pomeroo
14th October 2007, 02:35 AM
I received the following sui generis e-mail from Morgan Reynolds. This comes after a typically deranged message from Ace Baker. Hmmm.
I have never heard from Reynolds before, and if loons don't want to see their nonsense posted on the JREF, then they damn well better not send it to me!
(Reynolds responds to Dr. Greening's new paper (the missing illustrations are--honest to God--outlines of Wile E. Coyote sumperimposed over the WTC)
Anyone, including Professor Greening, who wants to confine the issue of UA 175's "immaculate penetration" (with no collision/crash and virtually no deceleration, among other slick features) strictly to the empirical realm had best admit his/her contention that Newton's laws of mechanics are defunct. Honesty please. As I write in my preliminary remarks to NIST's denial of my Request for Correction, available here http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619, on October 8, 2007:
I. NIST Versus Newton
Thousands of crashes and collisions have occurred daily throughout history. Crashes are mundane. The elementary physics of these interactions between objects have never been known to vary. All of them have obeyed the laws of physics. Yet somehow, 9/11 was mysteriously different, or so we are told. "Both the aircraft and the towers included deformable components and materials, whose interactions were properly accounted for in the models," states NIST on p. 3 of its response. "As a result, the aircraft would not be expected to decelerate immediately upon impact with the exterior wall of the tower." This is a breathtaking two-sentence sequence that I welcome.
‧ Deformation of materials requires energy.
‧ Energy can only be spent once.
‧ If energy is used to deform materials, it must come from somewhere.
‧ Energy used to deform materials is not available to maintain constant speed.
‧ Unless the flying object can find a new energy source, it must slow because energy consumed deforming materials is not available to keep speed constant.
Now let us repeat NIST's claim: "the aircraft would not be expected to decelerate immediately upon impact." Truly remarkable. In truth, NIST's modeling violates all three fundamental laws of Newtonian mechanics.
Under Newton's 1st law of motion, or law of inertia, if a plane does not decelerate upon impact with an exterior wall, no net force could have been impressed on the plane. To restate, if a plane continues to fly at the same speed, no force has been applied to it. That is the law of inertia. NIST's assertion that we would not expect the aircraft to "decelerate immediately upon impact" against a steel wall backed by steel/concrete floors apparently contradicts Newton's first law. Since a contradiction cannot exist in nature, I can think of six possible explanations:
(a) the 1st law never has been generally valid and/or does not apply to these kinds of interactions between bodies (Newton was wrong, for example, because the master scientist neglected to account for a time lag between impact and deceleration)
(b) the physical law has general validity, but was temporarily suspended in New York City between 8:46 and 9:03 a.m. on 9/11, perhaps by Muslim terrorists
(c) the twin towers and jetliners were built long after Sir Isaac Newton died and hence his old-fashioned laws could not be expected to apply to "biologically-inspired" designs over a quarter-mile tall and their interaction with jetliners
(d) pre-9/11 mechanics no longer apply in a post-9/11 world
(e) the law of inertia holds alright but the buildings were a figment of our imagination and there was no interaction between objects
(f) the law of inertia holds but the planes were a figment of our imagination and there was no interaction between objects (i.e., the plane was a video insert, a TV special effect).
Engineers would be shocked to learn that Newton's first law is invalid or did not apply on 9/11 or after 9/11. Their disbelief suggests that explanations a-d can be safely rejected because Newtonian mechanics still apply. And since the Twin Towers were real by all accounts, that leaves fake videos as the most likely explanation for observing little or no deceleration.
Under Newton's 2d law, sometimes called the law of acceleration, if a force is applied at the front of an airplane, it must slow and the back or tail of that aircraft must slow too. Unless that is, the front is no longer in the way of the back of the plane because the front is no longer connected to the rear, and the disconnect occurred without loss of kinetic energy. Further, according to the 2d law deceleration must be proportional to the force applied. The steel/concrete Twin Towers would administer quite a force against an aluminum airplane flying at high speed.
Since NIST insists that a 159-foot-long Boeing 767 disappeared into the north tower within 0.25 seconds and into the south tower within a corrected 0.23 seconds, almost the same as their speeds in the air, no force was impressed on these planes according to Newton's second law. ΣF = ma and if a = 0, then no net force was applied. When was Newton's 2nd law repealed? I did not get the memo. If the 2d law still applies, and I believe it does, then NIST cannot possibly be right and any gashes or hole in the towers that appeared at 8:46 a.m. and 9:03 a.m. on 9/11 must have been impressed by some method other than by a no-deceleration airplane. NIST apparently forgot the lecture on the first day in engineering mechanics class.
Newton's 3d law, sometimes called the law of reciprocal actions, states that all forces occur in pairs and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. That is, the forces of action and reaction between bodies in contact have the same magnitude, same line of action, and opposite sense. Therefore, if there is a force on the building in a crash, there is an equal and opposite force on the airplane.
If an aluminum plane ran into a Twin Tower, it must crumple, shatter and could not possibly leave a jetliner-shaped, cartoon-like "silhouette of passage" because in a collision with a tremendously strong building, arguably the strongest in the world, an airplane with its lesser mass, density and strength because it is built to be lightweight, would be far less able to withstand the equal force exerted on both bodies. Strength and massiveness matter greatly in which body will fare better in withstanding the equal force of an impact. Everybody knows this in shopping for a car: should I buy a heavy SUV for safety or accept the risk of driving a lightweight econobox or sportscar? If the damage inflicted on the other body in a collision between a jetliner and a Tower were likened to a sports contest, it would be something like Tower 100, Airplane 2. Imagine, for example, that a Tower fell on the airplane instead of the aluminum airplane hitting the Tower: complete and utter devastation of the airplane. However, this mismatch is not what the videos show. Instead, the aluminum plane cuts right through steel and disappears inside the Tower. This is impossible. Structural steel is far stronger than aluminum and present in abundant quantities, and would suffer only light damage compared to complete and utter destruction/rejection of an aluminum airplane, with most of its debris scattered outside the building, especially wings, tail section and a majority of the shattered fuselage. The five floors in each Tower allegedly impacted weighed more than 100X that of the alleged 140 ton airplanes. For more of this analysis, please see here (Madison ST911 Conference) or here (I Had a Car Crash, by Roadrunner - September 11, 2007).
ARA: http://drjudywood.com/articles/ARA/ARA.html
Appeal: http://drjudywood.com/pdf/070822_RFC_Appeal17a_JW.pdf
NIST RFC: http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_RFC.html
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=nist_denies_prelim
My question to Professor Greening and other plane believers is, are the first three pages of statics textbooks null and void? What replaced them? If so, please direct me to the work proving the master scientist in error.
On the empirical contention that the ghost plane decelerated, please recall this careful analysis of the Fairbanks video that found virtually no deceleration:
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=deceleration_WTC2_myers
I thank y'all, as we say in the charmed terrain I occupy, for your careful attention. Am I having fun? Funny you should ask. Am I being too elementary? Am I asking embarrassing questions at a seminar of worthies more learned than I? If so, I apologize. Presumably others have similar questions and they should be answered easily. True, I cling to the admittedly old-fashioned notion that fundamentals trump advanced work contrary to the fundamentals. Someone told me contradictions are impossible in reality. A is A. A is not B. The law of identity. I know, how pre-9/11.
Please, learned physical scientists, help me understand the demise of Sir Isaac Newton and where he went wrong on physical fundamentals.
Morgan Reynolds
Social Scientist
(Not a Physical Scientist)
PS I find this particular Greening assumption of interest: "The calculation of Te is straightforward because, to a very good approximation, the aircraft was moving on a trajectory that was perpendicular to the south face of WTC 2."
Oh yes, as does NIST, it was nearly a perpendicular while banking sharply left (according to videos) and striking at a 38 degree angle and "nearly missing the building," according to multiple accounts. Gee, what are the odds of a perpendicular hit (under these or nearly any conditions) and the wrecking ball, i.e., WTC 2, not striking the left wing/engine first and spinning that sorry aluminum structure counterclockwise off to the east, ripping its tail section off and flinging it blocks away, among other catastrophic effects? Oh no, we are to believe that most of the 3.1 million pieces and contents of the aluminum can disappeared inside the tower. Aside, that is, from a few impossibly placed pieces of "evidence." Rather small chance you say? The four cleanest crash sites in aviation history, all within 77 minutes, my, my. Like no other "crashes" ever or since in aviation history. The Respectable Media and "my" government told me so, backed up by prominent physical scientists like those on this list. After all, each and every such scientist is an independent voice, not a poodle of the Feds. Uh huh. Oh yeah. Economists have repeatedly shown that scientists, like other "agents," do not respond predictably to material incentives. Ok, must all be true then.
Not true to me though. The anti-Newton revolution, trashing basic physics, should be documented. Please inform me and the rest of the great unwashed where to look for your proofs Newton erred. Thank you.
I have never heard from Reynolds before, and if loons don't want to see their nonsense posted on the JREF, then they damn well better not send it to me!
(Reynolds responds to Dr. Greening's new paper (the missing illustrations are--honest to God--outlines of Wile E. Coyote sumperimposed over the WTC)
Anyone, including Professor Greening, who wants to confine the issue of UA 175's "immaculate penetration" (with no collision/crash and virtually no deceleration, among other slick features) strictly to the empirical realm had best admit his/her contention that Newton's laws of mechanics are defunct. Honesty please. As I write in my preliminary remarks to NIST's denial of my Request for Correction, available here http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619, on October 8, 2007:
I. NIST Versus Newton
Thousands of crashes and collisions have occurred daily throughout history. Crashes are mundane. The elementary physics of these interactions between objects have never been known to vary. All of them have obeyed the laws of physics. Yet somehow, 9/11 was mysteriously different, or so we are told. "Both the aircraft and the towers included deformable components and materials, whose interactions were properly accounted for in the models," states NIST on p. 3 of its response. "As a result, the aircraft would not be expected to decelerate immediately upon impact with the exterior wall of the tower." This is a breathtaking two-sentence sequence that I welcome.
‧ Deformation of materials requires energy.
‧ Energy can only be spent once.
‧ If energy is used to deform materials, it must come from somewhere.
‧ Energy used to deform materials is not available to maintain constant speed.
‧ Unless the flying object can find a new energy source, it must slow because energy consumed deforming materials is not available to keep speed constant.
Now let us repeat NIST's claim: "the aircraft would not be expected to decelerate immediately upon impact." Truly remarkable. In truth, NIST's modeling violates all three fundamental laws of Newtonian mechanics.
Under Newton's 1st law of motion, or law of inertia, if a plane does not decelerate upon impact with an exterior wall, no net force could have been impressed on the plane. To restate, if a plane continues to fly at the same speed, no force has been applied to it. That is the law of inertia. NIST's assertion that we would not expect the aircraft to "decelerate immediately upon impact" against a steel wall backed by steel/concrete floors apparently contradicts Newton's first law. Since a contradiction cannot exist in nature, I can think of six possible explanations:
(a) the 1st law never has been generally valid and/or does not apply to these kinds of interactions between bodies (Newton was wrong, for example, because the master scientist neglected to account for a time lag between impact and deceleration)
(b) the physical law has general validity, but was temporarily suspended in New York City between 8:46 and 9:03 a.m. on 9/11, perhaps by Muslim terrorists
(c) the twin towers and jetliners were built long after Sir Isaac Newton died and hence his old-fashioned laws could not be expected to apply to "biologically-inspired" designs over a quarter-mile tall and their interaction with jetliners
(d) pre-9/11 mechanics no longer apply in a post-9/11 world
(e) the law of inertia holds alright but the buildings were a figment of our imagination and there was no interaction between objects
(f) the law of inertia holds but the planes were a figment of our imagination and there was no interaction between objects (i.e., the plane was a video insert, a TV special effect).
Engineers would be shocked to learn that Newton's first law is invalid or did not apply on 9/11 or after 9/11. Their disbelief suggests that explanations a-d can be safely rejected because Newtonian mechanics still apply. And since the Twin Towers were real by all accounts, that leaves fake videos as the most likely explanation for observing little or no deceleration.
Under Newton's 2d law, sometimes called the law of acceleration, if a force is applied at the front of an airplane, it must slow and the back or tail of that aircraft must slow too. Unless that is, the front is no longer in the way of the back of the plane because the front is no longer connected to the rear, and the disconnect occurred without loss of kinetic energy. Further, according to the 2d law deceleration must be proportional to the force applied. The steel/concrete Twin Towers would administer quite a force against an aluminum airplane flying at high speed.
Since NIST insists that a 159-foot-long Boeing 767 disappeared into the north tower within 0.25 seconds and into the south tower within a corrected 0.23 seconds, almost the same as their speeds in the air, no force was impressed on these planes according to Newton's second law. ΣF = ma and if a = 0, then no net force was applied. When was Newton's 2nd law repealed? I did not get the memo. If the 2d law still applies, and I believe it does, then NIST cannot possibly be right and any gashes or hole in the towers that appeared at 8:46 a.m. and 9:03 a.m. on 9/11 must have been impressed by some method other than by a no-deceleration airplane. NIST apparently forgot the lecture on the first day in engineering mechanics class.
Newton's 3d law, sometimes called the law of reciprocal actions, states that all forces occur in pairs and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. That is, the forces of action and reaction between bodies in contact have the same magnitude, same line of action, and opposite sense. Therefore, if there is a force on the building in a crash, there is an equal and opposite force on the airplane.
If an aluminum plane ran into a Twin Tower, it must crumple, shatter and could not possibly leave a jetliner-shaped, cartoon-like "silhouette of passage" because in a collision with a tremendously strong building, arguably the strongest in the world, an airplane with its lesser mass, density and strength because it is built to be lightweight, would be far less able to withstand the equal force exerted on both bodies. Strength and massiveness matter greatly in which body will fare better in withstanding the equal force of an impact. Everybody knows this in shopping for a car: should I buy a heavy SUV for safety or accept the risk of driving a lightweight econobox or sportscar? If the damage inflicted on the other body in a collision between a jetliner and a Tower were likened to a sports contest, it would be something like Tower 100, Airplane 2. Imagine, for example, that a Tower fell on the airplane instead of the aluminum airplane hitting the Tower: complete and utter devastation of the airplane. However, this mismatch is not what the videos show. Instead, the aluminum plane cuts right through steel and disappears inside the Tower. This is impossible. Structural steel is far stronger than aluminum and present in abundant quantities, and would suffer only light damage compared to complete and utter destruction/rejection of an aluminum airplane, with most of its debris scattered outside the building, especially wings, tail section and a majority of the shattered fuselage. The five floors in each Tower allegedly impacted weighed more than 100X that of the alleged 140 ton airplanes. For more of this analysis, please see here (Madison ST911 Conference) or here (I Had a Car Crash, by Roadrunner - September 11, 2007).
ARA: http://drjudywood.com/articles/ARA/ARA.html
Appeal: http://drjudywood.com/pdf/070822_RFC_Appeal17a_JW.pdf
NIST RFC: http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_RFC.html
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=nist_denies_prelim
My question to Professor Greening and other plane believers is, are the first three pages of statics textbooks null and void? What replaced them? If so, please direct me to the work proving the master scientist in error.
On the empirical contention that the ghost plane decelerated, please recall this careful analysis of the Fairbanks video that found virtually no deceleration:
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=deceleration_WTC2_myers
I thank y'all, as we say in the charmed terrain I occupy, for your careful attention. Am I having fun? Funny you should ask. Am I being too elementary? Am I asking embarrassing questions at a seminar of worthies more learned than I? If so, I apologize. Presumably others have similar questions and they should be answered easily. True, I cling to the admittedly old-fashioned notion that fundamentals trump advanced work contrary to the fundamentals. Someone told me contradictions are impossible in reality. A is A. A is not B. The law of identity. I know, how pre-9/11.
Please, learned physical scientists, help me understand the demise of Sir Isaac Newton and where he went wrong on physical fundamentals.
Morgan Reynolds
Social Scientist
(Not a Physical Scientist)
PS I find this particular Greening assumption of interest: "The calculation of Te is straightforward because, to a very good approximation, the aircraft was moving on a trajectory that was perpendicular to the south face of WTC 2."
Oh yes, as does NIST, it was nearly a perpendicular while banking sharply left (according to videos) and striking at a 38 degree angle and "nearly missing the building," according to multiple accounts. Gee, what are the odds of a perpendicular hit (under these or nearly any conditions) and the wrecking ball, i.e., WTC 2, not striking the left wing/engine first and spinning that sorry aluminum structure counterclockwise off to the east, ripping its tail section off and flinging it blocks away, among other catastrophic effects? Oh no, we are to believe that most of the 3.1 million pieces and contents of the aluminum can disappeared inside the tower. Aside, that is, from a few impossibly placed pieces of "evidence." Rather small chance you say? The four cleanest crash sites in aviation history, all within 77 minutes, my, my. Like no other "crashes" ever or since in aviation history. The Respectable Media and "my" government told me so, backed up by prominent physical scientists like those on this list. After all, each and every such scientist is an independent voice, not a poodle of the Feds. Uh huh. Oh yeah. Economists have repeatedly shown that scientists, like other "agents," do not respond predictably to material incentives. Ok, must all be true then.
Not true to me though. The anti-Newton revolution, trashing basic physics, should be documented. Please inform me and the rest of the great unwashed where to look for your proofs Newton erred. Thank you.