9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

No, the question is, if you have discarded the Bazant/NIST crush-down, crush-up hypothesis, what/whose model are you using, and does it have any relevance to the officially accepted theory?
 
ergo said:
No, the question is, if you have discarded the Bazant/NIST crush-down, crush-up hypothesis, what/whose model are you using, and does it have any relevance to the officially accepted theory?
Click to expand...

Chandlers hypothesis wasn't even accepted offically. So WTF are you trying to prove other than that there's another idiot in this forum, and it's not us debunkers?
 
ozeco41 said:
...
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.
Click to expand...

Suspending my incredulity at the moment...

ozeco41 said:
The top block was falling. Got it?? - If not think again - its not rocket science.)
Click to expand...

What was it "falling" through?

ozeco41 said:
So what is being "crushed" in the crap language of "crush up" OR "crush down"?
Click to expand...

My question exactly. What, then, is happening?

ozeco41 said:
The floors of the outer office space were hit with a falling and overwhelming weight
Click to expand...

A "weight". What kind of matter is this weight composed of? I hope you're not going to say rubble...lol...

ozeco41 said:
....
Click to expand...

ozeco41 said:
Final Hint. Neither the "top block" NOR the lower towers were crushed in any meaningful sense of the word "crushed".
Click to expand...

So what happened to them?
 
ergo said:
Suspending my incredulity at the moment...



What was it "falling" through?



My question exactly. What, then, is happening?



A "weight". What kind of matter is this weight composed of? I hope you're not going to say rubble...lol...





So what happened to them?
Click to expand...

In other words: "They fell down & went BOOM!" But not in an "explosive" sense of the word.
 
angrysoba said:
I think that FEMA-NISTers would be more witty.

I know that may be a stretch for some Truthers but have they ever used that term?
Click to expand...

You don't think FEMA snd NIST are witty Angrysoba ? What about this side-splitter from NIST ?

Reporter Jennifer Abel:"..what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?"

Michael Neuman [spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]: "Right, because there was no evidence of that."

Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?

Neuman: "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time... and the taxpayers' money."

Incidentally does David Aaronovitch still get down and dirty on the forums these days ?
 
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.

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
Click to expand...

I see that David Chandler and I are now pretty much on the same page about the top part of WTC1 being merely an assembly of 12 single floors and the the bottom part being a more strongly built assembly of 98 single floors. In other words they destroy each other a floor at a time leaving the top 12 floors gone while 86 floors of the lower assembly still remain in a worst-case scenario.
What would really happen as we should all know intuitively is that the top assembly would fall on the lower assembly causing some local damage to both assemblies and then the collapse would almost immediately arrest leaving the top part again sitting on the lower part that had already carried it for 40 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8&feature=player_embedded
 
bill smith said:
I see that David Chandler and I are now pretty much on the same page about the top part of WTC1 being merely an assembly of 12 single floors and the the bottom part being a more strongly built assembly of 98 single floors. In other words they destroy each other a floor at a time leaving the top 12 floors gone while 86 floors of the lower assembly still remain in a worst-case scenario.
What would really happen as we should all know intuitively is that the top assembly would fall on the lower assembly causing some local damage to both assemblies and then the collapse would almost immediately arrest leaving the top part again sitting on the lower part that had already carried it for 40 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8&feature=player_embedded
Click to expand...

Thanks, Bill, for yet another sterling example of Chandler making his 100-times-too-small error!

Interesting that Chandler says the floors above and below the impacts were "consumed". Who was up there, eating all that steel and concrete, making it VANISH?

FYI, being damaged, broken or crumbled is not the same as being "consumed".

In the former, your structural integrity may be weakened, but not your total mass.
 
angrysoba said:
I think that FEMA-NISTers would be more witty.
Click to expand...

That's actually pretty funny. I think I have seen it before. I wouldn't use the term though, since the FEMA hypothesis is no longer in the running.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Thanks, Bill, for yet another sterling example of Chandler making his 100-times-too-small error!

Interesting that Chandler says the floors above and below the impacts were "consumed". Who was up there, eating all that steel and concrete, making it VANISH?

FYI, being damaged, broken or crumbled is not the same as being "consumed".

In the former, your structural integrity may be weakened, but not your total mass.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind the type of structure we are dealing with. An assembly of 12 spaced single floors above and a more strongly built assembly of 98 spaced single floors below. These assemblies are natural pre-made shock absorbers. Both assemblies wil suffer local damage as they mesh together with each absorbing the other's energy and almost immediately reaching a new equlibrium.

This will mean that whatever is left of the falling assembly that amounts to one-tenth of the building will end up sitting on top of the assembly amounting to nine-tenths of the building. Just as it had always been for the previous 40 years.
 
Last edited:
Hey Dave I have what I consider to be a very good question for Niels Harrit. I will post it right before the show. It is in everybody's interest to test all the 9/11 individuals rigorously.
 
bill smith said:
Hey Dave I have what I consider to be a very good question for Niels Harrit. I will post it right before the show. It is in everybody's interest to test all the 9/11 individuals rigorously.
Click to expand...

I heard from the Coast-to-Coast people that it will be just Gage and me for the 1st two hours (11 PM MDT - 1AM MDT), then we'll be joined by Harrit and Johnson.

Of course, you could just call in at the half-way point and ask Harrit yourself.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom