So the Wonder Cures you have came out with to Easy Cure people with/from Coronovirus are for a disease that's a Lie?

Licorice extract, quinine water, MMS2, drinking bleach, colloidal silver, vitamin C, hydrogen peroxide...

It'd be a full time job just keeping up with the Badecker Cures.

Perhaps you should go back and re read what I've said.

162 joules is the RESULTANT FORCE imparted to the beam. That's the energy per kilogram that the object that traveled 500 feet actually had. About the energy of an average automobile at 30-40 miles per hour (per KG of course).

2-3 ounces of TNT is the amount that is equal to 162*2000 kg. I have no interest in ridiculous speculation of actual explosives with EXPLOSIVE FORCE being required to move MASSIVE BEAMS blah blah blah. But as I already mentioned, you tell us what TNT charge was used, and why it was required to move that MASSIVE BEAM. By all means. Just show your work at the 8th grade physics level please.

It's relatively easy to figure that out by the way.

As far as my comment 'Also you can clearly see you said "a section of steel beam is it's own ramp"'

You comment "which is just physically impossible."

Which simply means you cannot clearly see it, not that it's physical impossible. Plus, somehow here you appear to be arguing that a bunch of objects moving in one direction at varying speeds cannot interact and affect each other's direction vector. That's ridiculous. Avalanches, car wrecks, of course objects interact and impart energy and change direction of each other.

I've shown that the energy required for that sideways movement is truly very tiny, that it is a small (about 5%) fraction of total energy, that it is on a Per KG basis, that it does not matter if something is "tiny" or "MASSIVE", that no "EXPLOSIVE FORCE" from "EXPLOSIVES" is required, that there is nothing amazing or incredible about objects dropping from 300 meters winding up 500 feet away, on and on.

 Deal with it and don't be ridiculous.

Interesting subject. I was tempted to include the coriolis effect, but that would have violated Rule 1.

"Defeat conspiracy arguments about 911 with only 8th grade physics and chemistry."


At about 18 meters/second, or 43 miles per hour.

REGARDLESS of the mass of the object or its sideways velocity, it will be moving at 77 meters per second downward when it strikes the ground.


As far as conversion of a fraction of kinetic energy from straight vertical to horizontal it makes no difference whether an object hits a flat edge at a slant, or hits a slanted surface perpendicular or parallel to the Earth surface. Or two objects collide in flight. All you need is the end effect of some 5% conversion to horizontal.

It does NOT MATTER how many objects there were or how much they weighed. Each KG of mass has TE = (KE + PE), and requires 162 joules energy to achieve horizontal flight sufficient to reach 500 feet.

This is a simple ballistics trajectory problem. If the beam had MORE ENERGY than 162 joules launched from 300 meters height it would travel farther than 500 feet, and if it had less it would not go as far. Of course this changes with height, right? For example if you claimed the object was tossed through the air from 30 meters height, the numbers would be considerably different.

And no, I didn't assume "explosive force was 100% efficient" because there was no need for "explosive force."

If you want to assert that each kg had > 162 joules sideways force then you are going to have to explain why they did not travel FARTHER.

So let's hear it.

There is an attribute called "Intellectual dishonesty." This is for exmple when one asserts A and it is clearly shown beyond a doubt that not A but B is true. Later, the same person is asserting A.

In such a case, there are various reasons. Financial, political, religious, cultish, a need for attention, etc.

All Hail Lysencho! The great Trofin Lysencho!

Right, and where all these arguments lead for them is the US Government did 911, not Al Queda, or Al Queda worked for the US, blah-blaH-BLAh. They'll eventually get around to that, but they never start off with those claims.

But only a few percent of total energy (KE+PE) per unit of mass is required to do 500 feet laterally.

I've ignored wind, due to this particular object's density and mass.

Of course in the real world, the object would have various motions in all six degrees of freedom. But all these can I think be ignored, because the assertion is that it's a tremendous feat to launch a multi ton beam five hundred feet.

I have shown that for the length of time for an object to fall 300 meters (7.8 seconds), this only requires 18 meters per second sideways travel to get the beam sideways 500 feet.

That's 162 joules per kg, 364Kj total, which is simply not a huge amount of energy. It's roughly the kinetic energy in a car at 30-40 miles per hour.  This is eight grade stuff, guys.

Franky, after these guys lose on one point, they'll just slither to the next point on their conspiracy list. Notice that Badecker tried to slide this discussion into towers 1 and towers 2 after getting nowhere on Bldg 7?

I bet those Chinese disinformation and propaganda agents are really laughing at how quickly these guys believe anything they put on the internet.

Duh, has it occurred to you that a section of steel beam is it's own ramp? Obviously not.  So, 2000 kg * 162 joules = 364,000 joules required to move this beam 500 feet.

So, let me see if I understand this correctly. You've got a beam with PE = > 6 Mj and you are claiming that "High Energy Explosives" is required to supply the tiny amount of energy of 364 Kj?

If that were the case, the amount of TNT would be 2-3 ounces. I'm seriously not impressed with the utter necessity you project of explosives being "REQUIRED" here.

The numbers just don't show it. If I have missed something, please show the corrections.

2980 joules/kg for EVERY kg that fell, and only 162 joules required imparted in sideways force.

Those are THE numbers, really nothing is going to change them.

For exmple, I kg of TNT (4.6 megajoule) would impart  2300 joules of energy on every kg of that two ton beam. But the inherent potential energy of that beam IS HIGHER (5.96 megajoule). And the energy for the sideways movement is only a few percent of either number.

So now, where do you think "explosive force" comes from?

Classical physics vs others, so what? The nature of the force of gravity is not relevant here, right? (Actually I always thought it more accurate to think in terms of gravity causing the space between objects to shrink)

Here is a useful on line calculator.

https://www.angio.net/personal/climb/speed.html

Taking a quick look, a 1 kg mass takes 7.82 seconds to fall 300 meters and when it goes splat, has kinetic energy of 2940 joules. "Multi ton" is not relevant, each unit of mass has its own potential energy which may become one of several forms of kinetic energy.

To move sideways "500 feet" in 7.82 seconds starting with an energy impulse only requires a velocity of 18 meters per second. That is about 162 joules/kg. So out of 2940 joules/kg, 162 must be converted to horizontal force for all this to happen. This is for 1 kg, for larger mass the problem scales proportionally. It does not matter how heavy the object is.

There's no need here for "explosive force" and the "very heavy multi ton beam" is not correct thinking, the initial energies of position (potential energies) are quite large, and the speed required to move the object 500 feet is quite low.

Conversely, if explosive force is required, I am sure you can show it to be required, right?

Regarding "Techy, you are an internet troll, not a physicist." the entire point here is to show that these arguments are wrong using 8th grade physics. That's how really, really stupid the arguments are.

How does a bullet ricochet? Redirection of previously existing force.

Behavior of an object under gravity on a ramp is textbook beginning physics.

As in there is no way to get such a massive object moving such lateral distances in such a short period of time without the use of explosives.

Clearly you believe that. But this is a physics problem, so can you just show the work, the equations that prove that? No YouTube links please, just the 8th grade physics equations.

Gravity pulls downward, not sideways. Are you suggesting gravity pulled multi-ton girders 500 feet laterally?

Gravity pulls kids down slides.

Well, you might consider volunteering part time for one of the groups that counsels people  with problems, such as this. You have been there, you know what it is. Why not help others with this.

Look forward. Not backwards.

I think the guy was referring to US numbers, but still, even if he was a well intented critic, a criticism with numbers from almost three weeks ago can be tossed.

"velocities that require" what?

Explosive force?

That's good for a laugh. There's really no meaning to the term, is there? There's just watts, joules, ways of measuring or calculating energy.

Gravity is 32 ft/sec^2.

That adds up pretty fast.

How does a bullet ricochet?

I stopped reading when one of them mentioned "there have only been 40-50 deaths" then checked the date of the article, it was mid March.

We're at what, > 8000 dead and heading toward a half a million cases?

You tried arguing this same item with me two years ago, I explained and provided the formulas and derivations. it was simple, textbook 8th grade physics. You didn't do too well. Remember that?

Electron microscope.

0.12 um = 120 nm

But acetone travels around as a gas while the cover is quite likely to be associated with water micro drops and such, so the true gap in side even bigger.