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, 12:58 PM   #241
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,207
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
No.
How's that?
__________________
"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, 12:58 PM   #242
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
This is shaping up to a nice Stundie factory.

Ergo, imagine two scenarios:

1. I drop a cement block on a flat surface. The cement block is 1m3, and to simplify, let's say it has a mass of 1 ton.

2. I empty a box of sand on the same surface. The total mass of the sand is 1 ton.

In which scenario do I impart the largest amount of force on the surface?
Scenario 1.
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, 01:00 PM   #243
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,795
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Scenario 1.
Please explain your reasoning, and if possible, show your math.
uke2se 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, 01:02 PM   #244
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,207
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
They impacted the intact components of the building, yes. As I stated before. These components are not crushed; they deflect the rubble pieces, which then have to move in another direction. This is what resistance is. This is what we mean when we say "unless acted on by another object". Energy gets dispersed into different directions.
So the lower part of the building still has to resist the actual mass of the top plus the total of the gravitational potential (after the initial fall). Yes?


Can you show it can do 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

Last edited by DGM; 19th August 2010 at 01:06 PM. Reason: add:after the initial fall
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, 01:02 PM   #245
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
The energy gets dispersed? What caused the energy to disperse, ergo? Was some kind of force necessary for this to happen, or did it happen spontaneously?
What part of the explanation I just provided don't you understand? Or are you "debunkers" merely trying to wear me out?

Quote:
They impacted the intact components of the building, yes. As I stated before. These components are not crushed; they deflect the rubble pieces, which then have to move in another direction. This is what resistance is. This is what we mean when we say "unless acted on by another object". Energy gets dispersed into different directions.
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, 01:03 PM   #246
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
By truther logic, a shotgun shell can't do any damage unless it's a deer slug, because shot is a loose collection of small particles. I have firsthand experience that this is not the case...
__________________
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, 01:04 PM   #247
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,795
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
What part of the explanation I just provided don't you understand? Or are you "debunkers" merely trying to wear me out?
So, the "components" deflecting the rubble pieces don't get crushed, but they still deflect the falling rubble? What kind of force is required for a rubble piece to change direction, and where does the energy go?
uke2se 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, 01:05 PM   #248
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,795
I think what we have here is a case of "common sense" fail. This is the same type of thinking that leads people to believe that an asteroid impacting the earth is less dangerous if we just blow it up into many smaller asteroids. That the same amount of force is deposited into the earth doesn't seem to dawn on some people.
uke2se 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, 01:06 PM   #249
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
So the lower part of the building still has to resist the actual mass of the top plus the total of the gravitational potential. Yes?
Are you back to talking about an intact upper block? And what do you mean "plus" the gravitational potential?. There's only one force here. Gravity. And yes, the lower part of the building resists the gravitational pull downward of the upper block because that force is deferred through a much larger, intact structure.
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, 01:08 PM   #250
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,221
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.
Where have I seen that argument before? Ah yes!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...18#post5266918
__________________
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, 01:08 PM   #251
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,795
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Are you back to talking about an intact upper block? And what do you mean "plus" the gravitational potential?. There's only one force here. Gravity. And yes, the lower part of the building resists the gravitational pull downward of the upper block because that force is deferred through a much larger, intact structure.
I'm going to start requesting you to show your math from now on. Not only are you laughably wrong about how a falling objects act, you are not showing anything to back up your many ludicrous claims.
uke2se 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, 01:10 PM   #252
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Are we discussing particle physics or laws of motion? If we're discussing particles, why not discuss your intact upper block as a system of particles?
Fine as long as you get the math, physics and initial conditions right.
__________________
------
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, 01:10 PM   #253
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
So, the "components" deflecting the rubble pieces don't get crushed, but they still deflect the falling rubble? What kind of force is required for a rubble piece to change direction, and where does the energy go?
Why don't you apply this question to a croquet mallet hitting a ball? Do either of them break? Contrary to NIST physics, not everything in our physical universe "breaks" and "collapses" through collision.
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, 01:11 PM   #254
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,007
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
I think what we have here is a case of "common sense" fail. This is the same type of thinking that leads people to believe that an asteroid impacting the earth is less dangerous if we just blow it up into many smaller asteroids. That the same amount of force is deposited into the earth doesn't seem to dawn on some people.

Apparently. But we're also seeing calculated unwillingness to honestly consider related scenarios in which common sense gives the correct answer, such as that it takes just as much braking force (most of which is translated into force applied on the load by the truck) to slow down a truckload of loose granules as it does to slow down a truck carrying one large solid object of equal weight.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zřmbie 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, 01:12 PM   #255
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
No, what we have here is a pile-on.

In all these posts not a single one of you has shown how rubble can crush through a building through gravity alone. Your ridiculous notion does not stand up to scrutiny. In your parlance, that's a "Fail".
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, 01:14 PM   #256
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
such as that it takes just as much braking force (most of which is translated into force applied on the load by the truck) to slow down a truckload of loose granules as it does to slow down a truck carrying one large solid object of equal weight.
This is not an analogy. You don't appear to understand what an analogy is.
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, 01:16 PM   #257
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,795
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Why don't you apply this question to a croquet mallet hitting a ball? Do either of them break? Contrary to NIST physics, not everything in our physical universe "breaks" and "collapses" through collision.
Please explain how your analogy applies to the situation with a collapsing building.

Let me try to explain why you're wrong:

What we're discussing is impact force. Let us say that the top block falling down has a mass of 1000 kg (just for ease of calculating it). We'll use this nifty online calculator. Again, for ease of calculating, let's imagine the height being 10 meters. Total impact force with these parameters is 1,400,000 N.

Now, let's say the top block is split up into 1000 1 kg pieces. Other parameters remain the same. The pieces fall on the bottom block, each impacting with 1400 N. This happens a thousand times, giving us 1000*1400 = 1,400,000 N, the same force as if we dropped a solid block.

Now, explain how this energy is deflected.
uke2se 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, 01:18 PM   #258
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,207
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Are you back to talking about an intact upper block? And what do you mean "plus" the gravitational potential?. There's only one force here. Gravity. And yes, the lower part of the building resists the gravitational pull downward of the upper block because that force is deferred through a much larger, intact structure.
I'm afraid my patience for you has run out.


You claim to understand physics yet you keep wanting to change the laws to fit your view. It doesn't matter if the top is intact or if the bottom is "stronger". Unless you can show that the bottom can resist the "gravitational potential" after one stories of drop (that takes math that I know you don't know how to do) this whole conversation is pointless'

You want us to change your mind although your mind is not based on fact. This can't be done and I no longer care.


Good night, (can't say I didn't try)
__________________
"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, 01:19 PM   #259
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,221
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
In all these posts not a single one of you has shown how rubble can crush through a building through gravity alone.
Maybe you have missed post #128?
__________________
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, 01:24 PM   #260
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Maybe you have missed post #128?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=132
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, 01:26 PM   #261
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I see an intact upper block crushing through some disabled floors. How is this a correct analogy?

How crushed were the upper portions of the WTC towers, and how do you conclude this?
__________________
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, 01:28 PM   #262
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
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.
Correct in that individual significant mass to cause damage. Correct!

However, you put MILLIONS of them together, Including things like desks, chairs, filing cabinets, copt machines, and thousands of tons of steel and concrete, and drop them on a single floor system, and you will excede the weight bearing capability of that floor. Now you have ADDED a WHOLE ENTIRE FLOORS WORTH of crap to the falling collection of rubble. Now, it hits the NEXT floor. and so on and so on.......

Sure, some will be sent off to the sides, and out of the area, HOWEVER, more than enough will remain to collapse the next floor.

Plain simple anology.

Your roof of your house can support X amount right? We will use a number, so, 100 lbs. (not realistic number)

Now, you can safely place 100 lbs of hurse crap on your roof. It will hold it, no problem. Can do this all day long, night and day.

Now, take the 100 lbs of horse crap, and drop it on your roof from a height of 12 feet. Can your roof hold it? No. Why you ask? Dynamic Vs. Static loading.

THis is simple really.
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
Old 19th August 2010, 01:41 PM   #263
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
What we're discussing is impact force. Let us say that the top block falling down has a mass of 1000 kg (just for ease of calculating it). We'll use this nifty online calculator. Again, for ease of calculating, let's imagine the height being 10 meters. Total impact force with these parameters is 1,400,000 N.
1,000kg produces 140,000 N.

Quote:
Now, let's say the top block is split up into 1000 1 kg pieces. Other parameters remain the same. The pieces fall on the bottom block, each impacting with 1400 N. This happens a thousand times, giving us 1000*1400 = 1,400,000 N, the same force as if we dropped a solid block.
1 kg gives 140 N.

Quote:
Now, explain how this energy is deflected.
The 1,000 pieces hit the intact components differently. Force is applied differentially. As smaller discrete units, air friction and friction from other flying parts affects them differentially. The energy is deflected because a 1 kg object will not destroy the various building components. Damage perhaps, but not destruction. If the building part that the 1kg mass hits is not destroyed, the 1 kg object is deflected.

It's like if I drop a bowling ball on your head from a window above, I would probably kill you. Your skull would be crushed. If I drop the broken fragments of a bowling ball on your head from a window above, it would hurt you, you would sustain bruises, but your skull would not be crushed.
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, 01:48 PM   #264
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,221
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Ok, sorry, it's me who missed it.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I see an intact upper block crushing through some disabled floors. How is this a correct analogy?
1. The layer between the falling section and the lower section is rubble.

2. The lower floors are not disabled in the sense that they can still bear the load of the upper section.

3. In fact, in some cases they are not disabled at all. Here's the text of the patent (EP 1,082,505) on that demolition technique (Google translation from the French original):
Moreover, this method is also safe for operators because it is not necessary to weaken the structure of the building.
(Translated from http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1082505.html)

(ETA: Original text in french: "Par ailleurs, ce procédé est également sans danger pour les opérateurs étant donné qu'il n'est pas nécessaire de fragiliser la structure de l'immeuble")
__________________
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 01:50 PM.
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, 01:54 PM   #265
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Ok, sorry, it's me who missed it.

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.
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, 01:57 PM   #266
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,007
Well, ergo is remaining unconvinced that the laws of physics as applied by physicists, engineers, investigators, historians, and even truck drivers, actually work the way the textbooks and equations say they do. What fortitude! What determination! What strength of character!

Unfortunately people who actually get to make decisions about engineering matters such as whether or not the issues covered in the NIST report should be re-investigated don't see it ergo's way. In fact, they seem to regard remaining unconvinced as not any sort of worthwhile accomplishment at all.

Which means ergo gets to stay wrong, and the rest of us get to stay uninterested in ergo's opinions (and less likely to accept his word or his reasoning on anything else, to boot). Amazing! Another day of accomplishment for the Truth Movement!

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A zřmbie 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, 01:57 PM   #267
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Being driven by an intact upper block. I asked how rubble alone could crush the lower part of the building.
To which I responded with:

Originally Posted by TheRedWorm View Post
How crushed were the upper portions of the WTC towers, and how do you conclude this?
__________________
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, 01:58 PM   #268
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
No, what we have here is a pile-on.

In all these posts not a single one of you has shown how rubble can crush through a building through gravity alone. Your ridiculous notion does not stand up to scrutiny. In your parlance, that's a "Fail".
Here we go.

Quote:
"If you push something hard enough it will fall over."
- Fudd's First Law of Opposition
__________________
------
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, 02:01 PM   #269
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,221
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.
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, 02:04 PM   #270
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by TheRedWorm View Post
To which I responded with:How crushed were the upper portions of the WTC towers, and how do you conclude this?
I'm not sure how this matters. They were either half crushed or completely crushed. The posters here seem to have differing opinions on this. In my opinion, completely crushed. I conclude this by observing the absence of any visible upper block during the collapse progression. A photo of which I posted earlier in this thread.
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, 02:07 PM   #271
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,795
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
1,000kg produces 140,000 N.
Not when you factor in drop height. You should look at the link I provided.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
1 kg gives 140 N.
Again, you forget drop height. However, it doesn't really matter.


Originally Posted by ergo View Post
The 1,000 pieces hit the intact components differently. Force is applied differentially. As smaller discrete units, air friction and friction from other flying parts affects them differentially.
Uhm... no.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
The energy is deflected because a 1 kg object will not destroy the various building components. Damage perhaps, but not destruction. If the building part that the 1kg mass hits is not destroyed, the 1 kg object is deflected.
Uhm... no. You see, we are discussing total impact force and the sustainability of an object to said force. The total force is the same whether the objects falling are many or a single one with the same mass. You are simply wrong here, and I have demonstrated such.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
It's like if I drop a bowling ball on your head from a window above, I would probably kill you. Your skull would be crushed. If I drop the broken fragments of a bowling ball on your head from a window above, it would hurt you, you would sustain bruises, but your skull would not be crushed.
If you could arrange it so that all the pieces of the ball struck me, the impact force on my head would be the same. Seriously, this is high school physics. Did you attend high school?

ETA: If you want to factor in air resistance and assert that that would provide a strong enough counter force, you need to show your math. Keeping with our example, what kind of air resistance would we expect with a 10m drop height. How much smaller would the total impact force be?

Last edited by uke2se; 19th August 2010 at 02:10 PM.
uke2se 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, 02:09 PM   #272
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
The collapse is obscured by dust, you can't say for sure the the upper block is completely crushed. Also, you seem to discount the effect of mass, without even realizing how big of a factor mass and velocity play in the event. I likened it to a shotgun shell and a cannon, do you understand why I chose such an analogy?
__________________
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, 02:14 PM   #273
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Seriously, this is high school physics. Did you attend high school?
Did you?

MM
Miragememories 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, 02:20 PM   #274
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Not when you factor in drop height. You should look at the link I provided.
Pretty sure I did. But, as you say, it doesn't matter for our purposes.

Quote:
Uhm... no.
In logical argument, you can't just say "um, no" without explaining yourself. Well, you can, but no one will take you very seriously.

Quote:
Uhm... no. You see, we are discussing total impact force and the sustainability of an object to said force. The total force is the same whether the objects falling are many or a single one with the same mass. You are simply wrong here, and I have demonstrated such.
You're just repeating your same false assertion. The total force is not the same when you have particles instead of a single solid mass.

Quote:
If you could arrange it so that all the pieces of the ball struck me, the impact force on my head would be the same. Seriously, this is high school physics.
It would be close, but not the same. But it doesn't matter, does it? This isn't what happened in the WTC.
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, 02:24 PM   #275
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Pretty sure I did. But, as you say, it doesn't matter for our purposes.



In logical argument, you can't just say "um, no" without explaining yourself. Well, you can, but no one will take you very seriously.



You're just repeating your same false assertion. The total force is not the same when you have particles instead of a single solid mass.
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
__________________
------
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, 02:25 PM   #276
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,795
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Did you?

MM
Yes. You?
uke2se 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, 02:27 PM   #277
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,795
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Pretty sure I did. But, as you say, it doesn't matter for our purposes.
You didn't, but I'll let it slide.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
In logical argument, you can't just say "um, no" without explaining yourself. Well, you can, but no one will take you very seriously.
Since I have gone out of my way to try to explain this to you and you get to simply handwave it away with unsupported assertions, an um, no is all you're going to get. Nobody takes you seriously as it is, so you'd do well to actually show some frigging math some time soon.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
You're just repeating your same false assertion. The total force is not the same when you have particles instead of a single solid mass.
The total force is the same when you have particles instead of a single solid mass. If you believe otherwise, show me the math.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
It would be close, but not the same. But it doesn't matter, does it? This isn't what happened in the WTC.
It isn't, so why did you bring it up?
uke2se 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, 02:28 PM   #278
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Where have I seen that argument before? Ah yes!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...18#post5266918
I am extremely flattered to have my argument compared with that of Tony Szamboti's, and very pleased with myself that I could come to the same (albeit stupidly obvious) conclusions as he, considering his knowledge of physics is vastly superior to mine. Thank you. I know I'm on the right track.
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, 02:28 PM   #279
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Dropping a bag of sand onto a structure has the potential to focus more destructive force
than dumping the contents of the same bag onto the structure.

You have to talk to OCTers at a kindergarten level ergo or theydon't get it.

MM

Last edited by Miragememories; 19th August 2010 at 02:29 PM.
Miragememories 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, 02:29 PM   #280
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,795
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Dropping a bag of sand onto a structure has the potential focus more destructive force
than dumping the contents of the same bag onto the structure.

You have to talk to OCTers at a kindergarten level ergo or theydon't get it.

MM
Show your math. They don't teach math at kindergarten, but you could ask an adult to help you.
uke2se 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
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 06:29 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.