9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

uke2se said:
Look in the NIST reports.
Click to expand...

The NIST reports don't have anything about collapse progression, or about how the rubble crushes the 80 and 90 storeys. So they're not going to have those calculations.
 
Am I understanding this correctly? Is it ergo's position that, since the towers were breaking apart during collapse, not one single piece of debris could impart enough energy to induce failure in other parts of the structure?
 
ergo said:
The NIST reports don't have anything about collapse progression, or about how the rubble crushes the 80 and 90 storeys. So they're not going to have those calculations.
Click to expand...

So, you haven't actually looked at the NIST reports then. That's the only explanation I can think of for you having missed this part, the title of which is NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers.

That or that you're lying.

Now, how about that math of yours?
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Am I understanding this correctly? Is it ergo's position that, since the towers were breaking apart during collapse, not one single piece of debris could impart enough energy to induce failure in other parts of the structure?
Click to expand...

I'm sure some pieces of debris did cause damage, possibly failure. That would produce a partial failure, possibly partial collapse. This happens in natural collapses, obviously.
 
ergo said:
I'm sure some pieces of debris did cause damage, possibly failure. That would produce a partial failure, possibly partial collapse. This happens in natural collapses, obviously.
Click to expand...


Surely even this would potentially result in additional debris that may be capable of causing additional failure, would it not?
 
Ok, you have been given multiple sources for mathematical proof of the "official version" of events, ergo. Now, how about you show us your mathematical proof that it couldn't happen?
 
uke2se said:
So, you haven't actually looked at the NIST reports then. That's the only explanation I can think of for you having missed this part, the title of which is NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have seen this. Please cite where they discuss the impact of rubble in the collapse progression.
 
uke2se said:
Show it with math.




Show it with math.

You asserting stuff isn't convincing.
Click to expand...

The upper assembly of 12 spaced single floors are falling at constant downward acceleration meaning that the structure below is being dstroyed BEFORE the upper assembly strikes it. So the only math you need to know is the force that the upper assembly exerts on the lower.

The math:

F=0
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Yes, I have seen this. Please cite where they discuss the impact of rubble in the collapse progression.
Click to expand...

That would be Chapter 9, Probable Collapse Sequence.

Now, how about that math of yours? When are you going to present it?
 
ergo said:
Thanks. Please cite the relevant text.
Click to expand...
All of it! Are you lazy? Are you one of those guys that rents a chainsaw and only listens to the part on how to start it? What's your hurry? Are you afraid you might learn something?

Have you actually read any of the reports you claim are wrong?
 
DGM said:
Have you actually read any of the reports you claim are wrong?
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming they're wrong necessarily. I'm claiming you're wrong and that you haven't supported with facts your bizarre notions of the effect of gravity on a collection of particles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom