9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

newton3376 said:
There will likely be talk of "free fall" speed......"into it's own footprint" etc....

Does anyone know if this debate will be focused on science issues (like Jones et al analysis of the red/grey chips) or will it be a broad overview of topics (like eyewitnesses hearing explosives, lack of videos of the pentagon crash etc)?

You just never know what wild and wacky theories those truthers will bring up......
Click to expand...
Are you kidding (bold)? We're talking about "truthers".
 
maybe see if danny jowenko would do a phone in? i know...lost cause but i figured i would throw it out there.
 
Yeah, I don't see the upper block there. Could you point it out?
 
ergo said:
Maybe I can help you out with that.

The upper block (piledriver) doesn't actually survive crush down.

It crushes up first, as it impacts the intact building. The intact building begins to fall after the upper block has half crushed itself. The upper block's descent is not driving the collapse. It is a consequence of the collapse, as David Chandler and Gordon Ross point out.
Click to expand...

Poor David Chandler, the Truth Movement's gonna be a little disappointed in him when I prove he underestimates the force of the impacting floors by a factor of 100.

If the real impact force was represented by a 100-story building, Chandler's underestimate would be represented by a small grass hut.

Tune in Saturday, should be interesting.

Dave
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Poor David Chandler, the Truth Movement's gonna be a little disappointed in him when I prove he underestimates the force of the impacting floors by a factor of 100.
Click to expand...

Indeed, that should be interesting. Kinda doesn't change the fact that there is no upper block, though...
 
ergo said:
Maybe I can help you out with that.

The upper block (piledriver) doesn't actually survive crush down.

It crushes up first, as it impacts the intact building. The intact building begins to fall after the upper block has half crushed itself. The upper block's descent is not driving the collapse. It is a consequence of the collapse, as David Chandler and Gordon Ross point out.
Click to expand...

Oi. Ross. Remedial reading:
Chandler.
You need to read previous threads. Their errors and misrepresentations have already been discussed.
 
I've found that some NISTers don't understand Newton's Third Law, and therefore can't understand Chandler's and Ross's arguments.

I should point out, however, that no amount of mathematical contortions can bring into physical existence the upper block of storeys needed for crush-down. Do you agree? Or do you believe that math can materialize things?
 
Ross doesn't understand math.
Dave Rogers said:
Haven't you read Newtons Bit's analysis of Ross? It's more than a minor nitpick, Ross's entire analysis rests on a fundamental error which is not just serious but utterly absurd.

I came up with a good analogy for Ross's error, in fact. Suppose I go out shopping with a hundred dollars, buy a forty-dollar pair of shoes, buy some lunch, and come back with thirty-three dollars. Analysing this according to Ross's approach, I must have stolen the shoes. Why?

Starting cash: $100
Amount spent shopping: $67
Amount left: $33
Therefore there was not enough money left over after shopping to buy a $40 pair of shoes.

Check Ross's energy tables. The analogy is exact.

Dave
Click to expand...

Chandler has made other mistakes, well documented. Until you read previous threads, there's nothing to discuss. You are literally 3 years behind everyone else on these topics. Read links. Stop posting until you're up to speed.
 
I will agree to read your threads. Will you agree to show me where the visual evidence supports the existence of the upper blocks through the collapse progression? 'Cuz if there isn't an upper block, the math is merely hypothetical, isn't it? And wrong.
 
ergo said:
I've found that some NISTers don't understand Newton's Third Law, and therefore can't understand Chandler's and Ross's arguments.

I should point out, however, that no amount of mathematical contortions can bring into physical existence the upper block of storeys needed for crush-down. Do you agree? Or do you believe that math can materialize things?
Click to expand...

The whole language of crush up/crush down is a red herring which fools both sides of the argument and confuses the "lurkers".

Once the top block started falling for both towers the top block fell apart at some stage which matters little when. The material of the top block whether still an integral block OR partly dismembered OR totally in pieces fell inside the outer tube of columns.
(Note point #1 It did not land on top of those columns and crush them - they were peeled off to fall over and land in various sized sheets splayed out from the original line of the four walls of the tower. - many videos to prove that point)
So the top block is falling on the floors of the lower tower in sequence AND on the core.
(Note point #2 the top block columns did not and could not have been in alignment or remained in alignment with the corresponding lower parts of the same columns. Childishly simple logic. The top block was falling. Got it?? - If not think again - its not rocket science.)

So what is being "crushed" in the crap language of "crush up" OR "crush down"?

The floors of the outer office space were hit with a falling and overwhelming weight with at least 20 times the static overload needed to cause immediate failure - and that without allowing for the impact effects. And both sides of the debate get that bit wrong. Those on the "no demolition" side who get the reasoning wrong only get the answer right because there was a massive oversupply of available energy.

When the word "crush" appears ask two questions:
(1) What is getting crushed. (clue: Talking about the Top Block OR the lower towers as if they were integral structures is off the rails.)
(2) So what? (Or what is the consequence of that bit getting crushed?)

Final Hint. Neither the "top block" NOR the lower towers were crushed in any meaningful sense of the word "crushed".

Chandler has no argument all same as Szamboti who looks for a fantasy jolt because he does not work with the actual mechanism of collapse. He has no idea how the top block and the lower tower interacted.
 
No, you read the links period. I'm not going to provide evidence for some strawman model because the actual collapse model isn't one of any upper "block" failing any lower one. It's one where rubble fails floors, not blocks, and removes columns ability to stand. There's no discrete upper block, and the only models that ever used them were Bazant's enveloping one (which was simply an energy argument), Heiwa's dip**** analysis, and all you truthers misinterpretations that flowed from that. I can't give evidence for your fantasy of what happened, I can only give it for what really occurred.

Until you realize that the significant issue is the strength of the floors connections to the columns, there's nothing to discuss. You're not even talking the collapse, you're talking some other story. So read the damn links and catch up to where everyone else is. Until you do that, there's no reason to interact further with you.
 
@ ozeco: So you don't agree with the Bazant/NIST hypothesis? That's fine. But you should be aware that that is the official theory.
 
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus said:
I'm not going to provide evidence for some strawman model because the actual collapse model isn't one of any upper "block" failing any lower one.
Click to expand...

Bazant's math is entirely dependent on this model. Have you folks discarded Bazant? That is perfectly fine with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom