ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags controlled demolition , free fall , wtc7

Reply
Old 9th December 2013, 09:51 AM   #361
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 16,621
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
LSSBB replies:
"I think [Bilbo] needs to take (retake?) a course in Physics or talk directly to a physicist to have it explained to him."
I agree with this. My debate with Bilbo on his previous post was specifically about how, in order to avoid simple mistakes, a layperson ought to have expert guidance when attempting to adjudicate an expert dispute (and especially when the layperson wants to side with a tiny minority). Unfortunately he so far refuses to understand my position, instead interpreting it somehow as a direct defense of FEMA or something, which wouldn't make any sense. You can see how this went in the previous post.

ozeco41 replies:
"That is my opinion also. I considered and half drafted an explanation but decided against posting. I'm not into blogs or YT style 'debate'. Given that forums are dying in the arse I may need to change my attitude ---- or change this hobby."
I think a change of attitudes might be good, and your participation on Bilbo's blog would be helpful. One disadvantage of forums is that they are full of so much extraneous material. One thing that's good about a blog like Bilbo's is that he takes himself to be able to adjudicate a technical dispute with very, very few words, and fairly little ad hominem. So you can have a fairly efficient exchange that wouldn't take too much of your time. A while back on this forum Oystein noted that he had had a respectful debate with Bilbo. (Speaking of which, what happened to Oystein? And Sunstealer?)

Grizzly Bear replies:
"Usually all I ask is how "freefall" gives a specific, unambiguous reference to explosives and controlled demolition, then their poker face ensues"
This is one reason why Bilbo's post is somewhat more interesting, because he makes the more narrow argument that the official explanation merely fails to explain free fall, and that on the basis of this more study is needed. That being said, as far as I can tell Bilbo does think free fall is evidence of controlled demolition, on the basis of a superficial common sense style argument: (i) one way to achieve free fall is to remove all supports all at once; (ii) one way to remove all supports all at once is controlled demolition; (iii) so one way to achieve free fall is controlled demolition.

One argument offered here against the more narrow claim is that insofar as the NIST simulation model wasn't intended to explain all parts of the collapse, but merely the onset, the 2.25 seconds in question are not germane. This claim is somewhat hard to evaluate as a layperson. A model is always idealized in multiple respects, but that doesn't mean all anomalies in the explanandum would be acceptable. So it's important to know which sorts of anomalies are problematic and which are not. I don't know how to do this except by either (i) becoming a trained expert with lots of experience in this sort of thing; or (ii) extensive review and engagement with experts who have such experience. Of course Bilbo is implicitly unwilling to do this (I say "implicitly" because, as you can see from the previous post on his blog, he seems to refuse to respond to this aspect of my position).
Sunstealer has ratcheted back on the posting, not surprising since it's all dying embers.

Oystein is a different story. He disappeared after some discussion in a non-9/11 thread about some complications in his personal life. No one can find him, phone calls and personal emails don't get through for folks that knew him more closely. His disappearance had folks worried for a long time, and there has been no news. Chris Mohr can provide further details if you need them.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2013, 12:19 PM   #362
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,910
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
... This is one reason why Bilbo's post is somewhat more interesting, because he makes the more narrow argument that the official explanation merely fails to explain free fall, and that on the basis of this more study is needed. ...
Armed with ignorance, he thinks a study is needed. He has no comprehension of physics, or what NIST did, purpose, etc. He loves to Gish Gallop using BS as his tool.

Using a single point tracked on a building, a building with infinite points. Talk about BS, he is much more narrow on this subject as he ignores the interior collapsing, making excuses why the failed interior can't help the collapse of the facade go faster; waves his hands and makes up more BS.

Then engineering models of the collapse. He wants E=mc2 to clearly explain an atomic explosions. He can't comprehend engineering models, and why they don't look like what happened, no clue. With willful ignorance, wants NIST to redo the collapse model to show free-fall, what? How absurd. Why can't he gain the knowledge and tools to understand the real world? Too lazy?

The collapse sequence NIST has is a probable collapse sequence (wake up, it might not be what happened), no one knows the real one. It is engineering, it is a possible way WTC 7 collapsed, and Bilbo wants NIST to redo it to match how he thinks it should look (how immature). Due to Bilbo's ignorance of physics, math, science, and engineering - things which he could master on his own.

Thermite was made up by a mad man; It is a lie. Bilbo holds on to lies out of ignorance. Thermite is the sign of woo, as 911 truth mentally ill leaders keep pushing it. Mental illness is the only excuse I can find for a lie so stupid. Jones, the inventor of thermite used on the WTC, also entertained the idea the USA caused the Haiti earthquake.

Bilbo also has other lies about 911, where thermite was suppose to play a a part according to the "leading 911 truth experts" who appear to be insane about thermite. The the corroded steel in Appendix C of FEMA, was studied and proves it was not attacked by thermite. It is ironic Bilbo can use the report that does not support thermite to support thermite. Not sure how he can Gish Gallop and move the goal posts to support the fantasy. Then he falls for silly 911 truth experiments of thermite, which also prove thermite was not use. (big clue: there are no piles of iron found at the WTC) It is a pattern of woo, and he can't stop defending fantasy. Like a religion of ignorance, anti-intellectual claptrap, worshiping lies dumb down so far, he can debate them nicely, and so sweet, because they are his religious fantasy of 911. A sweet liar, nice to all, defending his delusion, the need for a new study. He loves to twist the reality based work to fit his fantasy, a religion to explain his need for a new study; one more study; put 10 seconds back on the clock until he wins the Pulitzer.

12 years and we have nuts (for the 911 issue) pop up and spew the party line of 911 truth; we want a new study; we can't comprehend eutectic, we can't do engineering studies, so we pick to spread lies about the day 3,000 were murdered by 19 other nuts who do understand 911, and they did not use thermite, they used knives.

What makes Bilbo so bad, he is nice. He blogs along spreading lies instead of busting them, and exposing 911 truth for the biased hateful liars and frauds they are. He supports lies because he can't comprehend. When he matures, he will wish the Internet did not remember his silly posts, nice posts of woo, his legacy.



Quote:
on the basis of this more study is needed
Not by anyone but him. He is the problem here, he will have to hire a tutor. Wow. The graph of one point, needs more study. lol, typical 911 truth mentally; skip the big picture, please explain this one point.

He takes studies and messes up the meaning to support his biased view of the topic being discussed. It is called ignorance, and he refuses to learn or try to expand his knowledge based. Not only not listening, but make up more junk, not learning, only in need of, "more study". 12 years, study time over.

He is so nice, supporting lies and liars, 911 truth. Good job. You have a great friend who can't see the fraud of 911 truth.

Yes, as long as the message is delivered nicely, why question the intent; is that a NAZI follower kind of thing? Tolerate lies and ignorance because it is packaged as a sweet debate, all nice and personable. Is that how racism works, and the best way to spread lies? Do it nicely?


What if Flight 93 Passengers all got up, said we "need more study", and sat down, failing to take action to stop murderers? 12 years, and Bilbo needs more study, and he asks so nicely as he spreads delusions of explosives, and thermite, so nicely. He is nice, but he does not understand models.

911 truth failure continues, "need more study". Put 12 more years on the clock.
http://bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/...ce-of-wtc.html

Quote:
Free fall is the greatest rate of acceleration that gravity can achieve. If acceleration is greater than free fall, then something more than just gravity is at work.
oops, I guess simple reality is too much for Bilbo to grasp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE

Bilbo takes delusions of 911 truth, claims based on ignorances and turns them into a religion of woo; he can't take a simple concept and apply it to a collapsing building. That is ignorance.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

oops faster than g, again. Be sure he ignores simple concepts and sticks with the woo, presented nicely, calmly and with lots of sweet BS, to keep it super nice, personable, perfect.

Bilbo posts videos on his blog filled with lies and nonsense about 911. Good job being nice and spreading lies Bilbo. Nice job, nicely done, spreading lies. Perfect. Like a religion, his prophets are the top nuts in 911 truth.

Last edited by beachnut; 9th December 2013 at 01:19 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2013, 02:20 PM   #363
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
I take it one step further and ask "explain how you can get free fall by using CD."
Oh that's 'easy'.

Just completely remove the entire lengths of columnal support over the height for which you wish the structure to drop at ffa, doing so with every column on that(those) level(s) simultaneously.

easy-peasy. ,,,, but gonna be a tad (earth shakingly) loud.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2013, 02:31 PM   #364
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Oh that's 'easy'.

Just completely remove the entire lengths of columnal support over the height for which you wish the structure to drop at ffa, doing so with every column on that(those) level(s) simultaneously.

easy-peasy. ,,,, but gonna be a tad (earth shakingly) loud.
And more than slightly obvious from a bystander's POV.
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 03:19 AM   #365
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Hi hi, I hope everyone has been sleeping well. I have, kind of. I am trying to figure out where to go from here. Can we try to agree on something, or maybe anything -- kind of the same thing wouldn't you say? If a building -- WTC7 or any other -- is observed to collapse on all sides at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time, would that not mean that all of the structural support must have given way at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time?

Are we gonna disagree on this? I mean, it doesn't take a PHD in physics to understand that, does it?
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 03:26 AM   #366
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,394
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Hi hi, I hope everyone has been sleeping well. I have, kind of. I am trying to figure out where to go from here. Can we try to agree on something, or maybe anything -- kind of the same thing wouldn't you say? If a building -- WTC7 or any other -- is observed to collapse on all sides at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time, would that not mean that all of the structural support must have given way at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time?
90% yes. The other 10% can stay on the side to allow for some more esoteric possibilities.

Try a slightly different approach:
If the building is falling then all columns have failed. (Believe it or not I have posted that claim several times in specific reference to WTC1 or WTC2 and been ignored by BOTH "sides" - so it isn't only perceived truthers that are not trusted. )



PS BTW Where are you trying to go - I may be able to help.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 03:28 AM   #367
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,021
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Hi hi, I hope everyone has been sleeping well. I have, kind of. I am trying to figure out where to go from here. Can we try to agree on something, or maybe anything -- kind of the same thing wouldn't you say? If a building -- WTC7 or any other -- is observed to collapse on all sides at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time, would that not mean that all of the structural support must have given way at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time?

Are we gonna disagree on this? I mean, it doesn't take a PHD in physics to understand that, does it?
Wouldn't that depend on how you say the structual supports gave way ?
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 03:29 AM   #368
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,389
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Hi hi, I hope everyone has been sleeping well. I have, kind of. I am trying to figure out where to go from here. Can we try to agree on something, or maybe anything -- kind of the same thing wouldn't you say? If a building -- WTC7 or any other -- is observed to collapse on all sides at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time, would that not mean that all of the structural support must have given way at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time?

Are we gonna disagree on this? I mean, it doesn't take a PHD in physics to understand that, does it?
We already know, from the earlier collapse of the E Penthouse, that collapse was not even nearly synchronised, whether so-called 'global' collapse was through chance or choice. Additionally, we never see the E or S faces of the building and simply don't know what was happening there.

You're starting with a faulty observation and reaching a faulty conclusion.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 03:31 AM   #369
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,394
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Wouldn't that depend on how you say the structual supports gave way ?
I didn't read that limitation into his question. Let's see what he says.

EDIT PS
And he is not talking about the actual WTC7 collapse - he was specific:
Quote:
If a building -- WTC7 or any other -- is observed to collapse on all sides at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time,
If a building is observed to collapse on all sides <<< That is not WTC7 actual collapse on 9/11 - it is a different scenario.

Last edited by ozeco41; 10th December 2013 at 03:36 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 03:53 AM   #370
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Hi hi, I hope everyone has been sleeping well. I have, kind of. I am trying to figure out where to go from here. Can we try to agree on something, or maybe anything -- kind of the same thing wouldn't you say? If a building -- WTC7 or any other -- is observed to collapse on all sides at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time, would that not mean that all of the structural support must have given way at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time?

Are we gonna disagree on this? I mean, it doesn't take a PHD in physics to understand that, does it?
That's it in a nutshell. How does something as erratic and unpredictable as fire damage and build up to a global collapse? It doesn't.
Clayton Moore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 04:49 AM   #371
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
so clayton you do not accept that fire will weaken steel sufficiently to cause structural collapse?

where is the evidence that fires do not cause steel to weaken?
Dcdrac is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 05:08 AM   #372
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by Dcdrac View Post
so clayton you do not accept that fire will weaken steel sufficiently to cause structural collapse?

where is the evidence that fires do not cause steel to weaken?
That's insane. Fire may heat up something but it's temporary and the fire goes out after the fuel is consumed and as the fire is moving on.

Multilateral, sustained, and concurrent are not words that can be used with fire damage therefore fire could not cause a global collapse.
Clayton Moore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 05:12 AM   #373
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
That's insane. Fire may heat up something but it's temporary and the fire goes out after the fuel is consumed and as the fire is moving on.

Multilateral, sustained, and concurrent are not words that can be used with fire damage therefore fire could not cause a global collapse.
And global free fall as the result of fire is pure idiocy.
Clayton Moore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 05:21 AM   #374
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
clayton you do know that fire will weaken steel especially the intense prolonged kind of fire that occurred during the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre
Dcdrac is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 05:29 AM   #375
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
http://www.steelconstruction.info/Fi...l_construction

Quote:
The strength of hot rolled structural steel decreases with temperature. Following an extensive series of standard fire tests, that strength reduction has been quantified. Recent international research has also shown that the limiting (failure) temperature of a structural steel member is not fixed but varies according to two factors, the temperature profile and the load.
Dcdrac is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 06:56 AM   #376
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 16,621
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
And global free fall as the result of fire is pure idiocy.
Hey, Clayton, do me a favor and point out where the free fall is on a graph, and how long it lasts. I mean, right at free fall.

You call it idiocy, and you can't even prove it exists, I bet.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 07:05 AM   #377
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Hi hi, I hope everyone has been sleeping well. I have, kind of. I am trying to figure out where to go from here. Can we try to agree on something, or maybe anything -- kind of the same thing wouldn't you say? If a building -- WTC7 or any other -- is observed to collapse on all sides at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time, would that not mean that all of the structural support must have given way at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time?

Are we gonna disagree on this? I mean, it doesn't take a PHD in physics to understand that, does it?
What you describe is a Verniage technique of demolition. Yes if such a condition as you describe above exists then the entire structure that remains above the destroyed zone will fall as a unit , simultaneously.

That sequence of collapse did not exist in the case of WTC 7(or for that matter with WTC 1 & 2 either) , and therefore that condition (all columns destroyed simultaneously) does not follow either.

Why is it that you and others cannot observe the collapse as first an internal collapse followed by the outer walls collapsing? Why is it the you cannot see that the north side of the structure failed first along the 'kink' follwoed by the rest of the structure collapsing?

Yes, when the collapse finally ramped up to the final few seconds and the structure was observed at certain locations, to have its acceleration ramp up to and through free fall, it would be a safe bet that all columns had failed at a lower level. Failed columns means they support no load. A buckled column supports no load. A column tilted beyond 30 degrees, with a loss of lateral restraint at either end, will support NO load.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 08:40 AM   #378
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,382
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Hi hi, I hope everyone has been sleeping well. I have, kind of. I am trying to figure out where to go from here. Can we try to agree on something, or maybe anything -- kind of the same thing wouldn't you say? If a building -- WTC7 or any other -- is observed to collapse on all sides at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time, would that not mean that all of the structural support must have given way at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time?

Are we gonna disagree on this? I mean, it doesn't take a PHD in physics to understand that, does it?
HI HI! Lets do this first! Why don't you go back and acknowledge all the errors you made in your "QED" post from several days ago, which have been painstakingly cataloged in this thread.

That is where we go from here, chum.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 10:57 AM   #379
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,910
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
...One argument offered here against the more narrow claim is that insofar as the NIST simulation model wasn't intended to explain all parts of the collapse, but merely the onset, the 2.25 seconds in question are not germane. ...
Quote:
David Chandler claimed there was free fall for 2.25 seconds. NIST went back and did their own measurements (measuring from the middle of the top of the building, instead of the northwest corner as Chandler had done) and agreed that there was free fall for 2.25 seconds. So neither party is in dispute about this. Only third party bloggers dispute it. NIST didn't revise their simulation to show no resistance. Instead, they claim that the resistance of the buckling columns was negligible. Very well. At leas do the calculations to show that it was negligible.
Truthers like your friend are gullible. He all over the place with silly claims. NIST data has always been the same, the "free-fall" stuff was there. Thus the Chandler claim is the same as NIST, except Chandler thinks 911 was an inside job, Chandler has a fantasy. What the talk of third party bloggers who dispute it? Source? Bilbo has no real story on 911, he sees 911 truth stuff and thinks there is substance, the same as Bigfoot believers, BS based on delusions. Instead of exposing the ignorance of 911 truth, Bilbo embraces the lies as substance.

Truthers like your friend are gullible, when he finds 911 truth claims he is not armed with the tools to see the fraud, the lies. Bilbo thinks Kevin Ryan has substance, and falls for the lies about OKC. Bilbo is so gullible he thinks the government did the OKC bombing after seeing a fantasy video. Bilbo's blog is based on ignorance, and Bilbo is diverging from the truth into woo-land.

What could be an intelligent Blog exposing 911 truth claims as delusional, is a blog of weak worship of woo, an embarrassingly anti-intellectual take on 911, a study in gullibility and ignorance.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 12:38 PM   #380
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
Here is the latest from Bilbo. The bolded stuff is what he's replying to (I think LSSBB is the one engaging him).

"637:
The combined acceleration from the pull added to the g acceleration of the weight of the columns, minus the resistance at the bottom, can exceed g. It is a simple stack up of forces.


Let's go back to your original equation:

(Force of Pull) - (Force of Resistance) + (Pull of gravity) = (Total Force)

If the Force of Pull were something separate from the Pull of gravity, then we have a separate force that we add to the Pull of gravity. For example, let's say that Superman were pulling down on the interior columns and walls. Then we have a force in addition to gravity. Then acceleration could (and given Superman's strength, no doubt would) exceed free fall.

But (according to NIST) there is no separate force from gravity. We have gravity pulling down on everything at the same time and with the same force. It's pulling down on the exterior of the building. It's pulling down on the interior of the building. In our F=MA calculations, F=the pull of gravity. There's no other force to add to it.

Now if A is greater than free fall, then some additional force besides gravity is at work, and NIST's theory is falsified.

Free fall is the greatest rate of acceleration that gravity can achieve. If acceleration is greater than free fall, then something more than just gravity is at work."
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 01:23 PM   #381
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
Bilbo has changed his position. LSSBB's comment in bold.

"637: you are imposing an artificial limitation on what the acceleration of something can be.

I thought about it afterwards and realized that you are correct. So if someone thought (as neither NIST nor Chandler thinks) that the building exceeded free fall acceleration, then they could argue that the source was some interior mass applying enough force to cause it. If NIST is correct, then this mass had, if I remember correctly, about 1.7 seconds plus whenever someone thinks greater than free fall acceleration occurred. If Chandler is correct, then it had less than 1.7 seconds. If someone thinks that the exterior of the building was uniformly exceeding greater than free fall acceleration, then this mass was applying the force uniformly. Sounds a little improbable."

EDIT: You can see from this that it is possible for Bilbo to admit when he makes fairly elementary physics mistakes, and I hope this encourages people to engage him on his blog. (Why a person who makes such mistakes deems himself able to adjudicate a technical dispute without expertise is another matter.)

Last edited by egalicontrarian; 10th December 2013 at 01:53 PM.
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 01:23 PM   #382
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,382
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post

Free fall is the greatest rate of acceleration that gravity can achieve. If acceleration is greater than free fall, then something more than just gravity is at work."
False. Example, the tip of a rotating beam around its center of mass can achieve acceleration greater than free fall.

Example, an object when struck by another falling object can achieve acceleration much greater than free fall.

eta: Example, the end of a rope or chain that is attached on the other end can exceed free fall

Last edited by The Big Dog; 10th December 2013 at 01:49 PM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 01:55 PM   #383
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 16,621
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Bilbo has changed his position. LSSBB's comment in bold.

"637: you are imposing an artificial limitation on what the acceleration of something can be.

I thought about it afterwards and realized that you are correct. So if someone thought (as neither NIST nor Chandler thinks) that the building exceeded free fall acceleration, then they could argue that the source was some interior mass applying enough force to cause it. If NIST is correct, then this mass had, if I remember correctly, about 1.7 seconds plus whenever someone thinks greater than free fall acceleration occurred. If Chandler is correct, then it had less than 1.7 seconds. If someone thinks that the exterior of the building was uniformly exceeding greater than free fall acceleration, then this mass was applying the force uniformly. Sounds a little improbable."
By the way, *637 is me (blame the blog software to AIM login link for the goofy username). Bilbo still doesn't seem to get how forces stack up. The amount of force applied by the interior collapse would be pretty high, so I'm not surprised that the acceleration could shoot up past g once the exterior columns give way.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 02:24 PM   #384
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,910
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Here is the latest from Bilbo. The bolded stuff is what he's replying to (I think LSSBB is the one engaging him).

..."
Bilbo can't do physics given the answer. He quibbles about his failed conclusions which he refuse to make clear. This is a hobby in ignorance. He finds delusional claptrap and adopts it as possible without reality based thinking.

Here is is unable to comprehend for over 8 seconds before the roof-line starts down, the interior is failing, the Penthouse disappears. Do you look at the video for detail, the interior is failing, falling while the building facade remains standing, the interior is the support of the building, it is falling apart.

What we have is Bilbo can't do the physics, he has a cartoon version of physics which guides his Gish Gallop responses. His gullibility has him thinking idiots who sell DVD on OKC bombing have substance that we blew up OKC ourselves, and gives the murderer McVeigh a pass. He is doing the same with 911, letting 911 truth do his "thinking".

Until Bilbo matures enough to accept knowledge and think for himself, your friend is lost in woo. This is a waste of time, Bilbo is too blinded by lies of 911 truth, he can't accept critique. Bilbo knows 2+2 is Cats, and your attempt to have him derive 4, fails, as he repeats Cats. The Internet is full of lies, and Bilbo is not equipped to combat the lies, he likes them. He can't take 911 as an event and decide on his own, the lies are patterned by people and sound cool, and match Bilbo's common sense take on physics, and reality - which are not right - he does not see he has no evidence. He does not understand he has nonsense manufactured by 911 truth, and fails to take the time to study the comments, or be skeptical enough to think 911 truth has failed, and maybe the people who comment are able to see the fraud of 911 truth as is, without efforts. 911 truth lies debunk themselves, all you have to do is research them using critical thinking skills, logic and knowledge. Bilbo is not using critical thinking skills to figure out 911.

When will Bilbo figure out people like Kevin Ryan are making up their claims without evidence? Bilbo thinks 2000 architects and engineers who can't figure out 911 and need a new investigating means something. it does, it means they are in as much ignorance as Bilbo is on 911 issues.

With 2000 plus, why can't A&E prove anything and be worthy of the Pulitzer Prize winning claims they support? Because it is fraud, lies, delusions and fantasy. Bilbo can't see reality.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 02:42 PM   #385
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,389
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
By the way, *637 is me (blame the blog software to AIM login link for the goofy username). Bilbo still doesn't seem to get how forces stack up. The amount of force applied by the interior collapse would be pretty high, so I'm not surprised that the acceleration could shoot up past g once the exterior columns give way.
A point that I find interesting is that when we watch the Dan Rather (and other) video we see that the West Penthouse 'outruns' the roofline, even when the roofline itself is in the phase of falling at ~g acceleration.

Clearly some stuff is getting a boost by being dragged down by neighbouring stuff.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 03:34 PM   #386
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 16,621
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Bilbo has changed his position. LSSBB's comment in bold.

"637: you are imposing an artificial limitation on what the acceleration of something can be.

I thought about it afterwards and realized that you are correct. So if someone thought (as neither NIST nor Chandler thinks) that the building exceeded free fall acceleration, then they could argue that the source was some interior mass applying enough force to cause it. If NIST is correct, then this mass had, if I remember correctly, about 1.7 seconds plus whenever someone thinks greater than free fall acceleration occurred. If Chandler is correct, then it had less than 1.7 seconds. If someone thinks that the exterior of the building was uniformly exceeding greater than free fall acceleration, then this mass was applying the force uniformly. Sounds a little improbable."

EDIT: You can see from this that it is possible for Bilbo to admit when he makes fairly elementary physics mistakes, and I hope this encourages people to engage him on his blog. (Why a person who makes such mistakes deems himself able to adjudicate a technical dispute without expertise is another matter.)
I just realized Bilbo is thinking of the uniformity (echoes of "symmetrical") of the collapse as a clue. Thanks to either Chris7 or Tony Sz, I became aware of the moment frame construction of the building. It is that very moment frame that explains why the building exterior held together under collapse and gave the appearance of uniformity. That, plus the fact that we are looking at only one side of the building.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 10th December 2013 at 03:36 PM.
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 04:04 PM   #387
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
In response

There have been several bona fide responses. Thank you.

ozeco41: “If the building is falling then all columns have failed.”
Yes, well said and I agree. I am not sure what the 10% of “esoteric possibilities” might be, but I am sure you have some in mind. It will be interesting to get to those should we get to that point. And, no doubt we will. (At least, if the internet remains alive and well.)

To Spanx: No, I don’t think it depends on “how” the structural supports gave way, just that they all did/must have given way -- in the scenario -- at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time.
Looks like Clayton would obviously agree.

jaydeehess, I was not familiar with verinage demolitions but I am now.
I contend that the technique obviously -- after watching a couple of videos -- results in all of the support giving way at the same time.
But, is that the only way? I think we all agree that is not the “only” way; and I do realize that is not what you are saying. Anyway, I am just trying to see if anyone agrees with what I presented in the scenario regarding any building and not how the loss of all support might have occurred.

Gone Fishin’, regarding the “tip” of a rotating beam moving faster than freefall: Yes, it makes sense to me that while free falling and rotating downward the tip would be moving downward at greater than free fall.
However, is not an additional (not just gravity ) force acting on the tip? Centrifugal force would be in play, would it not? Interestingly, when studying basic physics I seem to remember that centrifugal force is not an actual force, but only an apparent one. I’ll need to check that out; I may well be wrong.

I guess a better way to say it might be that two vectors apply and not just the free fall vector. The other being of course the ‘spinning,’ or ‘rotational,’ vector. (I don’t know what else to call it, but you know what I mean.) They would be added together to get “faster than free fall.” And of course, that same tip would be traveling slower than free fall when it is rotating upward. The vectors would be, in essence, opposite in direction.
……

I ask again basically the same question: Does anyone else either simply agree or not agree with the scenario? And if so, which is it?

(Actually, I’m not sure where to go from here. But I ought to go somewhere, don’t you think? Ah darn it...some -- hopefully not ALL -- of you may not think so.)

Regards.
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 04:30 PM   #388
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,394
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
There have been several bona fide responses. Thank you.

ozeco41: “If the building is falling then all columns have failed.”
Yes, well said and I agree. I am not sure what the 10% of “esoteric possibilities” might be, but I am sure you have some in mind. It will be interesting to get to those should we get to that point. And, no doubt we will. (At least, if the internet remains alive and well.)
Your original request was:
Originally Posted by david.watts
If a building -- WTC7 or any other -- is observed to collapse on all sides at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time, would that not mean that all of the structural support must have given way at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time? "
On the face of it you are correct - I think I'm the only one who has agreed. The 90%/10% thing was my arse protection because you had a lot of options in your "same time" provisions and I'm not sure what, if anything, you had in mind. I have no doubt I can explain the physics of specific situations - but I cannot predict what they are till we identify them. Hence the 10% cop-out.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
(Actually, I’m not sure where to go from here. But I ought to go somewhere, don’t you think?
I sense that you have some issues about collapse that you want to be clearer about. But I need more of a pointer than you have given so far. There is a specific issue you raise and I will make a second post.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 04:32 PM   #389
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,910
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
...
I ask again basically the same question: Does anyone else either simply agree or not agree with the scenario? And if so, which is it?

(Actually, I’m not sure where to go from here. But I ought to go somewhere, don’t you think? Ah darn it...some -- hopefully not ALL -- of you may not think so.)

Regards.
Have you retracted the fantasy statement "explosions seven stories ahead of the collapse"? Did 5 years give you time to retract the silly stuff?

Your proof is nonsense. Proof you can't do physics, research, or understand what happened to WTC 7. Fire did it, a gravity collapse, not CD. You don't understand how the collapse started, and imply it had to have all the support removed at one time, instead of over time; 8 seconds before the facade collapsed, the penthouse disappears into WTC 7 as the interior fails and can be seen in the facade on the video. Did you watch the video for collapse initiation, or skipped right to the woo presented by 911 truth liars and failed conspiracy theorist who can't do reality?

Your proof failed on the first statement, a false statement for WTC on 911, is there a rational scenario, your proof was BS?

Since your proof is false, and you have no clue the interior was falling before the exterior was seen falling, your all support has to be gone for collapse does not apply for WTC 7 - you are making up a scenario that did not exist on 911.

Are you trying to support the CD lie? Yes, no, or unable to make a claim?
Do you have evidence for your claim, what ever it is? No.
Have you figured out 911 truth has no valid claims?

Last edited by beachnut; 10th December 2013 at 04:39 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 04:46 PM   #390
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,394
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Your proof is nonsense. Proof you can't do physics, research, or understand what happened to WTC 7. Fire did it, a gravity collapse, not CD. You don't understand how the collapse started, and imply it had to have all the support removed at one time, instead of over time; 8 seconds before the facade collapsed, the penthouse disappears into WTC 7 as the interior fails and can be seen in the facade on the video. Did you watch the video for collapse initiation, or skipped right to the woo presented by 911 truth liars and failed conspiracy theorist who can't do reality?

Your proof failed on the first statement, a false statement for WTC on 911, is there a rational scenario, your proof was BS?
Beachnut why don't you - just once - pretty please - respond to what was actually posted? He didn't post a proof - he asked a question.

The question was very straightforward:
Quote:
If a building -- WTC7 or any other -- is observed to collapse on all sides at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time, would that not mean that all of the structural support must have given way at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time?
He is not asking about the actual 9/11 collapse; AND
Apart from the vagueness about "same time" the answer is "YES"

The fact that you want to treat him as a truther doesn't miraculously change the rules of Newtonian Physics.

Pull all the props out and a building will fall. Reversing that to match what david.watts asked - if a building is falling it means all the props have been removed or have failed.

If I'm wrong on that I'm sure someone will tell me why.

Last edited by ozeco41; 10th December 2013 at 04:47 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 05:38 PM   #391
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,910
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Beachnut why don't you - just once - pretty please - respond to what was actually posted? He didn't post a proof - he asked a question.

The question was very straightforward: ...
I did.

Quote:
your "all support has to be gone for collapse" does not apply for WTC 7 - you are making up a scenario that did not exist on 911.
It needs work, my response, but I had to go back to see what the scenario was; research, and then an edit.


My questions are out there, why can't I get an answer?

I was also seeing if he retracted his proof, yet. (aka a question)
I was also seeing if he has matured past the explosives in the WTC fantasy. Has he? (another question) 5 years, a long time to remain in the CD fantasy world of 911 truth.

It would be cool, if he repeated his scenario, since repetition is also a tool in the box of education. A repeat of the scenario, a simple repeat, an expanded dumbed down version for me, expanded for the engineers, something or anything.

I read his old posts to find the scenario, after researching what the heck his scenario was; it was not what happened on 911. Is it an attempt to back in CD, explosives, silent explosives, or thermite. What is his scenario? (oops another unanswered question)
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 05:40 PM   #392
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,394


He has moved on.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 07:51 PM   #393
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,394
@david.watts
This is the "second post" I promised. I want to (try to) explain the "higher than G" issue that you are thinking about. So this bit of your post:
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
...regarding the “tip” of a rotating beam moving faster than freefall: Yes, it makes sense to me that while free falling and rotating downward the tip would be moving downward at greater than free fall.
However, is not an additional (not just gravity ) force acting on the tip? Centrifugal force would be in play, would it not? Interestingly, when studying basic physics I seem to remember that centrifugal force is not an actual force, but only an apparent one. I’ll need to check that out; I may well be wrong....

I guess a better way to say it might be that two vectors apply and not just the free fall vector. The other being of course the ‘spinning,’ or ‘rotational,’ vector. (I don’t know what else to call it, but you know what I mean.) They would be added together to get “faster than free fall.” And of course, that same tip would be travelling slower than free fall when it is rotating upward. The vectors would be, in essence, opposite in direction.
There are three distinct aspects in the three paragraphs I have quoted.

1) Your first comment
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
...regarding the “tip” of a rotating beam moving faster than freefall: Yes, it makes sense to me that while free falling and rotating downward the tip would be moving downward at greater than free fall.
...is true - but not for the obvious reason and there is a complication we need to watch - I'll deal with it in the third section.

2) your second paragraph is about the forces involved:
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
...However, is not an additional (not just gravity ) force acting on the tip? Centrifugal force would be in play, would it not? Interestingly, when studying basic physics I seem to remember that centrifugal force is not an actual force, but only an apparent one. I’ll need to check that out; I may well be wrong....
This where the concept of "free body" physics come into play. The falling beam is the simplest example of a "system" acting as a "free body" and the key aspect we need to understand is the distinction between "external" and "internal" forces. There are two "External" forces - gravity and air resistance. I will ignore air resistance for simplicity in this post. You have asked about "centrifugal force" and two issues are significant:
a) It is "internal" to the system of the falling spinning beam. It has no effect on the overall system or on falling; AND
b) Centrifugal force is an actual real force in this setting - the ends of the beam will be pulling away from each other. If you cut the beam at midpoint and insert a measuring device you could measure the centrifugal force. If you joined the cut ends with a spring the centrifugal force would stretch the spring...and I'll leave it there.

The need to separate "external" from "internal" is the foundation to understanding "free body physics" and we have started with the simplest model. I can progress to a more complicated model if we need to. Understanding the "over G" aspects of WTC7 collapse needs two full levels greater complexity but we can progress those two extra levels if you need to. (Step One - would be move to a multi element but one dimension model; Step Two - would be translate into three dimensions so we can apply to WTC7)

So we have the necessary forces identified and sorted into "internal" and "external" - Lets move on to the:

3) velocity and acceleration aspects.
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
...I guess a better way to say it might be that two vectors apply and not just the free fall vector. The other being of course the ‘spinning,’ or ‘rotational,’ vector. (I don’t know what else to call it, but you know what I mean.) They would be added together to get “faster than free fall.” And of course, that same tip would be travelling slower than free fall when it is rotating upward. The vectors would be, in essence, opposite in direction.
You nearly have it there - with the whole system/beam falling bodily at VFB the falling tip has a rotational velocity of VTR and at the beam horizontal point - the maximum and minimum VELOCITIES are VFB + VTR and VFB - VTR

It is tempting to think that there is more acceleration at those points where there is more velocity. It is a trap - I nearly fell for it myself whilst thinking about this post.

What we have added are velocities. What we are looking at is "over G" - an acceleration.

And at those maximum/minimum velocity points the added acceleration due to the spin is....zero. The model doesn't fully fail but the outcome is not as simple as it appears. We need a different model. We had one with WTC 7 North Façade - but I will pause the explanation at this stage to see if what I have posted so far helps.

And if anyone wants to identify or explain the problem with the beam/dumbbell model.

Or why the "ball and lever'" model does not have that problem.

Last edited by ozeco41; 10th December 2013 at 07:57 PM. Reason: Speling, typos and some fine tuning
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2013, 10:37 PM   #394
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,021
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post

To Spanx: No, I don’t think it depends on “how” the structural supports gave way, just that they all did/must have given way -- in the scenario -- at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time.
Looks like Clayton would obviously agree.
In the following clip would you say all structual supports gave way at the same time ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnZDu...eature=youtube

Just out of interest what does Clayton agree with?
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2013, 12:45 AM   #395
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,389
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
.....
Apart from the vagueness about "same time" the answer is "YES"

The fact that you want to treat him as a truther doesn't miraculously change the rules of Newtonian Physics.

Pull all the props out and a building will fall. Reversing that to match what david.watts asked - if a building is falling it means all the props have been removed or have failed.

If I'm wrong on that I'm sure someone will tell me why.
It/david.watts isn't "wrong", just extremely imprecise.

He's failing to note "of the part of the building we observe collapsing" when talking about all support being removed. And by continuing along that line of discussion he's defending his original false premise that all of the building's support was removed at the same time.

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen him acknowledge that it's only the N+W walls we see fall in the manner described, nor that the core of the building was falling well ahead of those. The minute he does then he'll begin to see a natural mechanism himself and won't need tutoring.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2013, 02:21 AM   #396
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,394
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
It/david.watts isn't "wrong", just extremely imprecise.
That was why I gave myself "cop out" space. The only imprecision in the current question I am responding to is in what he means by "very nearly the same time". If he has not expressed himself clearly and has something outside the scope of the question I will deal with it if and when it arises.
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
He's failing to note "of the part of the building we observe collapsing" when talking about all support being removed. And by continuing along that line of discussion he's defending his original false premise that all of the building's support was removed at the same time.

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen him acknowledge that it's only the N+W walls we see fall in the manner described, nor that the core of the building was falling well ahead of those.
I am responding to his precisely focused latest question NOT past history.

Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
The minute he does then he'll begin to see a natural mechanism himself and won't need tutoring.
My choice to provide the tutoring. I'm no where near as confident as you that he will work through it without coaching. Even if he does it is my effort nominally 'wasted'. My risk to take. I choose to take it.

And BTW this exercise forced me to rethink something I had not seen before. So a good learning exercise for me - whether or not it benefits anyone else. I'm interested to see if anyone else can spot the problem....

...without prompting
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2013, 02:51 AM   #397
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
In response

Against my better judgement -- I have imbibed a bit too much -- I will attempt at least a somewhat reasonable response.

First to beachnut: (So much to reply to.) You asked: "Are you trying to support the CD lie?" No. I am trying to support what I believe is the truth. And I know that you know where I stand. ALL I am trying to do -- with my scenario (posted above as #365) is to see if we/anybody can agree on anything. If we are both asked the question, "2+2 = what?" and you answer "4" and I answer "3.14159," well...we are most likely not going to agree much of anything.

(As an aside, I can identify with what you do at least somewhat. As to your picture you are no doubt a military pilot. I was not. However, I was an airline pilot last flying 747-400s. I have been "medically retired" for a number of years. I flew a whole bunch to Asia and quite a lot to Europe. And of course, a lot domestically).

The fact that it is now -- now that I think about it, isn't that ALWAYS a fact -- and I can barely keep my eyes open much less my fingers typing, I had better call my response complete. (note: I will re-read it later to try to determine if I made any sense.) I need to respond to ozeco3.14159, Spanx, GlennB, and anyone else that finds me asleep somewhere. E.g., on the floor.

Good night or maybe good morning. I'm betting on "Good morning."
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2013, 02:26 PM   #398
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Against my better judgement -- I have imbibed a bit too much -- I will attempt at least a somewhat reasonable response.
Rarely any good comes from drunk posting.

Quote:
(As an aside, I can identify with what you do at least somewhat. As to your picture you are no doubt a military pilot. I was not. However, I was an airline pilot last flying 747-400s. I have been "medically retired" for a number of years. I flew a whole bunch to Asia and quite a lot to Europe. And of course, a lot domestically).
Hopefully then you will be able to use your experience to weigh the competing Truther theories. Some claim it was literally physically impossible for the aircraft to strike either WTC or the Pentagon. Some claim the hijackers (with commercial licenses) could not have flow the planes well enough to make a slow turn into three of the largest buildings on the face of the planet.

That about 2/3 of Truthers hold these to be "true" one automatically has to wonder what the other 1/3 believe.
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2013, 03:58 PM   #399
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
@ozeco
The contribution to motion of the rotating beam is an acceleration if all vectors are considered in cartesian units. If you observe a rotating beam (rotating in a vertical plane, axis of rotation parallel to the ground) from the ground, the vertical velocity vector will change from upward to zero then downward and through zero again. The definition of acceleration is a change in velocity.
Therefore if one is plotting vertical acceleration of a point that is influenced both by gravity and rotation those accelerations will be additive.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 11th December 2013 at 04:09 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2013, 04:05 PM   #400
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
Granted , what is actually plotted is position of a specific spot on the building during each video frame(which means every 1/29.97 of a second)
Average velocity per frame is determined by dividing distance traveled by time per frame , and average acceleration per frame is determined by dividing change in velocity per time of frame.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 11th December 2013 at 04:07 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:21 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.