9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

Yes, I find your video a little unbelievable. I find it interesting that there is no information about the car, and is that the only video that exists where a dump of water crushes a car?

Even if everything in the video is as it appears to be, this is not what happened in the WTC. We are not talking about a directed stream of rubble, and we are not talking about drops from significant heights, and even if we were, there's no possible way anyway that rubble could disintegrate an intact structure 1/3 kilometre high in less than 13 seconds. Sorry you're having difficulty.

Avalanches destroy houses by flowing over the land, not vertically down into it.
 
ergo said:
[qimg]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/02/10/nyregion/33302049.JPG[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Perhaps you might consider responding to, or perhaps even reading, the topics of the OP.

911movie.gif
 
I did, Dave. I said that you were fictionalizing an upper block in that video. You are superimposing a drawing of a hypothetical upper block onto an image where there is none, as the picture I posted on the previous page shows.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Yes, I find your video a little unbelievable. I find it interesting that there is no information about the car, and is that the only video that exists where a dump of water crushes a car?
Click to expand...
What do you want to know about the video clip? It is from a German science television show called Galileo. It is similar to the british show Brainiac

http://www.egghat.com/Galileo/galileo.html

It only takes about 5 minutes to find out about the show and the type of bucket that is dropped.
Here let me google that for you.
Nice dodge.

Even if everything in the video is as it appears to be,
Click to expand...
handwave noted. And it is. It is a LOOSE collection (you know, water is VERY loose) which crushes down a car. How is it possible that something that is LOOSE and FLUID can possibly crush that car?


this is not what happened in the WTC. We are not talking about a directed stream of rubble,
Click to expand...
How do you get a "stream" from that video? According to you if the mass is dispersed (as in rubble) then it doesn't have the same impact...


and we are not talking about drops from significant heights,
Click to expand...

The floors in the towers were what... 4 meters apart? That coupled with the MASS is a pretty significant height. That bucket dropping water (loose collection of fluid) appears to be 4 maybe 5 meters high... seems similar enough to show how full of crap your "becaue it isn't intact it doesn't do the same kinetic energy" idea is.


and even if we were,
Click to expand...
Double handwave noted

there's no possible way anyway that rubble could disintegrate
Click to expand...
Strawman. No part of the towers were disintegrated.... The connections BROKE when the mass falling on it overcame the dynamic loading of the structure.

an intact structure 1/3 kilometre
Click to expand...
Irrelevant

high in less than 13 seconds.
Click to expand...
******** and you have been called on it repeatedly.
The first tower took about 15 seconds. The second took over 20 seconds (closer to 22). And that is not counting the intact spires which stood even longer.



Please take out a stopwatch and time it yourself. This ******** argument from incredulity is rather old and tired.


Sorry you're having difficulty.

Avalanches destroy houses by flowing over the land, not vertically down into it.
Click to expand...

Avalanches destroy houses by having the kinetic energy which overcomes the dynamic loading ability of the houses. Similar principles.. I"m sorry that you don't understand them.

Aren't avalances, snow, mudslides jsut a collection of "loose" rubble, which according to you has no ability to harm intact structures... didn't you say that earlier in your post?
 
Last edited:
Of course we also have this one


Now mind you, that is water enclosed in a bag....

But wait... I thought you said that loose particle couldn't damage anything....


now that is MORE water, but it is from a lower height...

Gee... how does the LOOSE PARTICLES manage to crush that car?
 
Why is this still going on? It's obvious ergo has no intention of fixing his seriously flawed understanding of physics. His interpretation is obviously the correct one, everyone else is just dumb in on the government conspiracy.
 
Last edited:
TruthersLie said:
How do you get a "stream" from that video? According to you if the mass is dispersed (as in rubble) then it doesn't have the same impact...
Click to expand...

Yes, that's correct. The water in your video pours down on the car in a stream. The alleged rubble on top of the WTC would not be pouring down in a stream.

The floors in the towers were what... 4 meters apart? That coupled with the MASS is a pretty significant height. That bucket dropping water (loose collection of fluid) appears to be 4 maybe 5 meters high... seems similar enough to show how full of crap your "becaue it isn't intact it doesn't do the same kinetic energy" idea is.
Click to expand...

A little under 4 metres, I believe. Did the WTC collapse because water was poured on it?

No part of the towers were disintegrated.... The connections BROKE when the mass falling on it overcame the dynamic loading of the structure.
Click to expand...

That would produce pancaking. There were no pancaked floors at Ground Zero. Here's that picture again. Does this look like pancaking to you? And are you suggesting that no part of the building was pulverized?

33302049.JPG


The first tower took about 15 seconds. The second took over 20 seconds (closer to 22). And that is not counting the intact spires which stood even longer.
Click to expand...

You might want to inform NIST and Bazant of this, but I suggest you time it yourself with your watch. Ten to 13 seconds is the generally accepted collapse time frame. A YouTube video by amateur "debunkers" making silly claims isn't something many people are going to pay attention to.

