Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been suspended.
Darkwing wrote:Of course I was correct lol!
There is nothing imaginary about matching theory to observation, that is how it is supposed to work. Every description of a physical system must obey the second law of thermodynamics at every level, but after that the correct theory to apply in a complex event is highly non-trivial, there are an infinite number of theories that may match any given observation at any given level of accuracy.
The problem lies in when you try to match observation to pre-selected theories. That is when the cracked imaginary things come in.
Theories, you should recall, are things of our minds, physical systems NEVER obey physical laws as we formulate them.
Physical laws are imaginary things conjured up match our observation physical systems which exist in reality. The universe no more obeys mathematical law than the spheres are actually producing musical harmony.
The problem has always been this transition you speak of. You start with a semi-rigid block that first has to be broken up...
...and then coalesce into a dense mass capable of performing a ROOSD style progression.
Actually there isn't even a problem with that, the way I see it.
The problem is this: Imagine you are pouring a lead bullet into a mold. The bullet is already liquid so it flows into the mold, increasing in density as it does so because the walls of container constrains its motion (assuming molten lead is compressible in this way for the sake of argument) and gravity forces it down.
So far so good, you now have your driver for ROOSD if you make the assumption that the fire somehow got the whole upper block to disintegrate completely and instantaneously so that it becomes quasi-liquid. As far as I understand it, this is OWE's concern.
But even if you grant this you have to contend the fact that our mold is being pushed open by the lead. The supposedly dense driver is splitting the sides of the mold, which in this case is the side of the building.
Once you observe that you can't assume that the bullet you are trying to pour will maintain it shape and density, like a hole in a damn wall it will prefer to spread and widen. This, essentially, is my issue.
If ROOSD was in fact occurring as the main driver you would expect the walls to be pulled inwards not shoved outwards.
The fact that they are being shoved outwards indicates that the driver is expanding, flattening out like a bullet hitting a cinderblock and thus providing the lateral force.
The fact that it is flattening out in the first place means that it isn't maintaning its shape in a through and through manner, nevermind coalescing. Put another way: A bullet fired straight downwards into a block of wood will lose energy and expand as it progresses.
So the question is, how can you keep the lead in the mold once the crack appears. How does the driver stay in the chute for ROOSD to be maintained once it starts providing this lateral force.
*Edit* It is, truth be told, possible that there is some amazing heretofore unobserved resonating dynamic equilibrium between the infalling material and the lateral force at the terminal velocity of the collapse.
But seriously postulating that means leaving the world of physics behind and entering the domain of absurdist pataphysics. As Russel said: "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities".
Such a supposed dynamic equilibrium falls well into the domain of unknown entities as far as I am concerned, since to the best of my knowledge such a thing has never been observed in a natural collapse of any kind.
OneWhiteEye wrote:.. it may be possible to supplement any analytical work with obvious meaningful physical experiment, not just simulacra.
Say, are you God? Or djinn? I mention "entropy" once and BAM there you are.
I don't know what happened, so it would be a little sleazy to pick a theory out of preference.
I don't have a problem with it because I don't understand it.
I've seen evidence of this in multiple domains, so it doesn't seem absurd to me at all. The question of whether it applies here is a major focus of this investigation. It may go nowhere. In all likelihood, that's how it will be.
Darkwing wrote:Hehe, not a djinn last I checked, "gin" may be more like it, though I'm a single malt man myself most days.
You and I have a difference in theoretical approach probably becuase you think like an engineer and I don't:
The way I understand it though is that this isn't an engineering problem but a physics problem. We are not trying to reconstruct the collapse, we are trying to find out if there are any forces required to produce the collapse that cannot be accounted for by gravity.
The way I read Occam's razor it says you should do the exact opposite to this. Once you understand a part of the mechanism it is no longer of interest and you should ignore it. The only things that are of interest are the things you don't understand.
ROOSD has gotten to the theory and prediction part but in my mind it is not a satisfactory explanation because it cannot formally decide between the infalling and push-out scenario's which (to me) is really the central issue here.
I agree, but if you look carefully at domains where this sort of thing happens it is usually a highly sensitive process. If you blow into a bottle like an occarina you get a nice dynamical equilibrium, but open a small hole in the middle of the bottle and the state is very quickly disrupted and cannot be regained. [I should say: cannot be regained by chance processes in terms of the second law]
In short, I don't think it is reasonable to expect these idealized sorts of conditions to have pertained in this case, too many loose ends.
People often think of thermite as an unknown element in this context, but it isn't. We know that using thermite in the way way demonstrated by Cole will produce the effects we are witnessing.
But I would love to test things like fall-in/push-out experimentally somehow. I still want to build that spaghetti/macaroni tower we discussed some time ago. You would need a big box of spaghetti, a vernier caliper, something to represent the floors and joints, and a truckload of patience. I fear the blocks experiment stretched my model building capability already, so don't hold your breath.
Darkwing wrote:Any physical process that has a runaway character that consumes itself in the process would do. The only ones I can think of are explosive. So maybe that is why it seems that the building "exploded".
I would be satisfied with any explosive analogue using gravitational potential rather than chemical potential I suppose, or maybe a nuclear chain reaction analogue would be a better description. It can't just release the latent potential, it must "activate" it too to model the rubble compaction required by ROOSD (like a candle "activates" the wax by vaporizing it, which then allows ignition).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests