Creative Speculation

OnTheOtherHand

(7,621 posts)

20. interesting perceptions

Wed Jan 4, 2012, 07:59 AM

Jan 2012

I guess we could quibble about the definition of "explosions" -- that's been done extensively over the last decade.

But if you really believe (not that you said this) that many eyewitnesses share your opinion that the Twin Towers were demolished by explosives, then NIST is the least of your problems. The people who believe that generally aren't eyewitnesses; they seem disproportionately to be people who spend lots of time staring at videos. If eyewitnesses tended spontaneously to form the impression that the towers were demolished by explosives, then the movement wouldn't have to seine for a handful of people to say so at its events; people would have been saying so all over New York City.

It's logically possible that the eyewitness testimony could support an explosive demolition scenario. But it's remarkably hard to get folks to try to lay out such a scenario -- and I can't think of anyone who has tried to develop such a scenario around eyewitness statements. There must be someone, somewhere, but it rarely if ever happens here. I've interacted with a bunch of people who believe in CD, and I can't think of any who seemed to have formed their view based on eyewitness evidence.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

248 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

They shall be known as Bush's Laws of Motion [View all] gyroscope Jan 2012 OP

Good luck with that. zappaman Jan 2012 #1

I admit gyroscope Jan 2012 #2

"post-9/11 physics" William Seger Jan 2012 #8

According to you, Bush has explained them. zappaman Jan 2012 #3

True that gyroscope Jan 2012 #4

That drawing is incredibly prejudicial and wrongheaded. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #5

Then you can imagine the graphic without the cranes gyroscope Jan 2012 #6

what explosions? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #7

You know gyroscope Jan 2012 #9

So, the NIST was in on the coverup? zappaman Jan 2012 #12

Who do you believe? gyroscope Jan 2012 #14

interesting perceptions OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #20

Ricochets also account for debris propelled out. n/t Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #10

Propelled out 600 feet at 55 mph? Can you substantiate that? nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #66

Also, why "Bush Laws of Motion"? Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #11

apparently George Bush has discovered a new law of physics. zappaman Jan 2012 #13

Common understanding? jesters Jan 2012 #15

Excellent point, jester Ace Acme Dec 2013 #62

The title is a parody gyroscope Jan 2012 #16

The irony is, you've got the shoe on the wrong foot William Seger Jan 2012 #17

You consider the drawing an example of 'truther' science? gyroscope Jan 2012 #18

The language of physics is math, not cartoons and hand-waving William Seger Jan 2012 #19

Do you know the difference gyroscope Jan 2012 #21

The path of most resistance? AZCat Jan 2012 #22

Anywhere but down is unlikely? gyroscope Jan 2012 #23

You're forgetting the possibility of local failure. AZCat Jan 2012 #24

Nobody, anywhere, has explained how that would happen cpwm17 Jan 2012 #25

this is where the word "cartoon" is hard to resist OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #26

I like the car analogy cpwm17 Jan 2012 #28

I actually thought about something like that OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #29

The Bazant model bears no resemblance to reality. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #63

Do you prefer the PBS cartoon model? gyroscope Jan 2012 #30

(ducks goalposts) OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #31

No problem. gyroscope Jan 2012 #32

"In Bazant's drawing, the little block looks pretty intact to me." Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2012 #34

accepting your concession and continuing... OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #35

Since Bazant's model bears no resemblance to reality, there's no need to make any case at all. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #64

I gave you a link above William Seger Jan 2012 #27

Greening? gyroscope Jan 2012 #33

if one can trust Legge, then Greening made a good point poorly OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #36

A collision is a collision jesters Jan 2012 #37

You totally don't understand collisions cpwm17 Jan 2012 #38

Especially collisions between two non-solid structures with pieces to break off. n/t Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #39

You should really be asking AZCat these questions. jesters Jan 2012 #41

Really? Because IIRC you were the one making pretty bold statements... AZCat Jan 2012 #44

He doesn't understand impulse, either. AZCat Jan 2012 #45

try reading it again OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #42

unintelligible. jesters Jan 2012 #43

Obviously at some point the reaction force (structural resistance) is overwhelmed Ace Acme Dec 2013 #65

I don't think you're properly interpreting the NIST reports. AZCat Dec 2013 #236

And they did all that in one narrative paragraph with no calculations. Impressive! nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #239

You need to actually read the report. AZCat Dec 2013 #241

Greening was correct William Seger Jan 2012 #46

Chandler would not see your point about verinage OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #47

That was Chandler defending the Szamboti's "missing jolt" theory William Seger Jan 2012 #48

well, I was trying to get at that video, too OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #49

The 2/3 g is my own approximation William Seger Jan 2012 #50

OK, that's a pretty good response :) OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #51

With the kind of free fall drop jesters Jan 2012 #52

that is the assertion, yes OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #53

Chandler argues that impact involves a change in acceleration Ace Acme Dec 2013 #67

I dont think that is what you meant. AZCat Dec 2013 #69

First law of thermodynamics--otherwise known known as Ace Acme Dec 2013 #70

No, it isn't. AZCat Dec 2013 #71

I'm looking for conservation of energy, which is the first law of thermodynamics. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #72

That's funny. AZCat Dec 2013 #73

Oh aren't you the smoothie. I bet you say that to all the guys. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #74

I missed your little edit. AZCat Dec 2013 #75

Empty assertions must have worked very well for you over the years. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #76

Empty assertions? AZCat Dec 2013 #77

More empty assertions. That's all you've got, I guess. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #78

Oh, I have something else. AZCat Dec 2013 #79

You're not demonstrating any competent grasp of anything. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #80

Your inability to see this is both amusing (at least to me)... AZCat Dec 2013 #81

You defend your own blindness by projecting it on others, Mr. McGoo. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #82

You didn't say there was a difference. AZCat Dec 2013 #83

Only an obfuscating pedant would be interested in the difference. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #84

That's not correct at all. AZCat Dec 2013 #85

You're a cat. A cat can not be a qualified professional. And only a cat Ace Acme Dec 2013 #86

Now your posts are making less sense than before. AZCat Dec 2013 #87

I would tell you to think about stopping before you made a fool of yourself, Abe. zappaman Dec 2013 #88

There is nothing incoherent about pointing out that someone who pretends to be a cat Ace Acme Dec 2013 #89

Who is pretending to be a cat? AZCat Dec 2013 #90

The difference is irrelevant to the point, which it seems you are trying to obscure. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #91

Hmm. I think the point was more your unfamiliarity with the concepts. AZCat Dec 2013 #92

I wasn't wrong. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #93

Oh gosh, I guess we're not moving on. AZCat Dec 2013 #94

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #95

Huh. This is the same problem Tony Szamboti had. AZCat Dec 2013 #96

Impacts necessarily reduce the kinetic energy. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #97

I don't think you have a very good understanding of basic physics. AZCat Dec 2013 #98

Maybe you should try making your points instead of merely implying that you have one. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #99

My point is quite simple - you are wrong. AZCat Dec 2013 #100

Your "point" is an empty assertion. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #101

If you think it's that simple... AZCat Dec 2013 #102

I don't have any work. You need to show yours. NIST needs to show theirs. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #103

Again, your unfamiliarity with basic physics concepts is showing. AZCat Dec 2013 #104

Again you are showing your reliance on empty claims. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #105

Kinetic energy and...? AZCat Dec 2013 #106

Kinetic energy and nothing. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #107

And that's where you're amazingly, blindingly wrong. AZCat Dec 2013 #108

Thanks for making empty claims Ace Acme Dec 2013 #109

I'm not the one butchering physics. AZCat Dec 2013 #110

More empty claims. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #113

Empty of what physics principle? AZCat Dec 2013 #118

The first law of thermodynamics, for one. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #122

The one you don't understand? AZCat Dec 2013 #126

More empty claims from someone who claims to be a cat. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #130

This one is clearly not empty. AZCat Dec 2013 #134

I am not interested in your obfuscation and vaporware. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #140

Of course it won't - you're impervious to basic physics! AZCat Dec 2013 #143

There is no need to write out KE=1/2mv^2 nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #146

Too bad that's not the only component. AZCat Dec 2013 #148

I'll look forward to seeing your Nobel when you invent Ace Acme Dec 2013 #150

Your post is as nonsensical as your claim to know basic physics. AZCat Dec 2013 #152

Says the poseur who thinks he's a cat. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #154

Nothing, huh? Is Google not even helping? AZCat Dec 2013 #156

As an aside, can you start making videos or diagrams? AZCat Dec 2013 #111

Ah yes... zappaman Dec 2013 #112

Cardboard boxes are subject to the same laws of physics as everything else. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #115

gee thanks Abe. zappaman Dec 2013 #116

Nobody said they were the same. They are, however, subject to the same physical principles. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #117

That'd be the same physical principles you don't understand. AZCat Dec 2013 #119

I understand the principles just fine. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #123

No, you don't. AZCat Dec 2013 #128

More empty claims from someone who claims to be a cat. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #129

I don't remember Tony Szamboti going this route. AZCat Dec 2013 #136

Nothing like cardboard for representational scaling of forces, huh? AZCat Dec 2013 #121

Nobody claims there is any scaling. It is a demonstration of principles. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #124

The principle that architects aren't engineers? AZCat Dec 2013 #142

The principles of the 1st law of thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd law, to which Ace Acme Dec 2013 #144

You've never done any study of scaling, have you? AZCat Dec 2013 #145

Scaling is not an exemption from the laws of physics. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #151

Of course, that's why you have to look at similitude. AZCat Dec 2013 #155

It's a demonstration of principles, not a model. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #158

Principles that rely on similitude. You're not getting it. AZCat Dec 2013 #159

It's a demonstration of principles that apply equally to cardboard boxes and buildings. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #160

Except for that whole square versus cubic relationship thing, of course. AZCat Dec 2013 #162

Square v. cubic affects the numbers. It doesn't change the principles. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #164

Huh. This isn't going to get better for you. AZCat Dec 2013 #165

They demonstrate laws of physics that apply to buildings thus as they apply to boxes. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #168

They really don't apply the same way. AZCat Dec 2013 #170

Nobody said they would behave the same. It's a demonstration of principles. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #172

I claim Gage doesn't understand the principles he was trying to demonstrate. AZCat Dec 2013 #173

The dynamic meme has been part of the landscape since Bazant ca. 9/13/01 Ace Acme Dec 2013 #176

None of my experience with you or what I've seen of Gage... AZCat Dec 2013 #179

Nobody who has publicly discussed the shortcomings of the NIST report can be unaware Ace Acme Dec 2013 #184

Gosh, it's almost like that matters! AZCat Dec 2013 #187

Can you name "all these professionals" who are "saying it" (whatever "it" is)? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #191

Haven't you read all the NIST literature? AZCat Dec 2013 #193

Nobody has read all the NIST literature. That would be like reading the dictionary. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #197

That's a neat way to dismiss a whole group of people... AZCat Dec 2013 #199

A whole secret list of a secret group of secret people you can't name because it's a secret. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #201

To be honest, it's been so long since I've looked at the NIST reports and their web pages... AZCat Dec 2013 #203

Standards about widening the stairwells are your claim to competence? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #208

It's amusing that you think something publicly available, but not spoon-fed... AZCat Dec 2013 #210

Oh, so the secret names you can't name are publicly available. I see. How long have you indulged Ace Acme Dec 2013 #212

It's been years since I saw the list. AZCat Dec 2013 #214

The reports are indisputably incomplete. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #215

Your ignorance of physics and building science specifically... AZCat Dec 2013 #218

Knowledge of building science is not needed to recognize that a report that set out to explain why Ace Acme Dec 2013 #225

The initiation is the key. AZCat Dec 2013 #226

NIST devotes one paragraph to describing the instantaneous propagation of the collapse Ace Acme Dec 2013 #230

2100 architects and engineers? Really? AZCat Dec 2013 #231

You see the list at ae911truth.org. Where else? nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #233

Ah - I haven't checked in a while. They've made progress. AZCat Dec 2013 #234

Apparently he died as a supporter. Why remove him? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #237

Can he still be counted as a supporter? AZCat Dec 2013 #238

How many architects and engineers for the NIST report are there? About 20? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #240

Who cares if they have ties to the NIST? AZCat Dec 2013 #242

If you don't know about conflicts of interest you're not much of a professional. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #243

Sure there are. Look in the comments to the draft NIST. AZCat Dec 2013 #245

Supporting NIST's recommendations to widen the stairways Ace Acme Dec 2013 #247

Now I remember where I saw them. AZCat Dec 2013 #221

Did the comments express support for NIST's collapse sequence, or did the comments Ace Acme Dec 2013 #224

Gosh, if only you could read them and find out. AZCat Dec 2013 #227

Who said anything about trust? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #244

You seem to think I'm going to spoon-feed you everything. AZCat Dec 2013 #246

To you a request that you back up your claims is a request for spoon-feeding. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #248

Of course not. The collapse was too complicated for diagrams. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #114

The collapses may have been, but your example shouldn't be. AZCat Dec 2013 #120

Let's just use NIST's free body diagrams as a point of discussion. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #125

Why wouldn't the NIST use free body diagrams? AZCat Dec 2013 #127

There's nothing sophisticated about not analyzing the collapse. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #131

Still haven't figured out what a free body diagram is, have you? AZCat Dec 2013 #132

Still trying to distract from the fact that NIST only did half an investigation, aren't you? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #133

Still trying to distract from your ignorance of physics principles? AZCat Dec 2013 #135

I'm not distracting from anything. I am refusing to traipse after your red herrings. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #137

Sure, just a little red herring that is essential to the whole energy equation. AZCat Dec 2013 #138

Repetition doesn't make an empty assertion any less empty. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #139

Repetition of the defense of your mistake doesn't make it any more right, either. AZCat Dec 2013 #141

There is no need to write out KE=1/2mv^2 nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #147

I don't think we're giving partial credit in this class. n/t AZCat Dec 2013 #149

If I took classes from a cat people would think I was crazy. They'd be right. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #153

At least I'm not trying to claim that kinetic energy is the only component... AZCat Dec 2013 #157

I didn't say it was. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #161

Yes you did. Repeatedly. AZCat Dec 2013 #163

You're talking in gassy riddles of pretend pedagogy, Perfisser. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #166

I've been quite clear. AZCat Dec 2013 #167

You shift the goal posts from an energy equation to an energy balance. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #169

Not really. AZCat Dec 2013 #171

You're not claiming that heat and entropy are significant factors are you? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #174

Gosh, so close and yet so far. AZCat Dec 2013 #175

So did Mr. Szamboti renounce the Holy Church of Controlled Demolition? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #178

What he does in church is up to him - that's none of my business. AZCat Dec 2013 #180

I'll take that as a "no". Ace Acme Dec 2013 #185

The "Missing Jolt" is relevant because Tony made the same mistake as you. AZCat Dec 2013 #186

Thanks for the tip. Maybe I'll look into it, but I don't see why. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #190

There's plenty of info about Tony's mistakes, but let me know if you need help. AZCat Dec 2013 #194

I'm not interested in Tony's mistakes. You only bring them up as a distraction from the Ace Acme Dec 2013 #195

Too bad, because you might learn something. AZCat Dec 2013 #198

I can learn many things. Your red herrings and empty claims aren't worth my time. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #202

That's amusing. You posted a blatantly obvious mistake, and are trying to deflect. AZCat Dec 2013 #204

You pretend that you have a gotcha but you won't say what it is. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #211

That's because there's no point in spoon-feeding you information. AZCat Dec 2013 #213

There's no point when you're on the wrong side of history, indeed. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #216

You have a funny definition of the wrong side of history. AZCat Dec 2013 #219

What about the incomplete and corrupt nature of the reports do you not understand? nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #222

I understand them. You don't. AZCat Dec 2013 #228

An anonymous internet poster understands the incomplete and corrupt nature of the reports. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #232

An anonymous poster understand the technical underpinnings of the reports. AZCat Dec 2013 #235

By the way - this is why I corrected you way back in post #69. AZCat Dec 2013 #177

So you're not going to respond to my challenge that you explain why Ace Acme Dec 2013 #181

Totally missed it, sorry. AZCat Dec 2013 #182

I wasn't talking about WTC7. I was talking about the towers. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #183

WTC7 was the one NIST modelled the collapse for. That's why it's relevant to the discussion. AZCat Dec 2013 #188

Modeling the collapses is not my job. It's the government's job. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #189

Actually, it is the job of every concerned citizen... AZCat Dec 2013 #192

It's the job of every concerned citizen to be aware of the fraudulent nature of the official reports Ace Acme Dec 2013 #196

I'm glad I'm being a concerned citizen, then. AZCat Dec 2013 #200

Your claims to a superior knowledge of physics are empty. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #205

I don't think you're qualified to assess anyone's physics knowledge. AZCat Dec 2013 #206

I don't need to assess your physics knowledge to see that your claims are empty. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #207

How quickly you forget. AZCat Dec 2013 #209

Oh, the pretend lessons that the pretend teacher has to give! Ace Acme Dec 2013 #217

Maybe that's why you didn't learn anything at school? AZCat Dec 2013 #220

More empty claims from someone who claims to be a cat. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #223

How's that research into the energy equation going for you? AZCat Dec 2013 #229

Just one little problem with the Verinage technique gyroscope Jan 2012 #54

What problem, for whom? William Seger Jan 2012 #57

You're twisting into a pretzel again gyroscope Jan 2012 #58

The question is, what was your point? William Seger Jan 2012 #59

Are you a laundry dryer? gyroscope Jan 2012 #60

are you a gyroscope? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #61

I don't see what the problem is. krispos42 Jan 2012 #40

Here's the "Myth Busters" episode where they try to rip the rear axle out with cable: cpwm17 Jan 2012 #55

Exactly krispos42 Jan 2012 #56

Tension and compression; apples and oranges. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #68