Creative Speculation

William Seger

(11,049 posts)

29. I'll try to dumb it down for you, then

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 02:26 AM

Dec 2011

1) Chandlers measurements do not (and cannot) support the assertion that the acceleration was constant.

2) There is absolutely no reason to expect that the acceleration was constant, given that no conceivable failure modes would produce that result, even if it was a controlled demolition. (It's actually kinda funny that Chandler just blows right past that minor problem with his theory.)

3) If the acceleration was not constant, then Chandler's inferences about the maximum resistance being 36% of the weight are ridiculous, and that make him look rather like an idiot.

4) I can't think of anything less relevant to the issues than your inability to even comprehend what I'm saying. If you want to "give it another try" then good luck, but if you still don't even understand it, perhaps you should consider not responding.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

207 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

North Tower Acceleration [View all] wildbilln864 Dec 2011 OP

Chandler is an idiot William Seger Dec 2011 #1

aw, shit OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #2

you must have been up too late also wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #4

because I posted at 10:11 AM?! OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #6

More or less William Seger Dec 2011 #7

the mind reels OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #8

up late there william? wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #3

Here's what's wrong with it: William Seger Dec 2011 #5

Try this analogy cpwm17 Dec 2011 #9

damn that's funny there! wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #10

so you have no rebuttal whatsoever? OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #11

no need for me to rebut nonsense! wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #12

No it isn't in the videos William Seger Dec 2011 #13

Sure it is! wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #14

so you're demanding that we should take your word for it? OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #15

I demanded nothing! wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #17

oh, that's a fair point OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #18

"can't/won't see" what? William Seger Dec 2011 #16

You think David Chandler sounds intelligent cpwm17 Dec 2011 #33

Good video! It's certain to generate snark and slander and not much else by way of rebuttal. K&R (nt T S Justly Dec 2011 #19

Great post! zappaman Dec 2011 #20

A paragraph break, here and there, would have made it ... T S Justly Dec 2011 #21

really, that's the best you can do? OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #22

Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #27

Lol! An oversight, perhaps? (nt) T S Justly Dec 2011 #28

I'll try to dumb it down for you, then William Seger Dec 2011 #29

Thanks, I think. Lol. But the video still trumps nonsensical Bush Era "science". (nt) T S Justly Dec 2011 #30

I dun seen it on da videos! n/t zappaman Dec 2011 #31

Lol, but yes. The videos have laid waste to Bush and his doctrinaires' output. (nt) T S Justly Dec 2011 #32

I'm sure Chandler appreciates your unconditional support William Seger Dec 2011 #34

Rather, it is I who supports Chandler's video evidence of NIST/Commission fraud ... T S Justly Dec 2011 #35

Most of what we know about 9/11 didn't come from the "Bush administration" William Seger Dec 2011 #36

Most of what we know about 9/11 didn't come from the "Bush administration" - Lol, that is true. (nt) T S Justly Dec 2011 #37

post 5 is just opinion! wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #23

bullshit OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #24

he did not impose the line it... wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #25

have you watched Chandler's video? OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #26

This message was self-deleted by its author jesters Jan 2012 #38

general reply: jesters Jan 2012 #39

it's certainly more difficult than that OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #40

"The upper portion isn't the only thing that falls." jesters Jan 2012 #42

srsly? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #47

Expulsion of matter is much greater for larger, taller buildings cpwm17 Jan 2012 #41

"The lower block only slowed down the acceleration of the upper block's mass.... jesters Jan 2012 #43

"Bazant's cartoon model which has largely been discarded by both sides of the debate now" Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #44

"IF IT'S NOT DECELERATING, IT'S NOT EXERTING A FORCE." Really? AZCat Jan 2012 #45

Yes, really. jesters Jan 2012 #48

I don't think you responded to my concern. AZCat Jan 2012 #49

AZCat says: jesters Jan 2012 #50

moving the goalposts? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #51

OnTheOtherHand's post is correct - you still haven't supported your claim. AZCat Jan 2012 #52

What a cop out. jesters Jan 2012 #53

I don't see the problem with you providing a properly labelled free body diagram Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #54

Maybe. jesters Jan 2012 #55

You "maybe" can provide one. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #58

"Bazant Zhou shows that the upper section would have had ~31 times the energy necessary jesters Jan 2012 #59

You seriously are not understanding what Bazant-Zhou is doing. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #60

Absolute B.S. jesters Jan 2012 #67

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. William Seger Jan 2012 #73

"Bazant's analysis IS an energy argument" ... jesters Jan 2012 #75

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. William Seger Jan 2012 #77

"Analysis of Inelastic Energy Dissipation" -- is that a clue? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #86

Yup, that's a clue. The section "Elastic Dynamic Analysis" is a little less obvious, but... William Seger Jan 2012 #89

.. jesters Jan 2012 #90

That has NOT been done William Seger Jan 2012 #122

Some sources, please. jesters Jan 2012 #124

This was discussed extensively on the JREF forum William Seger Jan 2012 #155

yes, understanding the argument requires a bit more reading OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #98

"shown to be wrong by numerous independent analyses, on both sides of the debate." Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #74

30% resistance jesters Jan 2012 #76

Please provide the proof of physical and mathematical impossibility of 30% resistance. AZCat Jan 2012 #79

This resistance of yours to simple requests is strange. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #80

. jesters Jan 2012 #82

"The calculations have been done by many others." Which you continue to omit to link to. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #85

Fortunately the lower section can absorb the energy. A miracle of highrise engineering. jesters Jan 2012 #92

saying it, perhaps, but on what basis? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #93

Just address the points jesters Jan 2012 #94

srsly? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #97

Has anyone else noticed jesters Jan 2012 #101

No, but I have noticed so-called "truthers" assert amazing things without evidence zappaman Jan 2012 #102

I could compile a list of questions you and gyroscope haven't answered OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #141

"The lower structure can absorb the energy. That's what I've been saying for the last 18 posts." Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #95

That's interesting. jesters Jan 2012 #96

Hmm. No links, no properly labeled free body diagram. Goodbye, jesters. n/t Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #99

Bye bye, Bolo Boffin. jesters Jan 2012 #103

Since the uppers section gained mass and was accelerating as it fell hack89 Jan 2012 #104

Lol. jesters Jan 2012 #105

So explain how it was not gaining mass as it fell nt hack89 Jan 2012 #107

It was crushing up at the same time it was crushing down. jesters Jan 2012 #109

So where did that mass go? hack89 Jan 2012 #113

12 floors in WTC 1 jesters Jan 2012 #119

So the WTC did not collapse in its own footprint? hack89 Jan 2012 #123

Can you provide a model for a debris-driven, jesters Jan 2012 #126

Sure - read the NIST report hack89 Jan 2012 #129

Proof that you really shouldn't be in this thread. jesters Jan 2012 #132

I don't think you want to go there. AZCat Jan 2012 #134

When a poster doesn't even understand that NIST never provided jesters Jan 2012 #138

That's priceless. AZCat Jan 2012 #139

You're right. It's too funny. jesters Jan 2012 #140

"In plain language." AZCat Jan 2012 #142

Part of it is verifying that you know what you're talking about. jesters Jan 2012 #143

This message was self-deleted by its author jesters Jan 2012 #144

"widely known criticisms of Bazant's model." Links, please. n/t Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #145

Really? I don't think I have to prove anything to you. AZCat Jan 2012 #146

Okey doke. jesters Jan 2012 #147

"don't be presenting the Bazant model as if it doesn't have fatal flaws" Links, please. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #148

Links? jesters Jan 2012 #149

You seem to be confused. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #150

I would be happy to jesters Jan 2012 #151

"except that you already know about them." Oh, no, you did not. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #152

I'm with Bolo - where is the refutation of Bazant's model? AZCat Jan 2012 #153

It hardly matters, AZCat, jesters Jan 2012 #156

This message was self-deleted by its author William Seger Jan 2012 #157

From: "Not so clever Trevor" jesters Jan 2012 #158

From Self's response William Seger Jan 2012 #160

Probably because he doesn't do that. jesters Jan 2012 #162

Yes, that's exactly what he does William Seger Jan 2012 #163

Here's the complete context jesters Jan 2012 #168

Bullshit William Seger Jan 2012 #169

I see what you're saying, jesters Jan 2012 #170

No, it seems you don't see what I'm saying William Seger Jan 2012 #171

You're right. I don't see it. jesters Jan 2012 #172

We're finished, dude William Seger Jan 2012 #173

* sniff * jesters Jan 2012 #174

how do you think kinetic energy is dissipated in "momentum loss"? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #175

Okay I misunderstood about the double entry jesters Jan 2012 #176

it isn't apparent to me that you addressed my question OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #177

I don't know what Ross is factoring in to momentum loss. jesters Jan 2012 #178

Stop it, you're fracturing me William Seger Jan 2012 #179

As I point out in post #176, jesters Jan 2012 #180

after further review, Greening is NOT distinguishing between fracturing and pulverization OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #181

Your post is non-sensical. jesters Jan 2012 #182

wow, tact is so wasted on you OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #183

OTOH off the deep end? jesters Jan 2012 #185

nope, just OTOH over your head, apparently OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #189

No! William Seger Jan 2012 #184

You seem to have completely ignored post #182 jesters Jan 2012 #186

I haven't really followed your complete discusion cpwm17 Jan 2012 #187

You're right! Ross double-counted that energy too! William Seger Jan 2012 #188

just to mention OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #190

With posts 187 and 188, jesters Jan 2012 #191

your swagger is impressive, no doubt OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #192

Post 182 jesters Jan 2012 #193

ROFL OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #194

Post 182 is bullshit William Seger Jan 2012 #195

Are you now reversing what you said in post 188, Seger? jesters Jan 2012 #196

WTF are you yammering about now? William Seger Jan 2012 #197

According to Seger's post 188, jesters Jan 2012 #198

LMFAO! Have you been drinking? William Seger Jan 2012 #199

No, William, you're wrong. :D jesters Jan 2012 #200

Not momentum loss; "momentum losses," Ross' term for the kinetic energy lost William Seger Jan 2012 #201

William Seger, jesters Jan 2012 #203

WTF? William Seger Jan 2012 #205

"Momentum loss is not the same as kinetic energy loss." Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #202

...kinetic energy loss through strain and fracturing. Yes. jesters Jan 2012 #204

That's not an explanation of the difference in your mind between Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #206

often it would be helpful for jesters to define terms OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #207

LOL, what a bullshitter William Seger Jan 2012 #159

And that post by William Seger means? AZCat Jan 2012 #161

Wait. What? Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2012 #154

You are member of a tiny internet fringe group - lets not forget that simple fact hack89 Jan 2012 #135

"intact 80 - 90-storey steel framed highrise" - just popping in to point out Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #128

Bye bye, Bolo Boffin. jesters Jan 2012 #131

I don't understand the part where you failed to support your claim. AZCat Jan 2012 #56

Newton's third law -- apparently deeply perplexing to 9/11 so-called debunkers jesters Jan 2012 #57

Of interest to me is the second law. AZCat Jan 2012 #61

It would help if jesters Jan 2012 #68

It's quite clear to me. AZCat Jan 2012 #69

You took my statement as a universal. jesters Jan 2012 #70

It doesn't matter what we're talking about, it's still wrong. n/t AZCat Jan 2012 #71

No, it isn't. jesters Jan 2012 #72

Apparently you didn't read post #69. AZCat Jan 2012 #78

Lol. jesters Jan 2012 #81

What I've noticed is that post #5 is still sitting there, unanswered. (n/t) William Seger Jan 2012 #83

Well, yeah. AZCat Jan 2012 #88

Then why didn't you say so many posts ago? AZCat Jan 2012 #87

I answered this in posts 48 and 50. jesters Jan 2012 #91

No, you didn't. AZCat Jan 2012 #100

Wow. jesters Jan 2012 #106

It isn't the same thing at all. AZCat Jan 2012 #108

So a hammer can smoothly push a nail into hard wood, AZCat? jesters Jan 2012 #110

You don't get it, do you? AZCat Jan 2012 #111

In two colliding bodies ? jesters Jan 2012 #112

I don't know why you insist on perpetuating this argument. AZCat Jan 2012 #114

AZCat, all it would take is one example to put me in my place jesters Jan 2012 #117

No, I don't think it would do anything of the sort. AZCat Jan 2012 #118

An object resting on another object is the simplest example jesters Jan 2012 #120

A physics "gotcha"? No, you'd have to hand that to the guy who figured it out in the first place. AZCat Jan 2012 #125

Which is what I already stated in posts 48 and 50. jesters Jan 2012 #130

You didn't respond to my questioning of your statement contradicting the second law. AZCat Jan 2012 #133

Yeah. OR, you could have just said jesters Jan 2012 #136

It doesn't matter if the bodies are moving or not, the second law still applies. AZCat Jan 2012 #137

Again: Why Chandler is wrong William Seger Jan 2012 #165

You're talking about processes, jesters Jan 2012 #166

Example: Anything falling through air or water William Seger Jan 2012 #164

Sure, jesters Jan 2012 #167

Perhaps you don't understand the definition of decelerate cpwm17 Jan 2012 #121

It's a pretty common misunderstanding, apparently. AZCat Jan 2012 #127

What happens depends on the relative forces on impact cpwm17 Jan 2012 #62

Wasn't Newton persecuted by the church? gyroscope Jan 2012 #65

No, he wasn't William Seger Jan 2012 #84

Which is why we see debris falling faster than the collapse zone hack89 Jan 2012 #115

Not really. AZCat Jan 2012 #116

You're assuming the buildings had a normal ability to withstand forces after collapse initiations cpwm17 Jan 2012 #63

also, "support" here seems equivocal OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #64

Yes, one could come up with more reasons why the building was guarenteed to collapse once started cpwm17 Jan 2012 #66

I didn't say they fell at free-fall speed cpwm17 Jan 2012 #46