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, 10:45 AM   #161
excaza
Illuminator
 
excaza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,593
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I don't know. What do they do?
You tell me, use your "physics." It should make no difference, correct?
__________________
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, 10:46 AM   #162
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I asked first. Please explain, or link to an explanation, of how rubble can crush an intact building.
Gravity and momentum.

Here's a video of falling water destroying stuff, (2 minutes)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w4tvAGOEpo
__________________
------
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 19th August 2010, 10:46 AM   #163
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
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.

Speaking of "violating the laws of physics".

__________________
"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, 10:51 AM   #164
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by excaza View Post
You tell me, use your "physics." It should make no difference, correct?
It's your example. Explain what happens in it and how it applies.
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, 10:52 AM   #165
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Originally Posted by ergo
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.
Speaking of "violating the laws of physics".
What part of what I explain do you think is incorrect?
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, 10:55 AM   #166
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
What part of what I explain do you think is incorrect?
The "bolder" is a falling mass of "particles". You go wrong when you mention "time".
__________________
"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, 10:57 AM   #167
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
The "bolder" is a falling mass of "particles". You go wrong when you mention "time".
Yes, in particle physics. You guys are hilarious.

I didn't bring up the impact time. Myriad did.
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, 11:00 AM   #168
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
Gravity and momentum.

Here's a video of falling water destroying stuff, (2 minutes)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w4tvAGOEpo
How does this video explain the destruction of a 90-storey steel and concrete building in 13 seconds or less by rubble falling 12 feet?

Actually, never mind that. How do gravity and momentum explain this?
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, 11:01 AM   #169
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
Yes, in particle physics. You guys are hilarious.

I didn't bring up the impact time. Myriad did.
Is this not your words?

Quote:
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.
The statement is wrong!


Your arguing physics but you don't want to be exact? You don't understand the problem with this?
__________________
"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, 11:02 AM   #170
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
The "bolder" is a falling mass of "particles". You go wrong when you mention "time".
Particles and small rubble behave as a liquid does DGM. It runs over and around obstacles applying far less pressure than a solid mass would. Look at the videos and the masses of rubble being shed at the moment of impact. It spills off the lower part. I'm sure I can find a Chandler video that illustrates it beautifully if you have any doubts.
__________________
*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, 11:03 AM   #171
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,309
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Particles and small rubble behave as a liquid does DGM. It runs over and around obstacles applying far less pressure than a solid mass would. Look at the videos and the masses of rubble being shed at the moment of impact. It spills off the lower part. I'm sure I can find a Chandler video that illustrates it beautifully if you have any doubts.
Time!
__________________
"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, 11:03 AM   #172
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You don't understand the problem with this?
No. And neither, apparently, do you.
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, 11:06 AM   #173
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
No. And neither, apparently, do you.
Well actually I do. That's why I don't claim the collapse (as described by NIST) violates the laws of physics.



__________________
"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, 11:08 AM   #174
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Well actually I do.
Then please explain in plain language your objections to what I wrote instead of merely stating your opinion.

I should say, in complete sentences.

Last edited by ergo; 19th August 2010 at 11:10 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 19th August 2010, 11:09 AM   #175
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
How does this video explain the destruction of a 90-storey steel and concrete building in 13 seconds or less by rubble falling 12 feet?

Actually, never mind that. How do gravity and momentum explain this?


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
Take a physics course or work through these excellent 10 minute segments on basic physics and Newton's laws.
http://www.khanacademy.org/#Physics
You show zero interest in actually learning anything.
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.

Last edited by BigAl; 19th August 2010 at 11:19 AM.
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 19th August 2010, 11:14 AM   #176
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
Then please explain in plain language your objections to what I wrote instead of merely stating your opinion.

I should say, in complete sentences.
Please have your parents forward tuition money to me.




Your claim is the collapse (as described by NIST) "violates the laws of physics".

Your explanation boils down to "because I think so".


Now you want me to spend my time giving you a physics lesson?

Are you insane? Your claim, Support it!

ETA: 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

Last edited by DGM; 19th August 2010 at 11:17 AM. Reason: Bet
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, 11:26 AM   #177
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,259
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I asked first. Please explain, or link to an explanation, of how rubble can crush an intact building.
You asked for an example. I gave you some examples, see post #128.

ETA:
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
How does this video explain the destruction of a 90-storey steel and concrete building in 13 seconds or less by rubble falling 12 feet?
12 feet? Rubble fell all the way down.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 19th August 2010 at 11:30 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 19th August 2010, 11:32 AM   #178
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post

Your claim is the collapse (as described by NIST) "violates the laws of physics".
Changing the topic? I have never said this in this thread. I am asking you to elaborate on what part of this:

Originally Posted by ergo
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.
you don't understand or find objectionable. Please use complete sentences.
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, 11:34 AM   #179
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
12 feet? Rubble fell all the way down.
"All the way down" where?
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, 11:43 AM   #180
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Changing the topic? I have never said this in this thread. I am asking you to elaborate on what part of this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ergo
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.
you don't understand or find objectionable. Please use complete sentences.
A complete sentence:

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.orgwiki/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 19th August 2010, 11:50 AM   #181
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
A complete sentence:
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.orgwiki/Momentum
Thanks. So how does this apply to rubble crushing a building?

Last edited by ergo; 19th August 2010 at 11:53 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 19th August 2010, 11:58 AM   #182
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
Thanks. So how does this apply to rubble crushing a building?
Maybe we should try this?

Why wouldn't rubble crush a building?

(I believe that's a complete sentence)
__________________
"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, 12:01 PM   #183
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Thanks. So how does this apply to rubble crushing a building?
Momentum and gravity.

Are we going in circles here ?
__________________
------
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 19th August 2010, 12:01 PM   #184
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why wouldn't rubble crush a building?
Because the rubble is a loose and randomized collection of building fragments and tends to spill over the sides. Individual rubble pieces do not have sufficient mass to crush through intact building components.
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, 12:02 PM   #185
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
Are we going in circles here ?
You are.
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, 12:03 PM   #186
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Because the rubble is a loose and randomized collection of building fragments and tends to spill over the sides. Individual rubble pieces do not have sufficient mass to crush through intact building components.
One more time:

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.orgwiki/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 19th August 2010, 12:05 PM   #187
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
Because the rubble is a loose and randomized collection of building fragments and tends to spill over the sides. Individual rubble pieces do not have sufficient mass to crush through intact building components.
Explain "spilling over the sides". Does this involve a change in the direction that this mass is traveling?


http://en.wikipedia.orgwiki/Momentum
__________________
"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, 12:06 PM   #188
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
One more time:
One more time:

Quote:
"The linear momentum of a system of particles is the vector sum of the momenta of all the individual objects in the system"
Please explain how linear momentum of a system of particles applies to rubble crushing a 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, 12:07 PM   #189
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Explain "spilling over the sides". Does this involve a change in the direction that this mass is traveling?
Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
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, 12:08 PM   #190
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
One more time:



Please explain how linear momentum of a system of particles applies to rubble crushing a building.
See post #187
__________________
"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, 12:09 PM   #191
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
Is there energy transfered to the object that caused the "change in direction?
__________________
"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, 12:11 PM   #192
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Is there energy transfered to the object that caused the "change in direction?
Yes.
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, 12:11 PM   #193
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,152
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
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.

Each piece of rubble is being pulled by gravity in the same direction. Slowing all of it down by a certain amount in a given amount of time (e.g. slowed enough in a short enough time to prevent it crashing through the next floor) requires the same force as it it were all attached together as one single object. Unless you can spread out the individual impacts over time -- but you cannot, because nothing is holding any of it up.

Quote:
I don't have calculations. I know Bazant makes some, but obviously has to underestimate if his theory is to survive.

That's a fail. If you don't have calculations then you have no real argument.

You see, people who actually make decisions about important things, like how to construct buildings and how to update building codes and whether to conduct new investigations and what to teach in engineering classes and what to write in history books, want to see the numbers.

In fact, in most cases the reason they get to make decisions about important things is that they are able to perform such calculations and/or evaluate the calculations of others.

And, it's important to note, the reason they want to see the numbers is because they want to maximize their chances to be right.

Waving away the calculations in favor of vague claims ("others' calculations must be wrong because they disagree with my guesses") and illegitimate analogies ("the towers didn't behave like a small stack of cinderblocks") is not a way to be right. It's good for only one thing: remaining unconvinced that you are wrong, when you are wrong.

An odd characteristic seen in many Truthers is acting as if being unconvinced that you are wrong is in some way difficult, inherently admirable, productive, and/or comparable to being right. It is none of those things.

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, 12:12 PM   #194
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
Yes.
Think about this, you'll find you just answered your original question.
__________________
"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, 12:15 PM   #195
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Each piece of rubble is being pulled by gravity in the same direction.
No, it isn't.

Quote:
Slowing all of it down by a certain amount in a given amount of time (e.g. slowed enough in a short enough time to prevent it crashing through the next floor) requires the same force as it it were all attached together as one single object. Unless you can spread out the individual impacts over time -- but you cannot, because nothing is holding any of it up.
Your first premise is incorrect, so the bolded is incorrect for that and other obvious reasons.
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, 12:16 PM   #196
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
One more time:

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
Please explain how linear momentum of a system of particles applies to rubble crushing a building.

Which of those big words are you having a problem with?
__________________
------
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 19th August 2010, 12:17 PM   #197
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Think about this, you'll find you just answered your original question.
No, finish what you started. Your conclusions don't follow. Explain it for us.
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, 12:17 PM   #198
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
No, it isn't.

Don't go there!


There is no gravity.......the world sucks!
__________________
"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, 12:19 PM   #199
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
Which of those big words are you having a problem with?
How does linear momentum of particles apply to rubble crushing a 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, 12:20 PM   #200
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,152
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
No, it isn't.

Your first premise is incorrect, so the bolded is incorrect for that and other obvious reasons.

Gravity pulls some pieces of rubble in some direction other than down? Please give an example.

The bolded, like the rest, is completely correct.

This is a good example of what I said before. It's quite possible that I lack the ability to convince you that you're wrong. Meanwhile you lack the ability to be right. In Truther world maybe that makes us even. But the people who make real decisions in the real world don't see it that way.

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
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 06:35 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.