|
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. |
28th October 2008, 02:52 PM | #161 |
Incromulent Logic
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,979
|
|
__________________
Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense.-Me The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo |
|
28th October 2008, 02:54 PM | #162 |
Gazerbeam's Protege
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,617
|
|
__________________
I wish someone would find something I wrote on this board to be sig-worthy, thereby effectively granting me immortality.--Antiquehunter The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted years on earth the time spent eating butterscotch pudding. AMERICA! NUMBER 1 IN PARTICLE PHYSICS SINCE JULY 4TH, 1776!!! --SusanConstant |
|
28th October 2008, 02:55 PM | #163 |
Gazerbeam's Protege
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,617
|
|
__________________
I wish someone would find something I wrote on this board to be sig-worthy, thereby effectively granting me immortality.--Antiquehunter The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted years on earth the time spent eating butterscotch pudding. AMERICA! NUMBER 1 IN PARTICLE PHYSICS SINCE JULY 4TH, 1776!!! --SusanConstant |
|
28th October 2008, 03:29 PM | #164 |
Dreaming of unicorns
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
|
|
__________________
Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. |
|
28th October 2008, 04:18 PM | #165 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,127
|
|
28th October 2008, 04:59 PM | #166 |
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Wow how did I miss this thread. I hope someone has nominated the entire OP for a Stundie. I've never encountered such stupidity before. I'm not an expert in science by any measure, but I'm sufficiently familiar with a range of weight-measuring devices to know that dropping a weight from a height will not give you an accurate reading, any more than pushing your hand down on a kitchen scale will accurately tell you how much your hand weighs.
The stupid is impressive. |
__________________
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
28th October 2008, 05:11 PM | #167 |
0.25 short of being half-witted
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,282
|
Not sure "impressive"'s the right word, man.
But I admit, the magnitude of the lunacy's pretty well out there. |
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once." |
|
28th October 2008, 05:46 PM | #168 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,671
|
|
28th October 2008, 05:52 PM | #169 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
|
|
28th October 2008, 06:02 PM | #170 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,014
|
|
__________________
"ut biberent, quando esse nollent " (if they will not eat, then they will drink) -- Publius Claudius Pulcher "In this universe, effect follows cause. I've complained about it but ... " -- House |
|
28th October 2008, 08:49 PM | #171 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,778
|
|
28th October 2008, 09:46 PM | #172 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
|
Try to keep the perspective of someone who has watched a lot of his work sink.
|
29th October 2008, 01:51 AM | #173 | ||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,526
|
|
||
29th October 2008, 03:13 AM | #174 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
|
|
__________________
January 10, 2003, Senator Charles Grassley (R): "not only has no one in government been fired or punished for 9/11, but several others have been promoted." |
|
29th October 2008, 03:18 AM | #175 |
Dreaming of unicorns
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
|
Watch the BBC WTC7 program there is a very good video of one of the towers collapsing in high quality where the top section definitely does not pulverise. You see it tip and you can still see it through the dust for a very large part of the drop and definitely after the bottom part is starting to be destroyed. You have been fooled by incompetants (or poor eyesight) |
__________________
Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. |
|
29th October 2008, 04:02 AM | #176 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
|
29th October 2008, 04:17 AM | #177 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
If you look really careful, you see that the upper section is partly destroyed prior to any destruction of the lower structure, i.e. before starting the famous drop at near free fall through the initiation zone where all structure is supposed to have disappeared.
I cannot see the latter, but it is supposed to take 0 time so it is not recorded on any video. But you should be able to see the result - a 3.7 m void slice in the WTC - where the upper section can drop through. See it? It would take some time to close that empty slice of no structure. I can't. I always wonder where all structure in the initiation zone went! Through the windows? |
29th October 2008, 05:09 AM | #178 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 299
|
Heiwa:
Quote:
After all the stuff you've written you've not read a single reply and taken it in have you. Bananaman (once again speechless in the face of 9/11 troofer sheer bloody denseness). |
29th October 2008, 07:38 AM | #179 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,127
|
|
29th October 2008, 07:50 AM | #180 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,127
|
Wrong. If you open your eyes, the first thing you see is the upper block moving. You don't see any destruction of the upper block, you see destruction of the initial collapse zone as the upper block falls through it. And the structure isn't "supposed to have disapeared", just collapsed.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
29th October 2008, 08:53 AM | #181 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
??? For an upper body to 'free fall' and then impact anything, there cannot be parts below it, e.g. structure in the initiation zone!
If the structure in the initiation zone 'collapses' the famous F2 of the PBT thread is already then starting to act on the upper body = to decelerate it = no free fall = no impact. Bazant clearly suggests in all his papers a perfect impact (or impacts) columns against columns after free fall (no structure in between/all columns cut in two locations, intermediate column parts removed (where?)) that would create his infamous 'shock wave' in the columns below (that shakes loose the floors in lower structure) but it is all nonsense. I am just ironic when I ask where did the loose parts between columns end up. There are no such loose column parts before impact. The dynamic F2 should have started before free fall/impact if the upper block would displace downwards due collapse of columns in the initiation zone. But if you look at any video, the lowest floor of the upper block above the initiation does not move at all, when the roof of the upper block has already displaced 25 meters down = the upper block implodes before collapse of the lower structure starts. It is quite evident. But IF the upper block would really have dropped on the lower structure, it would have been arrested after a couple of floors had been damaged (by the columns) as described in my papers. What we see on the videos is not a gravity driven collapse of a tower driven by an upper block. That's just propaganda! To avoid investigating the real cause of destruction. Quite a depressing conclusion actually that incompetent and corrupt politicians and civil servants (and civil engineers!) do not like to hear. Like many JREF posters! But they are just cattle in the NWO! Blame it all on OBL! And forget basic physics. |
29th October 2008, 08:57 AM | #182 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
|
[quote=Heiwa;4162573 And forget basic physics.[/quote]
|
29th October 2008, 09:51 AM | #183 |
Dreaming of unicorns
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
|
He is derailing again from his stupendously incorrect OP experiment. C'mon guys give him room for the admission he got something horrendously wrong.
If he continues to derail and evade it, it proves his dishonesty. Lets see if he is man enough to take it back. If not i suggest ignoring the troll. Even the most skeptic of lurkers can try this experiment at home and see he is full of it. We should not need to convince them and there is no point trying to convince him. |
__________________
Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. |
|
29th October 2008, 10:21 AM | #184 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,127
|
NEAR free fall is referring to the speed of the fall. No one ever claimed ACTUAL free fall. Stop with the strawman nonsense.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
29th October 2008, 10:32 AM | #185 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
You get yourself above the scale and then drop onto it.
You ARE moving in a downward direction when you contact the scale (wrt to the scale). Soon thereafter you no longer are moving downward (wrt to the scale). Therefore your velocity has changed. The downward force on your mass due to gravity remains constant at all times(unless your are starting from a significantly greater distance from the center of the Earth) The force due to the change in velocity is independant of gravity. The force on the scale during impact is the total of the force due to the change in velocity PLUS the force on your mass due to gravity. Thus the scale registers a very large spike. Even a very small 'drop' will cause the scale to spike. I just tried it myself. I stood on the scale and then used my arms on the bathroom counter to lift myself until the scale just registered zero. Basically I am then an infintessimal distance above the scale's zero height. I then stand straight and the scale jumped at least 50% higher than what it registers at equilibrium. not that Heiwa will bother reading or responding to any of the above |
29th October 2008, 10:55 AM | #186 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
Exactly - the scale will register a spike and that spike is felt in the falling body. The spike (which is just a force (F2 in the PBT thread), because the scale measures force) is applied to the the falling body and decelerated it. It could have, e.g. destroyed it. In this experiment it just arrested the falling body. QED
Same effect should have happened to WTC1 upper block. |
29th October 2008, 11:15 AM | #187 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,127
|
That spike is also felt in the scale, and the floor.
|
29th October 2008, 11:40 AM | #188 |
Misanthrope of the Mountains
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,133
|
|
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
|
|
29th October 2008, 12:10 PM | #189 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
|
|
29th October 2008, 02:49 PM | #190 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 5,311
|
Apperently Hewia is still ignoring the stress the structures can withstand.
|
__________________
Fourscore and seven years ago I tapped yo mama in a log cabin! Abe Lincoln |
|
29th October 2008, 03:03 PM | #191 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
Of course. The scale records the spike that the floor applies to the upper, non-rigid, body that decelarets due to the spike. According Bazant this spike should not affect the upper body. According Bazant the upper body should pass through the scale and initiate global collapse of the floor below without deceleration = no spike should be recorded.
But the spike is there. According Bazant it should not be there. |
29th October 2008, 03:37 PM | #192 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
The difference is in the construction under the scale. In the case of you jumping on the scale, yes, the force is impinged upon the floor via the scale and that force is also felt by the object that fell. However the floor would be very weak indeed if it failed due to someone jumping on it even from 12 feet up.
Frankly if anyone does try the 3.7 m drop onto the scale I would be very surprised if the scale survived. The house's floor may be designed to be able to take that but the scale certainly was not. In the case of the towers the columns buckled or broke and the upper section came down. The columns are basically not lined up any more at the point where they have failed. The upper section could only be held up then by the walls and glass, which I am sure even you would agree are there only to stop wind from whistleing through the building or to separate office spaces. When the ceiling reaches the floor it will be the floor pan and the trussses that will have not only the mass of basically the entire upper section on it , but also the force of impact. This is many times more force than the floor pans/trusses were ever designed to take and they fail as quickly as a styrofoam cup does when stepped on. The floors were designed to transfer the load that would typically be on a floorspace to the columns. Every floor is pretty much the same as the others but the columns must get heavier the lower down one is because they have to take the accumulated load of all the fooors above that level. It is an absolute certainty that no floor space was ever desgned with the idea that it would carry a load equivalent to that of ten or so stories which would have to be the case at the very minimum, even if one ignores the impact force. The impact force will be the change in velocity of the upper section times the mass of the upper section and divided by the time during which it changed. That will be only as much as is required to fail the trusses and we already see that the force due to gravity alone will do that, therefore the time and the change in velocity are very small. The columns, which normally take the gravity load of the upper block are not in play since such a small portion of the load of the upper block is going to be directed through them at this time. Violent removal of one floor's trusses also removes the lateral support between core and perimeter at that level which means that columns are now more prone to buckling since the towers employed no diagonal bracing. The upper block is also suffering a similar fate as it impacts the lower section. The upper section indeed is coming apart but the majority of its mass is still impacting the lower section and what does get thrown outward is replaced by the debris of the portion of the lower section that is now loose. Now a typical floor in a house can easily support the mass of ten men say about 1 tonne. Therefore it can also support a 1000 kg block of concrete. (make it a hollow block and dimension it to spread the mass over the same number of trusses that the ten guys would take up) Now take that concrete block up 8 feet to the ceiling (might as well not look for a house with 12 foot ceilings and let it drop. It will be in the basement and probably at least a little broken up. Now that 1000 Kg block is significantly less massive than the walls and roof of the house. Try this again with a block the mass of the walls and roof and a square footage the same as the floor space. I am not sure you will even have to drop it, the trusses may well fail under the simple gravity load. |
29th October 2008, 06:07 PM | #193 |
Atheist Tergiversator
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,103
|
Is this thread really happening?
|
29th October 2008, 06:10 PM | #194 |
Incromulent Logic
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,979
|
Heiwa..repeat after Me..You can do it..Loss of structural integrity..did you say it? Loss of structural integrity..Can you immerse yourself with this concept without any trutherism twoof ambiguity?
Loss of structural integrity: What could happen if the integrity of a structure becomes compromised? |
__________________
Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense.-Me The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo |
|
30th October 2008, 12:09 AM | #195 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
|
30th October 2008, 12:24 AM | #196 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
It is only the lowest floors of the upper block that is in contact with the lower section and you are right that they come apart - partly. According Bazant, that's not the case in his theory.
But no part of upper block is thrown out in my analysis at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm . So mass of upper block remains constant and nothing is replaced and definitely not by loose parts of the lower section, e.g. locally damaged floors, as they are still attached to the columns there. And collapse is arrested after a while. If there really were some completely loose parts, they may be deflected outside the structure by the force(s) involved arresting the destruction. They will not attach themselves to, e.g. the upper block. It does not work like that. |
30th October 2008, 05:23 AM | #197 |
NWO Master Conspirator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
|
|
__________________
Vive la liberté! |
|
30th October 2008, 10:32 AM | #198 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Since it is nigh on impossible to model every detail of the failure Bazant is keeping the block intact as an approximation to event. This is valid and used in most analysis of just about anything with such a degree of complexity.
Yes the lower levels of the upper block come apart as they impact the lower section. This is a dynamic situation and basically the upper section is being ground up at the contact point. Bazant concerned himself with failure of the first level after initial failure. Thus it is certainly valid to consider the upper block as one piece.
Quote:
1- So you also use an approximation then, so where's the beef? Some of the loose parts of the upper section will be ejected as will some of the loose parts of the lower section. Some of the loose parts from both will remian within the area of the tower, any loss of mass by the upper block then can be assumed to be significantly replaced by mass of the lower section that is now also loose and falling, thus loss of mass is a 'wash'. The biggest difference as the falling mass progresses will be the velocity of that mass. A little more on that later in this post. 2- "locally damaged floors" Can you not see that the damage would be quick and utter failure and destruction of the floor pans and trusses? 3-So you do expect that the floor pan/truss system can support the entire mass of ten stories plus the hat truss?
Quote:
Seems that according to your statement a 500 Kg block of concrete somehow has less mass or less momentum than 500 Kg of rocks. Bazant showed that the force imparted upon the first level impacted after initial failure was, IIRC, 30 times greater than the ability of the floor pan/truss system to resist it. This is due to the combination of the mass of the upper block and the impact force due to the velocity of the upper block. The falling mass would therefore have an even greater velocity when it impacts the next floor ( the only way for it to have as little as the same velocity it would have to have come to a complete stop as it failed the first level ) and thus Bazant correctly concludes that this level has even less ability to halt the upper block. The columns, as I stated earlier and on many occasions in the JREF forums, [b]required the lateral support of the floor pan/truss system in order to resist buckling. Remove a floor or two and the building would be unstable. Do it violently with the columns also being horribly buffeted by the debris and they don't stand much of a chance of remaining intact let alone upright. The only core columns that survived where those of the so-called "spire". That in itself was a wonder but it could not support itself for long (not enough lateral support not to mention they were probably not in pristine, straight condidtion either) and buckled under its own weight (yes, weight. weight being a force not a mass as I pointed out previously). |
30th October 2008, 04:31 PM | #199 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
You are right! But Bazant suggests the 100% opposite. Bazant assumes that the complete upper block becomes rigid at contact/impact with lower structure and no lower levels of the upper block come apart or no upper (block) section is being ground up at the contact point.
That's why the (rigid) upper block can impose a shock wave in the lower structure. But if the lower levels of upper block comes apart and are ground up, they evidently cannot impose a shock wave in the lower structure. You agree? |
30th October 2008, 04:40 PM | #200 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
According Bazant there are no loose parts of the upper section! It is rigid. Nothing can be ejected from the upper section.
So there is no loss of mass in the upper section. And what loose parts of the lower section are you talking about? And why would they replace the loss of mass of the upper block? |
Thread Tools | |
|
|