It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Physics of 9/11...

page: 11
9
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
I started to think about physics...what people understand about it, and what they DON'T...

I ran across a book titled "Don't Try This At Home", that doesn't delve into the "conspiracy" of 9/11 per se, it does feature a fun examination of many, many familiar MOVIE scenes, and commonly held misunderstandings perpetuated by these films.

Almost as if an entire generation of people, who've grown up watching the most fantastic images onscreen, are used to suspending disbelieve, and any nascent knowledge of real physics that may have previously had.

Too much to go into from that book, and I haven't finished it. OTHERS might have a peek, if they wish....

...but, "What's the point?", you may ask.

It has been a common idea of mine, after seeing the preponderance of BAD physics comprehension displayed so regularly, that motion pictures must be a proximate cause for this trend.

Other disciplines are involved in the events of 9/11...the aviation-related blunders are the ones I am most familiar with, and able to address most precisely. MY grasp of physics is (was) not to the level of those who are specifically trained n the field, but at least I can read and understand...and see the bogus claims, when they are attempted.

Don't want to make this longer than necessary, by using samples from that book...so I thought of this example:

Does anyone remember the "Indiana Jones" movie (second or third, not sure) with Sean Connery as Indy's "father"??

There was a motorcycle chase scene, with the Nazis...and intrepid Indy disables one of the bikes by using a pike (a pole, grabbed from a road checkpoint barrier gate) to insert into the spokes of the front wheel, thus producing a tremendously satisfying (for the audience) giant FLIP, up and over, of the bad guy on his motorcycle.

I suppose this notion came from riders, both powered two-wheelers, and of bicycles, that have front AND rear brakes...knowing that applying front brakes ONLY is a bad idea, at high speeds.

But...does anyone see a problem with the physics of this event, as scripted/filmed??

Here, the sequence:



My next post will have the answer.....




posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


No peeking into this next link, until you have a moment to contemplate the physics of the "motorcycle flip"...and (hint) some material strengths, force vectors, etc...but I don't want to give too much away...

www.yourdiscovery.com...


Unfortunately, many many people just aren't able to separate an impression and belief of how they 'think' some physical event should "look", from the realities of what actually occurs.



Life isn't a "Hollywood-style" movie....and Spiderman isn't real, can't do the things seen in HIS movies, either...even IF he had mega-strength, and sticky webs shooting out of his wrists....but, alas, the mindsets persist....



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


LOL you really think that people thought that is what would actually have happened to that motorcycle? You actually think that fooled someone?
Maybe it fooled you until you saw mythbusters lol?

Why should I be surprised though, you want people to believe that a building can collapse itself symmetrically, into it's footprint. You must really think we're all stupid, hey Einstein?



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


I rest my case......




posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Azp420
If it did provide a 1.0W upwards force at all times


It does.

Do you want to try to prove that with any equations or other concepts? Just saying it does doesn't make it so. Where is the error that I have made in my calculations? And why do you think the lower structure only provides 1.0W if it is undamaged? Surely the maximum capacity is not 1.0W? What if we loaded the top section to 1.1W before collapse? I'm sure you would agree that the lower section would then provide and upwards reactional force on the top section of 1.1W. If it is capable of doing it in this instance, why is it not capable of providing 1.1W when the 1.0W mass is falling? Is the penny dropping yet or is this just going over your head?




we would have a net force of 0.0W acting on the top section (1.0W downwards gravitational force minus 1.0W upwards lower structure support force).


Wrong.

The lower part pushes up at all times at 1.0W


Any calculations or concepts to prove this bold statement at all? Just because that is what you think due to being uneducated in physics, doesn't make it true. Where is the error in my calculations?



The upper part, when the structure is intact and not moving, pushes down at 1.0W.

However, once columns buckle and the upper part attains motion, it pushes down at 1.7W.


Wow. The boldest statement of the entire post and still no calculations or concepts or any kind of proof to back it up. Just because that is what you think due to being uneducated in physics, doesn't make it true. Where is the error in my calculations?

You have said that I am wrong in stating there is zero net force acting on the top section when it is at rest. Are you suggesting there is an overall net force acting on the top section, even when it is at rest? Remember, F=ma. If there is a net force it can't be at rest (for any sustained period of time), it must be accelerating.

You have also stated that once the top section "attains motion" (what about if it attains 0.000000001m/s motion, does it still apply or what is the cutoff?) the downwards force acting on it is no longer 1.0W but 1.7W. Remember Joey, velocity is not a force, acceleration is not a force. How are you proposing that the downwards force acting on the top section was transformed from 1.0W (remember, W is the weight of the top mass) to 1.7W. Do you think there something other than gravity providing that extra force, or do you think the gravitational force acting on the mass suddenly increased by 700% as soon as it started moving? Be careful here Joey, this may earn you ridicule from even other OS believers. Maybe we should continue this discussion at some physics boards where the community will be quick to point out obvious errors either of us makes in our reasoning or derivations? The side of truth has nothing to fear.

Either prove the top section "pushes down" with 1.7W of force, retract your statement, or risk your reputation on ATS (and possibly whatever other boards you try to prove the OS on). You can't just pull numbers out of the air and tell us they're true, show us how you derived it. I was actually surprised you returned to post in this thread after having your lack of understanding in the field of physics blatantly exposed.



[edit on 3-8-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Good post weedwhacker. I think this really sheds some insight into how Joey Canoli claims to be proficient in physics and where most of his physics understanding has come from. I'm sure the same applies to much of the OS followers.

No wonder the televised events of towers collapsing in spectacular fashion were so easy to sell to the Hollywood educated public.






[edit on 3-8-2010 by Azp420]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420

Do you want to try to prove that with any equations or other concepts?


f=ma pretty much covers it.

You have given the result for "f" in your hypothetical question as being 1.0W.

Acceleration due to gravity, while at rest, is 1.0.

Therefore, mass is also 1.0.

For any object to go from stationary to moving, it MUST accelerate.

And since mass is 1.0, and there is acceleration, "f" is greater than 1.0.

This fact renders your .3 resistance of the lower block vs 1.0 of the upper descending block to be nothing more than the typical truther uneducated drivel.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


:shk:

Simply amazing that some people STILL don't get it!

How many of you out there saw that "Last Crusade" movie, and remembered the motorcycle sequence, and did NOT question it?? Just accepted it, as presented on the film?

When, in fact, the harsh reality of what ACTUALLY would have happened is far less cinematically exciting.

This is the problem with the "truthers" and their perceptions...in regards to the WTC Towers' collapsing.

A complete and utter dis-connect from the reality of physics...as if they expect to see.....what, exactly?? What should the Towers have looked like, in videos, as they collapsed, from the damage inflicted at points of impact, subsequent weakening of supporting structures, from uneven heating...until ultimately the damaged part, the few remaining OVER_STRESSED beams and columns began to fail, give way, and no longer be able to support the mass above?

Hmmmm?

What SHOULD it have looked like? Well, it should have looked exactly like what is in the videos!

I have seen so many "truthers" who seem to have this impression that the buildings were assembled out of solid columns of steel dozens of stories tall.....when they talk about the "central core", and how "strong" it had to be, etc.

No...the steel members were all of significantly shorter lengths...attached together, and designed to do the primary job of supporting a STATIC (that means unmoving) load against the force of gravity.

THAT was the primary load acting, AT ALL TIMES, on the majority of the sturcture...as gravity was(is) the dominant force.

A certain amount of "give" has to be designed in, for lateral loads, from winds --- and in extreme cases, for seismic disturbances (not much of a concern about earthquakes, usually, in the NYC area though).

BUT...the amount of force exerted by even the strongest winds is nothing compared to the mass, and the force of Potential Energy, due to gravity, of the majority of the building's structure.....the MASS progressively diminishing as one goes up, of course.

Still, even the lowest floors, while consisting of necessarily sturdier members, and greater numbers to distribute the weights they bore above, were attached together, at connecting points, joints, that were a "weak link" that simply could not be avoided...since, again as mentioned, thre weren't any lengths of steel that were 200 feet long...nor is it feasible to imagine there ever will be, any time soon, on modern building design and engineering.

The Achilles Heel of the design, in hindsight, was its very innovative construction. Certainly, under all ordinary assumptions, a global progressive collapse was not feared a possiblity. But, there was a calvacade of just TOO MANY factors at work, that compounded and compounded, and ultimately exceeded the ability of any fail-safe engineering concepts that may have been deemed sufficient, back in the late 1960s when on the drawing boards.

IF those Towers had been built using the more traditional, and time-tested methods....the iconic "skyscraper" designs you see whenever "steelwalkers" (high-rise construction workers) are shown building them, with all the additional vertical supports, and cross beams...(in the 'box-like' patterns) then it is most likely those buildings would still be there. Gutted above the floors where the impacts occured, surely, but probably salvageable.

The 'selling-point' in the WTC design though, was the LACK of those extra vertical supports, and the more 'open' feeling it gave to the floor plans, for added versatility in office arrangements.

Therefore, the immense structural loads had to be transferred horizontally...to where thre were vertical members to then carry all that force.

Once this equilibrium was upset enough --- because of the gaping wound ---then the force of gravity did the rest. The mass, under the force of gravity, did not act completely straight down. EVERY piece was pulled, pushed, wrenched, twisted....in an infinite number of ways that acted as a chain reaction....and, again, the weak points were connections, at joints...where they were NOT designed to withstand the amounts of forces sideways, nor tortionally, that they were subjected to, during the progression of the collapse phase.


It is simply amazing that some people fail to grasp this --- maybe it's too complex to wrap their brains around, in fullness.

SO...like I said, popular entertainment re-inforces this in many ways...I'm thinking of something else.....like, Superman catching a skyscraper that's toppling over, and righting it back to vertical...as if it's a solid object, and NOT a collection of hundreds of thousands of individual components, all inherently fragile at their points of connection.

(Hint: Superman isn't going to be able to handle a building like that, without it falling to pieces...)

It is something like THAT mental image that must be in some people's minds, the ones who can't grasp the reality of the WTC Towers.


I saw (not to think that MythBusters is the end-all and be-all to this, but...)

THEY did a challenge to the "Giant Lego Ball" thing that apparently was a smash (pun) on YouTube. It's pretty funny, actually, how it turned out for them...and illustrates (I hope) again my point. Though, I fear some may still not get it....

...at least, it IS funny (to me) and I won't spoil the ending, just let you watch it!





posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Azp420
 


:shk:

Simply amazing that some people STILL don't get it!

How many of you out there saw that "Last Crusade" movie, and remembered the motorcycle sequence, and did NOT question it?? Just accepted it, as presented on the film?


It's amazing YOU still don't get it, even after I explained it to you.

No one was fooled by the motorcycle in that movie, except maybe kids and those that needed to see mythbusters to figure it out. No one is being fooled by what they see in the WTC vids, except you.

You are the one who is being fooled by hollywood physics, even after it's been explained to you a million times the impossibly of a symmetrical complete collapse, with no resistance, from it's own weight.

And no more 'I rest my case', because you don't have one to begin with... And you haven't made a point, just assumptions on what people believe, but you seem to have it backwards I think.


The OS is the hollywood physics designed to fool the average viewer.

[edit on 8/5/2010 by ANOK]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Ladies and gents, just when you thought the logic and uneducated physics explanation attempts from Joey couldn't get any worse, he comes out with this amazing post.


f=ma pretty much covers it.

You have given the result for "f" in your hypothetical question as being 1.0W.

If you had studied physics you would know we use a capital F for force but I'll gloss over that minor detail as I can see that you are making an effort. I feel I should clarify that no where in my derivation have I used the value of 1.0W for F (in terms of the F=ma equation). When using F in this equation, it is only correct to use the net force acting on whatever mass you are referring to in the equation (in this case the top section). I mentioned net forces several times in my derivation but unfortunately it seems to have gone over your head. At no point was the net force 1.0W as this would have equated to free fall.


Acceleration due to gravity, while at rest, is 1.0.


First of all, 1.0 what? You have not given any units. The SI units for acceleration are m/s/s. Surely you don't mean that or anything similar like ft/s/s. Maybe you mean 1.0g, where g = acceleration due to free fall (9.81m/s/s)? Surely not, as we all know the implications of free fall. It is most likely then that you meant 1.0W (which has units of kN), as for some reason you decided to drop the W for the rest of your post. In the past you confused velocity with force, now it seems you are confusing force with acceleration. I've pointed out to you multiple times that W is the weight of the top section, and is therefore a force. Acceleration is a measure of the rate of change of an objects velocity. Two completely different things you can't just interchange them in equations as you are attempting to do.

I'm also curious as to why you stated "while at rest"? Does your value for acceleration significantly change once it is not at rest? Although technically an object can be at rest and accelerating, it would only be at rest for an infinitely small amount of time. It makes one wonder if you even understand that concept at all.


Therefore, mass is also 1.0.


Again, 1.0 what? Kilograms? Pounds? Tonnes? I will once again make the likely assumption that you actually meant 1.0W. I will again explain to you that mass and weight are different things. One is a force (due to gravity), the other is not. In deep space an objects weight will be zero, yet it will still have a mass.


For any object to go from stationary to moving, it MUST accelerate.


Well done!! I enjoyed the emphasis on the "must", as if I didn't already understand the concept of acceleration.


And since mass is 1.0, and there is acceleration, "f" is greater than 1.0.


And so we reach the big conclusion of your derivation. Let's recall what you have presented so far:

F=ma
a (at rest lol) = 1.0
m = 1.0
a>0 (taken from your statement above, luckily your value of 1.0 already meets this criteria)

Your big conclusion is that F>1.0 using F=ma. I cannot see how you have arrived at this using any other method than just making up numbers. Making up numbers does not fall into the category of credible physics.

Let's use the unit-less values provided in the F=ma equation:
F = 1.0 x 1.0 ("x" is times, in previous posts I have used "*")
F = 1.0
As F=1.0, F>1.0 is an incorrect statement, as 1.0 is not greater than 1.0.

Let's try with the units I assumed. As no units were once again given for F>1.0, I will again assume you meant F>1.0W. Here's the F=ma equation:
F = 1.0W x 1.0W
F = 1.0W^2 ("^2" means squared)
F>1.0W is now true, but there were so many errors leading up to this point that it is meaningless, and I very much doubt you are trying to claim F=1.0W^2.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



This fact renders your .3 resistance of the lower block vs 1.0 of the upper descending block to be nothing more than the typical truther uneducated drivel.


Not a fact, your derivation was easily proven incorrect.

It is amusing that someone with obviously no education in physics other than what he has picked up from posts on internet message boards, is in so much utter desperation that he is now claiming a Bachelor of Engineering makes someone "uneducated".

How many times do I need to point out your obvious discrediting attempt tactic before you stop using it in nearly every one of your posts? I know it is not easy when a person is faced with mounting evidence that contradicts their established beliefs, anger is not an uncommon response so there are no hard feelings.

Have a nice day.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Simply amazing that some people STILL don't get it!


Once again, agreed.


How many of you out there saw that "Last Crusade" movie, and remembered the motorcycle sequence, and did NOT question it?? Just accepted it, as presented on the film?


How many people watch a film and have to point out every single unrealistic event in every action scene? I'd hate to be your girlfriend..


When, in fact, the harsh reality of what ACTUALLY would have happened is far less cinematically exciting.


In-case you did not know, there are very few action films that have completely realistic events in each action scene. This is pretty common knowledge, if this revelation has just occurred to you then congrats man. I'm sorry that it was harsh coming to terms with this reality. Maybe it's best that you stop looking into 9/11, as the reality of that is a lot harsher to come to terms with for many people.


What should the Towers have looked like, in videos, as they collapsed


The falling top mass should have been decelerated once it came into contact with undamaged structure outside of the damaged plane impact zone. I've provided much discussion and proof of this in my recent posts on this thread. If you think I have made an error in my proof then please point it out. If you are unable to understand the physics in my proof then I would suggest it is you who expects Hollywood physics to apply in real life.


I have seen so many "truthers" who seem to have this impression that the buildings were assembled out of solid columns of steel dozens of stories tall.....when they talk about the "central core", and how "strong" it had to be, etc.

No...the steel members were all of significantly shorter lengths...attached together, and designed to do the primary job of supporting a STATIC (that means unmoving) load against the force of gravity.

Are you attempting to suggest that the joints in the columns were significantly weaker than the rest of the column?



THAT was the primary load acting, AT ALL TIMES, on the majority of the sturcture...as gravity was(is) the dominant force.


Talk about stating the obvious... We know what static loads are, we know that the role of a structure is to hold things up against gravity. I can only assume this is an attempt to come off as intelligent and knowledgeable.


BUT...the amount of force exerted by even the strongest winds is nothing compared to the mass, and the force of Potential Energy, due to gravity, of the majority of the building's structure.....


And BAM. Just like that all the effort spent trying to build the illusion of knowledge and intelligence comes undone. Potential energy is not a force. The force of mass due to gravity (what I think you mean when you refer to the mass) is simply called weight. It should be immediately obvious to anyone that wind does not apply 1g of force to the structure, why even point it out? What crazy conspiracies have you been reading?


thre weren't any lengths of steel that were 200 feet long...nor is it feasible to imagine there ever will be, any time soon, on modern building design and engineering.


There doesn't need to be. A properly designed joint has almost the full capacity of the member. We could have 200 feet long members if we really needed them, but they are impractical to manufacture, transport and erect.


The Achilles Heel of the design, in hindsight, was its very innovative construction.


Do you want to point out what this innovative construction was? The twin towers were not the first high rise buildings to use joints in their members. Any member that can't fit on the back of a truck usually has a joint designed into it.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Therefore, the immense structural loads had to be transferred horizontally...to where thre were vertical members to then carry all that force.


All structures do this. This is neither unusual nor does it put some sort of unmanageable load configuration on the large and sufficient number of vertical columns, which were arranged in an entirely stable and not unusual layout. You post is not proving a thing.


The mass, under the force of gravity, did not act completely straight down.


This is a juicy comment. It's almost as if you're trying to describe some sort of force that has something to do with gravity acting on the mass, but not in the direction of gravity.



the weak points were connections, at joints...where they were NOT designed to withstand the amounts of forces sideways, nor tortionally, that they were subjected to, during the progression of the collapse phase.

Not true. The joints have almost the full capacity of the member in terms of bending, axial, shear and torsional capacities, which they ARE designed to withstand. I'm enjoying your version of events so far though, although I notice it differs from the official story. Does this mean you are also in favor of a new investigation?


It is simply amazing that some people fail to grasp this --- maybe it's too complex to wrap their brains around, in fullness.


Yeah FEMA, NIST and Bazant, get it together!


I'm thinking of something else.....like, Superman catching a skyscraper that's toppling over, and righting it back to vertical


Is this your theory for how the toppling top section was corrected?





(Hint: Superman isn't going to be able to handle a building like that, without it falling to pieces...)


You proudly state this without even knowing the macro bending capacity or shear capacity of a building like that. More Hollywood physics (Hint: A building like that is typically designed to resist violent lateral earthquake displacements and forces.)


all inherently fragile at their points of connection.


You seem to think the connections are made from china or something. Did you know that if you take two "I" beams and weld them together at their ends with a decent structural weld at along the entire contact point, the welded connection would be the strongest part of the beam.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 



Nope...I think you (and many others who continue with this fallacious reasoning) are missing the point...too bad, for it would be nice to have someone finally 'get it', but I suppose some are just too far gone....


The falling top mass should have been decelerated once it came into contact with undamaged structure outside of the damaged plane impact zone.


Out of ALL the dissecting you did of my thoughts/opinions/descriptions, in the above two posts...I picked this as most demonstrative of the fallacious reasoning.


Once again, it demonstrates the FALSE impression people are having, regarding the structures' density, composition, and force vectors that were applied, by the INDIVIDUAL components, in a multitude of ways....not infinite, but a very, very large number.

The iconic image you linked is telling...to those of us who understand best.

SOME people see the top portion, as a "unit", and its tipping slightly as a sign it "should have toppled over"...

That is illogical, and contrary to knowon physics, and gravitational forces that act on falling bodies.

The upper portion gave way assymetrically, but as it descended the PRIMARY force acting on it (gravity) was perpindicular to the ground. ONLY minor lateral action came as each individual piece was acted upon, and in turn acted on others....this gave an effect of some of the "shooting" outwards, of some pieces (but not all of course).

IN your photo, you can see what I mean --- small pieces, hundreds of them, caught in the moment the shutter snapped the picture...falling away. Each and every piece, separately, but nearly simultaneously, chaotically, devastatingly was acted upon, failed and the process continued until all the Potential Energy due to its height above ground was exhausted.

The GROUND is, of course, a much more resilent obstacle, and became the default energy state of each object...it had to stop somewhere. IF there had been a giant well, or pit, then enything that fell into THAT would also fall, until reaching a "bottom" of some sort.

(Fun mental exercise: Imagine a hole, or shaft that could be drilled ALL the way through the Earth. Impossible, I know...that's why it's a mental exercise. Drop something into that shaft. Where will it [eventually] stop??)



AS TO the "should have decelerated"? This is seriously flawed reasoning, when you consider the sheer MASS involved!!

YOU, sir or madam, have a very good grounding in the basics --- surely you can grasp the concept of the huge mass, and its momentum, and the resulting forces??

Think of common-day analogies, if it will help: Battering rams, wrecking balls, etc.

Those are examples of a SIDEWAYS force of inertia and momentum, and thee impetus of the forces is NOT from gravity alone, but the concept is the same.

A two-ton ball of steel, comprising a "wrecking ball" WILL, of course, due to conservation of energy, and such, decelerate slightly upon impacting a target...say a brick wall. BUT, it is miniscule in measurement.

It really is a case of the 800-pound gorilla versus the antigue French provincial chair...(just made that up...thought it would evoke a cute mental image).

Sorry, this is slightly disjointed --- I write as I think about it.


In essence: We have videos available, plenty of them, that portray the style of building demolition that involves no explosives of any sort --- merely removing a portion of the supporting structure, even on the PERIMETER, and even on only ONE SIDE....and, gravity does the rest, as the mass above begans to fall, CRUSHING, component by component, in a progressive fashion, the rest below it.

The upper portions in THOSE examples don't "decelerate"....their rate of acceleration can be shown to be slightly less than the perfect 9.8 m/sec/sec of one G in a vacuum....but, so was the speed of fall of the Twin Towers' collapse, too. Still, acceleration continues, just SOME of the energy of the fall is "robbed" in the destruction of the structure beneath...but it is MINOR compared to the amount of mass above, falling, impacting and destroying as it goes....which, BTW, accumulates MORE mass with each passing microsecond.

Shall I hunt for the videos I mentioned? I won't, because they add clutter, and are already posted multiple times in this Forum, in other threads.

People may search them out for themselves....



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420

At no point was the net force 1.0W as this would have equated to free fall.



Agreed.

It was .7 once it achieved equilibrium and quit accelerating downward.

Net force from the bottom part was 1.0W. It never changed. There were no explosives used. It was not damaged in any significant way.

Net force from the descending part was 1.7W.

Leaving a net of .7W.

You've asked how the upper part could apply a net force of greater than 1.0W, when gravity cannot be greater than 1g.

Momentum is the answer.

P=mv.

P is also a force vector. Chandler ignores this. Kids understand momentum. Chandler apparently does not.

This is why Chandler's examination is beyond stupid. Greening pointed it out. You ignored it.

This is no surprise to me, for it destroys the typical truther delusions.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Azp420

You have also stated that once the top section "attains motion" (what about if it attains 0.000000001m/s motion, does it still apply or what is the cutoff?) the downwards force acting on it is no longer 1.0W but 1.7W. Remember Joey, velocity is not a force, acceleration is not a force. How are you proposing that the downwards force acting on the top section was transformed from 1.0W (remember, W is the weight of the top mass) to 1.7W. Do you think there something other than gravity providing that extra force, or do you think the gravitational force acting on the mass suddenly increased by 700% as soon as it started moving?


This shows that you never have even thought of momentum.

Again:

P=mv

P is a force vector.

F=ma is not the only way to express the forces involved.

In order to believe in Chandler's work, then you must also be of the opinion that you can balance a 8 lb brick on your head, or drop it from 20 ft and there will be no difference.

You're delusional if you continue down that road.



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by iamcpc
 


iamcpc, you deserve an APPLAUSE for this analogy:


(think about a bodybuilder who can bench press 500 pounds. His arms can present 500 pounds of resistance. Now if he held his arms up and you dropped 500 pounds on him and had him try to catch it. His arms would collapse straight down. Just like a tower that can support X newtons of force trying to catch 10, 20, even 30 times that amount of force is going to go straight down.


Clear, cogent and concise, and perfectly phrased to be relatable to even the average person. It's what those of us who saw the collapses understand, and finally (hopefully) will quell the mantra first promoted by the 'conspiracy theorists': -- "Path of least resistance". THAT non-applicable term, in this event, has been repeated far too often.


His elbows would go out because he couldn't hold it up.

His bones wouldn't shatter into dust...



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Nope...you can't be certain, in that scenario, with the weight dropping on his upraised arms.

You only THINK his elbows would "go out", because you're used to how your own elbows bend. WHAT if his elbows break, at the joints??

Ouch!!

But, could happen, in the described example.

Oh...and the "dust"?? Well, if there were a bunch of sheets of drywall (like in the WTC office spaces, inside) on his chest, or on the sides (like if he was in a box), or whatever.... then THAT might "dustify" as it was destroyed...so, there ya go!! DUST!



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I can be certain that his bones would not shatter into dust...



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


Well....what if he was an old geezer?


AND he was in a box made of sheets of drywall....ever tried to cut or break that stuff? Lots and lots of dust.

Crushing concrete makes a lot of dust, too.

Add heat....I wonder what a human body would look like, after being subjected to a lot of heat? Like....if cremated?

BUT...this is really about the fantasy (spread by "conspiracy" sites of the WTC, isn't it? And their unsubstantiated claims of "dustification"...

Buildings that collapse induce a lot of dust. See for yourself, watch any building collapse video.....




top topics



 
9
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join