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 Dave Thomas , richard gage , wtc collapse

Reply
Old 20th August 2010, 09:25 AM   #361
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
I don't know if it can or not. Any directed stream of loose material or liquid can destroy things. We know somewhat the effects of a fire hose jet on the human body, but it's not of much relevance, imo, to our discussion, because rubble being crushed between two floors (if we are talking about an upper block) is not a directed stream, and if we are not talking about an upper block, rubble sitting alone on top of an intact building will not descend much anyway. Hence, no force. And certainly no directed stream.

Last edited by ergo; 20th August 2010 at 09:40 AM.
ergo 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 20th August 2010, 10:17 AM   #362
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,802
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I don't know if it can or not. Any directed stream of loose material or liquid can destroy things. We know somewhat the effects of a fire hose jet on the human body, but it's not of much relevance, imo, to our discussion, because rubble being crushed between two floors (if we are talking about an upper block) is not a directed stream, and if we are not talking about an upper block, rubble sitting alone on top of an intact building will not descend much anyway. Hence, no force. And certainly no directed stream.
When more than 11 floors drop on to a lower floor, the floor fails, no matter how carefully it is placed on the lower floor. You failed to read NIST. You need help with your physics; are you going to get a physics course?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

Quote:
The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
It would not matter if it was dust, the mass of 11 floor would instantly fail the lower floor. Your no mass debris dies here.

Last edited by beachnut; 20th August 2010 at 10:27 AM.
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 20th August 2010, 10:48 AM   #363
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I don't know if it can or not. Any directed stream of loose material or liquid can destroy things. We know somewhat the effects of a fire hose jet on the human body, but it's not of much relevance, imo, to our discussion, because rubble being crushed between two floors (if we are talking about an upper block) is not a directed stream, and if we are not talking about an upper block, rubble sitting alone on top of an intact building will not descend much anyway. Hence, no force. And certainly no directed stream.
What directed stream?

There was NO directed stream in the video I posted. Not one.

Yet we have a crushed car. From millions of loose particles of water.

You are the one saying that loose particles cannot impart the same mass/force that a intact item will (your bowling ball example)

I say that if I drop a 10lbs bowling ball from 10 feet on your skull it will kill you. I"m also saying that if I then drop 10lbs of sand from 10 feet it will also kill you. You are the one saying that the smaller amount of sand won't do it.

I provided you a video showing that water will crush steel. How is that possible in your world?
__________________
"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)
TruthersLie 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 20th August 2010, 10:54 AM   #364
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
When more than 11 floors drop on to a lower floor, the floor fails, no matter how carefully it is placed on the lower floor. You failed to read NIST. You need help with your physics; are you going to get a physics course?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm



It would not matter if it was dust, the mass of 11 floor would instantly fail the lower floor. Your no mass debris dies here.
What you wrote here is is plainly rubbish Beachnut.

Beachnut wrote.
'' When more than 11 floors drop on to a lower floor, the floor fails, no matter how carefully it is placed on the lower floor. You failed to read NIST. You need help with your physics; are you going to get a physics course? ''

Bear in mind the type of structure we are dealing with. An assembly of 12 spaced single floors above and a more strongly built assembly of 98 spaced single floors below. These assemblies are natural pre-made shock absorbers. Both assemblies will suffer local damage as they mash together with each absorbing the other's energy and almost immediately reaching a new equlibrium as the collapse arrests..

This will mean that whatever is left of the falling assembly that originally amounted to one-tenth of the building will end up sitting on top of the assembly amounting to nine-tenths of the building plus some rubble that the building had always carried for the previous 40 years anyway.

'' One does not dash the rocks to pieces: One is dashed to pieces on the rocks '
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 20th August 2010 at 10:57 AM.
bill smith 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 20th August 2010, 11:00 AM   #365
excaza
Illuminator
 
excaza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,593
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Bear in mind the type of structure we are dealing with. An assembly of 12 spaced single floors above and a more strongly built assembly of 98 spaced single floors below. These assemblies are natural pre-made shock absorbers. Both assemblies will suffer local damage as they mash together with each absorbing the other's energy and almost immediately reaching a new equlibrium as the collapse arrests..
No, sorry. The lower floors are not an infinite energy sink. Since we're in the real world and not imagination land, there's only so much energy they can dissipate over a period of time before they fail. The building was designed for static loads, not dynamic. Not to mention the lower floors were weakened by fire.
__________________

Last edited by excaza; 20th August 2010 at 11:04 AM.
excaza 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 20th August 2010, 11:12 AM   #366
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by excaza View Post
No, sorry. The lower floors are not an infinite energy sink. Since we're in the real world and not imagination land, there's only so much energy they can dissipate over a period of time before they fail. The building was designed for static loads, not dynamic. Not to mention the lower floors were weakened by fire.
In a building where the top one-tenth and the somewhat more heavily built lower nine-tenths are of exactly the same construction you cannot say that the top 12 floors are a single block while the lower 98 floors are an assembly of spaced single floors. It must be treated as either two blocks or it must be treated two assemblies of spaced single floors. You cannot mix and match.

Otherwise I could say for instance that the lower,more heavily built 98 floors were a single block with a lighter built assembly of 12 spaced single floors falling on that block .


So do you opt for two blocks or do you opt for two assemblies of spaced single floors ? Remember that you cannot mix and match.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 20th August 2010 at 11:14 AM.
bill smith 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 20th August 2010, 11:20 AM   #367
excaza
Illuminator
 
excaza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,593
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
In a building where the top one-tenth and the somewhat more heavily built lower nine-tenths are of exactly the same construction you cannot say that the top 12 floors are a single block while the lower 98 floors are an assembly of spaced single floors. It must be treated as either two blocks or it must be treated two assemblies of spaced single floors. You cannot mix and match.

Otherwise I could say for instance that the lower,more heavily built 98 floors were a single block with a lighter built assembly of 12 spaced single floors falling on that block .


So do you opt for two blocks or do you opt for two assemblies of spaced single floors ? Remember that you cannot mix and match.
It was 12 floors falling on 1 floor. That floor failed. Then it was 13 floors falling on 1 floor. That floor failed. Then it was 14 floors falling on 1 floor. That floor failed. The building was not designed to handle dynamic loads. The falling mass impacted the floor with more force than it could handle, and the floor failed.

Calling it a "block" or an "assembly of spaced single floors" is irrelevant. It's a falling mass. Your attempt to play handwaving semantic games isn't going to make your assertions any more credible.
__________________

Last edited by excaza; 20th August 2010 at 11:30 AM.
excaza 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 20th August 2010, 11:24 AM   #368
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,259
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
1. The layer between the falling section and the lower section is rubble.
Being driven by an intact upper block. I asked how rubble alone could crush the lower part of the building.
Tell me what significant difference it would make to be driven by an intact upper block or by more rubble.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Also, the "falling floors"? You seem to be uncertain, again, whether you are talking about a discrete upper block or rubble. In any case, you also forget that not only the intact structure must absorb the force of "impact" (crushing)--as you correctly state that the ground does--but the upper block must also absorb it. Which is why it crushes up before crushing down is ever allowed to occur.
You didn't reply to post #269, which is very relevant in this respect.

ETA: I repeat it here for your convenience:
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Being driven by an intact upper block.
Interesting. So, are you saying that the upper section of each building remains intact until it reaches the floor?

Even in the last building? Here's that one alone, again:

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

__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 20th August 2010 at 11:27 AM.
pgimeno 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 20th August 2010, 11:35 AM   #369
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
As for force instead of object, you are correct. Please explain what you mean by "forces are counterintuitive".
What flubs many students is that they try to use their intuition too much when first starting out in physics. Rather than allowing mathematics to inform their intuition, they try to imagine to far into the problem and end up getting the wrong answer. I spent most of graduate school as a teaching assistant for Statics and Dynamics, and I saw this failure time and time again. I don't mean to be insulting when I tell you this, but you're making exactly the same mistakes and using exactly the same flawed reasoning that I heard from 100 different students. I'm spending my time trying to get you to understand the same way I got them to understand.
Quote:
With an opposing 5 N. Not a "further". This is a common "debunker" sleight of hand.
Semantics. Let's try and elevate the level of this debate above such comments, shall we?
Quote:
Even high school physics teaches as a first principle the frame of reference. You're not going to somehow forget that a shopping cart has wheels. So I have no objection with what you say. Nor would any other skeptic.
But so few students get my shopping cart question right, and your comment indicates to me that you missed the point. The problem has nothing to do with "forgetting" that a shopping cart has wheels. The error most students make is that they assume the shopping cart can't supply 5 N of opposing force, and still allow the cart to move forward. About half of my students would tell me that the cart is not moving if you push on it and it pushes on you. It can if you specify the forces in the appropriate reference frame.
Quote:
This doesn't follow. I haven't made these errors.
If we're going to continue with this, we need to agree on something. I'm writing thoughtful, well directed responses to your argument. If you're going to simply contradict me without providing an opposing argument, this is a waste of my time.
Quote:
Thank you for acknowledging this. A lot of "debunkers" miss this point.
Reference frames. The point of my statement is to point out that you're not using the correct reference frames when you state your bowling ball argument. The reaction of the bowling ball and the floor is meaningless until you expand the reference frame to include the structure and the reaction from the ground.
Quote:
But here you wig off into woo. That the energy can be transformed is correct. That the transformed energy will still destroy the structure is not true in our case. Heat and sound did not cause failure of building components.
Please read my statements carefully. Not all of the energy of the falling towers went into destroying the structure. Some of it was transformed into heat and sound (vibration), but the rest had no place else to go but into the structure. That's the point.
Quote:
Comparing human bodies to steel-framed structures is invalid. A few of you continue to assert this logical fallacy.
Why?
Quote:
Thank you for your reasoned approach and attempting to have an intelligent conversation about this. I appreciate it. However, your analysis is largely incorrect.
Please understand that I'm not trying to be glib about this. Contradictory assertions such as this one are not conducive to an argument. The way to prove me wrong is with math. Failing that, please quote from any relevant physics textbook you have. Failing that, explain to me what your precise issues are with my analysis.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond 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 20th August 2010, 11:40 AM   #370
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by excaza View Post
It was 12 floors falling on 1 floor. That floor failed. Then it was 13 floors falling on 1 floor. That floor failed. Then it was 14 floors falling on 1 floor. That floor failed. The building was not designed to handle dynamic loads. The falling mass impacted the floor with more force than it could handle, and the floor failed.

Calling it a "block" or an "assembly of spaced single floors" is irrelevant. Your attempt to play handwaving semantic games isn't going to make your assertions any more credible.

Above was an assembly of 12 spaced single floors and below it was another assembly of 98 spaced single floors. This cannot be argued with. It is the literal description of the reality of the situation.

Now picture the upper assembly falling on the lower in super slow motion. The bottom floor of the top part impacts the top floor of the lower part. This is the ONLY point of contact at this time.

Isaac Newton says that whatever force the upper floor imparts on the lower floor will be exactly given back by the lower floor. (Equal and opposite reaction) Thus they will obviously destroy each other. Then on to the next two contender floors. Soon the top part will be too small to exert sufficient force to carry on the attrition and collapse arrest will ensue.

Forget the block above and the assembly of spaced single floors below as you are transparently and hopelessly promoting. Accept the reality.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith 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 20th August 2010, 12:18 PM   #371
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Ergo, I've bolded statements that are detracting from your argument. Consider eliminating such statements in your response.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
In a closed system.
Correct.
Incorrect.
Again, let's elevate this debate above childish one liners, shall we?
Quote:
If you mean that energy is neither created nor destroyed, you are correct. If you are trying to claim that the system we are talking about does not lose energy, you are incorrect.
Of course the system loses energy, but that energy has to go somewhere. If it doesn't turn into heat and vibration, then where does it go?
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Almond
The falling floors of the twin towers had kinetic energy, and when they impacted the structure of the twin towers, nearly all of the energy went into the structure.


This has nothing to do with what you just said above. Leaps and gaps in logic seem to be really common with "debunkers". You're trying to use physics for your argument, but because your argument is not supported by physics, you have to make these ridiculous leaps to arrive at your destination.
Please try to understand: The kinetic energy has to go somewhere. If it wasn't turned into heat and sound, what happened to it? Tell me where the energy of 13 falling floors went.
Quote:
Also, the "falling floors"? You seem to be uncertain, again, whether you are talking about a discrete upper block or rubble. In any case, you also forget that not only the intact structure must absorb the force of "impact" (crushing)--as you correctly state that the ground does--but the upper block must also absorb it. Which is why it crushes up before crushing down is ever allowed to occur.
So all this crushing occurs. Where does the mass go? Does that mass have potential energy because of its height above the ground? Is that mass being accelerated towards the ground?
Quote:
I'm not even sure what point you're attempting to make here,
The comments you've made so far indicate that you are unable or unwilling to consider my arguments in full. Rather, you would prefer to dismiss them outright:
Quote:
but it's probably irrelevant.
You're striding towards "troll" classification. If your intention is to simply find an expedient way to dismiss my arguments (for instance, by not reading them), then I would suggest talking to a cat. Cats rarely have intelligent opinions, and those that they have are usually regarding trivial subjects such as the quality of canned tuna fish. You have my permission to dismiss all opinions that come from cats.
Quote:
Oh, wait. You're probably attempting to suggest that not much mass or energy was lost to the system. The debris ejected upwards and outwards had the same potential energy as all the other debris. The energy required to eject this matter upwards and outwards, supposedly through "crushing", is energy lost to any further crushing.
Sadly, no. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm telling you is that the tower had some potential energy. When it began to fall, the potential energy was converted to kinetic energy. That kinetic energy, minus the energy that went into the production of sound and heat, was transferred to the structure. That energy went into destroying the structure, and the total energy is integrated over the entire reference frame of the towers, meaning that its shape mattered very little.
Quote:
This is saying nothing, except perhaps you're trying to sound like you know what you're talking about.
I understand that you're rationalizing not considering my arguments. If you've decided that I'm an idiot, we don't need to continue this.
Quote:
Incorrect. Friction affects different materials differently. This is also high school physics.
Which weighs more, a kilogram of bricks, or a kilogram of feathers? Mass is what determines kinetic energy, force of gravity and momentum. Properties like friction are not at issue in such calculations.
Quote:
This is so utterly false as to be bizarre. All modern structures are designed to arrest their own collapse.
As a civil engineer with a bachelors and master's degree, I can assure you that no structure is designed to arrest a collapse of one floor falling onto another. Structures are designed to support static loads, and while a structure may be able to stop such a collapse due to factors of safety and over-design, it is not a design consideration. See Structural Analysis by R.C. Hibbeler, 5th ed.
Quote:
This is what modern engineering and building design are about.
Modern building design is about estimating and then designing for static loads caused by people and things. There are design considerations to prolong building survival in the event of fire, and new design considerations to prevent floor failure due to fires, but we don't design to prevent collapse if one floor of a building falls onto another.
Quote:
There are no building codes existing today that would allow a highrise structure to self-pulverize, to collapse completely within seconds of free fall, to disintegrate in mid-air.
Upon what evidence do you make that assertion? Or perhaps you make it on your vast experience as a civil engineer? How many structures have you designed?
Quote:
This is why demolition companies exist. Holy ****.
Ergo, I'm just curious about something. What would it take to convince you that the collapse of the twin towers was exactly the result of known, quantifiable physical processes? And what has convinced you that the towers were blown up by an explosives demolition company?
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond 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 20th August 2010, 01:26 PM   #372
excaza
Illuminator
 
excaza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,593
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Above was an assembly of 12 spaced single floors and below it was another assembly of 98 spaced single floors. This cannot be argued with. It is the literal description of the reality of the situation.

Now picture the upper assembly falling on the lower in super slow motion. The bottom floor of the top part impacts the top floor of the lower part. This is the ONLY point of contact at this time.

Isaac Newton says that whatever force the upper floor imparts on the lower floor will be exactly given back by the lower floor. (Equal and opposite reaction) Thus they will obviously destroy each other. Then on to the next two contender floors. Soon the top part will be too small to exert sufficient force to carry on the attrition and collapse arrest will ensue.

Forget the block above and the assembly of spaced single floors below as you are transparently and hopelessly promoting. Accept the reality.
Whatever you say, I'm weary of trying to explain simple physics to idiots and trolls who don't want to learn and are content to sit and play semantic games and try and use their horribly warped interpretation of reality as if it were fact.
__________________

Last edited by excaza; 20th August 2010 at 01:29 PM.
excaza 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 20th August 2010, 01:32 PM   #373
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by excaza View Post
Whatever you say, I'm weary of trying to explain simple physics to idiots and trolls who don't want to learn and are content to sit and play semantic games and try and use their horribly warped interpretation of reality as if it were fact.
It's your call Readers.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 20th August 2010 at 01:35 PM.
bill smith 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 20th August 2010, 01:53 PM   #374
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
I don't mean to be insulting when I tell you this, but you're making exactly the same mistakes and using exactly the same flawed reasoning that I heard from 100 different students. I'm spending my time trying to get you to understand the same way I got them to understand.
You're failing to indicate what and where these "mistakes" are occurring. You're just saying this in the hopes that anyone else reading this will take your word for it. You have also not explained how "forces can be counterintuitive".

Quote:
Semantics. Let's try and elevate the level of this debate above such comments, shall we?
If you can't get your words right, your argument will not be understood.

Quote:
The error most students make is that they assume the shopping cart can't supply 5 N of opposing force, and still allow the cart to move forward. About half of my students would tell me that the cart is not moving if you push on it and it pushes on you. It can if you specify the forces in the appropriate reference frame.
I don't care about the mistakes your students made.

Quote:
If we're going to continue with this, we need to agree on something. I'm writing thoughtful, well directed responses to your argument. If you're going to simply contradict me without providing an opposing argument, this is a waste of my time.
I have clearly provided my explanations with my objections. You have not indicated specifically what and where I make these so-called "mistakes" in my arguments. I sincerely doubt you have the expertise you claim to.

Quote:
Reference frames. The point of my statement is to point out that you're not using the correct reference frames when you state your bowling ball argument. The reaction of the bowling ball and the floor is meaningless until you expand the reference frame to include the structure and the reaction from the ground.
My bowling ball argument is based on reality. How the impact from the bowling ball refers through the person's body to the ground is irrelevant to the point I was making. The bowling ball falling on someone's head clearly will fracture their skull. The fragments of bowling ball will not. There is no unconsidered factor here. If there is, please identify it specifically.

Quote:
Not all of the energy of the falling towers went into destroying the structure. Some of it was transformed into heat and sound (vibration), but the rest had no place else to go but into the structure. That's the point.
Please specify what you mean by "falling towers". Are you referring to an upper block crushing through 80 and 90 storeys, or are you referring to rubble?

I already pointed out where energy is lost in the system. To say that it was only converted into "heat" and "sound" is too stupid to comment to. Do civil engineers not have to know any physics? I don't think you're an engineer. If you are, you are knowingly lying.

Quote:
Please understand that I'm not trying to be glib about this. Contradictory assertions such as this one are not conducive to an argument. The way to prove me wrong is with math. Failing that, please quote from any relevant physics textbook you have. Failing that, explain to me what your precise issues are with my analysis.
Please re-read my post. If you understand the math, please provide the calculations showing that rubble alone can crush through 80 and 90 storeys of intact highrise.
ergo 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 20th August 2010, 01:57 PM   #375
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
Ergo, I've bolded statements that are detracting from your argument. Consider eliminating such statements in your response.
I'll make whatever statements I deem fit for my argument. Thanks.

Quote:
Of course the system loses energy, but that energy has to go somewhere. If it doesn't turn into heat and vibration, then where does it go?
It has been explained ad nauseum what happens to the energy in the crush-down, crush-up model. It is referred both through the upper and lower blocks. It is expended in crushing and pulverizing. It is expended in ejecting matter upwards and laterally. It is mitigated through the alleged layers of rubble.

Quote:
Please try to understand: The kinetic energy has to go somewhere. If it wasn't turned into heat and sound, what happened to it? Tell me where the energy of 13 falling floors went.
So you are talking about an upper block that crushes down. See my comment immediately above.

Quote:
So all this crushing occurs. Where does the mass go? Does that mass have potential energy because of its height above the ground? Is that mass being accelerated towards the ground?
[kindergarten tone] The mass is meeting the resistance of the intact 80 and 90 storeys. [/kindergarten tone]

Quote:
The comments you've made so far indicate that you are unable or unwilling to consider my arguments in full. Rather, you would prefer to dismiss them outright:
You have failed to point out specifically where my argument is wrong. I suspect you don't even know yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ergo
You're probably attempting to suggest that not much mass or energy was lost to the system. The debris ejected upwards and outwards had the same potential energy as all the other debris. The energy required to eject this matter upwards and outwards, supposedly through "crushing", is energy lost to any further crushing.
What I'm telling you is that the tower had some potential energy. When it began to fall, the potential energy was converted to kinetic energy. That kinetic energy, minus the energy that went into the production of sound and heat, was transferred to the structure.
Please indicate where NIST, or Bazant, or any reputable scientist for that matter, discusses the conversion of kinetic energy into heat and sound in the WTC collapses.

Quote:
That energy went into destroying the structure, and the total energy is integrated over the entire reference frame of the towers, meaning that its shape mattered very little.
The bolded is correct. The rest does not follow logically. In fact, is gibberish, as it doesn't address a single thing I said in my argument.

Quote:
I understand that you're rationalizing not considering my arguments. If you've decided that I'm an idiot, we don't need to continue this.
Fine with me. You can bow out now.

Quote:
Which weighs more, a kilogram of bricks, or a kilogram of feathers? Mass is what determines kinetic energy, force of gravity and momentum. Properties like friction are not at issue in such calculations.
Which falls to the ground faster, Mr. Civil Engineer?

Quote:
Modern building design is about estimating and then designing for static loads caused by people and things.
Static and dynamic loads, Mr. Civil Engineer. (What do civil engineers do, anyway?)

Quote:
There are design considerations to prolong building survival in the event of fire, and new design considerations to prevent floor failure due to fires, but we don't design to prevent collapse if one floor of a building falls onto another.
Real engineers do. I don't know what you do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ergo
There are no building codes existing today that would allow a highrise structure to self-pulverize, to collapse completely within seconds of free fall, to disintegrate in mid-air.
Upon what evidence do you make that assertion? Or perhaps you make it on your vast experience as a civil engineer? How many structures have you designed?
If building codes don't attempt to prevent buildings from self-destructing, what do they do? And why don't we see buildings collapsing all the time?

How many structures have you designed, and which ones?

Last edited by ergo; 20th August 2010 at 02:02 PM.
ergo 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 20th August 2010, 02:02 PM   #376
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
Quote:
It is expended in ejecting matter upwards and laterally.
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am 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 20th August 2010, 02:35 PM   #377
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Isaac Newton says that whatever force the upper floor imparts on the lower floor will be exactly given back by the lower floor. (Equal and opposite reaction) Thus they will obviously destroy each other. Then on to the next two contender floors. Soon the top part will be too small to exert sufficient force to carry on the attrition and collapse arrest will ensue.
I've bolded the part you're getting flat wrong for you. Even if I grant you each floor of the lower section destroying a floor from the upper section, that still leaves you with two floors of rubble. At approximately 4 million kg per floor, that's 8 million kilograms of mass you are waving away.

Got news 4 U, that mass still packs a punch, hitting "LIKE A TON OF BRICKS." (Or in this case, 'bout 9000 tons).

You can wave your hands in the air all you want, but you're not gonna convince anyone that you can make 9000 tons of material disappear into thin air.
DaveThomasNMSR 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 20th August 2010, 02:36 PM   #378
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,309
Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am View Post
He has no idea why "a rock and a hard place" would be a bad thing. (according to his understanding of physics). If the rock deflected off you to the side, you'd be OK.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 20th August 2010, 03:01 PM   #379
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
I've bolded the part you're getting flat wrong for you. Even if I grant you each floor of the lower section destroying a floor from the upper section, that still leaves you with two floors of rubble. At approximately 4 million kg per floor, that's 8 million kilograms of mass you are waving away.

Got news 4 U, that mass still packs a punch, hitting "LIKE A TON OF BRICKS." (Or in this case, 'bout 9000 tons).

You can wave your hands in the air all you want, but you're not gonna convince anyone that you can make 9000 tons of material disappear into thin air.
I don't see the problem. The building had always carried that weight anyway. It's not as if it was new weight added from outside the system. In fact that weight was very much diminished by the pulverisation of the concrete and the shedding of masses of rubble spilling from all four sides of the building as can be seen in many videos. Chandler's analysis in particular gives the idea..
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 20th August 2010 at 03:23 PM.
bill smith 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 20th August 2010, 03:09 PM   #380
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,309
Bill Smith an ergo are the perfect example of why the "truth" movement only got as far as it did. They also explain why it will never receive any serious attention.


Physics is not a variable that can be molded to fit a flawed view, ever!
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 20th August 2010, 03:20 PM   #381
excaza
Illuminator
 
excaza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,593
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
I don't see the problem. The building had always carried that weight anyway.
So you have no clue what the difference is between a static and a dynamic load.

I am shocked.

I don't understand why people who don't know any physics attempt to pretend they do.
__________________

Last edited by excaza; 20th August 2010 at 03:22 PM.
excaza 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 20th August 2010, 03:24 PM   #382
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
I don't see the problem. The building had always carried that weight anyway. It's not as if it was new weight added from outside the system. In fact that weight was very much diminished by the pulverisation of the concrete and the shedding of masses of rubble spilling from all four sides of the building as can be seen in many videos. Chandlers analysis in particular gives the idea..
The difference from before, where the building was always carrying that weight, is that once the collapse was initiated, the upper section gained velocity. In colloquial terms, it started moving faster and faster. And the collisions didn't slow things down to zero, either. The impacts slowed the falling mass slightly (conserving momentum, of course), but the fall speed increased from floor to floor.

Chandler. That's gonna be sweet. Tune in tomorrow night when I specifically use Chandler's physics phlubs to put the entire "truth" movement out to pasture.

He only underestimates the dynamic impacts by a factor of 100.

He would not pass a freshman physics course in any of your better colleges and universities.

Cheers, Dave
DaveThomasNMSR 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 20th August 2010, 03:24 PM   #383
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,309
Originally Posted by excaza View Post
So you have no clue what the difference is between a static and a dynamic load.

I am shocked.

I don't understand why people who don't know any physics attempt to pretend they do.
Static..........That's when you rub your feet on carpet, dynamic is just really cool. STAWMAN.........STRAWMAN......
















__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 20th August 2010 at 03:26 PM.
DGM 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 20th August 2010, 03:27 PM   #384
excaza
Illuminator
 
excaza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,593
Wouldn't surprise me, at this point nothing would.
__________________
excaza 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 20th August 2010, 03:33 PM   #385
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
I've actually found that the insults tossed at me tend to suggest that I don't understand the very principles that, in fact, debunk the official collapse hypothesis. It must be some new kind of 21st century newspeak (or maybe it's just old) to insist that the "debunker" understands something he/she clearly doesn't, and that the opponent, who clearly and demonstrably does understand, "doesn't". I know it's cliche to say it, but it is an Orwellian experience trying to debate "debunkers".
ergo 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 20th August 2010, 03:38 PM   #386
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,309
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I've actually found that the insults tossed at me tend to suggest that I don't understand the very principles that, in fact, debunk the official collapse hypothesis. It must be some new kind of 21st century newspeak (or maybe it's just old) to insist that the "debunker" understands something he/she clearly doesn't, and that the opponent, who clearly and demonstrably does understand, "doesn't". I know it's cliche to say it, but it is an Orwellian experience trying to debate "debunkers".
Why don't you shut us up by posting the math and equations (you know the physics you claim to understand) and get it over with?


I'd be willing to put money on the fact The Almond could back up what he said.

Bet you can't.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 20th August 2010, 03:40 PM   #387
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why don't you shut us up by posting the math and equations (you know the physics you claim to understand) and get it over with?
I don't think you personally would understand them.

Quote:
I'd be willing to put money on the fact The Almond could back up what he said.
He's perfectly free to do so.
ergo 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 20th August 2010, 03:43 PM   #388
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,309
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I don't think you personally would understand them.
Try me! Besides, one of my best friends a physicist, he can help if I get stuck (It's been over 30 years for me)

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
He's perfectly free to do so.
How about you?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 20th August 2010, 03:43 PM   #389
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
You're failing to indicate what and where these "mistakes" are occurring. You're just saying this in the hopes that anyone else reading this will take your word for it. You have also not explained how "forces can be counterintuitive".
The forces you're attempting to describe, and their application are counter-intuitive. Students get them wrong when they try to let their intuition direct the problem solving, rather than let the mathematics direct it. It's counterintuitive to think of forces as vectors, and as vector sums being integrated over a variety of directions. That's what you're getting wrong.
Quote:
If you can't get your words right, your argument will not be understood.
I don't care about the mistakes your students made.
You should, you're making them. But you're providing a far less cogent defense of them than they did.
Quote:
I have clearly provided my explanations with my objections. You have not indicated specifically what and where I make these so-called "mistakes" in my arguments. I sincerely doubt you have the expertise you claim to.
You make 4 mistakes. Those 4 mistakes have caused you to ignore the falling mass of the towers as an energy source. Additionally, you've made a 5th mistake causing you to believe that structures are designed according to codes you've imagined based on your vast experience not being in collapsing buildings.
Quote:
My bowling ball argument is based on reality. How the impact from the bowling ball refers through the person's body to the ground is irrelevant to the point I was making. The bowling ball falling on someone's head clearly will fracture their skull. The fragments of bowling ball will not. There is no unconsidered factor here. If there is, please identify it specifically.
The bowling ball has the same kinetic energy and momentum whether it is broken or intact. When it falls to the floor, the structure must absorb the same energy.
Quote:
Please specify what you mean by "falling towers". Are you referring to an upper block crushing through 80 and 90 storeys, or are you referring to rubble?
The towers were once standing, they are no longer. The normal person concludes that they fell. The smart person concludes that all of the mass fell to the ground. The truther concludes that once the mass turned to rubble, it ceased to have mass and was carried off by magical unicorns.
Quote:
I already pointed out where energy is lost in the system.
This will be exceedingly easy for you to prove with mathematics. Prove that the energy acquired by the structure during its fall was equal to that required to destroy the structure and eliminate all of the remaining mass. Remember, you have to get rid of the mass and the energy. Show your work.
Quote:
To say that it was only converted into "heat" and "sound" is too stupid to comment to.
When two thinks strike each other, the noise it makes is called sound. This is a place where energy is lost. If the strike causes friction, heat will also be an inevitable result, causing further loss to the system.
Quote:
Do civil engineers not have to know any physics? I don't think you're an engineer. If you are, you are knowingly lying.
Your opinions on this matter are irrelevant.
Quote:
Please re-read my post. If you understand the math, please provide the calculations showing that rubble alone can crush through 80 and 90 storeys of intact highrise.
Rubble has mass. That mass was moving. It had a kinetic energy equal to 1/2*m*v2.

You're asserting that rubble has less capacity to do damage than an intact block. I'm asserting that the shape doesn't matter, only the mass and the velocity matter. You need to show a calculation that proves shape matters. Get to it.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond 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 20th August 2010, 04:05 PM   #390
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
The forces you're attempting to describe, and their application are counter-intuitive. Students get them wrong when they try to let their intuition direct the problem solving, rather than let the mathematics direct it. It's counterintuitive to think of forces as vectors, and as vector sums being integrated over a variety of directions. That's what you're getting wrong.
What forces, what applications, in what part of my argument? SPECIFY. If you're an engineer, you should be able to put me in my place in half the words and half the time.

Quote:
You make 4 mistakes. Those 4 mistakes have caused you to ignore the falling mass of the towers as an energy source.
Um, mass does not provide energy. And what four mistakes, exactly? SPECIFY. How do I ignore the kinetic energy of the descending upper block?

Quote:
Additionally, you've made a 5th mistake causing you to believe that structures are designed according to codes you've imagined based on your vast experience not being in collapsing buildings.
What's the "fifth" mistake? SPECIFY.

Quote:
The bowling ball has the same kinetic energy and momentum whether it is broken or intact. When it falls to the floor, the structure must absorb the same energy.
OMFG. The bowling ball does not have the same kinetic energy or momentum if it is pieces of bowling ball. What part of this don't you understand? When it falls to the floor (which was not the analogy I used) both the ball and the floor must absorb the impact. Got it?

Quote:
The towers were once standing, they are no longer. The normal person concludes that they fell. The smart person concludes that all of the mass fell to the ground. The truther concludes that once the mass turned to rubble, it ceased to have mass and was carried off by magical unicorns.
This is not an argument. Did you try to claim you were a civil engineer?

Quote:
This will be exceedingly easy for you to prove with mathematics. Prove that the energy acquired by the structure during its fall was equal to that required to destroy the structure and eliminate all of the remaining mass.
Might help if you, first of all, understood what it was you're trying to describe.

Quote:
When two thinks strike each other, the noise it makes is called sound. This is a place where energy is lost. If the strike causes friction, heat will also be an inevitable result, causing further loss to the system.
Thank you for pointing out even more (albeit silly) energy losses in the crush-down hypothesis. Whose side are you on, anyway?

Quote:
Rubble has mass. That mass was moving. It had a kinetic energy equal to 1/2*m*v2. You're asserting that rubble has less capacity to do damage than an intact block. I'm asserting that the shape doesn't matter, only the mass and the velocity matter.
The mass changes when an intact block becomes pieces of an intact block. There are now numerous independent pieces, all with their own mass, interacting much differently, much less effectively than an intact block. Some of these smaller pieces are lost to the crushing front. They are not involved in the crushing. This is now also a loss of mass.

Which is more likely to be able to do the work to break down a door? A sledgehammer, or pieces of a sledgehammer?
ergo 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 20th August 2010, 04:09 PM   #391
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,309
Originally Posted by ergo View Post

The mass changes when an intact block becomes pieces of an intact block.
Serious question. Are you high right now?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 20th August 2010, 04:17 PM   #392
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Which is more likely to be able to break down a door? A sledgehammer, or pieces of a sledgehammer?
Come to think of it, this is a really good metaphor for the "debunker" arguments. They don't have whole arguments, they have pieces of arguments! LOL. (Laughing at my own joke).

Last edited by ergo; 20th August 2010 at 04:19 PM.
ergo 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 20th August 2010, 04:22 PM   #393
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,309
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Come to think of it, this is a really good metaphor for the "debunker" arguments. They don't have whole arguments, they have pieces of arguments! LOL. (Laughing at my own joke).
Pssssst............Your talking to yourself.


__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 20th August 2010, 04:27 PM   #394
TokenMac
Critical Thinker
 
TokenMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 382
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I'm sure some pieces of debris did cause damage, possibly failure. That would produce a partial failure, possibly partial collapse. This happens in natural collapses, obviously.
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
Surely even this would potentially result in additional debris that may be capable of causing additional failure, would it not?
ergo, I would like to see your response to this.
__________________
The Inflationary Model of Conspiracy Theories Part I Part II
Insightful quote to make me seem smart and well-read - Smart E. Pants III
TokenMac 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 20th August 2010, 04:34 PM   #395
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by TokenMac View Post
ergo, I would like to see your response to this.
Originally Posted by ergo
I'm sure some pieces of debris did cause damage, possibly failure. That would produce a partial failure, possibly partial collapse. This happens in natural collapses, obviously.
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd
Surely even this would potentially result in additional debris that may be capable of causing additional failure, would it not?
In response to the question, it may cause failure, it may just cause some damage. In the case of localized failures, additional debris may be created. This would happen in natural collapses. It's an incredibly weak argument, though. You're talking about some pieces of debris maybe creating other pieces of debris... It's not a point I would dispute, but I really don't see that it helps your argument much. But feel free to elaborate.
ergo 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 20th August 2010, 04:44 PM   #396
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
OMFG. The bowling ball does not have the same kinetic energy or momentum if it is pieces of bowling ball. What part of this don't you understand? When it falls to the floor (which was not the analogy I used) both the ball and the floor must absorb the impact. Got it?
And with that, I bow out. If we can't agree on this, there's nothing more to discuss.

Mackey was right, you can't fix stupid.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond 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 20th August 2010, 05:16 PM   #397
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,309
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
And with that, I bow out. If we can't agree on this, there's nothing more to discuss.

Mackey was right, you can't fix stupid.
I have to give you an A for effort.

He doesn't care about right, I's all about sounding "convincing".
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 20th August 2010, 05:37 PM   #398
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,257
Yes, Almond, what you're doing is commendable, and exactly how people should comport themselves here. But it's a conspiracy addict on the other side. I've already put him on ignore; you won't miss a thing if you do the same. If he doesn't realize that the equation:

KE = 0.5mv2/2

... doesn't change just because something is in fragments, then he's clearly lost. Just give him an "F" and move on.

Stupid is only fixable by the one who's stupid. Until he realizes that, he's lost.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 20th August 2010, 05:39 PM   #399
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
OMFG. The bowling ball does not have the same kinetic energy or momentum if it is pieces of bowling ball. What part of this don't you understand?
I guess we've been speaking Greek.

Quote:
"The linear momentum of a system of particles is the vector sum of the momenta of all the individual objects in the system"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl 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 20th August 2010, 06:26 PM   #400
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
It was destroyed by rain?

I believe I said: "I like the edit in frame 9".
There is no edit.

You say that a bunch of water, like that seen in the video, could not crush a car?

Horse****.
triforcharity 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 05:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.