Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Line


aquatus1

Recommended Posts

There are also people who write fiction, who troll, or who are just plain bat-poop crazy ... like Anders Bjorkman, to name just one (in a different field of tinfoilhattery - go on, look him up. Wowsers - he has a degree and everything!!!)

Q knows of Anders, in fact he has used an Anders quote to back up his position:

http://www.unexplain...15#entry4466090

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q knows of Anders, in fact he has used an Anders quote to back up his position:

http://www.unexplain...15#entry4466090

That's quite hilarious - I know of Bjorkman ('Heiwa') from his lunacy (pun intended) regarding his denial of Apollo (and even space exploration in general..) - the guy is completely off his rocker and if he ever had a clue, it is long gone from his twisted fantasies about how the 'mainstream' has unfairly rejected him.

Yet there he is being rolled out as another 'expert' on 911 - a European Structural Engineer, no less!

It just shows how easy it is to:

- get a degree at some institutions (and/or just go crazy in later life)

- be believed by those with a bias and no real knowledge

Sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, I do have quite a bit of faith in it. You denigrate it, yet use it and rely on it every moment of your life.

A slight overreaction there, Chrlzs. :rolleyes: I also have “quite a bit of faith” in mainstream academia. What I actually said and indicated is that it is not “unerring faith” like we find of many official story adherents and Yamato here.

It's not 'our' selective criteria, it's the system by which charlatans and frauds and incompetents are relegated to the gutter in which they rightly belong. It's the system that reveals who knows their stuff, who understands the real complexities of the real world and the whole concept of applied science and engineering. Properly applied.

It's the system that while not absolutely perfect, is as close as we can get. And finally it's a system that is open to correction, if the 'corrections' are actually based on sound knowledge applied wisely, and are better at explaining/describing happenings in the real world. That's a mighty important IF.

That should all be the case but is unfortunately at the political mercy of the editor(s): -

James Gourley Published in “The Journal of Engineering Mechanics”

http://911blogger.com/node/18196

Why should I listen to you and not accept the publishing bias demonstrated by Gourley?

... like Anders Bjorkman, to name just one (in a different field of tinfoilhattery - go on, look him up. Wowsers - he has a degree and everything!!!

Q knows of Anders, in fact he has used an Anders quote to back up his position:

http://www.unexplain...15#entry4466090

That's quite hilarious - I know of Bjorkman ('Heiwa') from his lunacy (pun intended) regarding his denial of Apollo (and even space exploration in general..) - the guy is completely off his rocker and if he ever had a clue, it is long gone from his twisted fantasies about how the 'mainstream' has unfairly rejected him.

Typical official story adherent avoidance tactic: divert from what is actually said and evidence presented to talk about some element or member of the 9/11 truth movement that is admittedly easier to discredit.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A slight overreaction there, Chrlzs. :rolleyes: I also have “quite a bit of faith” in mainstream academia. What I actually said and indicated is that it is not “unerring faith” like we find of many official story adherents and Yamato here.

Really? So, stop waffling and just get on with it. But first learn physics, there's a good chap. And try to understand that the reason that you, and all of your 911 conspiracy ilk are FAILING abysmally to enlist anyone from that mainstream that you now endorse.. is that you are biased, wrong and out of your depth.

If that's not the case, then just wake us all up when you get some mainstream traction. At the moment, the 911 truther movement is impotent and getting worse, and you know it.

Blah.. James Gourley.. blah blah.

If you have some point to make, stop lazily linking to webpages and make your point here. Frankly I'm sick to death of you asking everyone to accept your links blindly and/or the accompanying walls of text being posted, full of whining excuses.

Why should I listen to you..

Simple - because as I said above - you and your ilk are getting absolutely NOWHERE. A position well deserved.

Typical official story adherent..

Typical tinfoilhat excuses and whining.

As Carl pointed out, - Yes, they laughed at Galileo, Fulton & the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown...

..talk about some element or member of the 9/11 truth movement that is admittedly easier to discredit.

You said it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chrlzs, much of your response doesn’t make sense, is not relevant and/or does not follow from what I actually said or discuss the evidence presented. It seems you are getting upset in which case it might be best to take a break. It would also lead us well off-topic, in a thread discussing ‘science’, if I were to respond to your comments. Ok, it is keeping the thread alive that discussion has already expanded to the ‘presentation of science’ from NIST, in peer-reviewed journals and using computer simulations, but I wouldn’t want to see it stray further than that.

Therefore, the only relevant response I can find is here: -

If you have some point to make, stop lazily linking to webpages and make your point here. Frankly I'm sick to death of you asking everyone to accept your links blindly and/or the accompanying walls of text being posted, full of whining excuses.

I don’t like to unnecessarily regurgitate large volumes of linked text. I have never asked anyone to blindly accept anything – I post the link to information in the hope that people read and consider it. If you could do so and provide a sensible, relevant response to why I should be confident in the mainstream journal peer-review process, given the political bias demonstrated, then I would be interested in your views.

Here it is again: -

James Gourley Published in “The Journal of Engineering Mechanics”

http://911blogger.com/node/18196

Why should I listen to you and not accept the publishing bias demonstrated by Gourley?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's not worthy of elaborating on this discussion forum? Then it's not worthy of me visiting.

I've marked my diary - I'll pop back in a year to see what traction you are getting then. And again in a decade...

Anyone wanting to place a bet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's not worthy of elaborating on this discussion forum? Then it's not worthy of me visiting.

I've marked my diary - I'll pop back in a year to see what traction you are getting then. And again in a decade...

Anyone wanting to place a bet?

Noted you refuse to address the question.

I’m not sure my personal traction can be accurately measured but I’ll raise anything you put on the table that the professional membership of AE911T has increased in a year’s time.

Anyhow, when is aquatus going to come back to correct his model?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the "aquamodel" cannot explain the observed 100 feet freefall speed of building 7, since any impact force would necessarily slow down the falling material.

the aquamodel assumptions of columns with zero mass favours the official narrative (since no energy would be expended in removing or bending the columns), and yet the aquamodel will not even produce the observed freefall speed. since the building fell at freefall speed it used all the gravitational energy available for that period of freefall, so therefore the energy required to overcome the building's resistance had to come from somewhere else.

thus the aquamodel shows the official narrative is incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've read a very interesting discussion, regardless, as a lay man, it sure looked like every other controlled demolition I've every seen. Lets not forget WTC 7, not a lot of damage to drop an entire building into its own footprint. Just my own observations and opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyhow, when is aquatus going to come back to correct his model?

Be specific, which part is incorrect and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the "aquamodel" cannot explain the observed 100 feet freefall speed of building 7, since any impact force would necessarily slow down the falling material.

the aquamodel assumptions of columns with zero mass favours the official narrative (since no energy would be expended in removing or bending the columns), and yet the aquamodel will not even produce the observed freefall speed. since the building fell at freefall speed it used all the gravitational energy available for that period of freefall, so therefore the energy required to overcome the building's resistance had to come from somewhere else.

thus the aquamodel shows the official narrative is incorrect.

Having problems understanding scientific models are we?

In what way did the "aquamodel" depict any relationship to the official narrative?

The model is meant to prove that gravity alone can produce an unstoppable collapse. Your problem is trying to compare this model to the actual collapse of WTC is proof that you aren't even trying to understand the model itself, and are just finding ways to point out what most of us see is obvious.

The model proves that gravitational collapse is possible. That's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the "aquamodel" cannot explain the observed 100 feet freefall speed of building 7, since any impact force would necessarily slow down the falling material.

The "aquamodel" (also known as "high school physics problem") Not only incorporates impact force slowing the descent, it biases it so heavily that it slows it even more than would be possible in real life (in real life, a floor striking a falling mass from above would not actually reduce the velocity, as we did in our model, simply to show the math).

the aquamodel assumptions of columns with zero mass favours the official narrative,

The "aquamodel" (that's actually quite catchy) assumes columns (or floors, or bricks, Jenga blocks, whatever) of solid adamantium, unobtainium, or concrete, as is your pleasure, which are capable of holding up whatever load their floor is designed to hold (how they do it, whether as columns, solid blocks, or giant springs, doesn't really matter in a collapse scenario).

In our extended example, we even decided to give the columns ten times their calculated strength (for those who still don't understand the concept of support strength, and need imaginary columns to do math, we doubled the number of columns and magically extended them to cross-over and support each other perfectly, which cannot happen in reall life), and the columns, floors, model, level, polly-wolly doodle, etc., still collapsed after a two-level fall.

(since no energy would be expended in removing or bending the columns)

The energy expended by removing the columns was incorporated by calculating half the mass of the falling avalanche in elastic impact, where 20% per (original mass of) floor per impact was removed due to upwards force (ricochet), meaning that by the time the avalanche had gone from the initiation point on Floor 10 down 2 levels to Floor 8, the avalanche had lost so much mass that it equaled 80% of the mass of Floor 10. In other words, there was only 1/5 of Floor 10 left when the avalanche was at level 8. Also, note that even though theupwards force kept getting smaller and smaller, we continued to remove material at a greater and greater rate (which is the polar opposite of what happens in real life).

We incorporated the bending of the columns by calculating the other half of the falling mass in inelastic impact, where the energy lost in deformation (bending, breaking, crushing, etc) was directly translated into loss of momentum. Aagain, does not happen this way in real life, where a lot of the energy is lost as heat or generated through other non-gravitational forces, such as torsional stress, particularly in the case of high-rises. We can actually see it in the WTC videos, where the top floors tear themselves apart almost immediately as they begin to fall.

and yet the aquamodel will not even produce the observed freefall speed.

Of course not.

How could something that was falling and striking things along the way ever reach freefall speed? You were just complaining that the model didn't incorporate impact force to slow the mass...How can you complain about the model not being slow enough and in the same breath complain about it not being fast enough? I told you this before: You don't even known what it is that you should be looking for.

But note that we did calculate where we reached terminal velocity, at which point the force of acceleration no longer added energy, yet we continued to remove mass and slow momentum at the same rate.

since the building fell at freefall speed it used all the gravitational energy available for that period of freefall,

No, the building did not fall at freefall speed. The debris falling beside the building fell at freefall speed. Heck, the dust fell faster than the building.

so therefore the energy required to overcome the building's resistance had to come from somewhere else.

The energy in our model was 10 times the amount it needed to oversome the model's resistance after a mere two level collapse. After another two levels (3?) it reached 16 times the energy necessary. By the time the collapse reached level 5, there was more energy in the avalanche than the entire building pre-collapse had available to resist.

thus the aquamodel shows the official narrative is incorrect.

If you spent a fraction of the time you spend thinking of reasons not to learn in actual learning, you might have actually gotten somewhere in the last ten years of trying to find a problem with the official narrative.

Edited by aquatus1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've read a very interesting discussion, regardless, as a lay man, it sure looked like every other controlled demolition I've every seen.

Putting aside how implosions are actually the least favored way to demolish buildings (far easier to just dump the thing on its side, but that is not always an option), there is a reason why it did look exactly like that, and the reason is the same one that prompted the NIST report to only investigate to the point of failure and not through the collapse, and it is the same reason why every engineer who looked at the report didn't even think twice about it.

Simply put, any high-rise, once its supports are cut, will fall through the point of least resistance, meaning straight down. High-rises, unlike cinder blocks and ice blocks (Little Fish, paying attention?) are made up mostly of air. What happens to a house of cards when it collapses?

It wouldn't matter if it was a fire, explosives, or a magic sword that swooped down and sliced the building at the point of failure. A gravity-fueled collapse remains a gravity-fueled collapse.

Lets not forget WTC 7, not a lot of damage to drop an entire building into its own footprint. Just my own observations and opinions.

Eh?

Dude...WTC 7 had a massive, fuel-fed fire, directly under the main supporting beam, for several hours. Once it failed, the building fell. It didn't need any more physical damage than it already had (which is not to say it didn't get banged up pretty good).

Inexplicably, most of the CT crowd completely ignores this when they claim that a fire couldn't have brought down the towers, and that there had to be physical damage, which had to be done by explosives (because airliners boring full tilt into the side of a building at 500+ mph couldn't possible generate the energy that causes those little bangs we hear in the demolition videos).

Sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but I am kind of jaded with the WTC thing. I just don't want you to think that there are equal sides to this argument. I went through some effort to put down some solid numbers (numbers are not easy for me) for something that is so obvious to engineers that they don't even bother to mention it, just to show how ridiculous the argument even is (never mind how irrelevant it actually is), and even so, all it does is demonstrated the utterly blind loyalty these conspiracies geenrate from their followers.

The claim that the WTC collapse is too complex to diagram is nothing more than an excuse and a diversion from actual investigation. The real "Truth" that these conspiracy theorists are covering up is that their conspiracy is composed of nothing more than misdirection, ignorance, and taking advantage of other people's ignorance.

Notice how not only has no CT in this thread actually refuted the numbers I presented, not only have the only complaints been the default whining of "Oh noes! It doesn't reflect real life!", but on top of all that...

There has not even been an attempt to actually look at the example I posted.

From the very beginning of this thread, you see Little Fish reacting in a rote and predictable (heck, even predict"ed") fashion, complaining that the examples lacked whatever excuse he could (or more often, couldn't) grasp. Up above, as you can see, he is at the point where he is denying the example contains the actual data we were specifically modelling. He isn't complaining that it isn't correct, he isn't complaining that it lacks additional factors; he is complaining that it isn't even there at all. Not even a pretense at understanding something before denying it.

Then you have the other knuckelheads, the ones who like to claim that the numbers are incorrect, but refuse to show how. Notice I said "show", as differentiated from "claim". For all the complaints that the model didn't contain columns, not a single example of how columns would change the calculations. For all the complaints that the model was a solid block and not an aggregate mass, not a single example showing why the calculations weren't simulating precisely that.

Now, to be fair, there was one attempt to use numbers and equations...I believe it was Little Fish who made a comment about looking up physics equations and plugging numbers in without understanding them. Of course, at the time, he was referring to me, but...

Well, in all cases, I have shown my work, I stand ready to answer any questions I can, and if I have made a mistake or missed a variable, I am more than happy to try and incorporate it (more than one member has corrected me before (and some take a positive glee in it).

The CT crowd...well, asides from the previously mentioned attempt, which you can evaluate at your leisure, more time has been spend (succesfully) suckering people into credibility arguments than in actual number crunching. Read back through the entire thread and you see claims, complaints, and snide remarks...but what you don't see are actual refutations. You don't see examples of how a given variable will change the equation.

I can't really place all the blame on them, however, as there was a non-CT joining in on the complaints that there was waaay too much basic textbook gradeschool physics that did not directly refute the WTC collapse...

...in a thread specifically and repeatedly declared to be about texbook gradeschool physics that do not directly refute anything about the WTC, including the collapse.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyhow, when is aquatus going to come back to correct his model?

the "aquamodel"

lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand ready to answer any questions I can

let's test that.

what should the resistance be set to in order to achieve freefall speed?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the model, you twit.

what should the resistance be set to in your model in order to achieve freefall speed?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your question does not make sense in relation to the model. What are you trying to determine?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your question does not make sense in relation to the model. What are you trying to determine?

stop deflecting and answer the question.

everyone already knows the answer. it says a lot that you refuse to supply the answer to yourself.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude...WTC 7 had a massive, fuel-fed fire, directly under the main supporting beam, for several hours. Once it failed, the building fell. It didn't need any more physical damage than it already had (which is not to say it didn't get banged up pretty good).

That you are not informed of the official theory on the WTC7 collapse (as concluded by NIST) does not give confidence that you are able to apply any realism to the aquamodel. Allow me to correct your claims...

Both the NIST study, and FEMA before that, discussed it and concluded that the diesel fuel generators did not contribute to the WTC7 collapse. In addition NIST concluded that the damage to WTC7 caused by the falling tower debris was superficial to the collapse and the initial failure point was not the support beam you mention but a single main column which led to a rapid progression of further column failures (over a matter of seconds) within the structure, then what we saw collapse at the end was a hollow shell. Also, fire in the specific location of that initial column failure did not last several hours as you stated, rather it only spread to that area after 3pm.

So that’s at least three counts you are wrong on. Please do request quotes in support of the above if you are not able to read the NIST study for yourself for any reason. And by the way even NIST admitted the WTC7 collapse process they set out would be an “extraordinary” first time ever “phenomenon”, so it’s no good trying to make out that such a collapse was normal or to be expected. I’ve further noticed you making other inaccurate claims regarding the official theory of the tower collapses, perhaps I’ll come back to those sometime.

As for the aquamodel I’m going to put together a few suggestions when I get chance and let’s see if you can incorporate them into the model. Catch up with you soon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

stop deflecting and answer the question.

everyone already knows the answer. it says a lot that you refuse to supply the answer to yourself.

I don't know what you're asking. The floors fall, they hit the floors underneath them. Where does freefall fit in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aquatus1,

Great thread! While I am not in civil engineering, I can certainly follow your reasoning and examples.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stop deflecting and answer the question.

Check mirror. Aquatus1 has outlined the reasoning in great detail as he works thru this, and you just chime in with these inane single sentences and non-specific handwaves about it being wrong. It's very clear who has (and doesn't have) reasoning skills and basic physics and engineering expertise.

everyone already knows the answer.

??? How DARE you put on your plastic tiara and pretend you speak for everyone. You do NOT, and apart from being completely against the spirit of a discussion forum, it suggests delusions of grandeur.

YOUR question makes no sense unless you elaborate. It seems very likely that the reason you won't elaborate is that you know you are on shaky ground and have not got the ability to phrase your 'issue'.

Anyway, I'm telling you that without further information I don't understand your question or problem either. So that means 'everyone' DOESN'T know the answer, despite your unerring (but misplaced) belief in your ability to mindread - and speak for - all humankind..

Given you have been asked twice at least, just answer the question. Surely if it is patently obvious, then answering/elaborating carries no risk to your credibility whatsoever, and you can then revel in the fact that you will be able to show your superior knowledge..

So, go ahead. What are you trying to determine with *your* interpretation of the model, and what precisely is the problem?

Why not simply show a better version, with all the necessary numbers and all stated assumptions? You know, just like Aquatus1 is doing...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.