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 19th August 2010, 08:35 AM   #121
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post

It's beating your head against the wall to try an explain such minutiae, though. Best to use it as a tool to goof off for a few minutes a day.
As far as I can tell, no one has actually explained this minutiae yet. If it's so logical and so obvious, why don't you just simply show us right now?
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 19th August 2010, 08:39 AM   #122
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,388
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I'm sorry: are you talking about an "upper structure" or rubble? Please make up your mind.
That would be both. Do you believe the upper structure instantaneously became rubble? Do you think it was an intact block? How about a combination of structure and rubble as it broke apart as it collapsed through the rest of the building one floor at a time.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief 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 19th August 2010, 08:42 AM   #123
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Mass does not stay the same when an object is broken into many smaller pieces. The disintegration of any structure completely alters the way it functions, the way it moves, the friction it encounters, its ability to do work.

If you disagree, please tell me what laws of physics support this notion.
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 19th August 2010, 08:49 AM   #124
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,432
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Oh, so it is a block. Thank you.
"Block" is just a word. "Sub-section" might be more accurate; it's a part of the structure, rather than the whole structure. It's quite popular among truthers to play semantic games by suggesting that a loose classification must imply all the properties implied by a different usage of the same word; this is called the Fallacy of Equivocation. Whatever word is used to describe it, we can know with certainty that an upper part of the structure became disconnected from it and fell on to the remaining lower part of the structure.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
A question I asked above is: what is it "falling" through?
Three-dimensional space. When it encounters solid objects in this space, a collision takes place, and some deformation of materials will result. This will cause damage to both parts of the structure and will separate off many more smaller fragments, each of which is also falling through three-dimensional space and each of which is also capable of colliding with other objects. It very rapidly becomes essentially impossible to calculate in any detail what happens from there on, but energetic analysis makes it abundantly clear that there is sufficient energy released by the system - in fact, many times more than sufficient energy - to fracture the entire structure into relatively very small fragments.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
And could you please point out where we see this "falling block" through the collapse progression?
No, not really. If you are able to view a video of the collapses and can't see that an upper part of the structure is falling on a lower part of the structure, we haven't the most basic common ground to work from. It's as basic as trying to explain why the sky is blue when you insist that it's actually pink.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 19th August 2010, 08:50 AM   #125
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,026
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Mass does not stay the same when an object is broken into many smaller pieces.

Yes it does.

Quote:
If you disagree, please tell me what laws of physics support this notion.

It's called, not surprisingly, the Law of Conservation of Mass.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 19th August 2010, 08:50 AM   #126
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,432
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Mass does not stay the same when an object is broken into many smaller pieces.
We have an award here known as the Stundies. Would you like to be considered as a candidate?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 19th August 2010, 08:57 AM   #127
TexasJack
Penultimate Amazing
 
TexasJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,906
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
We have an award here known as the Stundies. Would you like to be considered as a candidate?

Dave
It wouldn't surprise me if he has won before.
TexasJack 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 19th August 2010, 09:02 AM   #128
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,225
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Oh, then please provide a workable analogy in which a disintegrated structure can crush through an intact structure.
Here are some analogies in which a disintegrated structure can crush through an intact structure:

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.
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 19th August 2010, 09:07 AM   #129
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
"Block" is just a word. "Sub-section" might be more accurate; it's a part of the structure, rather than the whole structure... Whatever word is used to describe it, we can know with certainty that an upper part of the structure became disconnected from it and fell on to the remaining lower part of the structure.
It's important to use correct, commonly agreed-upon terms in any argument. In this case, to clarify whether we're talking about an intact structure or a layer or more of rubble, because this affects the physics of our argument.

The descriptions being provided here at JREF seem to suggest uncertainty and disagreement.

Quote:
Three-dimensional space.
My understanding, from the NIST "findings", is that only about 15% of the columns were severed by the jet impacts. That leaves 85% remaining columns. Whether they are heat-comprised or not, there is "stuff" to crush through. So the word "falling" is a little inaccurate.

Quote:
It very rapidly becomes essentially impossible to calculate in any detail what happens from there on, but energetic analysis makes it abundantly clear that there is sufficient energy released by the system - in fact, many times more than sufficient energy - to fracture the entire structure into relatively very small fragments.
No, the analysis provided by Bazant and NIST errs in several ways. And furthermore, if we are now talking about rubble rather than an intact structure, the analysis has just been thrown out the window. No "energetic analysis" has been done showing that rubble can crush through an intact building.

Quote:
No, not really. If you are able to view a video of the collapses and can't see that an upper part of the structure is falling on a lower part of the structure, we haven't the most basic common ground to work from. It's as basic as trying to explain why the sky is blue when you insist that it's actually pink.
A simple picture suffices:

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 19th August 2010, 09:07 AM   #130
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,432
Originally Posted by TexasJack View Post
It wouldn't surprise me if he has won before.
But he's only just joined, and we haven't had any awards since...

Oh. I see what you did there.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 19th August 2010, 09:08 AM   #131
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
the Law of Conservation of Mass.
Yaaayyy! Was waiting for this.

Please explain how Conservation of Mass applies to rubble crushing through an intact building.
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 19th August 2010, 09:11 AM   #132
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Here are some analogies in which a disintegrated structure can crush through an intact structure:
I see an intact upper block crushing through some disabled floors. How is this a correct analogy?
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 19th August 2010, 09:14 AM   #133
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,026
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yaaayyy! Was waiting for this.

Oh, so you deliberately made a false statement expecting to be corrected on it. Interesting.

Quote:
Please explain how Conservation of Mass applies to rubble crushing through an intact building.

Conservation of mass applies to everything not involving relativistic speeds or nuclear reactions. Rubble crushing through an intact building does not involve relativistic speeds or nuclear reactions, so conservation of mass applies.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 19th August 2010 at 09:15 AM.
Myriad 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 19th August 2010, 09:16 AM   #134
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Rubble crushing through an intact building does not involve relativistic speeds or nuclear reactions, so conservation of mass applies.
Yes, please explain how.
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 19th August 2010, 09:19 AM   #135
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,432
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
It's important to use correct, commonly agreed-upon terms in any argument. In this case, to clarify whether we're talking about an intact structure or a layer or more of rubble, because this affects the physics of our argument.

The descriptions being provided here at JREF seem to suggest uncertainty and disagreement.
Which, if true, is utterly irrelevant. Bazant models the collapse as a three-part system comprising a substantially intact upper section, an accumulation of rubble, and a substantially intact lower section. This is, of course, a simplification, but is a reasonably valid one.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
My understanding, from the NIST "findings", is that only about 15% of the columns were severed by the jet impacts. That leaves 85% remaining columns. Whether they are heat-comprised or not, there is "stuff" to crush through. So the word "falling" is a little inaccurate.
My understanding is that the collapses took place some time after the jet impacts, and that a progressive failure of the remaining columns occurred as a result of their weakening by heat and of lateral forces that they were not designed to resist. When this progressive failure took place, there was rapid lateral progression resulting in the failure of all vertical elements over a much shorter timescale than was required for the upper section to descend through the length over which the vertical members failed. Therefore, the word "falling" is very accurate, in that the structural support given to the upper portion was, for a significant length of time, negligible.


Originally Posted by ergo View Post
No, the analysis provided by Bazant and NIST errs in several ways. And furthermore, if we are now talking about rubble rather than an intact structure, the analysis has just been thrown out the window. No "energetic analysis" has been done showing that rubble can crush through an intact building.
You clearly have failed to understand Bazant's analysis, and conflated it with NIST's analysis. Bazant's work explicitly discusses the role of the intervening layer of rubble in the collapse. Energetic analysis, of course, shows equally well that rubble can crush a substantially intact building as any other form of mass, as it takes no account of the form of the falling mass, only its magnitude.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
A simple picture suffices:
No, in fact, it doesn't. You're suggesting that at no time in the collapse can an upper portion of the structure be seen to be falling, and trying to bolster that suggestion with a single picture of a moment in time of the collapse at which the dust cloud has obscured that part of the structure. That's the pictorial equivalent of quote mining. I'm not going to bother looking for one of the vast number of pictures that shows a subbstantially undamaged upper block falling; if you deny their existence, you'll no doubt continue to do so even when presented with them.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 19th August 2010, 09:20 AM   #136
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,432
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
We have an award here known as the Stundies. Would you like to be considered as a candidate?

Dave
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Please explain how Conservation of Mass applies to rubble crushing through an intact building.
I'll take that as a "yes".

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 19th August 2010, 09:21 AM   #137
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,026
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, please explain how.

That is a meaningless request. It is a law of physics and it applies.
"How" it applies is addressed by the law itself, which is easily looked up.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 19th August 2010, 09:22 AM   #138
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,225
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, please explain how.
Why? You have your example (see post #128) so there's your rubble layer crushing the lower inctact part.

Or are you just trolling? Mmmm...
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
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 19th August 2010, 09:25 AM   #139
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
That is a meaningless request. It is a law of physics and it applies.
"How" it applies is addressed by the law itself, which is easily looked up.
It is not meaningless to ask someone who is incorrectly applying a law of physics to explain what they mean.
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 19th August 2010, 09:30 AM   #140
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Which, if true, is utterly irrelevant. Bazant models the collapse as a three-part system comprising a substantially intact upper section, an accumulation of rubble, and a substantially intact lower section. This is, of course, a simplification, but is a reasonably valid one.
So it is the model you are defending here? Thank you.

Quote:
My understanding is that the collapses took place some time after the jet impacts, and that a progressive failure of the remaining columns occurred as a result of their weakening by heat and of lateral forces that they were not designed to resist. When this progressive failure took place, there was rapid lateral progression resulting in the failure of all vertical elements over a much shorter timescale than was required for the upper section to descend through the length over which the vertical members failed. Therefore, the word "falling" is very accurate, in that the structural support given to the upper portion was, for a significant length of time, negligible.
"Falling" through the 85% remaining vertical structure. Have it your way.

Quote:
Energetic analysis, of course, shows equally well that rubble can crush a substantially intact building as any other form of mass, as it takes no account of the form of the falling mass, only its magnitude.
Please provide a source for this, if not Bazant.

Quote:
No, in fact, it doesn't. You're suggesting that at no time in the collapse can an upper portion of the structure be seen to be falling, and trying to bolster that suggestion with a single picture of a moment in time of the collapse at which the dust cloud has obscured that part of the structure.
No, I'm not. It is clear from all the visual evidence that an upper block exists before and as the collapse begins. It is also clear from the visual evidence that this upper block largely crushes up before any crushing down would even be hypothesized.
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 19th August 2010, 09:31 AM   #141
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,026
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
It is not meaningless to ask someone who is incorrectly applying a law of physics to explain what they mean.

But that is not the case here. I correctly applied the law of conservation of mass, to falsify your claim that "mass does not stay the same when an object is broken into many smaller pieces."

Since you also indicated that you expected the law of conservation of mass to be cited in response, which clearly implies that you already knew that the claim contradicts it and is therefore false, I'm not really sure what further explanation you or any other reader could benefit from.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 19th August 2010, 09:39 AM   #142
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Conservation of mass is applicable to isolated systems only. In the WTC collapses, matter is ejected outward in massive volumes. This is energy lost to the system. Furthermore, conservation of mass does not explain the change in force which would result from a change in the size and weight of the structure or object.

If I throw a baseball at your window, the window will break. If I throw pieces of a baseball at your window, it probably won't break.
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 19th August 2010, 09:43 AM   #143
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,432
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
So it is the model you are defending here? Thank you.
It's a good enough model for the purpose for which it's used.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
"Falling" through the 85% remaining vertical structure. Have it your way.
That bears no resemblance whatsoever to what I actually wrote, as anyone can see.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Please provide a source for this, if not Bazant.
You want me to provide a source other than Bazant to show that Bazant said what Bazant said?

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
No, I'm not. It is clear from all the visual evidence that an upper block exists before and as the collapse begins. It is also clear from the visual evidence that this upper block largely crushes up before any crushing down would even be hypothesized.
That's what I mean about there being no common ground. You're insisting that the sky is pink. There's no point responding; it's not even possible to exchange ideas with you.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 19th August 2010, 09:44 AM   #144
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, please explain how.
I see you are at the centre of a minor jref feeding frenzy. Not to worry. 98% of them have no teeth.
__________________
*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 19th August 2010, 09:46 AM   #145
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yaaayyy! Was waiting for this.

Please explain how Conservation of Mass applies to rubble crushing through an intact building.
First, prove that the earth is not supported by an infinite series of turtles.

Quote:
As far as I can tell, no one has actually explained this minutiae yet. If it's so logical and so obvious, why don't you just simply show us right now?
The statement quoted above shows why it would be extremely difficult for you to understand any of the concepts necessary to understand such complex physical phenomena.

It also indicates to me that you have drawn the erroneous conclusion that, because you haven't found such an explanation, it doesn't exist. I can assure you that all of the minutiae have been discussed in incredibly minute detail. All of the arguments have been hashed and re-hashed a dozen times on this forum. You need only use the search function to find them.
__________________
"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 19th August 2010, 09:47 AM   #146
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Conservation of mass is applicable to isolated systems only. In the WTC collapses, matter is ejected outward in massive volumes.
What are "massive volumes"? Please show your math and methodology.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
This is energy lost to the system. Furthermore, conservation of mass does not explain the change in force which would result from a change in the size and weight of the structure or object.
How much energy is lost to the system? How much was available? Please show your math a methodology.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
If I throw a baseball at your window, the window will break. If I throw pieces of a baseball at your window, it probably won't break.

What if you slow pitch the intact ball underhand, does it still break the window? What if you take the pieces of baseball, load them into a cannon, then fire them at the window. Does the window still stay intact?
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy!

As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
TheRedWorm 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 19th August 2010, 09:49 AM   #147
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post

That's what I mean about there being no common ground. You're insisting that the sky is pink. There's no point responding; it's not even possible to exchange ideas with you.
Actually, it's pretty clear what I'm stating here:

Originally Posted by ergo
It is clear from all the visual evidence that an upper block exists before and as the collapse begins. It is also clear from the visual evidence that this upper block largely crushes up before any crushing down would even be hypothesized.
It doesn't surprise me that a "debunker" wants to run away from the argument at this point, however.
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 19th August 2010, 09:53 AM   #148
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
If you drop a truck the height of a truck onto another truck, you will probably partly crumple the dropped-on truck, and the dropping truck will also be damaged. If you drop the pieces of a truck the height of one truck onto another truck, the dropped-on truck will sustain some dents but not be crumpled.

If you drop a cinder block etc... onto a stack of cinder blocks, well, the dropping cinder block may break. Not much will happen to the standing stack. If you drop pieces of a cinder block onto a stack of cinder blocks, the pieces will merely deflect to the side. The standing stack sustains no damage whatsoever.
Of course.

This is water afterl... it is much softer than a car... I bet it just washed it real good.

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


What? your incredulity is getting you into trouble again...
When you take those basic remedial courses you could walk into a physics classroom and ask about something called "scale." It might just help your incredulity.
__________________
"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." ĖNoam 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 19th August 2010, 10:03 AM   #149
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
I love the edit in frame 9.
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 19th August 2010, 10:07 AM   #150
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
Originally Posted by TheRedWorm View Post
What are "massive volumes"? Please show your math and methodology.



How much energy is lost to the system? How much was available? Please show your math a methodology.




What if you slow pitch the intact ball underhand, does it still break the window? What if you take the pieces of baseball, load them into a cannon, then fire them at the window. Does the window still stay intact?
Answer these, please.
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy!

As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
TheRedWorm 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 19th August 2010, 10:07 AM   #151
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I love the edit in frame 9.
Are you claiming that water won't crush a car?

Or that snow can't crush buildings?

or water can't cause buildings to collapse?

They are after all "small broken up things."
__________________
"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." ĖNoam 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 19th August 2010, 10:11 AM   #152
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by TheRedWorm View Post
Answer these, please.
I asked first. Please explain, or link to an explanation, of how rubble can crush an intact building.
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 19th August 2010, 10:18 AM   #153
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,026
Ah, so mass does stay the same when an object is broken into many smaller pieces, and my response to the effect that this is false was correct.

What you meant to say, then, was something more like "mass of a system does not stay the same when an object is broken into many smaller pieces, and some of those pieces are removed from the system." That makes a lot more sense.

Do you see how you've just demonstrated that deliberately omitting important details and qualifiers can make the difference between making a reasonable truthful claim and an absurd false one? When you learn not to do that any more your life will improve in many ways.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Conservation of mass is applicable to isolated systems only. In the WTC collapses, matter is ejected outward in massive volumes.

How much matter, relative to the amount that is not ejected outward?

Quote:
This is energy lost to the system.

How much energy, compared to the amount that is not lost to the system?

Quote:
Furthermore, conservation of mass does not explain the change in force which would result from a change in the size and weight of the structure or object.

Despite the progress made toward clarity above, you're still confused on some points. When mass is conserved, so is weight, which is a force, and so likewise is the force that that mass exerts when forced to undergo a given acceleration.

For example, take two identical boulders, and grind one into sand. A truck carrying the sand will require the same amount of engine power and brake power to accelerate in any given way as the truck carrying the boulder.

What might be confusing you is confounding changes in the form of the mass (e.g. sand versus boulder) with changes in the time scale of a physical process involving that mass. It is certainly true that the boulder, dropped on a piano, will do more damage than the sand, poured in a slow stream onto the same piano. But that's not because of the shape, it's because of the timing. Slowly shift the weight of the boulder onto the piano over the same time span that you poured the sand onto the piano, and the damage will be similar in both cases. Likewise if you dumped all the sand onto the piano in the same amount of time it took the boulder to strike it.

In the wtc tower collapses, there was no opportunity for rubble broken from the upper or lower parts of the structure to trickle down gradually, a little bit at a time, so as to reduce its effects. It all fell at once, most likely in a mass that was considerably denser and less elastic than the original structures (since it was being compressed between any remaining intact upper structure and any intact floor below it). So no significant reduction (and most likely an increase) in the forces applied to the structure below would be expected as a result of the comminution of the components.

So, that leaves the "not a closed system" argument. Do you have a quantitative argument to make regarding the amount of energy and mass lost as a result of outward ejection of materials? Various researchers have used the distribution of the debris as a guide to making such estimates, and have not found any basis to conclude sufficient outward ejection to significantly affect the overall progress of collapse. It might be interesting to compare your calculations to theirs, to see if you have a better case.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 19th August 2010 at 10:23 AM. Reason: close --> closed
Myriad 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 19th August 2010, 10:33 AM   #154
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post

It is certainly true that the boulder, dropped on a piano, will do more damage than the sand, poured in a slow stream onto the same piano. But that's not because of the shape, it's because of the timing. Slowly shift the weight of the boulder onto the piano over the same time span that you poured the sand onto the piano, and the damage will be similar in both cases. Likewise if you dumped all the sand onto the piano in the same amount of time it took the boulder to strike it.
Um, no. Each grain of sand now has its own mass where it was formerly part of the mass of the boulder. That mass is affected by whatever work you're imparting to it. It is affected by air friction. It is affected by the random movements of neighbouring grains of sand. It is affected by the natural resistance of the piano. Therefore, grains of sand descending onto a piano do not do the same damage, even from the same height, or in the same amount of time, as a boulder does.

Quote:
In the wtc tower collapses, there was no opportunity for rubble broken from the upper or lower parts of the structure to trickle down gradually, a little bit at a time, so as to reduce its effects. It all fell at once, most likely in a mass that was considerably denser and less elastic than the original structures (since it was being compressed between any remaining intact upper structure and any intact floor below it). So no significant reduction (and most likely an increase) in the forces applied to the structure below would be expected as a result of the comminution of the components.
A volume of rubble is not an integral unit. Its ability to apply force on something is mitigated by the differential actions of its thousands of independent components, all doing different things, many of them falling outside the crushing zone. Yes, it may have less air than an intact storey supported by steel columns, but force is distributed totally haphazardly on any structure below, and, as we can see, much of this results in a loss of mass to the system.

Quote:
So, that leaves the "not a close system" argument. Do you have a quantitative argument to make regarding the amount of energy and mass lost as a result of outward ejection of materials? Various researchers have used the distribution of the debris as a guide to making such estimates, and have not found any basis to conclude sufficient outward ejection to significantly affect the overall progress of collapse. It might be interesting to compare your calculations to theirs, to see if you have a better case.
I don't have calculations. I know Bazant makes some, but obviously has to underestimate if his theory is to survive. The visual evidence shows massive volumes of dust and debris. The debris pile at ground zero was estimated to be only about 9 to 11 storeys high.
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 19th August 2010, 10:35 AM   #155
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
So was there a measurable jolt as this rubble was being compacted Myriad ? If the rubble was compacted so that it ''was considerably denser and less elastic than the original structures ''' you will admit that this would require massive compression between a stationary block and a moving one. And that would mean a measurable jolt.

Or do you have an amusing solution that would square that circle ?
__________________
*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 19th August 2010, 10:37 AM   #156
excaza
Illuminator
 
excaza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,593
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Um, no. Each grain of sand now has its own mass where it was formerly part of the mass of the boulder. That mass is affected by whatever work you're imparting to it. It is affected by air friction. It is affected by the random movements of neighbouring grains of sand. It is affected by the natural resistance of the piano. Therefore, grains of sand descending onto a piano do not do the same damage, even from the same height, or in the same amount of time, as a boulder does.
So when loading trucks from a silo, they just dump everything in at once because it doesn't impart any more force on the truck than if they let it out slowly?
__________________
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 19th August 2010, 10:40 AM   #157
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Not to mention that, without an upper block providing downward force, there is no compression.
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 19th August 2010, 10:40 AM   #158
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,213
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
but force is distributed totally haphazardly on any structure below,
Is there an equation for "haphazardly"?

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I don't have calculations.
No kidding. You also don't have physics.



"truthers" <shakes head>



__________________
"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 19th August 2010, 10:41 AM   #159
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by excaza View Post
So when loading trucks from a silo, they just dump everything in at once because it doesn't impart any more force on the truck than if they let it out slowly?
I don't know. What do they do?
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 19th August 2010, 10:42 AM   #160
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Is there an equation for "haphazardly"?
No. Obviously.

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
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 04:36 AM.
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.