The IHOP pancaking theory discarded, replaced by the sledgehammer theory

[rollingrock]

The pancaking theory for how the towers came down was made famous shortly after 9/11 by the mainstream media, including Popular Mechanics, PBS NOVA program, CNN, Fox News, etc. I call it the IHOP theory. But this is a crackpot idea full of holes and the government eventually discarded it in 2005, without explanation.

It was replaced with the current 'sledgehammer' theory, which is even more stupid. That is, the small upper block above the impact area falls like a sledgehammer onto the rest of the building, crushing it completely as if it were made of nothing but air, lol. Which doesn't make any sense because when a hammer slams onto the head of a nail, for example, the impact with the nail HALTS the acceleration of the hammer almost dead in its tracks. This is the 'WHAM' or hammer effect so to speak. But with the towers there is no WHAM. The descent of the upper block once started is never interrupted it just keeps falling smoothly all the way to the ground, at a freefall rate of speed, with nothing interrupting it and no WHAM. The 'sledgehammer' theory fails miserably. In other words, the official story would make more sense if the upper block of the buildings were made of steel and the lower block were made of fine glass LMAO.



Searching for WHAM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7ZOo64tvm8

Searching for WHAM 2
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AURABHVHKH0






The International House of Pancaking

[rollingrock]

1. For a more technical/academic analysis

see the paper,

The Missing Jolt (or the missing 'wham'): A Simple Refutation of the Official Collapse Hypothesis

www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Lord God, still pushing Szamboti's piece of trash paper?

When you understand what a limiting case is, then you'll understand why Tony's paper is complete horseshit.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. No, I'm quite able to explain why Szamboti's paper is nothing but trash.

And I have.

When you understand what a limiting case is, you will have the ability to understand why Bazant's paper suffers no harm from Szamboti's blunt little tool.

[rollingrock]

22. Limiting who?

flinging around non-sequiturs and obscure terms nobody has ever heard of in an attempt to change the subject and hijack the thread? Isn't that the standard IHOPer M.O. these days? LMAO.

You seem to know a lot about things no one has ever heard about, and yet curiously enough you manage to avoid ever talking about things that everyone is familiar with, that is taught to every high school student: the basic laws of physics - the conservation of energy, momentum, etc., which is the subject of this thread. So you want to talk about ANYthing but the actual subject of the thread, am I right? Gee, I wonder why that is, Mr. Bolo. And this is the first time I ever heard you mention the Szamboti paper, much less debunk it. You seem to have a very vivid imagination if that's what you think you did.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. You're limiting yourself.

To find out about limiting cases, check out calculus. Calculus is an integral part of doing physics. Just because you haven't heard the term doesn't mean it's obscure. Just because you haven't seen me mention Szamboti's paper doesn't mean I haven't talked about it. The exit door to your solipsism is that away.

Here's a hint: Bazant Zhou isn't describing what actually happened on 9/11. When Szamboti uses those figures to show a predicted "jolt" doesn't happen (and we're not getting into his bogus measurements here, just the basic idea of the paper), it doesn't matter. Bazant Zhou is describing a best case scenario, one that is clearly not happening on the tapes. If the building could not survive the Bazant Zhou scenario, then it could not survive the actual scenario.

If Bazant Zhou were saying this exactly happened to the towers, Szamboti might have a point (and then we could talk about his inane measurements). But Bazant Zhou is a limiting case. It is showing you where reality is NOT. It is the basis for equations to help understand similar collapses -- it is the foundation for more people to work on. It was not ever intended by its authors to describe the actual state of affairs on 9/11, and its intended audience will understand this. Szamboti demonstrates only that he needs to go back to basic structural engineering classes.

So keep laughing up your sleeve at me and my "obscure terms." You've been had and you're defending the people having you on and mocking the people trying to explain reality to you.

[rollingrock]

39. 'Bazant Zhou isn't describing what actually happened on 9/11'

Obviously not. they are describing something that happens only in science fiction or maybe cartoons. that much we can agree on.

[Bolo Boffin]

45. But they are contributing to a basic understanding of what happened.

You will never understand those collapses until you understand that.

[whatchamacallit]

50. This is the most loathsome thing about self-righteous OCTers

You yell all day long about "facts" and "evidence", yet the heart of your unassailable argument is nothing more than the mathematical masturbations of some deluded douche named Bazant. Of course his twisted models are all you'll ever need.

[SDuderstadt]

51. They're two completely different people, dude

Of course, you just blindly attack without even remotely knowing what the fuck you're talking about.

Zdenek P. Bazant

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant.html

Yong Zhou was his assistant.

This is why you aren't taken seriously here, dude.


Nice edit, BTW. Taking Zhou's name out of it.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. Bazant Zhou is a paper written by Zdenek Bazant and his assistant Yong Zhou

Calling their paper by their last names is a convenient shorthand, since the paper is so frequently referred to. It's like referring to Jane Roe, et al. v. Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County as Roe v. Wade, or even simply Roe.

Bazant and Zhou were good enough to put numbers to the problem. Your fantasies about their masturbatory habits does nothing to refute their numbers.

[rollingrock]

57. Bazant and Who?

Oh yeah, Bazant and Zhou - the two super geniuses who were able to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble because of fire on the same day it happened, a never before observed behavior for steel structures, and release a paper about it to the press two days after 9/11.

'This paper presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. The analysis shows that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed.'

http://web.archive.org/web/20011031095744/http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/">-Bazant and Zhou, 9/13/01

Where did these clowns manage to obtain their degrees? The Senator Bill Frist School of Engineering?

:rofl:

[Bolo Boffin]

58. heeheeheehee

Posts like yours crack me up.

Meet Zdenek Bazant.

Education
C.E., Czech Technical University, Prague, Civil Engineering (Structural Engineering) 1960
Ph.D. (in mechanics)., Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Prague 1963
Postgraduate diploma in Physics, Charles University, Prague 1966
Docent habil., Czech Technical University, Prague 1967
S.E. 1970, Illinois Registered Structural Engineer

Research
Prof. Bazant's interest spans mechanics of materials and structures, structural safety, response uncertainty, and engineering applications. The current investigations include some fundamental problems in the field of quasibrittle fracture and damage mechanics, fracture scaling and its asymptotics, size effects, probabilistic mechanics and extreme value statistics, micro- and nanomechanics, constitutive models, progressivecollapse of buildings, missile impact, seismic response, interfaces with chemo-mechanics, chemical reaction kinetics, diffusion, thermodynamics, poromechanics, landslides and geo-mechanics. His research team has been developing material models for fiber composites, concrete, rocks and soils, sea ice, snow, tough ceramics, sandwich shells, rigid foams, cellular materials, bone, and shape memory alloys. Applications have covered structural and aero-space engineering, building codes, ship design, automotive crashworthiness, arctic engineering, earthquake engineering and nuclear safety. Although the emphasis is theoretical, his team also conducts specialized fracture testing of composites, concretes and rocks. Computational modeling is a heavy component in each problem, but Bazant's attitude is to seek first analytical solutions and asymptotics-based approximations. The current and recent research sponsors include NSF, ONR, DoT, WES, ARO, DoE, AFOSR, Sandia N.L., Chrysler, Boeing, Cirrus Aircraft, and Argonne N.L.


Teaching Activities
CIV_ENG-422 Inelastic Analysis of Structures
CIV_ENG-424 Stability of Structures
CIV_ENG-430 Cohesive Fracture and Scaling

Honors and Awards
Elected to: National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Engineering; American Academy of Arts and Sciences; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Rome); Spanish Royal Academy of Engrg.; Engrg. Academy of Czech Rep.; Academia di Scienze e Lettere (Milan); European Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Six Honary Doctorates (Boulder, Prague, Karlsruhe, Milan, Lyon, Vienna).
Prager Medal from Society of Engineering Sciences; von Karman Medal; Newmark Medal; Lifetime Achievement Award; Croes Medal; Huber Prize and TY Lin Award from ASCE; Honarary Member ASCE; Nadai Medal and Warner Medal from ASME; L'Hermite Medal from RILEM; Exner Medal, Austria; Humboldt Prize, Germany; Torroja Medal, Spain; Solin Medal, Prague; Z. Bazant (Sr.) Medal, Prague; Stodola Medal, Slovakia; Roy Award, Am.Ceramic Soc.; ICOSSAR Award; Czech Soc. for Mech. Medal; Outstanding Contribution Award, IACMAS; Guggenheim, NATO, JSPS, Humboldt, Ford and Kajima Fellowships; National Winner, 1958 Math.Olympics, Czechoslovakia; ISI Highly Cited Scientist in Engrg. (among top 100, www.ISIhighlycited.com). >9300 citations and H-index=43, up to Aug. 2008.
Former President of SES, IA-FRAMCOS (founder) and IA-CONCREEP (founder); Former Editor, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE.

Selected Publications
(selected among 490+ journal articles and 6 books)

Bazant, Z.P., and Cedolin, L. (1991). "Stability of Structures: Elastic, Inelastic, Fracture and Damage Theories", Oxford University Press, New York (textbook and reference volume, 984 + xxiv pp.).
Bazant, Z.P., and Planas, J. (1998). "Fracture and Size Effect in Concrete and Other Quasibrittle Materials". CRC Press, Boca Raton and London (textbook and reference volume, 616 + xxii pp.).
Bazant, Z.P. (2002). "Scaling of Structural Strength." Hermes Penton Science, London (French transl. with updates, Hermes, Paris, 2004).
Bazant, Z.P. (2004). "Scaling theory for quasibrittle structural failure." Proc., National Academy of Sciences 101 (37), 13397-13399 (inaugural article).
Bazant, Z.P., Cusatis, G., and Cedolin, L. (2004). "Temperature effect on concrete creep modeled by microprestress-solidification theory." J. of Engrg. Mechanics ASCE 130 (6) 691--699.

This is the person you're calling a clown. It's like calling Leonardo da Vinci a cartoonist.

[whatchamacallit]

59. He's either a hack

or a hired gun. Either way, it's dodgy bullshit.

[Bolo Boffin]

61. Weren't you recoiling in horror at my "ad hominem arguments" earlier? n/t

[whatchamacallit]

63. No that was someone else n/t

[William Seger]

65. And this is what conspiracy crackpottery leads to:

You, rollingrock, and d&p forcing yourself into a position where you feel you need to say the idiotic things you're saying in this thread to protect your "theories." I dare you to convince me that you understand any part of Bazant's analysis -- much less are qualified to dismiss it as "dodgy bullshit" -- by stating what that analysis shows, in your own words. And any time you're ready to take on Bazant on his own turf, there's a fairly well established way of doing that. Those "869 architecture and engineering professionals" over at AE911truth don't seem to be getting anywhere with that, so I'm sure they would appreciate your help.

[rollingrock]

67. Bazant's pancaking BS was debunked by NIST itself.

are you calling the people at NIST a bunch of crackpots?

:rofl:

[Bolo Boffin]

69. My, how you yammer on. n/t

[William Seger]

71. Bullshit

Talking about things you don't understand certainly doesn't help your case.

[rollingrock]

60. You think someone with a lot of credentials

can't be bought and paid for? How many credentialed scientists are employed by the oil companies to go out on the television networks everyday to spread their propaganda about global warming?

Bill Frist is a board certified MD, but he's still a certifiable quack.
So are Bazant and Zhou.

[Bolo Boffin]

62. Or was it you? Or was it both? n/t

[ryan_cats]

85. That's a pretty light CV! LOL!

That's a pretty light CV! LOL!

I wish I had 1/10th of that.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. It's called science.

A hypothesis is developed and tested. When the hypothesis is shown to be wrong, another hypothesis is tested from what you have learned. That's all that's happened here. Your ability to confuse descriptive explanations for a theory with the theory itself is also quite amusing.

