Creative Speculation

AZCat

(8,345 posts)

49. I don't think you responded to my concern.

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 12:29 PM

Jan 2012

You haven't explained your claim that no visible decelerations means the upper portion is not exerting a force on the lower portion. This claim is not compatible with basic physics principles.

Your #2 is nonsensical. A rational reply is not available.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

207 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

North Tower Acceleration [View all] wildbilln864 Dec 2011 OP

Chandler is an idiot William Seger Dec 2011 #1

aw, shit OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #2

you must have been up too late also wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #4

because I posted at 10:11 AM?! OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #6

More or less William Seger Dec 2011 #7

the mind reels OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #8

up late there william? wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #3

Here's what's wrong with it: William Seger Dec 2011 #5

Try this analogy cpwm17 Dec 2011 #9

damn that's funny there! wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #10

so you have no rebuttal whatsoever? OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #11

no need for me to rebut nonsense! wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #12

No it isn't in the videos William Seger Dec 2011 #13

Sure it is! wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #14

so you're demanding that we should take your word for it? OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #15

I demanded nothing! wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #17

oh, that's a fair point OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #18

"can't/won't see" what? William Seger Dec 2011 #16

You think David Chandler sounds intelligent cpwm17 Dec 2011 #33

Good video! It's certain to generate snark and slander and not much else by way of rebuttal. K&R (nt T S Justly Dec 2011 #19

Great post! zappaman Dec 2011 #20

A paragraph break, here and there, would have made it ... T S Justly Dec 2011 #21

really, that's the best you can do? OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #22

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #27

Lol! An oversight, perhaps? (nt) T S Justly Dec 2011 #28

I'll try to dumb it down for you, then William Seger Dec 2011 #29

Thanks, I think. Lol. But the video still trumps nonsensical Bush Era "science". (nt) T S Justly Dec 2011 #30

I dun seen it on da videos! n/t zappaman Dec 2011 #31

Lol, but yes. The videos have laid waste to Bush and his doctrinaires' output. (nt) T S Justly Dec 2011 #32

I'm sure Chandler appreciates your unconditional support William Seger Dec 2011 #34

Rather, it is I who supports Chandler's video evidence of NIST/Commission fraud ... T S Justly Dec 2011 #35

Most of what we know about 9/11 didn't come from the "Bush administration" William Seger Dec 2011 #36

Most of what we know about 9/11 didn't come from the "Bush administration" - Lol, that is true. (nt) T S Justly Dec 2011 #37

post 5 is just opinion! wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #23

bullshit OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #24

he did not impose the line it... wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #25

have you watched Chandler's video? OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #26

This message was self-deleted by its author jesters Jan 2012 #38

general reply: jesters Jan 2012 #39

it's certainly more difficult than that OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #40

"The upper portion isn't the only thing that falls." jesters Jan 2012 #42

srsly? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #47

Expulsion of matter is much greater for larger, taller buildings cpwm17 Jan 2012 #41

"The lower block only slowed down the acceleration of the upper block's mass.... jesters Jan 2012 #43

"Bazant's cartoon model which has largely been discarded by both sides of the debate now" Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #44

"IF IT'S NOT DECELERATING, IT'S NOT EXERTING A FORCE." Really? AZCat Jan 2012 #45

Yes, really. jesters Jan 2012 #48

I don't think you responded to my concern. AZCat Jan 2012 #49

AZCat says: jesters Jan 2012 #50

moving the goalposts? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #51

OnTheOtherHand's post is correct - you still haven't supported your claim. AZCat Jan 2012 #52

What a cop out. jesters Jan 2012 #53

I don't see the problem with you providing a properly labelled free body diagram Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #54

Maybe. jesters Jan 2012 #55

You "maybe" can provide one. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #58

"Bazant Zhou shows that the upper section would have had ~31 times the energy necessary jesters Jan 2012 #59

You seriously are not understanding what Bazant-Zhou is doing. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #60

Absolute B.S. jesters Jan 2012 #67

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. William Seger Jan 2012 #73

"Bazant's analysis IS an energy argument" ... jesters Jan 2012 #75

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. William Seger Jan 2012 #77

"Analysis of Inelastic Energy Dissipation" -- is that a clue? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #86

Yup, that's a clue. The section "Elastic Dynamic Analysis" is a little less obvious, but... William Seger Jan 2012 #89

.. jesters Jan 2012 #90

That has NOT been done William Seger Jan 2012 #122

Some sources, please. jesters Jan 2012 #124

This was discussed extensively on the JREF forum William Seger Jan 2012 #155

yes, understanding the argument requires a bit more reading OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #98

"shown to be wrong by numerous independent analyses, on both sides of the debate." Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #74

30% resistance jesters Jan 2012 #76

Please provide the proof of physical and mathematical impossibility of 30% resistance. AZCat Jan 2012 #79

This resistance of yours to simple requests is strange. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #80

. jesters Jan 2012 #82

"The calculations have been done by many others." Which you continue to omit to link to. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #85

Fortunately the lower section can absorb the energy. A miracle of highrise engineering. jesters Jan 2012 #92

saying it, perhaps, but on what basis? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #93

Just address the points jesters Jan 2012 #94

srsly? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #97

Has anyone else noticed jesters Jan 2012 #101

No, but I have noticed so-called "truthers" assert amazing things without evidence zappaman Jan 2012 #102

I could compile a list of questions you and gyroscope haven't answered OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #141

"The lower structure can absorb the energy. That's what I've been saying for the last 18 posts." Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #95

That's interesting. jesters Jan 2012 #96

Hmm. No links, no properly labeled free body diagram. Goodbye, jesters. n/t Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #99

Bye bye, Bolo Boffin. jesters Jan 2012 #103

Since the uppers section gained mass and was accelerating as it fell hack89 Jan 2012 #104

Lol. jesters Jan 2012 #105

So explain how it was not gaining mass as it fell nt hack89 Jan 2012 #107

It was crushing up at the same time it was crushing down. jesters Jan 2012 #109

So where did that mass go? hack89 Jan 2012 #113

12 floors in WTC 1 jesters Jan 2012 #119

So the WTC did not collapse in its own footprint? hack89 Jan 2012 #123

Can you provide a model for a debris-driven, jesters Jan 2012 #126

Sure - read the NIST report hack89 Jan 2012 #129

Proof that you really shouldn't be in this thread. jesters Jan 2012 #132

I don't think you want to go there. AZCat Jan 2012 #134

When a poster doesn't even understand that NIST never provided jesters Jan 2012 #138

That's priceless. AZCat Jan 2012 #139

You're right. It's too funny. jesters Jan 2012 #140

"In plain language." AZCat Jan 2012 #142

Part of it is verifying that you know what you're talking about. jesters Jan 2012 #143

This message was self-deleted by its author jesters Jan 2012 #144

"widely known criticisms of Bazant's model." Links, please. n/t Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #145

Really? I don't think I have to prove anything to you. AZCat Jan 2012 #146

Okey doke. jesters Jan 2012 #147

"don't be presenting the Bazant model as if it doesn't have fatal flaws" Links, please. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #148

Links? jesters Jan 2012 #149

You seem to be confused. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #150

I would be happy to jesters Jan 2012 #151

"except that you already know about them." Oh, no, you did not. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #152

I'm with Bolo - where is the refutation of Bazant's model? AZCat Jan 2012 #153

It hardly matters, AZCat, jesters Jan 2012 #156

This message was self-deleted by its author William Seger Jan 2012 #157

From: "Not so clever Trevor" jesters Jan 2012 #158

From Self's response William Seger Jan 2012 #160

Probably because he doesn't do that. jesters Jan 2012 #162

Yes, that's exactly what he does William Seger Jan 2012 #163

Here's the complete context jesters Jan 2012 #168

Bullshit William Seger Jan 2012 #169

I see what you're saying, jesters Jan 2012 #170

No, it seems you don't see what I'm saying William Seger Jan 2012 #171

You're right. I don't see it. jesters Jan 2012 #172

We're finished, dude William Seger Jan 2012 #173

* sniff * jesters Jan 2012 #174

how do you think kinetic energy is dissipated in "momentum loss"? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #175

Okay I misunderstood about the double entry jesters Jan 2012 #176

it isn't apparent to me that you addressed my question OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #177

I don't know what Ross is factoring in to momentum loss. jesters Jan 2012 #178

Stop it, you're fracturing me William Seger Jan 2012 #179

As I point out in post #176, jesters Jan 2012 #180

after further review, Greening is NOT distinguishing between fracturing and pulverization OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #181

Your post is non-sensical. jesters Jan 2012 #182

wow, tact is so wasted on you OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #183

OTOH off the deep end? jesters Jan 2012 #185

nope, just OTOH over your head, apparently OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #189

No! William Seger Jan 2012 #184

You seem to have completely ignored post #182 jesters Jan 2012 #186

I haven't really followed your complete discusion cpwm17 Jan 2012 #187

You're right! Ross double-counted that energy too! William Seger Jan 2012 #188

just to mention OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #190

With posts 187 and 188, jesters Jan 2012 #191

your swagger is impressive, no doubt OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #192

Post 182 jesters Jan 2012 #193

ROFL OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #194

Post 182 is bullshit William Seger Jan 2012 #195

Are you now reversing what you said in post 188, Seger? jesters Jan 2012 #196

WTF are you yammering about now? William Seger Jan 2012 #197

According to Seger's post 188, jesters Jan 2012 #198

LMFAO! Have you been drinking? William Seger Jan 2012 #199

No, William, you're wrong. :D jesters Jan 2012 #200

Not momentum loss; "momentum losses," Ross' term for the kinetic energy lost William Seger Jan 2012 #201

William Seger, jesters Jan 2012 #203

WTF? William Seger Jan 2012 #205

"Momentum loss is not the same as kinetic energy loss." Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #202

...kinetic energy loss through strain and fracturing. Yes. jesters Jan 2012 #204

That's not an explanation of the difference in your mind between Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #206

often it would be helpful for jesters to define terms OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #207

LOL, what a bullshitter William Seger Jan 2012 #159

And that post by William Seger means? AZCat Jan 2012 #161

Wait. What? Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2012 #154

You are member of a tiny internet fringe group - lets not forget that simple fact hack89 Jan 2012 #135

"intact 80 - 90-storey steel framed highrise" - just popping in to point out Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #128

Bye bye, Bolo Boffin. jesters Jan 2012 #131

I don't understand the part where you failed to support your claim. AZCat Jan 2012 #56

Newton's third law -- apparently deeply perplexing to 9/11 so-called debunkers jesters Jan 2012 #57

Of interest to me is the second law. AZCat Jan 2012 #61

It would help if jesters Jan 2012 #68

It's quite clear to me. AZCat Jan 2012 #69

You took my statement as a universal. jesters Jan 2012 #70

It doesn't matter what we're talking about, it's still wrong. n/t AZCat Jan 2012 #71

No, it isn't. jesters Jan 2012 #72

Apparently you didn't read post #69. AZCat Jan 2012 #78

Lol. jesters Jan 2012 #81

What I've noticed is that post #5 is still sitting there, unanswered. (n/t) William Seger Jan 2012 #83

Well, yeah. AZCat Jan 2012 #88

Then why didn't you say so many posts ago? AZCat Jan 2012 #87

I answered this in posts 48 and 50. jesters Jan 2012 #91

No, you didn't. AZCat Jan 2012 #100

Wow. jesters Jan 2012 #106

It isn't the same thing at all. AZCat Jan 2012 #108

So a hammer can smoothly push a nail into hard wood, AZCat? jesters Jan 2012 #110

You don't get it, do you? AZCat Jan 2012 #111

In two colliding bodies ? jesters Jan 2012 #112

I don't know why you insist on perpetuating this argument. AZCat Jan 2012 #114

AZCat, all it would take is one example to put me in my place jesters Jan 2012 #117

No, I don't think it would do anything of the sort. AZCat Jan 2012 #118

An object resting on another object is the simplest example jesters Jan 2012 #120

A physics "gotcha"? No, you'd have to hand that to the guy who figured it out in the first place. AZCat Jan 2012 #125

Which is what I already stated in posts 48 and 50. jesters Jan 2012 #130

You didn't respond to my questioning of your statement contradicting the second law. AZCat Jan 2012 #133

Yeah. OR, you could have just said jesters Jan 2012 #136

It doesn't matter if the bodies are moving or not, the second law still applies. AZCat Jan 2012 #137

Again: Why Chandler is wrong William Seger Jan 2012 #165

You're talking about processes, jesters Jan 2012 #166

Example: Anything falling through air or water William Seger Jan 2012 #164

Sure, jesters Jan 2012 #167

Perhaps you don't understand the definition of decelerate cpwm17 Jan 2012 #121

It's a pretty common misunderstanding, apparently. AZCat Jan 2012 #127

What happens depends on the relative forces on impact cpwm17 Jan 2012 #62

Wasn't Newton persecuted by the church? gyroscope Jan 2012 #65

No, he wasn't William Seger Jan 2012 #84

Which is why we see debris falling faster than the collapse zone hack89 Jan 2012 #115

Not really. AZCat Jan 2012 #116

You're assuming the buildings had a normal ability to withstand forces after collapse initiations cpwm17 Jan 2012 #63

also, "support" here seems equivocal OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #64

Yes, one could come up with more reasons why the building was guarenteed to collapse once started cpwm17 Jan 2012 #66

I didn't say they fell at free-fall speed cpwm17 Jan 2012 #46