Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
Good luck with that. zappaman Jan 2012 #1
I admit gyroscope Jan 2012 #2
"post-9/11 physics" William Seger Jan 2012 #8
According to you, Bush has explained them. zappaman Jan 2012 #3
True that gyroscope Jan 2012 #4
That drawing is incredibly prejudicial and wrongheaded. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #5
Then you can imagine the graphic without the cranes gyroscope Jan 2012 #6
what explosions? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #7
You know gyroscope Jan 2012 #9
So, the NIST was in on the coverup? zappaman Jan 2012 #12
Who do you believe? gyroscope Jan 2012 #14
interesting perceptions OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #20
Ricochets also account for debris propelled out. n/t Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #10
Propelled out 600 feet at 55 mph? Can you substantiate that? nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #66
Also, why "Bush Laws of Motion"? Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #11
apparently George Bush has discovered a new law of physics. zappaman Jan 2012 #13
Common understanding? jesters Jan 2012 #15
Excellent point, jester Ace Acme Dec 2013 #62
The title is a parody gyroscope Jan 2012 #16
The irony is, you've got the shoe on the wrong foot William Seger Jan 2012 #17
You consider the drawing an example of 'truther' science? gyroscope Jan 2012 #18
The language of physics is math, not cartoons and hand-waving William Seger Jan 2012 #19
Do you know the difference gyroscope Jan 2012 #21
The path of most resistance? AZCat Jan 2012 #22
Anywhere but down is unlikely? gyroscope Jan 2012 #23
You're forgetting the possibility of local failure. AZCat Jan 2012 #24
Nobody, anywhere, has explained how that would happen cpwm17 Jan 2012 #25
this is where the word "cartoon" is hard to resist OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #26
I like the car analogy cpwm17 Jan 2012 #28
I actually thought about something like that OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #29
The Bazant model bears no resemblance to reality. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #63
Do you prefer the PBS cartoon model? gyroscope Jan 2012 #30
(ducks goalposts) OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #31
No problem. gyroscope Jan 2012 #32
"In Bazant's drawing, the little block looks pretty intact to me." Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2012 #34
accepting your concession and continuing... OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #35
Since Bazant's model bears no resemblance to reality, there's no need to make any case at all. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #64
I gave you a link above William Seger Jan 2012 #27
Greening? gyroscope Jan 2012 #33
if one can trust Legge, then Greening made a good point poorly OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #36
A collision is a collision jesters Jan 2012 #37
You totally don't understand collisions cpwm17 Jan 2012 #38
Especially collisions between two non-solid structures with pieces to break off. n/t Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #39
You should really be asking AZCat these questions. jesters Jan 2012 #41
Really? Because IIRC you were the one making pretty bold statements... AZCat Jan 2012 #44
He doesn't understand impulse, either. AZCat Jan 2012 #45
try reading it again OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #42
unintelligible. jesters Jan 2012 #43
Obviously at some point the reaction force (structural resistance) is overwhelmed Ace Acme Dec 2013 #65
I don't think you're properly interpreting the NIST reports. AZCat Dec 2013 #236
And they did all that in one narrative paragraph with no calculations. Impressive! nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #239
You need to actually read the report. AZCat Dec 2013 #241
Greening was correct William Seger Jan 2012 #46
Chandler would not see your point about verinage OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #47
That was Chandler defending the Szamboti's "missing jolt" theory William Seger Jan 2012 #48
well, I was trying to get at that video, too OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #49
The 2/3 g is my own approximation William Seger Jan 2012 #50
OK, that's a pretty good response :) OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #51
With the kind of free fall drop jesters Jan 2012 #52
that is the assertion, yes OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #53
Chandler argues that impact involves a change in acceleration Ace Acme Dec 2013 #67
I dont think that is what you meant. AZCat Dec 2013 #69
First law of thermodynamics--otherwise known known as Ace Acme Dec 2013 #70
No, it isn't. AZCat Dec 2013 #71
I'm looking for conservation of energy, which is the first law of thermodynamics. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #72
That's funny. AZCat Dec 2013 #73
Oh aren't you the smoothie. I bet you say that to all the guys. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #74
I missed your little edit. AZCat Dec 2013 #75
Empty assertions must have worked very well for you over the years. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #76
Empty assertions? AZCat Dec 2013 #77
More empty assertions. That's all you've got, I guess. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #78
