9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

ergo said:
I am extremely flattered to have my argument compared with that of Tony Szamboti's, and very pleased with myself that I could come to the same (albeit stupidly obvious) conclusions as he, considering his knowledge of physics is vastly superior to mine. Thank you. I know I'm on the right track.
Click to expand...

Zero times a million is still zero, so Szamboti is about on par with you. You shouldn't sell yourself short like that.
 
uke2se said:
It isn't, so why did you bring it up?
Click to expand...

uke2se,you brought it up.

If you could arrange it so that all the pieces of the ball struck me, the impact force on my head would be the same.
Click to expand...

Seriously, guys, if you're not going to fight fair, no one's going to come here to argue with you. No one will take you seriously.
 
ergo said:
uke2se,you brought it up.



Seriously, guys, if you're not going to fight fair, no one's going to come here to argue with you. No one will take you seriously.
Click to expand...

If you look at the post you linked, it contains a quote from you, where you brought it up the first time. This is what we call self-debunking.
 
TheRedWorm said:
The collapse is obscured by dust, you can't say for sure the the upper block is completely crushed. Also, you seem to discount the effect of mass, without even realizing how big of a factor mass and velocity play in the event. I likened it to a shotgun shell and a cannon, do you understand why I chose such an analogy?
Click to expand...

hrm
 
You're being disingenuous. This is what I mean by not fighting fair.

uke2se said:
If you could arrange it so that all the pieces of the ball struck me, the impact force on my head would be the same.
Click to expand...

The rubble in the WTC was not "arranged" so that all the pieces struck the lower floors together. Just like you can't arrange that for the broken fragments of the bowling ball, unless you put them in a net or something.

The analogy was to point out to you that particles do not have the same impact force as their solid counterparts. A fact which you have confirmed by making the statement above.
 
ergo said:
You're just repeating your same false assertion. The total force is not the same when you have particles instead of a single solid mass.
Click to expand...

You're saying here that it's easier to carry 4 plastic bags each containing a 1 litre bottle of water than 1 plastic bag carrying a 4 litre bottle of water. You might want to stop and think about that ....
 
ergo said:
You're being disingenuous. This is what I mean by not fighting fair.



The rubble in the WTC was not "arranged" so that all the pieces struck the lower floors together. Just like you can't arrange that for the broken fragments of the bowling ball, unless you put them in a net or something.

The analogy was to point out to you that particles do not have the same impact force as their solid counterparts. A fact which you have confirmed by making the statement above.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for your mathematical proof that takes account of air resistance and shows the total impact force from the falling rubble. Given that we don't know how split up the top of the tower was when it fell, you're going to have to do a couple of calculations, showing a range from complete "dustification" to a solid slab. Go ahead. I'll wait.

After all, this is the fair thing to do, given you are the one making a claim.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Dropping a bag of sand onto a structure has the potential to focus more destructive force
than dumping the contents of the same bag onto the structure.

You have to talk to OCTers at a kindergarten level ergo or theydon't get it.

MM
Click to expand...
Your problem is the same as ergo's. You can't show how it matters. The kicker is now you've been trying this so long, no one cares that your wrong.

You need to kiss our asses, we're all you got!

Too Funny
 
GlennB said:
You're saying here that it's easier to carry 4 plastic bags each containing a 1 litre bottle of water than 1 plastic bag carrying a 4 litre bottle of water. You might want to stop and think about that ....
Click to expand...

Actually, I think it would be. Yes. Two in each hand.
 
TheRedWorm said:
The collapse is obscured by dust, you can't say for sure the the upper block is completely crushed. Also, you seem to discount the effect of mass, without even realizing how big of a factor mass and velocity play in the event. I likened it to a shotgun shell and a cannon, do you understand why I chose such an analogy?
Click to expand...

Derp
 
You want me to mathematically calculate the differential impact forces of rubble on building components? In order to "prove" that it won't have the same force as an intact block of storeys? You haven't shown how it would.
 
ergo said:
You want me to mathematically calculate the differential impact forces of rubble on building components? In order to "prove" that it won't have the same force as an intact block of storeys? You haven't shown how it would.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes we have. Remember Zdenek Bazant?


You really do suck at this!
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
You want me to mathematically calculate the differential impact forces of rubble on building components? In order to "prove" that it won't have the same force as an intact block of storeys? You haven't shown how it would.
Click to expand...

No no no. You make the assertion that the impact force from the falling rubble wouldn't be sufficient to cause the rest of the building to collapse. I and others have tried to show you how the total mass falling is the same whether or not it is a single block or a collection of debris. You objected to this, but didn't show any math.

I presume that your objection is regarding air resistance, given that it is the only factor that would lessen the impact of the total mass of falling debris, so I am asking you to show your calculations that would lead you to believe that air pressure is sufficient to lessen the total impact force in order for the rest of the building to absorb the impact and remain standing.

Don't try to dodge this question, and don't try to push the burden of evidence onto someone else. This is your assertion. You now have to provide the evidence. Failure to do so shows how disinterested you are in the truth.
 
ergo said:
(Red Worm is talking to himself. Is this normal?)
Click to expand...

He is talking to you in a vain attempt to get you to actually provide anything but hot air to this topic. I would tell him it's a fool's errand, but then again, here I am, doing the same thing.
 
uke2se said:
No no no. You make the assertion that the impact force from the falling rubble wouldn't be sufficient to cause the rest of the building to collapse. I and others have tried to show you how the total mass falling is the same whether or not it is a single block or a collection of debris. You objected to this, but didn't show any math.
Click to expand...

Yes the total mass falling is the same. Some of it falls out the sides of the building, however. Impact force is not the same.

I presume that your objection is regarding air resistance, given that it is the only factor that would lessen the impact of the total mass of falling debris, so I am asking you to show your calculations that would lead you to believe that air pressure is sufficient to lessen the total impact force in order for the rest of the building to absorb the impact and remain standing.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't just be air resistance, although this is obviously a major factor for all the dust from pulverization. It's many other things including friction from the other rubble pieces, friction from the building material the rubble is hitting, how the pieces land and move, how the rubble interacts with itself, and probably some other things I'm not thinking of.
 
ergo said:
Yes the total mass falling is the same. Some of it falls out the sides of the building, however. Impact force is not the same.
Click to expand...

Show it with math.


ergo said:
It wouldn't just be air resistance, although this is obviously a major factor for all the dust from pulverization. It's many other things including friction from the other rubble pieces, friction from the building material the rubble is hitting, how the pieces land and move, how the rubble interacts with itself, and probably some other things I'm not thinking of.
Click to expand...

Show it with math.

You asserting stuff isn't convincing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom