Introductory Physics Vs. 9/11 TRUTH!!!

[JonnyFive]

This is going to be a horrible, horrible re-tread of things that have been done to death in other threads, but it's been slow over here, and I'd just like to point something out or else I will probably go insane and hurt myself or others.

I'm taking classes (university offers online course so I can wedge it in with work and all) again to eventually get a second BS, this one in mathematics. I'm required to take one more natural science course, so I decided it'd be fun to take physics 110 (introductory physics). I started the class, keep this in mind, four days ago. I have read exactly four chapters out of "Conceptual Physics", an introductory text. I have not taken physics since high school.

Already, there are several equations that I think the troofers are totally unaware of. For example, there's this happy little fellow:

d = ½gt

Which handily disproves claims that, say, it should've taken the towers 42 seconds to fall under the influence of gravity alone.

And then we have another old favorite:

a = F/m

From which we derive the classic F = ma equation, that gives us an idea of the huge freaking amounts of force involved in the collision between an airplane going 500 miles and hour and a bloody building! Never mind the massive amounts of force involved when a huge chunk of that building comes down. But no, the lower floors should have somehow stopped a huge chunk of mass somehow using, perhaps, magic.

They think they know better than all the engineers in the world, but there are things in the first twenty pages of my basic text that contradict key elements of their beliefs.

These are simple, simple concepts that do not take massive amounts of brainpower to understand. The fact that troofers will do things like, divide 430 m by 9.8 m/s to get 44 s (sooo... what happened to the rest of the units? Did Bush steal them?) is moronic on levels I have trouble comprehending.

The fact that Killtown thinks you can add 500 mph to 120 ft and get 620 ft (I know the numbers were different, but my point stands) is moronic on a level that causes me physical pain. It violates such a fundamental rule of basic mathematics that I can't even comprehend how you come to think this stuff is proof of anything. 500x + 120y does not equal freaking 620y! 500 kittens plus 120 mice does not equal 620 mice! It does not work like that!

I literally cannot understand how anyone can be this stupid. If you don't know how to calculate the expected free-fall (never mind it isn't free fall, the full calculation is way out of their league) time of an object over a given distance, don't do it! Half of being intelligent is knowing when you don't know squat, and should simply shut the heck up.

Can someone please honestly tell me: This is all a funny joke, right? There aren't really people that think this stuff out there, right?

[Quad4_72]

Why in the world was that all in italics? My eyes hurt now.

[Quad4_72]

Oh and by the way you are 100% correct.

[JonnyFive]

Why in the world was that all in italics? My eyes hurt now.

Because the editor doesn't like me very much. I fixed it, apologies.

[Quad4_72]

Because the editor doesn't like me very much. I fixed it, apologies.

Haha. Thanks:) My eyes were like this before: :eye-poppi

[Belz...]

I literally cannot understand how anyone can be this stupid. If you don't know how to calculate the expected free-fall (never mind it isn't free fall, the full calculation is way out of their league) time of an object over a given distance, don't do it! Half of being intelligent is knowing when you don't know squat, and should simply shut the heck up.

Well, that's the thing. The people that AREN'T that stupid AREN'T truthers.

[HeyLeroy]

(snip)

From which we derive the classic F = ma equation, that gives us an idea of the huge freaking amounts of force involved in the collision between an airplane going 500 miles and hour and a bloody building! Never mind the massive amounts of force involved when a huge chunk of that building comes down. But no, the lower floors should have somehow stopped a huge chunk of mass somehow using, perhaps, magic.

(snip)

"Huge freaking amounts" sounds too sciencey. I found this that puts it into layman's terms:D

The gravitational potential energy associated with the collapse of each tower is at least 1011 J. The energy propagated as seismic waves for ML 2.3 is about 106 to 107 J. Hence, only a very small portion of the potential energy was converted into seismic waves. Most of the energy went into deformation of buildings and the formation of rubble and dust. The perception of people in the vicinity of the collapses as reported in the media seems to be in full accord with the notion that ground shaking was not a major contributor to the collapse or damage to surrounding buildings. The seismic energy of a ML 0.7 to 0.9 computed for the impacts is a tiny fraction of the kinetic energy of each aircraft, about 2 X 109 J. That associated with the combustion of 50 to 100 tons of fuel in each aircraft is roughly 1012 J, most of which was expended in the large fireballs (visible in TV images) and in subsequent burning that ignited material in each tower.
Less than a millionth of the fuel energy was converted to seismic waves.Source (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf)

[JonnyFive]

"Huge freaking amounts" sounds too sciencey. I found this that puts it into layman's terms:D

The sound you hear is a hundred troofer eyeballs rolling back into their sockets.

Why do you hate Truth, HeyLeroy, why do you hate America?

[jaydeehess]

..........
If you don't know how to calculate the expected free-fall (never mind it isn't free fall, the full calculation is way out of their league) time of an object over a given distance, don't do it! Half of being intelligent is knowing when you don't know squat, and should simply shut the heck up.



Yep, I found it certainly beyond me but found others to help.

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=othertheories&thread=1169750027&page=1

and

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73314

[JonnyFive]

Yep, I found it certainly beyond me but found others to help.

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=othertheories&thread=1169750027&page=1

and

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73314

You silly person. Don't you know you should've just made up some crap and claimed to be a super genius that knows everything?

Look, I can calculate the power of the Star Wars beam that destroyed the towers:

430m is the approximate height.
9.8 m/s^2 is the acceleration from gravity.

We divide 430 by 9.8 to get 43.88 J for some reason.

43.88 times 430 again is 18,868.

So, clearly, it required a laser beam of approximately 18,868 gigajwatts to cause the towers to fall at over 4 times free fall speeds.

The saddest part of all this is that you're looking at crazy things like "air resistance", when they can't even get basic free-fall right. I think you're several orders of magnitude out of their league.

[HeyLeroy]

The sound you hear is a hundred troofer eyeballs rolling back into their sockets.

Why do you hate Truth, HeyLeroy, why do you hate America?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/619745ba56fcccd5c.jpg

[JonnyFive]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/619745ba56fcccd5c.jpg

Actually, you've got a pretty good point there.

DEATH TO THE INFIDELS!

[Andúril]

Already, there are several equations that I think the troofers are totally unaware of. For example, there's this happy little fellow:

d = ½gt

Which handily disproves claims that, say, it should've taken the towers 42 seconds to fall under the influence of gravity alone.

And then we have another old favorite:

a = F/m

From which we derive the classic F = ma equation, that gives us an idea of the huge freaking amounts of force involved in the collision between an airplane going 500 miles and hour and a bloody building!
Yep, I have a couple of times tried to explain the meaning of these two little formulaes to the CTists - and always they have started to scream that they are irrelevant.:rolleyes:

So how can you discuss anything if the opposition is too ignorant or retarded to even understand what you are saying and then just continue spreading their crap? It can sometimes be quite frustrating.

[Hutch]

I have said it before and I'll say it again: The CT'ers keep bringing Pictures and Videos to a Math and Physics Fight--and then simply can't understand why we think we've won the argument.

Old Robert Anson Heinlein, in the guise of Larzarus Long, may have said it best:

If it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion

Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable sub-human who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house.

[Big Les]

A little harsh, don't you think? I can barely add 2+2, but I'm fairly intelligent in other areas, and most importantly, I *know* I can't do maths, so I let people who can, do it instead. It requires an element of trust on my part, but I'm comfortable with that. I wish the troofers were...

[jaydeehess]

I can barely add 2+2, but I'm fairly intelligent in other areas, and most importantly, I *know* I can't do maths, so I let people who can, do it instead. It requires an element of trust on my part, but I'm comfortable with that. ...

Then you are human since this is how you cope with mathematics and get the correct answers to math questions.
The twoofers instead take numbers, throw them in a box, shake the box and assume that correct answer will fall out a hole cut in the top.

[DrDisco]

I'm with you, Les. I stink at math. But I trust and admire those who have a good grasp of it!

My brother's a big CT. Drives me nuts. Been lurking for a few days here, learning how to combat that kind of thinking (or non/over-thinking as the case may be) and decided to join. Sorry my first post is such a dud, tho'! I promise I'll have more to contribute after I get the swing of things around here!

[JimBenArm]

I'm with you, Les. I stink at math. But I trust and admire those who have a good grasp of it!

My brother's a big CT. Drives me nuts. Been lurking for a few days here, learning how to combat that kind of thinking (or non/over-thinking as the case may be) and decided to join. Sorry my first post is such a dud, tho'! I promise I'll have more to contribute after I get the swing of things around here!
Hey there, another new guy!

Welcome to the forums, DrDisco!

[steve s]

And then we have another old favorite:

a = F/m

From which we derive the classic F = ma equation, that gives us an idea of the huge freaking amounts of force involved in the collision between an airplane going 500 miles and hour and a bloody building!

A more appropriate equation would have been

Kinetic Energy=(0.5)m(v^2)

The problem with using F=ma is that an airplane traveling at a constant velocity has zero acceleration.

Steve S.

[DavidJames]

Notice on threads dedicated to math, you never see the tin hatters.

[jaydeehess]

A more appropriate equation would have been

Kinetic Energy=(0.5)m(v^2)

The problem with using F=ma is that an airplane traveling at a constant velocity has zero acceleration.

Steve S.


How about

F=deltap/t
where p=momentum , t= time

Thus the force on the tower perimeter would be the change in momentum of the aircraft mass as it passed through the perimeter frame divided by the time it took to do so.

OR

The force exerted on the building as a whole is the momentum of the aircraft divided by the time it took for all the aircraft mass to come to a stop within the building(minus that little bit for the parts that went right through)

[jaydeehess]

Notice on threads dedicated to math, you never see the tin hatters.

pure co-incidence I am sure

[Minadin]

A more appropriate equation would have been

Kinetic Energy=(0.5)m(v^2)

The problem with using F=ma is that an airplane traveling at a constant velocity has zero acceleration.

Steve S.
The F=ma equation isn't entirely inappropriate though, since there must be a force acting on the plane in order to maintain its speed and negate the decelleration due to the friction of the air it's travelling through. Your formula is just a lot simpler to use because you don't have to waste a whole ton of time trying to figure what that force is, since you already know those particular variables . . . (m & v)

:whistling

Not bad for just the first couple of chapters in, though.

A few years back when I was tutoring the gorgeous brunnette across the hall in Algebra, we both found out that they make you learn how to do some things the difficult way at the beginning. They were actually giving her quadratics to solve in like chapter 2, and when I was going over them with her, the text actually suggested that they figure the answers by guessing values for X and Y, trying to make each guess closer until your equation "worked". You were expected to show your work for this, as well.

Well, I went along with this for a little bit, it was fun enough, until we got to one a few problems later, where X and Y weren't integers. At that point I got fed up and showed her how to use the quadratic equation, which is how we proceeded for the rest of the assignment. It turns out that her professor actually wanted them to get fed up with quadratics, so that they would appreciate the formula more . . . when they learned it in Chapter 3. :boxedin:

[Alareth]

I literally cannot understand how anyone can be this stupid. If you don't know how to calculate the expected free-fall (never mind it isn't free fall, the full calculation is way out of their league) time of an object over a given distance, don't do it! Half of being intelligent is knowing when you don't know squat, and should simply shut the heck up.

Can someone please honestly tell me: This is all a funny joke, right? There aren't really people that think this stuff out there, right?

Long ago I developed something I call the "Three Word Rule."

It's a philosophy that I live my life by, because without it, I would go absolutely [rule8]ing insane.

The three words are, "People are stupid"

It works something like this. I'll be at work and a customer will walk in the door:

Me: "Welcome to RadioShack, how can I help you?"
Customer: "Yes, I just remodeled my kitchen and it's all done with exposed beams. I need power in the breakfast nook and there is no way to hide the wires. Do you have any wireless electrical outlets?"

You see what happened there? The only way to maintain sanity is to say to myself, "People are stupid".

I see a deep fundamental lack of basic understanding of how the world in general operates on a daily basis.

Sometimes it sounds very CTish as well. I often have exchanges like this one:

Customer: "I don't know anything about this and I'm not sure if they make such a thing, but I need something that does X"
Me: "Yes sir, all you need is one of these."
Customer: "I don't think that's right. That doesn't make sense to me"

I was asked the question because, by nature of my job, I am the expert on the subject. Then my conclusions and recommendations are rejected because the first party, who admits they know nothing about the subject tries to apply what they feel to be "common sense".

This happens several times a day.

Basic, simple things become complex brain twisters for what seems to be an overwhelming majority of people I deal with.

Want to take a wild guess at what appears to be the single most difficult concept on the planet? Any device that is used inline with something else. Usually this applies to VCR's, answering machines and caller ID boxes.

Wall --> Wire --> Device --> Wire --> Device

I explain it. I draw pictures. I demonstrate it with items in the store. I am met with the confused gaze of a dog attempting to do calculus.

If the "Three Word Rule" is too harsh for you, then try this one. "Ignorance can be fixed, stupidity lasts a lifetime."

[William Rea]

This is going to be a horrible, horrible re-tread of things that have been done to death in other threads, but it's been slow over here, and I'd just like to point something out or else I will probably go insane and hurt myself or others....Can someone please honestly tell me: This is all a funny joke, right? There aren't really people that think this stuff out there, right?

You will understand in time that the only acceptable Physics on this forum comes from politically orthodox contributors. The free fall thing has been done to death but I have posted on this previously and offer this slightly edited version of that explanation to you.

"Free fall means falling ONLY under the influence of gravity with no other forces being involved. In this pure state the object will fall at 9.81 metres per second squared regardless of mass. It will continue to accelerate at this rate unless acted upon by any other force.

If you were to take a weight and drop it in a vacuum from the height of the roof of the WTC at 411 metres from the ground then it will take 9.15 seconds to hit the ground.

The actual value of g for New York is 9.802 metres per second so the time to free fall would actually be 9.158 seconds."


ANY mass (starting from zero initial velocity) be it a feather, a biscuit or a cannonball falling only under the influence of gravity (acceleration due to gravitational force) in a vacuum (no air resistance) over a distance of 411 metres will take 9,15 seconds to travel that distance (depending upon which value of g is appropriate). That is the benchmark for the fall NOT the failure of the building.

It is very difficult for us to intuitively grasp terms like Joules and g so don't be phased and put off the mathematics by people quoting numbers like 10^11 Joules. It becomes even more confusing when Physicists revert to the energy model for falling objects (KE. PE etc) but again the mathematics is relatively easy to understand so don't be phased by it.

I believe that the intuitive question that that most people are asking themselves (amongst others) is how did those towers fall in a time so close to 9.15 seconds?

[babazaroni]

I believe that the intuitive question that that most people are asking themselves (amongst others) is how did those towers fall in a time so close to 9.15 seconds?

Do you consider 14+ seconds close to 9.2 seconds?

Time it yourself. This video starts after the collapse has started.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/tower_collapsing4web.wmv

Also note that first debris hits the ground at least 5 seconds before collapse ends.

[NobbyNobbs]

A more appropriate equation would have been

Kinetic Energy=(0.5)m(v^2)

The problem with using F=ma is that an airplane traveling at a constant velocity has zero acceleration.

Steve S.


Actually, F=ma is a perfectly valid equation to use, if you look at it right. Sure, the airplane starts off at a constant velocity. But it comes to a stop very quickly when it hits the building. This is a large (negatively valued, but don't confuse the CTers with this) acceleration. A large (de)acceleration multiplied by the large mass of the airplane equals a very large force imparted on the airplane.

Then invoke Newton's 3rd Law. If this force was imparted on the airplane by the building, then the same force was imparted on the building by the airplane.

But you're right, when figuring out why the structure failed, calculating energy is probably more worth your while. I just wanted to point out that Newton's 2nd does hold up.

[A W Smith]

It is very difficult for us to intuitively grasp terms like Joules and g so don't be phased and put off the mathematics by people quoting numbers like 10^11 Joules. It becomes even more confusing when Physicists revert to the energy model for falling objects (KE. PE etc) but again the mathematics is relatively easy to understand so don't be phased by it.

I believe that the intuitive question that that most people are asking themselves (amongst others) is how did those towers fall in a time so close to 9.15 seconds?

I think the word you are looking for is fazed (http://www.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/faze) unless your talking about something syncronized (http://www.meriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=phased)or electricity.

[JimBenArm]

You will understand in time that the only acceptable Physics on this forum comes from politically orthodox contributors.


Politically correct physics?

What is this supposed to mean? Physics is physics. No one's political beliefs change it. This has got to be one of the most stupid things anyone has ever said!

It's going into the top quotes thread.

Wow. Just wow.

[ArmillarySphere]

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/tower_collapsing4web.wmv

That's not a terribly good video to show the collapse time - the dust hides most of what's happening after a while. There's another one filmed from below the towers that has a pretty audible "thump" after about 14 seconds, though.

I didn't time it, but I estimate the debris falling ahead of the collapse front hits the ground at about 9 seconds into the video. By that time, the collapse front still has some 100-odd floors to travel, since it's about level with the surrounding buildings.

[Gravy]

You will understand in time that the only acceptable Physics on this forum comes from politically orthodox contributors. More tedious lecturing from William Rea. Yawn.

People here are quite open to correction. Please point out the errors you've found.

I don't recall seeing your calculations showing how fast the towers should have collapsed. Have you done that work?

[Gravy]

That's not a terribly good video to show the collapse time - the dust hides most of what's happening after a while. There's another one filmed from below the towers that has a pretty audible "thump" after about 14 seconds, though.

I didn't time it, but I estimate the debris falling ahead of the collapse front hits the ground at about 9 seconds into the video. By that time, the collapse front still has some 100-odd floors to travel, since it's about level with the surrounding buildings.100-odd floors? That's one slow collapse front. It went backwards!

[babazaroni]

That's not a terribly good video to show the collapse time - the dust hides most of what's happening after a while. There's another one filmed from below the towers that has a pretty audible "thump" after about 14 seconds, though.


Yes, there is no single good video. But when you consider that this video starts after the collapse starts and the video itself is 15 seconds long, 14 seconds is not unreasonable.

At 12 seconds into the video, right when the loud OMG is heard, you see the core drop behind the large brown building. (not counting the columns that stood for a while)

I would like to find the original source for this clip, since it looks like it starts a couple seconds into the collapse.

You should post the link to the "thump" video. If it is better, I would start using that to debunk the near free fall claim.

[beachnut]

I believe that the intuitive question that that most people are asking themselves (amongst others) is how did those towers fall in a time so close to 9.15 seconds?

Because that is the time it takes to fall? Yes the most massive objects would fall close to the time in a vacuum because the force of the air is negligible for large masses. Yes large masses beat air by mass. Large mass vs not so massive air. Air lost!

As for the time of the towers falling it is wrong to say the towers fell in 10 seconds since major portions were still falling at 20 to 30 seconds.

It was funny at LCF they destoryed physics but they worked it out and finally agreed. But then they failed to connect the dots.

[Arus808]

I saw this image from a "recent' physics exam:
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3849/elephantinthewayrg0.jpg
I couldn't help but laugh; but this one was funny as well (you know, its that maths stuff):

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/2931/findxbl1.jpg


and an article on the declining quality in mathematics in the US:
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2007/1/25/174426/953

which pretty much describes the those in the Truth movement.

[Minadin]

Oh, snap. Those are hilarious. :D

Of course X=5 on the second one, but I can't figure the first because of the damned elephant.

[William Rea]

More tedious lecturing from William Rea. Yawn.

People here are quite open to correction. Please point out the errors you've found.

I don't recall seeing your calculations showing how fast the towers should have collapsed. Have you done that work?

Filed your post under I for ignore and R for report to the moderation. No more to say to you on the subject.

[William Rea]

I think the word you are looking for is fazed (http://www.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/faze)unless your talking about something syncronized (http://www.meriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=phased)or electricity.

I believe the word we use in England, in the language created by us, is phased. If you wish to use fazed that's fine, Shakespeare would not have disapproved of that.

Set phasers to stun.

[William Rea]

Politically correct physics?

What is this supposed to mean? Physics is physics. No one's political beliefs change it. This has got to be one of the most stupid things anyone has ever said!

It's going into the top quotes thread.

Wow. Just wow.

You deny that there is a scientific orthodoxy?

The rest of your post just about sums up the point I was making, but please if you are going to do that use the exact phrase in your immature little top quotes thread at least use what I typed and not what you would like to think I typed.

[Andúril]

A more appropriate equation would have been

Kinetic Energy=(0.5)m(v^2)

The problem with using F=ma is that an airplane traveling at a constant velocity has zero acceleration.

Steve S.


How about

F=deltap/t
where p=momentum , t= time

Thus the force on the tower perimeter would be the change in momentum of the aircraft mass as it passed through the perimeter frame divided by the time it took to do so.

OR

The force exerted on the building as a whole is the momentum of the aircraft divided by the time it took for all the aircraft mass to come to a stop within the building(minus that little bit for the parts that went right through)

Isn't F=ma is practically the same as F=mv (yes, that probably doesn't exist, but that's how it's practically applied), or the very similar p=mv?

[maccy]

I believe the word we use in England, in the language created by us, is phased. If you wish to use fazed that's fine, Shakespeare would not have disapproved of that.

Set phasers to stun.

No, the word we use in England is fazed.

If you wish to use phased then you just show your ignorance of the word as it is currently spelled and risk confusing your intended audience. Shakespeare would most definitely not approved of this.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=28245&dict=CALD

To suggest that the English created a language which is derived from so many other languages is a bit silly as well. Likewise, it is nonsensical to assume that somehow the English have ownership of a language wherever it is spoken or that British English is in some way superior to other varieties of English.

[William Rea]

No, the word we use in England is fazed.

If you wish to use phased then you just show your ignorance of the word as it is currently spelled and risk confusing your intended audience. Shakespeare would most definitely not approved of this.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=28245&dict=CALD

To suggest that the English created a language which is derived from so many other languages is a bit silly as well. Likewise, it is nonsensical to assume that somehow the English have ownership of a language wherever it is spoken or that British English is in some way superior to other varieties of English.

I stand corrected on the spelling of Fazed and apologise for any confusion. My slang is not good.

Who put together the elements of the English language into a coherent body, the Swiss?

Of course we own the language as it is spoken by the English and it is superior in every way to the bastardisations that Microsoft wish to impose on the World.

[uk_dave]

I stand corrected on the spelling of Fazed and apologise for any confusion. My slang is not good.

Who put together the elements of the English language into a coherent body, the Swiss?

Of course we own the language as it is spoken by the English and it is superior in every way to the bastardisations that Microsoft wish to impose on the World.

The english language is a mass of spelling mistakes created by the first printers who had no standardised version to follow, so don't get too precious about it.

Having said that, we should try to use what we have in a coherent and..ummm..you know...like....clear...and....erm.... precise...sort of way...kinda.

[Architect]

No, the word we use in England is fazed.



Ahem...........


England?



What do we use in Scotland? "Giraffes"? ;)

[kookbreaker]

Ahem...........


England?



What do we use in Scotland? "Giraffes"? ;)


No, you use 'Beeswax'. Its a very odd language sometimes.

[uk_dave]

I thought it was "Mynezapint"

:D

[maccy]

Ahem...........


England?



What do we use in Scotland? "Giraffes"? ;)

I was deliberately copying William's bigoted and self-important style, for (I hoped) satiric effect. It was he who claimed England as the only country with proper English.

As far as I'm aware, the word is "fazed" in all English-speaking countries.

And it isn't a slang word, so I'm not sure why William is making the excuse that his slang is not good.

[jaydeehess]

Isn't F=ma is practically the same as F=mv (yes, that probably doesn't exist, but that's how it's practically applied), or the very similar p=mv?

You are correct. There is no F=mv
momentum is mass times velocity. A change in momentum over an elapsed time gives the force required to cause a mass to change its velocity in that time period.

Architect writes
What do we use in Scotland? "Giraffes"?

You might as well since there is not likely to be any other use for that word in Scotland. That's why we Canadians use "Gnu" as a verb meaning "about to":D

BTW on a point of Gaelic. There is a local group that calls itself the "Lochaniel Society". This arises from the fact that the lake we are on the shores of is called "Lake of the Woods". Would they be correct in assumiong they have named their society after a translation of the name of the lake?
(or are there too many dammned vowels in it:D )

[jaydeehess]

:D Politically correct physics. that's rich:D

If one is speaking about cutting edge physics such as string theory or quantum mechanics then this may have a bit of significance. However in speaking about the way things behave in the marco-world we inhabit in our daily lives then it is way out in left feild.

[Architect]

BTW on a point of Gaelic. There is a local group that calls itself the "Lochaniel Society". This arises from the fact that the lake we are on the shores of is called "Lake of the Woods". Would they be correct in assumiong they have named their society after a translation of the name of the lake?
(or are there too many dammned vowels in it:D )

Woods or forest are normally coille (from whence cometh Capercaillie).

An usually means "of the", so "Loch of the <blankety blank>" works, however a "lochan" is a small loch, or what in the rest of the UK get's called a tarn. :confused:

Personally, I think this mob just bolloxed it up. Happens a lot. Two of my favourites are people who give their kids Gaelic names but can't spell 'em, and thereafter those who can't pronounce the names they gave their kids. :boggled:

[Architect]

I thought it was "Mynezapint"

:D


Akchoooaly, I think you'll find that should be "Gieusapint", or alternatively "Twapintsatha'then" ;)

[JimBenArm]

You deny that there is a scientific orthodoxy?

The rest of your post just about sums up the point I was making, but please if you are going to do that use the exact phrase in your immature little top quotes thread at least use what I typed and not what you would like to think I typed.

Oh, I think I struck a nerve here!

There is an orthodoxy in science, yes. It requires things like facts, ability to reproduce results, and peer review to expose flaws.

However, that is not what you tried to imply. Your implication was that this "orthodoxy" was "political", keeping any real scientists from seeking the truth, for fear of being shunned and outcast, or suffering other consequences.

Just another tired attempt to tar the reputations of lots of good people, only trying to use different rhetoric to disguise it.

[beachnut]

You deny that there is a scientific orthodoxy?

But it is only in the truth movement.

The dolts and CTers behind the truth movement are in a scientific orthodoxy of lies. Do you agree?

[William Rea]

The english language is a mass of spelling mistakes created by the first printers who had no standardised version to follow, so don't get too precious about it.

Having said that, we should try to use what we have in a coherent and..ummm..you know...like....clear...and....erm.... precise...sort of way...kinda.

Which was exactly my point.

[William Rea]

Oh, I think I struck a nerve here!

There is an orthodoxy in science, yes. It requires things like facts, ability to reproduce results, and peer review to expose flaws.

However, that is not what you tried to imply. Your implication was that this "orthodoxy" was "political", keeping any real scientists from seeking the truth, for fear of being shunned and outcast, or suffering other consequences.

Just another tired attempt to tar the reputations of lots of good people, only trying to use different rhetoric to disguise it.

Ooh yeah, ya got me there!

I wasn't implying, I was saying, nothing underhand at all. There is an orthodoxy on here.

Do you deny that?

[William Rea]

:D Politically correct physics. that's rich:D

If one is speaking about cutting edge physics such as string theory or quantum mechanics then this may have a bit of significance. However in speaking about the way things behave in the marco-world we inhabit in our daily lives then it is way out in left feild.

The word was orthodox not correct. At least quote me accurately.

[William Rea]

But it is only in the truth movement.

The dolts and CTers behind the truth movement are in a scientific orthodoxy of lies. Do you agree?

More than likely most of them are. So what?

Do you agree there is an orthodoxy on here?

[Parsman]

As a graduate in history could I make the observation that the woowoos in my field use this same argument. For example, the woo who claims a couple of hills in Bosnia are actually man made pyramids, bigger than and older than any other pyramids in the world. This woo claims that it is the orthodoxy of historians and archaeologists around the world that prevent his "pyramids" from being recognised as ancient man made artifacts! That orthodoxy, of course, is the force of years of archaeological and historical research, backed up by geological sciences in this case, which demonstrates that no such pyramids have ever existed where this woo claims. But enough people in this world are suspicious of "the man" that they want to beieve the claims and believe it is only this "orthodoxy" that keeps them from being revealed as the major finds that they are...

Sound familiar to anyone?

[JonnyFive]

A little harsh, don't you think? I can barely add 2+2, but I'm fairly intelligent in other areas, and most importantly, I *know* I can't do maths, so I let people who can, do it instead. It requires an element of trust on my part, but I'm comfortable with that. I wish the troofers were...

No, I have the utmost respect for people who admit openly that they don't understand. I, for example, do not understand advanced physics at all. I may have the capacity to eventually understand it, but I lack the needed education to understand the concepts involved.

If you claimed you knew everything about physics in the next breath, you would be a moron. Because you're willing to admit what you don't know, you're a freaking genius.

My basis for calling the troofers "stupid" isn't based on their lack of physics (I can't really talk, after all), but on their lack of honesty. They all claim they can figure it out using things like "common sense".

A more appropriate equation would have been

Kinetic Energy=(0.5)m(v^2)

The problem with using F=ma is that an airplane traveling at a constant velocity has zero acceleration.

Point taken, I suppose it would be a simpler approach to the problem.

The F=ma equation isn't entirely inappropriate though, since there must be a force acting on the plane in order to maintain its speed and negate the decelleration due to the friction of the air it's travelling through. Your formula is just a lot simpler to use because you don't have to waste a whole ton of time trying to figure what that force is, since you already know those particular variables . . . (m & v)

I was thinking of using the deceleration, which probably wasn't the best or simplest approach. As steve pointed out, using the equation for kinetic energy would be a heck of a lot simpler from a mathematical perspective.

You will understand in time that the only acceptable Physics on this forum comes from politically orthodox contributors. The free fall thing has been done to death but I have posted on this previously and offer this slightly edited version of that explanation to you.

What I've seen is that the acceptable physics comes from people who understand the physics they put forward and can explain it sufficiently. Please define "politically orthodox" further, it means little to nothing in the context you use it.

It is very difficult for us to intuitively grasp terms like Joules and g so don't be phased and put off the mathematics by people quoting numbers like 10^11 Joules. It becomes even more confusing when Physicists revert to the energy model for falling objects (KE. PE etc) but again the mathematics is relatively easy to understand so don't be phased by it.

Actually, I'm not "phased" by that at all. I have the requisite mathematics background to understand the simpler concepts involved, and am currently pursuing the background needed to understand the higher level, calculus-based concepts. Since those aren't strictly necessary to develop a basic understanding of the physics at work, I'm not troubled by that.

I fail to see how energy is irrelevant because an object is falling. Energy is still present in the equation, so why shouldn't we consider it? I don't find it confusing at all.

[jaydeehess]

The word was orthodox not correct. At least quote me accurately.


How's this;
You will understand in time that the only acceptable Physics on this forum comes from politically orthodox contributors

Acceptable physics only available from the politically orthodox.

Was I really that far off? I don't think so. Did you see quotations around what I posted?

[Hutch]

A little harsh, don't you think? I can barely add 2+2, but I'm fairly intelligent in other areas, and most importantly, I *know* I can't do maths, so I let people who can, do it instead. It requires an element of trust on my part, but I'm comfortable with that. I wish the troofers were...

Just got back with this thread.

bigLes, Drdisco, no insult intended, by either me (HS level Math and Physics and nothing since then) or Robert A. Heinlein. Because you do grasp the fundamental nature of math and physics and find their conclusions logical and evident. Which is more than can be said for numerous CT'ers of our acquaintance...

Mr. Rea, you state

I wasn't implying, I was saying, nothing underhand at all. There is an orthodoxy on here.

Could you please expound on this? As for a scientific orthodoxy, I would not dispute that F = ma and the other formulas here and I tend to doubt you would either. Therefore I am more interested in what you mean by a political, or perhaps a politico-scientific orthodoxy that does not allow us to see things that you may apparently see more clearly...if I mis-state your views, my apologies and I await further clairification...

[jaydeehess]

More than likely most of them are. So what?

Do you agree there is an orthodoxy on here?


The problem occurs when someone makes a statement of fact which can easily be shown to be in error yet still adheres to the conclusions drawn purely out of a political bias. This happens mostly on the CT side of the issue. One can show the correct math and physics to some who will nonetheless adhere to the same conclusions even though they have been shown that the basis for their conclusions are in error.

Often they then simply fall back on their personal incredulity such as , "I just don't know how it is possible for three buildings to all collapse on one day?".

Is there an orthodoxy here? Yes, it is one that states that in order to draw conclusions about scientific or engineering questions one must make use of proper science, engineering and math concepts and that these trump such prejudices as personal incredulity or the assumed motives of persons in positions of power.

[hellaeon]

Personally, an introductory course in the game of paper,scissors,rock might be a better starting point for the CT guys.

The examples given about killtown are so stupid. Its annoying to see it pasted about the place with no concern of humility. And William Rea, you show why the CT tactics are so stupid. You blurt about the word phased/fazed without doing any simple research which would have uncovered your misspelling, yet you go on some rant about ownership of language and Shakespeare. You guys really should think before you open your mouths.
Sorry to sound condescending but the principle you apply is exactly how the CT movement does there maths,physics and general claims. Lots of hot air without any actual research. In your case it was such a simple thing, but shows nontheless the basic problem.

[William Rea]

How's this;


Acceptable physics only available from the politically orthodox.

Was I really that far off? I don't think so. Did you see quotations around what I posted?

I think you'll find a deep chasm between acceptable and correct.

[William Rea]

Just got back with this thread.

bigLes, Drdisco, no insult intended, by either me (HS level Math and Physics and nothing since then) or Robert A. Heinlein. Because you do grasp the fundamental nature of math and physics and find their conclusions logical and evident. Which is more than can be said for numerous CT'ers of our acquaintance...

Mr. Rea, you state



Could you please expound on this? As for a scientific orthodoxy, I would not dispute that F = ma and the other formulas here and I tend to doubt you would either. Therefore I am more interested in what you mean by a political, or perhaps a politico-scientific orthodoxy that does not allow us to see things that you may apparently see more clearly...if I mis-state your views, my apologies and I await further clairification...

I also think the problem is a little more complex than F=ma as you rightly point out.

I don't claim to see anything more clearly than anyone else, it is simply a fact that there is an orthodoxy on here.

[William Rea]

Oh, I think I struck a nerve here!

There is an orthodoxy in science, yes. It requires things like facts, ability to reproduce results, and peer review to expose flaws.

However, that is not what you tried to imply. Your implication was that this "orthodoxy" was "political", keeping any real scientists from seeking the truth, for fear of being shunned and outcast, or suffering other consequences.

Just another tired attempt to tar the reputations of lots of good people, only trying to use different rhetoric to disguise it.

As much as you would like to think you struck a nerve I'm afraid not. That kind of proved my point about the maturity thing though didn't it.

Again I say to you I'm not implying anything, I'm telling you that an orthodoxy exists.

[William Rea]

I was deliberately copying William's bigoted and self-important style, for (I hoped) satiric effect. It was he who claimed England as the only country with proper English.

As far as I'm aware, the word is "fazed" in all English-speaking countries.

And it isn't a slang word, so I'm not sure why William is making the excuse that his slang is not good.

Satirising my satire, that's so second generation my dear. Priceless.

[Perforatu]

Could you (or perhaps one of the other posters) be more specific regarding this orthodoxy? I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at.

Just explain it to me like you would to a high-school student, since that's pretty much the level where my grasp of physics is at. Or is physics not involved in the explanation?

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
How's this;
Acceptable physics only available from the politically orthodox.

Was I really that far off? I don't think so. Did you see quotations around what I posted?
I think you'll find a deep chasm between acceptable and correct.


Ofurgawdsake

I personally only accept correct physics.

'Common sense' is not applicable to a question of whether or not the physics is acceptable or correct.

If one is stating something to the nature of
'near free fall' and calling that acceptable and correct physics, that is simply nonsense.

If one attempts to add a velocity and a length and arrive at number and claim it means that it is correct and acceptable physics/math they are spouting utter nonsense.

If someone else then shows that a building fell at [I]x/I]% the rate of free fall, and their application of basic physics and math concepts is as would be taught in any first year physics program then that is acceptable and correct physics.

If someone writes a paper using engineering concepts to show that the initial failure would inevitably lead to a complete collapse then any critque of that paper must also use the approach of known engineering concepts.

So, enough banter about this. Do you have an example of someone using unacceptable or incorrect physics or engineering that illustrates this orthodoxy you are saying exists on this forum? Can you show that this unacceptable or incorrect math/physics/engineering orthodoxy is prevalent on this board?


We can show example after example of CT's who obviously do not understand math or physics. Killtown being the most prolific of course but also, IIRC off the top of my head, 28th Kingdom and Terrorstorm1234.

[Mr.D]

I think you'll find a deep chasm between acceptable and correct.

Please provide a pointer to a post on this forum that had incorrect physics but was generally accepted. Also provide a pointer to a post on this forum that had correct physics but was treated as unacceptable.

[rwguinn]

I think you'll find a deep chasm between acceptable and correct.
It may be deep,possibly on the i axis, but it is zero width in 3d space.

In case it escapes that feeble excuse for aq mind that occupies the space between your ears, that means the only acceptable answer is the correct one, in physics.

[JimBenArm]

As much as you would like to think you struck a nerve I'm afraid not. That kind of proved my point about the maturity thing though didn't it.

Again I say to you I'm not implying anything, I'm telling you that an orthodoxy exists.
Ah, what was your point again? The fact I mock your silliness obviously angers you, so the slam on my "maturity". Eh, still not impressed with your rhetoric.
So, you're telling me an orthodoxy exists. Care to give some real-world examples, you know, something that exists outside of the space between your ears?
Or is that too "orthodox" for you?

[JQH]

A more appropriate equation would have been

Kinetic Energy=(0.5)m(v^2)

The problem with using F=ma is that an airplane traveling at a constant velocity has zero acceleration.

Steve S.

True, but when it hits a skyscraper it decelerates from 500 mph to 0 in less than a second. Mechanical impact alone would have done serious damage, never mind the thousands of gallons of burning aviation fuel.

Incidently, I know the "Truthseekers" have miscalculated freefall but from where do they get the notion that if a building is destroyed by explosives, the bits will fall faster than due to gravity alone?

[Firestone]

Incidently, I know the "Truthseekers" have miscalculated freefall but from where do they get the notion that if a building is destroyed by explosives, the bits will fall faster than due to gravity alone?To be fair, that's not what they generally claim.

True, some particularly stupid truther might have said "faster than freefall" or something to that effect.

The general argument is that without explosives the building should have offered "more" resistance, causing the collapse to last "longer" or even to stop somewhere in the middle.

I have never seen a truther quantify this, except Judy Wood. :)

The catch for the truthers is that for that argument to carry any weight, they need explosives at quite a few floors. That's a lot of explosives, for which of course they have zero evidence.

[JQH]

I don't claim to see anything more clearly than anyone else, it is simply a fact that there is an orthodoxy on here.

The orthodoxy is in using experimentally proven physics. If there are errors in the physics, or we are misapplying it, please explain how.

[gumboot]

I have never seen a truther quantify this, except Judy Wood. :)


One of them quantified it by dividing the height of the towers by acceleration due to gravity.

I [rule8] you not.

-Gumboot

[JonnyFive]

One of them quantified it by dividing the height of the towers by acceleration due to gravity.

I [rule8] you not.

Given what I've seen of Troofer math, that doesn't really surprise me at all.

What did they do with the spare s2, anyway? :)

[jaydeehess]

True, but when it hits a skyscraper it decelerates from 500 mph to 0 in less than a second. Mechanical impact alone would have done serious damage, never mind the thousands of gallons of burning aviation fuel.

Incidently, I know the "Truthseekers" have miscalculated freefall but from where do they get the notion that if a building is destroyed by explosives, the bits will fall faster than due to gravity alone?


Dividing the momentum of the aircraft by the time it took to come to rest in the towers will give the force imparted to the building.

The 'truthseekers' contend that a high explosive would create a vacuum on the floor where it occurs thus sucking the building down faster than a free fall event.


As J5 said: I [rule8] you not.

[aggle-rithm]

I was asked the question because, by nature of my job, I am the expert on the subject. Then my conclusions and recommendations are rejected because the first party, who admits they know nothing about the subject tries to apply what they feel to be "common sense".

This happens several times a day.


My sympathies. I worked tech support for several years.

When something like this happened, I was tempted to say, "Well, it looks like you've got a handle on the problem. Have a nice day!"

[aggle-rithm]

True, but when it hits a skyscraper it decelerates from 500 mph to 0 in less than a second. Mechanical impact alone would have done serious damage, never mind the thousands of gallons of burning aviation fuel.

Incidently, I know the "Truthseekers" have miscalculated freefall but from where do they get the notion that if a building is destroyed by explosives, the bits will fall faster than due to gravity alone?

To elaborate further: In physics there is no "deceleration"; the term "acceleration" covers any change in velocity. It could be a change to a higher rate of speed, to a lower rate of speed, or a change in direction (since velocity is a vector representing speed and direction).

Also, "negative acceleration" is not deceleration, but acceleration in a "negative" direction.

ETA: The reason I know this is that, to counter the troofer arguments, I had to be sure I knew what I was talking about, so I brushed up on my physics. In that sense, the debates over 9/11 conspiracies have been a positive experience for me!

[jeremyp]

The 'truthseekers' contend that a high explosive would create a vacuum on the floor where it occurs thus sucking the building down faster than a free fall event.
That should be easy to test. Look at video of a known demolition and see if there is any evidence that the building accelerates faster (or even as fast as) free fall.

[JonnyFive]

The 'truthseekers' contend that a high explosive would create a vacuum on the floor where it occurs thus sucking the building down faster than a free fall event.


As J5 said: I [rule8] you not.

No, gumboot said that.

But I was thinking it. :)

[aggle-rithm]

That should be easy to test. Look at video of a known demolition and see if there is any evidence that the building accelerates faster (or even as fast as) free fall.

That would be a difficult test for troofers, since they have no idea what "free fall" actually means.

[jaydeehess]

No, gumboot said that.

But I was thinking it. :)


No wayyyy!!!11!!

I distinctly remember it was you. OBVIOUSLY the record has been altered to now show that gumboot said it and you are covering for him or you are a patsy taking the heat for the facist overlords controlling the evidence.


:blush:
My bad,
credit gumboot with the statement.

[jaydeehess]

That should be easy to test. Look at video of a known demolition and see if there is any evidence that the building accelerates faster (or even as fast as) free fall.

Hmmmm, I seem to recall seeing someone who stated that all CD's do fall faster than normal. It was such insanity that I ignored it especially given that the poster did not have any evidence to back the contention up with.

[gumboot]

Given what I've seen of Troofer math, that doesn't really surprise me at all.

What did they do with the spare s2, anyway? :)


I guess it was consumed in the ensuing implosion of reality.

-Gumboot

[JQH]

To elaborate further: In physics there is no "deceleration"; the term "acceleration" covers any change in velocity. It could be a change to a higher rate of speed, to a lower rate of speed, or a change in direction (since velocity is a vector representing speed and direction).

Also, "negative acceleration" is not deceleration, but acceleration in a "negative" direction.

ETA: The reason I know this is that, to counter the troofer arguments, I had to be sure I knew what I was talking about, so I brushed up on my physics. In that sense, the debates over 9/11 conspiracies have been a positive experience for me!

Yes I know there's no such concept in physics as "deceleration", I should have just said "speed reduced from 500mph to 0 in less than a second" my bad.

[JQH]

OK, the physics of WTC 1 & 2 collapses as I understand it.

1. Both towers were impacted by passenger airliners travelling at approx 500 mph, according to eye-witness and video evidence. The collision zone on the second tower was much lower than on the first.

2. 500 mph is approx 220 metres per second. The speed was reduced to 0 in less than a second by collision. Hence the aircraft accelerated at 220 metres per second squared in the direction opposite to the direction of travel.

3. The mass of one of these aircraft is approx 100 tons = approx 100,000 kg.
From F=ma, the aircraft experienced a force of 22 million Newtons.

4. From Newton's Third Law, the tower experience a force of 22 million newtons in ithe direction of travel. Since it was anchored to the ground it didn't move but the force puts considerable stress on the tower structure, particularly at the impact zone. The impact zones are also doused in burning aviation fuel, the heat of which weakens the structure yet further until it can no longer support the weight above it. Unsurprisingly, the impact zone of the second tower becomes too weak first and collapses. Both towers break first at the impact zone, consistent with being due to weakened structure.

5. From t=sqrt(2d/g) where d is the height of the towers (approx 400 metres) and g is the acceleration due to gravity (approx 9.8 metres per second squared, free fall from the top of the towers would be approx 9 seconds. It's hard to time the fall time of the towers exactly because all the debris created conceals the final seconds of the collapse but it seems to be 14 - 15 seconds. This would be because the structure below the collapseng part would slow the fall. The falling structure does more damage as it falls, causing the parts of the towers below the impact zones to collapse also.

CONCLUSION. The observed collapse of the towers is consistant with the hypothesis that it was caused by the impact of the planes.

Have I missed anything?

[aggle-rithm]

Yes I know there's no such concept in physics as "deceleration", I should have just said "speed reduced from 500mph to 0 in less than a second" my bad.

It's tough to use conversational language to discuss technical issues, since everyday words can have different meanings...kind of like the word "theory" as used by creationists.

[aggle-rithm]

OK, the physics of WTC 1 & 2 collapses as I understand it.

1. Both towers were impacted by passenger airliners travelling at approx 500 mph, according to eye-witness and video evidence. The collision zone on the second tower was much lower than on the first.

2. 500 mph is approx 220 metres per second. The speed was reduced to 0 in less than a second by collision. Hence the aircraft accelerated at 220 metres per second squared in the direction opposite to the direction of travel.

3. The mass of one of these aircraft is approx 100 tons = approx 100,000 kg.
From F=ma, the aircraft experienced a force of 22 million Newtons.

4. From Newton's Third Law, the tower experience a force of 22 million newtons in ithe direction of travel. Since it was anchored to the ground it didn't move but the force puts considerable stress on the tower structure, particularly at the impact zone. The impact zones are also doused in burning aviation fuel, the heat of which weakens the structure yet further until it can no longer support the weight above it. Unsurprisingly, the impact zone of the second tower becomes too weak first and collapses. Both towers break first at the impact zone, consistent with being due to weakened structure.

5. From t=sqrt(2d/g) where d is the height of the towers (approx 400 metres) and g is the acceleration due to gravity (approx 9.8 metres per second squared, free fall from the top of the towers would be approx 9 seconds. It's hard to time the fall time of the towers exactly because all the debris created conceals the final seconds of the collapse but it seems to be 14 - 15 seconds. This would be because the structure below the collapseng part would slow the fall. The falling structure does more damage as it falls, causing the parts of the towers below the impact zones to collapse also.

CONCLUSION. The observed collapse of the towers is consistant with the hypothesis that it was caused by the impact of the planes.

Have I missed anything?

Maybe the force of the upper part of the building colliding with the lower part as it collapsed?

I'm sure a clever differential equation could be put together to represent this, as the mass of the mobile section grew as it got closer to the ground.

One of the points I have brought up with troofers (one which they completely failed to grasp, of course) was that if the lower section was sturdier, then the force of the upper section hitting it would be greater, since the speed would decrease more rapidly. Thus, a sturdier structure is no guarantee that collapse could be arrested.

(Of course, this is somewhat meaningless since there are no actual numbers involved, but it does show that the troofers' mental model of a collapsing building doesn't even consider important factors like this.)

[JonnyFive]

I guess it was consumed in the ensuing implosion of reality.

The government planted some C4 on those mathematical units and then they "pulled it" and pulverized them into dust.

That would also explain Killtown's ft + mph = ft calculation.

How do you convert logb(x) to logk(x)? Easy, you just multiply... or divide... or something! ADD TWO! It's so obvious and common sense!

[JonnyFive]

Just wanted to properly formulate this:

$$log_b(x) = \frac{log_b(x) \times 2}{something} ? + 2? = log_k(x)$$

[babazaroni]

The government planted some C4 on those mathematical units and then they "pulled it" and pulverized them into dust.

That would also explain Killtown's ft + mph = ft calculation.

How do you convert logb(x) to logk(x)? Easy, you just multiply... or divide... or something! ADD TWO! It's so obvious and common sense!

Check out this page for how to change the base of a log:

http://oakroadsystems.com/math/loglaws.htm

Look in the section "Changing the base".

The result is:

logbx = (logax) / (logab)

[JonnyFive]

Check out this page for how to change the base of a log:

http://oakroadsystems.com/math/loglaws.htm

http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php?$$log_b(x) = \frac{log_k(x)}{log_k(b)}$$

It was a joke, only a joke. I do know how to change a log base, but I would imagine many CTists don't.

The page is interesting though, thank you.

ETA: Oh, you tricky devil, you added it to your post too.

[babazaroni]

http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php?$$log_b(x) = \frac{log_k(x)}{log_k(b)}$$ (http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php?$$log_b%28x%29%20=%20%5Cfrac%7Blog_k%28x %29%7D%7Blog_k%28b%29%7D$$)



How did you render your formula?

Looks like you somehow use a latex function built in to the forum software.

Is there documentation for it?

Edit: Never mind, I see it's explained in the help section.

[JonnyFive]

How did you render your formula?

Looks like you somehow use a latex function built in to the forum software.

Is there documentation for it?

http://www.andy-roberts.net/misc/latex/latextutorial9.html

Has some info on the math functions. Specifically, this is what I typed:

$$log_b(x) = \frac{log_k(x)}{log_k(b)}$$

Apparently you can do all kinds of crazy stuff with it, including very complex formulas and tables and what-not, but I've just got the basics down.

[juryjone]

Maybe the force of the upper part of the building colliding with the lower part as it collapsed?

According to 28K, this could all be figured out using common sense. You see, the upper part should have slid off the lower part, or bounced off, or something, since the upper part was tilting when it hit the lower.

Also, 28K believes that the lower part of the building hit the ground three seconds before the upper part did.

Of course, he might have been lying about all of that.

Back to the numbers!

[William Rea]

Ah, what was your point again? The fact I mock your silliness obviously angers you, so the slam on my "maturity". Eh, still not impressed with your rhetoric.
So, you're telling me an orthodoxy exists. Care to give some real-world examples, you know, something that exists outside of the space between your ears?
Or is that too "orthodox" for you?

Lol, So what do we do? Do you take my word for it that it really doesn't bother me or we can carry on with does, doesn't, does so, doesn't so.

I was having fun with the irony of someone accusing me of silliness in such an immature way, and it was very funny, well it made me smile anyway.

It's clearly very important to you to try to demonstrate my sillines with your pointless baiting so I'll leave it alone now and go back to talking with the big boys.

[Darth Rotor]

Lol, So what do we do? Do you take my word for it that it really doesn't bother me or we can carry on with does, doesn't, does so, doesn't so.

I was having fun with the irony of someone accusing me of silliness in such an immature way, and it was very funny, well it made me smile anyway.

It's clearly very important to you to try to demonstrate my sillines with your pointless baiting so I'll leave it alone now and go back to talking with the big boys.
William, would you be kind enough to point to an example of the political orthodoxy applied to physics by an anti-CT poster here on a JREF forum post?

I am attempting to understand your unsupported assertion.

DR

[William Rea]

William, would you be kind enough to point to an example of the political orthodoxy applied to physics by an anti-CT poster here on a JREF forum post?

I am attempting to understand your unsupported assertion.

DR

No.

[JQH]

No.

So you admit antiCT conclusions expressed here have nothing to do with this "orthodoxy" of which you speak?

[Without Rights]

d = ½gt

Which handily disproves claims that, say, it should've taken the towers 42 seconds to fall under the influence of gravity alone.

I beg to differ, this equation only proves that the towers did not fall at freefall speed. It can only measure falls with insignificant resistance. All I get from this is 10 sec at freefall speed is 1600 ft and the towers were 1360 ft. This equation cannot tell us how long it would take with the added resistance of the building. Therefore it cannot disprove a claim that states it would it take the towers 42 secs to fall with the resistance of the building.


a = F/m

From which we derive the classic F = ma equation, that gives us an idea of the huge freaking amounts of force involved in the collision between an airplane going 500 miles and hour and a bloody building!

The airliner cannot be added as force into the equation, the force is the load of the upper floors falling on the lower floors. To come to definitive conclusion using this equation you need a lot more data than you provide. You can't even do the math in your example because you don't have the numbers.

[aggle-rithm]

I beg to differ, this equation only proves that the towers did not fall at freefall speed. It can only measure falls with insignificant resistance. All I get from this is 10 sec at freefall speed is 1600 ft and the towers were 1360 ft. This equation cannot tell us how long it would take with the added resistance of the building. Therefore it cannot disprove a claim that states it would it take the towers 42 secs to fall with the resistance of the building.




The airliner cannot be added as force into the equation, the force is the load of the upper floors falling on the lower floors. To come to definitive conclusion using this equation you need a lot more data than you provide. You can't even do the math in your example because you don't have the numbers.

All of which supports the "official story" more than any conspiracy theory. That is because, absent the known values needed to perform a complete calculation, you next must look at the evidence itself. We can conclude that the resistance provided by the structure was insufficient to overcome the downward forces because we can see it happen from numerous recordings of the event. Since conspiracy theorists think this evidence "looks wrong", they distrust it, and so don't even have that to help them come to a conclusion. All they have is a fervent belief based on...well, you tell me.

Once again, strong evidence that the troofers come up with the conclusions first, then beginning fishing for "evidence".

[Without Rights]

We can conclude that the resistance provided by the structure was insufficient to overcome the downward forces because we can see it happen from numerous recordings of the event.

I don't understand what you mean. The point was that these equations cannot come to the conclusions that the author is using them for. The rest of the evidence is not correlated to these equations and to use them in the context above is unscientific and disregards the whole purpose of the equations.

[JonnyFive]

I beg to differ, this equation only proves that the towers did not fall at freefall speed. It can only measure falls with insignificant resistance. All I get from this is 10 sec at freefall speed is 1600 ft and the towers were 1360 ft. This equation cannot tell us how long it would take with the added resistance of the building. Therefore it cannot disprove a claim that states it would it take the towers 42 secs to fall with the resistance of the building.

You're just being silly. I'm not going to bother dredging this up again, but the amount of kinetic energy brought to bear by 10-20 stories of a building crashing down on the rest of the building is considerable. Too considerable, in fact, to allow the lower structure to offer much resistance.

And clearly the towers didn't fall at "free fall speeds", they fell in roughly 12-19 seconds, several seconds slower than free fall. If you think it fell "too fast" then you're welcome to provide your own calculations. I'll put my trust in the thousands upon thousands of far more knowledgable people who ran the numbers and found nothing suspicious about them, as I see nothing particularly odd about the circumstances.

You've just moved the goalposts anyhow. Truthers are always claiming the towers fell faster than free fall, but they can't even calculate free fall.

The airliner cannot be added as force into the equation, the force is the load of the upper floors falling on the lower floors. To come to definitive conclusion using this equation you need a lot more data than you provide. You can't even do the math in your example because you don't have the numbers.

Actually, you can. All you need to know is the approximate mass of the airliner, the speed it was traveling, and the approximate time it took to come to rest. You want to do it without that, just use this:

http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php?$$KE = \begin{matrix}\frac{1}{2}\end{matrix}mv^2$$

Which only requires approximate mass and approximate velocity on collision to determine kinetic energy at impact.

You're also equating force of collision with the load on the building when those are two different things. That can also be figured, but it requires more structural calculations than are provided by basic physics, which puts it kind of outside the scope of my OP. You can talk to some structural engineers if you want some idea of how it works.

You don't seem to know anything about the concept of "force", especially as I was talking about the initial collision and was very clear about that fact.

I think I'll add that silly quote to my sig line now, thanks.

[JonnyFive]

I don't understand what you mean. The point was that these equations cannot come to the conclusions that the author is using them for. The rest of the evidence is not correlated to these equations and to use them in the context above is unscientific and disregards the whole purpose of the equations.

You either didn't read my post or didn't understand it. You also don't appear to have read or understood the posts that followed it.

[Without Rights]

You're just being silly. I'm not going to bother dredging this up again, but the amount of kinetic energy brought to bear by 10-20 stories of a building crashing down on the rest of the building is considerable. Too considerable, in fact, to allow the lower structure to offer much resistance.


That is a story that these equations do not tell.
And clearly the towers didn't fall at "free fall speeds", they fell in roughly 12-19 seconds, several seconds slower than free fall. If you think it fell "too fast" then you're welcome to provide your own calculations.

I didn't say that, I actually said your equation (1st) only proves that they did not fall at freefall speeds. It offers no math on how much the buildings resistance would slow the collapse, which is what you were claiming.


Actually, you can. All you need to know is the approximate mass of the airliner, the speed it was traveling, and the approximate time it took to come to rest. You want to do it without that, just use this:

You don't understand. The force of collapse and the force of impact are 2 seperate figures. You cannot add the force of the impact to the force of collapse because they are uncorrelated. If the jetliners hit the building from the top and the collapse began subsequently then you can add the force of the jetliner but the story is the steel weakened and the floors fell ontop of eachother, so the force in the equation would only be the force caused by the upper floors.


You're also equating force of collision with the load on the building when those are two different things.

No, that's what you are doing when you add the force of impact to the force of the collapse. That can also be figured, but it requires more structural calculations than are provided by basic physics
Exactly, that's why your take on these equations is skewed. You don't have the data yat you claim to have the results.


You don't seem to know anything about the concept of "force", especially as I was talking about the initial collision and was very clear about that fact.


I know your logic is skewed by the fact that the force of the airliner is not what brought the towers down. It was the force of the floors that caused the collapse. To add the force of the airliner into the equation is a big mistake that you are overlooking.
I think I'll add that silly quote to my sig line now, thanks.

I would be honored.

[Without Rights]

You either didn't read my post or didn't understand it. You also don't appear to have read or understood the posts that followed it.

So what are you trying to measure, the force of impact or the force of collapse. If you are measuring the force of impact then you are barking up the wrong tree. It is the force of collapse that needs to be measured.

[rwguinn]

You don't understand. The force of collapse and the force of impact are 2 seperate figures. You cannot add the force of the impact to the force of collapse because they are uncorrelated. If the jetliners hit the building from the top and the collapse began subsequently then you can add the force of the jetliner but the story is the steel weakened and the floors fell ontop of eachother, so the force in the equation would only be the force caused by the upper floors.

True--you cant add them together--they are orthogonal vectors.






I know your logic is skewed by the fact that the force of the airliner is not what brought the towers down. It was the force of the floors that caused the collapse. To add the force of the airliner into the equation is a big mistake that you are overlooking.


BZZZZZZTTTT!
You are obviously willfully ignorant.
The two events not only display correlation, they are intimately tangled together.
Cause-->effect.

[aggle-rithm]

I don't understand what you mean. The point was that these equations cannot come to the conclusions that the author is using them for. The rest of the evidence is not correlated to these equations and to use them in the context above is unscientific and disregards the whole purpose of the equations.

Even if that's true, it doesn't change the fact that a belief that the building should have taken as long to collapse as it did is supported by video evidence, whereas the belief that it should have taken longer is supported only by the will to believe.

The belief that the evidence is correct is further supported by calculations done by structural engineers, none of which were surprised that the building fell as fast as it did.

[Without Rights]

BZZZZZZTTTT!
You are obviously willfully ignorant.
The two events not only display correlation, they are intimately tangled together.
Cause-->effect.

Cause and effect is not what we are talking about. We are talking about measuring the force of the collapse. The force of the impact is uncorrelated to the force of collapse. What is ignorant is adding the force of the jetliner to the collapse when they are 2 seperate events. If you want to measure the force of impact to claim that such force can start a pancake collapse then you are on the right track. If you want to measure the force of impact to claim that somehow the kinetic energy of the plane crashing was transferred to the collapse that happened 30 min later you are delusional and have a weak grasp of physics.

[Without Rights]

[QUOTE]Even if that's true, it doesn't change the fact that a belief that the building should have taken as long to collapse as it did is supported by video evidence, whereas the belief that it should have taken longer is supported only by the will to believe.

And I never claimed that. I only said that these equations do not support what he claims they support.

The belief that the evidence is correct is further supported by calculations done by structural engineers, none of which were surprised that the building fell as fast as it did.

Well the equation the engineers did may very well be viable, but these equations are not.

[aggle-rithm]

Cause and effect is not what we are talking about. We are talking about measuring the force of the collapse. The force of the impact is uncorrelated to the force of collapse. What is ignorant is adding the force of the jetliner to the collapse when they are 2 seperate events. If you want to measure the force of impact to claim that such force can start a pancake collapse then you are on the right track. If you want to measure the force of impact to claim that somehow the kinetic energy of the plane crashing was transferred to the collapse that happened 30 min later you are delusional and have a weak grasp of physics.

Except that one of the key factors is the ability of the structure to resist a collapse. That number was changed by the airliner impact, and further by the ensuing fire.

Are you arguing that, with a free-falling upper structure as a given, the lower structure should have been able to survive the downward forces? Or, are you just trying to obfuscate?

I'm betting on option #2.

[rwguinn]

True--you cant add them together--they are orthogonal vectors.





BZZZZZZTTTT!
You are obviously willfully ignorant.
The two events not only display correlation, they are intimately tangled together.
Cause-->effect.

Ok, After your reply, I'm going to change that "willfully ignorant" to:
Really, really functionally illiterate and wilfully stupid

[Without Rights]

Except that one of the key factors is the ability of the structure to resist a collapse. That number was changed by the airliner impact, and further by the ensuing fire.

Ok, and that would be something to factor into the resistance of the building. You cannot factor it into the force of collapse. Force and resistance are nearly opposites and what the author of the thread is trying to do is bind them together.

Are you arguing that, with a free-falling upper structure as a given, the lower structure should have been able to survive the downward forces? Or, are you just trying to obfuscate?

Neither, I never said the structure should have survived the force of the upperfloors falling on top of eachother and I am not trying to confuse anyone. I said the force to be measured in the collapse is that of the upper floors falling on top of eachother which is a complicated equation because force is added into the equation after each floor is added into the collapse. The junior high physics displayed here do nothing to support the claims made. Keep in mind that I am not saying that these things have not been disproved or that the official theory is wrong, I only say that these equations do not support the claims made by the author.

I'm betting on option #2.
It may very well be confusing to you, that doesn't mean that I am trying to confuse you.

[uk_dave]

That is a story that these equations do not tell.




Tell me, do you believe that the floor assembly of the towers was designed to withstand the impact of the floor above falling down upon it?

If so, how many floors falling upon one floor assembly do you think it was designed to support?

Can you also describe what functions the floor assemblies performed, apart from providing a platform for the offices themselves?

cheers

[Anti-sophist]

I'd just like to point out some very simple math that seems relevant.

The kinetic energy of the jet impact was actually quite simple, in relation to the rest of the events that occured that day. My back-of-the envelope calculations are as follows:

(per tower)
KE of Aircraft: 3 GJ
Chemical Energy of Jet Fuel: 1500 GJ
Gravitational Energy of Building: 800 GJ
Chemical Energy of Office fire: Alot

To some extent, the impact of the aircraft was really a minimal amount of energy, but it was imparted in a tiny fraction of the time, so it was quite damaging. However, mostly, the impact's two major contributions to the collapse were damaging the fire-proofing, and putting all that fuel into the building and starting those fires.

[Without Rights]

Ok, After your reply, I'm going to change that "willfully ignorant" to:
Really, really functionally illiterate and wilfully stupid

Is that your argument? Well do tell, how does the cause and effect correlate into the force of collapse?

[JonnyFive]

So what are you trying to measure, the force of impact or the force of collapse. If you are measuring the force of impact then you are barking up the wrong tree. It is the force of collapse that needs to be measured.

Well, the point of my OP was that the truthers often discount the amount of force imparted on impact to the structural columns of the towers. This damage subsequently reduced the load-bearing abilities of the structural support.

So yes, the force of the impact was just slightly important to the collapse. So was the fire, the length of time involved, and the load above the point of impact. I didn't mention those either, but that doesn't mean I don't understand them.

Your belief that I am adding the two forces is both incorrect and unsupported by a single word I've said.

I also never claimed that the simple calculation for free fall somehow showed how fast the buildings should fall with a given amount of resistance. That is goalpost shifting you added in. I was simply addressing the "faster than free-fall" claim I have heard truthers bandy about.

You don't even seem to be able to accurately comprehend what I actually said and did not say. For one thing, your idea that I am somehow adding the force of the collapse and the force of the airliner collision is truly bizarre, as I said or implied no such thing.

The post wasn't supposed to be a comprehensive list of all the physical elements of the collapse. Perhaps that was unclear to you.

[Without Rights]

I'd just like to point out some very simple math that seems relevant.

The kinetic energy of the jet impact was actually quite simple, in relation to the rest of the events that occured that day. My back-of-the envelope calculations are as follows:

(per tower)
KE of Aircraft: 3 GJ
Chemical Energy of Jet Fuel: 1500 GJ
Gravitational Energy of Building: 800 GJ
Chemical Energy of Office fire: Alot

To some extent, the impact of the aircraft was really a minimal amount of energy, but it was imparted in a tiny fraction of the time, so it was quite damaging. However, mostly, the impact's two major contributions to the collapse were damaging the fire-proofing, and putting all that fuel into the building and starting those fires.

Yes, thank you. The force of the impact didn't transfer into the force of collapse. The impact caused damage but it was the weakened steel that let loose the concrete slab which started in collapse. The force of impact is therefore inconsequential to the force of collapse and cannot be added to the equation as kinetic energy.

[JonnyFive]

Yes, thank you. The force of the impact didn't transfer into the force of collapse. The impact caused damage but it was the weakened steel that let loose the concrete slab which started in collapse. The force of impact is therefore inconsequential to the force of collapse and cannot be added to the equation as kinetic energy.

No one has claimed it can be added in, that's a straw man you've constructed.

Post where I said that the force of the collision can be added to the force involved in the collapse, or stop invoking this ridiculous straw man.

Actually, it wasn't just the concrete slab that initiated collapse, it was the entire mass above the point of failure.

[Without Rights]

Your belief that I am adding the two forces is both incorrect and unsupported by a single word I've said.
a = F/m

From which we derive the classic F = ma equation, that gives us an idea of the huge freaking amounts of force involved in the collision between an airplane going 500 miles and hour and a bloody building! Never mind the massive amounts of force involved when a huge chunk of that building comes down. But no, the lower floors should have somehow stopped a huge chunk of mass somehow using, perhaps, magic.

It sounds to me like you are trying to factor in the airplane impact. If that isn't what you meant then explain the 500 mile an hr comment and how that works it's way into the equation

I also never claimed that the simple calculation for free fall somehow showed how fast the buildings should fall with a given amount of resistance. That is goalpost shifting you added in. I was simply addressing the "faster than free-fall" claim I have heard truthers bandy about.
d = ½gt

Which handily disproves claims that, say, it should've taken the towers 42 seconds to fall under the influence of gravity alone.


That's what you said. That doesn't say anything about faster than freefall, it says that it refutes the fact that it should take the buildings 42 secs to collapse. The truthers say that 42 sec is the amount of time it would take to fall with the resistance of the building. So the resistance is added in by implication.

[rwguinn]

Well, the point of my OP was that the truthers often discount the amount of force imparted on impact to the structural columns of the towers. This damage subsequently reduced the load-bearing abilities of the structural support.

So yes, the force of the impact was just slightly important to the collapse. So was the fire, the length of time involved, and the load above the point of impact. I didn't mention those either, but that doesn't mean I don't understand them.

Your belief that I am adding the two forces is both incorrect and unsupported by a single word I've said.

I also never claimed that the simple calculation for free fall somehow showed how fast the buildings should fall with a given amount of resistance. That is goalpost shifting you added in. I was simply addressing the "faster than free-fall" claim I have heard truthers bandy about.

You don't even seem to be able to accurately comprehend what I actually said and did not say. For one thing, your idea that I am somehow adding the force of the collapse and the force of the airliner collision is truly bizarre, as I said or implied no such thing.

The post wasn't supposed to be a comprehensive list of all the physical elements of the collapse. Perhaps that was unclear to you.
This is why I stated that Without Rights is ?"Really, really functionally illiterate and wilfully stupid "
He cannot comprehend the relationships. It wasn't fire, it wasn't collision. It was the two in combination! The towers maintained structural integrity after the collision--for quite some time.
The fires themselves could have brought the buildings down, given time--but the likelyhod of such intense, unrestrained fires occuring without the a/c ramming into the buildings is near zero. since the suppression system would work if intact, the fires would not have reached that intensity required to fail the various elements of the structure.
Meanwhile, CT'ers are running around in semi-literate dazes:
"Thunder! Lightning! Isn't it amazing how often they occur so close together in time!"

[JonnyFive]

It sounds to me like you are trying to factor in the airplane impact. If that isn't what you meant then explain the 500 mile an hr comment and how that works it's way into the equation

Apparently your reading comprehension is terrible. I mentioned the force imparted to the building (and, by extension, the structural elements of the building) by the airplane. I then placed a period, which indicates that one sentence has ended and a new one is about to begin. I then mentioned in passing the force involved in the building collapse, totally independent of the airplane collision.

So what proof do you have that the lower floors were capable of providing significant resistance to the building? You do, of course, understand that real controlled demolition simply blows out a minimal number of support columns to allow a building to collapse, right? It doesn't just make all the supporting elements turn into dust.

[JonnyFive]

This is why I stated that Without Rights is ?"Really, really functionally illiterate and wilfully stupid "
He cannot comprehend the relationships. It wasn't fire, it wasn't collision. It was the two in combination! The towers maintained structural integrity after the collision--for quite some time.
The fires themselves could have brought the buildings down, given time--but the likelyhod of such intense, unrestrained fires occuring without the a/c ramming into the buildings is near zero. since the suppression system would work if intact, the fires would not have reached that intensity required to fail the various elements of the structure.
Meanwhile, CT'ers are running around in semi-literate dazes:
"Thunder! Lightning! Isn't it amazing how often they occur so close together in time!"

Hell, he apparently thinks that I connected the forces of collision and collapse together somehow, while quoting a paragraph where I did no such thing. I'm not thinking much of his reading comprehension right now.

[rwguinn]

Yes, thank you. The force of the impact didn't transfer into the force of collapse. The impact caused damage but it was the weakened steel that let loose the concrete slab which started in collapse. The force of impact is therefore inconsequential to the force of collapse and cannot be added to the equation as kinetic energy.
Wrong again. As always.
It was buckling of the vertical beams (columns) and floor truss system that started the collapse

[Without Rights]

No one has claimed it can be added in, that's a straw man you've constructed.

