Care to Comment

jammonius said:
the force of gravity is, at most, a bit player in the annihilation of the WTC complex and it is absurd to assert otherwise.
Click to expand...

gravity makes things go down.

what do you think made the WTC go down? magnetism?

radiation?

heat?
 
Appeal to Ryan Mackey to admit his errors

As many here feel it is important to admit errors one has made during a debate, I have to wonder why there has been no response to my entreaty to Ryan Mackey to admit that his comments on the factor of safety and the amount of tilt in WTC 1 before it descended were in error during our debate last September.

It has been proven beyond any doubt that his comments, that the factor of safety of the central core columns in the twin towers were much less than 3.00 to 1 and that WTC 1 upper section tilted 8 degrees before the north face hinge let go, were both incorrect.

One would assume that Ryan would be professional and admit these errors, which he apparently made due to his trust in the NIST report.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
If you read the Missing Jolt paper you will see that the basis for saying there was no deceleration in the fall of WTC 1's upper section is that there was no measureable velocity loss during the time it would take the velocity to recover to what it was pre-impact, over a significant period where 4 data points were taken.
Click to expand...
It sounds as though Tony is still counting the expected resistance twice: once to produce the sudden jolt he expects, and again to slow the acceleration to 0.7g. For discussion and a link to the relevant graph, see
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5664602&postcount=78

Tony Szamboti said:
The problem for your point is that it isn't necessary to take a second derivative and it is less precise than the first derivative, which shows very clearly that there was no velocity loss.
Click to expand...
Tony's right about the second derivative being unnecessary here (albeit instructive), but his highlighted statement is completely false. Computing the first derivative by simple differencing definitely shows a velocity loss. That graph can be seen just a few posts above.

Tony's data and analysis aren't good enough for anyone to tell whether that apparent velocity loss is real or an artifact of measurement and quantization error. What's certain, however, is that no competent scientist would claim that Tony's data exclude the possibility of an actual velocity loss.

Tony Szamboti said:
Any small error in the symmetric differentiation of the distance vs. time of those four data points in the velocity recovery period would not possibly allow one to say a velocity loss was being smoothed out.
Click to expand...
Tony has just confirmed the suspicion expressed by Dave Rogers:
Dave Rogers said:
Quite simply, his data analysis is appallingly bad. He seems to understand nothing about experimental errors or the effects of data smoothing; indeed, he seems unaware of whether he's smoothing his data at all!
Click to expand...


Tony Szamboti said:
Another proof for this is the Verinage demolitions. The same methodology used there shows a deceleration and velocity loss in every one of them. Nothing was smoothed out in any of those measurements.
Click to expand...
From which a reasonable person would conclude that the collapse of the WTC towers was not a well-controlled Verinage demolition. Earlier in this thread, Tony Szamboti grudgingly agreed with Dave Rogers' estimate of a 2-degree tilt at the beginning of the collapse. As has been pointed out repeatedly, that much tilt smears out the jolt to such an extent that we would not really expect to see it through the poor resolution of Tony's data.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
As many here feel it is important to admit errors one has made during a debate, I have to wonder why there has been no response to my entreaty to Ryan Mackey to admit that his comments on the factor of safety and the amount of tilt in WTC 1 before it descended were in error during our debate last September.

It has been proven beyond any doubt that his comments, that the factor of safety of the central core columns in the twin towers were much less than 3.00 to 1 and that WTC 1 upper section tilted 8 degrees before the north face hinge let go, were both incorrect.

One would assume that Ryan would be professional and admit these errors, which he apparently made due to his trust in the NIST report.
Click to expand...

That's rich, coming from you.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
If you read the Missing Jolt paper you will see that the basis for saying there was no deceleration in the fall of WTC 1's upper section is that there was no measureable velocity loss during the time it would take the velocity to recover to what it was pre-impact, over a significant period where 4 data points were taken.

You are introducing more noise here by taking a second derivative and then trying to extrapolate that a 2g deceleration could be missed. The problem for your point is that it isn't necessary to take a second derivative and it is less precise than the first derivative, which shows very clearly that there was no velocity loss.
Click to expand...

Two points here. First, acceleration is the second derivative, so if you don't look at the second derivative you're not measuring acceleration. Second, even the velocity data clearly shows a drop in velocity at about 1.7 seconds, as anyone can see by scrolling up the thread; it's only because you're smoothing your data that you can't see it.

