|
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. |
9th December 2013, 09:51 AM | #361 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
Sunstealer has ratcheted back on the posting, not surprising since it's all dying embers.
Oystein is a different story. He disappeared after some discussion in a non-9/11 thread about some complications in his personal life. No one can find him, phone calls and personal emails don't get through for folks that knew him more closely. His disappearance had folks worried for a long time, and there has been no news. Chris Mohr can provide further details if you need them. |
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
9th December 2013, 12:19 PM | #362 | |||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
Armed with ignorance, he thinks a study is needed. He has no comprehension of physics, or what NIST did, purpose, etc. He loves to Gish Gallop using BS as his tool.
Using a single point tracked on a building, a building with infinite points. Talk about BS, he is much more narrow on this subject as he ignores the interior collapsing, making excuses why the failed interior can't help the collapse of the facade go faster; waves his hands and makes up more BS. Then engineering models of the collapse. He wants E=mc2 to clearly explain an atomic explosions. He can't comprehend engineering models, and why they don't look like what happened, no clue. With willful ignorance, wants NIST to redo the collapse model to show free-fall, what? How absurd. Why can't he gain the knowledge and tools to understand the real world? Too lazy? The collapse sequence NIST has is a probable collapse sequence (wake up, it might not be what happened), no one knows the real one. It is engineering, it is a possible way WTC 7 collapsed, and Bilbo wants NIST to redo it to match how he thinks it should look (how immature). Due to Bilbo's ignorance of physics, math, science, and engineering - things which he could master on his own. Thermite was made up by a mad man; It is a lie. Bilbo holds on to lies out of ignorance. Thermite is the sign of woo, as 911 truth mentally ill leaders keep pushing it. Mental illness is the only excuse I can find for a lie so stupid. Jones, the inventor of thermite used on the WTC, also entertained the idea the USA caused the Haiti earthquake. Bilbo also has other lies about 911, where thermite was suppose to play a a part according to the "leading 911 truth experts" who appear to be insane about thermite. The the corroded steel in Appendix C of FEMA, was studied and proves it was not attacked by thermite. It is ironic Bilbo can use the report that does not support thermite to support thermite. Not sure how he can Gish Gallop and move the goal posts to support the fantasy. Then he falls for silly 911 truth experiments of thermite, which also prove thermite was not use. (big clue: there are no piles of iron found at the WTC) It is a pattern of woo, and he can't stop defending fantasy. Like a religion of ignorance, anti-intellectual claptrap, worshiping lies dumb down so far, he can debate them nicely, and so sweet, because they are his religious fantasy of 911. A sweet liar, nice to all, defending his delusion, the need for a new study. He loves to twist the reality based work to fit his fantasy, a religion to explain his need for a new study; one more study; put 10 seconds back on the clock until he wins the Pulitzer. 12 years and we have nuts (for the 911 issue) pop up and spew the party line of 911 truth; we want a new study; we can't comprehend eutectic, we can't do engineering studies, so we pick to spread lies about the day 3,000 were murdered by 19 other nuts who do understand 911, and they did not use thermite, they used knives. What makes Bilbo so bad, he is nice. He blogs along spreading lies instead of busting them, and exposing 911 truth for the biased hateful liars and frauds they are. He supports lies because he can't comprehend. When he matures, he will wish the Internet did not remember his silly posts, nice posts of woo, his legacy.
Quote:
He takes studies and messes up the meaning to support his biased view of the topic being discussed. It is called ignorance, and he refuses to learn or try to expand his knowledge based. Not only not listening, but make up more junk, not learning, only in need of, "more study". 12 years, study time over. He is so nice, supporting lies and liars, 911 truth. Good job. You have a great friend who can't see the fraud of 911 truth. Yes, as long as the message is delivered nicely, why question the intent; is that a NAZI follower kind of thing? Tolerate lies and ignorance because it is packaged as a sweet debate, all nice and personable. Is that how racism works, and the best way to spread lies? Do it nicely? What if Flight 93 Passengers all got up, said we "need more study", and sat down, failing to take action to stop murderers? 12 years, and Bilbo needs more study, and he asks so nicely as he spreads delusions of explosives, and thermite, so nicely. He is nice, but he does not understand models. 911 truth failure continues, "need more study". Put 12 more years on the clock. http://bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/...ce-of-wtc.html
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE Bilbo takes delusions of 911 truth, claims based on ignorances and turns them into a religion of woo; he can't take a simple concept and apply it to a collapsing building. That is ignorance.
oops faster than g, again. Be sure he ignores simple concepts and sticks with the woo, presented nicely, calmly and with lots of sweet BS, to keep it super nice, personable, perfect. Bilbo posts videos on his blog filled with lies and nonsense about 911. Good job being nice and spreading lies Bilbo. Nice job, nicely done, spreading lies. Perfect. Like a religion, his prophets are the top nuts in 911 truth. |
|||
9th December 2013, 02:20 PM | #363 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Oh that's 'easy'.
Just completely remove the entire lengths of columnal support over the height for which you wish the structure to drop at ffa, doing so with every column on that(those) level(s) simultaneously. easy-peasy. ,,,, but gonna be a tad (earth shakingly) loud. |
9th December 2013, 02:31 PM | #364 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
10th December 2013, 03:19 AM | #365 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
Hi hi, I hope everyone has been sleeping well. I have, kind of. I am trying to figure out where to go from here. Can we try to agree on something, or maybe anything -- kind of the same thing wouldn't you say? If a building -- WTC7 or any other -- is observed to collapse on all sides at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time, would that not mean that all of the structural support must have given way at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time?
Are we gonna disagree on this? I mean, it doesn't take a PHD in physics to understand that, does it? |
10th December 2013, 03:26 AM | #366 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
90% yes. The other 10% can stay on the side to allow for some more esoteric possibilities.
Try a slightly different approach: If the building is falling then all columns have failed. (Believe it or not I have posted that claim several times in specific reference to WTC1 or WTC2 and been ignored by BOTH "sides" - so it isn't only perceived truthers that are not trusted. ) PS BTW Where are you trying to go - I may be able to help. |
10th December 2013, 03:28 AM | #367 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
10th December 2013, 03:29 AM | #368 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
We already know, from the earlier collapse of the E Penthouse, that collapse was not even nearly synchronised, whether so-called 'global' collapse was through chance or choice. Additionally, we never see the E or S faces of the building and simply don't know what was happening there.
You're starting with a faulty observation and reaching a faulty conclusion. |
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury |
|
10th December 2013, 03:31 AM | #369 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
I didn't read that limitation into his question. Let's see what he says.
EDIT PS And he is not talking about the actual WTC7 collapse - he was specific:
Quote:
|
10th December 2013, 03:53 AM | #370 |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
|
|
10th December 2013, 04:49 AM | #371 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
so clayton you do not accept that fire will weaken steel sufficiently to cause structural collapse?
where is the evidence that fires do not cause steel to weaken? |
10th December 2013, 05:08 AM | #372 |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
|
That's insane. Fire may heat up something but it's temporary and the fire goes out after the fuel is consumed and as the fire is moving on.
Multilateral, sustained, and concurrent are not words that can be used with fire damage therefore fire could not cause a global collapse. |
10th December 2013, 05:12 AM | #373 |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
|
|
10th December 2013, 05:21 AM | #374 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
clayton you do know that fire will weaken steel especially the intense prolonged kind of fire that occurred during the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre
|
10th December 2013, 05:29 AM | #375 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
|
10th December 2013, 06:56 AM | #376 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
10th December 2013, 07:05 AM | #377 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
What you describe is a Verniage technique of demolition. Yes if such a condition as you describe above exists then the entire structure that remains above the destroyed zone will fall as a unit , simultaneously.
That sequence of collapse did not exist in the case of WTC 7(or for that matter with WTC 1 & 2 either) , and therefore that condition (all columns destroyed simultaneously) does not follow either. Why is it that you and others cannot observe the collapse as first an internal collapse followed by the outer walls collapsing? Why is it the you cannot see that the north side of the structure failed first along the 'kink' follwoed by the rest of the structure collapsing? Yes, when the collapse finally ramped up to the final few seconds and the structure was observed at certain locations, to have its acceleration ramp up to and through free fall, it would be a safe bet that all columns had failed at a lower level. Failed columns means they support no load. A buckled column supports no load. A column tilted beyond 30 degrees, with a loss of lateral restraint at either end, will support NO load. |
10th December 2013, 08:40 AM | #378 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
|
10th December 2013, 10:57 AM | #379 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
Quote:
Truthers like your friend are gullible, when he finds 911 truth claims he is not armed with the tools to see the fraud, the lies. Bilbo thinks Kevin Ryan has substance, and falls for the lies about OKC. Bilbo is so gullible he thinks the government did the OKC bombing after seeing a fantasy video. Bilbo's blog is based on ignorance, and Bilbo is diverging from the truth into woo-land. What could be an intelligent Blog exposing 911 truth claims as delusional, is a blog of weak worship of woo, an embarrassingly anti-intellectual take on 911, a study in gullibility and ignorance. |
10th December 2013, 12:38 PM | #380 |
Scholar
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
|
Here is the latest from Bilbo. The bolded stuff is what he's replying to (I think LSSBB is the one engaging him).
"637: The combined acceleration from the pull added to the g acceleration of the weight of the columns, minus the resistance at the bottom, can exceed g. It is a simple stack up of forces. Let's go back to your original equation: (Force of Pull) - (Force of Resistance) + (Pull of gravity) = (Total Force) If the Force of Pull were something separate from the Pull of gravity, then we have a separate force that we add to the Pull of gravity. For example, let's say that Superman were pulling down on the interior columns and walls. Then we have a force in addition to gravity. Then acceleration could (and given Superman's strength, no doubt would) exceed free fall. But (according to NIST) there is no separate force from gravity. We have gravity pulling down on everything at the same time and with the same force. It's pulling down on the exterior of the building. It's pulling down on the interior of the building. In our F=MA calculations, F=the pull of gravity. There's no other force to add to it. Now if A is greater than free fall, then some additional force besides gravity is at work, and NIST's theory is falsified. Free fall is the greatest rate of acceleration that gravity can achieve. If acceleration is greater than free fall, then something more than just gravity is at work." |
10th December 2013, 01:23 PM | #381 |
Scholar
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
|
Bilbo has changed his position. LSSBB's comment in bold.
"637: you are imposing an artificial limitation on what the acceleration of something can be. I thought about it afterwards and realized that you are correct. So if someone thought (as neither NIST nor Chandler thinks) that the building exceeded free fall acceleration, then they could argue that the source was some interior mass applying enough force to cause it. If NIST is correct, then this mass had, if I remember correctly, about 1.7 seconds plus whenever someone thinks greater than free fall acceleration occurred. If Chandler is correct, then it had less than 1.7 seconds. If someone thinks that the exterior of the building was uniformly exceeding greater than free fall acceleration, then this mass was applying the force uniformly. Sounds a little improbable." EDIT: You can see from this that it is possible for Bilbo to admit when he makes fairly elementary physics mistakes, and I hope this encourages people to engage him on his blog. (Why a person who makes such mistakes deems himself able to adjudicate a technical dispute without expertise is another matter.) |
10th December 2013, 01:23 PM | #382 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
False. Example, the tip of a rotating beam around its center of mass can achieve acceleration greater than free fall.
Example, an object when struck by another falling object can achieve acceleration much greater than free fall. eta: Example, the end of a rope or chain that is attached on the other end can exceed free fall |
10th December 2013, 01:55 PM | #383 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
By the way, *637 is me (blame the blog software to AIM login link for the goofy username). Bilbo still doesn't seem to get how forces stack up. The amount of force applied by the interior collapse would be pretty high, so I'm not surprised that the acceleration could shoot up past g once the exterior columns give way.
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
10th December 2013, 02:24 PM | #384 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
Bilbo can't do physics given the answer. He quibbles about his failed conclusions which he refuse to make clear. This is a hobby in ignorance. He finds delusional claptrap and adopts it as possible without reality based thinking.
