The Physics of 911

You're not listening.

Here is what I said:

"Put a marker on your computer screen right at the base of the antenna. Then once the antenna begins to drop, count the seconds it takes for the top of the antenna to pass your marker. How many seconds do you count?"

You state it is an easy question to answer. So, explain how to answer it scientifically. You are making the claim... so back it up with your measurements and you calculations.

My opinion is that it is not possible to say given the quality of the video, the smoke, the rotation of the tower and the fact that you are just making rough estimates.

If you disagree with me, then back it up.

I did exactly that. Before the top of the tower hit the top of my cursor, it was obscured by smoke (especially given the fact that it was tipping).

I am curious Glenn..... today we had the March for Science.

I am going to guess that you accept the scientific establishment when it comes to global climate change. Am I right about that? If this is the case, I find it amusing that you reject the judgement of the scientific establishment in the case of 9/11.

I suspect that you are always going to find that the "facts" conveniently match with your political agenda.

We're talking about the top of the antenna, not the Tower. You are correct that the last tenth of a second of the five seconds of the antenna's descent, the tip of the antenna is obscured by smoke. But any observer will still count five seconds for 360 feet of tower to pass the base marker. That last tenth of a second of smoke doesn't change that.

I asked you how far something will fall in 4.5 seconds. You said 99.225 meters. That translates to 328 feet and some change. Before that, you said that if there was no resistance, the antenna would be accelerating at 32 ft/second/second, and that if it is going at a constant speed, then it is being resisted. Well, in five seconds, the antenna descended 360 feet. That means that your idea that the antenna descended at a constant rate because of resistance is totally wrong.

What, do you believe that climate change is manmade or something?

I'm sure you can appreciate that I don't want to read the whole thread, so...

In one or two sentences, why is the antenna important?

I do.

What about the holocaust? Do you think it took place as portrayed in history books?

There were 52 UN scientists who authored the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2007 summary for policy makers. There are over 1,000 scientists who disagree with those 52 UN scientists. Perhaps these scientists are conspiracy theorists who are simply not intelligent enough to comprehend the science behind this stuff.


You have a problem staying on topic.

Glenn, My question was whether you contradict the scientific community in other areas. Your answer was "yes". The point is that you are making up facts to fit your political viewpoint. This isn't science.

You get points for being consistent (at least in my book). But making up facts to fit a political viewpoint is not how real science works.

I want to talk about the Psychology here.

Why is this so important to you, Glenn? You are spending hundreds of hours on this topic, right? You are pouring over videos of antennae and looking for little puffs of smoke to find some nebulous conspiracy that the scientific community and most educated people reject (even after seeing your evidence as I have).

Why are you doing this Glennn?

I recognize your attempt to steer away from the topic, but I will indulge you this one time for the sake of showing you that you accept only "facts" that are convenient to your own personal world view.

There were 52 UN scientists who authored the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2007 summary for policy makers. There are over 1,000 scientists who disagree with those 52 UN scientists. Perhaps these scientists are conspiracy theorists who are simply not intelligent enough to comprehend the science behind this stuff.

http://www.cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

No, you want to change the subject. If all else fails, then question the motivation of the person asking the hard questions. I've seen it many times before; it's nothing new.

Now let's get back to where we left off:

We're talking about the top of the antenna, not the Tower. You are correct that the last tenth of a second of the five seconds of the antenna's descent, the tip of the antenna is obscured by smoke. But any observer will still count five seconds for 360 feet of tower to pass the base marker. That last tenth of a second of smoke doesn't change that.

I asked you how far something will fall in 4.5 seconds. You said 99.225 meters. That translates to 328 feet and some change. Before that, you said that if there was no resistance, the antenna would be accelerating at 32 ft/second/second, and that if it is going at a constant speed, then it is being resisted. Well, in five seconds, the antenna descended 360 feet. That means that your idea that the antenna descended at a constant rate because of resistance is totally wrong.

Did the antenna descend at a constant rate, or did it accelerate during its descent?

Just trying to figure out the extent of your denialism.

You are not even getting the facts of this thread straight. Go back and read what I wrote in context and then you have a chance of understanding what happened. I will summarize here... but you can just go back

1) You told me to watch the video and apply science. So I did.
2) I watched the video, and I suggested that my first impression was constant speed (just from watching it) and I said at the time that this probably wasn't the case.
3) I explained the basic formula and told you that any acceleration less than 9.8 m/s^2 would indicate an upward force.
4) I also explained that the video is a very unscientific way to make anything more than a rough estimate.
5) I then did the calculation and came up with a rough estimate that the (average) acceleration seemed to be about 6 m/s^2 (which would refute your claim). Throughout the process I pointed out that clicking a pointer at a YouTube video partially obscured by smoke is a horrible way to make any accurate measurements.

To answer your question: my best guess based on a rough estimate from a YouTube video is that there was enough upward force (i.e. resistance) on the antenna to provide an upward acceleration of somewhere around 3-4 m/s^2 (which counteracted the normal acceleration of gravity). Yes, this shows that my original intuition was incorrect... but if you read what I wrote, I didn't put much stock on that at the time. There is no way to tell if the acceleration is constant based on the data available... but that is irrelevant.

There is nothing here, Glenn. There is nothing that supports your political views.

But then, your political views are the whole point of this discussion. You need to believe them, for some reason. And, you will twist any facts to support your beliefs.

Sure.

maxdancona: If it (antenna) is going at a constant speed, then it is being resisted.

Glennn: Put a marker on your computer screen right at the base of the antenna. Then once the antenna begins to drop, count the seconds it takes for the top of the antenna to pass your marker. How many seconds do you count?

maxdancona: between 5 and 6 seconds.

Glennn: Now how far will an object fall in four and a half seconds?
EDIT: I have calculated five seconds.

maxdancona: Under freefall, from rest... 99.225 meters. (100 meters translates to 328 feet.)

Glennn: Now, how tall was the antenna?

maxdancona: Paraphrased: I don't know.

Glennn: It was 360 feet tall.
__________________________________________________

Now to wrap this up. When asked whether or not the antenna descended at a constant rate or an accelerated rate, maxdancona says that it is not possible to say. But given that the antenna is 360 feet tall, and it took five seconds for its entire length to disappear below a marker, it definitely didn't fall at a constant rate. Maxdancona is having a problem dealing with the fact that the accelerating descent of the antenna points to an absence of resistance.

This is completely false Glenn. Let me say it again very clearly so you can understand it.

A object falling in the "absence of resistance" has an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2. This is what I have always said.

I did say "constant rate means resistance" ... and I was absolutely correct to say this (and if you look at the post in context I qualified it as a point about intuition). You somehow changed this to say "non-constant rate means no resistance". These two statements aren't the same thing... this is logic 101 here. Your statement that "the accelerating descent of the antenna points to an absence of resistance" is absolutely incorrect.

Let's say this again. Any acceleration lower than 9.8 m/s^2 indicates that there is an upward force to counteract the force of gravity (i.e. what you are calling resistance). I did the calculations and (with the caveats that this analysis of a YouTube video is a very rough estimate at best) it is pretty clear to me that the antenna is not accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2 (I calculated around 6 m/s^2).

But this is no longer about science, it is about Psychology. Why do you insist on bending facts to support your political views?

Is there anything that would get you to accept the version of reality that is accepted by the scientific establishment and most educated people?

Really? Then we'll take it slow. Objects fall at 32 feet per second. Correct?

No. That is incorrect. You are confusing speed with acceleration.

So, after the first second of descent, an object is not traveling at 32 feet per second?