9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

[DaveThomasNMSR]

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.

"Equilibrium".

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[bill smith]

"Equilibrium".

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Equilibrium,n........def....[A stable situation in which forces cancel one another]]

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Equilibrium,n........def....[A stable situation in which forces cancel one another]]

It's not that the 12 stories on the upper section "cancel out" the 1st 12 floors of the lower section, which would be

12 - 12 = 0
​

Instead, it's that the mass of the upper section is combined with the mass of the lower section as each floor is stripped off:

12 + 12 = 24
​

There is no mysterious concrete-steel eating leviathan that's making the mass, whether rubble or not, disappear. This "cancellation" you speak of exists only in your imagination - it does not describe the events of 9-11-2001.

You really need to do much better, Bill. When your arguments are so obviously pathetic, it reflects badly on your heroes Chandler and Gage et. al.

 

[bill smith]

It's not that the 12 stories on the upper section "cancel out" the 1st 12 floors of the lower section, which would be

12 - 12 = 0
​

Instead, it's that the mass of the upper section is combined with the mass of the lower section as each floor is stripped off:

12 + 12 = 24
​

There is no mysterious concrete-steel eating leviathan that's making the mass, whether rubble or not, disappear. This "cancellation" you speak of exists only in your imagination - it does not describe the events of 9-11-2001.

You really need to do much better, Bill. When your arguments are so obviously pathetic, it reflects badly on your heroes Chandler and Gage et. al.

Do you mean that it goes like the top one-tenth becomes two-tenths....three-tenths....four-tenths....five-tenths until the whole lower nine-tenths of the building is gone ? Are you going to make that argument on the radio ?

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Do you mean that it goes like the top one-tenth becomes two-tenths....three-tenths....four-tenths....five-tenths until the whole lower nine-tenths of the building is gone ? Are you going to make that argument on the radio ?

Not at all. I don't mean anything of that sort. This tenths business is something you came up with. My approach is more on the lines of 14+1=15, 15+1=16, ... 109+1 = 110.

 

[triforcharity]

Oh ****!! You all didn't tell me this was a CALL IN SHOW!! I will have to google for the number when I get a chance!! WOOT!!

 

[ozeco41]

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....

SPOT ON!!! And the cause of much of my frustration with many explanations posted by the debunker side of 9/11. There has been enormous waste of bandwidth discussing and explaining the collapses as if it was an integral homogeneous block falling onto a similarly integral homogeneous lower tower. It wasn't and any explanation build on that wrong premise will be a wrong explanation HOWEVER it may come to the right answer.

Bazant's first paper dealt with the global aspects of available energy and concluded similarly to NIST that "global collapse was inevitable" (my recollection of NIST's terminology.) His assumptions were wrong but he got the right answer. (Note: I am aware than many Bazant supporters excuse the assumptions as valid simplifications. That may be true. But it is not true when debate enters the areas where his simplifications are wrong as this discussion has now done.)

....It's one where rubble fails floors, not blocks, and removes columns ability to stand. There's no discrete upper block,...

...slight disagreement there. It was a discrete upper block as it started to fall. It fell apart somewhere through the ensuing collapse. Most if not all of that block fell inside the outer tube of columns and landed on the floor area and core. And that happened whether the top block was initially a discrete entity, sometime later partially dismantled or even later fully reduced to rubble. The key points being that the falling mass bypassed the outer tube of columns, fell mostly on the floor(s) below and some onto core. And, to a first approximation, it was the same falling mass whether in one bit, several or thousands.

... and the only models that ever used [block on block models] 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.

....fully agreed - it echoes what I have said repeatedly on another forum - "they do not discuss the collapse mechanism which actually happened on 9/11". And many of the "good guys" are as guilty as the truthers of discussing fantasy collapse mechanisms rather than the "collapse which actually happened".

...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....

Well said - and my two key points already outlined.

Bazant's math is entirely dependent on this model. Have you folks discarded Bazant? That is perfectly fine with me.

Bazant analysed the collapses to see if there was sufficient energy to initiate and propagate collapse. To do so in his first paper he made simplifying assumptions about the mechanism of collapse. The assumptions he made require more energy to cause the collapse. He found that there was enough energy to cause collapse. Since the mechanism of collapse which actually happened required even less energy Bazant's conclusion was correct and was conservative.

I avoid using Bazant as authority where the actual collapse mechanism is at the core of the debate. Bazant's opinion is globally valid but invalid in some of the detail.

@ 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.

The conflation of Bazant and NIST as if they were one explanation is faulty. And Bazant AFAIK is not "official'.

I have published my own explanations which agree with NIST on the key issue which I have debated viz "No Demolition" and the broad parameters of the collapses of WTC1 & WTC2. I don't disagree with the main points of Bazant OR NIST. My own explanations go further. I have published them in full detail on other forums.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Oh ****!! You all didn't tell me this was a CALL IN SHOW!! I will have to google for the number when I get a chance!! WOOT!!

Wait a minute... You have a job that requires you to be up to monitor radios and phones and whatnot and you haven't found the weapons grade woo that is Coast To Coast AM? Man have you been missing out.

My favorite clip from the show.



Context: He's describing the video game Half-Life from the perspective of the character that you play.

 

[triforcharity]

Wait a minute... You have a job that requires you to be up to monitor radios and phones and whatnot and you haven't found the weapons grade woo that is Coast To Coast AM? Man have you been missing out.

My favorite clip from the show.



Context: He's describing the video game Half-Life from the perspective of the character that you play.

All I have to say is W. T. F?

Bookmarking it now, as we speak.

 

[ergo]

SPOT ON!!! And the cause of much of my frustration with many explanations posted by the debunker side of 9/11. There has been enormous waste of bandwidth discussing and explaining the collapses as if it was an integral homogeneous block falling onto a similarly integral homogeneous lower tower. It wasn't and any explanation build on that wrong premise will be a wrong explanation HOWEVER it may come to the right answer.

Wow, are those goalposts now on wheels? It must be tiring for you guys to never quite know what it is you're supposed to be defending. Moreover, if you are disagreeing with the crush-down, crush-up hypothesis, congratulations. You've taken the first step towards intelligence. However, you are no longer supporting the official theory. Welcome to the "truther" side. Your badge is in the mail.

Bazant's first paper dealt with the global aspects of available energy

"Global aspects" of available energy?

It was a discrete upper block as it started to fall. It fell apart somewhere through the ensuing collapse. Most if not all of that block fell inside the outer tube of columns and landed on the floor area and core. And that happened whether the top block was initially a discrete entity, sometime later partially dismantled or even later fully reduced to rubble.

Wow, were you there hovering in a helicopter, watching it all? If not, could you perhaps provide some evidence for this claim?

The key points being that the falling mass bypassed the outer tube of columns, fell mostly on the floor(s) below and some onto core. And, to a first approximation, it was the same falling mass whether in one bit, several or thousands.

Mass does not "stay the same" when it becomes many smaller pieces. The disintegration of any structure completely alters the way it functions, the way it moves, the friction it encounters, its ability to do work. This whole concept of rubble crushing through 80 and 90 intact storeys of steel-framed highrise is utterly idiotic. Shockingly idiotic.

If you disagree, please tell me what laws of physics support this ridiculous notion.

Bazant analysed the collapses to see if there was sufficient energy to initiate and propagate collapse. To do so in his first paper he made simplifying assumptions about the mechanism of collapse. The assumptions he made require more energy to cause the collapse. He found that there was enough energy to cause collapse. Since the mechanism of collapse which actually happened required even less energy Bazant's conclusion was correct and was conservative.

Please explain how rubble requires less energy than an intact block to crush through 80 and 90 intact storeys.

I avoid using Bazant as authority where the actual collapse mechanism is at the core of the debate. Bazant's opinion is globally valid but invalid in some of the detail.

It's Bazant's opinion that was ultimately adopted by NIST. It's Bazant's calculations that supposedly found "more than enough" energy to crush an intact highrise. If his model is incorrect, then his calculations are incorrect. You can't discard someone's entire model, but then say "oh, but he was mostly right."

The conflation of Bazant and NIST as if they were one explanation is faulty. And Bazant AFAIK is not "official'.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

I have published my own explanations which agree with NIST on the key issue which I have debated viz "No Demolition" and the broad parameters of the collapses of WTC1 & WTC2. I don't disagree with the main points of Bazant OR NIST. My own explanations go further. I have published them in full detail on other forums.

I believe we are talking about the official theory here, not about the theories of Internet posters. If you have your own theory, that's great. But it's hypocritical and just plain invalid to attack "truthers" for questioning the very aspects of the official theory that you yourself also object to.

 

[ergo]

Not at all. I don't mean anything of that sort. This tenths business is something you came up with. My approach is more on the lines of 14+1=15, 15+1=16, ... 109+1 = 110.

This is Bazant's approach. Fourteen storeys--or is it layers of rubble??--plus one layer of rubble equals 15 storeys/layers of rubble. Fifteen storeys/layers of rubble plus the next layer of rubble equals 16 storeys/layers of rubble.

Funny thing, though. You sort of acknowledge that the upper block doesn't exist (but you also sort of don't--convenient!) and yet you draw it into your video. Or are those the layers of rubble? Either way, whatever you've drawn there is not there in the videos.

 

[bill smith]

Not at all. I don't mean anything of that sort. This tenths business is something you came up with. My approach is more on the lines of 14+1=15, 15+1=16, ... 109+1 = 110.

Dave as a physicist you will certainly know that in a building where the top one-tenth and the somewhat more heavily built lower nine-tenths are of exactly the same construction you cannot say that the top 12 floors are a single block while the lower 98 floors are an assembly of spaced single floors. It must be seen as either two blocks or two assemblies of spaced single floors. You cannot mix and match.
Otherwise I could say for instance that the lower,more heavily built 98 floors were a single block with a lighter built assembly of 12 spaced single floors falling on that block .

Do you agree ?

 

[Humanzee]

Ever play with a set of dominoes? Does the first one knock down the rest in a single blow? Yes? No?
Come on. You know the answer B.S. What is the purpose of continuing this ruse? Find a better movement to endorse.

 

[ergo]

Because steel framed structures behave like dominoes?

 

[bill smith]

Ever play with a set of dominoes? Does the first one knock down the rest in a single blow? Yes? No?
Come on. You know the answer B.S. What is the purpose of continuing this ruse? Find a better movement to endorse.

'' One is dashed to pieces on the rocks : one does not dash the rocks to pieces ''

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Dave as a physicist you will certainly know that in a building where the top one-tenth and the somewhat more heavily built lower nine-tenths are of exactly the same construction you cannot say that the top 12 floors are a single block while the lower 98 floors are an assembly of spaced single floors. It must be seen as either two blocks or two assemblies of spaced single floors. You cannot mix and match.
Otherwise I could say for instance that the lower,more heavily built 98 floors were a single block with a lighter built assembly of 12 spaced single floors falling on that block .

Do you agree ?

No, I don't. You and Ergo seem to think 58 million kgs of rubble coming down on you at over 8 m per second is nothing to worry about. Or that 62 million kgs of rubble coming down on you at over 11 m per second is nothing to worry about. Or that 66 million kgs of rubble coming down on you at over 13 m per second is nothing to worry about.

You get the idea.

 

[triforcharity]

Mass does not "stay the same" when it becomes many smaller pieces. The disintegration of any structure completely alters the way it functions, the way it moves, the friction it encounters, its ability to do work. This whole concept of rubble crushing through 80 and 90 intact storeys of steel-framed highrise is utterly idiotic. Shockingly idiotic.

If you disagree, please tell me what laws of physics support this ridiculous notion.

Well, if you take a 5 pound block of concrete, and break it up with a hammer, it still weighs 5 pounds. It doesn't weigh 4 pounds, it still weighs 5.

It's not the SIZE of the rubble hitting the lower floors that continue the collapse, it is the fact that the weight of the impacting rubble that exceedes the lower floors weight rating, causing the failure.

 

[bill smith]

No, I don't. You and Ergo seem to think 58 million kgs of rubble coming down on you at over 8 m per second is nothing to worry about. Or that 62 million kgs of rubble coming down on you at over 11 m per second is nothing to worry about. Or that 66 million kgs of rubble coming down on you at over 13 m per second is nothing to worry about.

You get the idea.

Sigh....you are thinking about a block falling on an assembly of spaced single floors again Dave.

To put you straight....if you insist on saying that the upper part is a block of 58 million kilos then you must understand that the lower part is a more strongly built block of almost 500 million kilos.

 

[triforcharity]

Sigh....you are thinking about a block falling on an assembly of spaced single floors again Dave.

To put you straight....if you insist on saying that the upper part is a block of 58 million kilos then you must understand that the lower part is a more strongly built block of almost 500 million kilos.

Which one is in motion Bill?

You have been explained this before, numerous times.

 

[ergo]

No, I don't. You and Ergo seem to think 58 million kgs of rubble coming down on you at over 8 m per second is nothing to worry about. Or that 62 million kgs of rubble coming down on you at over 11 m per second is nothing to worry about. Or that 66 million kgs of rubble coming down on you at over 13 m per second is nothing to worry about.

Yes, it would hurt to have a massive pile of concrete and steel rubble fall on a human body. It would not greatly hurt an intact, steel-framed building. Which has just withstood a jet impact.