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
Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: North Tower Exploding... [View all]William Seger
(10,923 posts)12. "Handwaving"
> You haven't given me any sound reasoning to dismiss.
Yes, I have, and as predicted, I need to post it again:
The thing that Chandler misses is simply that the smoke clouds he calls "squibs" accelerate as they exit the building. Somehow, I doubt that you're going to understand this any better than any of the other physics-based arguments you've been given, but the smoke cloud from an explosive expands because it is accelerated by the explosion itself. As obvious as that is, the subtle thing Chandler misses is that that means all of the acceleration happens within a very small fraction of a second. That's why, when you see a real squib in a video, the smoke cloud appears very suddenly and the expansion is only seen to decelerate in subsequent frames, because there is no longer any force pushing it. The clouds Chandler calls "squibs," however, are seen to accelerate over several frames as they exit the building. A continued acceleration can only have one explanation: a continued force. In this case, the obvious explanation is the air that is still being pushed out of the building is exerting that continuing force. As obvious as this, I suppose I will need to explain this to you over and over and over and over, but I'm going to ask anyway that you give this some thought before responding and don't waste everyone's time and bandwidth with non-responsive nonsense.
You did not even attempt to address this argument. You completely ignored it, the same as you did with a long list of other physics-based arguments such as: why JFK's forward head-snap cannot be explained by motion blur; why Gourley was wrong about his "Newton's Third Law" claims in the collapse of the WTC towers; what Bazant was actually doing in his analysis and what his conclusion meant; and why Richard Gage can't have it both ways that the WTC7 collapse was silent because it was caused by thermite and sudden because it was caused by explosives, just to name a few off the top of my head. If I can get you to even address it at all, your predictable response will be simple denial followed by simple repetition of refuted arguments, such as your response to why the exterior shell of WTC 7 looked different from the NIST sim and why "most" of the columns in the WTC towers were not "easily accessible from elevator shafts" on the floors where the collapses began, to name just a couple of examples.
You did not respond to the argument above because you could not, but you also couldn't keep your fingers off the keyboard to accuse me of "handwaving," right after a song and dance about how your own inability to comprehend the concrete pulverization is supposed to be accepted as evidence of, uh, something or other -- it's a mystery to you. Tell you what: I'll discuss that nonsense with you right after you respond to the argument above.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
64 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I don't know and you don't know. Maybe we should ask NIST for an investigation that tells us.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#13
Your inability to digest the information in the NIST report dictates your irrelevancy.
AZCat
Dec 2013
#19
As I said, it implies that the actual collapse was too orderly for the models to recreate.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#40
Some people wave Big Fat Books to give the illusion of support for their empty claims.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#59
By the way - you seem to have a bad habit of editing your posts (usually multiple times).
AZCat
Dec 2013
#53
Writing is rewriting. Only bots with libraries of canned responses get it right the 1st time nt
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#56
If you can say, "NIST doesn't give me any arguments to ignore," you've ignored a lot
William Seger
Dec 2013
#32
I don't need to demonstrate that it's nonsence after YOU'VE demonstrated that.
Ace Acme
Dec 2013
#36
The video makes the Bush Administration's "investigation" of 9-11 appear crooked. K&R (nt)
T S Justly
Dec 2011
#3