The general hatred of 9/11 Truth advocates for the scientific process is an odd companion for the cargo cult science of writers like Neils Harrit, Steven Jones, and Tony Szamboti. However, to each his own.

[whatchamacallit]

4. So Bolo remind us, did you defend the pancake hypothesis with the same gusto

you now seem to have for the "sledgehammer"? My guess is they could change it 20 times and you'd happily ride along, as long as the it avoids the unthinkable. A rooster says cock a doodle do, the OCT says any hypothesis will do.

[rollingrock]

7. Ask them to show where the Wham is

*crickets*

[Bolo Boffin]

17. You demonstrate only that you don't understand what a limiting case is. n/t

[rollingrock]

23. Limiting who?

And you demonstrate that you don't have the slightest clue about Newton's laws of motion or what it even is.

[Bolo Boffin]

32. You are limiting yourself by continuing to wave "Newton's laws of motion" about.

Do a force diagram of the collapses if you're so proficient on the laws of motion. If Szamboti had done one, he never would have released his craptacular paper.

[rollingrock]

6. The MSM never once used the term 'theory' or 'hypthosis'

to describe this nonsense. Neither did the PBS Nova program. In the Popular Mechanics article, the head of NIST presented the pancaking idea as though it were a proven fact. That's not science, it's propaganda.

'In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense.' -Popular Mechanics

And in 2005, NIST debunked Popular Mechanics. LMAO

[whatchamacallit]

8. This pretty much exposes the rot at the core of the OCT

They love to claim superiority because their beliefs are "fact based". Not worth a lot if those "facts" turn out to have been pulled straight from the ass. They are only interested in dogma.

[Subdivisions]

9. Nevermind their tendency to ignore the possibility that evidence

disproving the OCT was either omitted, suppressed, discarded, or otherwise destroyed. In fact, everything is possible or impossible depending on whether it supports their fantasy world view.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Twist_U_Up]

20. pretty transparent arent they. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Does anyone hear a bunch of chickens nattering away with each other? n/t

[whatchamacallit]

12. Have we reached the bottom of Bolo's barrel? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Have you said anything worth responding to? n/t

[whatchamacallit]

14. Yes

I have absolutely no doubt I will see your fragile fantasy fall to the ground like wtc 1, 2, and 7.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. No, you have not said anything worth responding to. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

16. And on that day

you and your ilk will be nowhere to be found, having slithered back from whence you came.

[defendandprotect]

18. It's really unfortunate and limiting that confining this info .....

to the dungeon not only deprives other DU'ers of info but also deprives us of

their comments/ideas --

Also . . . with the dungeon attackers we really never get any info about WHY they

proceed against all logic in supporting the inane OCT.

I can't even begin to suggest the many reasons this might be so --

but I think you have to begin with fear of letting go of a belief in a conspiracy-free

America ... ?

Also, though it is obvious, I'd say, to the majority of DU'ers that the "MSM/corporate-

press" has been a propaganda machine for the right wing those on the OCT side in 9/11

seem to either not get that -- or are reluctant to connect the dots to all that means.

That is, cover ups of government corruption even on a level such as 9/11.

Any opinions on "what makes Sammy run" with the OCT?

[Bolo Boffin]

19. "we really never get any info about WHY they proceed against all logic"

Actually, if you understood the importance of a limiting case in understanding a physical event, you would have all the info you need to understand why Szamboti's paper is trash.

It is not my problem that you don't.

[rollingrock]

24. Newton's laws of physics are trash?

I guess only in IHOPer world lol.

sorry bolo but this 'limiting case' you like to scream about, whatever the hell that is, does not disprove the established fundamental laws of physics.

[Bolo Boffin]

30. No, but your understanding of Newton's laws of physics is trash.

See above for "limiting case" discussion.

[rollingrock]

33. Nothing but ad hominems and non-sequiturs from Mr. bolo

Congrats. Once again, you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion.

Let me try to explain it in a way even an IHOPing pancaker like you can understand. Have you ever heard of Newton's 3rd law of motion? For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction.

1) ...So why does the undamaged lower block offer ZERO resistance to the alleged to the 'falling' upper Block? Is the lower block made of air? The upper block should have been destroyed just as much as the lower block, according to Newton's 3rd Law. Since the mass of the lower block is much greater than the upper block, the upper block would have been disintegrated long before the lower block was disintegrated, and long before it could reach the ground. And if the upper block is disintegrated long before it reaches the ground, then there's nothing left to act as a pile driver on the lower block.

Again, why does the upper block descend completely through the lower block as though it wasn't even there?? (which is the definition of FREEFALL). Where is the EQUAL and OPPOSITE reaction (resistance) provided by the lower block?? Why does it offer zero resistance to the much smaller upper block?

2) It's a pretty simple fucking question. So respond with a credible answer or GTFO.


3) Just WTF is a limiting cause and what the hell does it have to do with applied Newtonian physics, which is what this thread and Szamboti's paper is about?? If you want to talk about some stupid shit that has nothing to do with the OP, start your own thread.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. You're down here pretending I have not written Post #31. n/t

[rollingrock]

38. You're down here pretending the OP doesn't exist

lmao

[Bolo Boffin]

47. No, I've responded to the OP and further posts. n/t

[Make7]

48. RE: "Why does it offer zero resistance..."

Would you agree that the orange line on the following graph essentially represents velocity of free fall?

And what exactly does the blue line represent? Why are they different if "the undamaged lower block" offered "ZERO resistance" as you seem to be claiming?

- Make7
 

[rollingrock]

64. Does the orange line

represents freefall in a vacuum or freefall through air? there's a big difference.

Whatever the case, there is no significant resistance offered by the lower block. Maybe not zero depending on the accuracy of your graph, but there is no significant resistance to the upper block.

[Make7]

66. It is for free fall in a vacuum.

I am not vouching for the accuracy of any data in that graph (other than the free fall line which I added). The source had compared their calculated velocity data to the velocity of a free fall under only the acceleration of gravity, therefore I added that line to visually represent what was being compared.

Since you seem to be aware of how much of a factor air resistance would be, it would be helpful to the discussion if you could either plot a curve on that graph, make your own graph, or post the velocity data for the first few seconds of the collapse. It seems to me that there should probably still be a significant difference between measured fall velocities and theoretical free fall times in the earth's atmosphere, but I guess we'll see what the graph looks like with your numbers included.

- Make7
 

[rollingrock]

70. The blue line

represents the first three seconds of velocity of the roofline. as you can see, the line is smooth and steady, the upper block is accelerating faster and faster, indicating no resistance from the lower block. if there was resistance, the line wouldn't be steadily moving upward, would it?

[Make7]

72. The orange line represents the velocity of a free falling object in a vacuum.

 

An object free falling in a vacuum will encounter no resistance to its fall. The orange line on the graph above shows the change in velocity for this theoretical falling object that is not subject to any force other than that of gravity.

The blue line representing the velocity of the buildings roofline shows an acceleration rate that is slower than that of gravity. By my calculation, an acceleration rate that is 71% of gravity alone.

rollingrock wrote:

The blue line represents the first three seconds of velocity of the roofline. as you can see, the line is smooth and steady, the upper block is accelerating faster and faster, indicating no resistance from the lower block. if there was resistance, the line wouldn't be steadily moving upward, would it?

The orange line shows the change in velocity of a theoretical object that is meeting no resistance (free fall in a vacuum). If there is no resistance from the lower block, what force do you believe would be causing the blue line to only accelerate at 71% of the rate of gravity acting on it alone?

- Make7
 

[rollingrock]

73. 71% of gravity

the chart shows just the first three seconds of descent. the falling object or the building
has yet to reach its terminal velocity (top speed). extend the chart to the 4 or 5 second mark,
and you will see 100% of gravity, approximately. by that time the collapse front reaches its full speed.


edit: typo

[Make7]

74. Please extend that chart as much as you feel necessary.

It would be instructive to see a graphical representation of something accelerating at approximately 100% the rate of gravity as it approaches its terminal velocity.

