Creative Speculation

zappaman

(20,612 posts)

116. gee thanks Abe.

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 03:48 PM

Dec 2013

now will you demonstrate why a cardboard box and a 1700 foot tower of steel and concrete are the same?
remember to show your work!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

248 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

They shall be known as Bush's Laws of Motion [View all] gyroscope Jan 2012 OP

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