Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[tsig]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

NIST said the free fall period continued for 32 m or approx. 8 stories. To have 8 stories of free fall (no resisting structure) you need 8 stories of resisting structure removed.

Buckled columns have no power to resist. The columns buckled.

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

No, it did not fall seperately, but it did fall at a different rate as the rest, for that time period. It also fell at different rates at different times during the collapse. Parts of the building also fell inside, which you could not see...so I guess that is impossible also?

TAM

So by how much do these rates differ from one another? My guess is you have no idea.

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by tfk

cm,

You haven't the SLIGHTEST clue what you are talking about.

Why don't you try to learn some remedial physics. Such as the difference between velocity & acceleration.



Here is the first chart taken from the Chandler link that YOU QUOTE (with some annotations by me in red.)

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=3820

If you were able to read a velocity vs. time graph, and competent enough to turn it into acceleration vs. time, you'd realize the following:

The acceleration does NOT start into free fall "immediately". There is about 0.7 seconds during which its acceleration is significantly less than g. According to BOTH NIST & Chandler.

During this period, the resistance of the lower structure is a very high percent of G. During the time that the acceleration is approximately zero, the resistance of the building is approximately equal to the weight of the building. A very high resistance for a fatally damaged building...!!

Your claim that "the initial stage is a NIST fraud" is proven by Chandler's data to be laughably incompetent.

According to Chandler's data, there are times when the acceleration is significantly greater than G (as I've highlighted in the middle of the descent.



It ain't science. It's engineering.

You wouldn't know either if one of them walked up & dope-slapped you into the middle of next week.

Time to face facts, Michael. When it comes to any of this stuff, you're incompetent. The only person that you are fooling is yourself.


Tom

You appear to be claiming that in this 0.7 seconds period the building was hardly accelerating at all because the structure was providing resistance. Yet during this period 8 stories of structure buckled away simultaneously? Yeah right...

This period of approximately zero acceleration is most probably due to the roof curvature seen prior to free fall. All of the core would have been blown out, possibly the floors are collapsing which could compress the facade and explain the minuscule acceleration. At any rate, since it is near zero it can be effectively ignored since it means nothing significant at all despite your vigorous handwaving.

NIST's three stage model is indeed a fraud. It is not proven from Chandler's data since his and NIST's data are essentially the same. NIST simply started their countdown before the facade started its fall. That is fraud plain and simple. Your entirely unsupported pronouncements do nothing to dispute that.

Higher than G acceleration can also be explained by the roof bow. The sides are compressing then when the perimeter columns are blown below the building whips down faster that G for a short time.

Amateurish ridicule and pompous entirely unsupported pronouncements are sign of something but certainly not competence.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

So by how much do these rates differ from one another? My guess is you have no idea.

your guess is correct. My guess is you only know because you were fed it by Chandler or some other believer.

Nice avatar btw, it suits you perfectly.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

You appear to be claiming that in this 0.7 seconds period the building was hardly accelerating at all because the structure was providing resistance. Yet during this period 8 stories of structure buckled away simultaneously? Yeah right...

This period of approximately zero acceleration is most probably due to the roof curvature seen prior to free fall. All of the core would have been blown out, possibly the floors are collapsing which could compress the facade and explain the minuscule acceleration. At any rate, since it is near zero it can be effectively ignored since it means nothing significant at all despite your vigorous handwaving.

NIST's three stage model is indeed a fraud. It is not proven from Chandler's data since his and NIST's data are essentially the same. NIST simply started their countdown before the facade started its fall. That is fraud plain and simple. Your entirely unsupported pronouncements do nothing to dispute that.

Higher than G acceleration can also be explained by the roof bow. The sides are compressing then when the perimeter columns are blown below the building whips down faster that G for a short time.

Amateurish ridicule and pompous entirely unsupported pronouncements are sign of something but certainly not competence.

Please tell me what it is a sign of, because you have done nothing here since you began posting, but display Amateurish ridicule of NIST and its scientists, and nothing but unsupported pronouncements with respect to the alleged TOTAL BUILDING FREE FALL, which is complete fiction.

TAM

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

You appear to be claiming that in this 0.7 seconds period the building was hardly accelerating at all because the structure was providing resistance. Yet during this period 8 stories of structure buckled away simultaneously? Yeah right...

This period of approximately zero acceleration is most probably due to the roof curvature seen prior to free fall. All of the core would have been blown out, possibly the floors are collapsing which could compress the facade and explain the minuscule acceleration. At any rate, since it is near zero it can be effectively ignored since it means nothing significant at all despite your vigorous handwaving.

NIST's three stage model is indeed a fraud. It is not proven from Chandler's data since his and NIST's data are essentially the same. NIST simply started their countdown before the facade started its fall. That is fraud plain and simple. Your entirely unsupported pronouncements do nothing to dispute that.

Higher than G acceleration can also be explained by the roof bow. The sides are compressing then when the perimeter columns are blown below the building whips down faster that G for a short time.

Amateurish ridicule and pompous entirely unsupported pronouncements are sign of something but certainly not competence.

Yep. You don't even know what your own side is saying about this collapse. We might as well forget about trying to explain what our side says to you.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

You appear to be claiming that in this 0.7 seconds period the building was hardly accelerating at all because the structure was providing resistance. Yet during this period 8 stories of structure buckled away simultaneously? Yeah right...

Well, I'm convinced. Engineering understanding is one thing, but when some nobody on the Internet says "Yeah right..." there's really no denying the strength of that carefully reasoned argument.

But, hang on. When a structure buckles, it absorbs energy. Absorbing kinetic energy equates to providing resistance to motion. So we'd expect that, while the columns are buckling, the building only accelerates very slowly, because the buckling is providing resistance. Then, when the buckling progresses to fracture point, we'll see a sudden increase in acceleration, to something close to 1g, because the structures that were providing resistance by buckling have just stopped doing so.

A period of small acceleration, followed by a rapid increase to nearly 1g. Now where have I seen that? Oh yes - just up there ^. It's what WTC7 did; just what you'd expect it to do, if you're competent.

But we've still got that "Yeah right..." to contend with. Cmatrix presents a thoroughly plausible, physically reasonable scenario, but then handwaves it away with a simple "Yeah right..." as if it were something really, really, mind-bendingly stupid, like - I don't know - silent explosives or thermite with split-second timing. How will we ever refute that?

Dave

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Well, I'm convinced. Engineering understanding is one thing, but when some nobody on the Internet says "Yeah right..." there's really no denying the strength of that carefully reasoned argument.

But, hang on. When a structure buckles, it absorbs energy. Absorbing kinetic energy equates to providing resistance to motion. So we'd expect that, while the columns are buckling, the building only accelerates very slowly, because the buckling is providing resistance. Then, when the buckling progresses to fracture point, we'll see a sudden increase in acceleration, to something close to 1g, because the structures that were providing resistance by buckling have just stopped doing so.

A period of small acceleration, followed by a rapid increase to nearly 1g. Now where have I seen that? Oh yes - just up there ^. It's what WTC7 did; just what you'd expect it to do, if you're competent.

But we've still got that "Yeah right..." to contend with. Cmatrix presents a thoroughly plausible, physically reasonable scenario, but then handwaves it away with a simple "Yeah right..." as if it were something really, really, mind-bendingly stupid, like - I don't know - silent explosives or thermite with split-second timing. How will we ever refute that?

Dave

Your theory implies that all the 58 perimeter columns buckled at exactly the same time at precisely the right points to allow a straight down free fall for eight stories. Because this theory is so monumentally ridiculous it deserves an outright dismissal. No one here has ever attempted in any way to reasonably support this violently absurd theory.

Compressing a structure also stores energy. The compression theory neatly explains the roof bowing, the minuscule initial downward acceleration and the minuscule faster than G period of acceleration. Your ridiculous theory merely explains the mental state of NIST apologists. Does your theory explain the roof bow and the minuscule faster than G period of acceleration? No. Magically simultaneously buckled columns would cause the building to accelerate straight downward. Oh wait...the core columns supporting the roof could have magically bucked in the second before the facade came down. Oh but then you will also have compression that would explain the minuscule initial downward acceleration and the minuscule faster than G period of acceleration. But, oh dear, now there is no way to explain the magical simultaneous buckling of 58 perimeter columns. Quite a pickle you have here. I'm sure the world can't wait for your hilarious attempt at an explanation.

[Newtons Bit]

You're repeating a topic we've already debunked, cmatrix. Why?

[excaza]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Your theory implies that all the 58 perimeter columns buckled at exactly the same time at precisely the right points to allow a straight down free fall for eight stories. Because this theory is so monumentally ridiculous it deserves an outright dismissal. No one here has ever attempted in any way to reasonably support this violently absurd theory.

The only person who has ever presented this violently absurd theory is you. Why on earth don't you get that?

[tfk]

cm,

Originally Posted by cmatrix

You appear to be claiming that in this 0.7 seconds period the building was hardly accelerating at all because the structure was providing resistance. Yet during this period 8 stories of structure buckled away simultaneously? Yeah right...

Allow me to explain what it means if the roofline accelerates (downward) for a short period of time: it means the roofline picked up a downward velocity.

Next, what does it mean if the acceleration of the roof line remains at zero for a short period of time: It means that the roofline continues to move downward at that same velocity.

Originally Posted by cmatrix

This period of approximately zero acceleration is most probably due to the roof curvature seen prior to free fall. All of the core would have been blown out, possibly the floors are collapsing which could compress the facade and explain the minuscule acceleration. At any rate, since it is near zero it can be effectively ignored since it means nothing significant at all despite your vigorous handwaving.

LMAO…

What do you call a building whose roofline is moving downward at a constant velocity? You call it a "collapsing building". No matter how small that velocity might be.

You STILL don't seem to understand the difference between acceleration & velocity.

Now, this particular downward velocity BEGAN at about 12 seconds after the building as a whole began to collapse.

As a result, this downward motion was the last RESULT of the collapse process. Not the cause of something that was well underway.

Originally Posted by cmatrix

NIST's three stage model is indeed a fraud. It is not proven from Chandler's data since his and NIST's data are essentially the same. NIST simply started their countdown before the facade started its fall. That is fraud plain and simple. Your entirely unsupported pronouncements do nothing to dispute that.

Yup. NIST has the competence to start the countdown of the collapse of the building when the building actually began to collapse.

The nerve of those silly engineers...

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Higher than G acceleration can also be explained by the roof bow. The sides are compressing then when the perimeter columns are blown below the building whips down faster that G for a short time.

Flex of the building's structure is, in fact a viable (but unlikely) source of faster than g acceleration.

"Blown" perimeter columns are a delusion, disproven by about 100 audio tapes.

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Amateurish ridicule and pompous entirely unsupported pronouncements are sign of something but certainly not competence.

I couldn't possibly agree more.

Now, do you have anything BUT "amateurish ridicule and pompous entirely unsupported pronouncements" to offer?


tom

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Originally Posted by excaza

The only person who has ever presented this violently absurd theory is you. Why on earth don't you get that?

Because CM is too busy committing a classic Logical Fallacy.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Your theory implies that all the 58 perimeter columns buckled at exactly the same time at precisely the right points to allow a straight down free fall for eight stories.

No it doesn't. It implies that a failure progressed rapidly, but not necessarily instantaneously, across the north face. We know that it wasn't instantaneous from the way the kink developed in the middle of the face. The more you insist on misrepresenting your opponents' positions, the more you destroy any last vestiges of credibility you may have left.

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Because this theory is so monumentally ridiculous it deserves an outright dismissal. No one here has ever attempted in any way to reasonably support this violently absurd theory.

Agreed. Yet, for some reason, you're demanding we do so. Could it be, perhaps, because you don't feel confident to address the actual, physically resonable, model that people here are supporting?

As Dave Thomas pointed out, this behaviour has a name.

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Compressing a structure also stores energy. The compression theory neatly explains the roof bowing, the minuscule initial downward acceleration and the minuscule faster than G period of acceleration. Your ridiculous theory merely explains the mental state of NIST apologists. Does your theory explain the roof bow and the minuscule faster than G period of acceleration? No. Magically simultaneously buckled columns would cause the building to accelerate straight downward. Oh wait...the core columns supporting the roof could have magically bucked in the second before the facade came down. Oh but then you will also have compression that would explain the minuscule initial downward acceleration and the minuscule faster than G period of acceleration. But, oh dear, now there is no way to explain the magical simultaneous buckling of 58 perimeter columns. Quite a pickle you have here. I'm sure the world can't wait for your hilarious attempt at an explanation.

Nice rant. I can almost see the spittle round the corners of your mouth. My mental picture of you saying this out loud also includes an image of straw flying round the room.

If you feel like dealing with reality at some point, we'll still be here.

Dave

[triforcharity]

Hey CMA,

When do you plan on submitting your paper to a reputable journal for peer review? I mean, obviously this would be something that any of the dozens of SE journals would love to see. I mean, proving NIST andhundreds of SE and FPE wrong is big news.

Do you need help contacting a journal? Many of us here could help you with that information. Just ask.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Hey CMA,

When do you plan on submitting your paper to a reputable journal for peer review? I mean, obviously this would be something that any of the dozens of SE journals would love to see. I mean, proving NIST andhundreds of SE and FPE wrong is big news.

Do you need help contacting a journal? Many of us here could help you with that information. Just ask.

He's already submitted papers to the Journal of Applied "Oh yeah? I don't *think* so!"

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by tfk

cm,



Allow me to explain what it means if the roofline accelerates (downward) for a short period of time: it means the roofline picked up a downward velocity.

Next, what does it mean if the acceleration of the roof line remains at zero for a short period of time: It means that the roofline continues to move downward at that same velocity.



LMAO…

What do you call a building whose roofline is moving downward at a constant velocity? You call it a "collapsing building". No matter how small that velocity might be.

You STILL don't seem to understand the difference between acceleration & velocity.

Now, this particular downward velocity BEGAN at about 12 seconds after the building as a whole began to collapse.

As a result, this downward motion was the last RESULT of the collapse process. Not the cause of something that was well underway.



Yup. NIST has the competence to start the countdown of the collapse of the building when the building actually began to collapse.

The nerve of those silly engineers...



Flex of the building's structure is, in fact a viable (but unlikely) source of faster than g acceleration.

"Blown" perimeter columns are a delusion, disproven by about 100 audio tapes.



I couldn't possibly agree more.

Now, do you have anything BUT "amateurish ridicule and pompous entirely unsupported pronouncements" to offer?


tom

I understand the difference between acceleration and velocity. Your completely unsupported pronouncements to the contrary prove absolutely nothing.

"Now, this particular downward velocity BEGAN at about 12 seconds after the building as a whole began to collapse."

This statement is a primitive attempt to misdirect away from the inconvenient topic I am attempting to discuss: the free fall period of the facade and the inconvenient fact that for free fall to happen 8 stories of resisting structure had to be removed instantaneously. You can attempt to mislead the discussion all you like but you can't explain away the free fall period.

"As a result, this downward motion was the last RESULT of the collapse process. Not the cause of something that was well underway."

Now this is truly a bizarre statement. Who ever said the initial downward motion was the cause of the collapse?

David Chandler's expose of NIST's three stage model fraud of artificially setting the roof line collapse one second before it actually started is quite obvious. If you have some sort of proof he got it wrong let's hear it. Your handwaving unsupported pronouncements count for absolutely nothing.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

This statement is a primitive attempt to misdirect away from the inconvenient topic I am attempting to discuss: the free fall period of the facade and the inconvenient fact that for free fall to happen 8 stories of resisting structure had to be removed instantaneously.

The erroneous word is the one emboldened.

Dave

[Newtons Bit]

He says it HAS to be removed instantaneously. Has anyone seen cmatrix back that up with any logic? Math? Anything?

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

I understand the difference between acceleration and velocity. Your completely unsupported pronouncements to the contrary prove absolutely nothing.

etc...

Riddle me this: if freefall acceleration is THE indicator of CD, then why didn't the twin towers fall at freefall acceleration as well?

The 2.25s you're fixating on does not override all the other information, unless you're attempting to reduce the debate into a non-scientific rhetorical battle, that is.

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

No it doesn't. It implies that a failure progressed rapidly, but not necessarily instantaneously, across the north face. We know that it wasn't instantaneous from the way the kink developed in the middle of the face. The more you insist on misrepresenting your opponents' positions, the more you destroy any last vestiges of credibility you may have left.



Agreed. Yet, for some reason, you're demanding we do so. Could it be, perhaps, because you don't feel confident to address the actual, physically resonable, model that people here are supporting?

As Dave Thomas pointed out, this behaviour has a name.



Nice rant. I can almost see the spittle round the corners of your mouth. My mental picture of you saying this out loud also includes an image of straw flying round the room.

If you feel like dealing with reality at some point, we'll still be here.

Dave

For the free fall period eight stories of resisting structure did have to be removed virtually simultaneously. If the structures weren't removed within a fraction of a second of one another there would be resistance and therefore no free fall.

Yes the kink could be caused by the corresponding perimeter columns being removed first within a fraction of a second of the others. This process is commonly used in controlled demolitions to facilitate the walls collapsing inward to prevent collateral damage.

Exposing the obvious implications of an opponent's position is not building a straw man. In order to expose a straw man you have to actually point out the misrepresentation. You can't just wave your hands making unsupported pronouncements.

The NIST apologists here aren't even presenting an actual position, just one with massive holes in it. NIST cannot explain free fall nor can their apologists. NIST admits free fall occurred but the model their theory is based on cannot predict free fall which proves both are complete bunk. What kind of people believe in theories that are complete bunk?

[T.A.M.]

Back up your vague, nonmathematic nonscientific diatribe with some math and science, and you wont need to worry about others misrepresenting....it will be there in all of its irrefutable glory....

Yah, like that is gonna happen.

TAM

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

NIST admits free fall occurred but the model their theory is based on cannot predict free fall which proves both are complete bunk. What kind of people believe in theories that are complete bunk?

Why can't it predict freefall? Explain in detail what their theory is, and why it inherently cannot predict freefall.

[Disbelief]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Yes the kink could be caused by the corresponding perimeter columns being removed first within a fraction of a second of the others. This process is commonly used in controlled demolitions to facilitate the walls collapsing inward to prevent collateral damage.

So then you should be able to show a freefall that attains freefall.

[tfk]

cm,

1. You don't know what you are talking about. Time after time after time, you've made trivial, absurd errors.

2. Multiple people have corrected your trivial, absurd errors.

3. You simply ignore, fail to respond to, those corrections.

4. And repeat your trivial, absurd errors.

Allow me to provide a tiny sampling.

You stated:

Originally Posted by cmatrix

All this talk of buckling is completely irrelevant unfortunately. The three stage model of NIST is a fraud. WTC 7 was in free fall immediately when the northwest corner began descending.

You are wrong.

The north wall was NOT in free fall immediately. I showed you Chandler's data. Here it is again.



Your response: While admitting that the 0.7 seconds of non-free fall acceleration, you ignore the fact that your previous statement was completely wrong.

Here is another sample of previous comments of mine to you. Which you also ignored.



The RED LINE is the acceleration vs. time behavior that you are claiming. The RED LINE shows an object whose supports have been completely removed at 3.75 seconds, entering free fall. Immediately.

The GREEN LINE is the acceleration of the North Wall, with a lot more resolution than Chandler's graph.

Your previous assertion is that the Green Line is the same as the Red Line...

So, cm, are you now prepared to retract your previous, incorrect statement that "the north face entered free fall immediately"?
___

Originally Posted by cmatrix

I understand the difference between acceleration and velocity. Your completely unsupported pronouncements to the contrary prove absolutely nothing.

Wrong.

I showed you before (green line in graph above) that it wasn't even in free fall during those 2.25 seconds.

Here is the raw position vs. time data: http://femr2.ucoz.com/load/dan_rathe..._data/1-1-0-29
Calculate your own velocity vs. time graph & your own acceleration vs. time graph.

Come back & discuss it.

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Originally Posted by tfk

"Now, this particular downward velocity BEGAN at about 12 seconds after the building as a whole began to collapse."

This statement is a primitive attempt to misdirect away from the inconvenient topic I am attempting to discuss …

There has been no "misdirecting away from discussion of this topic".

I have discussed your "inconvenient topic" in excruciating detail in other threads. And attempted to discuss it with you in this one. You simply run away from the discussion.

Above, in this one post, is more substantive discussion than all of your posts combined.

You are the person who will not address the issues. You simply parrot the same nonsense over & over & over.

Originally Posted by cmatrix

the free fall period of the facade and the inconvenient fact that for free fall to happen 8 stories of resisting structure had to be removed instantaneously.

Uh, wrong again.

1) It didn't enter free fall. ("immediately" or otherwise)
2) 8 stories of resisting structure do NOT have to be removed for it to enter the acceleration seen.
3) 8 stories of resisting structure do NOT have to be removed "immediately" for it to enter the acceleration seen.
4) 8 stories of resisting structure were not removed.
5) the only thing that has to happen, for that (non-free fall) acceleration to be seen is for the geometry of the supporting structure to be changed. An event that can (& did) happen in about 0.7 seconds.

Originally Posted by cmatrix

... you can't explain away the free fall period.

Just did.

You missed it.

Again.

Originally Posted by cmatrix

David Chandler's expose of NIST's three stage model fraud of artificially setting the roof line collapse one second before it actually started is quite obvious. If you have some sort of proof he got it wrong let's hear it. Your handwaving unsupported pronouncements count for absolutely nothing.

You don't know what you (or Chandler) are talking about.

David Chandler does not dispute NIST's raw data. [He disputes an interpretation of a small sub-set of the data.]

BOTH Chandler & NIST's data show conclusively that Stages 1, 2 & 3 exist.

You seem unable to view & understand clear graphs. Let me help you, using Chandler's raw data:



Do you understand yet that Chandler's data CONFIRMS NIST's stages?

Are you willing to "discuss" this.

Or will you continue to ignore your trivial, absurd errors?


tom

[HyJinX]

brilliant post Tom.

[tfk]

Originally Posted by HyJinX

brilliant post Tom.

Aw, shucks. Thanks.

I'm a little hesitant to ask what the hell your Ron Burgandy tag line refers to...



tom

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by tfk

cm,

Just did.

You missed it.

Again.

tom

You know what? I'm not going to play your misdirection games any more. I'm ashamed I let it go this far. You again claim you have dealt with the 2.25 second free fall period, i.e. explained it. You have not. You nor anyone else here have ever explained the free fall period. NIST has never explained it. The computer model their entire theory is based on does not even show free fall. Why? Because free fall is impossible in a natural gravity-driven collapse. The NIST model shows crumpling occurring during the time the building was in free fall. Such crumpling requires the conversion of gravitational potential energy which for obvious reasons would not be available in a free falling building. There it is in plain site. The NIST theory is based on a model which does not explain the obvious facts. This means both the model and the theory are complete and utter rubbish, i.e. crackpot pseudo-science. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what sort of people agree with and defend crackpot pseudo-science.

[AZCat]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what sort of people agree with and defend crackpot pseudo-science.

Mostly truthers, in my ever-so-humble opinion.

[ProBonoShill]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

You know what? I'm not going to play your misdirection games any more. I'm ashamed I let it go this far. You again claim you have dealt with the 2.25 second free fall period, i.e. explained it. You have not. You nor anyone else here have ever explained the free fall period. NIST has never explained it. The computer model their entire theory is based on does not even show free fall. Why? Because free fall is impossible in a natural gravity-driven collapse. The NIST model shows crumpling occurring during the time the building was in free fall. Such crumpling requires the conversion of gravitational potential energy which for obvious reasons would not be available in a free falling building. There it is in plain site. The NIST theory is based on a model which does not explain the obvious facts. This means both the model and the theory are complete and utter rubbish, i.e. crackpot pseudo-science. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what sort of people agree with and defend crackpot pseudo-science.

Translation: I have no clue what your post means tfk, please do not include mathematics, physics and engineering in your posts as I do not understand them.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

... The NIST theory is based on a model which does not explain the obvious facts. This means both the model and the theory are complete and utter rubbish, i.e. crackpot pseudo-science. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what sort of people agree with and defend crackpot pseudo-science.

The best part of your delusion, you can't prove it. If you could it would be in real journal right now.

I don't need to defend NIST, you can't refute them, you can't prove them wrong. The only thing you have done is said they have rubbish for a theory, and rant about crackpot pseudo-science. Yet you have produce no science, only talk as your evidence. You lost this one. Until you produce reasons and the math to go with your work, you have failed to prove anything other than you are making up false statements about NIST.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

For the free fall period eight stories of resisting structure did have to be removed virtually simultaneously. If the structures weren't removed within a fraction of a second of one another there would be resistance and therefore no free fall.

Parts that we've all been trying to get you to admit emboldened. The point, of course, is that "within a fraction of a second" is not "simultaneous", and allows the column failures to be related by a chain of causality rather than a single external cause. And that's the strawman argument you've been presenting: that the 2.25 second drop cannot be explained by a sequential failure of columns, when in fact it can, and has been. And, once the failure is seen to be sequential, it's obvious that it could be caused by progressive failure, and didn't have to be demolition.

Dave

[tfk]

Originally Posted by cmatrix

You know what? I'm not going to play your misdirection games any more. I'm ashamed I let it go this far. You again claim you have dealt with the 2.25 second free fall period, i.e. explained it. You have not. You nor anyone else here have ever explained the free fall period. NIST has never explained it. The computer model their entire theory is based on does not even show free fall. Why? Because free fall is impossible in a natural gravity-driven collapse. The NIST model shows crumpling occurring during the time the building was in free fall. Such crumpling requires the conversion of gravitational potential energy which for obvious reasons would not be available in a free falling building. There it is in plain site. The NIST theory is based on a model which does not explain the obvious facts. This means both the model and the theory are complete and utter rubbish, i.e. crackpot pseudo-science. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what sort of people agree with and defend crackpot pseudo-science.

You haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.

"Can't fall faster than g" describes the falling of an object under the influence on just one force: gravity. That means "untouched by any other object and subject to no other forces."

Well, the collapsing north wall of WTC7 was NOT "an object untouched by any other object and subject to no other forces." It was a portion of a far, FAR more complex system than that. It was subject to many hundreds of forces from its connection (on the far side) to the already collapsing building.

Because of those connections & forces, it is NOT impossible for it to fall at "g". It is not impossible for it to fall faster than "g".

It appears evident that, for a brief period of time, it DID fall faster than "g".

And violated not one, single law of the universe in doing so.


Neither you, nor the high school physics teacher (Chandler), seem capable of recognizing this fact.

Your hiding your head in the sand, your deciding that I'm only spewing misdirection, & your lack of understanding don't change the real facts of the issue one iota.

It just makes you (& Chandler) look like a couple of incompetents.


tom

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by tfk

You haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.

"Can't fall faster than g" describes the falling of an object under the influence on just one force: gravity. That means "untouched by any other object and subject to no other forces."

Well, the collapsing north wall of WTC7 was NOT "an object untouched by any other object and subject to no other forces." It was a portion of a far, FAR more complex system than that. It was subject to many hundreds of forces from its connection (on the far side) to the already collapsing building.

Because of those connections & forces, it is NOT impossible for it to fall at "g". It is not impossible for it to fall faster than "g".

It appears evident that, for a brief period of time, it DID fall faster than "g".

And violated not one, single law of the universe in doing so.


Neither you, nor the high school physics teacher (Chandler), seem capable of recognizing this fact.

Your hiding your head in the sand, your deciding that I'm only spewing misdirection, & your lack of understanding don't change the real facts of the issue one iota.

It just makes you (& Chandler) look like a couple of incompetents.


tom

If it fell faster than g for a period of time presumably some item that was itself travelling faster than g impelled the rest downwards faster than g. What was that item and what caused it it to exceed g in the first place ?

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by bill smith

If it fell faster than g for a period of time presumably some item that was itself travelling faster than g inpelled the rest downwards faster than g. What was that item and what caused it it to exceed g in the first place ?

Internal forces. Tension or compression within the structure itself. A sudden fracture of a joint would release these forces to act on different parts of the structure, and it's reasonable to suggest that at least some of those forces would add to the acceleration due to gravity.


Consider a person falling in free-fall, with their body stretched out flat relative to the direction of gravity. Then imagine that this person then folds himself into a "pike position", like an Olympic diver. For the period that they are accelerating their own head and feet downwards, what would be the measured acceleration of a point on their head or feet, relative to the rest of the world? That's right, for a brief period, it would be greater that g. Scale that image up to the size of a building.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Internal forces. Tension or compression within the structure itself. A sudden fracture of a joint would release these forces to act on different parts of the structure, and it's reasonable to suggest that at least some of those forces would add to the acceleration due to gravity.


Consider a person falling in free-fall, with their body stretched out flat relative to the direction of gravity. Then imagine that this person then folds himself into a "pike position", like an Olympic diver. For the period that they are accelerating their own head and feet downwards, what would be the measured acceleration of a point on their head or feet, relative to the rest of the world? That's right, for a brief period, it would be greater that g. Scale that image up to the size of a building.

If the person goes into the pike position and is already falling at g at that time where does the extra energy come from to drive him downwards faster than g ?

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by bill smith

If the person goes into the pike position and is already falling at g at that time where does the extra energy come from to drive him downwards faster than g ?

His lunch.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Horatius

His lunch.

You should pass that on to NIST Horatius . It might give them another possibility to match 'thermal expansion' and 'then a miracle happened'

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by bill smith

You should pass that on to NIST Horatius . It might give them another possibility to match 'thermal expansion' and ' then a miracle happened'

Why am I not at all surprised you don't know anything about how a human body works, either?

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Why am I not at all surprised you don't know anything about how a human body works, either?

Lunch is too complicated Horatius. I mean what did he have for lunch and so on.
Why not convert it to the guy climbs to the top of the free-falling elevator and jumps to the floor causing it to exceed g ?

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by bill smith

Lunch is too complicated Horatius. I mean what did he have for lunch and so on.
Why not convert it to the guy climbs to the top of the free-falling elevator and jumps to the floor causing it to exceed g ?

PS. Or maybe the fly flying at two miles an hour in the car racing along at 90 mph flies into the windscreen presumably pushing the car along just that little bit faster than 90 mph ?