Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

9/11


PolyNewbie

Your apoinion on 911  

57 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Riverwind:You have to draw a new body diagram after the leg breaks. When the leg breaks the load must start to accelerate downward.

The load on the table will begin to rotate toward the ground if a leg breaking causes a "failure". The load will never return to the other legs in a static sense. Thats why the top of the tower started rotating before it was blown apart with bombs.

I don't want to talk about this table example any more. You cannot talk about science without being able to draw digrams & write equaltions.

You cannot talk about a dynamic system like this using static free body diagrams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The load on the table will begin to rotate toward the ground if a leg breaking causes a "failure".
You seem to be quite dense when it comes to this point: a body cannot rotate without a force acting on it. If the remaining supports cannot support the weight then the table must come straight down - it cannot rotate.

Look at it a different way: imagine a see-saw with a single support in the middle. The support in the middle must support the entire mass - even if the see-saw is rotating about the pivot point. If the support on the see-saw was damaged so it could not support that mass it would collapse and the see-saw would have to fall straight down.

The load will never return to the other legs in a static sense. Thats why the top of the tower started rotating before it was blown apart with bombs.
Actually, the rotating tower proves my point - what happened in that situation is it took a little longer for the remaining supports to collapse so the tower had a chance to start rotating. However, as soon as those supports gave way the tower had no choice but to fall straight down.
I don't want to talk about this table example any more. You cannot talk about science without being able to draw diagrams & write equaltions.
Of course you don't want to talk about - it proves that your are wrong. You can't address the substance of the argument so to resort to claims that Newtonian physics no longer applies.
You cannot talk about a dynamic system like this using static free body diagrams.
The system starts off at rest - the only way to talk about it using static body diagrams. Once things get moving then momentum and other factors would come in to play. Your are just trying to avoid admiting that your theories have been shown to be wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:Actually, the rotating tower proves my point - what happened in that situation is it took a little longer for the remaining supports to collapse so the tower had a chance to start rotating. However, as soon as those supports gave way the tower had no choice but to fall straight down.

No, the tower blew apart at this point. Conservation of momentum says the tower just doesn't stop rotation.

Riverwind:Of course you don't want to talk about - it proves that your are wrong. You can't address the substance of the argument so to resort to claims that Newtonian physics no longer applies.

I did not say that Newtonian physics no longer applies. I stated that the system was dynamic and a static free body diagram no longer models it correctly. I said that its too hard to have a discussion about this without using diagrams and equations.

Riverwind:The system starts off at rest - the only way to talk about it using static body diagrams. Once things get moving then momentum and other factors would come in to play. Your are just trying to avoid admiting that your theories have been shown to be wrong.

I've shown how you are wrong. In the case of the three legs and the load and in the case of the rotating load.

You can't BS your way through this discussion. I really do have a degree in engineering, you do not, nor do you have the equivalent. To suggest that I said Newtonian physics no longer applies because a free body diagram isn't applicable is another statement that proves you do not know what you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the tower blew apart at this point. Conservation of momentum says the tower just doesn't stop rotation.
Who says the tower stopped rotating? What happened is the tower started to accelerate straight down while it continued to rotate. It lost whatever rotational momentum it had once it started to collide with the floors below.
I stated that the system was dynamic and a static free body diagram no longer models it correctly.
Your statement is false. The system was at rest therefore a static body diagram is the _only_ way to determine what motion occurs and in what direction.

Consider two cases:

1) A block supported by four legs and all four legs are knocked out simultaneously.

2) A block supported by four legs and two legs are knocked out simultaneously.

In case 1) gravity is the only force acting on the block so the only possible motion is straight down.

In case 2) there are 3 forces acting on the block: gravity + the two remaining legs. The direction of any acceleration must be calculated from the vector sum of the three forces. These forces will balance to zero in a scenario where the legs and the block are constructed from a rigid, unbreakable material. This means the system remains at rest. The only thing that will get the system to move is the failure of one of the components. If you want to determine what direction the system moves in you have to use a static body diagram that analyzes the forces acting on the components of the system immediately after the component failure.

There are several possible outcomes that depend on which part of the system fails first:

1) If the connection between the block and the legs fails first then the block will rotate off the legs and fall.

2) If the connection between the legs and the floor fails first then the legs will fall over with the block.

3) If the legs themselves fail first then the block will fail straight down.

Your entire theory is based entirely on the premise that 3) can never occur. This is an invalid assumption and my previous example with the table demonstrates that outcome 3) can occur and that it is likely to occur when skyscrapers have some of their supports damaged.

At this point in time it would be appropriate for you to acknowledge the symmetric collapse of a building from asymmetric damage is at least theoretically possible even if you still insist that it did not occur in the case of the WTC buildings.

I really do have a degree in engineering.
I am sure you do - but getting 51% in courses on electromagnetism and digital signal processing do not make you an expert on the collapse of buildings (or physics for that matter).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:I am sure you do - but getting 51% in courses on electromagnetism and digital signal processing do not make you an expert on the collapse of buildings (or physics for that matter).

Why would you say something like that ? I actually did quite well at E & M and have self studied quite a bit of DSP since graduating as well as taking it in school. I've also done original work in DSP.

Riverwind:At this point in time it would be appropriate for you to acknowledge the symmetric collapse of a building from asymmetric damage is at least theoretically possible even if you still insist that it did not occur in the case of the WTC buildings.
3) If the legs themselves fail first then the block will fail straight down.

I've already pointed this out. No legs will collapse at the same time. As soon as one collapses you need a new free body diagram- which will give you another rotation. Your arguement doesn't change anything.

Its not theoretically possible for a building to collapse straight down. I found pics on the web of various collasped buildings to emphasise my point but lost the link. I will try and find it again and post links of pics of various buildings that have collapsed.

I won't have this arguement with you on here. Its too much like playing basket ball on an ice rink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"New Mexico demolitions expert Van Romero said on the day of the attack that he believed the building collapses were "too methodical" to have been a result of the collisions, and that he thought "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." His remarks were published in the Albuquerque Journal 1 Â and are reprinted below. Ten days later the same newspaper printed a retraction, in which Romero is quoted as saying "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail." 2 Â His assertion of the official line in the second article is not backed up by any explanation or analysis.

"

Romero

He later retracted this statement and got a big promotion <_<

Romeros Promotion

He got another promotion too and now he is a top washington lobbyist.

I think this explains why experts endorse the official version :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

StandDownOrders

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified before the 911 Commission on May 23, 2003 and offered an interesting account of Vice President Cheney’s behavior as Flight 77 approached the Pentagon. 2 The essential testimony is in boldface.

MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane [was] coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.

MR. MINETA: And so I was not aware that that discussion had already taken place. But in listening to the conversation between the young man and the vice president, then at the time I didn't really recognize the significance of that.

And then later I heard of the fact that the airplanes had been scrambled from Langley to come up to DC, but those planes were still about 10 minutes away. And so then, at the time we heard about the airplane that went into Pennsylvania, then I thought, "Oh, my God, did we shoot it down?" And then we had to, with the vice president, go through the Pentagon to check that out.

MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.

MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.

MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out. …

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So plane's were scrambled to shoot possible hijacked flights down, that doesn't prove much. Hell it's even shown in the movie United 93. So she was simply overhearing a discussion with a young man who can't be named.

That doesn't really help or prove your case.

Let's try to think of this as a courtroom case, and so far your argument is fairly weak, and the vast majority of engineering experts disagree with you, as well as many witnesses. So far all you have is video evidence which cannot be used to substantiate your claim since you use no expertise but rather some visual observation's, based on what a non expert thinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've already pointed this out. No legs will collapse at the same time. As soon as one collapses you need a new free body diagram- which will give you another rotation. Your arguement doesn't change anything.
I already explained numerous times that the legs do _not_ collapse at the same time. Each leg will reach it failure point, the forces will redistribute causing the next leg to fail. All of this will happen so quickly that it will appear to be a simulataneous from the perspective of human viewer - that is why they call it a progressive collapse. And yes, you will need a sequence of freebody diagrams to see this but that I what I said in my last post. You should be able to draw these diagrams yourself based on my descriptions. If you do it right you will see that it is impossible for the table to rotate or tip if the legs cannot support the load.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CanadianBlue:Let's try to think of this as a courtroom case, and so far your argument is fairly weak, and the vast majority of engineering experts disagree with you

You mean like Romero ? This guy first says it must have been CD, then retracts his statement and gets a series of promotions starting in Jan 2002 now he is a washington lobbyist.

CanadianBlue: Honestly, If Bush got on TV and admitted there were explosives in the buildings would you believe it...honestly...yes or no ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:I already explained numerous times that the legs do _not_ collapse at the same time. Each leg will reach it failure point, the forces will redistribute causing the next leg to fail. All of this will happen so quickly that it will appear to be a simulataneous from the perspective of human viewer - that is why they call it a progressive collapse. And yes, you will need a sequence of freebody diagrams to see this but that I what I said in my last post. You should be able to draw these diagrams yourself based on my descriptions. If you do it right you will see that it is impossible for the table to rotate or tip if the legs cannot support the load.

Imagine 100 tables stacked and all four legs collapsing at each table all the way down. This arguement really has little relevance to this thread. Besides Romero said himself the collapse was too neat before he was paid off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine 100 tables stacked and all four legs collapsing at each table all the way down.
Do the the math - all that changes is the number of legs that need to be weakened for a complete collapse. For example: a 10000kg mass supported by 100 legs capable of bearing 150N each would be over designed by 50% (i.e. the structure is capable of carrying 50% more load than it is expected to). In this sitution, the entire structure would collapse straight down if 13 legs were weakened by 50% and 22 legs were weakened by 25%.

Three important points:

1) The supports only need to be weakened - they don't need to be destroyed.

2) When the structure collapses 65 out of 100 legs have no damage.

3) A structure with 100 legs is much less likely to rotate or tip (something that has to happen according to you).

Again, this example is extremely relevant because you are the one insisting that the buildings must have been blown up because a symmetric collapse from asymmetric damage is impossible. These examples illustrate that a symmetric collapse is not only possible but quite probable when dealing with skyscrapers which do not have a lot of redundancy built in.

Romero said himself the collapse was too neat before he was paid off.
Lots of people were shoked by 9/11 and went through various forms of denial. I also went through a period where I was suspicious of the WTC7 collapse in particular. However, once I investigated and looked at the scientific facts available I realized that symmetric collapses are not that unusual and that any other collapse would have been improbable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:Lots of people were shoked by 9/11 and went through various forms of denial. I also went through a period where I was suspicious of the WTC7 collapse in particular. However, once I investigated and looked at the scientific facts available I realized that symmetric collapses are not that unusual and that any other collapse would have been improbable.

I don't agree with your scientific arguement. I have never ever heard a scientific arguement like this used to explain 911 and I have read them all - there are several different ones and perhaps yours can be added to the list. Perhaps you can convince the 911 scholars (st911.org) or your scientific prowness because you cannot convince me.

Larry Silverstein admitting the demolition by accident, Romero saying the buildings were demolished before being paid off, Patroit Act being on Bushes desk on Sept 10 th 2001, Cheney's stand down orders, the uninvestigated "annoymous" trade transactions (try and do trading annonymously sometime), Rumsfeld accidentally saying flight 93 was shot down (I can give you the video), Normal investigators (fire marshall /FAA) not being allowed near sites, illegal removal of evidence reight after crashes, 441 days before official investigation started, hot spots weeks after collapse, evidence of CD on beams, war machine in Middle East gulf before Sept 11 waiting to attack, Pentagon attack tapes not shown,...these must all be just coincidences because the government would never do something like 911.

Just because the US government lied about WMD's in Iraq, did an anthrax attack on government officials, shot Kennedy & has Straussian / Nietzsche philosophy, doesn't mean 911 was an inside job because we know the government could not have done 911. Some other explanation must be true no matter how many coincidences that are required to justify it .

Is that your position on 911 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:Again, this example is extremely relevant because you are the one insisting that the buildings must have been blown up because a symmetric collapse from asymmetric damage is impossible.

There is that and the free fall rate of collapse that proves 911 was an inside job, not to mention the stack of higly circumstantial evidence that supports the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with your scientific argument. I have never ever heard a scientific argument like this used to explain 911 and I have read them all - there are several different ones and perhaps yours can be added to the list.
My argument is the same as what is summarized the in Popular Mechanics article and supported by numerous experts. Other sources refer to the behavior I describe as a progressive collapse and they describe in detail how the various WTC building components failed. My simplified example here was designed to illustrate how a progressive collapse works using concepts that can be followed by anyone with an understanding of high school physics.
Perhaps you can convince the 911 scholars (st911.org) or your scientific prowness because you cannot convince me.
Of course not. 9/11 conspiracies are your religion and a matter of faith rather that fact. Convincing you is like trying to convince a devout Christian to convert to Islam (i.e. it is not going to happen). I respond only to arguments that I think a reasonable person might see some merit in. That I why ignore your more irrational points regarding prison camps and energy beams.
There is that and the free fall rate of collapse that proves 911 was an inside job, not to mention the stack of higly circumstantial evidence that supports the same thing.
Sigh, numerous people have looked at this argument and established it is false. The buildings did not fall at free fall rate of collapse - this is a myth circulated by conspiracy theorists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:My argument is the same as what is summarized the in Popular Mechanics article and supported by numerous experts. Other sources refer to the behavior I describe as a progressive collapse and they describe in detail how the various WTC building components failed

Why do you suppose that they mis represented the construction of the buildings then ? ie: the "core denial"

BTW, whic theory do you thing is the truth: Core meltdown (1st popular mechanics theory),column failure, truss failure, or the shockwave theory ?

(The shockwave theory is a favorite amoung ameteurs according to Jim Hoffman who has published in Nature, Scientific American and others)

What you are experiencing is called "cognitive dissonance" and no matter how much evidence is put before you or how rediculous any of the official versions is shown to be, you will alsways believe them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind: stop puting words in my mouth to attempt to discredit me. I have never said anything about endorsing a theory based on "energy beams". I have always said I do not know exactly how the buildings were demolished, only that they must have been given the expedient and orderly nature of the collapse. All of you sycophants are always trying to put words in my mouth to discredit me.

Also, when I said that your static free body diagrams do not apply you iterpreted that as me saying that non Newtonian physics apply here. You also used the term "to an observer" which is itself a relativistic term.

This proves beyond any doubt that you are BS ing your way through this talk on "physics" and have made up some physics in your own mind to justify 911. You can't talk the talk so you can't walk the walk and you should stop BS ing people into thinking you are some kind of expert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind: stop putting words in my mouth to attempt to discredit me.
You are doing a pretty good job on your own without my help.
I have never said anything about endorsing a theory based on "energy beams".
You claimed that energy beams were a potentially valid theory that you did not subscribe to. Someone with a rudimentary understanding of the science involved would never have given the energy beam theory even that much credence - it is pure quackery.
Also, when I said that your static free body diagrams do not apply you iterpreted that as me saying that non Newtonian physics apply here.
I interpreted to mean that you felt that Wily E Coyote physics applied in this case. That is the kind of physics where an object does not start to fall until it looks down and realizes it has just run over a cliff.
You also used the term "to an observer" which is itself a relativistic term.
What a poser - you are so obsessed with using fancy science terms that you have forgotten that sometimes you can use plain English to explain things. That is all the term meant - and that was the way any normal reader would have interpreted it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, whic theory do you thing is the truth: Core meltdown (1st popular mechanics theory),column failure, truss failure, or the shockwave theory ?
I am not certain they have come to a conclusion yet. However, almost every technical professional with experience in building design agrees that the buildings collapsed due to some sort of progressive failure of supports similar to what I explained above. Unfortunately, there are so many variables that we can never know. For example, we cannot know what was damaged when the planes crashed. We cannot know where and what kind of fires were burning. So there likely never will be a conclusive explanation that irrefutably shows why the buildings collapsed.

Your problem is you don't seem to understand the rules of basic logic.

You look at the explainations provided to date which are always based on a number of assumptions. You then claim, without proof, that the assumptions are wrong and the claim this means the explaination is completely wrong. You then go on to claim that the lack of an irrefutable official explaination is proof of some nefarious plot to blow up the building.

I am sorry, but showing that A is not an irrefutable explaination is not a proof that A is wrong. More importantly it is not proof that C must be correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:However, almost every technical professional with experience in building design agrees that the buildings collapsed due to some sort of progressive failure of supports similar to what I explained above. Unfortunately, there are so many variables that we can never know.

If the evidence was properly examined we would know, but that was destroyed.

Your problem is you don't seem to understand the rules of basic logic.

In what sense ? Do you mean that its impossible for the government to have done this?

Riverwind:You look at the explainations provided to date which are always based on a number of assumptions. You then claim, without proof, that the assumptions are wrong and the claim this means the explaination is completely wrong. You then go on to claim that the lack of an irrefutable official explaination is proof of some nefarious plot to blow up the building.

Not true. I've looked at the evidence and came to the same conclusion that many others have- that the buildings were demolished. I came to that conclusion the dat it happened, before ever hearing about Alex Jones or the 911 truth movement.

am sorry, but showing that A is not an irrefutable explaination is not a proof that A is wrong.

I am sorry- but that sentence doesn't even make sense. You are using double negatives.

More importantly it is not proof that C must be correct.

Bombs are the only thing that could bring the buildings down like that. The fact that there had to be bombs in the buildings proves it was an inside job.

If you watch the video you will see some upward movement of dust from the buildings - how does this happen from falling ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind:You claimed that energy beams were a potentially valid theory that you did not subscribe to. Someone with a rudimentary understanding of the science involved would never have given the energy beam theory even that much credence - it is pure quackery.

Actually, you are quackery - I've already shown that with your "Newtonian physics" and your "an observer" arguemnts in this. Anyone that has studied science in a university will recognise you to be the quack. I have shown that you cannot talk the talk and therefore cannot walk the walk.

Really, ask yourself, how much do I really know about physics ?

I am sorry to have kicked your @$$ over this season and you keep comming back for more. I know this reality is hard to deal with and many people cannot handle it.

BTW: Why do you think the electric car dissapeared when there is global warming and we could build nuclear plants ? Where does money come from when you get a loan at the bank ? These things are actually related to 911 in a truth that many people simply cannot handle and dismiss because of an effect known as cognitive dissonance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW: Why do you think the electric car dissapeared when there is global warming and we could build nuclear plants ? Where does money come from when you get a loan at the bank ? These things are actually related to 911 in a truth that many people simply cannot handle and dismiss because of an effect known as cognitive dissonance.

Explain how the electric car is related to 9/11, and before making claim's you can't back up, why isn't global warming hidden from us as people. Is it because the mainstream scientific community agrees with the theory of global warming, kind of like how the mainstream scientific community also agrees with the official version of how the towers fell down and used science instead of just making a few observation's from a video.

I am sorry to have kicked your @$$ over this season and you keep comming back for more. I know this reality is hard to deal with and many people cannot handle it.

Please, I think the only person who has trouble with reality is you. I've been able to point out your faulty arguments before by using exerpts from real engineer's and your only counterargument is that the government paid them off.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if you yourself blew up a government building. When somebody believe the government is more likely to pull off an attack on its own people, and be responsible for all the evil in the world, doesn't that make them more likely to blow up government buildings, and kill police officers and politicians?

I think we should all stop debating PN right now, and let him live in his little fantasy world, which I think includes a deathcamp for these supposed wrongdoers who may not even be wrongdoers.

Actually, you are quackery - I've already shown that with your "Newtonian physics" and your "an observer" arguemnts in this. Anyone that has studied science in a university will recognise you to be the quack. I have shown that you cannot talk the talk and therefore cannot walk the walk.

Everybody on this board thinks your a quack, so nobody really cares what your opinion is your here more for humor than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, you are quackery - I've already shown that with your "Newtonian physics" and your "an observer" arguemnts in this. Anyone that has studied science in a university will recognise you to be the quack. I have shown that you cannot talk the talk and therefore cannot walk the walk.
Holy red herring batman! Let's recap:

I provide a simple model using static body diagrams that demostrates how a progressive collapse happens.

You respond by claming that it is a dynamic system that cannot be analyzed with static body diagrams.

I point out that the building is a rest so the only suitable tool is a static body diagram to analyze the problem.

You respond by claiming that it won't work because the legs could never collapse simulatenously

I point out that the legs do not collapse simultaneously, however, it will happen within milliseconds so it will appear to be simultaneous to a human observer.

You respond by babbling about how I am using the wrong scientific terms (thereby demonstrating that you may know the buzz words when it comes to science but that you do not really understand them).

I am sorry but your arguments have been shredded and you are grasping for straws. A progressive collapse is most defininately theoretically possible and the only unknown at this time is the exact sequence of events and why individual building components failed.

You can continue to insist that a bomb is the only thing that could have brought the buildings down, however, you have presented no evidence or analysis other than unproven claims about the laws of thermodynamics and incorrect data regarding the speed of collapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riverwind: I'm not argueing about the table with legs anymore - yes your terminology is all wrong which proves you can't walk the walk. Keep argueing about it.

It does not matter how things appear to a human observer. There you go, going relativistic again. Once a rotation starts it doesn't stop and thats called conservation of momentum.

Most of your analysis on this problem is dead wrong. Its actually a very difficult problem. Stop BS ing your way into making people think you are an expert - this problem is WAY over your head - to the point where you do not even recognise this.

What do you think of Van Romero ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...