Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[excaza]

In other words you made a glaring mistake. You realize you can't show what I said was in any way wrong because what I said was in fact correct. Now you're trying to hide that mistake with bravado hoping everyone will be too stupid to notice.

No lengthy explanation is necessary, because gravitational potential of an object is solely dependent on height (to put it simply). You can be shown wrong using 3 letters: mgh. Done.

If you disagree, please show that an object in free fall has used up all its gravitational potential energy. Use math, the equations are simple.

This is honestly like...week 1 of a basic physics course.

 

[cmatrix]

No, but if a well educated group of experts in the given field used science to back up the claim, including analysis of photo and video evidence, as well as computer modeling, and their theory was accepted by the majority of people in the field, and no othee explanation or theory better explained the phenomenon in question, i would be inclined to accept their theory as the most valid one.

Is that hard for you to understand?

TAM

So if a well educated group of experts in psychic research used "science" to back up the claim that psychokinesis is real, including analysis of photo and video evidence, as well as computer modeling, and their theory was accepted by the majority of people in the field, you would be inclined to accept their theory as the most valid one?

In science you can disprove a theory by finding just a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. The NIST theory does not predict the observed free fall, therefore it is disproven. The controlled demolition theory can explain the crimp, the rolling and most importantly the free fall. Yet you reject this theory in favor of a theory that cannot in any way scientifically explain or predict these observations?

 

[cmatrix]

No lengthy explanation is necessary, because gravitational potential of an object is solely dependent on height (to put it simply). You can be shown wrong using 3 letters: mgh. Done.

If you disagree, please show that an object in free fall has used up all its gravitational potential energy. Use math, the equations are simple.

This is honestly like...week 1 of a basic physics course.

You have not shown I am wrong. You have merely shown your own gullibility and inability to comprehend what I have written. Objects in free fall don't "use up" _all_ their gravitational potential energy. They "use up" or convert all the _available_ gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy. "All" and "available" are different words, see?

This is honestly like...week 1 of a basic English comprehension course.

 

[carlitos]

cmatrix,
A 47-story building collapsing in around 14 seconds ≠ "free fall," just FYI. A small portion of the building fell at free-fall acceleration for a couple of seconds, due to simple physical forces which have been explained in this thread.

If 'controlled demolition' explains free fall, could you please demonstrate a controlled demolition where free-fall acceleration was demonstrated?

 

[twinstead]

In science you can disprove a theory by finding just a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. The NIST theory does not predict the observed free fall, therefore it is disproven. The controlled demolition theory can explain the crimp, the rolling and most importantly the free fall. Yet you reject this theory in favor of a theory that cannot in any way scientifically explain or predict these observations?

Oh? Well, perhaps then you can honor us with the "Controlled Demolition Theory" and how it explains the portion of free fall (because you of course know the whole building didn't fall free fall) and how it explains the crimp and rolling. You may want to provide your calculations and notes for those here who know what they are talking about.

 

[T.A.M.]

Oh my,

No. If in any matter related to science, a group of experienced experts in the field in question used appropriate and applicable science, used avaiable evidence to back up a theory, and that theory fit the available evidence, both circumstantial and other, AND if no other theory provided a bettter explanation of the events or fit the avaiable evidence better, then i would accept that theory as the authority and best explanatory theory of the event or issue in question.

Why is this so hard for you to get your head around?

TAM

 

[excaza]

You have not shown I am wrong. You have merely shown your own gullibility and inability to comprehend what I have written. Objects in free fall don't "use up" _all_ their gravitational potential energy. They "use up" or convert all the _available_ gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy. "All" and "available" are different words, see?

This is honestly like...week 1 of a basic English comprehension course.

This is complete and utter nonsense.

The only time an object will "use up" (or convert to kinetic energy) all the _available_ gravitational potential energy is when it hits the ground, or wherever you've defined your zero point.

Gravitational potential energy is a function of height. That's it.

 

[T.A.M.]

So if a well educated group of experts in psychic research used "science" to back up the claim that psychokinesis is real, including analysis of photo and video evidence, as well as computer modeling, and their theory was accepted by the majority of people in the field, you would be inclined to accept their theory as the most valid one?

In science you can disprove a theory by finding just a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. The NIST theory does not predict the observed free fall, therefore it is disproven. The controlled demolition theory can explain the crimp, the rolling and most importantly the free fall. Yet you reject this theory in favor of a theory that cannot in any way scientifically explain or predict these observations?

Wrong. There is NO CONFLICT between the NIST report and the brief portion of the fallof the north side of the building that matched free fall speed/time.

TAM

 

[twinstead]

Jebus it's like arguing with an arrogant, caustic version of Jammonius

 

[excaza]

I don't see any difference, really. Not that I care, but cm is certainly more abusive.

 

[alienentity]

So if psychic phenomena was accepted by experts world wide despite absolutely no evidence presented to support it's existence, James Randi would have to prove psychic phenomena does not exist.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Strawman. If psychic phenomena were scientifically proven, James Randi would accept this. A skeptic will accept legitimate evidence.

With the WTC collapses, we have conclusive evidence of extensive fires in all those buildings; we know pretty much where they burned and for how long; we know that it was entirely possible for the buildings to collapse under such conditions, based on engineering studies.

Thus the fire-induced collapse is the logical conclusion.

If you are willing to open your mind to the evidence, you must accept that there is strong evidence for the mainstream theory. Also, you must not attempt to prove a negative by saying 'the buildings could NOT have collapsed due to fire', otherwise you are putting yourself in exactly the ridiculous position that you put Randi in during your thought experiment above.

But truthers do this all the time, don't they? They assert that fires couldn't have caused the collapses; or that planes couldn't fly as fast as they dideek or a plane couldn't fly into the pentagon as it did; or hijackers couldn't take over planes as they did.

Your side has a lot of negatives to prove...

 

[W.D.Clinger]

In other words you made a glaring mistake. You realize you can't show what I said was in any way wrong because what I said was in fact correct. Now you're trying to hide that mistake with bravado hoping everyone will be too stupid to notice.

No lengthy explanation is necessary, because gravitational potential of an object is solely dependent on height (to put it simply). You can be shown wrong using 3 letters: mgh. Done.

If you disagree, please show that an object in free fall has used up all its gravitational potential energy. Use math, the equations are simple.

This is honestly like...week 1 of a basic physics course.

You have not shown I am wrong. You have merely shown your own gullibility and inability to comprehend what I have written. Objects in free fall don't "use up" _all_ their gravitational potential energy. They "use up" or convert all the _available_ gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy. "All" and "available" are different words, see?

This is honestly like...week 1 of a basic English comprehension course.

So you dropped out before possessive pronouns were covered in week 2?

I must have missed week 1 of that course on basic English comprehension. (Come to think of it, I missed every single week, having placed out of all 12 semester hours of English that were required for my undergraduate degree.) I confess my inability to comprehend what you've written, but you're giving too much credit to my own gullibility and far too little to the incomprehensibility of what you've written:

With a free falling object all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy. There is no more gravitational potential energy available to break up structure as would be required in NIST's crackpot progressive collapse theory.

As physics, that passage is indefensible. As entertainment, however, it's hard to beat.

(Notice, by the way, that I spelled the word "it's" correctly in that sentence. You have been spelling a pronoun the same way, which is incorrect. That had already been pointed out to you, which provided an amusingly trivial refutation of your claim that we "can't show what I said was in any way wrong because what I said was in fact correct". Had you not attempted to defend your mistakes by attacking our "basic English comprehension", I wouldn't even have mentioned this.)

I literally snorted out loud when you posted the passage excaza quoted. Your mistakes, combined with your cocksure dismissal of everything written by trained scientists, whether here or in scientific publications, have been a reliable source of entertainment in this subforum for some time.

In science you can disprove a theory by finding just a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. The NIST theory does not predict the observed free fall, therefore it is disproven. The controlled demolition theory can explain the crimp, the rolling and most importantly the free fall. Yet you reject this theory in favor of a theory that cannot in any way scientifically explain or predict these observations?

