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: AllYou! on 24 Mar 2010 07:16 In news:4ba96073$0$11705$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, Peter Webb <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> mused: > "AllYou!" <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote in message >> 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. But that's not what the statment said. The statement was about the block of floors DURING ITS INTERACTION with the lower structure. No matter how much you lie about it, that's what it was about. All the rest of your bullshit is just a cover for the fact that you thought that statement was made by the NIST, and so you defended it, no matter what it said, and now you can't admit it.
From: Peter Webb on 24 Mar 2010 07:55 "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:-7ednYV2d9mibjTWnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "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. > The statement they made *was* correct.
From: AllYou! on 24 Mar 2010 07:59 In news:mtudnUkl2_5cbjTWnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com, Remy McSwain <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> mused: > "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. Exactly! All of his obfuscation is just as bad as what the KOOKS do. PW has consistently tried to ignore the fact that the statement clearly applies to the time interval of the collision ("interaction"), and so by claiming that the only forces being imposed upon the upper block during the collision was gravity, and the support structure's reaction to it, he's claiming that the collision of the upper block with the support structure was forceless. Notice that he's never given his opinion as to what forces he thinks were acting upon the upper block DURING THE COLLISION with the lower support structure? He keeps trying to divert his answer to the time period that it was falling, but before the collision, but, as we've both pointed out, the statement refers to the time DURING THE COLLISION. Hell, he's the one who also came up with the analogy of a blob of goo being thrown at, and hitting, a wall, and yet, he's never been able to tell us whether or not he thinks that this collision resulted in a force being applied to the wall. He knows that if he admits that it did, that he would also have to admit that there was a force being applied to the goo as well. And if he does that, then his whole argument collapses just as quickly, and as obviously, as the WTC.
From: Remy McSwain on 24 Mar 2010 08:07 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4ba9fdd6$0$16520$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:-7ednYV2d9mibjTWnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "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. >> > > The statement they made *was* correct. So you believe in foceless collisions then? After all, the claims in that statement were for the time during which the collision between the upper block and the remaining support structure was in progress, and it says that only gravity, and a reaction to it, were the only two forces involved. For you to believe that defines you as a KOOK! Or worse yet, for you, mistaken. LOL!
From: Peter Webb on 24 Mar 2010 08:27
"Remy McSwain" <Paradis70080(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:mtudnUkl2_5cbjTWnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > "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." > Its correcr. There is no obfuscation; there never has been. > 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. > I don't know what else they said, or whether it was correct. This statement: "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." This is correct. Unless you can point to some other "relevant force"; I have asked you this several times and you haven't. And you can't; what they said is correct. > 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. > You provided zero context for their quote. I have not read the original document. How on earth could I know what else they said, and why would I care? The simple fact is that waht you said they said is correct, and derspite repeated questioning you have not said why you think it is wrong. So here is another chance. "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 this is wrong, you have to show either that these forces are not relevant, or there is another relevant force. So, go for it. What additional forces do you think there are, exactly? > 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. No. I didn't say that. Again, if you want to accuse me of saying something incorrect, you should providemy exact words. I said nothing like that at all. > 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". > Yes. They are the only two relevant forces. Unless you know of another? > 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. > No. > 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. No. > But that's not the condition > described by the statement. Its not even the claim of the statement, which clearly does not state that gravity is the only force. > The statement says that the falling > body is falling, AND interacting with the support structure. THAT > is the case of a collision, Without seeing their quote in context, I doubt it. Not that it matters, the statement is correct. > 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 is the "upward normal force (N) due to its interaction with the lower section of the building." > 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. "upward normal force (N) due to its interaction with the lower section of the building." The interaction in this case being 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. Momentum is not a force. > 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. Yes. > During the interaction between the two bodies, it was (d/dt)mv that > was acting upon the upper block. > Yes. Its interaction with the lower part of the building. > 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. > > All I did was apply a classical analysis based upon an inelastic collision conserving momentum. Just like the web pages I pointed you at, and the many physics lectures I have attended on dynamics. If you think there are additional relevant forces, you should list them. Momentum is not a force. BTW, there is a third force, but its not relevant - air resistance. I assume that is why they used the word "relevant". There is absolutely nothing wrong with what they said; these are the only two relevant forces. |