PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2017-12-12, 10:26:37
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ... 94
Author Topic: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk!  (Read 371980 times)
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2148
MH; you still don't have the Third-law force-pair correct.  

I asked you:
Quote
Quote
And what is is the Third-law reaction force that is paired (in Newton's third law) with the downward force F [=Mg]?

You replied:
Quote
The downward force is Mg where M is the mass of the falling building.   We will pretend for a second that M is constant.

The equal and opposite upward force is d(Mv)/dt.   That's equal to Mdv/dt.


MileHigh
Last Edit: 2011-12-03, 17:12:03 by MileHigh  

I recommend you consult a Physics text if you wish to get it right.  Both of your forces above act on the SAME OBJECT and therefore we immediately see that these two forces CANNOT possibly be a Newton's Third Law pair.

  I have a Physics text in my office at home, so I quote briefly from Halliday and Resnick to help you out:
Quote
"Every time you find a force, a good question is:  Where is the reaction force?
... The forces of an action-reaction pair always act on different bodies; thus they do not combine to give a net force..."

"Two forces that act on the same body are not an action-reaction pair..."

If you wish to continue this discussion, I recommend you read up on:
1.  Newton's third law, and action-reaction pairs

2.  The mathematical analyses of the fall-motions of WTC1 and WTC7 by mathematics Professor Kenneth Kutler, here:
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/ProfKuttlerWTC1CollapseTimeCalculations.pdf
and
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/W7Kuttler.pdf .

These analyses will also show you how momentum considerations enter in (importantly!) as we consider the observed accelerated falling motions of WTC7 and Tower WTC1.



   
Group: Guest
PhysicsProf:

Quote
I recommend you consult a Physics text if you wish to get it right.

I would prefer if you simply educated me and gave me the correct answer right now so we can move foreward.  Can you do that?

Quote
These analyses will also show you how momentum considerations enter in (importantly!) as we consider the observed accelerated falling motions of WTC7 and Tower WTC1.

I read the shorter WTC7 paper.  Now I can understand why you are referring to "conservation of momentum."  And it's really Bizarro in my book because the person that wrote the paper is modeling the WTC7 collapse ass-backwards:

Quote
Could this possibly happen as a result of pancaking floors collapsing from the top down?

Quote
Assume there is not support for any floor when it is hit by the collapsing floors from above.
Thus it is like the floor is just floating in the air when it is hit but it is stationary.

So he is modelling a pancake collapse from the top down.  But I think my simplified model, based on observing the videos, is that the bulk of the structure was essentially intact and got destroyed from the bottom up as the bottom of the falling structure went into the "compaction zone."

It's like the guy's calculations are more applicable to the twin towers than WTC7.  So I am baffled.  His calculations may be right but that's not fundamentally what happened to WTC7.  I will be so bold to say that I think most people would agree with me.

So, again, you have a force Mg acting downwards on a more-or less intact falling mass of concrete and steel and there is an upwards force f acting on the same mass of concrete and steel.  And obviously "M" is actually M(t) because the mass decreases over time.

If the same guy wrote a proper paper based on my model, the critical thing that needs to be estimated is how much total energy is in the upward force impulse f(t) when a downwards traveling floor enters the compaction zone.

Quite simply, all that you would have to do is punch in values for the energy associated with f(t) to get a 6.5 second collapse time.  Once you have that energy value, then you could look at it to see if it seems reasonable with the materials and structural experts.

Sorry, but this paper:  http://journalof911studies.com/articles/W7Kuttler.pdf is almost unbelievably modeling the WTC7 collapse as a top-to bottom pancake collapse as opposed to my model of a compaction zone at the ground/subbasement level so his calculations are simply invalid.

MileHigh
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3036
It's turtles all the way down
Looks like my post #297 went by without a comment, except from Room3327, who only addressed the top few lines.

Too much food for thought there?

MH: Regarding your compaction zone model, I would agree except for one little fly in the ointment.

How do you get all those beams to fail simultaneously, especially the ones protected from falling debris that were on the inside and back of the building.

If the front facing beams were taken out, I would expect it would have toppled into the post office building rather than a beautiful symmetrical collapse, folding up into it's own footprint with all sidewalls neatly piling on center, typical of a classic demolition using explosives that first take out the inner beams then later the outer beams, and gravity finishes the job.

We are paying way to much to demolition companies if this can be neatly done with a few fires or Larry Silversteins prayers.

A demolitions expert is consulted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

« Last Edit: 2011-12-05, 00:36:02 by ION »


---------------------------
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.
   
Group: Guest
Looks like my post #297 went by without a comment, except from Room3327, who only addressed the top few lines.

Too much food for thought there?

More like too many lunatic ravings.
   
Group: Guest
Ion:

Quote
As a final statement, you would have to be pretty stupid and not think ahead at all to attack an enemy that is millions of times stronger than yourself, knowing full well that you and your people would pay an enormous price for such an act, and that you would be squashed like bugs by the military force that would be unleashed. Your cities, towns and villages would be bombed to rubble and thousands of your innocent family members would be rounded up and killed.

Yes but some in the German army tried to kill Hitler to stop the bloodshed and end the war and they failed.  Hitler fought to the bitter end down to the last few square blocks.  Hitler is not unique in this matter, it still happens in modern times often enough.

The military-industrial complex and many others benefited from 9/11 just like you said.  Think of the generic security and surveillance industry, the people selling cameras and motion detectors and building security systems.  They also had a bonanza.  Would they alone have benefited if the twin towers were bought down, as well as the horrible bombings that took place in Madrid, London, and Bali?  Of course they benefited tremendously but that doesn't necessarily mean they go out and commit terrorist acts to increase their revenue stream.  I am sure it meant for billions of dollars in increased revenue.  Not to paint every corporation or vested interest as all innocent and benevolent either, ditto for governments.  Inject innocent people with syphilis or refuse to pick them up in an ambulance because their skin is the wrong colour are things that come to mind.  What about the tobacco lobby influencing government and the medical profession.  You don't have to wear a hat to recognize that the world is still a very imperfect place and money can cause some people or governments to do really nasty things.

We like to think that we live in an ordered society and we are in control of our destiny but it is still a very existentialist world.  Look at recent history.  I think it was a man in Tunisia that set fire to himself and as a result Hosni Mubarak was booted out of power and Muammar Gaddafi got a bullet through his head.  Last summer in London, you could have been out one evening to take your dog for a walk only to find ten hooded thugs rob you and nearly beat you to death - for nothing.

MileHigh
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3036
It's turtles all the way down
More like too many lunatic ravings.

Looks like you are reading from your hasbara manual again. You've been unmasked, go back to sleep.


---------------------------
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2148
ION raises a good point about the symmetry of the collapse, which I referred to before but IIRC MH has not addressed this point.  A good defense of the "official conspiracy theory"  (ie., the free-fall collapse of WTC 7 was due to fires alone, in turn caused by Muslim hijackers alone -- who did even HIT WTC7 with a plane) would address the symmetry issue.

Meanwhile, MH tears into Professor Kuttler who was analyzing the "official claim" that WTC7 fell via "pancaking floors" - But note, this WAS the basic official story back then, more than two years BEFORE the NIST report on WTC7.  The "official theory" has since changed dramatically, with the interior of the building collapsing leaving the exterior shell still standing (it later falls)-- NIST's latest "conspiracy theory".

BTW -- the official government story claims that 19 Muslim hijackers did it all to the WTC and Pentagon -- including the free-fall collapse of WTC7.  Did these 19 plan / conspire together?  Then the official narrative is a conspiracy theory of its own.  So, I am one who questions this "conspiracy theory ".

I'll wait for you to respond to ION regarding the symmetry of the fall, MH, before responding to your latest:
Quote
I would prefer if you simply educated me and gave me the correct answer--MH
« Last Edit: 2011-12-05, 01:14:57 by PhysicsProf »
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2888
tExB=qr
Arab Gas Pipeline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Gas_Pipeline

Natural gas reserves in Iran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_reserves_in_Iran

Fueling the dragon: China's race into the oil market
http://www.iags.org/china.htm

Quote
With real gross domestic product growing at a rate of 8-10% a year, China's need for energy is projected to increase by 150 percent by 2020.  To sustain its growth China requires increasing amounts of oil.   Its oil consumption grows by 7.5% per year, seven times faster than the U.S.

The worst is yet to come...
   
Group: Guest
PhysicsProf:

I have other things to do now and I can address Ion's issue about the symmetry of the collapse at a later time.

But I have one very important issue to deal with right now with you:

The way you are handling this discussion is making me very uncomfortable.  I think of just a few weeks ago where you linked to a video on YouTube that allegedly showed more power going to the load and less input power when the experimenter made a change to his setup.  You clearly implied that this was a phenomenon indicative of a possible over unity effect.  I told you that it was a junk clip by an amateur that was just a beginner.  Besides the atrocious use of a PWM generator I explained that the clip proved absolutely nothing, just that the overall impedance of the system changed.  Your response was to be dismissive of the clip and then agree that more careful measurements had to be made.

In this debate, you have been pushing this "conservation of momentum" effect from the very beginning.  I have watched some of your talks on YouTube and you mention the very same thing.  You link to the document in question and state, "These analyses will also show you how momentum considerations enter in (importantly!) as we consider the observed accelerated falling motions of WTC7 and Tower WTC1."  Then I show how Professor Kuttler's paper is all wrong in my opinion and based on a model that clearly is not correct if you look at the WTC7 clips.  Then you state, "But note, this WAS the basic official story back then, more than two years BEFORE the NIST report on WTC7."  You are trying to backtrack but you have been pushing this point all along, that conservation of momentum would prevent WTC7 from falling as fast as it did.  It almost seems to me like you never gave that paper a critical analysis and have just been repeating the Truther party line.  And you are an active and high-profile contributor to that party line, including the issue about the timing of the WTC7 collapse.

So what's up professor?  Do you believe in the pancake collapse model for WTC7 or do you give credence to the compaction zone model?  If you believe that the compaction zone model is more reasonable and seems to fit in with what we see in the video clips then it would appear that you have been led astray by that paper, and perhaps other sources.

I am not comfortable at all with your Spin Zone, and your reply #311 is pure spin as far as I am concerned.  If you are going to debate with me and are willing to concede points that's fine.  But using deflection to point somewhere else whenever you are uncomfortable is not going to work with me.

I hope that you understand where I am coming from.  I don't want to be "played" I want to debate.

MileHigh
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2888
tExB=qr
PhysicsProf:
But I have one very important issue to deal with right now with you:

The way you are handling this discussion is making me very uncomfortable.  I think of just a few weeks ago where you linked to a video on YouTube that allegedly showed more power going to the load and less input power when the experimenter made a change to his setup.  You clearly implied that this was a phenomenon indicative of a possible over unity effect.  I told you that it was a junk clip by an amateur that was just a beginner.  Besides the atrocious use of a PWM generator I explained that the clip proved absolutely nothing, just that the overall impedance of the system changed.  Your response was to be dismissive of the clip and then agree that more careful measurements had to be made.


This is a separate subject entirely.  Are you attempting to bias the reader that the Professor's analysis of the bldg's collapse is "faulty" because of his electronics knowledge?
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3036
It's turtles all the way down
Here I will agree with MH that the Youtube clip he references was was indeed the work of a beginner that is misinterpreting his data and making erroneous assumptions.

I am not at all comfortable with the Physics Professors expertise in the field of electronics and his endorsement of some rather questionable devices and video clips, including his own "joule theif" work and questionable analysis of the results using DSO's, with no double checking utilizing thermal energy measurement techniques.

But as G points out this is a separate issue.

I am very strong in designing analog and switchmode circuits, and I am very weak in knowledge and practice of other technologies such as advanced spread spectrum radio design. But this is a dichotomy within the same field.

Within totally separate fields such as mechanical engineering, electrical engineering and geopolitical events one could expect  that no one is an expert in all .

I understand your discomfort MH but don't know how to assuage it, nor do I admit that it should be assuaged..


---------------------------
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1182
Quote from: MileHigh
...

I am not comfortable at all with your Spin Zone, and your reply #311 is pure spin as far as I am concerned.  If you are going to debate with me and are willing to concede points that's fine.  But using deflection to point somewhere else whenever you are uncomfortable is not going to work with me.

I hope that you understand where I am coming from.  I don't want to be "played" I want to debate.

MileHigh

Protesteth too much?

Who is "playing" with whom?

MH, please.  Is all this drama really necessary?

Yes, it is discomfiting when loss of control seems
a certainty;  when the "playbook" tactics seem to
no longer silence the opposing scientific arguments.

Desparation?.


---------------------------
"Truth: the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death." - John Gilmore (1935- ) Author
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2148
PhysicsProf:

I have other things to do now and I can address Ion's issue about the symmetry of the collapse at a later time.

I await your response with eagerness, noting that I raised the same issue regarding the symmetry of the collapse earlier on, and you failed to address it then.

But I have one very important issue to deal with right now with you:

The way you are handling this discussion is making me very uncomfortable.  I think of just a few weeks ago where you linked to a video on YouTube that allegedly showed more power going to the load and less input power when the experimenter made a change to his setup.  You clearly implied that this was a phenomenon indicative of a possible over unity effect.

YOU say that I implied that this was a phenomenon indicative of a possible over unity effect  -- and I do NOT agree that this is true.  I disagree with you and challenge you to find that I indicated that this was a possible OU effect..

 I told you that it was a junk clip by an amateur that was just a beginner.  Besides the atrocious use of a PWM generator I explained that the clip proved absolutely nothing, just that the overall impedance of the system changed.  Your response was to be dismissive of the clip and then agree that more careful measurements had to be made.

I consistently push for more careful-- and repeated -- measurements.

In this debate, you have been pushing this "conservation of momentum" effect from the very beginning.  I have watched some of your talks on YouTube and you mention the very same thing.  You link to the document in question and state, "These analyses will also show you how momentum considerations enter in (importantly!) as we consider the observed accelerated falling motions of WTC7 and Tower WTC1."  Then I show how Professor Kuttler's paper is all wrong in my opinion and based on a model that clearly is not correct if you look at the WTC7 clips.  Then you state, "But note, this WAS the basic official story back then, more than two years BEFORE the NIST report on WTC7."  You are trying to backtrack but you have been pushing this point all along, that conservation of momentum would prevent WTC7 from falling as fast as it did.  It almost seems to me like you never gave that paper a critical analysis and have just been repeating the Truther party line.  And you are an active and high-profile contributor to that party line, including the issue about the timing of the WTC7 collapse.

So what's up professor?  Do you believe in the pancake collapse model for WTC7 or do you give credence to the compaction zone model?  If you believe that the compaction zone model is more reasonable and seems to fit in with what we see in the video clips then it would appear that you have been led astray by that paper, and perhaps other sources.

I do not believe in EITHER of these two models -- I have consistently maintained that EXPLOSIVES WERE USED IN THE DEMOLITION OF THE WTC, particularly WTC7.  I am surprised that you seem to have missed this point!  Professor Kuttler demonstrated that the "pancaking floor" model was BS. 

I am not comfortable at all with your Spin Zone, and your reply #311 is pure spin as far as I am concerned.  If you are going to debate with me and are willing to concede points that's fine.  But using deflection to point somewhere else whenever you are uncomfortable is not going to work with me.

Seems to me that YOU are the one using "deflection" (see above).

I hope that you understand where I am coming from.  I don't want to be "played" I want to debate.

Then answer my questions.  Who is "playing" -- evading questions?

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2148
Here I will agree with MH that the Youtube clip he references was was indeed the work of a beginner that is misinterpreting his data and making erroneous assumptions.

I do not disagree; I believe he was overunityguide, who made that particular clip.  I would however like to see further careful measurements before his work is simply dismissed.

I am not at all comfortable with the Physics Professors expertise in the field of electronics and his endorsement of some rather questionable devices and video clips, including his own "joule theif" work and questionable analysis of the results using DSO's, with no double checking utilizing thermal energy measurement techniques.


I did not claim OU for my own device, but I did find "evidence for" an interesting effect.  That's all I claimed. I diligently tried to do "double checking utilizing thermal energy measurement techniques", which IIRC I was the first to suggest, but my colleague who said he would allow use of his calorimeter at the university inexplicably did an about face and declined to permit the measurement.  I have explained all of this before.

Which are my  "endorsements of some rather questionable devices and video clips"?  You should substantiate this put-down if you will.  

I am climbing the learning curve in this field and trying to be helpful; I admit I have much to learn. But ION, you stab me to the heart with your unsubstantiated critique.  Why?
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3036
It's turtles all the way down
From Professor:

Quote
Which are my  "endorsements of some rather questionable devices and video clips"?  You should substantiate this put-down if you will. 

I am climbing the learning curve in this field and trying to be helpful; I admit I have much to learn. But ION, you stab me to the heart with your unsubstantiated critique.  Why?

I'm sorry this is just a gut feel, not meaning to put you down, I respect your work in other areas. I don't recall nor could I find on this forum (things get buried) the exact instances that raised flags in my mind, so I will formally retract that statement and apologize.

I'm sorry if I caused you discomfort, not meant to cause harm, sometimes I ,without tact, state things that just make me feel uneasy. I should have chosen my words more carefully....apologies.

Early on I offered a dual chamber differential thermal bridge balance type energy monitor system, built it up and offered it as an alternative to calorimetric technique. It works very well and can very easily prove / disprove the existence of OU in nearly any device.

As an engineer with over 30 years experience in thermocouple thermometry and the design of measuring and control systems, it pains my heart that this work went largely unnoticed, quickly glossed over by hoopla in other areas. Outline and some notes are available on my bench. I have also offered many other innovative measurement techniques that were largely ignored.
   


---------------------------
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.
   
Group: Guest
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2148
From Professor:

I'm sorry this is just a gut feel, not meaning to put you down, I respect your work in other areas. I don't recall nor could I find on this forum (things get buried) the exact instances that raised flags in my mind, so I will formally retract that statement and apologize.

I'm sorry if I caused you discomfort, not meant to cause harm, sometimes I ,without tact, state things that just make me feel uneasy. I should have chosen my words more carefully....apologies.

Accepted, thanks.   I certainly have a lot to learn.

Early on I offered a dual chamber differential thermal bridge balance type energy monitor system, built it up and offered it as an alternative to calorimetric technique. It works very well and can very easily prove / disprove the existence of OU in nearly any device.

GREAT!  do you have a working system at this time?  could I send a small device for testing??

As an engineer with over 30 years experience in thermocouple thermometry and the design of measuring and control systems, it pains my heart that this work went largely unnoticed, quickly glossed over by hoopla in other areas. Outline and some notes are available on my bench. I have also offered many other innovative measurement techniques that were largely ignored.
   
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3036
It's turtles all the way down
To Professor regarding the thermal test setup.

I packed it all away and would take a while to dig it up and get it running again. I am disinclined to take your offer with the holidays coming, will be quite busy.

It would be better for forum members to get the concept so that they can roll their own. Many pages were written regarding this but since it wasn't all put on a bench, it has all been buried deep in the forum in threads I can't remember.

I'll try to dig up the threads. Meanwhile, I have extensively tested JT's using conventional methods and unfortunately have always seen under unity operation. Granted, I don't have your version, but we must remember all of this started by LTseung, who basically lifted his version from a JT do it yourself website. I seriously not only distrust his input, but he is a rank amateur regarding electronics.

That whole debacle ended with POYNT testing one of his devices that had a bad solder joint, and the merry go round was in full rotation.

Here is the beginning of the thread: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=538.0

Reply #38 outlines the thermal balance method.


---------------------------
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.
   
Group: Guest
PhysicsProf:

It's late now and let me try to make my point.

Your argument is that for WTC7 to be in near-free-fall, some explosives must be moving mass out of the way of the falling building because otherwise the principle of conservation of momentum will slow it down.

You say that at 13:30 in this clip:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjaqquI5OKM&feature=related[/youtube]

"So obviously to get free-fall somehow you must have moved hundreds of thousands of tons of material out of the way."

Then you go on to state that you need explosives to move the material out of the way.

Quoting you in reply #205:

Quote
Oh, brother, MH -- as I said, it is not a matter of the beams becoming weak - like spaghetti -- it is a matter of the MASS remaining in place (or not, for free-fall), even if held by a thread!  

I even gave you the equation referring to conservation of momentum. Look, have you ever studied what happens when mass M at speed V hits another mass M in its path?  The speed drops by ONE HALF!  Thus you cannot maintain free-fall acceleration at g= 32.2 ft/s**2  if there is MASS in the path, only if the "spaghetti" (it still has mass!) is moved OUT OF THE WAY!  How do you get tens of thousands of tons (huge MASS) of steel and concrete, 100 vertical feet worth (and across the cross-section of the building, since the roof fall during this time is symmetric and UNIMPEDED for over 100 feet) to "evaporate" -- or co-fall or get out of the path?  Explosives!

Study up on Newton a little would you?  I'm running with family to a concert in 11 minutes plus a bit amused that conservation of momentum eludes you MH.

So you are clearly arguing that a model for WTC7 to fall at near free-fall speeds is to move mass out of the way with explosives.  Without explosives then mass will be in the way and when moving mass A hits a stationary mass B then things have to slow down because of the conservation of momentum.

Then you point to a paper that makes an argument that WTC7 could not possibly fall at free-fall speeds if there is a top-to-bottom pancake collapse.  To repeat your quote, "These analyses will also show you how momentum considerations enter in (importantly!) as we consider the observed accelerated falling motions of WTC7 and Tower WTC1."

So the thrust of your argument is that something is amiss because WTC7 fell at near-free-fall speeds when it "should not" be doing that.  In your clip above you clearly imply that anyone with common sense should recognize this also.

Then I presented my "compaction zone" model and clearly demonstrated that in fact the building could easily fall at near-free-fall speeds without any requirement for explosives.  You simply have to recognize that the momentum of a falling 47-story mass of building can completely overwhelm any compaction zone energy drain that is trying to slow down the falling mass of steel and concrete.  The falling mass of steel and concrete must weigh millions of tons and would possesses a near-astronomical amount of energy after it had fallen for a mere two seconds.

Quote
I do not believe in EITHER of these two models -- I have consistently maintained that EXPLOSIVES WERE USED IN THE DEMOLITION OF THE WTC, particularly WTC7.  I am surprised that you seem to have missed this point!  Professor Kuttler demonstrated that the "pancaking floor" model was BS.

Well, I have shown you that you don't need explosives to have WTC7 fall at near-free-fall speeds, nor are there any conservation of momentum issues to deal with in the compaction zone model.

The reason I brought up the electronics example was that in that case and in this case I got a strong sinking feeling when I read your replies.  In both cases there was a tangible sense that you didn't want to really deal with the points head-on and you were implicitly dismissive of your own previous points and wanted to move on.  So I am suggesting a pattern here that's a form of bait-and-switch, and that makes me uncomfortable.

The bottom line is this, if I feel it again I will let you know.

WTC7 fell at near-free-fall speeds and there was no need whatsoever for explosives to be used for this to happen.  That is a fact as far as I am concerned and if people reading this agree with me then the argument about WTC7 is in a sense already over.

Nonetheless, there is Ion's issue to deal with and I think that you have a few other main points about the mystery of WTC7.  I am pretty convinced that I can address the other issues and make a pretty convincing overall argument that although the collapse of WTC7 looked highly unusual, the fact of the matter is that upon closer examination there was nothing unusual about it at all.  And I am just giving you my opinion and I am not an expert in structural engineering by any means and neither are you.

It's still fun debating the points.  And to wax poetic for a second, there is an unfortunate hurtful angle to the whole WTC conspiracy theory "industry."  I know that in a way you feel it is a patriotic thing to do to challenge the government and be a form of watchdog lest our liberties be taken away step by step and the world become that much more Orwellian.  So challenging the government party line is an implicit form of patriotism.  However, if you are wrong, like in this case, you hurt the families and the loved ones of the victims of 9/11.  They have seen death right up close, someone is never coming home.  And you can sway some of them to believe that evil people in the government have conspired to do this.  How horrible and doubly-shocked and hurt they must feel because of this.  And a lot of the "9/11 Truthers" are arguably unwitting dupes in the "9/11 conspiracy theory industry" that has grown up around this horrible terrorist act.  If you want to look for evil, you can also look towards the people that milk the 9/11 tragedy for their own purposes.  Anything to make a buck.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2011-12-05, 07:29:39 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
PhysicsProf:

Just for the sake of completeness:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1172.msg18248#msg18248

Quote
And, correspondingly, the watt-meter shows that the input power goes DOWN when the load is applied at 950 Hz (Pin goes up when load is applied at 200 Hz).

These are experimental data to be explained.  My questions:
Is the observed effect at 950 Hz due to decreased REAL input power being required with load (suggesting a possible path to OU) -- or is it merely a problem with the watt-meter?

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1172.msg18260#msg18260

Quote
I do see where you're coming from, MH, and agree that a careful "energy audit" would be needed to check any claims of "Thane effect" or OU.  Same problem occurred with the claims of Pons and Fleischmann, years ago, regarding large amounts of "excess heat" (energy) produced by "cold fusion."

I say we should make careful measurements, be skeptical yes -- but also open-minded while the measurements are being made and experiments run.

So again, a sense of bait-and-switch is at play again here.  If you had said, "Yes I see now that there was nothing in that clip that suggested a path to OU at all," it would have made a difference.  Perhaps I am being too sensitive but I am being honest when I say I felt a sinking feeling.

MileHigh

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1150
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1852
The ACARS path is a slippery one and easy to 'identify' as confirmation of conspiracy.

I think the officials blew off the questions about ACARS proving a different location and a fully operational aircraft after the impact as obvious questions from conspiracy hacks.
I'm sure they would have and should have avoided answering.

The only significant fact I see is that the pilots never answered the messages.

 


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3036
It's turtles all the way down
MH said: (out of context)

Quote
So challenging the government party line is an implicit form of patriotism.  However, if you are wrong, like in this case, you hurt the families and the loved ones of the victims of 9/11.  They have seen death right up close, someone is never coming home.  And you can sway some of them to believe that evil people in the government have conspired to do this.  How horrible and doubly-shocked and hurt they must feel because of this.  And a lot of the "9/11 Truthers" are arguably unwitting dupes in the "9/11 conspiracy theory industry" that has grown up around this horrible terrorist act.  If you want to look for evil, you can also look towards the people that milk the 9/11 tragedy for their own purposes.  Anything to make a buck.

One thing that must be looked at: there are a lot of families of 9 / 11 victims that do indeed want answers and smell something fishy with the official story. They have the courage to not bury their heads in the sand, and have been and continue to push forward for a fuller investigation.

My heart goes out to these courageous people, including the numerous first responders that died or are dying from mesothelioma from the asbestos. Many of these also feel they were not sufficiently warned of the dangers of working around the debris of the WTC, and many also smell a rat with the official story.

I also despise anyone who tries to make a buck off this tragic event or OU scams though the former is infinitely more hurtful. Yes there is a 9 / 11 truth "industry" as there is with any tragedy, there are always ambulance chasers out to make a buck.
 
Be careful not to throw all serious researchers into that camp.

 The idea of hurting the families by seeking truth is a ploy many have used to attempt to take the higher moral ground. Would you do that for the thalidomide victims also, or any of the millions that have lost loved ones due to medical malpractice, or big pharma harmful drugs,  and just back away so as not to further hurt the families that lost loved ones?


---------------------------
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2148
MH said: (out of context)

One thing that must be looked at: there are a lot of families of 9 / 11 victims that do indeed want answers and smell something fishy with the official story. They have the courage to not bury their heads in the sand, and have been and continue to push forward for a fuller investigation.

This is true -- I have spoken to a number of these good people who lost loved ones in the 9/11 tragedy.  Indeed, as ION says, "They have the courage to not bury their heads in the sand, and have been and continue to push forward for a fuller investigation."  Ellen Mariani is one of these, who lost her husband on one of the airplanes.  She sued for wrongful death of her husband, in that there were NO AIR DEFENSES that day.  

My heart goes out to these courageous people, including the numerous first responders that died or are dying from mesothelioma from the asbestos. Many of these also feel they were not sufficiently warned of the dangers of working around the debris of the WTC, and many also smell a rat with the official story.

Again-- correct, ION.  The dust was known to be dangerous, full of asbestos and highly alkaline, but the Bush/Cheney administration nevertheless issued misleading press releases saying the dust was safe and people should just go back to work.  Thousands are now suffering with lung and other afflictions due to the toxic dust.  The government LIED to them.  We could discuss how Nikki Tinsley, EPA Inspector General at the time, disclosed the treachery and lies of the government in saying the dust was safe when IT WAS NOT SAFE.   Do you know what happened to this whistleblower?  Guess.

I also despise anyone who tries to make a buck off this tragic event or OU scams though the former is infinitely more hurtful. Yes there is a 9 / 11 truth "industry" as there is with any tragedy, there are always ambulance chasers out to make a buck.
 
Be careful not to throw all serious researchers into that camp.

 The idea of hurting the families by seeking truth is a ploy many have used to attempt to take the higher moral ground. Would you do that for the thalidomide victims also, or any of the millions that have lost loved ones due to medical malpractice, or big pharma harmful drugs,  and just back away so as not to further hurt the families that lost loved ones?

Excellent points, ION.  As most of you probably know, I lost my position at the university where I taught for over 21 years because of my "whistleblower" status, challenging the official story of 9/11 -- that Al Qaeda was SOLELY responsible, including the destruction of all seven of the WTC buildings (when only two were hit by planes), and including the utter lack of air defenses that day.  Indeed, there is "something fishy" about the official 19-hijacker conspiracy theory and the cover-ups that followed 9/11.

NIST declined to examine ANY of the steel from WTC7 -- they admitted this.  Why did they set the thermal conductivity of steel to ZERO in their computer simulation of the fires in WTC7?  think about that -- why would they set a known non-zero parameter to zero in a sim?

  Speaking of money, we should also recall that PUT OPTIONS (where money is made when the stock FALLS) were made on the two airlines involved on 9/11 -- AA and UAL.  LOTS of money, in "highly unusual" trades that took place the week BEFORE 9/11.  "Lucky Larry" Silverstein also made lots of money, over $4Billion in insurance payouts for the loss of his WTC buildings due to "terrorist attacks".  Lucky Larry insured these buildings against TERRORIST attacks specifically, just SIX WEEKS before 9/11.


@MH:
Quote
So you are clearly arguing that a model for WTC7 to fall at near free-fall speeds is to move mass out of the way with explosives.  Without explosives then mass will be in the way and when moving mass A hits a stationary mass B then things have to slow down because of the conservation of momentum.

Yes, EXCEPT that we got NIST to admit to not just "Near free-fall speeds" as you repeatedly say -- but rather,
AT "PRECISELY FREE-FALL ACCELERATION,"   g= 32.2 feet/sec**2.  

This does require that essentially NO MASS be in the way of the falling upper portion of the building -- for OVER 100 FEET, that is, 8-floors-worth of mass had to be moved.  If you understand Newton's third law or, equivalently, the law of conservation of momentum PROPERLY.

Sure, there must be some error bar on this fit to the actual data from the fall of WTC7, and NIST failed to state the error % -- but the three-digit 32.2 accuracy which they do state implies a small error %.   I realize from this discussion that I should take the NIST plot of the WTC7-fall data and do a data fit myself, to get the error bar -- from their own data, and finish the analysis for them.
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3036
It's turtles all the way down
This one is for CHET

Chet: since you worked around and on the WTC buildings, did you ever get to see the basement mechanics workshop there? I understand they had a 50 ton press and wonder what it was used for.

Also I understand there was a real corrosion problem with the aluminum fascia that covered the steel beams. Some say the fascia sections would routinely fall off due to corrosion between the dissimilar metals and the humidity from the harbor.

I'm not implying that this in any way weakened the structure, just curious about the corrosive effects.

Chet, Can you verify this? Thanks in advance.


---------------------------
Just because it has a patent application or is patented does not always mean it really works.
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ... 94
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2017-12-12, 10:26:37