Here is is unable to comprehend for over 8 seconds before the roof-line starts down, the interior is failing, the Penthouse disappears. Do you look at the video for detail, the interior is failing, falling while the building facade remains standing, the interior is the support of the building, it is falling apart. What we have is Bilbo can't do the physics, he has a cartoon version of physics which guides his Gish Gallop responses. His gullibility has him thinking idiots who sell DVD on OKC bombing have substance that we blew up OKC ourselves, and gives the murderer McVeigh a pass. He is doing the same with 911, letting 911 truth do his "thinking". Until Bilbo matures enough to accept knowledge and think for himself, your friend is lost in woo. This is a waste of time, Bilbo is too blinded by lies of 911 truth, he can't accept critique. Bilbo knows 2+2 is Cats, and your attempt to have him derive 4, fails, as he repeats Cats. The Internet is full of lies, and Bilbo is not equipped to combat the lies, he likes them. He can't take 911 as an event and decide on his own, the lies are patterned by people and sound cool, and match Bilbo's common sense take on physics, and reality - which are not right - he does not see he has no evidence. He does not understand he has nonsense manufactured by 911 truth, and fails to take the time to study the comments, or be skeptical enough to think 911 truth has failed, and maybe the people who comment are able to see the fraud of 911 truth as is, without efforts. 911 truth lies debunk themselves, all you have to do is research them using critical thinking skills, logic and knowledge. Bilbo is not using critical thinking skills to figure out 911. When will Bilbo figure out people like Kevin Ryan are making up their claims without evidence? Bilbo thinks 2000 architects and engineers who can't figure out 911 and need a new investigating means something. it does, it means they are in as much ignorance as Bilbo is on 911 issues. With 2000 plus, why can't A&E prove anything and be worthy of the Pulitzer Prize winning claims they support? Because it is fraud, lies, delusions and fantasy. Bilbo can't see reality. |
10th December 2013, 02:42 PM | #385 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
A point that I find interesting is that when we watch the Dan Rather (and other) video we see that the West Penthouse 'outruns' the roofline, even when the roofline itself is in the phase of falling at ~g acceleration.
Clearly some stuff is getting a boost by being dragged down by neighbouring stuff. |
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury |
|
10th December 2013, 03:34 PM | #386 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
I just realized Bilbo is thinking of the uniformity (echoes of "symmetrical") of the collapse as a clue. Thanks to either Chris7 or Tony Sz, I became aware of the moment frame construction of the building. It is that very moment frame that explains why the building exterior held together under collapse and gave the appearance of uniformity. That, plus the fact that we are looking at only one side of the building.
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
10th December 2013, 04:04 PM | #387 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
In response
There have been several bona fide responses. Thank you.
ozeco41: “If the building is falling then all columns have failed.” Yes, well said and I agree. I am not sure what the 10% of “esoteric possibilities” might be, but I am sure you have some in mind. It will be interesting to get to those should we get to that point. And, no doubt we will. (At least, if the internet remains alive and well.) To Spanx: No, I don’t think it depends on “how” the structural supports gave way, just that they all did/must have given way -- in the scenario -- at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time. Looks like Clayton would obviously agree. jaydeehess, I was not familiar with verinage demolitions but I am now. I contend that the technique obviously -- after watching a couple of videos -- results in all of the support giving way at the same time. But, is that the only way? I think we all agree that is not the “only” way; and I do realize that is not what you are saying. Anyway, I am just trying to see if anyone agrees with what I presented in the scenario regarding any building and not how the loss of all support might have occurred. Gone Fishin’, regarding the “tip” of a rotating beam moving faster than freefall: Yes, it makes sense to me that while free falling and rotating downward the tip would be moving downward at greater than free fall. However, is not an additional (not just gravity ) force acting on the tip? Centrifugal force would be in play, would it not? Interestingly, when studying basic physics I seem to remember that centrifugal force is not an actual force, but only an apparent one. I’ll need to check that out; I may well be wrong. I guess a better way to say it might be that two vectors apply and not just the free fall vector. The other being of course the ‘spinning,’ or ‘rotational,’ vector. (I don’t know what else to call it, but you know what I mean.) They would be added together to get “faster than free fall.” And of course, that same tip would be traveling slower than free fall when it is rotating upward. The vectors would be, in essence, opposite in direction. …… I ask again basically the same question: Does anyone else either simply agree or not agree with the scenario? And if so, which is it? (Actually, I’m not sure where to go from here. But I ought to go somewhere, don’t you think? Ah darn it...some -- hopefully not ALL -- of you may not think so.) Regards. |
10th December 2013, 04:30 PM | #388 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Your original request was:
Originally Posted by david.watts
I sense that you have some issues about collapse that you want to be clearer about. But I need more of a pointer than you have given so far. There is a specific issue you raise and I will make a second post. |
10th December 2013, 04:32 PM | #389 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
Have you retracted the fantasy statement "explosions seven stories ahead of the collapse"? Did 5 years give you time to retract the silly stuff?
Your proof is nonsense. Proof you can't do physics, research, or understand what happened to WTC 7. Fire did it, a gravity collapse, not CD. You don't understand how the collapse started, and imply it had to have all the support removed at one time, instead of over time; 8 seconds before the facade collapsed, the penthouse disappears into WTC 7 as the interior fails and can be seen in the facade on the video. Did you watch the video for collapse initiation, or skipped right to the woo presented by 911 truth liars and failed conspiracy theorist who can't do reality? Your proof failed on the first statement, a false statement for WTC on 911, is there a rational scenario, your proof was BS? Since your proof is false, and you have no clue the interior was falling before the exterior was seen falling, your all support has to be gone for collapse does not apply for WTC 7 - you are making up a scenario that did not exist on 911. Are you trying to support the CD lie? Yes, no, or unable to make a claim? Do you have evidence for your claim, what ever it is? No. Have you figured out 911 truth has no valid claims? |
10th December 2013, 04:46 PM | #390 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Beachnut why don't you - just once - pretty please - respond to what was actually posted? He didn't post a proof - he asked a question.
The question was very straightforward:
Quote:
Apart from the vagueness about "same time" the answer is "YES" The fact that you want to treat him as a truther doesn't miraculously change the rules of Newtonian Physics. Pull all the props out and a building will fall. Reversing that to match what david.watts asked - if a building is falling it means all the props have been removed or have failed. If I'm wrong on that I'm sure someone will tell me why. |
10th December 2013, 05:38 PM | #391 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
I did.
Quote:
My questions are out there, why can't I get an answer? I was also seeing if he retracted his proof, yet. (aka a question) I was also seeing if he has matured past the explosives in the WTC fantasy. Has he? (another question) 5 years, a long time to remain in the CD fantasy world of 911 truth. It would be cool, if he repeated his scenario, since repetition is also a tool in the box of education. A repeat of the scenario, a simple repeat, an expanded dumbed down version for me, expanded for the engineers, something or anything. I read his old posts to find the scenario, after researching what the heck his scenario was; it was not what happened on 911. Is it an attempt to back in CD, explosives, silent explosives, or thermite. What is his scenario? (oops another unanswered question) |
10th December 2013, 05:40 PM | #392 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
He has moved on. |
10th December 2013, 07:51 PM | #393 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
@david.watts
This is the "second post" I promised. I want to (try to) explain the "higher than G" issue that you are thinking about. So this bit of your post: There are three distinct aspects in the three paragraphs I have quoted. 1) Your first comment ...is true - but not for the obvious reason and there is a complication we need to watch - I'll deal with it in the third section. 2) your second paragraph is about the forces involved: This where the concept of "free body" physics come into play. The falling beam is the simplest example of a "system" acting as a "free body" and the key aspect we need to understand is the distinction between "external" and "internal" forces. There are two "External" forces - gravity and air resistance. I will ignore air resistance for simplicity in this post. You have asked about "centrifugal force" and two issues are significant: a) It is "internal" to the system of the falling spinning beam. It has no effect on the overall system or on falling; AND b) Centrifugal force is an actual real force in this setting - the ends of the beam will be pulling away from each other. If you cut the beam at midpoint and insert a measuring device you could measure the centrifugal force. If you joined the cut ends with a spring the centrifugal force would stretch the spring...and I'll leave it there. The need to separate "external" from "internal" is the foundation to understanding "free body physics" and we have started with the simplest model. I can progress to a more complicated model if we need to. Understanding the "over G" aspects of WTC7 collapse needs two full levels greater complexity but we can progress those two extra levels if you need to. (Step One - would be move to a multi element but one dimension model; Step Two - would be translate into three dimensions so we can apply to WTC7) So we have the necessary forces identified and sorted into "internal" and "external" - Lets move on to the: 3) velocity and acceleration aspects. You nearly have it there - with the whole system/beam falling bodily at VFB the falling tip has a rotational velocity of VTR and at the beam horizontal point - the maximum and minimum VELOCITIES are VFB + VTR and VFB - VTR It is tempting to think that there is more acceleration at those points where there is more velocity. It is a trap - I nearly fell for it myself whilst thinking about this post. What we have added are velocities. What we are looking at is "over G" - an acceleration. And at those maximum/minimum velocity points the added acceleration due to the spin is....zero. The model doesn't fully fail but the outcome is not as simple as it appears. We need a different model. We had one with WTC 7 North Façade - but I will pause the explanation at this stage to see if what I have posted so far helps. And if anyone wants to identify or explain the problem with the beam/dumbbell model. Or why the "ball and lever'" model does not have that problem. |
10th December 2013, 10:37 PM | #394 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
In the following clip would you say all structual supports gave way at the same time ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnZDu...eature=youtube Just out of interest what does Clayton agree with? |
11th December 2013, 12:45 AM | #395 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
It/david.watts isn't "wrong", just extremely imprecise.
He's failing to note "of the part of the building we observe collapsing" when talking about all support being removed. And by continuing along that line of discussion he's defending his original false premise that all of the building's support was removed at the same time. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen him acknowledge that it's only the N+W walls we see fall in the manner described, nor that the core of the building was falling well ahead of those. The minute he does then he'll begin to see a natural mechanism himself and won't need tutoring. |
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury |
|
11th December 2013, 02:21 AM | #396 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
That was why I gave myself "cop out" space. The only imprecision in the current question I am responding to is in what he means by "very nearly the same time". If he has not expressed himself clearly and has something outside the scope of the question I will deal with it if and when it arises.
I am responding to his precisely focused latest question NOT past history.
My choice to provide the tutoring. I'm no where near as confident as you that he will work through it without coaching. Even if he does it is my effort nominally 'wasted'. My risk to take. I choose to take it. And BTW this exercise forced me to rethink something I had not seen before. So a good learning exercise for me - whether or not it benefits anyone else. I'm interested to see if anyone else can spot the problem.... ...without prompting |
11th December 2013, 02:51 AM | #397 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
In response
Against my better judgement -- I have imbibed a bit too much -- I will attempt at least a somewhat reasonable response.
First to beachnut: (So much to reply to.) You asked: "Are you trying to support the CD lie?" No. I am trying to support what I believe is the truth. And I know that you know where I stand. ALL I am trying to do -- with my scenario (posted above as #365) is to see if we/anybody can agree on anything. If we are both asked the question, "2+2 = what?" and you answer "4" and I answer "3.14159," well...we are most likely not going to agree much of anything. (As an aside, I can identify with what you do at least somewhat. As to your picture you are no doubt a military pilot. I was not. However, I was an airline pilot last flying 747-400s. I have been "medically retired" for a number of years. I flew a whole bunch to Asia and quite a lot to Europe. And of course, a lot domestically). The fact that it is now -- now that I think about it, isn't that ALWAYS a fact -- and I can barely keep my eyes open much less my fingers typing, I had better call my response complete. (note: I will re-read it later to try to determine if I made any sense.) I need to respond to ozeco3.14159, Spanx, GlennB, and anyone else that finds me asleep somewhere. E.g., on the floor. Good night or maybe good morning. I'm betting on "Good morning." |
11th December 2013, 02:26 PM | #398 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
Rarely any good comes from drunk posting.
Quote:
That about 2/3 of Truthers hold these to be "true" one automatically has to wonder what the other 1/3 believe. |
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
11th December 2013, 03:58 PM | #399 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
@ozeco
The contribution to motion of the rotating beam is an acceleration if all vectors are considered in cartesian units. If you observe a rotating beam (rotating in a vertical plane, axis of rotation parallel to the ground) from the ground, the vertical velocity vector will change from upward to zero then downward and through zero again. The definition of acceleration is a change in velocity. Therefore if one is plotting vertical acceleration of a point that is influenced both by gravity and rotation those accelerations will be additive. |
11th December 2013, 04:05 PM | #400 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Granted , what is actually plotted is position of a specific spot on the building during each video frame(which means every 1/29.97 of a second)
Average velocity per frame is determined by dividing distance traveled by time per frame , and average acceleration per frame is determined by dividing change in velocity per time of frame. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|