Not understanding the difference between scientific theories and scientific/engineering models is consistent with your other mistakes in matters of basic physics.

 

[ergo]

Tension within the ruler is not an external force acting on the ruler.

There are two, and only two, external forces acting on the ruler. One is the downward force due to gravity. The other is the reaction force through the pivoted end, which is acting upwards. There is no downward force acting on the ruler other than gravity.

I wasn't talking about external forces. The force that brings the Slinky top down faster than g is not an external force. I thought that there might be some internal kinetic advantage for achieving "greater than g" in having the stick end fastened rather than free. I'm guessing that there is, since both examples use that model.

The ball starts out in a cup, which will experience a greater air resistance and will move the air around it so that the ball isn't slowed by air resistance. We see the stick fall away from the ball, so it's nothing to do with the height they start at.

The ball started out on a tee, not in the cup. Why would the elevation that it's dropped from have "nothing to do" with when it hits surface? Have you done experiments in free fall on your own? You will find that how high you drop something from will affect its fall time.

They, also, don't involve any other external forces, just forces internal to the falling object.

Which is what I was asking about with regard to the ball and ruler example.

WTC7, as a connected object, also had internal forces. That, in fact, is the whole point; it's the internal tensile and compressive forces within the object that can accelerate parts of it at a greater rate than g, although the external force can't accelerate the whole of it, on average, greater than g. Since the acceleration measurements we're discussing were only on a specific point on WTC7, not averages of the whole structure, it's quite possible for the same thing to have happened.

If there is any applicability it is largely irrelevant, as it would then be applicable in all situations of building fires and collapses, and certainly not unique to the WTC.

 

[ergo]

You are too far away to see it leaning, not falling straight down. Even the roof is falling not straight; gee whiz, 6 to 8 seconds before the roof moves more than inches, the Penthouse fell through the WTC 7 structure, you can see deformations in the walls and interior collapse though the windows. Oops, not straight, very not straight. ...

"Its own footprint" is a sign you don't understand the collapse, and proof you have no evidence for your claims. Evidence please of its own footprint? Is hitting the building across the road, its own footprint?

I know it's a beachnut post, but:

1) Rooflines are often "not straight" during CD. What's your point?

2) Bee dunkers have difficulty with the term "footprint" as it's used in demolition. Namely, they don't understand it. CDs of buildings are designed to cause the buildings to fall into their footprints. That is the whole point of CD, to minimize damage to other buildings. A properly CD'd building largely falls into its own demolition footprint. This is what happened to WTC 7. The comparison has always been apt.

Links for definitions:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm

http://ezinearticles.com/?Introduction-to-Demolition&id=1072840

 

[T.A.M.]

Interesting choice of words ergo. I recall another poster here using that odd word "Bee dunker". That poster, IIRC was banned as a sock puppet.

I guess you must have read it, and liked it.

TAM

 

[carlitos]

amidoinitrite?

 

[ergo]

Nope, made it up on my own.

I've also since found references to "bedunker" as well, which I'd never seen before, and made long before I used the term here.

Must be the 100th monkey effect. (oops, gonna regret that....

 

[carlitos]

Since cmatrix won't be posting a video of a controlled demolition where there is a period of freefall acceleration, perhaps ergo would like to do so? Educate the 'bee dunkers,' maybe? All of the vegas casino ones are available on Las Vegas Deathwatch or youtube. Have at it.

 

[GlennB]

You feel this video shows WTC 7 falling over sideways? I see a building falling straight down into its own footprint.

Then why were the Verizon building (west) and Fitterman Hall (north) splatted by substantial WTC7 debris?

for example -

 

[ergo]

No. If in any matter related to science, a group of experienced experts in the field in question used appropriate and applicable science, used avaiable evidence to back up a theory, and that theory fit the available evidence, both circumstantial and other, AND if no other theory provided a bettter explanation of the events or fit the avaiable evidence better, then i would accept that theory as the authority and best explanatory theory of the event or issue in question.

If only you would...