FREE TAPATALK APP

ergo · 13th October 2010, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by excaza

What force other than gravity, exactly, would be accelerating the ruler?

If I knew the answer, I wouldn't have asked the question.

Since leverage and torque were mentioned, I wondered if these might be additional forces acting in this situation.

excaza · 13th October 2010, 06:54 PM

You really need to learn basic physics. Like, really, really, really need to. Torque is not a force, it's the tendency for a force to rotate an object around its axis. You can't act on something with a force and a torque. Your force produces a torque.

Leverage isn't even a physics term. It's just what someone used because they noticed a longer lever arm allowed them to lift more weight. Because of a higher torque. But I'm not going to complicate things for you.

The only force acting in the video is gravity. That is, unless you believe there are magnets, springs, or maybe even tiny little rockets.

T.A.M. · 13th October 2010, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by ergo

If I knew the answer, I wouldn't have asked the question.

Since leverage and torque were mentioned, I wondered if these might be additional forces acting in this situation.

This is why most truthers just shouldn't comment on the collapses...at all.

He is right, go get some basic physics. Leverage can multiply or increase a force, it is not a force itself.

TAM

W.D.Clinger · 13th October 2010, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by ergo

Wouldn't this then technically be describing an additional force other than just gravity?

That's an interesting question, ergo.

I have two related questions for you. The first involves my driveway, which has a bit of a slope to it. When I place a tennis ball near the top of my driveway, it rolls down to the street.

How can that be? The force exerted by gravity is downward, but the street isn't immediately below the spot at which I place the ball; the street is some distance away, and that distance is more horizontal than vertical. Some horizontal force must be pushing the ball toward the street. Where did that horizontal force come from?

The second question involves a propeller beanie. When I push horizontally on one end of my hat's propeller, the opposite end of the propeller goes in entirely the opposite direction from the direction I'm pushing. How can that be?

It's almost as though a solid object reacts to force exerted on one part of the object by transmitting a force to other parts...but that would violate common sense. Must be magic.

ergo · 13th October 2010, 07:14 PM

I was perhaps picturing tension in the ruler, as if it was being slapped onto the surface, in which case, there would be some other force acting on it.

The final question I had about this example is that the ball is obviously falling from a higher elevation than the rest of the ruler, so could that, with air resistance, not account for why it hit the surface later?

I'm just skeptical of this "faster than g" claim, since the only other examples I can find involve other forces, like the Slinky example, where it can be said that the top is accelerating faster than free fall because of the spring action pulling it down.

excaza · 13th October 2010, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by ergo

I was perhaps picturing tension in the ruler, as if it was being slapped onto the surface, in which case, there would be some other force acting on it.

The final question I had about this example is that the ball is obviously falling from a higher elevation than the rest of the ruler, so could that, with air resistance, not account for why it hit the surface later?

I'm just skeptical of this "faster than g" claim, since the only other examples I can find involve other forces, like the Slinky example, where it can be said that the top is accelerating faster than free fall because of the spring action pulling it down.

You do realize Femr2 made you a gigantic picture?

And that the math supporting the faster than g acceleration has been linked twice?

And that if the end of the ruler and ball were accelerating at the same rate, the ball would never leave the tee?

ergo · 13th October 2010, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by excaza

And that if the end of the ruler and ball were accelerating at the same rate, the ball would never leave the tee?

That's better.

DaveThomasNMSR · 13th October 2010, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by ergo

...
I'm just skeptical of this "faster than g" claim, since the only other examples I can find involve other forces, like the Slinky example, where it can be said that the top is accelerating faster than free fall because of the spring action pulling it down.

No. The top of the Slinky could accelerate at g or more only if all 58 coils were suddenly cut, with Thermite-Triggered Super-Quiet Ultra-High EXplosives, a.k.a. Titty-Squex^TM, at exactly the precise same instant.

This Slinky clearly did not "collapse" naturally. There's no way to get around that. The Slinky was an Inside Job, plain and simple.

Dave Rogers · 14th October 2010, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

I was perhaps picturing tension in the ruler, as if it was being slapped onto the surface, in which case, there would be some other force acting on it.

Tension within the ruler is not an external force acting on the ruler.

There are two, and only two, external forces acting on the ruler. One is the downward force due to gravity. The other is the reaction force through the pivoted end, which is acting upwards. There is no downward force acting on the ruler other than gravity.

Originally Posted by ergo

The final question I had about this example is that the ball is obviously falling from a higher elevation than the rest of the ruler, so could that, with air resistance, not account for why it hit the surface later?

The ball starts out in a cup, which will experience a greater air resistance and will move the air around it so that the ball isn't slowed by air resistance. We see the stick fall away from the ball, so it's nothing to do with the height they start at.

Originally Posted by ergo

I'm just skeptical of this "faster than g" claim, since the only other examples I can find involve other forces, like the Slinky example, where it can be said that the top is accelerating faster than free fall because of the spring action pulling it down.

They, also, don't involve any other external forces, just forces internal to the falling object. WTC7, as a connected object, also had internal forces. That, in fact, is the whole point; it's the internal tensile and compressive forces within the object that can accelerate parts of it at a greater rate than g, although the external force can't accelerate the whole of it, on average, greater than g. Since the acceleration measurements we're discussing were only on a specific point on WTC7, not averages of the whole structure, it's quite possible for the same thing to have happened.

Dave

Horatius · 14th October 2010, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Since the acceleration measurements we're discussing were only on a specific point on WTC7, not averages of the whole structure, it's quite possible for the same thing to have happened.

Dave

Which brings up an interesting question: all of the measurements I've seen have been of pixels at the roofline. How hard would it be to try such a measurement using pixles lower in the structure, perhaps an edge of a window, or something? Could we develop an acceleration profile for several points in the façade?

cmatrix · 14th October 2010, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by twinstead

The bolded part confuses me. Are you saying that no matter how many structural engineers DO say it was a fire-initiated collapse, any who do so are in your mind not trustworthy, or are you saying that only only a few structural engineers think it was a fire-initiated collapse, and those are just the untrustworthy ones?

I think you need to keep in mind just how much you are in the abject minority, and how many structural engineers DO agree that damage and fires CAN explain the collapses. Does it make you sleep better at night to simply hand wave them all away as "untrustworthy"?

I'm saying any structural engineer that said WTC 7 was a fire-initiated collapse cannot be trusted. Unlike you, I am not swayed by the number of people that state something. Stating doesn't imply belief. Belief doesn't imply fact.

cmatrix · 14th October 2010, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by GlennB

It developed a very noticeable lean to the south as it fell.

It sagged and fell straight down. At the end rolled to the south while staying in its footprint. Regardless of how it sagged and rolled it fell straight down into its footprint and this required extraordinary precision which is impossible from a fire-initiated collapse. Note that the sagging and rolling make the column failures immensely more precise than if the roof line stayed completely level during the entire collapse. Think what would be required to roll a building like that with explosives.

cmatrix · 14th October 2010, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR

Pwned by Youtube:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

You feel this video shows WTC 7 falling over sideways? I see a building falling straight down into its own footprint.

cmatrix · 14th October 2010, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

That whirring sound you can hear is Isaac Newton turning in his grave.

Dave

Care to explain your statement?

Dave Rogers · 14th October 2010, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

I'm saying any structural engineer that said WTC 7 was a fire-initiated collapse cannot be trusted.

Yep, standard faith-based reasoning - the trustworthiness of a source depends on whether it says what you want it to say.

Dave

Dave Rogers · 14th October 2010, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Care to explain your statement?

I mean that your grasp of Newtonian physics appears virtually nonexistent.

Dave

beachnut · 14th October 2010, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

You feel this video shows WTC 7 falling over sideways? I see a building falling straight down into its own footprint.

You are too far away to see it leaning, not falling straight down. Even the roof is falling not straight; gee whiz, 6 to 8 seconds before the roof moves more than inches, the Penthouse fell through the WTC 7 structure, you can see deformations in the walls and interior collapse though the windows. Oops, not straight, very not straight.

How do you get silent explosives with no blast effects? Please be specific.

"Its own footprint" is a sign you don't understand the collapse, and proof you have no evidence for your claims. Evidence please of its own footprint? Is hitting the building across the road, its own footprint?

twinstead · 14th October 2010, 09:27 AM

Beachnut, cmatrix doesn't agree with you, so that means you can't be trusted

cmatrix · 14th October 2010, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by tfk

Please tell me you're not this clueless, while being this arrogant & insulting...

I just showed you something that you said was impossible: an object falling only under the influence of gravity, falling faster than G.

No other comment?

No, "whoops, perhaps my understanding of the situation was a little off. Maybe a little too simplistic"?

For once, you've said something right.

Yes, we are talking about a collapsing 47 story, massively interconnected steel structure. Not an isolated falling object.

For ALL falling objects (isolated or not)

Eqn 1: (F_g+ ΣF_i) / m = a

where:
F_g= force of gravity
ΣF_i= sum of all forces except gravity
m = mass of falling object
a = resultant acceleration of object.

For the special case of an "isolated falling object", by definition ΣF_i= 0. And the above equation reduces to:
Eqn 2: F_g / m = a = G
where G = gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/sec^2 or 32.2 ft/sec^2)

Note that, if ΣF_i≠ 0, then a ≠ G.

The balls & the coins are "isolated falling objects". They obey Eqn 2.

The cup & the end of the stick are not "isolated". They obey Eqn 1.

Now, let's see if you can take one, simple baby-step on your own …

Question 1: While it fell, was the north wall of WTC7 isolated from all other objects that might have imparted a force on it?

Question 2: Would it obey Eqn 1 or Eqn 2?

Question 3: Based on your answer to Question 2, is it possible for the north wall to fall at, or above, G?

Question 4: Using the variables shown in Eqn 1 above, describe how the north wall could fall "at G"?

Question 5: Describe how it could fall "faster than G"?

Yup.

The same clueless statements you bozos made about the WTC1 & 2 towers. Until others performed the same analyses that NIST did, and got the same results that NIST got.

You are making the same clueless error that some clueless "national security" bozo made when he declared the data "sensitive".

All the data is ALREADY OUT in the public domain. Dimensions, connections, assumptions, methodology, materials, material properties, etc. are all neatly tabulated in the NIST reports.

Anybody, who is not as clueless as you are, can recreate all that data easily.

This argument is simply the latest transparent smoke-screen, because all of your other transparent smoke-screens have evaporated. (Precisely why you bozos have abandoned WTC 1 & 2. All your "gotchas" have been answered.)

For someone who is totally clueless, you sure are arrogant.

tom

"I just showed you something that you said was impossible: an object falling only under the influence of gravity, falling faster than G."

What the hell are you talking about? I said no such thing. Please tell me you're not this clueless, while being this arrogant & insulting...

"All the data is ALREADY OUT in the public domain."

Really? So what was the FOIA request for? John Gross's phone number?

"Anybody, who is not as clueless as you are, can recreate all that data easily."

Well I certainly can't recreate it. But it sounds like you are saying it would be easy for you to recreate it. So let's see you do it. Unless you are completely full of crap, that is.

carlitos · 14th October 2010, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

You feel this video shows WTC 7 falling over sideways? I see a building falling straight down into its own footprint.

Just curious - if you were standing a couple of meters in front of the "footprint" of WTC7 while it fell (see the building falling down with the light blue line shown), do you think that you would be posting here today?

cmatrix · 14th October 2010, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

The NIST theory outlines an 8-story failure of the columns. They provide no resistance at this point. You need to actually read and understand what the NIST theory is before you call it crackpot, mmkay?

Oh a simultaneous eight story buckling of all 58 perimeter columns? Well that's certainly not a crackpot theory. Especially when the only "evidence" they have to support the theory is a cooked computer model that does not show free fall or the eight story buckling and they refuse to release the data the model is based on. Yeah that's certainly not a crackpot theory.

alienentity · 14th October 2010, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Oh a simultaneous eight story buckling of all 58 perimeter columns? Well that's certainly not a crackpot theory. Especially when the only "evidence" they have to support the theory is a cooked computer model that does not show free fall or the eight story buckling and they refuse to release the data the model is based on. Yeah that's certainly not a crackpot theory.

How do you propose NIST recreate random events exactly as they occurred during the collapse?

You do realize that is an impossible task, I hope....

Further, if brainiac truthers such as yourself, with your great technical knowledge can see thru all this instantly, why don't you use your amazing magical powers and create your own engineering model, showing exactly where the explosives or thermitics were placed, which result in a collapse which looks exactly like the real one?
You won't and you can't. And that's the end of it. Your whole counterclaim fails for complete lack of evidence and rigor.

Give it a rest already, you're very arrogant and repetitious.

cmatrix · 14th October 2010, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Unjustified arrogance ROCKS.

But seriously, when do we get to see some math from you cmatrix. People here have been askings you to provide mathematical proof of your allegations for months now...please comply.

TAM

Unbelievable. You are asking me to prove your crackpot theory is wrong. That's like someone asking James Randi to prove there is no psychokinesis. No one here has proven the crackpot NIST theory is right. NIST hasn't, no one has. All anyone can do is wave their hands and make arrogant pronouncements that the theory is gospel. That is not science that is faith-based pseudo-science.

DGM · 14th October 2010, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Unbelievable. You are asking me to prove your crackpot theory is wrong. That's like someone asking James Randi to prove there is no psychokinesis. No one here has proven the crackpot NIST theory is right. NIST hasn't, no one has. All anyone can do is wave their hands and make arrogant pronouncements that the theory is gospel. That is not science that is faith-based pseudo-science.

If it's so obvious why can't you explain what they got wrong? You know with physics.

Oh wait it's a "gut" thing.

alienentity · 14th October 2010, 09:49 AM

My challenge to such pseudo-skeptics as cmatrix is to quit whining about what NIST should have done, coulda done and woulda done if only.... and just get off your lazy butts and do your own engineering model to prove your arguments.

Answer your own questions, instead of expecting everybody else to do the heavy lifting for you! Where were the explosives place, how much and what kind, how were they placed there, how were they detonated, and why weren't any pieces of steel recovered showing the evidence of them?

Go answer your questions and get back to us when you're done.

alienentity · 14th October 2010, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Unbelievable. You are asking me to prove your crackpot theory is wrong. That's like someone asking James Randi to prove there is no psychokinesis. No one here has proven the crackpot NIST theory is right. NIST hasn't, no one has. All anyone can do is wave their hands and make arrogant pronouncements that the theory is gospel. That is not science that is faith-based pseudo-science.

That's an outright lie. The theory has been 'proven' by a detailed engineering model, and the parameters for the model are published and freely available online for anyone to examine.

Anybody can take the information and freely create their own model based on this, if they have the skills and inclination.

cmatrix · 14th October 2010, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

I mean that your grasp of Newtonian physics appears virtually nonexistent.

Dave

In other words you made a glaring mistake. You realize you can't show what I said was in any way wrong because what I said was in fact correct. Now you're trying to hide that mistake with bravado hoping everyone will be too stupid to notice.

Newtons Bit · 14th October 2010, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Oh a simultaneous eight story buckling of all 58 perimeter columns? Well that's certainly not a crackpot theory. Especially when the only "evidence" they have to support the theory is a cooked computer model that does not show free fall or the eight story buckling and they refuse to release the data the model is based on. Yeah that's certainly not a crackpot theory.

We've already discussed how it was not a simultaneous failure. Stop repeating debunked canards.

cmatrix · 14th October 2010, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by carlitos

Just curious - if you were standing a couple of meters in front of the "footprint" of WTC7 while it fell (see the building falling down with the light blue line shown), do you think that you would be posting here today?

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/3685/picture13re.png

I doubt I would. I would have been burnt to a crisp from the the pyroclastic flow of hot dust. What wasn't burnt would have been sandblasted away.

Such rolls are done all the time in controlled demolitions in order to minimize damage to other structures. Nothing in the video shows the building fell over sideways. It rolled within its own footprint.

DGM · 14th October 2010, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

In other words you made a glaring mistake. You realize you can't show what I said was in any way wrong because what I said was in fact correct. Now you're trying to hide that mistake with bravado hoping everyone will be too stupid to notice.

No it's more like you have no clue. Your post do support this.

femr2 · 14th October 2010, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by alienentity

create your own engineering model

Can't be done without the plans.

Quote:

You won't and you can't.

Can't be done without the plans.

carlitos · 14th October 2010, 10:20 AM

delete, I mis-read something

alienentity · 14th October 2010, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by femr2

Can't be done without the plans.

Can't be done without the plans.

Get the plans. Problem solved.

T.A.M. · 14th October 2010, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Unbelievable. You are asking me to prove your crackpot theory is wrong. That's like someone asking James Randi to prove there is no psychokinesis. No one here has proven the crackpot NIST theory is right. NIST hasn't, no one has. All anyone can do is wave their hands and make arrogant pronouncements that the theory is gospel. That is not science that is faith-based pseudo-science.

Sorry man, the nist report on WTC7 has been accepted by experts world wide. It is considered the top theory on the collapse. As a result, the burden of proof is on you and your "scientists" to present a better theory that more completely fits the evidence, and back it up.

Nice try though. You need to calm down though. Your name calling of nist and their report only makes you look juvenile...really.

cmatrix · 14th October 2010, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Sorry man, the nist report on WTC7 has been accepted by experts world wide. It is considered the top theory on the collapse. As a result, the burden of proof is on you and your "scientists" to present a better theory that more completely fits the evidence, and back it up.

Nice try though. You need to calm down though. Your name calling of nist and their report only makes you look juvenile...really.

So if psychic phenomena was accepted by experts world wide despite absolutely no evidence presented to support it's existence, James Randi would have to prove psychic phenomena does not exist.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

carlitos · 14th October 2010, 10:39 AM

cmatrix, do you have a theory that explains the collapse better than NIST? This might be a nice time to trot it out.

As an aside, the inability to correctly use "its" in a sentence is like a truther armband. Can't miss it.

HyJinX · 14th October 2010, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

So if psychic phenomena was accepted by experts world wide despite absolutely no evidence presented to support it's existence, James Randi would have to prove psychic phenomena does not exist.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

Can you please detail what the NIST got wrong and please provide your analysis, with the math to back it up?

I patiently await your reply.

Thanks,
HyJinx

T.A.M. · 14th October 2010, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

So if psychic phenomena was accepted by experts world wide despite absolutely no evidence presented to support it's existence, James Randi would have to prove psychic phenomena does not exist.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

No, but if a well educated group of experts in the given field used science to back up the claim, including analysis of photo and video evidence, as well as computer modeling, and their theory was accepted by the majority of people in the field, and no othee explanation or theory better explained the phenomenon in question, i would be inclined to accept their theory as the most valid one.

Is that hard for you to understand?

TAM

twinstead · 14th October 2010, 10:44 AM

Besides, anybody who doesn't agree with the NIST is untrustworthy

beachnut · 14th October 2010, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by femr2

Can't be done without the plans.

Can't be done without the plans.

It has already been done. Done without plans. Need to be more like that little old ant, and move the rubber tree plant. "Can't be done", a sign of failure. Research is the key, plus goals.

Don't you love physics?

Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR

You know, that's a pretty difficult and complicated question. I mean, you'd actually have to watch and understand the video to be able to "get" it.

So, I'll try to state it as a simpler, but equivalent, proposition.

In this picture:

Are the red lines next to A (earlier in the collapse) closer to each other than the red lines next to B (later in the collapse)?

If so, and since the the Ball (the upper object in both snapshots) is clearly falling at freefall acceleration, g, what does that mean...?

All my physics classes were alive, great teachers, physics teachers, save the ones who signed up for paranoid conspiracies. What would Mr Physics say to Chandler?

13th October 2010, 06:45 PM	#321
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,889	Originally Posted by excaza What force other than gravity, exactly, would be accelerating the ruler? If I knew the answer, I wouldn't have asked the question. Since leverage and torque were mentioned, I wondered if these might be additional forces acting in this situation.
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,889

13th October 2010, 06:54 PM	#322
excaza Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 3,632	You really need to learn basic physics. Like, really, really, really need to. Torque is not a force, it's the tendency for a force to rotate an object around its axis. You can't act on something with a force and a torque. Your force produces a torque. Leverage isn't even a physics term. It's just what someone used because they noticed a longer lever arm allowed them to lift more weight. Because of a higher torque. But I'm not going to complicate things for you. The only force acting in the video is gravity. That is, unless you believe there are magnets, springs, or maybe even tiny little rockets.
	__________________ Last edited by excaza; 13th October 2010 at 07:00 PM.

13th October 2010, 06:58 PM	#323
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by ergo If I knew the answer, I wouldn't have asked the question. Since leverage and torque were mentioned, I wondered if these might be additional forces acting in this situation. This is why most truthers just shouldn't comment on the collapses...at all. He is right, go get some basic physics. Leverage can multiply or increase a force, it is not a force itself. TAM
	Last edited by T.A.M.; 13th October 2010 at 06:59 PM.

13th October 2010, 07:14 PM	#325
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,889	I was perhaps picturing tension in the ruler, as if it was being slapped onto the surface, in which case, there would be some other force acting on it. The final question I had about this example is that the ball is obviously falling from a higher elevation than the rest of the ruler, so could that, with air resistance, not account for why it hit the surface later? I'm just skeptical of this "faster than g" claim, since the only other examples I can find involve other forces, like the Slinky example, where it can be said that the top is accelerating faster than free fall because of the spring action pulling it down.
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,889

13th October 2010, 07:16 PM	#326
excaza Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 3,632	Originally Posted by ergo I was perhaps picturing tension in the ruler, as if it was being slapped onto the surface, in which case, there would be some other force acting on it. The final question I had about this example is that the ball is obviously falling from a higher elevation than the rest of the ruler, so could that, with air resistance, not account for why it hit the surface later? I'm just skeptical of this "faster than g" claim, since the only other examples I can find involve other forces, like the Slinky example, where it can be said that the top is accelerating faster than free fall because of the spring action pulling it down. You do realize Femr2 made you a gigantic picture? And that the math supporting the faster than g acceleration has been linked twice? And that if the end of the ruler and ball were accelerating at the same rate, the ball would never leave the tee?
	__________________ Last edited by excaza; 13th October 2010 at 07:19 PM.

13th October 2010, 07:00 PM	#324
W.D.Clinger Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 2,463	Originally Posted by ergo Wouldn't this then technically be describing an additional force other than just gravity? That's an interesting question, ergo. I have two related questions for you. The first involves my driveway, which has a bit of a slope to it. When I place a tennis ball near the top of my driveway, it rolls down to the street. How can that be? The force exerted by gravity is downward, but the street isn't immediately below the spot at which I place the ball; the street is some distance away, and that distance is more horizontal than vertical. Some horizontal force must be pushing the ball toward the street. Where did that horizontal force come from? The second question involves a propeller beanie. When I push horizontally on one end of my hat's propeller, the opposite end of the propeller goes in entirely the opposite direction from the direction I'm pushing. How can that be? It's almost as though a solid object reacts to force exerted on one part of the object by transmitting a force to other parts...but that would violate common sense. Must be magic.

13th October 2010, 07:20 PM	#327
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,889	Originally Posted by excaza And that if the end of the ruler and ball were accelerating at the same rate, the ball would never leave the tee? That's better.
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,889

13th October 2010, 10:02 PM	#328
DaveThomasNMSR Muse Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Nuevo Mexico, USA Posts: 621	Originally Posted by ergo ... I'm just skeptical of this "faster than g" claim, since the only other examples I can find involve other forces, like the Slinky example, where it can be said that the top is accelerating faster than free fall because of the spring action pulling it down. No. The top of the Slinky could accelerate at g or more only if all 58 coils were suddenly cut, with Thermite-Triggered Super-Quiet Ultra-High EXplosives, a.k.a. Titty-Squex^TM, at exactly the precise same instant. This Slinky clearly did not "collapse" naturally. There's no way to get around that. The Slinky was an Inside Job, plain and simple.
	__________________ "This explanation is priceless, and wipes out Drosnin with laughter, which is the correct weapon to use here." - James Randi Ergo beedunked here. Skeptical Inquirer July/August 2011 issue on 9/11 Truth

14th October 2010, 02:54 AM	#329
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,907	Originally Posted by ergo I was perhaps picturing tension in the ruler, as if it was being slapped onto the surface, in which case, there would be some other force acting on it. Tension within the ruler is not an external force acting on the ruler. There are two, and only two, external forces acting on the ruler. One is the downward force due to gravity. The other is the reaction force through the pivoted end, which is acting upwards. There is no downward force acting on the ruler other than gravity. Originally Posted by ergo The final question I had about this example is that the ball is obviously falling from a higher elevation than the rest of the ruler, so could that, with air resistance, not account for why it hit the surface later? The ball starts out in a cup, which will experience a greater air resistance and will move the air around it so that the ball isn't slowed by air resistance. We see the stick fall away from the ball, so it's nothing to do with the height they start at. Originally Posted by ergo I'm just skeptical of this "faster than g" claim, since the only other examples I can find involve other forces, like the Slinky example, where it can be said that the top is accelerating faster than free fall because of the spring action pulling it down. They, also, don't involve any other external forces, just forces internal to the falling object. WTC7, as a connected object, also had internal forces. That, in fact, is the whole point; it's the internal tensile and compressive forces within the object that can accelerate parts of it at a greater rate than g, although the external force can't accelerate the whole of it, on average, greater than g. Since the acceleration measurements we're discussing were only on a specific point on WTC7, not averages of the whole structure, it's quite possible for the same thing to have happened. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member Last edited by Dave Rogers; 14th October 2010 at 02:57 AM.

14th October 2010, 04:42 AM	#330
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 22,028	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Since the acceleration measurements we're discussing were only on a specific point on WTC7, not averages of the whole structure, it's quite possible for the same thing to have happened. Dave Which brings up an interesting question: all of the measurements I've seen have been of pixels at the roofline. How hard would it be to try such a measurement using pixles lower in the structure, perhaps an edge of a window, or something? Could we develop an acceleration profile for several points in the façade?
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

14th October 2010, 09:12 AM	#331
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	Originally Posted by twinstead The bolded part confuses me. Are you saying that no matter how many structural engineers DO say it was a fire-initiated collapse, any who do so are in your mind not trustworthy, or are you saying that only only a few structural engineers think it was a fire-initiated collapse, and those are just the untrustworthy ones? I think you need to keep in mind just how much you are in the abject minority, and how many structural engineers DO agree that damage and fires CAN explain the collapses. Does it make you sleep better at night to simply hand wave them all away as "untrustworthy"? I'm saying any structural engineer that said WTC 7 was a fire-initiated collapse cannot be trusted. Unlike you, I am not swayed by the number of people that state something. Stating doesn't imply belief. Belief doesn't imply fact.
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	__________________ JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.

14th October 2010, 09:14 AM	#332
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	Originally Posted by GlennB It developed a very noticeable lean to the south as it fell. It sagged and fell straight down. At the end rolled to the south while staying in its footprint. Regardless of how it sagged and rolled it fell straight down into its footprint and this required extraordinary precision which is impossible from a fire-initiated collapse. Note that the sagging and rolling make the column failures immensely more precise than if the roof line stayed completely level during the entire collapse. Think what would be required to roll a building like that with explosives.
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	__________________ JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.

14th October 2010, 09:18 AM	#334
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers That whirring sound you can hear is Isaac Newton turning in his grave. Dave Care to explain your statement?
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	__________________ JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.

14th October 2010, 09:18 AM	#335
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,907	Originally Posted by cmatrix I'm saying any structural engineer that said WTC 7 was a fire-initiated collapse cannot be trusted. Yep, standard faith-based reasoning - the trustworthiness of a source depends on whether it says what you want it to say. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

14th October 2010, 09:19 AM	#336
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,907	Originally Posted by cmatrix Care to explain your statement? I mean that your grasp of Newtonian physics appears virtually nonexistent. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

14th October 2010, 09:22 AM	#337
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,947	Originally Posted by cmatrix You feel this video shows WTC 7 falling over sideways? I see a building falling straight down into its own footprint. You are too far away to see it leaning, not falling straight down. Even the roof is falling not straight; gee whiz, 6 to 8 seconds before the roof moves more than inches, the Penthouse fell through the WTC 7 structure, you can see deformations in the walls and interior collapse though the windows. Oops, not straight, very not straight. How do you get silent explosives with no blast effects? Please be specific. "Its own footprint" is a sign you don't understand the collapse, and proof you have no evidence for your claims. Evidence please of its own footprint? Is hitting the building across the road, its own footprint?

14th October 2010, 09:27 AM	#338
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,596	Beachnut, cmatrix doesn't agree with you, so that means you can't be trusted
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

14th October 2010, 09:27 AM	#339
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	Originally Posted by tfk Please tell me you're not this clueless, while being this arrogant & insulting... I just showed you something that you said was impossible: an object falling only under the influence of gravity, falling faster than G. No other comment? No, "whoops, perhaps my understanding of the situation was a little off. Maybe a little too simplistic"? For once, you've said something right. Yes, we are talking about a collapsing 47 story, massively interconnected steel structure. Not an isolated falling object. For ALL falling objects (isolated or not) Eqn 1: (F_g+ ΣF_i) / m = a where: F_g= force of gravity ΣF_i= sum of all forces except gravity m = mass of falling object a = resultant acceleration of object. For the special case of an "isolated falling object", by definition ΣF_i= 0. And the above equation reduces to: Eqn 2: F_g / m = a = G where G = gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/sec^2 or 32.2 ft/sec^2) Note that, if ΣF_i≠ 0, then a ≠ G. The balls & the coins are "isolated falling objects". They obey Eqn 2. The cup & the end of the stick are not "isolated". They obey Eqn 1. Now, let's see if you can take one, simple baby-step on your own … Question 1: While it fell, was the north wall of WTC7 isolated from all other objects that might have imparted a force on it? Question 2: Would it obey Eqn 1 or Eqn 2? Question 3: Based on your answer to Question 2, is it possible for the north wall to fall at, or above, G? Question 4: Using the variables shown in Eqn 1 above, describe how the north wall could fall "at G"? Question 5: Describe how it could fall "faster than G"? Yup. The same clueless statements you bozos made about the WTC1 & 2 towers. Until others performed the same analyses that NIST did, and got the same results that NIST got. You are making the same clueless error that some clueless "national security" bozo made when he declared the data "sensitive". All the data is ALREADY OUT in the public domain. Dimensions, connections, assumptions, methodology, materials, material properties, etc. are all neatly tabulated in the NIST reports. Anybody, who is not as clueless as you are, can recreate all that data easily. This argument is simply the latest transparent smoke-screen, because all of your other transparent smoke-screens have evaporated. (Precisely why you bozos have abandoned WTC 1 & 2. All your "gotchas" have been answered.) For someone who is totally clueless, you sure are arrogant. tom "I just showed you something that you said was impossible: an object falling only under the influence of gravity, falling faster than G." What the hell are you talking about? I said no such thing. Please tell me you're not this clueless, while being this arrogant & insulting... "All the data is ALREADY OUT in the public domain." Really? So what was the FOIA request for? John Gross's phone number? "Anybody, who is not as clueless as you are, can recreate all that data easily." Well I certainly can't recreate it. But it sounds like you are saying it would be easy for you to recreate it. So let's see you do it. Unless you are completely full of crap, that is.
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	__________________ JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.

14th October 2010, 09:32 AM	#340
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,619	Originally Posted by cmatrix You feel this video shows WTC 7 falling over sideways? I see a building falling straight down into its own footprint. Just curious - if you were standing a couple of meters in front of the "footprint" of WTC7 while it fell (see the building falling down with the light blue line shown), do you think that you would be posting here today?

14th October 2010, 09:39 AM	#341
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit The NIST theory outlines an 8-story failure of the columns. They provide no resistance at this point. You need to actually read and understand what the NIST theory is before you call it crackpot, mmkay? Oh a simultaneous eight story buckling of all 58 perimeter columns? Well that's certainly not a crackpot theory. Especially when the only "evidence" they have to support the theory is a cooked computer model that does not show free fall or the eight story buckling and they refuse to release the data the model is based on. Yeah that's certainly not a crackpot theory.
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	__________________ JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.

14th October 2010, 09:45 AM	#342
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Somewhere between Here and There Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by cmatrix Oh a simultaneous eight story buckling of all 58 perimeter columns? Well that's certainly not a crackpot theory. Especially when the only "evidence" they have to support the theory is a cooked computer model that does not show free fall or the eight story buckling and they refuse to release the data the model is based on. Yeah that's certainly not a crackpot theory. How do you propose NIST recreate random events exactly as they occurred during the collapse? You do realize that is an impossible task, I hope.... Further, if brainiac truthers such as yourself, with your great technical knowledge can see thru all this instantly, why don't you use your amazing magical powers and create your own engineering model, showing exactly where the explosives or thermitics were placed, which result in a collapse which looks exactly like the real one? You won't and you can't. And that's the end of it. Your whole counterclaim fails for complete lack of evidence and rigor. Give it a rest already, you're very arrogant and repetitious.
	__________________ Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

14th October 2010, 09:45 AM	#343
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	Originally Posted by T.A.M. Unjustified arrogance ROCKS. But seriously, when do we get to see some math from you cmatrix. People here have been askings you to provide mathematical proof of your allegations for months now...please comply. TAM Unbelievable. You are asking me to prove your crackpot theory is wrong. That's like someone asking James Randi to prove there is no psychokinesis. No one here has proven the crackpot NIST theory is right. NIST hasn't, no one has. All anyone can do is wave their hands and make arrogant pronouncements that the theory is gospel. That is not science that is faith-based pseudo-science.
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	__________________ JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.

14th October 2010, 09:49 AM	#344
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,525	Originally Posted by cmatrix Unbelievable. You are asking me to prove your crackpot theory is wrong. That's like someone asking James Randi to prove there is no psychokinesis. No one here has proven the crackpot NIST theory is right. NIST hasn't, no one has. All anyone can do is wave their hands and make arrogant pronouncements that the theory is gospel. That is not science that is faith-based pseudo-science. If it's so obvious why can't you explain what they got wrong? You know with physics. Oh wait it's a "gut" thing.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

14th October 2010, 09:49 AM	#345
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Somewhere between Here and There Posts: 4,240	My challenge to such pseudo-skeptics as cmatrix is to quit whining about what NIST should have done, coulda done and woulda done if only.... and just get off your lazy butts and do your own engineering model to prove your arguments. Answer your own questions, instead of expecting everybody else to do the heavy lifting for you! Where were the explosives place, how much and what kind, how were they placed there, how were they detonated, and why weren't any pieces of steel recovered showing the evidence of them? Go answer your questions and get back to us when you're done.
	__________________ Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

14th October 2010, 09:51 AM	#346
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Somewhere between Here and There Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by cmatrix Unbelievable. You are asking me to prove your crackpot theory is wrong. That's like someone asking James Randi to prove there is no psychokinesis. No one here has proven the crackpot NIST theory is right. NIST hasn't, no one has. All anyone can do is wave their hands and make arrogant pronouncements that the theory is gospel. That is not science that is faith-based pseudo-science. That's an outright lie. The theory has been 'proven' by a detailed engineering model, and the parameters for the model are published and freely available online for anyone to examine. Anybody can take the information and freely create their own model based on this, if they have the skills and inclination.
	__________________ Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

14th October 2010, 09:53 AM	#347
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers I mean that your grasp of Newtonian physics appears virtually nonexistent. Dave In other words you made a glaring mistake. You realize you can't show what I said was in any way wrong because what I said was in fact correct. Now you're trying to hide that mistake with bravado hoping everyone will be too stupid to notice.
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	__________________ JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.

14th October 2010, 09:58 AM	#348
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,050	Originally Posted by cmatrix Oh a simultaneous eight story buckling of all 58 perimeter columns? Well that's certainly not a crackpot theory. Especially when the only "evidence" they have to support the theory is a cooked computer model that does not show free fall or the eight story buckling and they refuse to release the data the model is based on. Yeah that's certainly not a crackpot theory. We've already discussed how it was not a simultaneous failure. Stop repeating debunked canards.
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,050	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.

14th October 2010, 10:00 AM	#349
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	Originally Posted by carlitos Just curious - if you were standing a couple of meters in front of the "footprint" of WTC7 while it fell (see the building falling down with the light blue line shown), do you think that you would be posting here today? http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/3685/picture13re.png I doubt I would. I would have been burnt to a crisp from the the pyroclastic flow of hot dust. What wasn't burnt would have been sandblasted away. Such rolls are done all the time in controlled demolitions in order to minimize damage to other structures. Nothing in the video shows the building fell over sideways. It rolled within its own footprint.
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	__________________ JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.

14th October 2010, 10:01 AM	#350
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,525	Originally Posted by cmatrix In other words you made a glaring mistake. You realize you can't show what I said was in any way wrong because what I said was in fact correct. Now you're trying to hide that mistake with bravado hoping everyone will be too stupid to notice. No it's more like you have no clue. Your post do support this.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

14th October 2010, 10:11 AM	#351
femr2 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: UK Posts: 3,627	Originally Posted by alienentity create your own engineering model Can't be done without the plans. Quote: You won't and you can't. Can't be done without the plans.
	__________________ _{http://the911forum.freeforums.org}

14th October 2010, 10:20 AM	#352
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,619	delete, I mis-read something

14th October 2010, 10:27 AM	#353
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Somewhere between Here and There Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by femr2 Can't be done without the plans. Can't be done without the plans. Get the plans. Problem solved.
	__________________ Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

14th October 2010, 10:32 AM	#354
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by cmatrix Unbelievable. You are asking me to prove your crackpot theory is wrong. That's like someone asking James Randi to prove there is no psychokinesis. No one here has proven the crackpot NIST theory is right. NIST hasn't, no one has. All anyone can do is wave their hands and make arrogant pronouncements that the theory is gospel. That is not science that is faith-based pseudo-science. Sorry man, the nist report on WTC7 has been accepted by experts world wide. It is considered the top theory on the collapse. As a result, the burden of proof is on you and your "scientists" to present a better theory that more completely fits the evidence, and back it up. Nice try though. You need to calm down though. Your name calling of nist and their report only makes you look juvenile...really.

14th October 2010, 10:36 AM	#355
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	Originally Posted by T.A.M. Sorry man, the nist report on WTC7 has been accepted by experts world wide. It is considered the top theory on the collapse. As a result, the burden of proof is on you and your "scientists" to present a better theory that more completely fits the evidence, and back it up. Nice try though. You need to calm down though. Your name calling of nist and their report only makes you look juvenile...really. So if psychic phenomena was accepted by experts world wide despite absolutely no evidence presented to support it's existence, James Randi would have to prove psychic phenomena does not exist. http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	__________________ JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.

14th October 2010, 10:39 AM	#356
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,619	cmatrix, do you have a theory that explains the collapse better than NIST? This might be a nice time to trot it out. As an aside, the inability to correctly use "its" in a sentence is like a truther armband. Can't miss it.