If you don't have software available to make a chart, you can just post the data and I could probably find time to make one for you.

- Make7
 

[rollingrock]

75. We could do that

but it would be pointless, because the point is not in dispute.

both sides agree the buildings fell at a freefall rate of speed.
by definition that means there wasn't any resistance.



on edit: other than air resistance, that is.

[Make7]

76. I am disputing that the towers fell at a free fall rate of acceleration.

rollingrock wrote:

both sides agree the buildings fell at a freefall rate of speed.
by definition that means there wasn't any resistance.

on edit: other than air resistance, that is.

Your opinion on what both sides have agreed on is not relevant to whether or not something is true. If it has actually been agreed upon, I would think you could actually present some data that would conclusively put the matter to rest. From my perspective, you are simply repeating something as fact without it having been proven. But back to the actual matter at hand...

For something to fall at 71% of the rate of gravity there must necessarily be some force in addition to gravity acting upon it.

In a previous reply you said that "there's a big difference" between free fall in a vacuum vs free fall with air resistance. How big of a difference is something you seem unwilling to quantify. For you to so unequivocally state that the difference would be significant in this case led me to believe that you had either calculated the effect of air resistance, or seen someone else's estimation. Hopefully I was correct that you have something more than your opinion to lend support to your claim that air resistance would make "a big difference" compared free fall in a vacuum.

If you could find the time to either add a curve that shows free fall in earth's atmosphere to the chart or post the data for the first few seconds, it would certainly help illustrate your point. At this point I am not sure if you believe that air resistance alone explains the deviation of the blue line (velocity of roof line) from the orange line (velocity of free fall in a vacuum).

- Make7
 

[rollingrock]

77. So you are disputing the official story?

'Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.' -NIST

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[rollingrock]

78. Wait a minute, what?

For something to fall at 71% of the rate of gravity there must necessarily be some force in addition to gravity acting upon it.

1) 100% of gravity means the only acting force is gravity. So your definition of the term is wrong.

2) But lets just say somehow you are right, that there is an additional force besides gravity, so what do you think that additional force is? EXPLOSIVE forces? You do realize you are making the case for explosives, don't you?

[Make7]

79. Force is a vector quantity.

The net force acting on an object is the vector sum of the all the forces acting on it.

If the roof line is dropping at a rate that differs from the force of its weight alone (i.e. free fall in a vacuum), there must necessarily be some other force, or forces, acting on it. Examples of such forces: friction, the normal force, and air resistance.

There are some decent high school level physics tutorials on the web that can explain these concepts in more depth than I have time to go into. For example:

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/Class/newtlaws/newtltoc.html


- Make7
 

[rollingrock]

80. Your pointless theorizing

has nothing to do with the the issue at hand.

If you think the towers didn't come down at free fall, I suggest you write a letter to NIST to inform them of their mistake. lol.

[Make7]

81. You said that physics are what this thread is about.

In the opening post you said, "the small upper block above the impact area falls like a sledgehammer onto the rest of the building, crushing it completely as if it were made of nothing but air..." You also said, "The descent of the upper block once started is never interrupted it just keeps falling smoothly all the way to the ground, at a freefall rate of speed..."

From the MacQueen and Szamboti paper you linked to in Post #1, I took a velocity chart and added a line to indicate how far from free fall their measurements actually were. I was hoping you could reconcile the discrepancy between your statements about "freefall rate of speed", "as if it were made of nothing but air", and what the data actually seems to indicate.

The authors even state in their paper that based on their measurements the fall velocity of the tower was "about 71% of the free fall velocity". Perhaps you should contact the authors of that paper and notify them that their data is incorrect based on your opinion.

I have invited you to modify the chart, or post raw data, to illustrate the points you have been making but you have declined to do so. This discussion is not "pointless theorizing" to me (as it apparently is to you). The discrepancy between a theoretical free fall rate and that indicated by actual recorded data has yet to be explained by anyone espousing the free fall talking point. Perhaps you are aware of someone that has an explanation and you could provide a link. At this point it is obvious that you are unable to explain why there is such a difference between the things you say and the what the measured data indicates.

- Make7
 

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rollingrock]

83. Do I have to draw a picture for you?

I already explained it to you. You are completely ignoring the TIME LINE. The chart only shows the first THREE SECONDS of descent. What part of that do you not understand? If you are incapable of reading a simple chart, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe some remedial courses in reading comprehension could help you.

[Make7]

84. I think pictures would be very helpful to the discussion.

I have suggested more than once that you add new data to the velocity chart from the MacQueen and Szamboti paper to illustrate the points you were trying to make. In fact, I even offered to update the chart with raw data if you do not have the software capabilities. This seems like a reasonable way to move the discussion forward. I would particularly be interested in seeing a graphical representation of a collapsing building at its terminal velocity accelerating at approximately 100% the rate of gravity.

Frankly I am somewhat puzzled by most of your response. When I first introduced the following chart...

... you asked if "the orange line represents freefall in a vacuum or freefall through air?" Given that it shows constant acceleration at approximately 32 ft/s², I thought it was rather obvious that it was for free fall in a vacuum. You claimed there would be "a big difference" between free fall in a vacuum and through air, yet you still needed to ask what the line represented. The orange line only shows the first 2.5 seconds of free fall in a vacuum and you seemed to be implying that air resistance would make a big difference. No mention was made of the fact that only the first three seconds were shown so I assumed that you meant the difference would be apparent within that time frame. Do you think the difference would not be noticable for the first few seconds?

Once again, if you believe extending the chart to show a longer time line would help demonstrate your point, I urge you to do so. A graphical representation would certainly clarify what you are trying to say.

- Make7
 

[rollingrock]

34. And last but not least

where is the missing JOLT?

you still have yet to answer the simple question posed in my OP.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. Post #31.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=268769&mesg_id=268875

The "jolt" is not missing because it is not supposed to be there.

[rollingrock]

40. So you finally admit the Bazant-Zhou paper is garbage

'Bazant Zhou isn't describing what actually happened on 9/11'

- boloboffin


I knew you would come to your senses sooner or later.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. No. Please stop playing silly games. n/t

[rollingrock]

49. The "jolt" is not supposed to be there

again, you are correct! the planned demolition explains the absence of the jolt.

[Bolo Boffin]

55. Anyone who interprets Bazant Zhou as saying that a large jolt should be present in the video

has seriously misunderstood Bazant Zhou.

[defendandprotect]

27. Maybe you should work on the revelance of NORAD being AWOL . . .

four simultaneous military training programs on 9/11 beginning at the same time

as the "hijackings" --

A Pentagon with no defense --

Aluminum planes going thru steel like BUTTER --

'cause your claims of intellectual superiority aren't playing --

[Subdivisions]

25. And, yet, you respond anyway. n/t

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

41. I think Subdivisions should adopt a new avatar. I was thinking of...

this one.



Somewhat fitting, don't you think?

[Subdivisions]

42. I'll take my Democratic Party symbology any way I can get it. Thank you =). n/t

[SDuderstadt]

43. I knew that would go over your...

head.



Your entertainment value is priceless.

BTW, how are you doing with your "legal options"?

[Subdivisions]

44. So is yours. n/t

[rollingrock]

52. Cool

Got one for you.



believe in pancaking floors or simply enjoy eating pancakes?
it works either way.

[SDuderstadt]

53. How about watching your goofy claims fall...

on the floor as flat as a pancake?

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lovepg]

86. What no pictures of goofy ???? your slippin dude! LOL!

[SidDithers]

26. Yup. The lack of understanding is comical...nt

Sid

[defendandprotect]

28. In the case of your superior intelligence, perhaps you want to share your wisdom

on the issues being raised -- ???

Try one --

[Pharaoh]

68. I would rec this

but it is forbidden by skinner.

Lest it see the light of day O8)