Post where I said that the force of the collision can be added to the force involved in the collapse, or stop invoking this ridiculous straw man.

Actually, it wasn't just the concrete slab that initiated collapse, it was the entire mass above the point of failure.

Then why is "The airliner cannot be added as force into the equation, the force is the load of the upper floors falling on the lower floors." such a ridiculous thing to say if you agree with it? You were arguing that fact the whole day and called me stupid because I said it. Now you say you never said it. Why didn't you just correct me on my first post if I misconstrued your statement? And why do I get a line in your signature for stating that they cannot be added together?

[westprog]

True, but when it hits a skyscraper it decelerates from 500 mph to 0 in less than a second. Mechanical impact alone would have done serious damage, never mind the thousands of gallons of burning aviation fuel.

The reason for using the kinetic energy calculation is that we then know, since the aircraft stopped moving, how much energy was absorbed by the buildings. That's assuming we know the mass of the aircraft and the velocity at impact. That energy had to go into the impact - there was nowhere else for it to go.

In the same way, the easiest calculation for the energy in the falling building is the formula for gravitational potential energy - mgh. We know the mass, the height* and the acceleration due to gravity, so we know how many joules/tons of TNT were released when the buildings fell.

(*the height of the centre of gravity of the buildings is the only slightly tricky one, as the lower part was more massive than the upper).

[Without Rights]

This is why I stated that Without Rights is ?"Really, really functionally illiterate and wilfully stupid "
He cannot comprehend the relationships. It wasn't fire, it wasn't collision. It was the two in combination! The towers maintained structural integrity after the collision--for quite some time.
The fires themselves could have brought the buildings down, given time--but the likelyhod of such intense, unrestrained fires occuring without the a/c ramming into the buildings is near zero. since the suppression system would work if intact, the fires would not have reached that intensity required to fail the various elements of the structure.
Meanwhile, CT'ers are running around in semi-literate dazes:
"Thunder! Lightning! Isn't it amazing how often they occur so close together in time!"

Ok, sure it was the collision and the fire that initiated the collapse but that is not what is claimed by the equation. I gather that you have not understood a word I said. The cause of collapse is not even in question in this thread.

[westprog]

Actually, it wasn't just the concrete slab that initiated collapse, it was the entire mass above the point of failure.

It can be clearly seen in film of the collapse that the top part of the building is falling as a single intact item, at least at first.

[Without Rights]

Wrong again. As always.
It was buckling of the vertical beams (columns) and floor truss system that started the collapse

Wasn't it the weakening of the steel that caused the steel to buckle.

[westprog]

I beg to differ, this equation only proves that the towers did not fall at freefall speed. It can only measure falls with insignificant resistance. All I get from this is 10 sec at freefall speed is 1600 ft and the towers were 1360 ft. This equation cannot tell us how long it would take with the added resistance of the building. Therefore it cannot disprove a claim that states it would it take the towers 42 secs to fall with the resistance of the building.


The resistance of the building being whatever number gets plugged in.

What we do know is that buildings are built to support the stationary weight. The forces exerted by a falling mass are vastly more. This can easily be visualised by gently placing a bowling ball on a glass table, and then dropping the ball from six feet above.

[JonnyFive]

Then why is "The airliner cannot be added as force into the equation, the force is the load of the upper floors falling on the lower floors." such a ridiculous thing to say if you agree with it? You were arguing that fact the whole day and called me stupid because I said it. Now you say you never said it. Why didn't you just correct me on my first post if I misconstrued your statement? And why do I get a line in your signature for stating that they cannot be added together?

I find the following things stupid about the quote and reasoning underlying it:

1) You believed that anyone was trying to add two completely unrelated force vectors.

2) You stated that the impact of the plane was a non-factor and we should be looking at the force of the collision instead.

3) Your statement was in response to an equation talking about the collision, not the collapse.

I should really add a link to your post so it's clearer.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2398963#post2398963) you quoted me when I was clearly talking about the collision between plane and building, then you let that particular gem out of your mouth, then spent the next page talking about how I was trying to add the two forces together.

You're right, when taken out of context, what you said actually sounds reasonable. However, in response to what I actually said, it just looks like you didn't understand a word I wrote.

ETA: There, I edited it to provide proper context.

[JonnyFive]

The resistance of the building being whatever number gets plugged in.

What we do know is that buildings are built to support the stationary weight. The forces exerted by a falling mass are vastly more. This can easily be visualised by gently placing a bowling ball on a glass table, and then dropping the ball from six feet above.

Especially as energy increases directly proportional to the square of the velocity, so as the downward velocity of the collapsing mass increases, the energy involved increases considerably.

[Without Rights]

The resistance of the building being whatever number gets plugged in.

What we do know is that buildings are built to support the stationary weight. The forces exerted by a falling mass are vastly more. This can easily be visualised by gently placing a bowling ball on a glass table, and then dropping the ball from six feet above.

I agree, so how does
d = ½gt handily disprove claims that, say, it should've taken the towers 42 seconds to fall under the influence of gravity alone?

or how does a = F/m prove the lower floors could not have absorbed the force of collapse?

They can't is the answer, which was the point of me chiming in. I never said I think bombs were used, I never said I don't think it was a pancake collapse. I said these equations do not prove the truthers wrong. It is only rhetoric and twisting of science that matches that of the truthers. This is just plain bad physics, period. All we can derive from these equations is that 1600ft in 10 sec is freefall speed with insignificant resistance. We can't say 42 seconds is unreasonable because that is a number derived from equations where resistance is factored in. The truthers maybe are misrepresenting the resistance but that is not evident by this equation.

[rwguinn]

Especially as energy increases directly proportional to the square of the velocity, so as the downward velocity of the collapsing mass increases, the energy involved increases considerably.

However:
One can "back-out" the average resistive force to collision.
Take the actual time to fall (call it 12 seconds, 10 seconds whatever you want--just peer through the dust couds with your little CT X-ray vision if you don't believe official theory)
s=1/2*a*t^2
s=N floors*12 feet/floor
t=12
You get "a"
F=m*a
subtract that from F=m*g
just remember--m will be the average mass, which is
((113-N)floors*mass/floor)+(((N-0)floors/2)*mass/floor)

But consider this:
For 1360 feet, T=9.2 seconds at 1 g
For t=10 seconds, a=27.2 ft/sec^2
for t=12 sec, a=18.88ft/sec^2
so at 10 seconds, the resisting force (average) is 4.8 in/sec^2* (average mass)
and at 12 seconds fall, resistance (average is 13 in/sec^2*(average mass)

Pretty hefty resistance there.

[Without Rights]

I find the following things stupid about the quote and reasoning underlying it:[quote]

[QUOTE] 1) You believed that anyone was trying to add two completely unrelated force vectors.

Why didn't you correct me instead of arguing against me on it.
2) You stated that the impact of the plane was a non-factor and we should be looking at the force of the collision instead.

The collision and impact are the same thing, but assuming you meant collapse instead of collision;
It is a non-factor if you are trying to refute the fact that 42 sec is an unreasonable amount of time for a collapse to occur with an undetermined resistance.
3) Your statement was in response to an equation talking about the collision, not the collapse.
Then how can it debunk a claim about the collapse if it was about the collision?



You're right, when taken out of context, what you said actually sounds reasonable. However, in response to what I actually said, it just looks like you didn't understand a word I wrote. Then you should of corrected me instead of arguing against it. It still doesn't help your claim that the equations discredit the 42 sec theory. Why would you even use a measurement of collision to discredit a measurement of collapse?

[JonnyFive]

I agree, so how does
d = ½gt handily disprove claims that, say, it should've taken the towers 42 seconds to fall under the influence of gravity alone?

However:
One can "back-out" the average resistive force to collision.
Take the actual time to fall (call it 12 seconds, 10 seconds whatever you want--just peer through the dust couds with your little CT X-ray vision if you don't believe official theory)

(snip)

so at 10 seconds, the resisting force (average) is 4.8 in/sec^2* (average mass)
and at 12 seconds fall, resistance (average is 13 in/sec^2*(average mass)

Pretty hefty resistance there.

So, assuming an average of 0.33 m/s^2 of resitance, that would put our net downward acceleration at approximately 9.47 m/s^2, on average.

So, Without Rights, given that value for net force, how do you obtain a value of 42 seconds?

[rwguinn]

So, assuming an average of 0.33 m/s^2 of resitance, that would put our net downward acceleration at approximately 9.47 m/s^2, on average.

Given that value for net force, how do you obtain a value of 42 seconds?
Woa, Nellie!
Leave me out of that folklore.
I figure 10-12 seconds is a LONG time for the building to fall!

[JonnyFive]

Then you should of corrected me instead of arguing against it. It still doesn't help your claim that the equations discredit the 42 sec theory. Why would you even use a measurement of collision to discredit a measurement of collapse?

What in the world are you talking about? Those two points have always been separate. One regarded the force imparted to the support structure of the towers by the collision, the other involved the time to collapse.

The issue of resistance is yet another issue.

[JonnyFive]

Woa, Nellie!
Leave me out of that folklore.
I figure 10-12 seconds is a LONG time for the building to fall!

Ah crap, I wasn't very clear about that: I was addressing WR with that question, not you. Fixed.

[rwguinn]

Ah crap, I wasn't very clear about that: I was addressing WR with that question, not you. Fixed.
Thankyewverrremush! ;-d

[Without Rights]

So, Without Rights, given that value for net force, how do you obtain a value of 42 seconds?

I don't, I am not saying they are correct. I am saying you are wrong. The data that your equations provide doesn't refute their claim. If the claim was an airliner couldn't cause a collapse then you would have something but the claim is that it would take 42secs for a collapse with resistance of concrete and steel. Your equation cannot refute that claim because your equation measures freefall speed or "insignificant resistance". So, you can use it to refute their calculations on what is freefall time but you offer no data to represent resistance so how can your calculation refute how long a pancake collapse would take?

[JonnyFive]

I don't, I am not saying they are correct. I am saying you are wrong. The data that your equations provide doesn't refute their claim. If the claim was an airliner couldn't cause a collapse then you would have something but the claim is that it would take 42secs for a collapse with resistance of concrete and steel. Your equation cannot refute that claim because your equation measures freefall speed or "insignificant resistance". So, you can use it to refute their calculations on what is freefall time but you offer no data to represent resistance so how can your calculation refute how long a pancake collapse would take?

But then you take other simple formulas and back into the resistance, plug the revised value for acceleration (after all, g is simply a value for acceleration) into the same equation, and you still don't get 42 seconds, or anything even close to it.

I never said that these are the only formulas that are needed to understand what happened, only that even these simple formulas begin to punch holes in many of the troofer claims.

You're not familiar with the source for the figure of 42 seconds, are you? It was not an attempt to include resistance in the calc, it was an attempt by a truther to calculate the time for unresisted free fall using truly wretched mathematics. They said that the towers should have collapsed in 42 seconds if they were falling at free fall speeds.

But hey, you're familiar with "their" calculations, so you must know that already.

This idea that I was trying to "refute" every claim with those simple formulas is just another straw man.

[Without Rights]

What in the world are you talking about? Those two points have always been separate. One regarded the force imparted to the support structure of the towers by the collision, the other involved the time to collapse.

The issue of resistance is yet another issue.

Yet you claim that their resistance model is refuted by your "insignificant resistance" equation.

[rwguinn]

Yet you claim that their resistance model is refuted by your "insignificant resistance" equation.

I know, I know--you don't have to act stupid....
Who in he!! says the resistance was insignificant? 10-40% is significant. It is that the forces being opposed were so massive.
Go take a look at my posting, above.
Oops- sorry- I forgot. You guys don't know how to deal with "numb3rs" and equations. If it ain't on video, it don't exist, right?

[JonnyFive]

Yet you claim that their resistance model is refuted by your "insignificant resistance" equation.

Actually, I didn't. Keep in mind what I originally said was:

Which handily disproves claims that, say, it should've taken the towers 42 seconds to fall under the influence of gravity alone.

Did I say "when incorporating resistance from the building" or anything else of the sort? No. I was specifically referring to truther free-fall calcs not including building resistance.

And the equation doesn't assume "insignificant resistance", it assumes no resistance, including no air resistance. Yes, it's a simplification, as is the number 9.8 m/s^2 to begin with.

[Without Rights]

You're not familiar with the source for the figure of 42 seconds, are you? It was not an attempt to include resistance in the calc, it was an attempt by a truther to calculate the time for unresisted free fall using truly wretched mathematics. They said that the towers should have collapsed in 42 seconds if they were falling at free fall speeds.
I did read a claim by some woman who showed billiard balls hitting eachother to show resistance and her calculations were that it would take at least 42 secs for a pancake collapse to occur. That is what I was referring to, I have never heard anyone say that a freefall would take 42 secs to happen and if I did I would laugh. So if you are refuting some idiot that said freefall speed is 42 sec for 1380 ft than I completely back you and it was a simple misunderstanding based on the model I read that said 42 sec with resistance is minimal.

[JonnyFive]

I did read a claim by some woman who showed billiard balls hitting eachother to show resistance and her calculations were that it would take at least 42 secs for a pancake collapse to occur. That is what I was referring to, I have never heard anyone say that a freefall would take 42 secs to happen and if I did I would laugh. So if you are refuting some idiot that said freefall speed is 42 sec for 1380 ft than I completely back you and it was a simple misunderstanding based on the model I read that said 42 sec with resistance is minimal.

You could've just asked for clarification to begin with, rather than insisting I was making claims I wasn't. All that does is make you look farkin' stupid. It doesn't help that I was quite clear that I was talking about gravity-only falls, and that I wasn't adding the unrelated force vectors.

I've seen the infamous billiard ball calc. Judy Wood used extremely naive calculations to determine that "pancake collapse" would require something between 30 and 100 seconds. Her modelling appears to assume that the mass collapsing above would stop at each floor, then collapse and continue. She ignores a couple key points:

1) The initial mass collapsing was 10-20 stories, not 1.
2) The collapsing mass will continue to accumulate, reducing the ability of subsequent floors to resist the force involved.

Yes, it is difficult to run exact numbers, but we've looked at ballpark figures in this forum in the past. Bottom line is that the towers had no chance of withstanding the amount of mass that dropped when the supports failed. Once that initial collapse occurs, it's all downhill (no pun, really) from there.

Wood's diagrams can be found here (http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html). Her modelling vastly over-estimates the capability of the structural elements underneath the collapse to withstand the collapsing section.

As an aside, she apparently believes the government used a space beam to vaporize the towers, so that should give some idea of where she's coming from in terms of reality-based reasoning.

[Without Rights]

Actually, I didn't. Keep in mind what I originally said was:



Did I say "when incorporating resistance from the building" or anything else of the sort? No. I was specifically referring to truther free-fall calcs not including building resistance.

And the equation doesn't assume "insignificant resistance", it assumes no resistance, including no air resistance. Yes, it's a simplification, as is the number 9.8 m/s^2 to begin with.

Well, I guess we argued all day for nothing. But the equation formulated by Galileo states that d=distance with insignificant resistance.

[Without Rights]

I know, I know--you don't have to act stupid....
Who in he!! says the resistance was insignificant? 10-40% is significant. It is that the forces being opposed were so massive.
Go take a look at my posting, above.
Oops- sorry- I forgot. You guys don't know how to deal with "numb3rs" and equations. If it ain't on video, it don't exist, right?

Who are "you guys". Is that an attempt to bind me with CT's? Nice ad hominem. Too bad I never claimed to believe what they say, so I guess your pulling that out of thin air huh? Good job, keep smearing people, it really shows how (un)intelligent you are.

[Without Rights]

You could've just asked for clarification to begin with, rather than insisting I was making claims I wasn't. All that does is make you look farkin' stupid. It doesn't help that I was quite clear that I was talking about gravity-only falls, and that I wasn't adding the unrelated force vectors.

I've seen the infamous billiard ball calc. Judy Wood used extremely naive calculations to determine that "pancake collapse" would require something between 30 and 100 seconds. Her modelling appears to assume that the mass collapsing above would stop at each floor, then collapse and continue. She ignores a couple key points:

1) The initial mass collapsing was 10-20 stories, not 1.
2) The collapsing mass will continue to accumulate, reducing the ability of subsequent floors to resist the force involved.

Yes, it is difficult to run exact numbers, but we've looked at ballpark figures in this forum in the past. Bottom line is that the towers had no chance of withstanding the amount of mass that dropped when the supports failed. Once that initial collapse occurs, it's all downhill (no pun, really) from there.

Wood's diagrams can be found here (http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html). Her modelling vastly over-estimates the capability of the structural elements underneath the collapse to withstand the collapsing section.

As an aside, she apparently believes the government used a space beam to vaporize the towers, so that should give some idea of where she's coming from in terms of reality-based reasoning.

Well I looked and I don't see any claims from anyone in the truth movement that says that freefall is 42 sec so my mistake was that I didn't know you were refuting some guy nobody knows. I thought you were referring to a para-mainstream idea that the truther community collectively holds. Not one that Joe Nobody said one time on some forum or personal website.

[Without Rights]

You could've just asked for clarification to begin with, rather than insisting I was making claims I wasn't. All that does is make you look farkin' stupid.

Well, this was my first post
[QUOTE]I beg to differ, this equation only proves that the towers did not fall at freefall speed. It can only measure falls with insignificant resistance. All I get from this is 10 sec at freefall speed is 1600 ft and the towers were 1360 ft. This equation cannot tell us how long it would take with the added resistance of the building. Therefore it cannot disprove a claim that states it would it take the towers 42 secs to fall with the resistance of the building.


You could of easily cleared this up right of way. So if I looked farkin stupid it was because you perpetuated an argument that didn't exist. I didn't pay attention to detail but neither did you.

[JonnyFive]

You could of easily cleared this up right of way. So if I looked farkin stupid it was because you perpetuated an argument that didn't exist. I didn't pay attention to detail but neither did you.

To which I responded (my first response):

Truthers are always claiming the towers fell faster than free fall, but they can't even calculate free fall.

Is the definition of "free fall" unclear? Is that the problem?

I have always stated that I used these calculations to determine free fall speeds and to address claims related to free fall. Free fall involves no resistance, so I have no idea why you dragged building resistance into this. Again, that had nothing to do with my OP or the subject matter I was addressing.

[Almo]

Ooh yeah, ya got me there!

I wasn't implying, I was saying, nothing underhand at all. There is an orthodoxy on here.

Do you deny that?

Read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. It covers the nature of scientific "orthodoxy;" both its necessity, and how it changes.

[uk_dave]

Yet you claim that their resistance model is refuted by your "insignificant resistance" equation.

It is up to those who dispute the 'unaided' progressive collapse timing to provide evidence for how much resistance the structure would have provided.

In fact, I would be REALLY interested to see a design by a CT structural engineer of a building such as the twin towers which could resist the progressive collapse witnessed on 9/11. Then we could compare it with what was actually built.

ummmmm chicken wire models don't count. :D

[gumboot]

Wasn't it the weakening of the steel that caused the steel to buckle.



No...

The exterior columns bowed inwards because the floor trusses sagged. There is no indication that the exterior columns were weakened by fire.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Want to take a wild guess at what appears to be the single most difficult concept on the planet? Any device that is used inline with something else. Usually this applies to VCR's, answering machines and caller ID boxes.

Wall --> Wire --> Device --> Wire --> Device

I explain it. I draw pictures. I demonstrate it with items in the store. I am met with the confused gaze of a dog attempting to do calculus.



Heh... our first lecture for cinemtography was black box theory. Basically being that all electrical equipment is made up of one or more black boxes. A black box takes an input, changes it to something else, and outputs it. As long as you match the outputs and inputs for two different black boxes, they will work.

For example... a video camera consist of several black boxes. The lens takes an input of light and converts it to an image (frame). The CCD takes an input of an image and converts it to electrical impulses. The recorder takes an input of electrical impulses and converts it to either a magnetic pattern on a tape or data on a harddrive.

And so forth.

All electrical stuff seems really easy once I learned black box theory.

-Gumboot

[R.Mackey]

I agree, so how does
d = ½gt handily disprove claims that, say, it should've taken the towers 42 seconds to fall under the influence of gravity alone?

or how does a = F/m prove the lower floors could not have absorbed the force of collapse?

They can't is the answer, which was the point of me chiming in. I never said I think bombs were used, I never said I don't think it was a pancake collapse. I said these equations do not prove the truthers wrong. It is only rhetoric and twisting of science that matches that of the truthers. This is just plain bad physics, period. All we can derive from these equations is that 1600ft in 10 sec is freefall speed with insignificant resistance. We can't say 42 seconds is unreasonable because that is a number derived from equations where resistance is factored in. The truthers maybe are misrepresenting the resistance but that is not evident by this equation.

Just to add some clarification, those two equations -- the truncated form of Newton's Second Law and its equivalent for a free body in a constant field -- do not, by themselves, prove the Troother's objections ("they collapsed too fast") to be incorrect. But similarly trivial reasoning does. Poster rwguinn explained it properly.

I offer here a previous post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2236462#post2236462) that expands on his argument. In brief, it shows that the buildings could be expected to collapse quickly, i.e. between 10 and 15 seconds, for a huge range of energy values needed to destroy the lower structure.

On this basis, I can indeed say that 42 seconds is unreasonable. This case would require such a delicate energy balance, and such an overbuilt structure experiencing an orderly collapse, that it may be instantly discarded.

[rwguinn]

Just to add some clarification, those two equations -- the truncated form of Newton's Second Law and its equivalent for a free body in a constant field -- do not, by themselves, prove the Troother's objections ("they collapsed too fast") to be incorrect. But similarly trivial reasoning does. Poster rwguinn explained it properly.

I offer here a previous post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2236462#post2236462) that expands on his argument. In brief, it shows that the buildings could be expected to collapse quickly, i.e. between 10 and 15 seconds, for a huge range of energy values needed to destroy the lower structure.

On this basis, I can indeed say that 42 seconds is unreasonable. This case would require such a delicate energy balance, and such an overbuilt structure experiencing an orderly collapse, that it may be instantly discarded.

Thank you, sir. Your post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2236462#post2236462) explains it succinctly and better than mine.
Unfortunately, these guys (kids?) don't believe anything un-animated.
and do believe anything that is.

"As far as I'm concerned, if you don't know calculus, you're illiterate!"
Christopher Stashef, "We Open on Venus"

[jaydeehess]

. ......... all electrical equipment is made up of one or more black boxes. A black box takes an input, changes it to something else, and outputs it. As long as you match the outputs and inputs for two different black boxes, they will work.

For example... a video camera consist of several black boxes. The lens takes an input of light and converts it to an image (frame). The CCD takes an input of an image and converts it to electrical impulses. The recorder takes an input of electrical impulses and converts it to either a magnetic pattern on a tape or data on a harddrive.

And so forth.

All electrical stuff seems really easy once I learned black box theory.

-Gumboot

You have heard the smoke theory of electronic components? The theory goes that all electronic components are filled with various types of smoke. If you damage one and let the smoke out it will not work anymore. from my experience this is bourne out since everytime I see smoke escape from an electronic device it fails to work.:D

[JimBenArm]

You have heard the smoke theory of electronic components? The theory goes that all electronic components are filled with various types of smoke. If you damage one and let the smoke out it will not work anymore. from my experience this is bourne out since everytime I see smoke escape from an electronic device it fails to work.:D
That's what they taught me in the Navy, too!
Must be true!:D

[JonnyFive]

I offer here a previous post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2236462#post2236462) that expands on his argument. In brief, it shows that the buildings could be expected to collapse quickly, i.e. between 10 and 15 seconds, for a huge range of energy values needed to destroy the lower structure.

Thank you, R. Mackey, I was thinking about that post, but couldn't remember where you posted it.