-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [911InsideJobbers] Re: new fetzer/wood response to jones on pianos etc Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 20:10:12 -0000 From: Lynn Ertell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A primer on the standards of classical scientific method; as contrasted with the methods of its principle antagonists. This is what real education looks and feels like. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Total Information" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On grand pianos and terminal velocities > by James H. Fetzer with Judy Wood and Anonymous Scholar > 22 November 2006 > http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/GrandPiano.html > > Steve reports here that a "poll" taken on the Scholar's forum showed 60% > favored a web site run by a 5-person committee, 32% favored voting on what > appears by all members, and 8% favored the current arrangement, where I > manage the site with advice from the steering committee. This result might > be a bit more impressive if he had observed that only 25 out of some 400 > members of the society cast votes, each weighing in at 4%. > > Posting by a committee is guaranteed to produce mediocre and uninteresting > posts. Only the most widely accepted views are going to be represented. > Votes by the whole society would be absurd. It would take forever to secure > a quorum, for example, and most of those that eventually appear would be out > of date by the time they were put up on the web site. Based upon my > experience, the ideas under consideration have little merit. > > Steve does not mention that I advanced a proposal to resolve tensions within > the society just yesterday, which, I suggest, are more deserving of being > taken seriously. They are these: > > . . . . . . . > > All, > > Here are my proposals, which I invite all of you to consider: > > (1) Steve and Kevin will strengthen the editorial board of the society's > journal by adding up to a dozen highly-qualified hard science types, > possibly drawn from the membership of SPINE; > > (2) The editors will be more even-handed in processing papers that represent > non-standard points of view, where there is some evidence of partiality to > positions preferred by the editors; > > (3) The web site will be overhauled to clearly demarcated be- tween proof > that the official account is wrong and attempts to explain how it was done, > which is overwhelmingly more difficult; > > (4) The founder will make an effort to emphasize problems with the official > account and be very careful in his discussions of the state of research to > not create false impressions thereof. > > (5) All parties will cease and desist from attacks upon each other, where > objective discussion of the merits of different theories about the case > should be done in a respectful manner. > > We need resources to overhaul the web site, which may require some time and > effort. Suggestions are welcome. Perhaps we can recruit professionals who > will assist us in doing this. I will be glad to undertake the supervision of > the project with advice from a new set of co-chairs or the steering > committee. Perhaps this list would be willing to serve as that committee. > > Jim > > P.S. Steve and I have been invited to appear together at The > National Press Club on Wednesday, 10 January 2007. I > suggest we both accept the invitation and do our thing. > > . . . . . . . > > I have accepted the invitation to speak at The National Press Club, and I > hope that Steve will as well. We could focus on what happened to the World > Trade Center and discuss some of our differences in point of view. For > example, after studying Judy's work, I am convinced that the problem we > confront in explaining what happened is vastly greater than just what > happened to WTC-1 and WCT-2, even if we toss in WTC-7! That still leaves out > WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6! Take a look at Judy's photographs and > diagrams. It will blow you away! > > Moreover, thermate increasingly appears to be an inadequate cause of the > devastation of the complete World Trade Center. EVEN IF IT WERE GOOD AS GOLD > REGARDING WTC-1 AND WTC-2, we would still be left with a monumental task in > explaining the devastation to WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6, which, to the > best of my knowledge, Steven Jones has never addressed. His evidence of the > use of thermate also seems to be undermined by the discovery that thermate > appears to have been used to bring down what little remained after the > towers went "poof"! But if that is the case, then its presence is > explainable on grounds other than its use to destroy the Twin Towers and it > too, as a framework for explaining the evidence, goes "poof"! > > Now it is certainly true that I used the figure of 30 seconds to > characterize the time of free fall for a piano from atop a 110 story > building. Steve has made a great to-do over this, posting his own > calculations that the correct time for such an event should have been 11 > seconds! (I was actually citing HIS OWN NUMBER in this response!) Judy Wood, > however, has discovered that Steve made a mistake in his calculations and > the correct time, given his assumptions, should have been 12.54 seconds. > That is fascinating, because Judy had told me a long time ago that her best > guess ABSENT CALCULATIONS would be between 12 and 13 seconds, which is > exactly right on the basis of Steve's assumptions! > > Moreover, Steve biased his argument by using a "baby grand" of abnormal > weight rather than a Steinway. This is rather troubling. We usually argue on > the basis of premises that are fair to both sides. Even when he "loaded the > piano", however, HE STILL GOT IT WRONG! Indeed, given the variables that are > involved, if we consider a 500 pound piano with its lid flapping open, it > could have taken as long as 30 seconds! So even though I used a figure a > friend of Judy had offered, as she had told me at the time, it is correct to > say that a piano in free fall could take as long as 30 seconds to make the > fall from the top of a 110 story building to the ground! > > The benefits of mathematics in argument are thereby again displayed. This > demonstrates that even experts in a field such as physics can get things > wrong. Steve has put a lot of eggs in this basket, which turns out to have > been built on a blunder. (I offer Judy Wood's calculations below and > Anonymous Scholar's display of the argument. They do good work.) Why Steve > should be persisting in all of this after I have offered a proposal for > resolution is a question that ought to be directed to him at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] I understand that a new web page design is being > proposed by an expert in that field, which I look forward to reviewing. > Perhaps all of this will have a happy ending, after all! > > Jim > > ___________________________________________________________ > > JUDY WOOD'S CALCULATIONS: > > Jim, > > I went through the piano calculations, inside and out. I think I figured out > how that bogus number was calculated, but it's easier to show that his > values are physically impossible. > > Conclusion: > Steven Jones has committed a blunder, "big time"! > > * If he checked these calculations, he's responsible for them! > (I never said I checked the ones my friend gave me.) > > I will use these numbers instead of the ones posted on 911blogger. > > These values are less embarrassing to Jones. > http://www.Scholarsfor911Truth.org/JonesResponse.html<http:// www.scholarsfor911truth.org/JonesResponse.html> > > __________________________________ > > STEVE JONES' POST: > > 1. You start out with the grand piano falling in over 30 seconds, from the > height of a Tower. This is wrong. I teach the physics of air drag forces and > concomitant terminal velocity -- and the terminal velocity depends very much > on the mass (or weight/g) of the object. > > Ask Judy to provide her calculation in writing, showing the area she has > assumed and the mass, the density of air and the terminal velocity she > calculates. Then let me or an independent physicist if you wish check this > for you. > > Consider a small parachute the size/area of a grand piano, with a man on it. > He would fall quite fast. Now replace his mass with that of a grand piano > (but in a ball of say lead). Surely you have enough horse-sense to see that > the latter case will fall MUCH faster. And that's what the equations say > also. A parachute the size of a grand piano acting on a large mass just > doesn't slow it much. But let her show her calculations!! > Added: As Alfons showed on the Forum, the terminal velocity can be > calculated with the help of a NASA web-site: > http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/termvr.html . Alfons used a > Yamaha grand piano, o Length: 161cm (5'3") o Width: 149cm - o Height: 101cm > o Weight: 628 pounds (m = 285kg) The drag coefficient depends on the > attitude of the piano to the velocity vector as it falls; we take a > maximum-drag orientation and therefore take a large drag coeff; > > Mass = 285 kg > Cross Section = 2.3989 sq. meters > Drag Coefficient = 1.28 (Flat Object CD = 1.28 > exploration.grc.nasa.gov/...aped.html) > Altitude = 417 meters = 1368 ft > Terminal Velocity = 40 m per second > Then the total fall time is 11 seconds (+or-). Which is just about the time > the Towers took to collapse! Your example in your Tucson talk backfires on > you... gives ammo to those who would debunk everything you say. > > Jim, ask Judy to give you the equations, her calculations -- with numbers. > And lets check her work. > ____________________________________ > > JUDY'S COMMENTARY; > > 1. Jones said the values were for a Yamaha grand piano. This is dishonest. > They are not. The values he presented are for a heavy baby grand piano, not > a grand piano (see listing of Yamaha baby grand, item #6 on list: > http://rickjonespianos.com/grands.htm). > > 2. I entered the measurements and data he gave -- using the internet gizmo > to calculate it. The time it gave was 12.54 seconds, not 11 seconds. (His > version on 911blogger shows 10.5 seconds.) > > 3. Here is a simple proof to clearly illustrate he is wrong. > > [NOTE: I'M NOT MODELING IT THIS WAY; I'M ONLY PROVING THAT JONES' ANSWER IS > IMPOSSIBLE.] > > Jones gives Terminal Velocity = 40 m per second > > Lets say you drop a billiard ball in a vacuum, no air resistance, so that it > can rush up to speed as fast as possible. Then, when it reaches the speed of > terminal velocity, it remains that speed from thereafter. > > The time it takes to get up to terminal speed: > v = g*t, solving for t, t = 4.0775 sec. > > In that time, how much distance was covered, getting up to speed? > Use x = (g/2)*t*t, solving for x, x = 81.549 m > > What distance remains of the entire building height, which will be at > constant speed of terminal velocity? > Building height - distance getting up to speed = 417 - 81.549 = 335.45 m. > > How long does it take to cover that distance at a constant speed? > > Use x = vt, solving for t, t = 8.3862 > > What is the total time? > > 4.0775 + 8.3862 = 12.46374 seconds. > > 12.46374 seconds > 11 seconds (+or-) > > Or, is Jones going to play games, saying the (+or-) covers any error he has? > > Note: The time I calculated is conservative, in that I assumed a fall > through vacuum for the first part. In reality it would take the object > longer to get to terminal velocity due to air resistance. But hey, even then > he's real wrong! It's impossible for an object dropped from the height of > WTC1 to reach the ground in 11 seconds if it has a terminal velocity of 40 > m/s. > > ______________________________________ > > MORE JONES' STATEMENTS AND COMMENTS: > > SJ: "I teach the physics of air drag forces and concomitant terminal > velocity..." > > JW: One might remark, It's no wonder they took him out of the classroom! > > SJ: "It really concerns me that you are being so easily led by the nose my > friend by these ideas of Judy's or whoever. Ask for numbers, calculations. > Insist on these so you can do some checking before you go telling people > that a grand piano takes 21 seconds over the time of the tower's fall. What > a bunch of obvious garbage, Jim. You're going to be laughed at by anyone who > knows how to calculate terminal velocity, which is mass-dependent!" > > JW: I believe Jones said he checked these numbers and he had two of his > forum friends (Frank Legge and Alfohs) check them, too. > > This makes them all look silly. I never said I had checked those numbers. I > was only relaying what someone else said. By the way, it is possible to have > a grand piano take 30 seconds to drop. You may need to lower the weight to > 500 pounds and flop the lid open to increase drag. So it's physically > possible! > > Judy > > __________________________________________________________________ > > ANONYMOUS SCHOLAR'S DISPLAY -- > http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/grand_piano.pdf > > > -- > www.total411.info > www.total911.info > Yahoo! Groups Links
