Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[W.D.Clinger]

You're still doubting resistance?

Not at all, but Georg Ohm isn't relevant to this thread.

 

[ergo]

We interrupt this highly scientifickal discussion for a short commercial break:

 

[Grizzly Bear]

[qimg]http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/web02/2009/1/14/5/just-did-this-hope-u-like-it-amidoinitrite-copy-23675-1231930416-12.jpg[/qimg]

LOL... that was genuinely funny even if posting it was an act of irony....

You're still doubting resistance?

No, but most of you guys trying to talk about resistance don't know the difference between an axial, and an eccentric load. I would think this is a straightforward concept that the resistance something can provide is greatest when it can make the maximum use of it's strength. Anything outside of that perfect axial impact reduces the carrying capacity precipitously...

 

[Newtons Bit]

LOL... that was genuinely funny even if posting it was an act of irony....



No, but most of you guys trying to talk about resistance don't know the difference between an axial, and an eccentric load. I would think this is a straightforward concept that the resistance something can provide is greatest when it can make the maximum use of it's strength. Anything outside of that perfect axial impact reduces the carrying capacity precipitously...

They have a hard time with rigid bodies reacting to gravity. Talking about columns and eccentric loads is probably a couple of years beyond them.

 

[ergo]

Yup, yup.

Rigid bodies... gravity.... eccentric loads.... entirely gravity driven collapse...

In fact, this could just as easily be a building that was hit by an earthquake, couldn't it?

 

[Bullwinkle2009]

ohms law

Not at all, but Georg Ohm isn't relevant to this thread.

Hi, I hear Judy Wood wants to repeal ohms law

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

OK, let's take a look at what you said, and see who's made a glaring mistake.

With a free falling object all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy.

Let's take an example. Suppose a mass m is initially supported at height H1. It then falls to height H2 at an arbitrarily low speed, retarded in its fall by collapsing supports of negligible mass. After reaching height H2, it then falls at an acceleration of g to a height H3, at which point its energy is measured.

"All the available gravitational potential energy" is, of course, equal to mg(H1-H3). However, the problem specifies that the object is near-stationary at height H2, therefore it has only fallen at freefall though a height (H2-H3), and its kinetic energy is equal to mg(H2-H3). There's an additional energy of mg(H1-H2) that is not present as kinetic energy.

Let's make the example a little more realistic, and assume that the falling mass has some kinetic energy K1 when it reaches height H2. However, by definition, its fall to this point has been slowed, so we know that K1<mg(H1-H2). The kinetic energy at H3 is now equal to mg(H2-H3)+K1, which is less than mg(H1-H3); the difference is mg(H1-H2)-K1, which must be greater than zero. Therefore, we have an object in free fall, not all of whose available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy.

Therefore, your statement that "With a free falling object all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy" is inconsistent with simple Newtonian mechanics. Clearly, then, you don't understand Newtonian physics. (I'm being charitable here and assuming you're merely incompetent, rather than lying.)

Did anyone recognise the example, by the way? Clue: the name ends in 7.

Dave

 

[Horatius]

Most demolition videos show portions of the buildings in free fall. Not sure how this can be absolutely verified with the naked eye, and I'm sure anything anyone presents will not meet your satisfaction anyway.

How was it verified in the case of WTC7? Do it that way.


That is, Do The Work. That's what people have been asking you to do all along.

You have an hypothesis - that freefall accelerations are a common, in fact, universal, feature of CDs. You now have a suggestion as to haw to demonstrate the evidence for that hypothesis - do the same analysis on a representative sample of videos of CDs as was done on the video of WTC7, and determine how many show such a period of freefall.

If they all show it, within the bounds of experimental error, your hypothesis is supported. If a significant percentage do not show it, your hypothesis is refuted.

You know what you need to do. Do The Work.

That's how science actually works.

Do. The. Work.

 

[excaza]

I'd rather he start with the hypothesis that free-fall is unique to CD.

 

[Horatius]

I'd rather he start with the hypothesis that free-fall is unique to CD.

That's a much larger issue, so it would be harder to determine. It would be much easier to determine if freefall is or is not a common feature of CDs, and so we should start there. If known CDs do not routinely show freefall periods, that in itself is a large blow against the greater hypothesis that WTC7 was a CD, as one of the pillars of the argument will be destroyed. If it can be shown that all CDs produce freefall, then we can go on to the larger question of, do only CDs produce freefall?

Remember that these guys are incredibly reluctant to do any real scientific work. Expecting them to suddenly jump into the deep end is ridiculous. This study will not conclusively prove or disprove the CD hypothesis, but it's a step in the right direction, and it has the added benefit that, in carrying it out, they just might actually learn a bit about how to do a proper study.


That's assuming they ever actually do it, of course.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yup, yup.
<snip>
[qimg]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/02/10/article-1249885-083AA909000005DC-56_470x423.jpg[/qimg]

Next thing we know you'll be explaining to us how the "upward debris streamer arcs" are the effect of explosions. Who wants to place bets?

 

[ozeco41]

That's a much larger issue, so it would be harder to determine. It would be much easier to determine if freefall is or is not a common feature of CDs, and so we should start there. If known CDs do not routinely show freefall periods, that in itself is a large blow against the greater hypothesis that WTC7 was a CD, as one of the pillars of the argument will be destroyed....

You have the tense wrong. That 'pillar' is a known falsehood.

...If it can be shown that all CDs produce freefall,...

It can't. They don't. .

...then we can go on to the larger question of, do only CDs produce freefall?

You don't have to wait. Its "no".

 

[Horatius]

You have the tense wrong. That 'pillar' is a known falsehood.
It can't. They don't. . You don't have to wait. Its "no".

You know that. And I know that. But they don't know that. The question then is, how can we help them to know it?

I think suggesting proper studies that they could do themselves just might help that process. Probably not, as they're notoriously lazy and incurious, but possibly.

And it has to be studies they do themselves, as they obviously won't trust any studies done by anyone else, if the results of those studies contradict their preconceived notions. Having them do the work themselves is the only way we could (possibly*) show them that it isn't all some scam.







*Hey, they might be paranoid enough to not even believe it then, but if they're that far gone, we're completely wasting our time**.












**Yes, yes, I know, "What do you think we're doing already?"

 

[carlitos]

cmatrix, ergo - a suggestion?

Most demolition videos show portions of the buildings in free fall. Not sure how this can be absolutely verified with the naked eye, and I'm sure anything anyone presents will not meet your satisfaction anyway.

What Horatius said below. Why on earth would you use "the naked eye" to analyze a video to determine acceleration? It's 2010; use technology for God's sake.

How was it verified in the case of WTC7? Do it that way.


That is, Do The Work. That's what people have been asking you to do all along.

You have an hypothesis - that freefall accelerations are a common, in fact, universal, feature of CDs. You now have a suggestion as to haw to demonstrate the evidence for that hypothesis - do the same analysis on a representative sample of videos of CDs as was done on the video of WTC7, and determine how many show such a period of freefall.

If they all show it, within the bounds of experimental error, your hypothesis is supported. If a significant percentage do not show it, your hypothesis is refuted.

You know what you need to do. Do The Work.

That's how science actually works.

Do. The. Work.

 

[ozeco41]

You know that. And I know that. But they don't know that. The question then is, how can we help them to know it?

I think suggesting proper studies that they could do themselves just might help that process. Probably not, as they're notoriously lazy and incurious, but possibly.

I suggest we have long passed the point where we had genuine sceptics posting who were interested in learning.

Sure most of the present "truthers" show their limited grasp of physics but they couple that with no interest in learning.

And it is not just the base level stuff. We have persons claiming engineering qualifications whose posts indicate a poor grasp of the physics of structures at the somewhat more sophisticated level that is needed to understand the WTC collapses. They also show no interest in learning. And it is hard to credit that they cannot see the flaws in their thinking seeing how many times other engineers/applied physicists have shown them the correct explanations.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yup, yup.

Rigid bodies... gravity.... eccentric loads.... entirely gravity driven collapse...

In fact, this could just as easily be a building that was hit by an earthquake, couldn't it?

[qimg]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/02/10/article-1249885-083AA909000005DC-56_470x423.jpg[/qimg]

No.

Earthquakes cause failures at the base of a structure. The collapse would look nothing like that.

You're very far out of your league here, Ergo. You should take a step back and really ask yourself if you're capable of just winging it with engineering analysis before you understand how gravity works with rigid bodies.

 

[Horatius]

I suggest we have long passed the point where we had genuine sceptics posting who were interested in learning.

Sure most of the present "truthers" show their limited grasp of physics but they couple that with no interest in learning.

And it is not just the base level stuff. We have persons claiming engineering qualifications whose posts indicate a poor grasp of the physics of structures at the somewhat more sophisticated level that is needed to understand the WTC collapses. They also show no interest in learning. And it is hard to credit that they cannot see the flaws in their thinking seeing how many times other engineers/applied physicists have shown them the correct explanations.

All of which is true. What is also true is that this group of TruBleevers is also still actively promoting their beliefs. Take a look at someone like bill smith, who has openly said his purpose here is to engage in "propaganda" for the Truth movement.

If they could point to a thread like this, and say, "Look! None of them will even try to engage in a serious discussion of our claims! They're scared of us!", that would be extremely useful to them in trying to bring new recruits to their cause. However, if we continue to point out relatively simple things they could do to begin demonstrating the "truth", if it be such, they're faced with a difficult choice: either doing the work, and risking damage to their precious delusions, or having to explain to the new recruits why they haven't conducted these easy and relevant studies.

People like A&E9/11 claim to have all this "technical" power behind them. They claim to do "research". I think it's valid to continue pointing out these studies and analysis which they could do, but which they haven't done. If I can come up with a reasonable suggestion for a study they could do themselves, in about 5 minutes of thinking about it, why is it they haven't done anything similar in years of alleged "research"?

It's annoying little questions like that that will limit their ability to expand beyond the crazy population.

 

[ergo]

How was it verified in the case of WTC7? Do it that way.

That is, Do The Work. That's what people have been asking you to do all along.

I haven't been making this claim. Isn't it NIST that says that part of the building fell in free fall? Are you doubting what they say?

And why would free fall surprise you in a building collapse in which resistance has been removed?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I haven't been making this claim. Isn't it NIST that says that part of the building fell in free fall? Are you doubting what they say?

And why would free fall surprise you in a building collapse in which resistance has been removed?

OK, Horatius, let me take this one.

Ergo, there are two possibilities here.

1. You are arguing the following position:

(a) Part of WTC7's collapse was at freefall speed.
(b) This is characteristic of controlled demolitions.
(c) This, in fact, only happens in controlled demolitions.
(d) Therefore, WTC7's collapse was a controlled demolition.

If this is your position, then (a) is already demonstrated. You have not proven (b) or (c). All you've done so far is suggest that freefall collapse wouldn't be surprising in a controlled demolition, which is nowhere near proving either. So, at the moment, your reasoning has a hole in it. Horatius has suggested how you might address that hole.

2. You are arguing some other position.

In which case, you haven't communicated effectively what that position is.

Dave

 

[ergo]

You're very far out of your league here, Ergo. You should take a step back and really ask yourself if you're capable of just winging it with engineering analysis before you understand how gravity works with rigid bodies.

Lol. I'm arguing with people who are trying to pass off as "natural" two 110-storey top-down building collapses in under 15 seconds. I'm arguing with people who look at WTC7, can find little evidence of fires, little evidence of structural damage but who read the NIST report (or maybe they just watched the video?) and say "it was the fires!!" People who don't know what a demolition footprint is. People who publish "debunking" sites that use NIST arguments as "evidence". (And actually, people who don't know what evidence is). People who don't know that the height you drop something from will affect its fall time.

Don't worry, I'm not out of my league.