Do Truthers Understand Basic Physics?

Don't worry. Nobody expected better of you, so you didn't disappoint anyone. Cultists always eventually resort to lying, hence it was a given you'd reach that point.

 

I'm not playing word games. What happens to the tower if you remove the dowel? Does it stand on its own or does the tower collapse?

 

That's all he's capable of doing. No substance, all hot air.

 

What does "collapse" mean?

It falls over sideways not straight down. I already said that. Its WEAK AS POSSIBLE construction does not make it possible for the stack to remain straight up. But the paper loops are all that support the weight of the washers.

But raising and dropping the top four washers does not provide enough energy to buckle even half of the paper loops. The point of the demonstration is to show that the supports would absorb the kinetic energy of the falling mass and much of the structure would remain standing. So if the aircraft impact impact should have completely destroyed the north tower then a number of engineering schools should have created models indicating that by now.

 

I know its really complex fang but I will help you along here.

See fang that is a 'representation', do you comprehend what a model is, of the forces that are seen in a lattice style construction when one element that represents the removing a column connection is removed, of course its NOT ACTUAL WTC STEEL.

Unfortunately though you proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are not an engineer and have no clue whatsoever how a lattice functions or redistributes loads, but I hope that explanation helps shed a glimmer of light on it for you.

 

Yep!

I can too spot posers a mile away!

European engineers did a study back then and pointed out it is a tube in tube lattice structure that transfers load around and below the damaged area. like the cute little model I posted above shows, at least the around part, not so much the beneath part.

I saved the original video documentary below and have it somewhere in the jigga bytes of archives but I no longer waste my time digging any of this stuff up, the gifs are handy, anyone who knows their stuff knows anyone who doesnt I dont get paid to teach trolls. the text of course is the "quote" from that cute engineer and they provided the graphic.

 

He is trying to make hay off his buckling crap.

What is obstinately being refused to take into consideration is that if you had perfectly squared cut loops and precision ground washers that it would stand on its own, and he is handwaving away the fact its built with just enough strength to stand, does not have precision ground washers and does not have precisely cut perfectly squared 'perpendicular' loops.

Then he is trying to claim that despite the fact it barely stands without collapsing that the dowel is interfering with his expected total collapse of your structure by preventing the loops from in his mind properly buckling desipte the fact that your structure has just enough strength to stand on its own as it is, which is not even in the same universe as real world tube in tube self supporting design with 5x redundancy.

So the problem isnt that it wont stand without a dowel, it would, if you had absolutely precisely squared up parts and perfectly placed loops etc. He simply doesnt get it.

Seriously his claims are beyond grabbing for straws, its clutching and hanging on for dear life to 'invisible' straws.

 

I understand and agree. But again, it's not about them. They served a useful purpose when they caused you to explain it to those who are not trolls. Now readers can educate themselves as to why it's virtually impossible that the buildings naturally "collapsed" (as a result of the events of 9/11). That's only of course those who do want an education.

 

A wacky theory, is CD at WTC? No, not really. It's the only theory that is supported by the facts and evidence.

If you're looking for a wacky theory, here it is: the NIST conclusion that office fires and gravity caused the buildings to collapse and gave us what we saw. Another wacky theory, considering physics, is that all those cellphone calls could be made in 2001. They could not. The physics and design of the system in 2001 would not allow it.

Another wacky theory is that a crashed airliner UA93 was in that field in Shanksville. Or that AA77 struck the Pentagon.

Wacky and invalid theories make up the official story, and that is why the Commission mentioned 63 times in its report that "we found no evidence" to support various details of that official story, which only wacky people still defend 16 years later.

 

If the dowel is required to hold up the structure the dowel is PART OF THE STRUCTURE. It’s not as weak as possible because the dowel is part of the structure and the dowel is not as weak as possible. The load carried by the dowel is not something you can just ignore.

The paper loops do not buckle during your experiment. They crush. The paper loops buckle when you take out the dowel. This is my entire point. The difference between the two is very important. Without the dowel, the loops do not hold themselves in place with nothing but their own intertia. Instead they buckle. It’s the added area moment of inertia of the dowel that prevents them from buckling which forces the columns to fail in a crush mode.

But your model does not show this. As you said, the only reason the tower remains standing is because the dowel remains standing. Beyond that, the dowel absorbs kinetic energy too as it absorbs the columns tendency to rotate. Without the dowel, the columns can’t even absorb their own tendency to rotate and it would fall over even without being subjected to the kinetic energy of your falling mass. You can’t just focus on part of your structure system, and ignore the rest of the system.

Your argument is that a building that can’t hold itself up under it’s own axial load without an auxiliary support can never completely collapse when a force is applied axially. It contradicts itself in its very premise.

