Search results

Thanks. It had to be said tho' the need should be implied from the necessity of "fail safe" provision of safety features. The actual bridge collapse mechanism looks reasonably obvious - a succession of automatic progressions. There is a lot of precedent for conspiracy theories arising from...

7 hours into 2024. I've been reassuring overseas online acquaintances that 2024 looks to have arrived. It "saw itself in" without the benefit of my personal supervision. That is 23 years of my rigorous experiment to demonstrate that "seeing the New Year in" is a redundant process.

Blind spots of self-perception can cause biases. I'm pleased that I have no blind spots. I look regularly to ensure I still have none.

They are all methods of persuading people to adopt a point of view. Sadly, and despite @Mick West's word of caution, the tensions are again increasing. In a thread discussing politeness, there's a fundamental process issue when members use emotive loaded terms that are themselves impolite...

Yes, it should be obvious. And your reasoning is correct. There are other points in the remainder of your post that are worthy of discussion but are too far off-topic to pursue here. The relevance to WTC7 is that "over G" is plausible and has to be considered in the WTC7 scenario. We are...

No problem. My engineers experienced bare assertion gut feeling says air resistance is less significant if, in fact, it is even in the ballpark. But, following the recurring derail theme in this thread, I cannot prove that it should be discounted. ;)

Thanks for the response @Marc Powell. I'll comment on two aspects. First: Essentially you are moving to quantify the air resistance - a path worthy of consideration because without quantification we cannot dismiss the effect. I note that @Mendel has responded to that aspect. Let's see where...

A nice attempt @Marc Powell. My thoughts are: Good thinking. Worthy of discussion. I suspect that it is negated because all factors on the left are reducing proportionately as the rungs cease to be involved. So the falling weight is also reducing, countering the reduced air resistance? And...

Agreed. Those AE911 claims are false. To be specific they are "False Generalisations" in the form of false global claims. And they are routinely used by truthers in arguments that make the error of false dichotomy. If anyone wants "proof" many examples are available.

Fully agreed. It is probable but not necessarily always so. When seeking to explain a phenomenon that requires quantified data it can be that the data is not precise enough or sufficient to support a definitive conclusion. Explaining the WTC7 collapse issues has been, still is, such a...

I take an even more pragmatic approach. As an 82 years old engineer - qualified in both civil and military - I learned and practiced in the Newtonian domain. Makes my life a lot easier. And doesn't limit my comprehension of the scale of earth-bound phenomena we discuss here. Especially the...

There is a local variant we discussed in 2015: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/acceleration-greater-than-g.5635/post-143011

@Thomas B Your main point is valid. It highlights the need to be clear as to the definition of terminology. Even this comment could be challenged: ... since "faster" is usually used in reference to "speed" AKA velocity. When the context is acceleration.

How should I know? Especially when you deny it is even plausible? And I have made no such claim. I certainly think it is highly probable. Even if we disregard measurements other than NIST and Chandler's. I could not rigorously "prove" it did NOT occur even based only on NIST and Chandler's...

But not the claim my comments referred to. Hence my concern about changing objectives or "moving the goalposts". The Oystein statement you quote was from a section where Oystein said: And he described how your OP example could be applied in the explanation of WTC7 collapses. Supporting the...

Take care with drifting objectives. @Oystein's illustrative analogy is similar to one I have used many times to parody faulty logic used by others in actual debate. The logical error in the actual debate is the issue for debunking - not the side trail of nitpicking a humorous analogy. Be...

Mmmm.. Got it thanks. I wasn't even thinking about quantification. The ratio is more than sufficient for the level of argument that I prefer as SOP. Note that I gave myself away - I actually revealed my thinking when I said "the ratio .... is defined.." ;)

I'm getting older and slower but I still think the ratio of those motion vectors is defined by - fixed by - geometry. Hence 2:1. But I've been wrong before...

The thread topic is explicitly clear: "Falling objects can be faster than free fall" And the rope ladder proves that single point. Nobody is making the silly claim that WTC7 behaved like a dropped rope ladder. If you don't understand why WTC7 collapsed just ask in an appropriate thread...

Ooops. I missed this. Time to repeat a bit of truism: Not when the authority is wrong or misleading. I've explained why many times. And it is a major factor in this discussion - the distinction between Free Fall and Free Fall Acceleration. NIST's comments are misleading. Playing...