Oh, I have something else. AZCat Dec 2013 #79
You're not demonstrating any competent grasp of anything. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #80
Your inability to see this is both amusing (at least to me)... AZCat Dec 2013 #81
You defend your own blindness by projecting it on others, Mr. McGoo. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #82
You didn't say there was a difference. AZCat Dec 2013 #83
Only an obfuscating pedant would be interested in the difference. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #84
That's not correct at all. AZCat Dec 2013 #85
You're a cat. A cat can not be a qualified professional. And only a cat Ace Acme Dec 2013 #86
Now your posts are making less sense than before. AZCat Dec 2013 #87
I would tell you to think about stopping before you made a fool of yourself, Abe. zappaman Dec 2013 #88
There is nothing incoherent about pointing out that someone who pretends to be a cat Ace Acme Dec 2013 #89
Who is pretending to be a cat? AZCat Dec 2013 #90
The difference is irrelevant to the point, which it seems you are trying to obscure. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #91
Hmm. I think the point was more your unfamiliarity with the concepts. AZCat Dec 2013 #92
I wasn't wrong. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #93
Oh gosh, I guess we're not moving on. AZCat Dec 2013 #94
Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #95
Huh. This is the same problem Tony Szamboti had. AZCat Dec 2013 #96
Impacts necessarily reduce the kinetic energy. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #97
I don't think you have a very good understanding of basic physics. AZCat Dec 2013 #98
Maybe you should try making your points instead of merely implying that you have one. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #99
My point is quite simple - you are wrong. AZCat Dec 2013 #100
Your "point" is an empty assertion. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #101
If you think it's that simple... AZCat Dec 2013 #102
I don't have any work. You need to show yours. NIST needs to show theirs. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #103
Again, your unfamiliarity with basic physics concepts is showing. AZCat Dec 2013 #104
Again you are showing your reliance on empty claims. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #105
Kinetic energy and...? AZCat Dec 2013 #106
Kinetic energy and nothing. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #107
And that's where you're amazingly, blindingly wrong. AZCat Dec 2013 #108
Thanks for making empty claims Ace Acme Dec 2013 #109
I'm not the one butchering physics. AZCat Dec 2013 #110
More empty claims. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #113
Empty of what physics principle? AZCat Dec 2013 #118
The first law of thermodynamics, for one. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #122
The one you don't understand? AZCat Dec 2013 #126
More empty claims from someone who claims to be a cat. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #130
This one is clearly not empty. AZCat Dec 2013 #134
I am not interested in your obfuscation and vaporware. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #140
Of course it won't - you're impervious to basic physics! AZCat Dec 2013 #143
There is no need to write out KE=1/2mv^2 nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #146
Too bad that's not the only component. AZCat Dec 2013 #148
I'll look forward to seeing your Nobel when you invent Ace Acme Dec 2013 #150
Your post is as nonsensical as your claim to know basic physics. AZCat Dec 2013 #152
Says the poseur who thinks he's a cat. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #154
Nothing, huh? Is Google not even helping? AZCat Dec 2013 #156
As an aside, can you start making videos or diagrams? AZCat Dec 2013 #111
Ah yes... zappaman Dec 2013 #112
Cardboard boxes are subject to the same laws of physics as everything else. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #115
gee thanks Abe. zappaman Dec 2013 #116
Nobody said they were the same. They are, however, subject to the same physical principles. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #117
That'd be the same physical principles you don't understand. AZCat Dec 2013 #119
I understand the principles just fine. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #123
No, you don't. AZCat Dec 2013 #128
More empty claims from someone who claims to be a cat. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #129
I don't remember Tony Szamboti going this route. AZCat Dec 2013 #136
Nothing like cardboard for representational scaling of forces, huh? AZCat Dec 2013 #121
Nobody claims there is any scaling. It is a demonstration of principles. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #124
The principle that architects aren't engineers? AZCat Dec 2013 #142
The principles of the 1st law of thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd law, to which Ace Acme Dec 2013 #144
You've never done any study of scaling, have you? AZCat Dec 2013 #145
Scaling is not an exemption from the laws of physics. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #151
Of course, that's why you have to look at similitude. AZCat Dec 2013 #155
It's a demonstration of principles, not a model. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #158
Principles that rely on similitude. You're not getting it. AZCat Dec 2013 #159
It's a demonstration of principles that apply equally to cardboard boxes and buildings. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #160
Except for that whole square versus cubic relationship thing, of course. AZCat Dec 2013 #162
Square v. cubic affects the numbers. It doesn't change the principles. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #164
Huh. This isn't going to get better for you. AZCat Dec 2013 #165
They demonstrate laws of physics that apply to buildings thus as they apply to boxes. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #168
They really don't apply the same way. AZCat Dec 2013 #170
Nobody said they would behave the same. It's a demonstration of principles. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #172
I claim Gage doesn't understand the principles he was trying to demonstrate. AZCat Dec 2013 #173
The dynamic meme has been part of the landscape since Bazant ca. 9/13/01 Ace Acme Dec 2013 #176
None of my experience with you or what I've seen of Gage... AZCat Dec 2013 #179
Nobody who has publicly discussed the shortcomings of the NIST report can be unaware Ace Acme Dec 2013 #184
Gosh, it's almost like that matters! AZCat Dec 2013 #187
Can you name "all these professionals" who are "saying it" (whatever "it" is)? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #191
Haven't you read all the NIST literature? AZCat Dec 2013 #193
Nobody has read all the NIST literature. That would be like reading the dictionary. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #197
That's a neat way to dismiss a whole group of people... AZCat Dec 2013 #199
A whole secret list of a secret group of secret people you can't name because it's a secret. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #201
To be honest, it's been so long since I've looked at the NIST reports and their web pages... AZCat Dec 2013 #203
Standards about widening the stairwells are your claim to competence? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #208
It's amusing that you think something publicly available, but not spoon-fed... AZCat Dec 2013 #210
Oh, so the secret names you can't name are publicly available. I see. How long have you indulged Ace Acme Dec 2013 #212
It's been years since I saw the list. AZCat Dec 2013 #214
The reports are indisputably incomplete. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #215
Your ignorance of physics and building science specifically... AZCat Dec 2013 #218
Knowledge of building science is not needed to recognize that a report that set out to explain why Ace Acme Dec 2013 #225
The initiation is the key. AZCat Dec 2013 #226
NIST devotes one paragraph to describing the instantaneous propagation of the collapse Ace Acme Dec 2013 #230
2100 architects and engineers? Really? AZCat Dec 2013 #231
You see the list at ae911truth.org. Where else? nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #233
Ah - I haven't checked in a while. They've made progress. AZCat Dec 2013 #234
Apparently he died as a supporter. Why remove him? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #237
Can he still be counted as a supporter? AZCat Dec 2013 #238
How many architects and engineers for the NIST report are there? About 20? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #240
Who cares if they have ties to the NIST? AZCat Dec 2013 #242
If you don't know about conflicts of interest you're not much of a professional. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #243
Sure there are. Look in the comments to the draft NIST. AZCat Dec 2013 #245
Supporting NIST's recommendations to widen the stairways Ace Acme Dec 2013 #247
Now I remember where I saw them. AZCat Dec 2013 #221
Did the comments express support for NIST's collapse sequence, or did the comments Ace Acme Dec 2013 #224
Gosh, if only you could read them and find out. AZCat Dec 2013 #227
Who said anything about trust? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #244
You seem to think I'm going to spoon-feed you everything. AZCat Dec 2013 #246
To you a request that you back up your claims is a request for spoon-feeding. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #248
Of course not. The collapse was too complicated for diagrams. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #114
The collapses may have been, but your example shouldn't be. AZCat Dec 2013 #120
Let's just use NIST's free body diagrams as a point of discussion. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #125
Why wouldn't the NIST use free body diagrams? AZCat Dec 2013 #127
There's nothing sophisticated about not analyzing the collapse. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #131
Still haven't figured out what a free body diagram is, have you? AZCat Dec 2013 #132
Still trying to distract from the fact that NIST only did half an investigation, aren't you? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #133
Still trying to distract from your ignorance of physics principles? AZCat Dec 2013 #135
I'm not distracting from anything. I am refusing to traipse after your red herrings. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #137
Sure, just a little red herring that is essential to the whole energy equation. AZCat Dec 2013 #138
Repetition doesn't make an empty assertion any less empty. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #139
Repetition of the defense of your mistake doesn't make it any more right, either. AZCat Dec 2013 #141
There is no need to write out KE=1/2mv^2 nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #147
I don't think we're giving partial credit in this class. n/t AZCat Dec 2013 #149
If I took classes from a cat people would think I was crazy. They'd be right. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #153
At least I'm not trying to claim that kinetic energy is the only component... AZCat Dec 2013 #157
I didn't say it was. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #161
Yes you did. Repeatedly. AZCat Dec 2013 #163
You're talking in gassy riddles of pretend pedagogy, Perfisser. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #166
I've been quite clear. AZCat Dec 2013 #167
You shift the goal posts from an energy equation to an energy balance. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #169
Not really. AZCat Dec 2013 #171
You're not claiming that heat and entropy are significant factors are you? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #174
Gosh, so close and yet so far. AZCat Dec 2013 #175
So did Mr. Szamboti renounce the Holy Church of Controlled Demolition? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #178
What he does in church is up to him - that's none of my business. AZCat Dec 2013 #180
I'll take that as a "no". Ace Acme Dec 2013 #185
The "Missing Jolt" is relevant because Tony made the same mistake as you. AZCat Dec 2013 #186
Thanks for the tip. Maybe I'll look into it, but I don't see why. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #190
There's plenty of info about Tony's mistakes, but let me know if you need help. AZCat Dec 2013 #194
I'm not interested in Tony's mistakes. You only bring them up as a distraction from the Ace Acme Dec 2013 #195
Too bad, because you might learn something. AZCat Dec 2013 #198
I can learn many things. Your red herrings and empty claims aren't worth my time. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #202
That's amusing. You posted a blatantly obvious mistake, and are trying to deflect. AZCat Dec 2013 #204
You pretend that you have a gotcha but you won't say what it is. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #211
That's because there's no point in spoon-feeding you information. AZCat Dec 2013 #213
There's no point when you're on the wrong side of history, indeed. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #216
You have a funny definition of the wrong side of history. AZCat Dec 2013 #219
What about the incomplete and corrupt nature of the reports do you not understand? nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #222
I understand them. You don't. AZCat Dec 2013 #228
An anonymous internet poster understands the incomplete and corrupt nature of the reports. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #232
An anonymous poster understand the technical underpinnings of the reports. AZCat Dec 2013 #235
By the way - this is why I corrected you way back in post #69. AZCat Dec 2013 #177
So you're not going to respond to my challenge that you explain why Ace Acme Dec 2013 #181
Totally missed it, sorry. AZCat Dec 2013 #182
I wasn't talking about WTC7. I was talking about the towers. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #183
WTC7 was the one NIST modelled the collapse for. That's why it's relevant to the discussion. AZCat Dec 2013 #188
Modeling the collapses is not my job. It's the government's job. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #189
Actually, it is the job of every concerned citizen... AZCat Dec 2013 #192
It's the job of every concerned citizen to be aware of the fraudulent nature of the official reports Ace Acme Dec 2013 #196
I'm glad I'm being a concerned citizen, then. AZCat Dec 2013 #200
Your claims to a superior knowledge of physics are empty. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #205
I don't think you're qualified to assess anyone's physics knowledge. AZCat Dec 2013 #206
I don't need to assess your physics knowledge to see that your claims are empty. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #207
How quickly you forget. AZCat Dec 2013 #209
Oh, the pretend lessons that the pretend teacher has to give! Ace Acme Dec 2013 #217
Maybe that's why you didn't learn anything at school? AZCat Dec 2013 #220
More empty claims from someone who claims to be a cat. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #223
How's that research into the energy equation going for you? AZCat Dec 2013 #229
Just one little problem with the Verinage technique gyroscope Jan 2012 #54
What problem, for whom? William Seger Jan 2012 #57
You're twisting into a pretzel again gyroscope Jan 2012 #58
The question is, what was your point? William Seger Jan 2012 #59
Are you a laundry dryer? gyroscope Jan 2012 #60
are you a gyroscope? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #61
I don't see what the problem is. krispos42 Jan 2012 #40
Here's the "Myth Busters" episode where they try to rip the rear axle out with cable: cpwm17 Jan 2012 #55
Exactly krispos42 Jan 2012 #56
Tension and compression; apples and oranges. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #68
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»They shall be known as Bu...»Reply #60