Lateral ejection of debris trash

 
MG1962 said:
I tried to get him to drop a coconut on his foot.......... he didn't buy that either :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
yeah, i think thats a CT tactic, play dumb (like stundie in my thread now) and force us to give simpler and simpler explanations, then finally criticise an overly simplistic analogy for its simplicity
 
Valid conclusions

rwguinn said:
Please re-read my comment:
" If an assumption is valid for an engineer, it is valid for a CT'er."
You cannot have different rules for "them" and "us"
Applying a double standard makes it Ad Hom.
Click to expand...

Whether or not it's ad hominem, it's important that the rebuttals be rigorous. Not all debunking uses correct thinking. It's one of the plus points of JREF that if someone makes an invalid point, he is gently corrected, regardless of his conclusions.
 
28th Kingdom said:
A guess is a guess is a guess is a guess. It doesn't matter who is making the guess... it is still a guess.
Click to expand...

If discussing physics, I'd rather have Mr. Hawkings' guess than one of a hobo down the street. So your statement is false.

Trusses sagging is a guess. It cannot be proven with a scientific equation. Columns bowing is an assumption, it cannot be proven with a scientific equation.
Click to expand...

Except we can see those on the footage.

It's yer ego (elitist attitude)
Click to expand...

Elitist ?

Ah. I had forgotten about your stance on this. Experts CANNOT be trusted specifically BECAUSE they are experts.

None of the theories in it, can be proven with science.
Click to expand...

It depends what you think science is.

You have eight sides to account for...
Click to expand...

Oh, so not only must we provide proof that they WERE bowing, but we must show each and every one of them doing so ?

No, you are 100% wrong. Photographic evidence isn't scientific evidence.
Click to expand...

Again, what IS science to you ?

And, since there are two towers with different degrees of damage and different size upper masses, and only one of the upper masses tilted... but both towers collapsed in the exact same fashion... now, the ball is back in your court.
Click to expand...

One of the most interesting non sequiturs I've seen this month.
 
Forgive me for stealing a page from Christophera's book, but I actually do remember watching a documentary once, not on the WTC but on the efforts to save the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

As part of the efforts to save the Tower, steel bands were tightly wrapped around the lower floors in order to prevent the masonry bricks from literally exploding under the immense pressure that had been placed upon them by the unequal load distribution.

When I first saw twoofers making hay over the lateral ejection of debris from the WTC, the mental image of those exploding Pisa bricks was the first thing that came to mind. The sections of the WTC tower above thier respective collapse zones each weighed several times what the Pisa tower does.

Before any twoofer wants to make arguments about lateral ejection, they should first explain to us why there shouldn't be any.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Forgive me for stealing a page from Christophera's book, but I actually do remember watching a documentary once, not on the WTC but on the efforts to save the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

As part of the efforts to save the Tower, steel bands were tightly wrapped around the lower floors in order to prevent the masonry bricks from literally exploding under the immense pressure that had been placed upon them by the unequal load distribution.

When I first saw twoofers making hay over the lateral ejection of debris from the WTC, the mental image of those exploding Pisa bricks was the first thing that came to mind. The sections of the WTC tower above thier respective collapse zones each weighed several times what the Pisa tower does.

Before any twoofer wants to make arguments about lateral ejection, they should first explain to us why there shouldn't be any.
Click to expand...


Exactly, and that is what my previously posted concrete pressure tests shows. A strictly controlled vertical force can, and will, result in horizontal dispersal of debris from a concrete column. Add to that forces that were striking from any angle other than 90 degrees from horizontal and you have ample explanation for why there were ballistic arcs visible in the debris.
 
MG1962 said:
Here is a very telling piece of footage that sheds some light on the lateral ejection of material

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfe0Hbgq1HY&mode=related&search=
Click to expand...


At the very end of that video when you watch the north tower collapse. You can see an intact mass of exterior column trees literally peel away from the west wall and fall into WFC4 and the Winter Garden Atrium. Exactly the telescopic peel that I described at the SLC forum. "CD Explosive Ejection" myth debunked!
 
NobbyNobbs said:
His alternate theory has a few gaps itself. He says that gravity is not enough and that explosive charges are needed to explain the horizontal velocity of the girders.

What his theory does not explain is a) why no other controlled demolition has thrown girders sideways, and b) why a person in charge of such a demolition would go out of his way to place charges in such a way that anyone with a smattering of physics (and no more than a smattering, apparently) could bust the whole consipracy wide open with a few applications of Newton's laws of motion.
Click to expand...



Wait.

I thought that the initial big reason everyone was crying "Controlled Demo" was that the buildings "fell in their own footprint."

So now the reason people think it was a controlled demo is that the buildings *didn't* fall in their own footprint???


Is there -- for truthers -- *any* set of facts that would not show this to be a controlled demo?
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Concrete compression tests. Notice lateral ejection of debris:
http://www.bam.de/en/kompetenzen/fachabteilungen/abteilung_7/fg71/
http://campus.umr.edu/utc/research/r011/cr/r11v1/index_files/image073.gif (http://campus.umr.edu/utc/research/r011/cr/r11v1/index.htm)
http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/news/enews/issue27/3-concrete-compression.jpg (http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/news/enews/issue27/index.html)
http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationReso...rials/Graphics/Mechanical/CompressionTest.jpg (http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/Materials/Mechanical/Compression.htm)
Click to expand...

That was what first came to mind when I started reading this thread. I remember doing compression tests on high strength concrete in school. After getting to about 40,000 lbs of compressive force (10,000 psi), all of a sudden BOOM, the concrete would shatter and fling stuff all over the room. We had a steel cage around the concrete and stuff would still fling through the holes.

For anyone who's interested, concrete actually fails in tension, even when a compressive force is applied. Concrete cylinders fail at about a 60 degree angle, representing the line of maximum shear.
 
28th Kingdom said:
A guess is a guess is a guess is a guess. It doesn't matter who is making the guess... it is still a guess.
Click to expand...
Talk to weather forecasters.
Your appeal to authority tells you that a guess from an, "expert," has more value than a guess from a layman.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's not a fallacy to say that an expert's opinion is more valid than a lay-person's opinion on matters that the expert is educated in.
If an assertion is supported by nothing more than an assumption, than it must be viewed as equal, regardless of who is making it.
Click to expand...
This would be true if the assumption were not based on experience, education and rationality. However, experts are paid so well because they have all three.
Trusses sagging is a guess.
Click to expand...
According to whom?
It cannot be proven with a scientific equation.
Click to expand...
Would you like me to list the relevant equations for the deflection of a truss? Or are you ready to retract this as a silly statement?
by telling you that all opinions are not created equal.
Click to expand...
All opinions are created equal? I think a philosopher just committed suicide somewhere.
 
rwguinn said:
What they ignore is that there are lateral forces acting on beams/bars/chunks . Buckling loads cause lateral forces internal to the beam elements--or columns if you insist (they are mostly vertical, but buckling also occurred in horizontal elements)
F=MA, and F and A are VECTORS!. So, believe it or don't--I could not care less--a horizontal force due to buckling loads gives a horizontal velocity.
And one will have to get into those nasty "load path" and "load sharing" things that CT'ers refuse to believe in.
Click to expand...

Much to my dismay a friend of mine is a 911 CTer. He even questioned why some debris was moving horizontally. Since one of my areas of research involves buckling I then unloaded on him all the detail I could about this phenomenon. No response. He had the temerity to say this trash despite my pointing out my engineering education and his philosophy education. He still thinks the horizontal ejections are a valid question!! Very frustrating.

Lurker
 
Lurker said:
Much to my dismay a friend of mine is a 911 CTer. He even questioned why some debris was moving horizontally. Since one of my areas of research involves buckling I then unloaded on him all the detail I could about this phenomenon. No response. He had the temerity to say this trash despite my pointing out my engineering education and his philosophy education. He still thinks the horizontal ejections are a valid question!! Very frustrating.

Lurker
Click to expand...

Yup-- it is true! Forces can turn corners. At least, to the layman, who can only think in terms of orthogonal coordinates aligned to his worldview, this would seem impossible. The novice must learn that the world does not always align itself to his view, and a coordinate transformation and attitude readjustment is required. Then ye may see the truth**

Vector analysis --nay, even the concept of vectors--is difficult for many to grasp.
The concept that 1 step North +1 Step East +1 Step South means you have moved only 1 step East is, by "common sense", Bull Feathers.
It is, unfortunately for "common Sense", true.


**often, The Truth becomes more obvious after an attitude readjustment seminar at the local watering hole.
 
rwguinn said:
Vector analysis --nay, even the concept of vectors--is difficult for many to grasp.
The concept that 1 step North +1 Step East +1 Step South means you have moved only 1 step East is, by "common sense", Bull Feathers.
It is, unfortunately for "common Sense", true.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. Science isn't always accessible to every person. There are concepts that are difficult to understand and require extensive training and study.

Now where have I heard that one before...
 
Watched the video. He says, "Air squeezed from between the collapsing floors might puff out the dust, but surely not huge steel beams?"

Right there he simply applies the Argument from Incredulity and his credibility goes out the window. Having written that into his script, I'm amazed he went ahead with actually making his video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom