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

If throwing out arbitrary nuts and bolts and non-criticism of aquatus' nuts and bolts are the only things that are going to be allowed to discuss here, then I'm now asking for the nuts and bolts that this particular model is trying to correct. Otherwise, I will have to conclude the discussion does not belong in 'Conspiracies & Secret Societies'. Nothing personal about that. I'm confronting the content of this discussion not the personality of its author.

Sorry Lilly, I'm trying to understand what this topic is, not re-define it. If the topic is a physics model like we're trying to confine the discussion to, then it's Science, not Conspiracy. If the topic is refuting 9/11 conspiracy theory physics with this particular model, then where are those physics? This is what keeping it on-topic must look like according to aquatus1 himself. So let's see Exhibit A. Let's see those physics.

Edited by Yamato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're talking about the science behind a conspiracy theory then I would think it belongs in the conspiracies section.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And thus my "derailment" has revealed the missing link required for your model to belong in the Conspiracies board without being able to discuss conspiracy. Please cite those physics.

I am. That I am not discussing what you believe to be the sole physics involved is neither here nor there. I have specified which physics I am talking about, which conspiracy claim they pertain to, and provided a link to those specific claims.

Is your experiment addressing "the physics behind certain conspiracy claims"? If so, then how has my "derailment" brought that key point in fact out?

What?

My complaint is that none of your posts discuss nor explain the physics behind any claim in simpler terms. All you talk about is who did which report and why this one is worth believing and that one is not. In other words, you only discuss credibility, not science.

If so, you should have established that in the OP.

Which I did, which I repeated, which absolutely no one except you, Q24, and Little Fish, seem to be having trouble understanding.

If you'd have cited the physics you're now referring to, that would have saved me from bothering with my criticism of your physics in the first place.

Very first post after the OP:

All right then, I thought a good example to start with is the collapse of the WTC floors. I've been seeing a claim that expresses incredulity at the claim that such a small portion of the tower could result in the total collapse of the floors underneath it unless there were explosives involved.
This is usually backed up with videos of regular demolitions where the demolished building is cut more along the middle than the top (which, of course, begs the question as to how this
wouldn't
contradict the previous claim of explosives being placed at the top, but let's skip that for now).

Now, most people know the rejoinder to this is usually "Kinetic Energy!", but with little else to follow. While it is true that velocity adds energy to a moving object, few people really bother to take a good look at just
how much
energy we are talking about.
Of course, in the real world there are many, many more variables involved, but
for the purpose of answering the question of how just a few floors collapsing could result in a catastrophic failure of the entire tower, here is a very simplified version of how I understand it
. I am by no means a master of physics, and mediocre at best on math, so feel free to correct me if you spot a mistake.

There's the physics I am referring to in the very first two sentences of the very first post talking about my example, followed by the CT claim, followed by the counter, followed by a statement specifically referring to what the following example pertains to.

Cutting up the sentences of other posters is a poor way to discuss anything with them aquatus. and you habitually do that creating out-of-context banter instead of cogent, honest discussion.

I don't have to do it with every poster. Just the ones that keep making up **** every other sentence. Then I am obligated to to keep them from creating out-of-context snipes and claims, and pretending they are actually discussing anything. Posts like that require posts such as this one, which are truly a waste of time and space, and as annoying and insulting to basic discourse as they are, they need to be done, otherwise, the CT crowd simply does what it always does, which is what inspired this thread in the first place as noted in my OP:

It occurs to me that there needs to be a sort of neutral territory where people can talk about forces that affect our lives regardless of what sort of political intrigue presumably commands it from behind the curtains. Attempts to address things such as actual physics, chemistry, biology, or various other objective forces tend to be either ignored, dismissed, or most often, shouted down, rather than addressed.

Stop throwing out random claims, and I won't have to address them individually.

Not participating in conspiracy boards, I wasn't aware there was this much polarization between groups here that required the babysitting but if the above reply is any indication of how people respond to each other regarding 9/11 CT, then I can see how moderators would be required.

Well, there's your mistake right there. I was semi-assigned to the Conspiracy board for a good two years before moderators became more general (which is not to say that the other moderators didn't regularly come in and keep the peace). This board has never been a single person job and has always required "babysitting", as you term it.

"Dozens of posts harassing, defaming, insulting..." will get one banned, not give you a pass to ostracize posters on this board who've never done that.

Dude, if moderators on this site did that, there would hardly be any posters left. This isn't one of those Nazi sites that bans you when you don't agree with absolutely every one of the moderator's opinion.

Posts harassing, defaming, or insulting are almost expected in discussion boards. The only time the moderators step in is when the level gets to the point that actual discussion is being prevented, or when it is determined to be at a level beyond what can be reasonably tolerated.

Incidentally, asking someone to talk about the topic of the thread doesn't translate to "ostracize", and it won't, no matter how many times you repeat it. Referring to people as being willing to accept praise but refusing to accept criticism and being above criticism, without providing support, or claiming they are "overselling", despite actual contradicting evidence, is considered "defaming".

I was helping to steer you towards your purpose here and that was a big mistake because you're above such criticism.

Case in point.

Incidentally, you don't get to decide what my purpose is. Remember in that other thread, where you made similar attempts to define the beliefs of other people, in relation to something you referred to as "law", but which was not only not a law, but was even defined to the General Assembly of the United Nations by the speaker chosen to present it at the formal re-establishment of the Resolution to the UN World Members (or, as you call it it, "an op-ed piece"), as "a moral code of behaviour". I told you then, as I am telling you now, no matter how strongly you feel that people need to be talking about something you believe is important, based on how strongly you believe a particularly authority defines it, does not mean that the authority does actually define it your way, nor does it mean that you get to demand that people talk about what you want to believe.

If something has already been defined, re-defined, and acted on within that definition, you don't get to say it hasn't been defined just because it doesn't meet what you believe it should be defined as, and you don't get to tell people they are wrong if they don't follow what you believe is right.

If you are a "hell of a salesman", then you'll sell your model as relevant to 9/11 collapse to one of the known posters who favors 9/11 CT in those thousands and thousands of posts you're referring to, and change their mind. I was already in your boat and I jumped out.

You were in the wrong boat. My boat was for people who could see the relevance between the basic physics and the collapse. You thought it was for people directly challenging and/or refuting the CT conspiracies of the collapse. If you want to enjoy the ride, great. Heck, if you want to participate, we'd love to have you.

If you want to hijack the boat to a different destination, feel free to jump off.

In other words, quit derailing the thread.

Edited by aquatus1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Returning to the actual discussion, which is nowhere near as entertaining to the audience, but is actually in keeping with the OP, let's talk about another thing we can learn from the example.

We figured out that when dealing with excessive quantities of force, whether the mass is solid or aggregate won't matter. A bag of sand with 100 N of force will crush a table with 90 N of force just as easily as a solid block with a force of 100 N will; the sand will just take more time than the block (measured in tenths and hundredths of a second).

Where the force came from, be it mass or acceleration, is likewise irrelevant. The 90 N table doesn't care if it is a block or a bag with a mass of 100 N, or if the force is 50% from the mass and 50% from acceleration, or 70/30, or any variation thereof. Similarly, the block or bag doesn't care if the table has columns, or beams, or mass, or a duck, providing the upward force of 90 N. They all get crushed regardless.

This follows through to the real world. In the real world, collapse physics are certainly much more complicated, no question at all about that. Structural failure still occurs when a given downward force exceed the upward force of a supporting system, however the systems involved require a bit more calculation, due to the many forces involved. This is why engineers get paid a lot more than most of us do; the stuff they do is pretty difficult.

Now, in our example we are dealing with a downward force exceeding the upward force, which in the real world translates to Compression Stress. Compression failure comes in two flavors: Mechanical overload, and buckling. Mechanical overload is when a supporting member fails catastrophically, in one single event. Buckling is when a supporting member fails because the amount of force exceeded the capacity of the member's elasticity to return.

Elasticity is a property of materials to deform under stress and return to the original shape once the stress is removed. In other words, a supporting member will bend with the downwards force, applying greater and greater amounts of upwards force, until such time that equilibrium is reach, or the point of elastic instability of the supporting member is reached. Once the bending member reaches that point, it will no longer have the ability to return to its original shape and will fail, usually catastrophically.

Now, of course, there are many other factors at work here. There are other forces at work, such as tensile and torsional, and even those forces can include different types, such as flexural-torsion or lateral torsion. Similarly, there are many factors which affect the properties of the material itself, corrosion, fatigue, embrittlement, thermal wear, impact, among others. There is even a force, the flutter force, which is neither an actual force nor a particularly exciting episode of My Little Pony, yet it acts as a force by creating instability but it doesn't actually exceed the materials elasticity, which...well, like I said, this is why engineers make the big bucks, and why my limited math skills kept me from joining their ranks.

Safe-to-say that the simple calculations in our tower model might be reflecting the real world phenomena of progressive collapse, but it falls well short of actually defining it. There are just too many variables in a real collapse to ever be calculated with any real accuracy. It's just too random and complex.

Fortunately, this thread isn't about the actual collapse, but about the CT claims regarding the actual collapse, and CT claims, by their nature, tend to be...fairly simplistic and predictable.

In the next post, I would like to talk about the dramatic increase in the force of the falling mass vs. the regular increase in the force of the standing mass, and how it gives us an indication of how absurdly out of proportion some of the CT claims are, even when we take the differences between the real world and out model into consideration.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

aquatus,

You're referring to conspiracy physics but you're not citing them. I still have no idea what they are whatsoever, other than your claiming they exist. Likewise, when I was only referring to the physics in your specific experiment, you claimed I was out of line because I wasn't applying the "science". That's dictating two different standards for this discussion.

The bad behavior of others in the past that you're repeatedly referring to shouldn't impact my freedom to discuss the subject. That has nothing to do with me.

A plain reading of my input here will show that it's full of hypothetical statements and questions both; that should be proof enough that I'm not trying to "hijack" or "derail" or "decide anything for you". And I'm providing it pretty respectfully I think given your accusations.

As we stand, there are no conspiratorial physics here (no frame of reference) to differentiate your specific experiment with. Merely alluding to them is what you attacked me for in the first place! So please, what are those physics? It's a request for both fairness and higher quality in this discussion, it's not a dictation. It's a question, not a command. If you can't handle the request, then we'll leave it at that, and I'll conclude my request was too challenging. And that's okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yamato, I have explained this so many time and in so many different way that, frankly, if you do not understand it by now, it is not for lack of this side trying. I have explained it, other posters have explained it, a moderator has explained it (three times with examples); If you haven't gotten it by now, there is little else I can do for you.

Honestly, based on how you interpret direct statements to mean the exact polar opposite of what they say (such as the example above), I am not completely convinced it would be possible. If you can't figure out what 11 posts consisting of nothing, but numbers and explanations (let's not even talk about the handful of other posts clarifying specific points and answering specific questions relating to them, as well as a direct link to the subject from the CT perspective), then I don't know what else I can do to show exactly what applying simple basic physics to CT claims means. Being that you are only one of three who is having trouble with this, and that you have personified the proverb regarding 10% of people taking up 90% of your time, I am just going to refer you to my posts following every single one of yours demanding an explanation. Try reading them without interpreting them in any way, shape, or form, and see if that works. Otherwise, you will just have to accept that the concept of this thread is beyond you.

****************************

In the first example posted on the first page, we showed how the KE of a progressive collapse grew at an exponential rate due to gravity vs. the regular incremental increase of the PE of the resting slab. This made perfect sense, considering that gravity increases velocity and velocity squared is part of our energy formula.

Once that point was understood, we went on to the more complex example, where instead of just dealing with simple KE and PE, we started throwing in a lot more forces, including forces that would counter the descending force more equally, and losses of energy that could reflect loss of mass and elastic upward velocity.

Our tower (at rest vs at impact):

Floor 11: m= 200 kg = 1960 N vs.

Floor 10: m= 200 kg = 1960 N vs.

Floor 09: m= 400 kg = 3920 N vs.
F
avg
= 11,552 N

Floor 08: m= 800 kg = 7840 N vs.
F
avg
= 77,156 N

Floor 07: m= 1600 kg = 15,680 N vs.
F
avg
= 223,285 N

Floor 06: m= 3200 kg = 31,360 N vs.
F
avg
= 507,636 N

Floor 05: m= 6400 kg = 62,720 N vs.
F
avg
= 1,041,820 N

Floor 04: m= 12,800 kg = 125,440 N vs.
F
avg
= 2,090,486 N

Floor 03: m= 25,600 kg = 250,880 N vs.
F
avg
= 4,199,683 N

Floor 02: m= 51,200 kg = 501,760 N vs.
F
avg
= 8,401,387 N

Now, what is being illustrated here is the relationship, in our example, between the amount of force each floor would be holding up in a normal situation compared to how much force would be applied to the floor in the event of a progressive collapse. As previously stated countless times already, real-life is more complex, yadda yadda, moving on.

In real life, engineering safety factors are included in the design, so that a floor that would be designated to hold up x amount of force would, in actuality would be engineered with an added safety factor, usually in the realm of 1.5 to 2 times the designated amount (more on this later). In our example, we didn't include this buffer, but let's see what the forces would have done, had we decided to do so:

Floor 9, by virtue of having to hold up floors 10 and 11, had to have at a minimum 3920 N of force to counter the downward forces generated by the two floors. If nothing else changes, if no energy is added, floor 9 will continue to hold floors 10 and 11 up indefinitely, as per Newton's 1st law, much like the WTC towers held up the floors above the cut point for over 30 years, as per Little Fish.

The impact of floor 10, however, generated 11,552 N of force, due to acceleration. That's a multiple of 2.95 times after a 3 meter fall. In other words, had floor 9 been rated to hold up to three times the amount it was holding up, it would only just barely have survived collapse by 0.05 N (equivalent to 0.005 kg or .01 lbs). Had someone accidentally dropped their empty styrofoam cup (4.45 g) in surprise, down you would go. Floor 11's impact, about .46 seconds later, would also have sufficed, but anyhow...

Assuming someone had dropped their styrofoam cup, the next impact would have been on floor 8. Floor 8 had an upwards force of 7840 N. It was struck by a downwards force of 77,156 N. That's a multiple of 9.85 times.

Now, I am not sure where the CT claim of the core column having a safety factor of 5 comes from. I have never heard of a column system having a safety factor (for steel columns) larger than 2, the ones back in college engineering class were usually in the 1.7-1.8 range, and I remember a source I had no reason to doubt once showing me his calculation for the WTC columns being around 1.54 at the ground level, though I wouldn't be able to reference it. I can say that anything beyond a factor of 2 is going to start wasting more and more of its own strength just to hold itself up, let alone support anything.

Now, as it turns out, in modern high-rise design the safety factor doesn't mean exactly the same thing as it does for regular building. This holds true for quite a few factors, actually. Skyscrapers are kind of a different animal when it comes to engineering. Regular buildings have a pretty high strength-to-weight ratio, to the point that large building can even be picked up and moved around. There are multiple instances where explosive demolitions have been done incorrectly and the building simply dropped a bit to the ground and remained otherwise supremely unaffected.

However, when you get in the rule-of-thumb range of about 20-25 stories, depending on engineering, you have to start factoring in a bunch of stuff and you rapidly lose that strength-to-weight advantage. As we can see in the video, the top 11 floors of the WTC tower began tearing themselves apart due to all the stresses the moment they began to fall, whereas a regular 11-story building would have stayed (relatively) intact until it hit the ground.

In modern high-rise buildings, the building code (at least in New York), calls for a minimum of 40 lbs of load bearing strength per square foot. Honestly, the whole 3 to 5 times safety factor is from an era where we didn't have computers that could calculate exactly how much stress would be put upon any particular place. Engineering is a such a precise science nowadays that 1.5 safety factor is normal and anything over 1.75 is overkill (which isn't to say that sometimes it is done simply because it is cheaper to do so).

But, let's say that our model had a central column and that this central column did have a safety factor of 5, and let's say it magically extended this safety factor all the way to the outer walls, why not? Heck, you know what, let's say the outer walls also have a safety factor x5, so together with the central column, we get a safety factor of x10!

In return for this magical x10 defensive bonus, I request the added energy of a fully-loaded falling stapler (.51 lbs).

(Is that too much? Would it seem more reasonable if I point out that the collapse had already lost 160 kg of mass out the side of the building by the time it hit floor 8? Let's say you spot me the mass of a small (grande? venti?) Frappuccino, for the sake of the example)

Floor 9 would still have collapsed. A two floor progressive collapse would still have overwhelmed floor 9's safety capacity of 10 times the original amount of weight.

We haven't even calculated in floor 11's high velocity impact just .05 seconds from now.

As has been stated countless times, our model is simply an abstract representation of the energies involved in a progressive collapse. However, the relationship between the interctions in the model and those in real-life is not imaginary. In the model, after a single floor collapse through two levels, we have so much energy that even if we add two supports, each one a x5 safety factor that is not really feasible in the real world, for a combined total of a x10 safety factor which simply cannot exist in high-rise design with current technology...

We still get a collapse.

So, knowing all this, what do we get?

When a CT claims that the center columns, or the perimeter walls, aren't being taken into account, and how one or both have a safety factor of 3, 5, 20 (I kid you not, I saw that seriously claimed once), and the often quietly implied claim (or, occasionally, the way too loudly claimed) insinuation is that because these columns were not included, the entire equation should be ignored...we have reason to doubt the claim.

Just how much extra strength are these columns supposed to provide? A single floor, two level collapse, in our model generated ten times the force needed. The WTC had more than 1 floor at first impact, and fell more than 3 meters before first contact. The strongest factor the columns could feasible have is 2, and it is unlikely they had that.

How exactly is a central column, or, for that matter, any sort of supporting structure, supposed to provide that sort of safety factor?

It is reasonable to doubt this claim. The difference in energy is just too big, the gap is just too ludicrously overwhelming.

Edited by aquatus1
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yamato, I have explained this so many time and in so many different way that, frankly, if you do not understand it by now, it is not for lack of this side trying. I have explained it, other posters have explained it, a moderator has explained it (three times with examples); If you haven't gotten it by now, there is little else I can do for you.

Honestly, based on how you interpret direct statements to mean the exact polar opposite of what they say (such as the example above), I am not completely convinced it would be possible. If you can't figure out what 11 posts consisting of nothing, but numbers and explanations (let's not even talk about the handful of other posts clarifying specific points and answering specific questions relating to them, as well as a direct link to the subject from the CT perspective), then I don't know what else I can do to show exactly what applying simple basic physics to CT claims means. Being that you are only one of three who is having trouble with this, and that you have personified the proverb regarding 10% of people taking up 90% of your time, I am just going to refer you to my posts following every single one of yours demanding an explanation. Try reading them without interpreting them in any way, shape, or form, and see if that works. Otherwise, you will just have to accept that the concept of this thread is beyond you.

****************************

When Little Fish only replied to a small part of one of your posts, you berated him for it. Believe me when I tell you, I could easily cut any one of your posts on this thread into single sentences and drive you nuts with the same banter you dish out to me and other posters here, and that would be the real way to hijack a thread incidentally. But I don't do that because it's not even qualified as debate. If someone has something to say about something you said, don't insult them with replies like "Is that all you have to say?" That is not professional and unbecoming of anyone feigning a science lecture of all things. The "sides" you're referring to here are distinctly drawn and it's evident by how we're treating one another.

I'm not sure what you explained to me 11 times, others explained, moderators explained, etc. My mistake was believing you when you said:**A reminder that this thread is NOT about the conspiracies themselves, and will focus only on the science behind the arguments.** So I asked for it. But I see now there is no focus on the science behind those arguments anywhere in sight, and so basically "Yamato is too dumb to understand the concept of my thread" is the response I get. If there's even a link to it, that's not what I would consider a sole focus for this thread.

What the moderator actually said is: "I would remind everyone of the parameters set for this discussion, that being the scientific support for or against the collapse hypothesis. This does not include lists of 'who said what to whom' or 'what secrets this one leaked to that one'." I believe that too, and so I asked for the science against the collapse hypothesis. Doing this is not only well within the enforced tolerance limits for this discussion, but it would also help you. Without showing the science you only allude to, your own constraints on this discussion cannot be satisfied.

If refutation of 9/11 conspiracy theory on some level isn't the real purpose of this thread like I presumed it was, you're right, I don't know what you're trying to sell here. If it's just the promotion of your science: "Newton's laws don't apply to the real world." Newton's laws always apply to the real world aquatus, the real world is just complex and thwarts their application. Therein lies the rub, and the skeptical criticism of your experiment that it deserves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Little Fish only replied to a small part of one of your posts, you berated him for it.

In the sense that I expressed astonishment at it, yes. Is that one of those definitions things again? Like being asked to be on topic instead of making post after post about how you are being oppressed, or ostracized, or whatever the hell is being done to you now, because you refuse to talk about the actual topic in favor of how everyone is kicking you around.

Believe me when I tell you,

No. You are overdrawn on credit for that.

I could easily cut any one of your posts on this thread into single sentences and drive you nuts with the same banter you dish out to me and other posters here, and that would be the real way to hijack a thread incidentally.

Don't sell yourself short, Yamato. You can drive me nuts without having to cut up any of my sentences. I have to work for it.

It's a good thing you aren't "really" hijacking my thread, though. I can barely keep up with this "fake" hijacking.

But I don't do that because it's not even qualified as debate.

That, and every time you have cut up my sentences, I call you on it, and you end up having to wave it off and change the subject ("dictionary").

If someone has something to say about something you said, don't insult them with replies like "Is that all you have to say?"

I reserve that sort of answer for those whom I consider my intellectual peers and from whom I expect a certain standard. Those whom I don't consider to be thinkers get little more than exasperation or astonishment, while those even lower tend to barely even be addressed, and more often ignored.

Then there are those whom I have decided have no intention of engaging in any discussion for any purpose other than the joy of arguing. Those are tolerated almost entirely for the entertainment value they bring to an otherwise dull thread.

That is not professional and unbecoming of anyone feigning a science lecture of all things.

You're getting paid for this?

The "sides" you're referring to here are distinctly drawn and it's evident by how we're treating one another.

...

Yeesss...?

I'm not sure what you explained to me 11 times, others explained, moderators explained, etc.

Yeah, we got that. At least I refuse to keep repeating myself over and over again, even if I hadn't run out of different ways to do it. Try it sometime.

My mistake was believing you when you said:**A reminder that this thread is NOT about the conspiracies themselves, and will focus only on the science behind the arguments.**

No, your mistake was in thinking you understood it, even after multiple people were telling you you didn't.

Really, how many people need to tell you you are wrong about something before you start to consider that you may in fact be wrong about it? Has that ever been a question for you?

So I asked for it. But I see now there is no focus on the science behind those arguments anywhere in sight, and so basically "Yamato is too dumb to understand the concept of my thread" is the response I get. If there's even a link to it, that's not what I would consider a sole focus for this thread.

I wouldn't have publicly made such a judgement call on your intellect, but if you are willing to interpret it that way, much like you have continuously interpreted pretty much everything else ("Please get back on topic." "OSTRACIZED!"), I have no choice but to go along with your assessment.

What the moderator actually said is: "I would remind everyone of the parameters set for this discussion, that being the scientific support for or against the collapse hypothesis. This does not include lists of 'who said what to whom' or 'what secrets this one leaked to that one'." I believe that too, and so I asked for the science against the collapse hypothesis. Doing this is not only well within the enforced tolerance limits for this discussion, but it would also help you. Without showing the science you only allude to, your own constraints on this discussion cannot be satisfied.

Yamato...you really are the only here still needing help figuring out what the topic is. Everyone else is already on board with the general concept, even if they don't agree with it or attempt to deny its relevance.

If refutation of 9/11 conspiracy theory on some level isn't the real purpose of this thread like I presumed it was, you're right, I don't know what you're trying to sell here.

The difference between Reasonable Doubt and the Fallacy of Incredulity.

If it's just the promotion of your science: "Newton's laws don't apply to the real world."

My science?

The name should have given you a clue, but hey, you aren't one to be constrained by labels. Still, it is a valid question...oh wait, it isn't a question, is it? Nor is it a refutation of the given explanation either...

Hmm...so much for honest discourse. At least you aren't repeating the same things I said and pretending I didn't.

Newton's laws always apply to the real world aquatus, the real world is just complex and thwarts their application.

Oh...nevermind...

Therein lies the rub, and the skeptical criticism of your experiment that it deserves.

Really? Because I don't see the slightest reference to the experiment. Where is it?

Is it that one sentence at the very end where you say: "I am going to say the same thing you said, as if you hadn't said it, to make it look like I am right and you are wrong"?

Is it the part where you say: "If what you meant by "The purpose is not refutation" is "The purpose is not refutation", then I have no choice but to imply you were unclear and possibly dishonest".

Which is kind of strange, because before that, you claimed: "My mistake was believing you when you said:**A reminder that this thread is NOT about the conspiracies themselves, and will focus only on the science behind the arguments.**" If you believed that I wasn't talking about the conspiracies themselves, how did you conclude that my purpose was the refutation of the 9/11 theories? It doesn't really seem logically consistent.

At least before when you claimed to be talking about my example, you made the effort of claiming that my example was worthless because it only addressed what I said it was addressing, instead of what you said it should address. Heck, now your "skeptical criticism" doesn't even bother to reference the example.

Which is a shame, consider that my last post almost directly referred to your major complaint about my example, and yet another reason why I have trouble believing you actually listen to any responses made.

So, if it is still unclear, let me clarify: I don't believe you are seeking honest discussion; whether this is intentional or subconscious, I haven't yet decided. I have given up trying to explain things to you, not only because have I run out of ways to explain it, but also because you have shown not just an utter refusal to acknowledge any explanation, but a tendency to interpret sentences as the complete opposite of what they actually say. Add to this your habit to make false accusations, such as the one about accepting praise, and your tactic of saying something in a manner suggesting I had not said it in the exact same manner, as shown above, and it makes discussion with you simply not a worthwhile endeavor.

I was going to add Strawman accusations, like the "ostracized" claim and the "above criticism" claim, but it occurs to me that if you do genuinely believe in your own inerrancy, then it would be the logical conclusion for you to make that if anyone who was in a higher positions disagreed with you and was getting to the point, after more than half a dozen warnings, of getting less and less gentle and more and more direct, it would be defined by yourself as exclusion from the group; as well as, by virtue of being your opinion, any disagreement on your side would be considered "skeptical criticism" (even when it doesn't reference the actual science...that you were never able to "see"...wait, how did you skeptically critique something you say you never...never mind), whereas any disagreement from anyone else was clearly an inability to form a coherent argument.

Until such time as you actually begin to apply science (preferably simple science) in the discussion regarding any CT claim you would like, I will assume that you either don't or can't understand the purpose of the thread, and refuse to allow anyone to talk about something you don't understand. This is done to give you the benefit of the doubt, as otherwise I would have to conclude that that you are intentionally trolling by continuously making the topic about you and your desires. If you are going to insist on derailing this thread, I will continue to use you to provide dinner and a show.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yamato, I'm beginning to doubt the side you are on - saying that no science is being presented here would suggest you are not even reading the posts, like #206 above.

How about dropping the attitude (eg stop putting words into other mouths, like "Yamato is too dumb to understand.."), dropping the continual non-specific complaints..

and simply address in polite detail, anything that is actually wrong?

Aquatus1, may I suggest you stop beating your head and addressing Yamato's repetitive negativity over and over again (these walls'o'text are becoming really painful), and continue - the stuff you are outlining is not only accurate (so far, and as far I can see), but is well presented for the target audience.. It's nice to see someone who has a reasonable grasp of engineering, science and logic present the scenario fairly while discussing the basics and also addressing the incredible complexity of attempting to accurately model a real-world building collapse, especially given the nature of the cause of that collapse. Do carry on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I'll accept a scientific journal publication of any currently-employed professor(s) at any of the top-10 aforementioned universities with the emphasis on currently-employed. I will also accept any PhD dissertation (which is peer reviewed) challenging the conclusions of the NIST study from any of the top-10 aforementioned universities. Heck I'll accept the top-13 just because I'm feeling generous. Otherwise the thousands of sources, or hundreds of thousands of sources for that matter, do not meet my standard of academic scrutiny, but I'm sure they meet some peoples' standard of political scrutiny alright. I have a higher standard of belief on this than some, and that is my right.

Ok, you are telling me that you will only accept what an authority figure of your choosing tells you to believe. I’m certainly glad you don’t adopt that approach when leading U.S. and Israeli politicians tell you the best course of foreign policy! Come on, consider the situation for yourself - the question I have twice put to you, and received no answer, regarding science within the NIST report is not difficult. I’ll try once more: -

Understanding that NIST’s base case comprised of
best
initial estimates and provided the
better
match to observable damage, please could you answer the question: which model is
most
considerate of 9/11’s variables?

Your quote below suggests you agree to meet this request: -

What the moderator actually said is: "I would remind everyone of the parameters set for this discussion, that being the scientific support for or against the collapse hypothesis. This does not include lists of 'who said what to whom' or 'what secrets this one leaked to that one'." I believe that too, and so I asked for the science against the collapse hypothesis. Doing this is not only well within the enforced tolerance limits for this discussion, but it would also help you. Without showing the science you only allude to, your own constraints on this discussion cannot be satisfied.

So please talk about the science and answer the question above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yamato, if you don't care for the premise of this thread then nobody is forcing you to participate, rather than arguing with people about it all the time surely it would be better to simply step away from the discussion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yamato, if you don't care for the premise of this thread then nobody is forcing you to participate, rather than arguing with people about it all the time surely it would be better to simply step away from the discussion.

Saru, the problem is the premise of the thread comes across as disingenuous and/or misleading to begin. On the one hand it clearly sets out to be a refutation of the WTC collapse so-called ‘conspiracy theory’ but in contradiction it is repeated that the example is not reflective of the WTC collapse. Yamato is pointing this out and requesting an example relevant to the WTC collapse. Is that not an argument in itself which Yamato and others have and should be able to make?

Yamato, I'm beginning to doubt the side you are on - saying that no science is being presented here would suggest you are not even reading the posts, like #206 above.

Yamato is saying that aquatus is presenting no science relevant to the WTC towers or any conspiracy (aquatus admits as much from one side of his mouth but contradicts it from the other) and there are at least two others who have posted on the thread in agreement. When this problem has been pointed out, suggestions made, assistance offered and Yamato asks for a relevant example, aquatus puts up the walls and continues on the same track regardless – no wonder the negativity that generates. Then he has the cheek to claim no one from the other camp is addressing his example. The target audience here can only be people of a like mind to aquatus who are inclined to accept the official story despite its problems to begin. The thread is a little ridiculous until aquatus comes clean about what he’s trying to show here and considers the irrelevance of his current model which contains so many errors yet to be stated (even in his latest posts ‘bag of sand’?) – but would aquatus pause to address them anyway or only hide behind the moderators shutting down contesting opinion?

Edited by Q24
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking to brick walls, it seems.. I'm afraid the way this is being misrepresented is indicative of blind conspiracy belief..

Saru, the problem is the premise of the thread comes across as disingenuous and/or misleading to begin. On the one hand it clearly sets out to be a refutation of the WTC collapse so-called ‘conspiracy theory’ but in contradiction it is repeated that the example is not reflective of the WTC collapse.

I disagree. And I must ask - why do you not QUOTE what is being said, rather than (as usual), criticising posters for your interpretation? That interpretation appears highly biased, given the way that Aquatus1 has given appropriate provisos all the way.

To indicate my interpretation, I would ask these simple questions:

Can the collapses be accurately modeled to a high degree? (Hint, No, they cannot - there are far too many complexities and unknowns)

But does that mean any analysis cannot be reflective of the collapse? No, and THAT interpretation of yours is highly disingenuous.

Can proper analysis help us to find out what is likely to have happened and give a reasonably accurate picture? Yes.

Yamato is saying that aquatus is presenting no science relevant to the WTC towers or any conspiracy

Again, despite this being critical of the other side - no quote, and again, your interpretation. When did he say exactly that, and have you not seen any science whatsoever, that is relevant?

It seems this is your method of argument - don't quote, just interpret it any way you like...

(aquatus admits as much from one side of his mouth but contradicts it from the other)

He does NO SUCH THING. He has clearly outlined his intent and he correctly answers the two questions I posed above. AGAIN, you refuse to quote, because you know the context does not support that interpretation. Disingenuous indeed.

When either you or Yamato actually quotes (in context) and then refutes/debates properly, I'll start listening. This handwaving and strawman-laced argumentation is tedious and, imo, showing disrespect to this forum and the moderators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. And I must ask - why do you not QUOTE what is being said, rather than (as usual), criticising posters for your interpretation? That interpretation appears highly biased, given the way that Aquatus1 has given appropriate provisos all the way.

I already quoted how the thread argument is disingenuous in my post #176: -

http://www.unexplain...65#entry4801963

To indicate my interpretation, I would ask these simple questions:

Can the collapses be accurately modeled to a high degree? (Hint, No, they cannot - there are far too many complexities and unknowns)

But does that mean any analysis cannot be reflective of the collapse? No, and THAT interpretation of yours is highly disingenuous.

Can proper analysis help us to find out what is likely to have happened and give a reasonably accurate picture? Yes.

disrespect to this forum and the moderators.

All agreed – the keywords being, “proper analysis”, which the example of this thread is not by any stretch of the imagination and therein lies the objection raised by myself, Little Fish and Yamato (though apparently an objection we are not allowed to raise here).

Again, despite this being critical of the other side - no quote, and again, your interpretation. When did he say exactly that, and have you not seen any science whatsoever, that is relevant?

From the start Yamato is effectively saying ‘aquatus is presenting no science relevant to the WTC towers or any conspiracy’: -

He's overselling us on what he's doing with "actual science" but it cannot translate to the 9/11 collapse because it's inconsiderate of 9/11's variables. I will agree to "I'm running values I made up with simplifications I made up using formulas I looked up in a physics textbook."

http://www.unexplain...50#entry4800923

Is your experiment addressing "the physics behind certain conspiracy claims"? If so, then how has my "derailment" brought that key point in fact out? If so, you should have established that in the OP. If you'd have cited the physics you're now referring to, that would have saved me from bothering with my criticism of your physics in the first place.

http://www.unexplain...95#entry4804342

Sorry Lilly, I'm trying to understand what this topic is, not re-define it. If the topic is a physics model like we're trying to confine the discussion to, then it's Science, not Conspiracy. If the topic is refuting 9/11 conspiracy theory physics with this particular model, then where are those physics?

http://www.unexplain...95#entry4804478

He does NO SUCH THING. He has clearly outlined his intent and he correctly answers the two questions I posed above. AGAIN, you refuse to quote, because you know the context does not support that interpretation. Disingenuous indeed.

Yes he does – aquatus says this thread is about the WTC collapse but not about the WTC collapse (see first link in this post again). And then attempts to shutdown any discussion pointing out why the example is not relevant to the WTC collapse.

Please don’t ask me for anymore quotes, please read the thread for yourself.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back on topic please.

This thread is a discussion on the scientific aspects of the collapse, it is not an open house to complain and argue about the premise of the topic or to chastise the moderators over their attempts to maintain a constructive discussion.

There are plenty of regular 9/11 conspiracy threads to participate in, stop trying to derail this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh...this is a good question, it's just a little difficult to address because, like in the above situation, we have real-world concepts mixing into Newtonian physics (which, remember, don't actually apply to the real world, but rather to donkeys vs. carts, ducks vs. planes, and Klingon battlecruisers vs. Romulan Birds of Prey).

Okay, if I understand you correctly, we have a table force = x N, and we have a bag of sand with force = x N, meaning that both have the same mass.

In the world of Newtons Law's, every object has a given amount of inertia and every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This means that conservation of momentum will be all but perfect, which puts us in a bit of a bind. We cannot have a table that will move (break) only when x N of force are present; every bit of force encountered will result in an equal and opposite reaction, no matter how miniscule. If the table refuses to budge or break (acceleration or deformation), then the sand would have no choice but to bounce up and away. The energy must be conserved.

We are intuitively accustomed to things such as tension force and elastic force, so for us, we don't even notice that we are imparting real world properties to something that is only meant to represent an abstract force. Our Newtonian table will not flex with the weight and dissipate the force unless we calculate it to.

The long and short of it is that the above scenario can't actually exist in a Newtonian model, which is why the argument that the top floors of the WTC were calculated as a solid block instead of as an aggregate mass isn't a valid complaint. In our avalanche model, we had to calculate not just the impact force, but we also had to calculate the behaviour of the mass in impact, whether elastic or inelastic, in order to determine how it was going to interact with the floor it hit, and what the floor it hit would do in turn.

Now, having said all that, let's see if we can talk about the spirit of the question:

Let's say your table will only collapse when x amount of force is exceeded. We have a bag of sand with mass equal to x amount of force.

  • If we are able to magically (i.e. no extra forces) place the bag on the table, then no problem, both forces are equal, table and bag stay where they are.
  • If we drop the bag from a given height h, the m + a (produced by the h) will exceed x, and the table will break.

Now, from the same h, we pour half of fsand x. We have the real world demanding we treat this as an inelastic collision, where the two masses merge but both stay still, but we have the Newtonian world demanding that something move, lest we violate conservation of momentum. Loss of kinetic energy is extremely difficult to calculate in the Newtonian world, because, unlike mass, it does depend a great deal on the form and consistency of the object. For the sake of the example, we are going to assume that the two masses merged (in other words, the sand stayed on the table, instead of flying off somewhere with equal and opposite acceleration to its own drop), but no movement resulted (the table did not break).

At this point, it becomes a logic problem:

  • If [fsandx/2) * a] did not generate sufficient force to break the inertia of [ftable x],
  • Then we can conclude that [fsandx/2) * a] would not be able to generate sufficient force to break the inertia of [ftable x] +the [1/2 fsandx] we dropped on it previously.

In other words, when we calculated the impact of the first drop, the table had the mass to produce x N of force, and the sand only had enough to produce half of x N. In the second drop, after we added half the mass from the sand, the table + sand combo had the mass to produce 1.5(x) N, while the sand remained producing only half of x N.

Think of it in terms of breaking inertia instead of breaking a table. It takes x amount of energy to move the table from rest. If we increase the mass of table, it will take even more energy to move that table from rest.

Did that make anything clearer?

thanks for the detailed explanation response, and yes some of it is now clearer. However just to be sure can you possibly answer the follwoing.....

would the table break in the following scenarios?

(based on the table not holding more than 1kg of weight, and also based on nothing bouncing off the table, and also when I use the term Bag of sand this means sand still in a bag.....1kg of sand is the sand emptied out of bag)

1- bag of sand placed on table slowly?

2- bag of sand dropped onto table from 5metres?

3- 1kg of sand poured onto table from 5metres high? (assume for this purpose that all grains of sand hit the table at the same time)

4- 1kg of sand poured onto table slowly from 5 metres high? (here the sand hits table over a span of 1minute)

5- half bag of sand dropped on table then the other half bag dropped onto table? (5 minutes apart)

6- 500g of sand poured onto table from 5metres, then a minute later the other 500g? (grains hit table at the same time split over two pourings though)

when you previously mentioned time being the key factor, does the time it takes for the sand (with force) to hit the table mean less force is put onto table? If when we use the example of half a bag dropping and we pretend that this force equates to just under 1kg, then when we drop the second bag a few minutes later, am I right in thinking the original force of just under 1kg reverts back to 500g when it comes to rest?

if so then wouldnt the debris hitting teh WTC floors have time inbetween changing the force if its not an accumalted force? how much time would it take for the first force to be exerted and taken out of the equation leaving just the weight alone less original force.

Jeez I hope this makes sense.....at worst it will hopefully make people smile and change the tone of thread :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for the detailed explanation response, and yes some of it is now clearer. However just to be sure can you possibly answer the follwoing.....

I can, however, bear in mind that it has been about 20 years since I last cracked open a physics textbook, and I was no great shakes at it to begin with. Like I said in my very first example, this is how I understand it.

would the table break in the following scenarios?

(based on the table not holding more than 1kg of weight, and also based on nothing bouncing off the table, and also when I use the term Bag of sand this means sand still in a bag.....1kg of sand is the sand emptied out of bag)

Right, new readers, please refer to the quoted section in his post. We are basically in a physics sandbox, where we are combining some aspects of abstract Newtonian physics and some aspects of real-world forces and processes. Our sand neither bounces nor penetrates, our table doesn't flex and breaks only when the downward force exceeds 1 kg.

And thank you for defining the bag and sand thing. I thought it might be unclear when I re-read my answer.

Alright then! Let's science out loud:

1- bag of sand placed on table slowly?

No matter how slowly you set it down, the same amount of force would be transferred. Time does not increase or decrease the amount of force; time just lessens the acceleration caused by it. Unless you magically (no force) put the bag on the table, it would go down.

2- bag of sand dropped onto table from 5metres?

Going down. Two equal masses (x amount of force), but falling mass has force from acceleration added.

3- 1kg of sand poured onto table from 5metres high? (assume for this purpose that all grains of sand hit the table at the same time)

4- 1kg of sand poured onto table slowly from 5 metres high? (here the sand hits table over a span of 1minute)

Same thing. 1 kg of sand (minus whatever insignificant mass the bag has), whether poured, dropped, loose or solidified, is going to have the same amount of mass, and the extra acceleration from gravity will multiply the energy (velocity squared). How long it takes the sand to stop falling on the table doesn't change the total amount of energy...but that force definitely wants to go somewhere. In this case, the table will break long before you finish pouring.

Now for something a bit more interesting:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5- half bag of sand dropped on table then the other half bag dropped onto table? (5 minutes apart)

6- 500g of sand poured onto table from 5metres, then a minute later the other 500g? (grains hit table at the same time split over two pourings though)

Ahh...tough one...Not in terms of time though.

As before, the amount of time isn't going to affect the amount of energy, but rather, in our example, there is no way for extra energy to be dispersed, and similarly, there is no way for extra force to be stored.

In real life, extra energy would either be dissipated as heat or stored by the tables elasticity. Our example has neither of these, and it is kind of crucial to the question.

At least, I thought it was.

Kick in the Butt Moment for Aquatus!!

This is a case in which I personally came to a wrong conclusion because I either asked the wrong question or made the wrong assumption, despite having the correct information in front of me. Goes to show how personal biases affect one's judgement, despite the amount of confidence one has!

The KE and the PE of 0.5 kg of sand would be the same, so we only have to account for the energy added due to acceleration. However, we are assuming the sand doesn't bounce off the table and the table doesn't move unless +1 kg of force hits it, soooo...where the heck does that energy go?

This is where I made my error in assumption. I was assuming there wouldn't be enough energy to move the table (break the inertia) to begin with, hence my logic:

  • If [fsandx/2) * a] did not generate sufficient force to break the inertia of [ftable x],
  • Then we can conclude that [fsandx/2) * a] would not be able to generate sufficient force to break the inertia of [ftable x] +the [1/2 fsandx] we dropped on it previously.

The above is absolutely, logically, true. However, it does not answer the spirit of the question, which is not "When will the table not break?", but rather "When will the table break?" By asking the wrong question, I supported my mistaken assumption and got a right answer, but not a correct answer (I included that last part because I know how much the usual suspects enjoy my wordplay). To clarify, I got the right answer for my assumption, but not the correct answer for the question that was being asked.

**Little Fish, if you are reading this, notice that even people accustomed to dealing with experiments and examples on a fairly regular basis can get caught with their pants down just because of a second's worth of inattention to whether they are asking the right question, or just confirming what they assume to be true. Both can give you the right answer, but the first one checks if you made a mistake, while the second just assumes you didn't. This applies every bit as much to real-life experiments as it does to math out loud.**

So, now that I am back on the right track:

How much energy are we dealing with? To find the impact force, we would have to apply the work-energy principle (1/2mvfinal2 - 1/2mvinitial2), but to do that, we need to know the distance traveled after impact, either positive or negative (bounce or penetration), but neither our sand nor our table intends to move...

.5 kg is about 5 N (4.9 N, but I'm trying to keep the math simple). Anything falling from 5 m would have about 10 m/s velocity at the point of impact, so v = 10 m/s. Let's assume it would stop in 0.1 m (if it wasn't in our physics sandbox), then the impact energy would be 245 N. That's about 25 kg, which is about 2.5 times the 10 N than would be needed to move (break) the table.

SO...

**In our crossed sandbox of real physics and Newtonian physics:**

Pouring or dropping (the sand can't tell the difference), as sand or as solid (table doesn't much care either), from a height of 5 m, .5 kg of sand will definitely break the table.

The highest you could pour the .5 kg of sand without breaking the table is .2 m, at which point the impact energy would be about 10 N (give or take), the equal of the table.

So, to make my previous answer more accurate, or at least, more useful:

  • If the height of [fsandx/2 * a] generates sufficient force to exceed the inertia of [ftable x], the table will fall.
  • If the height of [fsandx/2 * a] did not generate sufficient force to exceed the inertia of [ftable x],
    • On a Newtonian table:
      • The extra energy from acceleration would be dissipated (as heat or something) and leave just the mass of the sand,
      • And so, we can conclude that the height of [fsandx/2) * a] would not be able to generate sufficient force to exceed the inertia of both [ftable x] +the [1/2 fsandx] we dropped on it previously.

      [*]On a real-life table:

      • The extra energy would be stored in the flex of the table,
      • And so, at the next pour, the additional energy would likely push the table past the point of elastic instability, and break.

My previous answer was right (and "correct" in reference to my incorrect question), but insufficient, to the point that it implied that it was unlikely that a situation in which the table would fall did exist.

when you previously mentioned time being the key factor, does the time it takes for the sand (with force) to hit the table mean less force is put onto table?

No, it means the force is spread out over the length of time. Notice in our tower example how floor 11 hit the falling mass below it, as opposed to floor 10 hitting the resting mass below it; floor 11 had the same amount of mass as floor 10, but a much higher velocity. However, the energy floor 11 had was dispersed over a greater amount of time (the falling mass was still falling, even as floor 11 was trying to impact it), and the net result was a decrease in velocity for the entire mass (also, mass was bigger). Floor 10 had much less time to hit floor 9, but since the impact was faster (floor 9 never saw it coming), much more energy was transferred.

Or as another example, take a mousetrap and...

Think of a mousetrap. Have a friend gently clasp the trap on one of your fingers. Now, put your (hypothetical) finger on a locked and loaded trap, and push.

The amount of energy pushing down on your fingers is the same, as is the surface area of the bar. The only factor that has changed is how fast that energy hit your fingers.

If when we use the example of half a bag dropping and we pretend that this force equates to just under 1kg, then when we drop the second bag a few minutes later, am I right in thinking the original force of just under 1kg reverts back to 500g when it comes to rest?

Correct. The difficulty was figuring out where the extra energy would go, as our table example had a foot in both worlds.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if so then wouldnt the debris hitting teh WTC floors have time inbetween changing the force if its not an accumalted force? how much time would it take for the first force to be exerted and taken out of the equation leaving just the weight alone less original force.

In both the real world and the Newtonian world, the force accumulates. In the Newtonian world, it immediately transfers to momentum or kinetic energy of some kind (depending on what you are calculating). In the real world,it depends on the materials being impacted.

Now, there are two types of forces in the avalanche that we are dealing with. The first is the elastic force (not to be confused with elasticity), which is when objects maintain most of their energy (ricochet). The second is inelastic force, where objects lose energy, usually, but not always, due to deformation.

Elastic force delivers energy almost instantaneously. Think of those swinging steel ball things executives have on their desks. It goes so fast that the lack of time is practically part of the definition of an elastic collision. Energy lost here usually means that energy is busy hitting something else.

Inelastic collisions are a different kettle of fish. Lots of kinetic energy is lost in inelastic collisions, through breaking, as heat, merging, deforming, ejecting (I suppose). There is still energy left over, as no collisions in the real world can effectively transfer all its energy, but a lot of it is lost.

That's the part that it makes it difficult to calculate. In the WTC, prior to collapse, what you had was a bunch of beams and columns and trusses all dealing with a lot more compressive stress than they usually had, but what really kicked off the collapse was that the materials themselves, the steel, the concrete, everything that made up the support system, were in an environment that was drastically affecting the material's properties, primarily their elasticity.

Normally, most of these materials had a flexion more than equal to any load they encountered on a daily basis (and most they encountered on even bad days). They had the ability to absorb the energy into themselves, reverse it back upwards, and eventually return to their original form without damage.

On that terrible day, however, the support system was already maxed out, having lost quite a few of the redundant members. Additionally, while the compressive stress from the mass of the building above was causing them to flex as it always did, the heat and damage from earlier was affecting their properties, to the point that they no longer had the elasticity they had before. They did not have the ability to return to their original forms.

The top of the WTC towers was similar to the bag of sand that you were carefully trying to set down on the table. No matter how slowly you set it down, the table would flex until it reached a certain point, the point of elastic instability, where it failed catastrophically. In the case of the towers, the point of instability was drastically lowered by all the environmental factors. Eventually, the support system reached the point where, no matter how much it flexed, it could no longer flex back, and the whole thing failed.

Jeez I hope this makes sense.....at worst it will hopefully make people smile and change the tone of thread :blush:

Yeah, I wasn't helping much in that regards either...mea culpa.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course Urich trumps the AE911T case. He was himself a member of AE911T, but he looked at their case for controlled demolition and concluded that there wasn't a case: "...there is no claim favoring the controlled demolition hypothesis over NIST’s impact/fire/gravitational collapse hypothesis". He published an open letter to AE911T putting his arguments. That was back in 2009. If he didn't trump the AE911T arguments, why haven't AE911T been able to come up with an answer to him?

Here's his letter again:

http://www.cool-plac...RichardGage.pdf

[/background][/size][/font][/color]I'm sorry you can't understand the physics of the situation and that you don't understand how engineers and physicists use models, but I suppose if you could understand an argument like aquatus', you wouldn't be a conspiracist.

I have spoken with Greg a few times over at the 9/11Forum. A forum which he set up after the JREF forum were stifling legitimate debate.

And I do not wish to speak for him as such, although he disagrees with the A&E 9/11 Truth and a demolition hypothesis, he certainly doesn't agree with the NIST report or it's conclusions either.

p.s. Sorry for the derail, but I thought that needed addressing.

Edited by Stundie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, you are telling me that you will only accept what an authority figure of your choosing tells you to believe. I’m certainly glad you don’t adopt that approach when leading U.S. and Israeli politicians tell you the best course of foreign policy! Come on, consider the situation for yourself - the question I have twice put to you, and received no answer, regarding science within the NIST report is not difficult. I’ll try once more: -

Understanding that NIST’s base case comprised of
best
initial estimates and provided the
better
match to observable damage, please could you answer the question: which model is
most
considerate of 9/11’s variables?

Your quote below suggests you agree to meet this request: -

So please talk about the science and answer the question above.

Q, Policy makers aren't experts on anything in particular, they're corruptible personalities who do what's popular to the right people. Engineers are makers too and they're experts on what they make. Engineers probably have one of the most thankless careers of all career choices too. NIST are experts in their respective fields, but what they're not experts in is miraculous conspiracy hiding. To be a policy maker you don't need a PhD in policy making. My ex has a doctorate in International Relations, but she's not the one setting policy. She's writing painfully detailed research papers hoping to get published in the most obscure journals that nobody reads (i.e. the best Political Science journals out there).

Not to belabor your question any longer since you don't accept the answer I already gave, I think going with the best (and now, best revised) estimates and not tweaking a simulation to match up to actual/observed external damage would be the best approach. If that is done as it was by NIST then the results should be reasonably close to the observable damage and in fact they do match remarkably well. But I now feel as though this isn't allowed to be discussed here and I'm done with talking to one who'd rather judge me for my criticism of his claims than just answer my simple requests for the CT's science or at the very least, cite sources for these random statements about what " the CTs claim..."

But I'm pretty sure there's something more to it than just "ignoring, dismissing or shouting down the "actual science" (which is exactly what I feel was done to me and a few others when I was trying to get the OP closer to "actual"). For instance, you are correct to understand that what is supporting the weight of the building (weight which is, in part, the floors) is necessary for the initiation of collapse and any physics that ignore it have resultingly nothing to do with that initiation. Thank you for not attacking me personally for my posts #58, 68, and 69 where I must have been intellectually below you, dishonestly derailing, hijacking, trolling, strawmanning, not applying science and ub bub bub. How can you ever forgive me...right? :) I hope I can ultimately put some actual doubt about CT on your plate -maybe for the first time ever- and I won't rely on floating slabs that only experience gravity after they're hit from above, chopping your replies up into half sentences, or worst of all attacking your character. But not here though...

It's time for "My physics are better than your physics because you didn't crunch any numbers through arbitrary abstractions and I did" to carry on without my input here. The banter I get in reply to my admittedly negative questions about the topic is getting sickening to my stomach so I'll just take a hint and go where I'm welcome. I've never disagreed with anyone I've agreed with quite like this before, which is not something I'd ever deliberately decide to do, but hey! Peace ;)

Edited by Yamato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks for all your detailed responses and equations Aquatus, having never read a Physics book it has been great to see the discussion simplified.

:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a problem. I always enjoy showing off teaching others.

The collapse thing always annoyed me because of the ridiculously high level of misinformation being tossed around about it, considering that it didn't even cause the collapse to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a problem. I always enjoy showing off teaching others.

The collapse thing always annoyed me because of the ridiculously high level of misinformation being tossed around about it, considering that it didn't even cause the collapse to begin with.

that sounds quite a definitive statement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, right up there with my "Newton's laws don't actually apply to the real world". :D

As is usual from the CT crowd, the claims consist of a grain of truth followed by several dollops of "I don't know WTH I'm talking about." They liberally mix in the actual cause of the collapse with the progressive collapse of the floors. The progressive collapse of the floors, however, didn't cause the collapse. It was caused by the collapse.

Now, if was a suspicious person, I might think that this was done intentionally to mislead people into arguing the wrong case, however, I suspect that this was not so much intentional deception, as much as honest to goodness ignorance of the subject matter. Unfortunately, the CT approach to learning is "Massage the truth till it states what we want it to state." (Some might even conclude that many threads in the Conspiracy section are disingenuous and/or misleading :o !)

This particular thread, for instance, was prompted by the usual CT tactic of pretending something can't be solved and therefore it is evidence of a conspiracy. In this case, the cry was about complexity of modelling a complete collapse of a building. That's because, as they are wont to do, they began at the conclusion and never bothered to work any farther backward than they needed to to prove themselves correct (like I did in the sand bag example above).

As it turns out, however, if you calculate the basic physics from the basics forward, you find that it isn't really all that complicated to get to a point where, even though you don't have a complete simulation of the collapse, you have enough to find reasonable doubt in the conspiracy claims. If you start with the conclusion and try to go backwards, then you find yourself having to prove how a progressive collapse could have caused the WTC to fall. However, if you start from the simple end forward, all you really have to do is show that a progressive collapse could have taken down the building, regardless of what actually caused it.

Once you have cleared away the smoke the CT crowd is continously emitting from their collective rear ends (yeesh...theres an image for you...), the question becomes a little clearer: It isn't "How could a progressive collapse take down the WTC?", but rather "What caused the progressive collapse?"

It's such a tiny difference, it's so subtle, and yet, with that one little change, by asking the right question, suddenly we begin to notice how a lot of the CT claims suddenly become...well...irrelevant.

We get people claiming that the explanation requires the top to act like a solid block. Not only is this wrong, as we found out in our simple example, it is also unnecessary. It makes us focus on the impact of the avalanche being responsible for the collapse, instead of the support columns. But, as we saw in our example, regardless of whether the floor columns are present or not, we still have a workable avalanche. We can't handwave it away by saying it is and will always be too complex to solve, because we don't really need to solve it. An avalanche is incredibly complex. Trying to figure out how an avalanche cause the columns to fail would be almost impossible. However, if it is the other way around, if the failure of the columns caused the avalanche, then we don't really need to calculate anything too detailed about the avalanche itself. As long as the avalanche was possible, and it generated enough energy to take down the tower (and as we saw from the bag of sand example, you don't have to get too high up from the point of impact to meet and exceed the upward force), then we have confirmed that the building could collapse, and can focus on how the columns failed, without having to factor in the avalanche. Heck, as Little Fish pointed out, the NIST report didn't even bother going into the collapse after it had been initiated. For engineers, that sort of thing is so obvious that it doesn't merit too much effort.

Basically, this entire thread, to date, has been a detailed explanation of things so obvious to engineers that few of them even bother to think them through. However, by showing exactly how simply it can be broken down using little more than high school physics, we can show that many of the 9/11 claims regarding the collapse don't so much get refuted, as they get outed as being irrelevant.

That may not have made sense because it is 2:00 in the morning here, and I am having trouble keeping up in typing this out because my desk lamp is dictating it too quickly. If you need a clarification, I will be happy to.

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.