• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

I do hope this "rubble" theory of building collapse gets discussed on national radio. Would love for mainstream America to hear what is actually being proposed about the collapse of the Twin Towers and the deaths of their loved ones.
 
ergo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Care to back this up, or are you content to let incredulity do the talking?
 
If you drop a truck the height of a truck onto another truck, you will probably partly crumple the dropped-on truck, and the dropping truck will also be damaged. If you drop the pieces of a truck the height of one truck onto another truck, the dropped-on truck will sustain some dents but not be crumpled.

If you drop a cinder block etc... onto a stack of cinder blocks, well, the dropping cinder block may break. Not much will happen to the standing stack. If you drop pieces of a cinder block onto a stack of cinder blocks, the pieces will merely deflect to the side. The standing stack sustains no damage whatsoever.
 
ergo said:
If you drop a truck the height of a truck onto another truck, you will probably partly crumple the dropped-on truck, and the dropping truck will also be damaged. If you drop the pieces of a truck the height of one truck onto another truck, the dropped-on truck will sustain some dents but not be crumpled.

If you drop a cinder block etc... onto a stack of cinder blocks, well, the dropping cinder block may break. Not much will happen to the standing stack. If you drop pieces of a cinder block onto a stack of cinder blocks, the pieces will merely deflect to the side. The standing stack sustains no damage whatsoever.
Click to expand...

What happens when you drop the pieces of 12 floors onto one floor?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
If you drop a truck the height of a truck onto another truck, you will probably partly crumple the dropped-on truck, and the dropping truck will also be damaged. If you drop the pieces of a truck the height of one truck onto another truck, the dropped-on truck will sustain some dents but not be crumpled.
Click to expand...

Considering trucks aren't built the same as a building, your analogy fails.
 
Disbelief said:
Considering trucks aren't built the same as a building, your analogy fails.
Click to expand...

Oh, then please provide a workable analogy in which a disintegrated structure can crush through an intact structure.
 
ergo said:
I do hope this "rubble" theory of building collapse gets discussed on national radio. Would love for mainstream America to hear what is actually being proposed about the collapse of the Twin Towers and the deaths of their loved ones.
Click to expand...

ergo said:
If you drop a truck the height of a truck onto another truck, you will probably partly crumple the dropped-on truck, and the dropping truck will also be damaged. If you drop the pieces of a truck the height of one truck onto another truck, the dropped-on truck will sustain some dents but not be crumpled.

If you drop a cinder block etc... onto a stack of cinder blocks, well, the dropping cinder block may break. Not much will happen to the standing stack. If you drop pieces of a cinder block onto a stack of cinder blocks, the pieces will merely deflect to the side. The standing stack sustains no damage whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Whether or not your guess is correct as to what happens to trucks or cinder blocks you have the analogy wrong if applied to WTC collapse. This is what happened:
003.jpg

...excuse the drawing quality - I'm no artist.
 
Drawing a picture of your fantasy with the words "massive overload" included in it unfortunately doesn't demonstrate anything.
 
ergo said:
Oh, then please provide a workable analogy in which a disintegrated structure can crush through an intact structure.
Click to expand...

Why do your work for you? You tried the tower of cars in a previous incarnation, and failed miserably then too. Since you can not figure how the upper structure could destroy the single floor below, and continue to take out each floor to the ground, there is no analogy that will help you see the light.
 
ergo said:
Drawing a picture of your fantasy with the words "massive overload" included in it unfortunately doesn't demonstrate anything.
Click to expand...

Wilful ignorance cannot be overcome by any analogy or explanation.

And the illustration is not an analogy - it shows what actually happened. So I leave you to your self serving self delusion.
 
Disbelief said:
Why do your work for you? You tried the tower of cars in a previous incarnation, and failed miserably then too. Since you can not figure how the upper structure could destroy the single floor below, and continue to take out each floor to the ground, there is no analogy that will help you see the light.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry: are you talking about an "upper structure" or rubble? Please make up your mind.
 
excaza said:
the wtc didn't do this? :confused:
Click to expand...

In logical argument, you can't use the example of something to demonstrate the principle that you are trying to prove about that very same thing. You need to find another example or analogy.
 
ergo said:
Oh, then please provide a workable analogy in which a disintegrated structure can crush through an intact structure.
Click to expand...

There's no need for a workable analogy. Analysis of the structural resistance of the WTC Twin Towers and the kinetic energy of the falling block makes it perfectly clear that there is a very large excess of kinetic energy over fracture energy once an initial failure has caused the upper block to fall through the height of a single storey; this was the finding of Bazant and Zhou within a few days of the collapses.

There's also the example of the Bailey's Crossing collapse, that's been referred to here before, in which the top three floors of a 24-floor structure collapsed and crushed through all the structure below. That's not a weak analogy; it's an actual real world example of a disintegrated structure crushing through an intact structure below.

Summary of the above: Progressive collapse is a known phenomenon.

Dave
 
ozeco41 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This, too is a bit of an issue I have. One of the problems that I've noticed is that, should someone make an incredibly stupid statement:

The Earth is supported by a turtle standing on an infinite series of turtles. Prove that I'm wrong.

The correct response is: You're an idiot. But more often, a "debunker" response can take many forms:

  • There is no such thing as an infinite series of turtles
  • The earth's crust could not support its own weight on a single point
  • The infinite turtle series does not explain tides, the seasons, eclipses and the martian retrograde.
  • There is no need for any "support" because outside of the earth's gravity field...
All of these responses are true and valid criticisms of the initial argument, but none address the underlying idiocy. It attempts to use inductive style scientific reasoning to show where a theory is lacking or faulty. But the theory itself is not scientifically derived, and so any scientific argument is useless. Too often, in order to show how one aspect of a theory is idiotic, we over-simplify to the discredit of the entirely accurate and scientific reasons supporting our overall conclusions. The block A, block B argument is a perfect example. It's perfectly reasonable to draw A-B diagrams to explain an initial Truther idiocy (that part A should have toppled over). But over extending the simplified model makes it wrong.

It's beating your head against the wall to try an explain such minutiae, though. Best to use it as a tool to goof off for a few minutes a day.
 
Dave Rogers said:
There's no need for a workable analogy. Analysis of the structural resistance of the WTC Twin Towers and the kinetic energy of the falling block makes it perfectly clear that there is a very large excess of kinetic energy over fracture energy once an initial failure has caused the upper block to fall through the height of a single storey; this was the finding of Bazant and Zhou within a few days of the collapses.
Click to expand...

Oh, so it is a block. Thank you. A question I asked above is: what is it "falling" through? And could you please point out where we see this "falling block" through the collapse progression?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom