• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927:2293]

Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

KokomoJojo said:
no.

my claim is crystal clear!

NOTHING can fall faster then G. (unless it has an external force applied)

Since you consider yourself the resident expert here, why dont you explain to the debunker parrots why their little stick and ball is a parlor trick?
Click to expand...
I have already explained the physics of the ball and rod. I asked you to counter it. You have so far afaik utterly failed to do so. I can only assume that is because you cannot, both because what I said is true, and because you lack the knowledge to even begin to address it.
 
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

jaydeehess said:
In the video we have a stick with one end at table level. Let's call that point O
We have the other end at a height of 'h'. Let's call that point A
Assuming a homogeneous stick we have the center of gravity in the longitudinal center. Call that point B, and a height of one half of h

When the the stick is allowed to drop what is the acceleration of point O?
It does not move vertically so obviously its acceleration is zero.

Newtonian physics states that the CoG of a falling object accelerates at 'g'.
So point B is accelerating at 'g' and will cover its drop height in time t

Point A hits the ground in time t as well but had to cover twice the distance and therefore accelerates at 2g

Now it pretty obvious that this also has the average acceleration of all points along the length of the stick as 'g'.


So, koko. Specifically now, if I have made an error in the physics, what is it?
If the video is not showing that the ball , which must fall at 'g' and does so at a lesser rate than the end of the stick, explain, be specific now, what is then happening.
Click to expand...

KokomoJojo said:
Your stick and ball trick?

Why not ask the resident professional engineer to tell you where you are wrong LOL

or post your cipherin so we can review it. You will find its a parlor trick.
Click to expand...

I'm asking you.
You contend that my easy to understand explanation of why the point at the end of the rod must be moving at a greater vertical acceleration than 'g'(read that very carefully koko), so show/explain why it is wrong, if you can. If not then just stop crying and moaning for ozeco to do it for you.
IOW put up or shut up.
 
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Want some math to back it up?

Recall, the end of the stick is at height 'h'
The CoG, half way point on the rod, is therefore at height 'h/2'

Time that both of these points hit the table is equal call it 't'

Newtonian physics describes acceleration due to gravitational attraction as occurring between the CoG of each object, iow the CoG has a vertical acceleration of 'g'

Therefore
h/2=0.5gt[sup]2[/sup]
Therefore
h=gt[sup]2[/sup]

We also know that
h=0.5at[sup]2[/sup]
Where 'a' is the vertical acceleration of the end of the rod(being at height 'h')
Therefore
gt[sup]2[/sup]=0.5at[sup]2[/sup]
Which shows that 2g=a

,,,and of course, the video bears out that at the very least, the end of the rod falls faster than the ball, a separate falling object.
 
Last edited:
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

If I'm wrong so be it but someone point out where I go wrong. Seems only proper that that be someone who takes issue with the idea that
(Read very carefully)
A point on a falling object, rotating in the vertical plane, can be observed to have a vertical acceleration greater than than of 'g'.
 
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

jaydeehess said:
Want some math to back it up?

Recall, the end of the stick is at height 'h'
The CoG, half way point on the rod, is therefore at height 'h/2'

HUH? WRONG its not a free floating rod.

Time that both of these points hit the table is equal call it 't'

Consider t and t'

Newtonian physics describes acceleration due to gravitational attraction as occurring between the CoG of each object, iow the CoG has a vertical acceleration of 'g'

Therefore
h/2=0.5gt[SUP]2[/SUP]
Therefore
h=gt[SUP]2[/SUP]

We also know that
h=0.5at[SUP]2[/SUP]
Where 'a' is the vertical acceleration of the end of the rod(being at height 'h')
Therefore
gt[SUP]2[/SUP]=0.5at[SUP]2[/SUP]
Which shows that 2g=a
Click to expand...

your construction is seriously flawed as I have just shown
 
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

jaydeehess said:
A point on a falling object, rotating in the vertical plane, can be observed to have a vertical acceleration greater than than of 'g'.
Click to expand...

as usual more debunker generated disinformation to muddy the waters to wrongfully discredit truthers.
 
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

jaydeehess said:
I'm asking you.
You contend that my easy to understand explanation of why the point at the end of the rod must be moving at a greater vertical acceleration than 'g'(read that very carefully koko), so show/explain why it is wrong, if you can. If not then just stop crying and moaning for ozeco to do it for you.
IOW put up or shut up.
Click to expand...

easy to understand however does not make it correct as I have shown
 
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

jaydeehess said:
I have already explained the physics of the ball and rod. I asked you to counter it. You have so far afaik utterly failed to do so. I can only assume that is because you cannot, both because what I said is true, and because you lack the knowledge to even begin to address it.
Click to expand...

now that you put up your understanding of it we can see where the error is.

Nothing can fall faster than freefall with the exception of an external force applied.
 
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

KokomoJojo said:
your construction is seriously flawed as I have just shown
Click to expand...
How can the time for the end of the rod to hit the table be different than the time for any other point on the rod to hit the table?

Answer : all points on the rod hit the table at the same time and they all begin moving at the same time, therefore the time period through which the drop are all equal.

If any point on the rod is accelerating then all points that are moving in the vertical plane must also be accelerating.
If all points take the same amount of time to accelerate through their varying distances of travel then they must all have different accelerations.
The point that does not move, that on the table, will have zero distance to travel and therefore zero acceleration in the vertical plane. The point that has the furthest to travel will have the greatest acceleration.
Since only gravity is acting on this object, the sum of the acceleration of each point on the object must be 'g'

Those below the CoG will be less than 'g', those higher than the CoG will be greater than 'g'. The CoG will be at 'g'
 
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

KokomoJojo said:
now that you put up your understanding of it we can see where the error is.
Click to expand...
Ok show me.

Nothing can fall faster than freefall with the exception of an external force applied.
Click to expand...
That's not gonna cut it.
I showed you my math and gave my reasoning for it. I have now explained that reasoning a couple of different ways.
Let's see yours.(math and reasoning - for instance , what is the vertical acelleration of the high end of the rod?)

Do remember that the video illustrates that the ball, which began falling at the same time as the rod, took a longer time to cover the same vertical distance as the end of the rod. Your explanation must be consistent with that, as mine is.
 
Last edited:
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

Btw, koko, if it were a free floating falling rod, and was rotating in the vertical:
1) it would be rotating about its CoG
2) depending on its rate of rotation, points along its length could be observed to be moving upwards.
 
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

jaydeehess said:
How can the time for the end of the rod to hit the table be different than the time for any other point on the rod to hit the table?
Click to expand...

one end of the rod is already on the table. lol
 
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

jaydeehess said:
Btw, koko, if it were a free floating falling rod, and was rotating in the vertical:
1) it would be rotating about its CoG
2) depending on its rate of rotation, points along its length could be observed to be moving upwards.
Click to expand...

NO Wrong again, the center of gravity of a floating rod would remain stationary.
 
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

KokomoJojo said:
NO Wrong again, the center of gravity of a floating rod would remain stationary.
Click to expand...
a free object that is falling would have some point on it that doesn't move?
You have some way of turning off gravity?
Btw I said some points on its length could be observed to be moving upwards.
I did not say that the CoG would.
 
Last edited:
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

jaydeehess said:
a free object that is falling would have someoint on it that doesn't move?
You have some way of turning off gravity?
Click to expand...

you are confusing the center of gravity with the force of gravity.


this is why it is so important that people who want to argue 911 as a collapse or demolition have a fundamental understanding of ALL sciences involved because thi sis not for beginners.
 
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

KokomoJojo said:
you are confusing the center of gravity with the force of gravity.
Click to expand...

You seem utterly confused about the situation as a whole.

Will you be showing us your math and reasoning any time soon. I am quite content to keep it to the special case of the inclined rod on a table,
 
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

jaydeehess said:
You seem utterly confused about the situation as a whole.

Will you be showing us your math and reasoning any time soon. I am quite content to keep it to the special case of the inclined rod on a table,
Click to expand...

You can certainly be content claiming black is white. If you understood the principles involved you would ahve already conceded the argument.
 
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

jaydeehess said:
You seem utterly confused about the situation as a whole.

Will you be showing us your math and reasoning any time soon. I am quite content to keep it to the special case of the inclined rod on a table,
Click to expand...

As I said to mike:

And wait and wait and wait.......
Click to expand...
 
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

KokomoJojo said:
You can certainly be content claiming black is white. If you understood the principles involved you would ahve already conceded the argument.
Click to expand...

Me thinks someone has been reading 1984 and thinks he works at the ministry of truth.
 
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

KokomoJojo said:
You can certainly be content claiming black is white. If you understood the principles involved you would ahve already conceded the argument.
Click to expand...

Quag said:
As I said to mike:
Click to expand...

It seems koko is perfectly content to snipe, to say he doesn't do high school, that he wants physics and will respond to physics, and when presented with it is content to utterly refuse to respond with physics.

I am quite willing to admit I am wrong but will do so only when shown, using math and physics, that I am wrong.

I dont believe I am in this case but koko seems completely unable to dispute me using the math and physics he so stridently called for.

Hilariously, instead, he implored me to ask ozeco where I went wrong.

Ok, ok, koko, since you are unable to do so.

Please, ozeco, if I have made an error in my application of physics concerning the inclined rod. Would you please help both koko and I out with this.
I'd just ask how it includes the ball taking longer to fall the same distance as the point on the rod where it starts.

ETA: refer to posts 1602/1603 and a few subsequent posts of mine describing my position.

Note that at no time did I ever state that any object as a whole could fall at greater than 'g',
I have stated, and illustrated with applied physics, that points on the rod in question could be measured, individually as part of that whole, as greater than 'g'
 
Last edited:
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

jaydeehess said:
Falling faster than gravity | Inspiring Science

And yet another example. This one of loosely connected chains of objects falling fastert than 'g'. An example that also might have application in the collapse of WTC7
Click to expand...
That an object being whipped to the ground accelerated faster than if it were simply pulled linearly by gravity is not exactly new science. I can't imagine that today's forensic engineers would not take that into account when analyzing a collapsing building.
 
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

calamity said:
That an object being whipped to the ground accelerated faster than if it were simply pulled linearly by gravity is not exactly new science. I can't imagine that today's forensic engineers would not take that into account when analyzing a collapsing building.
Click to expand...
I suppose that would depend on how germane it was to the investigation.

Most investigations focus, understandably, on the probable cause of a situation, in this case the cause of collapse initiation or contributors to the progression of collapse. A short period of free fall or even shorter period of greater than free fall, occuring after the final phase of collapse had already begun(the north side had already been moving) is of little consequence in such matters
 
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

calamity said:
That an object being whipped to the ground accelerated faster than if it were simply pulled linearly by gravity is not exactly new science. I can't imagine that today's forensic engineers would not take that into account when analyzing a collapsing building.
Click to expand...

Forensic engineers do take it into account, political disinformation debunker expert extraordinaire engineers do not.

That and chandler did a very precise measure of the descent and it was nearly a straight line.
 
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]

KokomoJojo said:
Forensic engineers do take it into account, political disinformation debunker expert extraordinaire engineers do not.

That and chandler did a very precise measure of the descent and it was nearly a straight line.
Click to expand...

,,, and another analysis of even greater precision showed more detail. But that's another issue.

So, koko, how's that application of physics response coming? Gonna see it today?tomorrow?ever?
Or are we waiting on your preferred expert. , ozeco to say if he's willing to help us out here?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom