Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: 9/11 Free Fall 7/18/13: Dr. deHaven-Smith and "conspiracy theory" [View all]William Seger
(11,046 posts)97. "How could we have been so wrong?"
I've answered that several times now, but I'm sure one more time will do it. You and Gourley are wrong because you missed a simple but important detail, but Bazant did not:
2. Are the Internal Forces in Upper and Lower Parts of Tower Equal?
Contrary to the discussers claim which is based on his understanding of Newtons third law, these forces are not equal, as made clear by Fig. 2 (g and h) of the original paper. Their difference is equal to the weight of the intermediate compacted layer B plus the inertia force attributable to the acceleration of layer B (for additional accuracy, one may also add the energy per unit height needed for the comminution of concrete and the expelling of air, which are secondary phenomena not taken into consideration in the original paper). When the compacted layer attains a sufficient mass, which occurs after the collapse of only a few stories, this difference becomes very large.
Contrary to the discussers claim which is based on his understanding of Newtons third law, these forces are not equal, as made clear by Fig. 2 (g and h) of the original paper. Their difference is equal to the weight of the intermediate compacted layer B plus the inertia force attributable to the acceleration of layer B (for additional accuracy, one may also add the energy per unit height needed for the comminution of concrete and the expelling of air, which are secondary phenomena not taken into consideration in the original paper). When the compacted layer attains a sufficient mass, which occurs after the collapse of only a few stories, this difference becomes very large.
Can you or can you not respond to the paragraph above in a way that sounds like you at least understand it? I seriously doubt that the "head of Academy of Sciences" would be so baffled. (Actually, I'd like to think that the typical fifth-grader could understand it.)
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
115 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
9/11 Free Fall 7/18/13: Dr. deHaven-Smith and "conspiracy theory" [View all]
damnedifIknow
Jul 2013
OP
You claimed that the "conspiracy theorist" label was not applied to legitimate skeptics
Ace Acme
Oct 2013
#6
Non sequitur, false dichotomy, straw man nonsense was your attempt at an argument nt
Ace Acme
Oct 2013
#12
The history of those alleged hijackers' training includes registered addresses
Ace Acme
Nov 2013
#31
So, the best you can do is fart in the general direction of some of the confessions
William Seger
Nov 2013
#34
It was possible to access most of the main structural columns from the elevator shafts
Ace Acme
Nov 2013
#61
Most of the main structural core columns were accessible from the elevator shafts
Ace Acme
Nov 2013
#64
NIST lied. The collapses were not explained. The 10 mysteries were not addressed.
Ace Acme
Nov 2013
#82
The point is irrelevant. Bazant's model does not resemble reality. NIST does not name him.
Ace Acme
Nov 2013
#98
I understand what he says just fine. What he says bears no resemblance to reality. nt
Ace Acme
Nov 2013
#102
So your best is to change the subject and try to ignore the fact that your expert
Ace Acme
Nov 2013
#36
"Confessions" to interested parties that are known to lie to achieve their objectives
Ace Acme
Nov 2013
#43