9-11 First Responders See Loonylies Loser Tactics
in [Physics]
|
Prev: 9-11 First Responders See Controlled Demolition -- FACT
Next: easy proof for rectangular-wedge tiler Re: the revised Maximum Tiler conjecture in 2D and 3D #522 Correcting Math
From: Peter Webb on 23 Mar 2010 20:20 "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:dMqdneLvB_CGdDXWnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:4ba8c334$0$7966$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> >> "AllYou!" <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote in message >> news:WridnRCHqs-dITXWnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d(a)posted.choiceonecommunications... >>> >>> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message >>> news:4ba8b62b$0$32441$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>> >>>> I am very comfortable with the subject of dynamics, and it is very >>>> clear that you know nothing at all about the subject. >>> >>> Attempt to obfuscate the issue just like all of your KOOK brethren >>> do, but here's what you keep trying to avoid. >>> >>> At one point in time, just minutes after the plane crashed into the >>> WTC1, there existed the following conditions: >>> A) There were a whole bunch of floors, the structure of which was >>> significantly damaged. >>> B) There were a whole bunch of floors above (A) which were undamaged >>> by the plane crash. >>> C) There were a whole bunch of floors below (A) which were undamaged >>> by the plane crash. >>> >>> Eventually, the fires raged long enough such that the lateral floor >>> trusses sagged significantly enough so as to pull in on the support >>> columns thereby causing them to buckle inward (as can be seen in the >>> videos), thereby causing the upper block (A) to begin falling >>> downward toward the largely undamaged structure (C). >>> >>> Obviously, as had been proven over decades, every part of the >>> support structure of that tower was capable of supporting the weight >>> of everything above it. So when that upper block (A) crashed into >>> the remaining support structure (C), some force greater that the >>> weight of (A) was exerted upon (C) so as to cause it to fail >>> structurally. >> >> All true. > > Then you've proven yourself to be a KOOK for having consistently denied > that there was ever any such an "interaction" between the upper block, and > the lower support structure. When am I supposed to have said that? > You've always contended that this "interaction" involved only the weight > of the upper block, and the reaction of the lower support structure to it. > Huh? Again, got an actual quote from me that you think is wrong? No?
From: Peter Webb on 23 Mar 2010 20:43 "AllYou!" <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote in message news:DtadneflcelmfTXWnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d(a)posted.choiceonecommunications... > In news:4ba8bef9$0$28464$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, > Peter Webb <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >> "AllYou!" <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote in message >> news:L92dnX-dtq-zJjXWnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d(a)posted.choiceonecommunications... > >>>>>>> It failed to support the weight that it should because it >>>>>>> had been weakened by fire (and quite possibly mechanically >>>>>>> deformed by the impact of the plane). >>>>>> >>>>>> You're horribly confused again. You're describing what >>>>>> caused the upper block to come loose and begin its fall onto >>>>>> the lower support structure. I'm not asking you that, nor >>>>>> was that the subject of the report that was in debate. The >>>>>> question to you now, as it was originally, is that once that >>>>>> upper block began its fall, what caused the yet undamaged >>>>>> lower support structure to fail? >>>>> >>>>> PW is just like all the other kooks that he debates here. >>>>> Notice the same techniques? When he's boxed into a corner >>>>> having to admit that he's got his facts wrong, he'll post >>>>> whatever he has to post in order to obfuscate the discussion, >>>>> and won't answer relatively simple questions head-on. He was >>>>> wrong to claim that the statement by the kooks that the >>>>> only force being exerted on the lower support structure was >>>>> the weight of the upper block. He'll never admit it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You should actually provide an exact quote in context if you >>>> want to claim that I was wrong about something. >>> >>> I have many times now, and you're suggestion that I have not >>> is, quite simply, a lie. On 3-16-10, you said that the >>> statement published by the conspiracy whackos: >>> >>> "The only two relevant forces acting on the falling block are >>> gravity (mg) and an upward normal force (N) due to its >>> interaction with the lower section of the building."" >>> >>> was "absolutely correct." >>> >> >> That statement *is* absolutely correct. > > Not in the context in which it was made, which is what you just insisted > that I show. The context of that statement was wrt the forces which > caused the as yet undamaged portion of the lower structure to fail. No. There was no context for that quote you provided at all; you did not provide any when you first posted it, and you provided none above. I used the entire quote you provided in full. > You knew that. And the statement itself proves this with "due to its > interaction with the lower section of the building". IOW, the context was > during the time interval of the crash of that upper block into the lower > support structure. > Perhaps. For your information, the statement that was provided is true when the top section of the building is falling between floors, and it is also true when the floors collide. You did not provide any context for their statememt. So whilst it is absolutely correct whether we are talking about the falling or crashing stage, its only really a useful insight if applied during the falling phase; the word in the quote was "falling", and that is what I imagine they meant. Not, as I say, that it affects the truth of the statement; the statement is completely correct. > And, in THAT context, the statement is wrong. During the crash, the force > being exerted on the lower structure AND the upper block was (d/dt)mv of > the upper block. > Explain to me what additional forces acted on the upper block (if you think there were more than the two listed in the quote). > Now, if you want to lie about context being important, or if, once again, > you're going to try to blur your mistake by claiming that a falling body > isn't crashing, then that statement is inherently incorrect because it > says that the falling body is interacting with the stationary lower > structure. > The statement is correct. If you don't believe these two forces are at play, which one isn't? Or if you believe there are addditional forces acting on the upper block, what are they? (Momentum is not a force, btw). >> Here is what I said is absolutely correct: >> >> "The only two relevant forces acting on the falling block are >> gravity (mg) and an upward normal force (N) due to its >> interaction with the lower section of the building."" >> >> If you think there are any other relevant forces acting on the >> falling block other than those two forces, what do you think >> they are? > > In the context of the time interval in which the falling block is > interacting with the lower, stationary support structure, the relevant > force was the reaction of the lower support structure to (d/dt)mv of the > upper block. So that would be an upward force due to its interaction with the lower sections of the building (ie the collision) ? > This has been explained to you in painstaking detail very often now, and > you alternately agree with it, and then show confusion about it. Try to > focus. > How is "an upward normal force (N) due to its interaction with the lower section of the building" different from "the relevant force was the reaction of the lower support structure to (d/dt)mv of the upper block." The only difference I can see is that "interaction" has been replaced by the more specific "reaction". >>> I know that you have very grand delusions about physics, and >>> math, and "dynamics" and whatever else you think you know, but >>> you do not. If you did, you'd know what F=(d/dt)mv is, and how >>> it came into play DURING THE CRASH of the upper block into the >>> lower support structure thereby causing it to fail. But you do >>> not. >> >> So, what other forces act on the falling block? >> >> As this is the only example you offer as a test case, I would be >> delighted to discuss it further. You are indeed lucky; analysing >> a falling block is *far* simpler than analysing the inelastic >> collisions between floors, very simple. >> >> So go for it. What are the other relevant forces? > > See the above, but I find it very humorous that you would now finally > learn that any analysis of what caused the lower structure to fail, and > how long to would take that upper block to finally hit the ground would be > complex. After all, it was your contention that a very simple analysis, > which, BTW, would exclude the very factor which that analysis was intended > to answer (i.e., the resistance of the support structure), would do the > trick. :-) > I refer you again to the wealth of pages on the internet which discuss inelastic collisions, and suggest that you learn from them what is and isn't relevant to such interactions. You may note that such calculations are performed using conservation of momentum, and the concept of force is not used. HTH
From: Remy McSwain on 24 Mar 2010 07:10 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4ba95a9e$0$19545$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "AllYou!" <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote in message > news:CJOdndK3x7ZdUzXWnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d(a)posted.choiceonecommunications... >> Responding to Peter Webb <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> >> In news:4ba8c334$0$7966$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, >> >> You really are a piece of work. All of this time, you've been >> completely unwilling to admit that you were completely wrong to >> agree with the dolts who said that the only two relevant forces >> at play during the crash of the upper block into the lower >> support structure were the weight of the upper block, and the >> reaction of the lower support structure on it, and now that >> you've finally been boxed into having to admit that this was >> wrong, > > Huh? He's absolutely correct. >>you continue your obfuscation of the truth by trying to claim that >>you knew it all along, and that somehow, it is me who learned >>something or other. >> >> You were just as wrong about this as you were to think that you >> could show whether or not the lower support structure provided >> any resistance to the fall of the upper block by performing an >> analysis, the very premise of which is that it did not. >> >> You're a horribly confused person who says whatever he has to say >> to obfuscate from having to admit that you know almost nothing >> about physics. You think you do, but you most certainly do not, >> and all of your smoke and mirrors attempts to hide this very >> basic fact proves it. >> >> > > Huh? He's perfectly correct.
From: Remy McSwain on 24 Mar 2010 07:10 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4ba95b03$0$6094$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:dMqdneLvB_CGdDXWnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in >> message news:4ba8c334$0$7966$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>> >>> "AllYou!" <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote in message >>> news:WridnRCHqs-dITXWnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d(a)posted.choiceonecommunications... >>>> >>>> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in >>>> message news:4ba8b62b$0$32441$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>>> >>>>> I am very comfortable with the subject of dynamics, and it is >>>>> very clear that you know nothing at all about the subject. >>>> >>>> Attempt to obfuscate the issue just like all of your KOOK >>>> brethren >>>> do, but here's what you keep trying to avoid. >>>> >>>> At one point in time, just minutes after the plane crashed into >>>> the >>>> WTC1, there existed the following conditions: >>>> A) There were a whole bunch of floors, the structure of which >>>> was >>>> significantly damaged. >>>> B) There were a whole bunch of floors above (A) which were >>>> undamaged >>>> by the plane crash. >>>> C) There were a whole bunch of floors below (A) which were >>>> undamaged >>>> by the plane crash. >>>> >>>> Eventually, the fires raged long enough such that the lateral >>>> floor >>>> trusses sagged significantly enough so as to pull in on the >>>> support >>>> columns thereby causing them to buckle inward (as can be seen >>>> in the >>>> videos), thereby causing the upper block (A) to begin falling >>>> downward toward the largely undamaged structure (C). >>>> >>>> Obviously, as had been proven over decades, every part of the >>>> support structure of that tower was capable of supporting the >>>> weight >>>> of everything above it. So when that upper block (A) crashed >>>> into >>>> the remaining support structure (C), some force greater that >>>> the >>>> weight of (A) was exerted upon (C) so as to cause it to fail >>>> structurally. >>> >>> All true. >> >> Then you've proven yourself to be a KOOK for having consistently >> denied that there was ever any such an "interaction" between the >> upper block, and the lower support structure. > > > When am I supposed to have said that? When you said that the statement by the other KOOKS was correct, KOOK.
From: Remy McSwain on 24 Mar 2010 07:13
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4ba96073$0$11705$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... [snipped a bunch of lies by PW] Look, I'm tired of all of your shaking and baking and every other kind of obfuscation you're tried to throw out there just to avoid admitting your mistakes. As far as saying that the following statement is "absolutely correct", you're dead wrong. "The only two relevant forces acting on the falling block are gravity (mg) and an upward normal force (N) due to its interaction with the lower section of the building." You want context, here's the context. A debate between AY and the KOOK Henry was being waged as to whether or not the remaining lower support structure of the towers failed because the upper block of floors fell on it, or whether it failed for other reasons. The KOOK kept saying that the proof it had fallen for other reasons was that the support structure was designed to hold up the weight of the upper block, and that this was the only force being exerted on it, and yet, it didn't hold up. You knew this was the context of that quote. You could not know otherwise. Yet, in light of that context, you pronounced that statement "absolutely correct". That's clearly wrong. Since then, you've tried to defend your position by claiming that, by definition, the only force that could be exerted on a falling body_is_gravity. But that's not only contrary to the context in which that statement was made, your claim is also contrary to the statement. It doesn't say that the only force acting on the falling block was gravity. It says there were two forces acting on that body, and that the other was the reaction force of the lower structure "due to its interaction". So the falling body in that statement was interacting (i.e., colliding) with a support structure. By definition, and in the context of 911, this HAD to be the infamous collision of the falling block with the lower structure. Do you know of any Newtonian forceless collisions? We're not talking about quantum physics here, and so remember context. You've tried to salvage your position by mischaracterizing the condition in that statement as that of just a falling body because only gravity acts on a falling body. But that's not the condition described by the statement. The statement says that the falling body is falling, AND interacting with the support structure. THAT is the case of a collision, and in the case of a collision, and as AY has correctly pointed out, Newton's second law of motion F=(d/dt)mv is also going on. YES, that means a force other than the weight of the upper block, which means that the statement that weight, and the "normal upward" reaction to it, were the only forces going on in that collision is dead wrong. It was the force which resulted from the collision. It wasn't F=mg. It was F=(d/dt)mv. 'g' only served to establish the maximum 'v'. Either way, that statement is not correct. Either way, you're wrong to say that it was correct. The bottom line for you, and for the KOOK Henry, is that the momentum of the upper block played a very significant role in the failure of the lower support structure. Any way you slice it, that change in momentum 'mv' by the function of 'd/dt' resulted in a force which was the very reason that the support structure failed. During the interaction between the two bodies, it was (d/dt)mv that was acting upon the upper block. And BTW, you were also wrong to think that your analysis of the collapse of the towers which ignored the resistance of the support structures could answer the question of whether or not that support structure offered any resistance to the collapse. That's a self-contradicting position. Even a KOOK could see the error there. |