For Einsteen, the Plasma Physics expert [Archive]

View Full Version : For Einsteen, the Plasma Physics expert

Hellbound

11th October 2006, 02:29 PM

IN response to this post. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1992894#post1992894)

That is true Huntsman, I cannot physically understand the process. I'm able to reproduce Greening's first stage of collapse result (without excel) but only using his theoretical simplified model.

For a new model you need new observations, new estimatioins, new calculations and you get new results. Ever seen this Huntsman ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5gMAHnm0UA

Forgive me if I cannot explain it with my limited knowledge of physics, I can't

Don't feel bad, the person who created it can't explain it with their limited knowledge of physics, either.

Try doing the analysis on the entire film, instead of a still shot where they are following the arc of a cloud created from multiple pieces of debris, and pretending it came froma single source.

Not to mention, as you continually point out in a desperate attempt to hold onto some shred of credibility, it was a highly chaotic situation. Or do you believe every piece of debris thrown out went out at a uniform speed and with non-intersecting paths, so each and every piece would make nice, parabolic arcs?

OF course, I'm sure with your plasma physics degree you knew this.

Edited to Add:

Not to mention that they ignore the fact that a HUGE FREAKING BUILDING is falling right in the middle of the cloud. And they apparently think this happens in a vacuum, and that the air it would pull down behind it doesn't affect the dust and smoke.

einsteen

11th October 2006, 02:48 PM

I'm a software guy, about 10 years ago I finished my thesis and it had to do with 2d and 3d coulomb systems. I don't like these kinds of threads, I don't want to bluff with diploms etc. Have you not seen my comment in the video ? Please ask Tim to remove this. My only intention was the following picture, A=Greening=ideal theoretical model, B=more realistic

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/9884/image3lh2.gif

The choice is up to you

and what about this ?

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/WTC1_redLines.gif

Pardalis

11th October 2006, 02:49 PM

and what about this ?

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/WTC1_redLines.gif

The top section collapsed? Great find!

Hellbound

11th October 2006, 02:57 PM

I'm a software guy, about 10 years ago I finished my thesis and it had to do with 2d and 3d coulomb systems. I don't like these kinds of threads, I don't want to bluff with diploms etc.

I'm not intending to bluff with diplomas, YOU started that. YOU made the claim that you were correct ebcause you knew physics. YOU based your evidence on your own expert opinion, bringing your qualifications into the discussion.

If you don't want this to be about diplomas, then SHOW THE D@MN MATH.

Have you not seen my comment in the video ? Please ask Tim to remove this. My only intention was the following picture, A=Greening=ideal theoretical model, B=more realistic

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/9884/image3lh2.gif

The choice is up to you

and what about this ?

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/WTC1_redLines.gif

No, that's not nor has it ever been your only comment. If that were your only coment there wouldn't be an argument.

Your comments have ranged across the board, and continually change whenever we show how baseless they are.

Your initial comments were about how it shouldn't have collapsed because to much mass was thrown out. Then you wen to "the top block couldn't stay together, so it couldn't collapse completely". Then you wen to "no global collapse if it didn't stay together". Then you quoted Mrs. "Keebler" Woods, who thinks buildings should fall like trees (a proposition which directly contradicts what you've put forth here).

My question is, how does your model B make the collapse any less likely? You have CONTINUALLY asserted that this is so, and have YET to provide ANY basis WHATSOEVER for this statement beyond a woefully inadequate understanding of conservation laws and momentum.

By the way, what about the second picture? I have NEVER argued that the top stayed in one piece, in fact, I've consistently argued the opposite. THat's just your STRAWMAN you're using because you don't understand logic and you're desperately trying to avoid admitting your errors.

So, tell me, why does any of what you posted mean the official story, as outlined in the NIST report, is incorrect? How does ANY of this support the idea of CD?

einsteen

11th October 2006, 03:35 PM

Mackey said he got a physics degree, then I said I also had one. You started insulting me, with idiot, idiot and I indeed flipped out
at that moment. That's the story.
I gave a couple of examples about what I think what would happen without showing calculations, is that changing
arguments each time ? I even gave them numbers.
Mackey teached me that structures don't bounce, but what do we see ? Is it only a cloud that we see, from other
pictures you see that huge structures are ejected (think again about wtc7 who was hit) and there is no doubt about it
that a lot of mass is lost, steel beems are ejected. I would not expect that the upper structure disintegrates even before
falling a couple of stories, this was something I added to the discussion, I think we cannot ignore video evidence. Ok I had to
check what strawman means, you didn't say the top section didn't collapse,sorry about thatm, but then you now admit it does.
What do you want me to show, that a global collapse is impossible ? Everything in the whole process violates
the laws of physics and I'm not the only one who thinks that. Jim Hoffman, Gordon Ross, Steven Jones, Griffin,
they are much more better than you and me and they have totally other conclusions. I couldn't find NIST's global
collapse paper btw and I've searched my ass off.

Dog Town

11th October 2006, 03:55 PM

there is no doubt about it
that a lot of mass is lost,

How much do you need?

einsteen

11th October 2006, 03:58 PM

Hey NWO'er, give me as much as the Youtube boys got :D

Hellbound

11th October 2006, 04:04 PM

Mackey said he got a physics degree, then I said I also had one. You started insulting me, with idiot, idiot and I indeed flipped out
at that moment. That's the story.

No, I calle dyou an idiot becaus eof your obvious lack of understanding of basic physics, which you countered by claiming a degree and a tehsis in plasma physics. Then I called you an idiot for not only your lack of understanding, but your lies attempting to back that up.

I gave a couple of examples about what I think what would happen without showing calculations, is that changing
arguments each time ? I even gave them numbers.

Yeah, you numbered them 1, 2, 3...

Sheesh.

Show the calculations to back up what you said.

Mackey teached me that structures don't bounce, but what do we see ? Is it only a cloud that we see, from other
pictures you see that huge structures are ejected (think again about wtc7 who was hit) and there is no doubt about it
that a lot of mass is lost, steel beems are ejected.

Yeah, and?

I would not expect that the upper structure disintegrates even before
falling a couple of stories, this was something I added to the discussion, I think we cannot ignore video evidence.

No one has been ignoring video evidence, but you've been doing a flimsy analysis of it based on incorrect and inappropriate phsyics (at least in the one example you've shown) and a lot of unsupported assertions.

Ok I had to check what strawman means, you didn't say the top section didn't collapse,sorry about thatm, but then you now admit it does.

I ALWAYS "admitted" the top section collapses, that was never at issue except in your mind, where for whatever reason you seem to believe that if it collapses it ceases to have mass.

What do you want me to show, that a global collapse is impossible ?

That's what you keep claiming,k so that'd be nice, yeah.

Everything in the whole process violates the laws of physics and I'm not the only one who thinks that.

How? Be specific. Show the D@MN MATH THAT PROVES YOUR BS STATEMENT THAT IT VIOLATES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. BE SPECIFIC IN WHICH LAWS ARE VIOLATED.

It's easy for you to claim this, but you've produced NOTHING to actually even hint that this is the case.

Jim Hoffman, Gordon Ross, Steven Jones, Griffin,
they are much more better than you and me and they have totally other conclusions.

Much better than you, maybe. I DON'T believe they are much better than me, because they gave up on scientific method in order to support their pre-concieved opinions. Their conclusions are wrong. They haven't shown their math, either.

I couldn't find NIST's global collapse paper btw and I've searched my ass off.

The NIST report leads to the start of the collapse. There's nothing that remains to be explained. With the exception of you and a few other idiots, every structural engineer in the world undersatnds that once the upper portion collapsed global collapse was inevitable.

You are an idiot. That's why I called you that, and why I continue to do so.

Dog Town

11th October 2006, 04:06 PM

Hey NWO'er, give me as much as the Youtube boys got :D

Not how it works, "Physics" boy!

einsteen

11th October 2006, 04:17 PM

Hellbound

11th October 2006, 04:23 PM

As I said I'm in fact a no-faller, if that category of CT nutters doesn't exist already.

Let's take a concrete example, I just uploaded this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKc7szWd6nE

You cannot explain this behaviour mechanically as a falling block with an initial speed. Don't ask me for a formula because this is as basic as two cars that collide.

I don't try to explain this as a falling block with an initial speed.

I explain it as a falling mass with an initial speed, which it is.

You should be able to show something to support that this somehow proves that a global collapse was impossible, right?

I mean, surely you can show that, because the top portion was collapsing at the same time as it fell into the tower, that this somehow means the mass it contained was no longer affected by gravity, right?

Just a slight notice, you can also clearly see on your video that there was VERY LITTLE debris ejected while the upper portion was collapsing so ALL the mass of this upper portion landed on the next floor down.

It helps to UNDERSTAND what you're posting, einsteen, that way you might actually have something that supports your side of the argument.

WildCat

11th October 2006, 04:24 PM

uruk

11th October 2006, 04:27 PM

Zygar

11th October 2006, 04:30 PM

I just want to know what "Plasma Physics" is.

einsteen

11th October 2006, 04:31 PM

einsteen

11th October 2006, 04:54 PM

gmanontario

11th October 2006, 05:02 PM

The movie is from 911eyewitness, it stops at that moment, those are all frames.

Huntsman, you only have to show one strange aspect of the whole, this is the weakest link of the chain. But allright this happens, next step.

the mass is indeed in the block but if you have such a behavior it's one big chaos, could you calculate the downward component of momentum ? There is nothing that can be said about that, you could estimate it only.

Can you say "Shifting the burden of Proof" I know you can.

Why don't YOU calculate why the collapse was impossible. YOUR claim, YOU prove it. Huntsman doesn't have to prove anything. Surely a physics expert like yourself can show the basic math.

Didn't mean to speak for Huntsman of course but this tactic of the CTers makes me crazy trying to read it..:mad:

Hellbound

11th October 2006, 06:11 PM

Huntsman, I've send you a copy of my diplom.
I now throttle down a little bit because I often get a quarrel with my wife about my excessive computer usage, she is right. And these discussions don't make my life happier

No, you sent me a jpeg of a diploma.

First, I don't read the language. I'll see about that.* But more importantly, it's a diploma. Could be anyone. With the info you've blocked out, there no way I know if it's yours or copied from a website.

In any case, it doesn't really matter, because diploma or not you're still wrong. You've yet to support your arguments and you still show a lack of understanding of physics, and I'll add to that a lack of understanding of scientific process.

You talk about "one weak link in the chain". That's all I'm asking for, a single weak link. So far you've shown a lot of unsubstantiated opinion, a lot of argumetns from ignornace and arguments from incredulity, a lot of ad hoc reasoning and strawman arguments, but nothing to support, in any fashion, your assertion that the towers could not or should not have collapsed.

You have spectacularly missed the point. You have spectacularly failed to support your claims. As such I expect you to show some integrity, and either show evidence for your claims or quit spamming the board with them.

*Duh...there's English on it as well, now that I've downloaded it where I can examine it in detail.

Hellbound

11th October 2006, 06:40 PM

Just an addition...

the only thesis listed on UvA's doctoral thesis search that has to do with Coulomb is from a M.M. Kettenis, dated from 199.

Just PM me a yes or no if that's you, because an anonymous JPEG file doesn't do it.

That is, if you actually feel like proving yourself. I'd just as well have you support your arguments, I don't really care if you're a garbage truckdriver...I just find it hard to believe a physics major would make the elementary mistakes you have.

alexg

11th October 2006, 06:50 PM

I wonder if anybody noticed this in the video linked in op of this thread. The "arc" of debris that the author claims is caused by material being eject upward. Is actually cause by the vacuum or downward rush of air following the falling material in the center. It wierd that the author ignores the dust trails being sucked down in the center of the collaps when the video in motion. It gives the dust trail the appearance of arcing upward later in the collaps sequence.

.

You are correct sir! I checked myself. Pause the film at about 1:46 and the 'arc' is horizontile. I left a comment about this, crediting uruk, of course.

Also, look at the seconday 'explosion' the narrator refers to. It's actually a hunk of smoke that 'sticks' in place for some reason. Maybe it was a hunk of wall still standing, leaning back and forth for a moment? It actually seems to rise a tad, much, much less than the video suggests.

Gravy

12th October 2006, 02:37 AM

Here's what einsteen wrote when he posted that YouTube video:

Everyone always mentions Loose Change but IMO 911eyewitness is much better and should be watched seriously

And that's all you need to know about einsteen's ability to think rationally. Remember, people, einsteen is the guy who insisted that there was a huge explosion that sent a smoke cloud hundreds of feet into the air in front of WTC 7 BEFORE the towers collapsed.

