Having complained of people posting off topic, it seems a reasonable solution to give an opportunity for people to discuss the topics I am banning from other threads – of which 9/11 seems the most popular.
I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected. There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one. They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group. Any group I can think of – even Blackwater – would contain operatives with scruples about blowing up New York. They may be sadly ready to kill people in poor countries, but Americans en masse? Somebody would say it wasn’t a good idea.
I asked a friend in the construction industry what it would take to demolish the twin towers. He replied nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling. The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable.
The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building. As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense.
I admit to a private speculation about WTC7. Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt. I recall vividly that in London some years ago a tragedy occurred when a simple gas oven explosion brought down the whole side of a tower block.
The inquiry found that the building contractor had simply omitted the ties that bound the girders at the corners, all encased in concrete. If a gas oven had not blown up, nobody would have found out. Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection. The sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy.
Precisely what happened at the Pentagon I am less sure. There is not the conclusive film and photographic evidence that there is for New York. I am particularly puzzled by the much more skilled feat of flying that would be required to hit a building virtually at ground level, in an urban area, after a lamppost clipping route – very hard to see how a non-professional pilot did that. But I can think of a number of possible scenarios where the official explanation is not quite the whole truth on the Pentagon, but which do not necessitate a belief that the US government or Dick Cheney was behind the attack.
In my view the real scandal of 9/11 was that it was blowback – the product of a malignant terrorist agency whose origins lay in CIA funding and provision. Also blowback in a more general sense that it was spawned in the nasty theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia which is so close to the US and to the Bush dynasty in particular. As with almost all terrorist activity, I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors.
But was 9/11 false flag and controlled demolition? No, I think not.
(Now I have given full opportunity to discuss 9/11 here, any further references on other threads will be instantly deleted).
Duh. Yes, of course you’re right that the post attributed to angrysoba was actually tomk. Note to self: think more before reacting.
I’ll try again.
I was unaware of any limitation on number of url’s.
The posts that I write frequently reference engineering sites in order to substantiate my points.
A half dozen posts that I submitted were not posted, and I assumed that I’d been banned for being “intemperate” with V.
If this goes thru, I’ll repost with modified url’s.
tom
From tom:
___
Vronsky:
“Fascinating demonstrations, thank you (and I mean that). A comment on the second YouTube explains the apparent paradox (note that it calls falling faster than g a ‘paradox’). It isn’t free fall – there is another component of force due to friction. It can’t be otherwise.”
tomk:
Wrong. Completely wrong.
I lay the proof in front of you, and you continue to make EXACTLY THE SAME mistakes:
Arrogance, ignorance & ego.
1.”… [some YouTuber] calls it a paradox…”
Ignorance: You hold up the LEAST competent comment as “expert”. There is ZERO paradox here. Everything is behaving exactly as Newton’s laws demand. YOU don’t understand the details.
2.”… It isn’t free fall – there is another component of force due to friction. It can’t be otherwise.”
Ignorance & ego: Wrong. Completely wrong. (But your ego won’t let you see it.)
It is exactly free fall. The effect has NOTHING to do with friction of any sort.
There is no friction other than (insignificant) air drag, which BTW is affecting the ruler more than the washers.
Do a force diagram, if you can, and you might understand it. Gravity is the ONLY force acting on the system.
___
Vronsky: “P=ma”
tomk: Correct. A mysterious bit of technobabble that you wave around like a talisman, hoping to impress yourself & others with your knowledge. All the while, having only a rudimentary, THEORETICAL understanding of the implications. Or its REAL WORLD application.
____
Vronsky: “If you observe a>g then P>weight of object.”
tomk: Wrong. You still don’t understand.
Put your ego aside, and learn.
THE CG of the object falls at “G”. Not ALL PARTS OF the object. There are other forces acting on the glass & the end of the ruler. They are only the internal forces within the ruler, because the ruler is a semi-rigid object. Those internal forces arise only from gravity acting on the whole ruler/glass system, with a resisting force acting UPWARDS on the pivot point of the ruler.
____
Vronsky: “Inescapable mathematics, I’m afraid.
tomk: Once again with the math, eh?
It ain’t the math at which you are incompetent. It’s the mechanics. Translating the real world into math. That’s called “engineering”.
____
Vronsky: Or are you going to tell me that m>m?”
tomk: Shall I assume that this is just a typo? That you are not seriously suggesting that things with greater mass fall at higher accelerations than things with lower mass?
You are familiar with the name “Galileo Galilei”, I presume…
____
And, like all the above, a litany of wrong. Wrong. & more wrong.
Just like you were wrong that “nothing can fall at accel > g”, each one of the following statements is also wrong. In key, significant (not trivial) meaning.
Vronsky: “The Truther’s case is that the buildings fell at g,.-
tomk: Wrong. Chandler doesn’t say this.
____
Vronsky: “… meaning no resisting structure beneath the falling mass …”
tomk: Wrong.
____
Vronsky: “… You and tomk seem to be saying ‘Hey, us shills are *way* more stupid than that …”
tomk: Very wrong. But you set the bar very, very low. Being “smarter than a truther” falls smack dab in the middle of “damned by faint praise”.
But I must admit that it is difficult to get more stupid than “truther stupid”.
____
Vronsky: “… we think those buildings fell even faster than g!’ …”
tomk: Wrong.
____
Vronsky: “… 90 stories of steel and concrete is readily distinguishable from nothing. …”
tomk: Wow. You got one right. But it is another of your “spherical cows”. And it doesn’t mean NEARLY what you think it means.
____
Vronsky: “… Speak to your supervisor and see if they can’t find some technical support for you, someone who has maybe a Scottish Standard Grade in physics …”
tomk: It appears that the Scottish Standard Grade (in what? Math?) has let you down, V.
____
Vronsky: “… And, if you don’t mind me saying so, don’t let your intemperate side do so much of the talking.”
tomk: “… intemperate …” Would that be “intemperate”, as in “calling someone a liar about his background in your FIRST interaction”?
Or perhaps that would be “intemperate”, as in “issuing incompetent, erroneous proclamations outside of your field of expertise”?
Or would that be “intemperate”, as in “… calling someone incompetent and a poser, when they challenged your wrong, and now disproven silliness”?
Or, perhaps that might be “intemperate”, as in “unable to comprehend or admit that you were completely wrong, even though you are lead by the hand to the proof”?
Which particular “intemperate” did you have in mind, V?
___
Vronsky: “… Plays badly with the jury, y’know. …”
tomk: I’m an engineer. (Regardless of whether or not you believe me. It is beneath my dignity to bother to lie to anyone about my background. Especially, a bunch of truthers on the internet.)
Engineers, by nature & training, don’t give a rat’s ass whether or not you like us. There is only ONE “coin of the realm”: being right.
And it is charmingly amusing that you think that any of the reality associated with this is dependent upon the vote of some imagined “jury”.
tom
tomk
When you pose under the name of another poster you desert your right to be included in the conversation. Bye.
Clark,
Yes, you did ask a polite question, very politely. It was refreshing.
I am old school. I have a strong, some might say “anachronistic”, sense of dignity. I don’t call others “liars”. Without extraordinary evidence. I don’t react well when a stranger calls me a liar. Especially one who posts a bunch of crappola in my field. And then, when I correct him, starts with the childish insults.
___
Clark: “what is the matter? I asked a polite question. What’s all this about asking someone to post on your behalf, apparently under a false name? If you’re having trouble posting, you’re probably trying to include more than two URLs. Just leave off the http etc.”
tomk: Thanks. The url’s was the problem. Funny that the response from the system is not “you can’t use multiple url’s.” But rather “the mods will review your post. Don’t bother reposting.”
___
Clark: “I knew it was the center of mass that fell at g, I was hoping for something more juicy.”
tomk: Your focusing on the the trivial, and ignoring the significant.
The incidence is “how could the north wall have fallen near, or even faster than, g for any period of time?”
The principle is “the postulate that it is impossible for it to have fallen equal to (or even slightly faster than) g for any period of time” is an amateur oversimplification of a far more complex problem.
In other words, it is EXACTLY the sort of oversimplification that gets presented to high school & college kids in elementary physics classes.
And it is exactly the sort of oversimplification that frequently falls on its face in “the real world”.
THAT is the big picture. Along with the fact that there are a bunch of people who have “high school” understanding of the principles involved, along with typical teenage overestimation of the depth of their understanding.
Please try to get it.
There are NO competent structural engineers in the truth movement. Zero.
There are a small number (~30) in AE911T.
Who have done … nothing. How many analyses have they contributed to? Zero.
They claim to be highly concerned with this issue. And yet, while (allegedly) possessing the knowledge & understanding to unravel the biggest, most evil conspiracy in history, they sit on their collective butts.
Are they lazy? Are they that amoral?
They leave it to architects (who don’t know dick about building collapse), physicists (ditto), professors of philosophy of religion, etc.
Here, mathematicians (Maybe. V won’t tell me what his credentials are.)
It is the cornerstone of the whole truther nonsense.
Amateurs producing simplistic, amateurish nonsense lapped up by amateurs.
That professionals immediately recognize as incompetent.
But it sure do impress folks like V. Whose self-image as “a smart guy” and background in math forces him to THINK that he now has expertise in engineering. So he joins the ranks of proselytizing amateurs.
___
To the details of WTC7 north wall fall …
There are a several ways in which a single point of the north wall could APPEAR to be falling at, or faster than, “g” for a brief period, while it not being true.
There are several ways in which a single point of the north wall could REALLY be falling at, or faster than g, for a brief period.
But the most important thing is: the interpretation that this is impossible, improbable or even unlikely is utterly wrong. And the interpretation that it proves some sort of demolition is dirt dumb.
And is the direct result of amateur, incompetent interpretations of the data.
If you want, I’ll explain in more detail later. No more time right now.
Tom
Vronsky: “When you pose under the name of another poster you desert your right to be included in the conversation. Bye.”
LMAO.
Apparently you missed the “tomk asked me to pass this on for him” @ angrysoba at July 29, 2010 12:24 PM.
Sure, V. THAT is the reason that you’re running away from discussion.
It’s got NOTHING at all to do with the fact that you’ve been shown to be a pompous blowhard, spewing crap…
Sure thing, V, I’m certain that you’ve convinced everyone…
LoL.
tom
Tomk,
I’m glad you’ve got the URL thing sorted. Yes, the ‘moderation’ message is just an unchanged default, I believe.
Tomk,
Vronsky,
please stop fighting. It produces much heat and little light. The “You’re a shill” / “Truthers are dumb” argument illuminates nothing interesting.
Tomk,
I’d appreciate further details about WTC7 “North wall”, quotes as there are views from different sides and it does look like a remarkably symmetrical collapse, very sudden, complete and neat. Of course, we’re all familiar with seeing buildings do that, but not without plenty of planning.
Question; was the observed collapse of WTC7 consistent (non-exclusively) with demolition, ie is demolition a *possible* explanation for what we see on video in your opinion?
I object a bit to your earlier assertion that (only?) stupid people identify themselves on the Internet. I post a link specifically to identify myself and enable private contact, and I don’t regard this as stupid behaviour. Of course there are plenty of people far more intelligent than me who are identifiable and contactable on the ‘net. I think that better ‘net identification would encourage more honest and intelligent discussion. But then, I’m an ‘Open Source’ sort of person – so of course I think NIST should have published their models. Or did they, eventually?
Tomk,
‘Spherical cow’ is funny – I’ll be using that. The first video is lousy; shaky camera, glass almost invisible, and slow motion would have helped. I assume that the glass is glued to the falling board.
The second video is just beautiful; monochrome, piano music, slow motion. Gravity’s Rainbow (have you read it?). It isn’t a surprise, but thanks anyway.
Force diagram.
………….V
…=========
……………………A
“V” = gravity,
“A” = support from fulcrum.
The dots are needed as spaces are stripped from the start of lines. ASCII art is not ideal for diagrams; layout will vary with different font settings.
Yep, looked OK in preview, ruler too short once posted.
Why doesn’t Obama blow the lid on 911? Why doesn’t Wikileaks blow the lid on 911?
Clark: “Tomk, Vronsky, please stop fighting.”
Clark,
V said a bunch of things that were wrong.
He was wrong at the start. He was wrong in the middle, and he is wrong at the end.
I proved that he was (& is) wrong, with both theory & video evidence. V continues to deny what he saw with his own eyes, invoking some sort of demonic “friction”.
With his incompetence embellished with a bunch of snarky insults. It’s all VERY amusing.
But the word “fighting” implies an ongoing contest of some sort.
LoL, there’s no fighting going on.
BTW, if V apologizes, he’ll find me very forgiving & conciliatory. If not, well, that’s OK too.
___
Look, what he said was not stupid. It is a very common over-simplification. Before I saw that demo in a physics class, I thought the same thing. But, unlike V, the instant I saw the video, I understood what was going on, and why. Because I do understand the underlying principles.
So THAT was not V’s stupidity. It was his a priori decision that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong, stupid or a poser. Even tho he is the person that is shoveling crap outside of his field.
Just out of curiosity, since V refuses to answer me, do any of you know what exactly IS V’s field? What does he do? I promise to not call anyone a liar…
____
Clark: “… it does look like a remarkably symmetrical collapse,
Tom: It HAS to be symmetrical. That just means that it falls more or less straight down. In exactly the direction that gravity pulls it.
“into it’s own footprint…” Because that is exactly where you put the “footprint” of a tall building. If you put it anywhere else, the building falls over.
In order for it not to be symmetrical, it would have to tip to the side.
There is no way to get a building, with that large a footprint, supported by a lattice structure whose load bearing columns extends to the periphery (the external columns, far from the “neutral axis of bending”) to tip more than a couple of degrees without the external columns buckling & the building collapsing.
____
Clark: “… very sudden, complete and neat. ”
Tom: Typical of all “constant load buckling failures”. When they go, they go “right now!”
____
Clark: “… Of course, we’re all familiar with seeing buildings do that, but not without plenty of planning. …”
Tom: It does not matter that you’ve seen CD’d buildings fall like this. Standing people who get shot, fall down. That does not mean that everyone who falls down has been shot!
What WOULD be a pertinent observation is if you could point to a similar building, approximately same area / height ratio (although this has to be analyzed carefully, with knowledge, see “Buckingham Pi-Theorem”), lattice structural support, that was hit with some massive damage of some sort & fell to the side.
Again, do you know the two mechanical conditions that have to be met in order for something to tip over? Neither one could POSSIBLY have been met by the towers or WTC7. This is trivial stuff…
____
Clark: “… Question; was the observed collapse of WTC7 consistent (non-exclusively) with demolition, ie is demolition a *possible* explanation for what we see on video in your opinion? …”
Tom: Absolutely impossible.
I KNOW that sounds arrogant for me to say. At least give me an opportunity to explain before you write my statement off. This is too long. I’ll get to it in my next post.
Tom
PS. Regarding revealing your identity on the internet…
I do not think that “only stupid people” do that. I think that people who don’t carry responsibility for others have that luxury.
You made your choice. You should be proud of the one you made.
When I was younger, I’d have done the same. When I’m older, I’ll do the same. I don’t have that luxury right now, for reasons that I don’t need to explain to anyone. My words & arguments establish my credibility. If that’s not good enough, TS Eliot.
BTW, I’ve already had my crazy truther stalker. I don’t need any more.
“please stop fighting”
Apologies if you were annoyed. Although my posts were nominally addressed to tomk, they’re actually intended for other readers – I don’t delude myself that tomk is amenable to any sort of argument. In general, my posts here are concerned to expose the best (in my opinion) evidence of an inside job. If I occasionally seem to be responding to a tomk or someone similar, that is merely a rhetorical device: I want you to read the links and form your own conclusions.
It seemed important to me to quickly identify tomk as a charlatan before people started scratching their heads and wondering about things falling with acceleration greater than g. I hope my explanation is clear. If your physics is rusty, the Wiki entry on standard gravity is useful.
For tomk, I’ll repeat the quote from David Chandler: your argument is not with me, it is with Isaac Newton.
Tomk,
I looked up “Buckinghan pi theorem” but it looks pretty general; perhaps you can explain the relevance. You mentioned buildings that fall to the side; well, there are the ones near the end of this:
http://www.youtube.com/user/physicsandreason#p/u/3/ww8hBFNY8jk
I’m sorry to learn of your “crazy truther stalker”. One of the reasons I’ve stayed away from this sort of argument is the way it seems so quickly to degenerate into abuse with people taking sides. I’d rather people treated each other like people, so I like to include some simple human chat, such as my question to you about Gravity’s Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon.
Awaiting your “absolutely impossible” post with interest. Meanwhile, it’s a good time of year to see shooting stars. It’s the peak of the Delta Aquarids, the Perseids peak on August 12th, and three minor showers peak in between, so if the sky is clear it’s worth keeping a look out.
Hello Tom,
Your wager was, if I recall, along the following lines:
—start quote
You say that an object that is dropped can not fall with an acceleration greater than “g”. I’m telling you that you’re wrong about that. No tricks. No wind. No magnets. No nothing.
An object is simply put on a support, the support is removed and the object allowed to fall. And it falls at an acceleration that is provably greater than g.
—end quote
But the objects in question did not fall freely – in the first case the whole object was not falling, one end of it was being allowed to drop, so you achieve a whip effect. One can imagine it more easily if they thought of a very long rod – the centre of gravity would fall at about g (with turning friction at the grounded end, air resistance etc. slowing it a little). So the free end would have to move more rapidly than the CoG, to the same extent that the grounded end moves that much less than the CoG.
In the second, we saw an object (the ruler) rotating in flight. Noting that one end was momentarily dropping faster than the other is a rather trivial observation.
*
Not sure what all that was about, and why you brought it up in the first place, unless it was another famous smoke-blowing exercise. And Lord knows, there has been plenty of smoke blown, instead of seeing the completely obvious – the Official Story in virtually every respect is a hollow joke.
Good of your pet stooge AngrySober to pass on your various insults, please pat him on the head for me. Don’t you guys get irritated at his licking your hand, and nuzzling against your shins all the time?
Glenn,
that wasn’t Angrysoba; see above. Yes, I was disappointed by the punchline of Tomk’s wager. I have to say though, the second one is a lovely video.
Hi Clark: I was thinking more of AS’s tone while dealing with his supporting of Official Accounts (generally, not just with “inside job” day), in contrast to that of his knee-jerk approach to sceptics. I posted about this on “July 16, 2010 3:23 AM”.
I know it wasn’t all AS posting immediately above, but he’s been _most_ facilitating to these guys, which is fair enough, but not if one is presenting themself as entirely impartial in the meantime.
Maybe that was Tom pretending to post as AS above, with all these trolls around it’s hard to tell these days, and he was just trying to get his post through. All the same, my surmising of AS and his lickspittle approach to those pumping the Official Line stands.
*
Hi Tom: If you’re still about, may I please suggest you stop jumping to unkind conclusions. You’ve already denounced me twice, first for posts that were made by someone else, and second for being a person who is currently living “on in blissful ignorance” for not seeing your posts because “the moderators” (there are none) apparently don’t like… oh well, fill in the rest yourself. Sheesh, and you lot have the nerve to call “truthers” paranoid 🙂
The unprompted personal insults you made at me and the entire blog were for entirely unforced errors on your part, because of silly mistakes and assumptions you’ve made. I do not believe I have been impolite to you once.
Is this the way you generally collect your evidence and reach conclusions?
Hi there! Just to clear a few things up, the last two messages that were from me were all Tom’s words. He asked if I would post them as he thought he was banned. I explained that I didn’t think that was the case as no one has ever been successfully banned from Craig Murray’s blog but the number of links may have sent his posts to moderation which is why I chopped the comment into two parts.
Glenn, I can see you’re repeatedly attempting to gain sympathy by crying foul play but there are three things worth bearing in mind:
1. If you post anything on a public forum I presume they are free to be seen by anyone at all. If you wanted your comments to remain private you wouldn’t have posted them on the bloody Internet. You constantly asked for people to address your post about conservation of momentum so I merely allowed more people to see it. You should be happy.
2. I told you repeatedly that I am not an engineer and don’t have the competence to explain to you how the towers fell down. I do think that you are highly mistaken about the way it fell down. I have never seen anything in the videos of the collapses that look remotely like explosions yet they should be visible to the naked eye if, as you say, steel girders were being blown out of the towers with the aid of explosives. Further there is no audio evidence of explosions on the videos consistent with a controlled demolition. Even further, no building in the world has EVER been demolished by explosive controlled demolition in the manner that the twin towers fell down. You won’t find anything that looks remotely similar.
3. Your mood swings are becoming quite tedious. At least Vronsky is consistently smug, abusive, supercilious, and sanctimonious. You, on the other hand, veer from appeals to chat in a respectful manner to accusations that I’m some kind of sycophant for my New World Order overlords while pretending to be impartial.
I have never claimed to be “impartial” if what you mean by that is “undecided”. I made up my mind a long time ago and think that almost all Truther questions have been definitively answered. The point is that I don’t think that just because there are some things I can’t personally explain that I have to forever suspend judgment and have to consider it just as or more likely that there is a vast government conspiracy to demolish the Twin Towers under the pretence that hijacked planes flew into them.
I find it weird that the most stubbornly believed aspects of the conspiracy theory are the daftest ones of all.
Almost nobody seems to believe the comparatively mild conspiracy theory that maybe the Bush administration knew the attacks would happen but did nothing to stop them (the ole FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen eye-roller) but instead you believe that crashing planes into the Twin Towers wasn’t enough for the Bush administration and that they decided to embellish it with the most absurd schemes to have the towers brought down by explosives that would be impervious to the plane impacts and the resulting fireballs and would then detonate soundlessly but with incredible force hurling girders “across half of Manhattan”. This would apparently completely dupe the fire department, hundreds of whom were killed in the attacks, who wouldn’t notice the explosives going off (All those witnesses of explosions/explosives are “quote-mined” deliberately, by the way) and would assume that the “impossible” scenario of a steel-framed high-rise was perfectly plausible (i.e according to Glenn, Vronsky and DRG they wouldn’t know their job).
Unless you believe, as Richard Gage does, that the explosives were indeed audible and that all video recordings of the “controlled demolitions” were then scrubbed by the compliant media of the whole world (and presumably compliant citizens all over Manhattan and in fact everybody who witnessed the attacks).
Further, it would assume, that there is a vast conspiracy within world academia who have chosen to accept the impossible scenario that the collapses defied the conservation of momentum and essentially (for the sake of the Bush administrations plans to build pipelines in Afghanistan or something) to have allowed the fields of structural engineering, physics and architecture to have been perverted by producing fraudulent reports that future engineers and architects might use despite the baloney within its pages. In other words, they’re either all paid off despite the numerous peer-reviewed articles that assume or accept the towers fell from the impacts and fires or else they’re all ignorant of the science in their field and have been shown up to be shilling for the Bush administration (who aren’t even in office anymore, by the way) by David Chandler, High School Teacher, Vronsky, educated in a Scottish High School, and Glenn, Man on the Internet.
Glenn, your theory is this: “The Towers couldn’t have collapsed without the aid of explosives. The ‘official story’ of a fire and impact induced collapse breaks the law of conservation of momentum and is therefore not possible”.
Perhaps you mistakenly believe that in simply repeating this mantra and refusing to provide any more substance to your theory you are being parsimonious, a quality usually considered to be a good one in science and philosophy, but I have just listed a number of corollaries of your theory that I think do need to be addressed otherwise I am left with this dilemma, either Glenn and a few other amateurs have, with simple high school physics, exposed the world’s most elaborate conspiracy that all of the world’s engineering, firefighting, controlled demolition and scientific experts have been complicit in or given tacit acceptance to and which has been covered up by the world’s media not just in the US and the UK but also from Teheran to Timbuktu and every country’s government (including those of Russia, North Korea and Syria) or else Glenn and a few other amateurs have misapplied their high school physics.
@angrysoba
Mmm – over 1,000 words. What’s your motivation? If Truthers are all mere witless fools, why not just ignore us? If the official account of 9/11 is true, then it can never be proved false. So why are you so exercised? Why not just walk away?
So tomk is known to you, and you collaborate on your postings here? Interesting.
A second way in which an object can fall with an acceleration “faster than g”:
I attach a “link” (say a length of rope) to one object (say your ankle) and the other end to another object (say a large boat anchor).
Starting with both objects on the roof of a building, I toss the boat anchor over the side. The anchor falls for many feet until the rope goes taut.
Now, this whole SYSTEM is operating under Newton’s laws. The SYSTEM falls with an acceleration equal to, or slightly less than, g.
However, if I were to just watch your body alone when the rope went taut, your body WILL accelerate faster than g.
ANY situation in which one body is attached to another body, one body is dropped first and you track the height versus time profile of ONLY the second body, can produce accelerations greater than “g” OF THE SECOND BODY ONLY. The more massive the first body is compared to the second body, the larger this effect will be.
The system (both bodies) does not accelerate faster than “g”.
Now, use a little imagination.
Replace the rope with links that can rotate. While they are rotating, you may be able to resist the pull of the anchor. Until they rotated into an almost vertical position.
Replace your body with a facade wall.
Replace the anchor with a really massive building that you (aka, Mr. Chandler) cannot see, which you cannot track, because it is falling behind the facade wall.
Now, was the first body (the structure of the whole building) attached to the second body (the facade wall)? Yup.
Was the first body more massive than the second body? Yup.
DId the first body start to fall earlier than the second body? (Do you remember the east & west penthouses?) Yup.
I’ll give you, in successive posts, a couple of additional ways that “a body” can really accelerate “faster than g”. In all of these cases, the whole system cannot fall faster than “g”. And so THE SYSTEM obey the limitations of Newton’s laws.
But, without violating Newton’s laws, PARTS of the system CAN accelerate faster than “g”.
But Mr. Chandler did not measure the position vs. time profile of the whole system. He measured it 1) for only one point on the roof and 2) for only one point on that PORTION OF THE ENTIRE SYSTEM the he could see: the facade.
So, in conclusion, V, I do NOT have any disagreement with ole Isaac. I have a better, more complete understanding of what he REALLY said about real world objects. It is you, Mr. Chandler and other truthers who are reducing the real world to “spherical cows”.
Tomk,
you can’t post diagrams here, but you can post links to them. Or you can e-mail them to me, and I’ll put them on my web-space and post a link. You can set up a single-use e-mail address in case you’re worried I might be a “crazy truther stalker”; gmx.com don’t ask any questions.
Hey, I didn’t enjoy imagining being yanked from a building by a falling anchor tied to my ankle! Have you read Gravity’s Rainbow?
@tomk
If you rephrase your claim to read “it is possible to move downward with an acceleration greater than g” then that is quite clearly true, and I have no objection – but you can’t call it ‘falling’. Remember the definition of ‘falling’: moving under the influence of gravity only. The connection between the anchor and the person on the roof is the rope, which is elastic. Once the rope tightens, it will begin to stretch because of the inertia (another Newtonian idea) of the person standing on the roof – he will not move immediately – instantaneous achievement of the velocity of the falling anchor is not possible. So when he begins to move it is partly because of gravity, partly because of the contraction of the rope back to its original dimensions. If there were some way to connect the person to the anchor inelastically, then they are effectively part of the same body (that could almost be a definition of ‘part of the same body’) and will both fall at g – but of course both would have commenced to fall at the same time.
It’s interesting to consider the counter-intuitive consequences of an inelastic but flexible chain (no idea what that would look like) between anchor and man: when the inelastic chain became taut, the anchor would momentarily stop falling, even though it were many times heavier than the man (and not a spherical cow in sight).
You can verify all of this very easily at home. Take a piece of elastic about a foot long and attach one end to something fairly heavy – say your copy of ‘Atlas Shrugged’. Take the other end and draw it very slowly away from the book. Initially the book will not move, but once the tension in the elastic reaches a certain level the book will suddenly move very sharply towards your hand – much faster than you ever moved your hand. It should be clear that two forces are acting on the book – the pull from your hand, and the contraction of the elastic. The elastic is storing the force from your hand, then cashing it in all at once.
As I have earlier mentioned, your argument is in any case self-defeating. If you suggest a rate of descent faster than g, you merely place the official account in even greater difficulty: for what was the force additional to gravity that was acting upon those parts of the structure exhibiting an acceleration greater than g? If you have empirical evidence of any parts of the structure behaving in this way, I’m sure Richard Gage would love to hear from you.
@ Glenn
You’re still not understanding what you are seeing. Look again after reading this.
___
Your wager was, if I recall, along the following lines:
—start quote
You say that an object that is dropped can not fall with an acceleration greater than “g”.
I’m telling you that you’re wrong about that. No tricks. No wind. No magnets. No nothing.
An object is simply put on a support, the support is removed and the object allowed to fall.
And it falls at an acceleration that is provably greater than g.
—end quote
tom: Yes, that was the wager. Good, you quoted me. Much more reliable.
___
[Note: I’m going to answer this one first. It’s more important.]
Glenn: In the second [video], we saw an object (the ruler) rotating in flight. Noting that one end was momentarily dropping faster than the other is a rather trivial observation.
Tom: You’re missing the CRITICAL point, Glenn.
It is not important that the free end of the ruler is dropping faster than the fixed end.
It is important that the free end of the ruler is dropping faster than THE WASHERS, which ARE in free fall, and are, therefore, dropping with an acceleration equal to “g”. And yet the free end of the ruler is dropping FASTER than they are.
This whole SYSTEM (just a ruler) is dropping only under the influence of gravity. There are no tricks, no magnets, no wind, etd. The free end of the ruler is “a thing”. That thing is dropping with an acceleration greater than “g”, as proven by the fact that the washers, which are dropping at “g” are being left behind.
And, at the same time, the system is not violating Newton’s laws.
Just as I promised.
___
Glenn: But the objects in question did not fall freely – in the first case the whole object was not falling, one end of it was being allowed to drop, so you achieve a whip effect.
tom: Wrong. There is no “whip” effect. The effect does NOT depend on any flexing within the ruler. In fact, the stiffer the ruler, the more pronounced the effect will be initially.
___
Glenn: One can imagine it more easily if they thought of a very long rod – the centre of gravity would fall at about g (with turning friction at the grounded end, air resistance etc. slowing it a little). So the free end would have to move more rapidly than the CoG, to the same extent that the grounded end moves that much less than the CoG.
tom: Close. Not quite.
1. It doesn’t have to be “a very long rod”. The rod shown is plenty long enough. Strobe photography would have helped the visualization.
2. There is no “turning friction”. There is virtually zero friction in this entire system. A point pivot, the rotation point, has very, very little friction associated with it. And the effect does not depend in any way on that friction. In fact, if you reduced that friction to zero, you would (ever so slightly) INCREASE the effect. That is, have the free end fall slightly faster.
The CoG of this system (the glass & ruler) is not a the midpoint of the ruler, but closer to the glass. The ruler rotates about the CG. If
“@angrysoba
Mmm – over 1,000 words. What’s your motivation? If Truthers are all mere witless fools, why not just ignore us? If the official account of 9/11 is true, then it can never be proved false. So why are you so exercised? Why not just walk away?
So tomk is known to you, and you collaborate on your postings here? Interesting. ”
Of course, Vronsky, it’s a big conspiracy (haven’t you heard) and I’m part of it. So instead of us sending out a hit team to get rid of the Jedi Knights fighting against the Galactic Empire I’m debating with you on a dead thread on Craig Murray’s blog.
Of course, that proves the Conspiracy.
And if I didn’t reply to you, that would prove the conspiracy too.
@ glenn,
Glenn: If you’re still about, may I please suggest you stop jumping to unkind conclusions.
Tom: Agreed. In all areas of human interaction (EXCEPT science & engineering), “kind” trumps “right”. (In fact, it is not lost on me that people who think that they are always right are seriously annoying. And the only ones more annoying than them are the very rare people that ARE always right.)
But, when it comes to using motorcycles, planes, bridges, heart valves, etc., “nice” and “unkind” have no place in the conversation.
I’ll take the ones designed by competent jerks over those designed by incompetent nice guys every day of the week.
___
Glenn: You’ve already denounced me twice, first for posts that were made by someone else,
Tomk: If you wish to be fair about the situation, I invite you to reread my first post to you. It was utterly polite. (at July 22, 2010 6:26 PM)
I invite you to re-read V’s first reply to me, which I did mistakenly think was from you. It was nothing but snark. Including (without provocation) his assertion that I “am not an engineer”, and a bunch of his prejudices about “JREFers”.
When drolinin mentioned (at July 25, 2010 6:28 PM) that the first reply was from V, I realized my mistake. And you’ll note that I made it my very first order of business to apologized to you. (at July 25, 2010 11:02 PM)
___
Glenn: and second for being a person who is currently living “on in blissful ignorance” for not seeing your posts because “the moderators” (there are none) apparently don’t like… oh well, fill in the rest yourself. Sheesh, and you lot have the nerve to call “truthers” paranoid 🙂
tomk: Sorry that you didn’t like the phraseology, Glenn. Unfortunately, it’s absolutely true.
There are two meanings of the word “ignorance”: one (“unaware of”) is not a pejorative.
The other (“stubbornly stupid”) is.
When you & Vronsky were unaware of the ability of a free end of a ruler to fall faster than the washers on top, this was a non-pejorative “ignorance”. There is nothing to be embarrassed about in the slightest. We all have massive parts of the world about which we are totally ignorant.
But when the evidence is laid at your feet, brought to you, shown to you, and explained to you, and you STILL refuse to acknowledge what you’ve seen with your own eyes, well, then you’re starting to move into the second kind of ignorance.
When you dismiss the knowledge, experience and judgment of real, recognized, proven experts, and instead embrace & advocate the contrary views of a bunch of abject amateurs, even when you have been shown that these amateurs make one blatant, inexcusable, fatal (to their crackpot theories) mistake after another, then you have leaped into the deep end of the ignorant pool.
If you are an intellectually honest person, I am encouraging you to get out of that pool and to join the ranks of the TRULY “think for yourself” crowd. If you are intellectually dishonest, I don’t give a rat’s butt if you drown there. It’s entirely up to you.
___
Glenn: I do not believe I have been impolite to you once.
Tomk: True. Right up to the “lap dog” comments.
And I have been intellectually hard, challenging on you. You might come to realize that being intellectually DEMANDING is the “kindest” thing that I could possibly do for you.
Tom
Glenn,
Vronsky,
would you two please apologise to Tomk and be more careful not to upset him in future? I’m still waiting for the answers to my questions, and it seems that I’m not going to get any unless you’re both mega polite!
Hello Tom,
There seems to be some major misunderstanding here. Nowhere did I dispute that this demonstration with a ruler shows that a part of an object can indeed fall with an acceleration greater than g, I’m saying (in far fewer words) that it’s very obvious that it can.
For some reason, you keep going over a point I’ve agreed with, as if I was somehow disputing it. Same with Vronsky, actually. And no, I wasn’t missing the point about the coins at all. If they are freely sitting on a ruler which is rotating as well as falling (as in the second video), then of course they will tend to lift off it, because they are not descending with the same acceleration.
I’m lost as to why you want to keep discussing it, and claiming that I (and Vronsky) am “still not understanding what you are seeing”. I understand it perfectly!
Hello Clark – why would Tom need an apology for me? I have not insulted him in the slightest. Why should it offend Tom, just because I noticed AS is toadying up to his bunch all the time?
“Why should it offend Tom, just because I noticed
AS is toadying up to his bunch all the time?”
It’S A CONsPIRaCY!!!11!@*1
http://tinyurl.com/nj92fa
@tomk
I’m awfully sorry if I upset you, and I do apologise.
Now please answer Clark’s question before he gets really angry with me.