Tony Szamboti said:
Keep trying Dave. I was wondering today if you have a job other than posting on this forum. Do you?
Click to expand...

Argumentum ad hominem is pretty much in keeping with your usual quality of debate.

Dave
 
Thunder said:
gravity makes things go down.
what do you think made the WTC go down? magnetism?

radiation?

heat?
Click to expand...

The above is a gross over simplification in the context of the unprecedented annihilation of 4 skyscrapers, don't you think? Perhaps your attempt to keep things simple served some other purpose?

For sake of proper context, by 5:20PM, two 110 story skyscrapers had been reduced to a single pile of about 2 story height on average, here and there a bit higher where previously, within a few feet of one another had stood an aggregate total of 220 storys of skyscraper.

Add to that what had been a 22 story hotel WTC3 which disappeared and disappeared utterly, leaving barely a trace and leaving no discernible debris pile at all.

Then, across Vesey street a remnant pile of about 5 story height, easily exceeding the height of the remains of the Twin Towers was a neat pile of what had been a 47 story skyscraper.

Gravity had next to nothing to do with that unprecedented annihilation.

No one was burned by the enveloping cloud of dust and there was no remnant fire, therefore heat of a conventional nature can be ruled out..

No one came down with radiation sickness, however, that, in and of itself, does not rule out all types of radiation. Nonetheless, radiation associated with nuclear weaponry may be ruled out.

While magnetism easily overwhelmes the comparatively puny force of gravity, the observable evidence did not appear to be consistent with ordinary magnetism.

Among the many first responders from whom we have reliable, first-hand accounts as to what forces were involved there is this from EMT Rene Davila:

File No. 9110075
WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW
LIEUTENANT RENE DAVILA
Interview Date: October 12, 2001
[Emphasis added.]
A. ...He goes (inaudible). I said, "Ramos?" He said, "What?" I said, "I left my wallet and my refund check in the *********** vehicle. I don't think Uncle Sam is going to give me another refund check."

Q. At this point was your vehicle lost?
A. Basically all we to do is go around the building, came around. But it took longer than usual because you're walking in like this ****.
Like you move and it's this soot like heavy dust.
While we're walking I realize that we only have two people. I see my vehicle. The seats are covered. I've still got my bag. I hold it like a trophy. Like people collect basketballs. I haven't touched -- whatever the force was, it was so strong that it went inside of the bag.

So, clearly we are dealing with a force, but it obviously did things that gravity absolutely cannot do; it was inconsistent with magnetism, with radiation and with heat, as per the account quoted above from someone who was there and who experienced it.

It was DEW.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Two points here. First, acceleration is the second derivative, so if you don't look at the second derivative you're not measuring acceleration. Second, even the velocity data clearly shows a drop in velocity at about 1.7 seconds, as anyone can see by scrolling up the thread; it's only because you're smoothing your data that you can't see it.




Dave
Click to expand...

For readers who may not be familiar, the slope in the velocity curve is indicative of the acceleration and deceleration or rate of change of the velocity, with a positive slope being acceleration and negative slope being deceleration, so it is present in the velocity curve itself. There is never a negative slope in the velocity curve derived from the distance vs. time measurements of the fall of the upper section of WTC 1.

Dave is incorrect here when he says there was a velocity drop at 1.7 seconds into the fall. The velocity never decreases at any time and there is only a drop in the rate at which velocity is being gained. They are not the same things.

To have an amplified load velocity must actually decrease. This never occurs in the fall of the upper section of WTC 1, so there was no amplified load.

What is interesting here is that those who would argue against what I am saying do not address why the same measurement methods show a very definitive deceleration and velocity loss in all of the Verinage demolitions, but none in WTC 1.

The reason the Verinage demolitions show a deceleration and velocity loss is that they used the amplified loading gained with impact in a natural gravity collapse after the columns of a couple of stories in the middle of the building were removed with hydraulics to gain the required momentum. There is no evidence for the deceleration and velocity loss required for the amplified loading necessary for a naturally propagated collapse in WTC 1, so it appears much of the column strength was continually being removed for the nine stories the fall was measureable. I would think this was done for reliability, to ensure those buildings came down.

It is nothing more than blowing smoke to say the measurement technique doesn't have the resolution to see the deceleration and velocity loss in WTC 1, since it certainly does in all of the Verinage demolitions.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
No one was burned by the enveloping cloud of dust and there was no remnant fire, therefore heat of a conventional nature can be ruled out..
Click to expand...

Bull flops. There was not enough oxygen in the dust clouds to sustain a fire in the paper that may have been ejected while burning. Dust makes a pretty good extinguishing agent. There was enoguh still-burning material buried in the rubble to rekindle later.

So, clearly we are dealing with a force, but it obviously did things that gravity absolutely cannot do; it was inconsistent with magnetism, with radiation and with heat, as per the account quoted above from someone who was there and who experienced it.

It was DEW.
Click to expand...

No. It was wind. If the bag was open, dust would have gotten inside it. You must never have been caught in a serious sand storm.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
There is never a negative slope in the velocity curve derived from the distance vs. time measurements of the fall of the upper section of WTC 1.

Dave is incorrect here when he says there was a velocity drop at 1.7 seconds into the fall. The velocity never decreases at any time and there is only a drop in the rate at which velocity is being gained. They are not the same things.
Click to expand...
It's hard to tell whether Tony is denying the reality of arithmetic or the reality of his own data.

In the table on page 7 of (what I presume to be the 7th revision of) his paper, the roof fall distances in feet at 1.500, 1.667, and 1.834 seconds are listed as:

1.500 25.52
1.667 32.56
1.834 38.72

The following equations are facts of arithmetic:

32.56 - 25.52 = 7.04
38.72 - 32.56 = 6.16

In other words, Tony's raw unsmoothed data show the roof travelling 7.04 feet between 1.5 and 1.67 seconds, but only 6.16 feet between 1.67 and 1.83 seconds. It is a fact of arithmetic that 7.04 > 6.16.

That means the velocity actually drops: the velocity during the 1.67-1.83 interval really is less than it was during the preceding 1.5-1.67 interval.

The table on page 8 of Tony's paper hides that drop because Tony and his distinguished co-author calculate the velocity using symmetric (balanced) differencing, which is a form of data smoothing.

Tony is free to argue that balanced differencing is an appropriate way to reduce the effects of measurement and quantization error in his data, but he cannot make that argument without admitting that his data contain measurement and quantization error. Once he admits that, however, the natural question to ask is whether those errors are large enough to mask a jolt of the size he has predicted. As Dave Rogers explained so well just a few posts above, the errors are indeed large enough to hide the jolt.

That is why no competent scientist would ever use Tony's data to argue for the absence of a jolt.
 
jammonius said:
So, clearly we are dealing with a force, but it obviously did things that gravity absolutely cannot do; it was inconsistent with magnetism, with radiation and with heat, as per the account quoted above from someone who was there and who experienced it.

It was DEW.
Click to expand...

Would you mind, using your apparent vast wealth of knowledge about the subject, where this DEW weapon was launched from? A simple answer will suffice.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
To have an amplified load velocity must actually decrease.
Click to expand...

It's nice to see you've finally understood at least part of what we have been pointing out to you (that a zero acceleration still creates load), even though it took an incredible amount of explaining from many different people for it to happen. Now, if you could just understand that the load amplification is also dependent on the impact footprint, you'd be even closer to a correct understanding!
 
As someone who dropped out of the university calculus regimen somewhere before we got to diffy q, I want to thank Dave Rogers and W.D. Clinger and others for explaining this in terms (and charts) that I can understand. I do understand data smoothing, and the basic arithmetic in post 290 is crystal clear. I thought that I understood this before, with the derivatives, but I 100% understand it now, with simple subtraction. Thanks! :)
 
jammonius said:
File No. 9110075
WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW
LIEUTENANT RENE DAVILA
Interview Date: October 12, 2001
[Emphasis added.]
A. ...He goes (inaudible). I said, "Ramos?" He said, "What?" I said, "I left my wallet and my refund check in the *********** vehicle. I don't think Uncle Sam is going to give me another refund check."

Q. At this point was your vehicle lost?
A. Basically all we to do is go around the building, came around. But it took longer than usual because you're walking in like this ****.
Like you move and it's this soot like heavy dust.
While we're walking I realize that we only have two people. I see my vehicle. The seats are covered. I've still got my bag. I hold it like a trophy. Like people collect basketballs. I haven't touched -- whatever the force was, it was so strong that it went inside of the bag.
Click to expand...