He's still too lazy to do his homework. What a sad person.

einsteen

12th October 2006, 03:03 AM

Gravy

12th October 2006, 04:13 AM

Huntsman, I said you before privacy is important and asked you not to show anything about it, please respect that. I'm never gonna give the exact details, you cannot be trusted as I see already now.

Gravy, I don't get you, what do you mean ?
I mean you make wild, serious allegations, but you're too lazy to do any research to find out if they're true. Just a game, I guess. That makes me sad. After that ridiculous post about the "explosion" before the collapses, I encouraged you to do your research. You said you do. But you have continually proven that false.

Remember saying, "I never lie," and then immediately, in the next paragraph, making up a quote that you attributed to me? That's a lie you could have avoided with some research.

Another example: Yesterday you wrote (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1991817&postcount=72):

What I don’t understand is that it is such a discontinuous process; the block doesn’t hang at a wire, 3.7m above the building, that breaks by a candle flame, but you see a lot of strong intact steel, people standing, steel not popping out one-by one during that hour, but absolute silence in the structure for an hour. But then everything breaks at the same time, fact is that it happened of course, empirical observation, we see a kind of fire explosion and the building starts coming down.Another example of your shining ignorance and laziness. If you actually have a degree in theoretical physics (btw, perhaps "practical physics" might have served you better), you MUST have some idea of what the scientific method is, but you show no desire to use it to answer your own questions. Should we call you "Little Steven Jones?"

You say "What I don't understand is..." but you haven't done the least bit of research to TRY to understand. If you had, you would have turned up these accounts, which contradict your claims.

Before the collapse of either tower, evidence the structures of the WTC were failing was reported by Police, Firemen and civilians. As already mentioned, flying around outside the WTC, the NYPD helicopters reported "an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed." Inside WTC 1, New York City Fire Department's Assistant Chief Joseph Callan realized the building was in trouble even before the first building, building two, collapsed.

Interviewed Nov. 2, 2001, Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. –FDNY Chief Joseph Callan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Callan_Joseph.txt
CALLAN: For me to make the decision to take our firefighters out of the building with civilians still in it, that was very tough for me, but I did that because I did not think the building was safe any longer, and that was just prior to 9:30.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.41.htmlWith that as soon as said that the building [north tower] made groan like steel twisting. I didn’t have to tell those guys twice. We just started making line for West Street or the western side, the entrance we came in.

With that we ran out the front. There was, I think, a Chief’s aide sort of as a lookout saying “come on come on come on.” we stopped at the entrance as soon as he waved us on we go. We get to him. He was maybe 50 yards ahead of us, in front of us. On West Street I get to him and he says, “look at the building, Lou. The other one collapsed and this one is collapsing.” he showed me, about 20 stories up you see crack in the building. I look, “holy ****, the other buildings gone.” –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Bohack Minutes after the south tower collapsed at the World Trade Center, police helicopters hovered near the remaining tower to check its condition. "About 15 floors down from the top, it looks like it's glowing red," the pilot of one helicopter, Aviation 14, radioed at 10:07 a.m. "It's inevitable."

Seconds later, another pilot reported: "I don't think this has too much longer to go. I would evacuate all people within the area of that second building." http://www.mishalov.com/wtc_rescueplan.htmlFederal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall.

The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the pending collapse of the building,'' said Sivaraj Shyam- Sunder, who heads the institute, at a press briefing in New York. ``Any time that information could have been communicated faster to the emergency responders in the buildings, it would have helped save lives.

According to Shyam-Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam-Sunder said.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aCuh.ATdfOXc&refer=top_world_news
At 9:37, a civilian on the 106th floor of the South Tower reported to a 911 operator that a lower floor-the "90-something floor"-was collapsing. - "The 9/11 Commission Report" p304At that point I could actually visually see the top floors of the north tower starting to give way and that began to collapse. At that point we all began to run north. –Thomas Bendick, FDNY EMT After that, I got out of there as quick as I could because the building was decaying. I mean, there was fire coming out of it, fire dropping down, and at that point I think we started to notice bodies dropping from the buildings. FDNY LT. George DeSimoneGuys were giving us water, wet rags to put on our head, and we were standing there, and there was a cop I knew who came by and gave me a drink of water, and then as he was standing there, he said, "Aviation just reported that the north tower is leaning." I said, "Which way is it leaning?" He said,"This way." So we started to turn around walking. John Malley, who was right behind me, I turned around for him, because he was doing something, either putting his coat on or something, and as I was looking at him I heard the explosion, looked up, and saw like three floors explode, saw the antenna coming down, and turned around and ran north.

Q. About how long would you say it was from when the police officer told you it was leaning?

A. Within 30 seconds. –FDNY firefighter Kevin GormanWe reached the sixth or seventh floor and are met by many firefighters coming down the stairs, informing us that the upper floors are collapsing and that there’s a heavy odor of gas and fuel. –FDNY Firefighter Hugh Mettham
I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building's stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.

I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the command post where Chief Ganci was located. Told him where it was across the street from number 1 World Trade Center. I told him "You see Chief Ganci and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with the information that the building integrity is severely compromised and they believe the building is in danger of imminent collapse." So, he left off in that direction. –EMS Division Chief John PeruggiaJust at this time, another firefighter began to yell to us from across the street. He was looking up at the Towers and yelled for us to hurry up since he thought the second Tower was about to fall. The two firefighters and myself again picked up the injured man and managed to walk three of four steps when we felt extreme vibration and an incredible noise “like a thousand freight trains.” I knew instantly that the Tower was falling down. –PAPD Inspector Timothy NorrisI was standing there about 15-20 seconds when Inspector Fields ran up to me and said the building was going to come down. –PAPD P.O. Barry PikaardWhile I was on the phone with Stacy at the Police Desk we all of a sudden heard metal creaking. I looked up and saw the North Tower buckling from the top. It looked like the north and west sides of the building were twisting and then separating like a banana peel. –PAPD Detective Edward RappPedestrians began to form a crow[d] in the streets and I began to tell them to move back as far as the next block before the other building falls. As I continued to wave them back periodically you would hear a loud boom go off at the top of tower one. ...After approximately 15 minutes suddenly there was another loud boom at the upper floors, then there was a series of smaller explosions which appeared to go completely around the building at the upper floors. And another loud earth shattering blast with a large fire ball which blew out more debris and at that point everyone began to run north on West Broad Street. –PAPD P.O. MiddletonFDNY accounts here: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

PAPD accounts here: http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/

Essential reading and photos: NIST: Structural and Fire Protection Damage Due to Aircraft Impact: http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf

So tell us, einsteen, why should WE be doing the research about YOUR claims?

Hellbound

12th October 2006, 06:51 AM

Huntsman, I said you before privacy is important and asked you not to show anything about it, please respect that. I'm never gonna give the exact details, you cannot be trusted as I see already now.

Actually, you simply asked me not to post the diploma you sent, a request I have respected.

Everything else came from information YOU posted PUBLICLY in this and other threads. As to my question here, you could have responded via PM with a "yea" or "nay", and possibly (if yea) closed this issue.

And so I maintain my position that you do not hold a physics degree. You've shown nothing to indicate otherwise. You seemed all ready to fall back on your personal reputation earlier in the debate, when you thought it would lend weight to your assertions...now you're suddenly shy and don't want to back up your statements. Fair enough, the issue of wether or not you have a degree is secondary in any case (and only pursued to show character).

So, anything yet to back up your various assertions that a non-intact block would somehow be immune to conservation of momentum or gravity? Any physics to show that the edge of a dust cloud is an accurate representation of a ballistic trajectory? Any indication, whatsoever, that you understand physics at a basic, Newtonian, high school level, and can use that knowledge to put forth a reasonable hypothesis?

Didn't think so. I'm still waiting.

einsteen

12th October 2006, 06:55 AM

I will provide a calculation especially for you.

cloudshipsrule

12th October 2006, 07:23 AM

Einsteen, is English your native language? (Don't take the question the wrong way, I'm just asking.)

einsteen

12th October 2006, 07:32 AM

No, but I'm not insulted if you say it sucks...

ps. Huntie I'm not that guy, master thesises never appear online. I had it once online using but you won't find it even not in archive.org, but as you already clearly said, if you talk bull then your background doesn't matter

cloudshipsrule

12th October 2006, 07:41 AM

I don't think it sucks. I was just curious. In fact, it's quite good for a non-native speaker.

einsteen

12th October 2006, 07:53 AM

It took a while for me to learn it, even after school lessons it was bad, i've learned more from 10 years internet and reading English books than from all English lessons. In most European countries the TV is completely English, in Germany they overdub it, in Belgium or the Netherlands they use subtitles. The whole music top 50 is English etc.