You cannot construct a physical scale model of gravity. As you decrease the scale of an object by half, it’s mass decreases to a third of the original mass. Cross sectional strength depends on effective area. Mass depends on volume. Because of this you can’t even put the model in a centrifuge and increase gravity. The system would still not scale. The smaller you make something, the stronger it gets relative to its mass. It’s why ants can lift their own body weight, but the legs of a human sized ant would snap off if it tried to stand.

 

No. What that is is a model of a molecule that you photoshopped. I caught you.

 

Now you want to play word games with STRUCTURE instead of EXPERIMENT. I said the paper loops support the weight of the washers against gravity and the dowel keeps the stack from tilting over.

The dowel does not move and the washers just slide down the dowel without the paper loops. There is no doubt some friction between the dowel and some of the washers but it would be amusing to see someone try to measure it.

Like anyone is supposed to give a damn about the inertia of the paper loops when one washer weighed about more than five times all of the paper loops. I had to compute that from the weight of paper per square inch that I found on the Internet. I don't have a scale that could weight so little.

Now that is BS. "absorb their own tendency to rotate" That is supposed to make sense? You are just playing word games with buckling and crushing.

I never said that model was scaled. It is only a physics demonstration.

 

Where do you think the force to tip the stack over come from? It’s gravity. It’s the force of gravity, applied axially, that induces a moment in the structure and causes it to want to rotate. This rotation action is what makes it want to tip over. The loops cannot support the weight of the washers against gravity without the dowel.

You think that because the dowel doesn’t move that it’s not bearing load? If it’s not bearing a load, it would not be needed. You admitted that it’s needed to carry the radial load or the whole thing would tip over. It’s needed to prevent the tendency of the structure to rotate. This tendency is not produced by magic. It’s generated by gravity.

You’re trying to prove that inertia holds things at rest in a fixed position in space. But the loops, washer, and dowel are not at all fixed in space. They are all being acted on by the force of gravity. It’s not the inertia of the mass in the structure that arrests the collapse. It’s the strength of the materials acting to resist the force of gravity that holds them in place. Your tower can’t even do that without the dowel.

I’ll give you another example. If it was just mass that held things in place, you could pour a column of water, and as soon as it hit the ground it would remain a column of water.

It’s called the modulus of elasticity. It’s not BS. It’s something you’ve had plenty of time to learn about. I suggest you figure it out if you actually want answers to your questions.

Why is it so hard for you to follow the subject of a response? You asked for colleges to build you a physical model of the collapse. I wasn’t talking about your model. I was talking about the impossibility of a physical scale model of a gravitational collapse.

 

What you forever fail to comprehend is that the only reason it would tip at all is due to imperfections in the paper cut outs, as I said not perfectly perpendicular. If your imagination was as good at imagining reality as it is irrelevant fantasy you would know that the tendency to fail is much greater with imperfections than with precision pieces, so let me get the crayons once more, that means precision perfectly squared up parts are stronger than non precision parts, which mean it will easily stand without the dowel if precision parts are used.

Caught nothing. You may want to consider understanding what it is before you poke fun of so you can stop running to the wrong goal with the ball.

Once again let me get the crayons out and dumb this down. It 'was' a model of a molecule until one segment was removed and force approximations were drawn on it to demonstrate the extreme resilience to failure and point out that your bukoeing theory doesnt even rank 101 on the reality scale. The force seen in the lattice network is smack on as they point out in Europe. If you are still incapable of comprehending how a lattice arrangement functions it does not get much more simple than that.

Your continual dodging the point that everyone else clearly understands is another feather in your hat proving no engineering skill outside cut and paste.

I'm sorry if it tramples your bucke theory, next time be more careful what position you take and learn from your errors instead of dodging.

 

False. And your ignorance of the reasons it would tip over are not evidence of absense.

It’s tendency to tip over is based on its area moment of inertia, its modulus of elasticity, its radius of gyration, and it’s unsupported length.

Without the dowel the unsupported length is the entire tower. With the dowel the unsupported length is the height of a single paper ring. Without the dowel the area moment of inertia is calculated by the radius to the outside of the paper loop minus the radius to the inside of the paper loop. With the dowel it’s area moment of inertia is increased by the cross sectional area of the dowel. Without the dowel its modulus of elasticity is based on the strength of the paper. With the dowel it’s based on the strength of the paper and the dowel.

The dowel makes a huge difference in the tower’s tendency to tip over. Without the dowel, the mass of the lower section of the building could NOT arrest the momentum of the falling mass because the lower section structural pieces would buckle, instead of crush.

What it is is an image you stole from another site, photoshopped and tried to pass off as a study of something it wasn’t.

 

What gives you the idea he is trying to demonstrate the wtc tower?

How many times do you need to be told that it proves the conservation of momentum before a light comes on?

Now if you think the experiment is seriously flawed as I said before, do your own, and short of that provide all the data and your brilliant calculations that lead you to the conclusion there is anything what so ever wrong with his set up.

That means post your ****ing model or associated math, or admit its all in your imagination.

What?
Stole? So you are reduced to lies now? Its not bad enough you that you are pretending to be an engineer and you are unable to connect the dots between a graphic showing relative force lines of lattice loading scheme and how that effects the wtc. (not that I blame you since it blows the poser collapse theories out of the water.)

More diversion and lies, I never said I did a study corresponding to the first gif, yet another diversionary lie, that 2 for 2 you are on a roll.

The study was once again done in europe that was the second gif.

There you go keep digging yourself in deeper!

 

one of my all time fav gifs addresses exactly that!

This is from so called debunker arguments on another board but now that the dust has really settled we can sit back and laugh our asses off at the looney **** these people tried to pull. This is about their truss pulling in the exoskeleton. Watch and get a great laugh

 

As a physics student both at high school (straight A grades) plus in College, as we learned what was happening, we had faith. Faith the teacher did not lie. Faith the book problems were true. We believed when the math worked. We believed upon experiments.

Faith in science does not mean you have no foundation nor information nor evidence. But a lot of things accepted in science strains the belief of a lot of humans.

 

ROFLMAO

It sounds like you never did experiments on your own before you ever took a physics course. My first physics teacher was a boring disappointment. I got straight A's too, so what? I was building and launching rockets 5 years before my first physics course.

Reality does not give a damn about books. The books are supposed to describe reality and experiments are controlled versions of reality that should let you extrapolate about conditions you cannot control.

Building a duplicate north tower to experiment with would be ridiculously expensive. Our engineering schools should be able to do experiments that might cost more then $10,000. My stack of washers and paper loops was less then $50.

But our engineering schools cannot even discuss the distributions of steel and concrete and the Center of Gravity of the tilted top of the south tower.

So your Faith is nothing but BELIEVING in authority. Physics is testing reality. The math is derived from the testing, it does not tell reality what to do.

 

yep! CoG was well beyond the core, damn thing should have rolled off the top and toppled over but like so many other jaw dropping miracles that day it didnt.





It magically slowed, started and slowed again!



Just look at those incredible 'dust puffs', [NIST], far more than the bernie demolition! They should hired a better cleaning service!

Every other similar demolition the rotation steadily increases, but not the wtc because the wtc is a modern day miracle, it does just the opposite! Probably because of all that resistance on the way down!

Oh and for the posers, stall = falling into no resistance, rotation = falling into resistance.

For the other people that Bob talks about, we can see that the rotation of wtc2 starts out very fast (while there was still some resistance and the top section was still intact), then slows to a total stall just before it disappears.

When buildings are blown out below the tilt the tilt will slow or stop if it does not have enough momentum, as we can see in the bernie building the as soon as the tilted top meets resistance it immediately tips over.

America has many DBU graduates.



So how do you make a miracle?

You blow the top all to hell to insure if falls straight down!

 

Thanks Koko. A perfect example of why you should not stop posting about 9/11. I've never seen that GIF before and it says an awful lot, not for the "posers" of course but for those who want real answers about 9/11. Now if you could find the GIF you once posted of a building that was controlled demolished and had the penthouse cave in first, that would be awesome.

All these depictions of controlled demolitions prove that the only known way a building can be destroyed and look like a controlled demolition is by controlled demolition ... of course, duuuhhhh.

 

Ahh, another Koko photoshopped fake.

Here’s the original stock photo:



Your attempts to pass of your photoshopped nonsense as argument are comical.

 

great collapse photo fang

everyone gets it, that everything and ANYthing that shows what a laughing stock posers are is faked, and photoshopped, and unbuckled! We get it!

 

Your words, not mine:

If you can’t demonstrate conservation of momentum in the physical world without sliding things down a dowel that doesn’t collapse, how in the world is this relevant to what happened on that day? Obviously it’s not a demonstration of the mechanics of what should of happened if you agree that it’s not something that could have happened in the real world.

Of course, your arguments have always been based on some fantasy that you drew in photoshop, so it’s not like that massive logical hole matters to you one bit.

 

Very simple fang, conservation of momentum like so many other principles of physics are simply being ignored, same as you ignore the lattice and pretend it doesnt exist, as I said which is understandable since it shows that NIST and other government organizations are part of a criminal enterprise.

Still no math to prove your theories? No model either fang? Why should anyone take your theories seriously when all you are putting out here is hot air?