I see that you like to post statements out of context. The actual interview of Lt. Davila is a 50 page document that blows most of your assumptions out of the water.
 
AZCat said:
It's nice to see you've finally understood at least part of what we have been pointing out to you (that a zero acceleration still creates load), even though it took an incredible amount of explaining from many different people for it to happen. Now, if you could just understand that the load amplification is also dependent on the impact footprint, you'd be even closer to a correct understanding!
Click to expand...

I never said that zero acceleration does not apply a load, but that it is only a static load and that is far from sufficient to collapse a structure below designed to handle several times that load.

Why do you make these silly comments? Who do you think you are kidding?
 
AZCat said:
It's nice to see you've finally understood at least part of what we have been pointing out to you (that a zero acceleration still creates load), even though it took an incredible amount of explaining from many different people for it to happen. Now, if you could just understand that the load amplification is also dependent on the impact footprint, you'd be even closer to a correct understanding!
Click to expand...

Yup. Same load it always was. Nothing magical. Nothing out of this world. Falling from a dead set position does not equate picking the top of the WTC up with the hand of God and dropping it. That's not what happened. In fact that wouldn't have even been enough to do what was witnessed anyway. It was just sitting there like it always had been. Even if one corner had failed, and then the rest of the corners failed because of that first failure, it wouldn't have been as uniform of a collapse that was witnessed. How instantaneous do some of you people think that kind of failure happens all the way around without incendiary assistance or explosives? Really?
 
My bolding
Tony Szamboti said:
For readers who may not be familiar, the slope in the velocity curve is indicative of the acceleration and deceleration or rate of change of the velocity, with a positive slope being acceleration and negative slope being deceleration, so it is present in the velocity curve itself. There is never a negative slope in the velocity curve derived from the distance vs. time measurements of the fall of the upper section of WTC 1 …..
Click to expand...

Wrong -TS’ own data (W.D.Clinger’s velocity vs time chart) shows this negative slope therefore deceleration occurred (assuming TS data) therefore the Missing Jolt paper based on no deceleration is wrong.

Tony Szamboti
The reason the Verinage demolitions show a deceleration and velocity loss is that they used the amplified loading gained with impact in a natural gravity collapse after the columns of a couple of stories in the middle of the building were removed with hydraulics to gain the required momentum.
Click to expand...

If there is a loss of velocity in the Verinage demolitions it is because unlike at the Towers, the falling loads of the block above are equally distributed onto the block below . And TS knows this.

Tony Szamboti said:
The Verinage demolition technique removes the columns of a couple of stories to allow a drop of the upper section and to build momentum …..
Click to expand...

Tony Szamboti; said:
I think one can say there was some pre-weakening in the Balzac-Vitry building since there were obviously three floors in the middle of the building which had been visibly modified. The demolition only pulled the columns of the upper two modified stories….
Click to expand...
.

Wrong – Balzac-Vitry was not a column and beam structure. It was a precast concrete loadbearing wall structure.
.
Balzac -Vitry Tower
[qimg]http://www.cg94.fr/files/diaporama/11190/11199p.jpg[/qimg]


Tannen Towers
“Architectural precast concrete wall panels that act as loadbearing
elements in a building are both a structurally efficient and
economical means of transferring floor and roof loads through the
structure and into the foundation. …

The 32-story Tannen Towers condominium project in Atlantic City, New
Jersey, completed in 1987 uses portal frames at the base, and bearing walls
in the upper levels (see Fig. 36). The building is subdivided from top to bottom by a central corridor. A row of 37 ft (11.3 m) long bearing walls, which are typically 8 in. (203 mm) thick, runs along either side of the corridor.
The walls cantilever 11 ft (3.35 m) beyond the face of the base structure on
both sides of the building. To stabilize the structure, the design links pairs of
bearing walls across the corridor with steel ties back-to-back angles rein -
forced with a continuous plate.
The entire structure was built using precast, prestressed concrete hollow core slabs, balcony slabs, precast load bearing walls, stairs and landings.”

http://www.pci.org/view_file.cfm?file=PR-24.PDF


Another example of a concrete loadbearing wall structure
[qimg]http://www.cpci.ca/images/sectionpics/potm/22005/1.jpg[/qimg]
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I never said that zero acceleration does not apply a load, but that it is only a static load and that is far from sufficient to collapse a structure below designed to handle several times that load.

Why do you make these silly comments? Who do you think you are kidding?
Click to expand...

Really, Tony? This has been discussed ad nauseum in this forum, at democraticunderground, and even at Gregory Urich's forum. Don't think you can rewrite history, because there's plenty of evidence documenting your claims. The only thing silly was your contorted defense of those claims. I'm glad you've given at least one of them up, but don't pretend you never made it.
 
AZCat said:
Really, Tony? This has been discussed ad nauseum in this forum, at democraticunderground, and even at Gregory Urich's forum. Don't think you can rewrite history, because there's plenty of evidence documenting your claims. The only thing silly was your contorted defense of those claims. I'm glad you've given at least one of them up, but don't pretend you never made it.
Click to expand...

So is there difference or not between the two? What is your opinion? There is zero acceleration and then there is the other. What is your claim? Because if it is zero then you have zero as far as your beliefs go.
 
Profanz said:
So is there difference or not between the two? What is your opinion? There is zero acceleration and then there is the other. What is your claim? Because if it is zero then you have zero as far as your beliefs go.
Click to expand...

The difference is between what Tony now claims he said, and what he really did.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
...
Keep trying Dave. I was wondering today if you have a job other than posting on this forum. Do you?
Click to expand...
Do you type very slow? It takes seconds to read your real-cd-deal and label your 911 scam a delusion. You also lack a reality based physics background and need to review E=mgh. Missing jolt, is more like a missing education used practically. Is the job attack all you have to support your real-cd-deal. lol, 8 years and you still type slow and think it takes time to respond to your failed ideas on 911.

The OP show idiots at work; you support idiots. When will you take the time to learn that, or anything about 911?
 
Profanz said:
Yup. Same load it always was. Nothing magical. Nothing out of this world. Falling from a dead set position does not equate picking the top of the WTC up with the hand of God and dropping it. That's not what happened. In fact that wouldn't have even been enough to do what was witnessed anyway. It was just sitting there like it always had been. Even if one corner had failed, and then the rest of the corners failed because of that first failure, it wouldn't have been as uniform of a collapse that was witnessed. How instantaneous do some of you people think that kind of failure happens all the way around without incendiary assistance or explosives? Really?
Click to expand...
:dl:
I love when truthers try to get technical. You'll only find a meaningless term like "incendiary assistance" when a truther troll steps out of his comformt zone.
 
BasqueArch said:
My bolding


Wrong -TS’ own data (W.D.Clinger’s velocity vs time chart) shows this negative slope therefore deceleration occurred (assuming TS data) therefore the Missing Jolt paper based on no deceleration is wrong.


<snipped for brevity>

Another example of a concrete loadbearing wall structure
[qimg]http://www.cpci.ca/images/sectionpics/potm/22005/1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

You'll find that discussing different properties through a case study will be difficult to get across. You're speaking to somebody who thinks the WTC and the Murrah Building should have exhibited roughly the same behavior.
 
AZCat said:
The difference is between what Tony now claims he said, and what he really did.
Click to expand...

I try not to call anyone a liar unless it is very warranted. In this instance here you are lying.

I never said what you purport. I have said that zero acceleration does not allow for load amplification, but that isn't what you are saying.

It is possible that the problem may be your lack of understanding and maybe you aren't intentionally lying. However, either way you aren't telling the truth.
 
Last edited:
Tony, why don't you remove all doubt, and skip all the semantics and the parsing. Take your study and submit it to a peer-reviewed engineering journal. The work will speak for itself, and you won't have to worry about being mis-quoted.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Every engineer I talk to at work about this believes there should have been a deceleration, if the collapse of WTC 1 was due to natural forces.
Click to expand...
I hope these engineers don't work on anything taller than a sofa.
 
jammonius said:
Gravity is an incredibly weak force and could not have accounted for the destruction of the lower 80 floors of the the South Tower and the lower 95 floors of the North by the small fraction of floors above them.
Click to expand...

what's the point of debating people who have ZERO knowledge of what the other side believes..and who have such a pathetic understanding of such basic forces like gravity?

such a waste of time. I will never engage in a debate with Jamm regarding 9-11, ever again.

***please remind me of this promise if I forget.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
I try not to call anyone a liar unless it is very warranted. In this instance here you are lying.

I never said what you purport. I have said that zero acceleration does not allow for load amplification, but that isn't what you are saying.

It is possible that the problem may be your lack of understanding and maybe you aren't intentionally lying. However, either way you aren't telling the truth.
Click to expand...

Not even six months later and you're claiming it didn't happen. Thank goodness JREF still has the post available.

For those who need a little help, here's the post:
Tony Szamboti said:
If the upper block only decelerates at 1g then the force applied is equal to the static load. If it decelerates at less than 1g then the force applied is less than the static load. Remember F = ma.

In order to get an amplification the deceleration needs to be greater than 1g.

If the deceleration were 2g then the force applied would be twice the static load.
Click to expand...

See, Tony used to think that a body had to decelerate at 1g in order to produce a force equal to the static load. This is incorrect. We corrected him - multiple times, across multiple forums. Now he thinks he can pretend he never made that claim.
 
See, Tony used to think that a body had to decelerate at 1g in order to produce a force equal to the static load. This is incorrect. We corrected him - multiple times, across multiple forums. Now he thinks he can pretend he never made that claim.
Click to expand...

So what, he is off by 1g, what is that among thruthers? :D
 
AZCat said:
Not even six months later and you're claiming it didn't happen. Thank goodness JREF still has the post available.

For those who need a little help, here's the post:


See, Tony used to think that a body had to decelerate at 1g in order to produce a force equal to the static load. This is incorrect. We corrected him - multiple times, across multiple forums. Now he thinks he can pretend he never made that claim.
Click to expand...

I was speaking of deceleration from full gravitational acceleration or a relative 2g deceleration there and what I said was correct. In other words a deceleration from +1g to -1g would cause the load to be 2x that of the static load. If it had decelerated at 1g from full gravitational acceleration then it would have zero acceleration and would apply the same load as the static load, and if it had decelerated at less than 1g from full gravitational acceleration the load it would be applying would be less than the static load.

If you did understand what I said there then you are obviously nothing more than a word twister. The only people you would impress with your deceptive word twisting are those who aren't knowledgeable in the area, as it is apparent you can't contribute much to the discussion and can't discount what I am saying.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I was speaking of deceleration from full gravitational acceleration or a relative 2g deceleration there and what I said was correct. In other words a deceleration from +1g to -1g would cause the load to be 2x that of the static load. If it had decelerated at 1g from full gravitational acceleration then it would have zero acceleration and would apply the same load as the static load, and if it had decelerated at less than 1g from full gravitational acceleration the load it would be applying would be less than the static load.

If you did understand what I said there then you are obviously nothing more than a word twister. The only people you would impress with your deceptive word twisting are those who aren't knowledgeable in the area, as it is apparent you can't contribute much to the discussion and can't discount what I am saying.
Click to expand...

So I was wrong - you haven't understood it yet. I am (yet again) amazed that a degreed engineer could make such a mess of basic physics principles.
 
Toke said:
So what, he is off by 1g, what is that among thruthers? :D
Click to expand...

I'm almost to the point of giving up on Tony. I don't know why he can't see what is quite obvious to everyone else, even non-technical people.
 
Toke said:
You are still 1g off.
Click to expand...
He does not understand gravity, or he thinks a WTC floor can hold more than 25,000,000, or was it 29,000,000 pounds. Just placing a certain weight on a floor in the WTC will fail the floor. CD delusions are hard for the fringe few to drop in favor of reality.

Poor Tony, going on 9 years of the real-cd-deal and missing jolts and he has no evidence to support his paranoid conspiracy theories.

Why do 911 cult delusion believers fall for the billiard-ball junk?
 
If it had decelerated at 1g from full gravitational acceleration then it would have zero acceleration and would apply the same load as the static load,
Click to expand...
If you examine this part of your newly edited word salad, you will find that the same object is both decelerating at 1g, and have zero acceleration, both at the same time.

You have to remember that a static load is the weight of the building when stationary, it does not disappear just because it is moving. So when something is moving downwards and decelerating the load will be the usual 1g plus the g of the deceleration.

Decelerating a drop at 0.2g would be mass times (1g+0.2g) for a total of 1.2 times static load.
 
Toke said:
Yes, I am impressed with me too. :D
Click to expand...

You should be commended, because reading through the gibberish produced by the truth movement (like Tony's most recent post) makes even technically-savvy people scratch their heads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom