock and steel beam falling don't bring down a building completly.
Click to expand...

50,000 tons of concrete powder is pretty much the same as 50,000 tons of concrete, wouldn't you say ?

Look, the test is simple, really simple, do a(many) scale model of the building with the same architecture and materials than cut the upper part and let's see what happen when it fall on the lowest part.
Click to expand...

Sorry. Scale models don't work that well. Especially not for those scales.

NIST model is theory, speculation based on simulation and "law of physics" not fact or proof.
Click to expand...

Theory <> Speculation

"Laws of physics" ? Why the scare quotes ?

NIST theory is a theory, not fact
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand the difference.

The speed of the fall is an aproximation done with a formula.
Click to expand...

9.8m/s2 is not an approximation.
 
tabouere said:
L'énergie dont parle beachnut est l'énergie du premier impact, et c'est probablement vrai, car la partie supérieure était en un morceau, alors elle a frappé avec toute sa masse la partie inférieure. Mais après plusieurs impacts, cette partie supérieure n'est plus en un morceau, elle est composée de débris d'aciers, de morceaux de bétons et de béton en poudre. On a pas besoin de mathematic ou de physique pour se rendre compte de ça, on ouvre nos yeux et on regarde. De la poudre et des débris, ça fait pas tomber un building jusque dans ses fondations.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense. The upper section would not break up immediately. You DO realise that this is a progressive process, right ?

Just try to find a photo of it after the collapse.

Try to find a big chunk of concrete.
Click to expand...

Had the same discussion with ChristopherA. There were many chunks.

Deux choses composées des même matériaux qui ont à peu près la même forme qui se frappent ensemble vont subir à peu près les mêmes dégâts.
Click to expand...

That is patently false. Many factors would come into play. Ever seen car crashes ?

Sophisticated explanation that no one understand is not always required
Click to expand...

Is that your problem, then ? The explanation is too complicated for you and therefore you cannot accept it ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom