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, 03:30 PM   #321
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,952
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I see formulas. I don't see calculations. I don't see a calculation of rubble impact.
Speaking of calculations, when are you going to present your mathematical proof that NIST and all these other engineers and physicists are wrong?

I think it is odd that you haven't already. You are able to provide said mathematical proof, are you not?
uke2se 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, 03:31 PM   #322
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
That would be Chapter 9, Probable Collapse Sequence.
I know it's chapter 9. Where in this chapter do they discuss the crushing powers of rubble? What page of the pdf?
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, 03:32 PM   #323
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,952
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I know it's chapter 9. Where in this chapter do they discuss the crushing powers of rubble? What page of the pdf?
I'm not your personal librarian. Read chapter 9. Do you think that NIST is wrong in this chapter? Are they wrong were they discuss how the downward movement of the top block was far too much for the structure below to handle? Where is your mathematical proof?
uke2se 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, 03:33 PM   #324
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,321
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I'm not claiming they're wrong necessarily. I'm claiming you're wrong and that you haven't supported with facts your bizarre notions of the effect of gravity on a collection of particles.
I saw those goal post somewhere.


Do you want me to show that gravity acts equally on all objects within it's field? Do you doubt 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 03:34 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2010, 03:36 PM   #325
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
I'm not your personal librarian. Read chapter 9. Do you think that NIST is wrong in this chapter? Are they wrong were they discuss how the downward movement of the top block was far too much for the structure below to handle? Where is your mathematical proof?
NIST does not discuss the rubble.
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, 03:38 PM   #326
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,952
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
NIST does not discuss the rubble.
Once again, is NIST wrong when they discuss how the downward movement of the top part of the building was far too much for the bottom part to handle, causing global collapse? Where is your mathematical proof? That they do not discuss the rubble should tell you something.
uke2se 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, 03:41 PM   #327
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,321
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
NIST does not discuss the rubble.
Yes they do! (only to the point of initiation)
__________________
"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, 04:05 PM   #328
excaza
Illuminator
 
excaza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,593
This seems to have gotten lost last time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass

And I see you're still refusing to answer my simple yes or no question. "I don't know" is also a valid response.
__________________

Last edited by excaza; 19th August 2010 at 04:06 PM.
excaza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2010, 04:24 PM   #329
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
Once NIST showed that the energy budget of the falling mass (be it rubbleized or a solid block) exceeded the capabilities of the lower floors connections to carry it NIST didn't have to go any farther in their calculations. It's a pointless exercise and a waste of time and money to bother explaining that once you have enough static mass to break a connection that all lower connections (that were all the same on the office floors no matter if it was the 90th floor or the 16th floor) would also fail in the same manner. Add in the fact that the mass was dynamic and all but either absolute idiots or internet trolls will profess to not understand that. Neither one is worth the effort beyond a certain point. That point was reached about 150 comments ago (if not before then) in this thread.
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2010, 05:00 PM   #330
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,259
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
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.
In your case it's just a regular FAIL. In his case it's an EPIC FAIL + DOUBLE FACEPALM at a minimum.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes the total mass falling is the same. Some of it falls out the sides of the building, however. Impact force is not the same.
Aah, so that was the trick, that there's less mass than there would be if no rubble exited the perimeter.

And that prevents the collapse how, exactly? Remember that rubble accumulates as collapse progresses; even if there's some ejection of mass there's always an increasing remnant which can't escape (don't forget the French demolitions).

Yes, there will surely be some conversion of potential energy into heat within the rubble due to the friction between particles, but we're not talking of any significant heating here, thus no significant reduction in the amount of PE available for crushing.
__________________
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, 08:44 PM   #331
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Once again, is NIST wrong when they discuss how the downward movement of the top part of the building was far too much for the bottom part to handle, causing global collapse? Where is your mathematical proof?
No. Chandler and Ross, among many others, have already pointed this out.

Quote:
That they do not discuss the rubble should tell you something.
Yes, it does.
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, 08:45 PM   #332
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am View Post
Once NIST showed that the energy budget of the falling mass (be it rubbleized or a solid block) exceeded the capabilities of the lower floors connections to carry it NIST didn't have to go any farther in their calculations. It's a pointless exercise and a waste of time and money to bother explaining that once you have enough static mass to break a connection that all lower connections (that were all the same on the office floors no matter if it was the 90th floor or the 16th floor) would also fail in the same manner. Add in the fact that the mass was dynamic and all but either absolute idiots or internet trolls will profess to not understand that.
Delusional.
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, 08:47 PM   #333
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
 
EventHorizon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,031
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Delusional.
You're going to explain why this is delusional of course...
__________________
"One of the hardest parts of being an active skeptic - of anything - is knowing when to cut your losses, and then doing so."
-Phil Plait
EventHorizon 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 PM   #334
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
No.
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, 08:51 PM   #335
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
 
EventHorizon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,031
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
No.
So then you're just trolling. Lovely.
__________________
"One of the hardest parts of being an active skeptic - of anything - is knowing when to cut your losses, and then doing so."
-Phil Plait
EventHorizon 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, 08:52 PM   #336
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Why not Ergo? Because you cannot do so.

/Thread
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, 09:07 PM   #337
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
NIST does not discuss the rubble.
What about Fred, the Flintstone? This will be as close as you get to reality on 911; what you want to bet?

Where is your paper to prove your point? What is your point? How can you support 8 years of delusions and come without evidence?

Are you saying debris has no mass? How does a shotgun work? Pretty nasty hole!

Water. Does water have mass? How does a liquid do anything? If debris has not mass, water must be more massless...???!!?@#@#

Physics! What happened to Coach Stubbs (my first physics teacher besides gravity, falls, and objects hitting me; may he rest in peace)?

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


Get thyself to a physics class! Quick

Think Physics! Stop messing up science!


Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
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
Is that why earth slides and avalanches don't come in bags? Are you supporting debris has no mass? Should I pack my buckshot in a bag? Where is the math?
Does this mean I will die slower if the dirt falls into a trench, cause the dirt is loose instead of in bags? What was your point? Loose dirt kills 70 people a year; would it be more hazardous in bags?

911 truth can't do the math and has the CD delusion. When will 911 truth be at a kindergarten level? My kindergarten kids do math, why can't 911 truth?

Last edited by beachnut; 19th August 2010 at 09:30 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2010, 09:13 PM   #338
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
delete
__________________
*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, 09:33 PM   #339
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
delete
Was it the math to support the massless debris delusion.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 12:44 AM   #340
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
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.
Water crushing a car. Which I showed you.

Isn't water a "loose and randomized collection of ... fragments and tends to spill over the sides?"

are you saying that water didn't crush that car?
__________________
"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 12:49 AM   #341
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I think most of us have. Please explain how a "ton of bricks" will crush through 90 intact storeys of steel and concrete in under 13 seconds, without mostly spilling over the sides.
I love this inherent dishonesty here.
1. the concrete was the flooring and had very little part in the structural integrity of the buildings. As such you should drop the implied "steel and concrete" incredulity.

2. the towers collapsed in 15, 20+ and 18 seconds for wtc7.

Please stop with this dishonesty.
__________________
"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 12:58 AM   #342
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,952
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
No. Chandler and Ross, among many others, have already pointed this out.
And Chandler and Ross and "many others" (who are they, by the way?) are about as adept at physics as you, so there's no wonder they got it wrong.

ETA: It seems our newest twoofer addition is beginning to feel the pressure from science and reality. Let's keep it up. Maybe he'll snap out of it.

Last edited by uke2se; 20th August 2010 at 12:59 AM.
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 01:11 AM   #343
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Uke...

he isn't "our newest truther," but in fact just a recycled old sock...
__________________
"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 01:14 AM   #344
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Written by Shawn Hamilton
Friday, 13 August 2010
Ed.: Published originally at examiner.com; Aug 3, 2010

'' A highly anticipated debate between two members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and two physicists is scheduled for August 21, 2010. The debate will air on the popular late night talk show Coast to Coast AM with host Ian Punnett between 10pm - 2am Pacific time.

Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth and an architect for over twenty years, has delivered over 150 presentations in 17 countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and throughout the United States. He will be joined by Danish scientist, Niels Harrit, Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen -- a chemist and university teacher with expertise in organic chemistry, photochemistry, fluorescence, and nanotechnology.

Harrit co-authored a peer-reviewed paper along with Dr. Steven Jones and several others, documenting their discovery of a highly energetic, nano-engineered form of thermite in World Trade Center dust. In its ordinary form, thermite, a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder, burns extremely hot -- around 4500° F. -- sufficiently hot to melt iron, which melts at around 2700° F.

Gage and Harrit will present evidence that the three World Trade Center skyscrapers were explosively demolished on September 11, 2001.....''

READ MORE:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...00816130149574
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 02:11 AM   #345
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,377
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Written by Shawn Hamilton
Friday, 13 August 2010
Ed.: Published originally at examiner.com; Aug 3, 2010

'' A highly anticipated debate between two members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and two physicists is scheduled for August 21, 2010. The debate will air on the popular late night talk show Coast to Coast AM with host Ian Punnett between 10pm - 2am Pacific time.

Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth and an architect for over twenty years, has delivered over 150 presentations in 17 countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and throughout the United States. He will be joined by Danish scientist, Niels Harrit, Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen -- a chemist and university teacher with expertise in organic chemistry, photochemistry, fluorescence, and nanotechnology.

Harrit co-authored a peer-reviewed paper along with Dr. Steven Jones and several others, documenting their discovery of a highly energetic, nano-engineered form of thermite in World Trade Center dust. In its ordinary form, thermite, a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder, burns extremely hot -- around 4500° F. -- sufficiently hot to melt iron, which melts at around 2700° F.

Gage and Harrit will present evidence that the three World Trade Center skyscrapers were explosively demolished on September 11, 2001.....''

READ MORE:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...00816130149574
Anybody got any idea what "thermite" has to do with "explosively demolished"???
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 02:27 AM   #346
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
written by shawn hamilton
friday, 13 august 2010
ed.: Published originally at examiner.com; aug 3, 2010

...
spam!!!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=440
Thermite? After 8 years this delusion is old; the dust did not have the same heat value of thermite. oops

Last edited by beachnut; 20th August 2010 at 02:30 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 02:27 AM   #347
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Anybody got any idea what "thermite" has to do with "explosively demolished"???
A hundred tons or more in total of nanothermite secreted inside the hollow core columns I guess and explosives to blow the corners and some cross members at regular intervals as Chandler shows in his video. So it should be really ' demolition by exolosive and incendiary' but it doesn't have the same ring to it as 'Explosive Demolition' does-snd we'll get to it anyway.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 20th August 2010 at 02:37 AM.
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 02:34 AM   #348
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
A hundred tons or more in total of nanothermite inside the hollow core columns I guess and explosives to blow the corners and some cross members at regular intervals as Chandler shows in his video. So it should be really ' demolition by exolosive and incendiary' but it doesn't have the same ring to it as 'Explosive Demolition' does-snd we'll get to it anyway.
There was no thermite found; it leaves behind iron fused to other junk.
Your delusions lacks evidence. 8 years of failure; Gage is on late night woo radio. His insane ideas will be presented, late at night, when you need a good laugh at idiotic claims while driving for hours.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 02:39 AM   #349
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
There was no thermite found; it leaves behind iron fused to other junk.
Your delusions lacks evidence. 8 years of failure; Gage is on late night woo radio. His insane ideas will be presented, late at night, when you need a good laugh at idiotic claims while driving for hours.
You mean fused like the meteorites ?
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 04:11 AM   #350
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
This, too is a bit of an issue I have. One of the problems that I've noticed is that, should someone make an incredibly stupid statement:

The Earth is supported by a turtle standing on an infinite series of turtles. Prove that I'm wrong.

The correct response is: You're an idiot. But more often, a "debunker" response can take many forms:
  • There is no such thing as an infinite series of turtles
  • The earth's crust could not support its own weight on a single point
  • The infinite turtle series does not explain tides, the seasons, eclipses and the martian retrograde.
  • There is no need for any "support" because outside of the earth's gravity field...
All of these responses are true and valid criticisms of the initial argument, but none address the underlying idiocy. It attempts to use inductive style scientific reasoning to show where a theory is lacking or faulty. But the theory itself is not scientifically derived, and so any scientific argument is useless. Too often, in order to show how one aspect of a theory is idiotic, we over-simplify to the discredit of the entirely accurate and scientific reasons supporting our overall conclusions. The block A, block B argument is a perfect example. It's perfectly reasonable to draw A-B diagrams to explain an initial Truther idiocy (that part A should have toppled over). But over extending the simplified model makes it wrong.

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.
My ability to predict the future remains uncanny. You may now call me the New and Improved Sylvia Brown.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 04:19 AM   #351
excaza
Illuminator
 
excaza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,593
Still waiting ergo...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...66#post6244766

Simple yes or no.
__________________
excaza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 04:59 AM   #352
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I'm not claiming they're wrong necessarily. I'm claiming you're wrong and that you haven't supported with facts your bizarre notions of the effect of gravity on a collection of particles.
Ergo, if you're a troll, you can just ignore everything of what I'm about to type. If you're interested in learning, read on. Else, if you're only interested in having someone tell you you're right, feel free to replace any of the text in my post with some physics that supports your world view.

Your problem is not one of complete ignorance. In fact, I would put your level of understanding of physics at the high school level. The problem is that you are making some of the most common errors in physical thought. These errors take months to correct in introductory physics classes in college. Specifically, you make 4 big errors:
  1. Failure to understand that all three of Newton's laws apply for all matter
  2. Failure to understand conservation of momentum
  3. Failure to understand conservation of energy
  4. Failure to understand reference frames

Earlier in this thread, you misquoted Newton's first law, stating that objects in motion will remain in motion until acted upon by an outside object. Actually, it's an outside force, and sometimes those forces are counterintuitive. Newton's third law similarly states that with every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If I push on a wall with 5 N of force, the wall will push back at me with a further 5 N. Similarly, if I push on a shopping cart with 5 N of force, the cart WILL ACTUALLY PUSH BACK WITH 5 N OF FORCE!!!! But the cart is moving! How is that possible? The answer lies in your 4th error, the reference frame of my hands on the shopping cart is not accelerating. My hands remain firmly on the shopping cart, but if I expand the reference frame to include the wheels and the ground, suddenly my system changes. Now the friction between the ground and the wheels imparts a force opposing my 5 N, and the net force balance causes the shopping cart to move if and only if the forces opposing my motion are less than 5 N. But that first reference frame we talked about? Still pushing back with 5 N.

Now, resist your urge to tell me that I'm wrong. You've made the same error that every single first year physics student in the history of the planet has made. Your reference frames are wrong, you've failed to correctly apply Newton's laws of motion, and your energy and momentum balances are out of kilter.

This "intact" vs. "rubble" error that you've made has an error. You correctly assert that a bowling ball will likely do more damage to the floor than shards of a bowling ball. But that's only true if the reference frame does not include any of the underlying structure. If we're only interested in the point where the bowling ball makes impact with the floor, the equations are very simple to determine if the floor will undergo a "bearing" failure because the imparted energy exceeds the capacity of the floor. But if we include the structure of the floor, we need to follow the load path to the ground, where the ground will apply the same force to the structure as the bowling ball applied to it.

Your problem is that you've take our bowling ball analogy and concluded that, because it only causes local failure, it's only capable of causing local failure, globally. You have to include the force from the ground, which will be equal and opposite to the force of the bowling ball. What's further, all of the kinetic energy imparted by the ball will have to be absorbed by the structure. That energy can be turned into heat, sound, light and it can be used to destroy the structure.

This is why mudslides, avalanches and falling rubble are indeed problems. I've seen a human being killed by 4 tons of gravel falling on his head. The gravel fell in an area probably 10 times bigger than him, but he still died.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 07:57 AM   #353
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
To continue:

Your next problem is with conservation of momentum. You forget that momentum (the product of velocity and mass) must be conserved (that is, it must be the same at all times) in a system. Consider the example of the ice skater who can control the rate at which she's turning by simply moving her arms in and out. When you say that the falling rubble is directed over the side, that implies that the rubble is changing direction. When it changes direction, the velocity changes, and when the velocity changes, the momentum changes, meaning that some other reaction must occur in order to keep the momentum of the system the same.

This change in direction necessitates a force applied by the structure to the rubble. That force is integrated over the entire structure (why? Remember reference frames?), meaning that despite the fact that the material is loose, the only thing that matters is that it has mass and velocity.

Finally, here comes energy conservation. Like momentum and mass, energy must also be conserved. This requirement is largely the basis for the laws of Thermodynamics, and that field of study tracks the change in energy of a system. When an object is falling, it has kinetic energy equal to half its mass times the square of the velocity. That kinetic energy does not disappear when said object hits the ground and stops moving. That energy is turned into heat, sound and vibrational energy, which is absorbed by the ground. The falling floors of the twin towers had kinetic energy, and when they impacted the structure of the twin towers, nearly all of the energy went into the structure. The objects spilling over the side had some kinetic energy left after the reaction, but not a lot.

Here's the point: Energy is energy. Momentum is momentum. Force is force. There are no wild and crazy equations to apply if the object of study is a person, jello, water, sand or rubble. Their energy, momentum and the force of gravity are independent of their shape or material. They depend only on mass and velocity. These forces are immutable. You can't design a structure capable of applying more energy to arrest a fall than the energy required to destroy the structure. If the energy required to destroy something is provided, said thing will be destroyed.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 08:16 AM   #354
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
Earlier in this thread, you misquoted Newton's first law, stating that objects in motion will remain in motion until acted upon by an outside object. Actually, it's an outside force, and sometimes those forces are counterintuitive.
As for force instead of object, you are correct. Please explain what you mean by "forces are counterintuitive".

Quote:
Newton's third law similarly states that with every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If I push on a wall with 5 N of force, the wall will push back at me with a further 5 N.
With an opposing 5 N. Not a "further". This is a common "debunker" sleight of hand.

Quote:
Similarly, if I push on a shopping cart with 5 N of force, the cart WILL ACTUALLY PUSH BACK WITH 5 N OF FORCE!!!! But the cart is moving! How is that possible? The answer lies in your 4th error, the reference frame of my hands on the shopping cart is not accelerating. My hands remain firmly on the shopping cart, but if I expand the reference frame to include the wheels and the ground, suddenly my system changes. Now the friction between the ground and the wheels imparts a force opposing my 5 N, and the net force balance causes the shopping cart to move if and only if the forces opposing my motion are less than 5 N. But that first reference frame we talked about? Still pushing back with 5 N.

Now, resist your urge to tell me that I'm wrong.
Even high school physics teaches as a first principle the frame of reference. You're not going to somehow forget that a shopping cart has wheels. So I have no objection with what you say. Nor would any other skeptic.

Quote:
you've failed to correctly apply Newton's laws of motion, and your energy and momentum balances are out of kilter.
This doesn't follow. I haven't made these errors.

Quote:
This "intact" vs. "rubble" error that you've made has an error. You correctly assert that a bowling ball will likely do more damage to the floor than shards of a bowling ball. But that's only true if the reference frame does not include any of the underlying structure. If we're only interested in the point where the bowling ball makes impact with the floor, the equations are very simple to determine if the floor will undergo a "bearing" failure because the imparted energy exceeds the capacity of the floor. But if we include the structure of the floor, we need to follow the load path to the ground, where the ground will apply the same force to the structure as the bowling ball applied to it.

Your problem is that you've take our bowling ball analogy and concluded that, because it only causes local failure, it's only capable of causing local failure, globally. You have to include the force from the ground, which will be equal and opposite to the force of the bowling ball. What's further, all of the kinetic energy imparted by the ball will have to be absorbed by the structure.
Thank you for acknowledging this. A lot of "debunkers" miss this point.

Quote:
That energy can be turned into heat, sound, light and it can be used to destroy the structure.
But here you wig off into woo. That the energy can be transformed is correct. That the transformed energy will still destroy the structure is not true in our case. Heat and sound did not cause failure of building components.

Quote:
This is why mudslides, avalanches and falling rubble are indeed problems. I've seen a human being killed by 4 tons of gravel falling on his head. The gravel fell in an area probably 10 times bigger than him, but he still died.
Comparing human bodies to steel-framed structures is invalid. A few of you continue to assert this logical fallacy.

Thank you for your reasoned approach and attempting to have an intelligent conversation about this. I appreciate it. However, your analysis is largely 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 20th August 2010, 08:26 AM   #355
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,321
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
However, your analysis is largely incorrect.
Can we ask your qualifications to say this? (I know The Almonds).

You have to understand my skepticism, You yourself said you can't backup anything you claim with calculations.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 08:42 AM   #356
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
To continue:

Your next problem is with conservation of momentum. You forget that momentum (the product of velocity and mass) must be conserved (that is, it must be the same at all times) in a system.
In a closed system.

Quote:
This change in direction necessitates a force applied by the structure to the rubble. That force is integrated over the entire structure (why? Remember reference frames?),
Correct.

Quote:
meaning that despite the fact that the material is loose, the only thing that matters is that it has mass and velocity.
Incorrect.

Quote:
Finally, here comes energy conservation. Like momentum and mass, energy must also be conserved.
If you mean that energy is neither created nor destroyed, you are correct. If you are trying to claim that the system we are talking about does not lose energy, you are incorrect.

Quote:
When an object is falling, it has kinetic energy equal to half its mass times the square of the velocity. That kinetic energy does not disappear when said object hits the ground and stops moving. That energy is turned into heat, sound and vibrational energy, which is absorbed by the ground.
Correct.

Quote:
The falling floors of the twin towers had kinetic energy, and when they impacted the structure of the twin towers, nearly all of the energy went into the structure.
This has nothing to do with what you just said above. Leaps and gaps in logic seem to be really common with "debunkers". You're trying to use physics for your argument, but because your argument is not supported by physics, you have to make these ridiculous leaps to arrive at your destination.

Also, the "falling floors"? You seem to be uncertain, again, whether you are talking about a discrete upper block or rubble. In any case, you also forget that not only the intact structure must absorb the force of "impact" (crushing)--as you correctly state that the ground does--but the upper block must also absorb it. Which is why it crushes up before crushing down is ever allowed to occur.

Quote:
The objects spilling over the side had some kinetic energy left after the reaction, but not a lot.
I'm not even sure what point you're attempting to make here, but it's probably irrelevant. Oh, wait. You're probably attempting to suggest that not much mass or energy was lost to the system. The debris ejected upwards and outwards had the same potential energy as all the other debris. The energy required to eject this matter upwards and outwards, supposedly through "crushing", is energy lost to any further crushing.

Quote:
Here's the point: Energy is energy. Momentum is momentum. Force is force.
This is saying nothing, except perhaps you're trying to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Quote:
There are no wild and crazy equations to apply if the object of study is a person, jello, water, sand or rubble. Their energy, momentum and the force of gravity are independent of their shape or material.
Incorrect. Friction affects different materials differently. This is also high school physics.

Quote:
You can't design a structure capable of applying more energy to arrest a fall than the energy required to destroy the structure.
This is so utterly false as to be bizarre. All modern structures are designed to arrest their own collapse. This is what modern engineering and building design are about. There are no building codes existing today that would allow a highrise structure to self-pulverize, to collapse completely within seconds of free fall, to disintegrate in mid-air. This is why demolition companies exist. Holy ****.

Quote:
If the energy required to destroy something is provided, said thing will be destroyed.
Correct.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 08:47 AM   #357
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
..
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 09:10 AM   #358
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Comparing human bodies to steel-framed structures is invalid. A few of you continue to assert this logical fallacy.

Thank you for your reasoned approach and attempting to have an intelligent conversation about this. I appreciate it. However, your analysis is largely incorrect.
I have given you a steel framed vehicle which was destroyed by the loose particles of water. it was crushed...

And you have ignored it ever since...

care to comment? Or will you just handwave and dodge?
__________________
"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 09:11 AM   #359
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by TruthersLie View Post
loose particles of water.
It was destroyed by rain?

I believe I said: "I like 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 20th August 2010, 09:19 AM   #360
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
It was destroyed by rain?

I believe I said: "I like the edit in frame 9".
Ah... so water can't crush a car. AFter all it is just loose particles. Kind of like sand... or dirt... or snow....
__________________
"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:47 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.