Avalanches destroy houses by having the kinetic energy which overcomes the dynamic loading ability of the houses. Similar principles.
Click to expand...

I've heard this avalanche argument before. It's an incorrect and inapplicable analogy. Sorry you're having trouble.
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
...There were no pancaked floors at Ground Zero. Here's that picture again. Does this look like pancaking to you? ANd are you suggested that no part of the building was pulverized?

[qimg]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/02/10/nyregion/33302049.JPG[/qimg]
...
.
Click to expand...

This is old ground. Really old ground.
"My gang cut away a section of a wall. We counted 14 floors compressed into eight feet." –Ironworker Terry Strobel, PBS.org: America Rebuilds

"Two weeks after 9/11, engineers Pablo Lopez and Andrew Pontecorvo are walking in the B2 basement level at the ruins of the World Trade Center, towards where the North Tower stood. They discover a “solid, rocklike mass where the basement levels of the tower had been,” and see “the recognizable traces of twenty floors, very much like geologic strata revealed by a road cut, compressed into a ten-foot vertical span.

In one place, the steel decks of half a dozen floors protruded like tattered wallpaper, so close together that they were almost touching where they were bent downward at the edge. Nothing between the decks was recognizable except as a rocky, rusty mishmash. In a few places what might have been carbonized, compressed stacks of paper stuck out edgewise like graphite deposits.” –James Glanz and Eric Lipton, "102 Minutes." 2004, p. 310
Click to expand...
 
I'd need to see the original sources for that information. And how about some pictures? But I don't need to argue this too much. Perhaps some floors did pancake--toward the bottom. Mostly they didn't though. The videos and pictures clearly show that pancaking was not happening.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
Click to expand...

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
 
I had a full point-by-point answer ready for ergo, but excaza convinced me to refrain from posting it. I'll do a quick summary. ergo's arguments are comparable to those by a religious fanatic. He makes up his "truth" or spreads others' made-up "truth" and tries to pass it as "the truth". Oh wait, where have I seen that before?

The calculation I asked him to perform could be easily resolved using this:

The kinetic energy of a system at any instant in time is the sum of the kinetic energies of the bodies it contains.​
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#Kinetic_energy_of_systems

He mudded the water shifting the discussion to the energy requirement for crushing the columns which has nothing to do with his alleged but unproved behavior of rubble. Sadly for him, Greening and Bazant also account for that energy in their papers which he hasn't read, yet he spreads his ignorance, as he does with FEMA's mention of the core in their collapse propagation model. It turns out that NIST didn't disprove FEMA as he says and I already noted to him, but he chose to ignore; NIST even talked about the floors "pan-caking" during collapse, see NCSTAR 1-3C sect. 3.5.3. He's a voluntary ignorant with no desire to change that.

ergo said:
If I could find one [reference], I would. I base this on how we know I believe rubble and other particulate matter to behave.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you, ergo.

No references, no source.

Only belief.

'Nuff said.
 
ergo said:
I'd need to see the original sources for that information. And how about some pictures? But I don't need to argue this too much. Perhaps some floors did pancake--toward the bottom. Mostly they didn't though. The videos and pictures clearly show that pancaking was not happening.



http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Click to expand...

NIST is referring to the initiation of the collapse in this text. Not the continual collapse. If you read other parts of the NIST reports findings and statements you can see where they mention pancaking.

Truthers like to use this against NIST because they think it supports their claims with regard to the "Squibs".
The false claim is that the floors didn't pancake and couldn't of caused air to be jeted out of the building.
Steven Jones often makes the same error in his "Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports" paper. Yet he clearly didn't read all of what NIST has to say.

For example
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air—along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse—was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec.../debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center#puffs
Also see the same document you posted under section 4.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Also see
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm
 
Last edited:
Kent1 said:
NIST is referring to the initiation of the collapse in this text. Not the continual collapse. If you read other parts of the NIST reports findings and statements you can see where they mention pancaking.
Click to expand...

Please quote the relevant text.
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
I couldn't find the exact page mentioned, but here's another one that makes the exact same point.
Click to expand...

How do ten storeys compact into 6 feet? And how would they be able to recognize the storeys if it is this compacted?

A picture you want?

[qimg]http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/WTCConc9Hangar17.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Please explain how this a picture of pancaked floors. How many floors are we looking at? This actually looks like heat compacted material to me.
 
pgimeno said:
I'll do a quick summary....
Click to expand...

This is not an argument explaining how rubble can crush through 90 intact storeys.

The calculation I asked him to perform could be easily resolved using this:

The kinetic energy of a system at any instant in time is the sum of the kinetic energies of the bodies it contains.​
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#Kinetic_energy_of_systems

He mudded the water shifting the discussion to the energy requirement for crushing the columns which has nothing to do with his alleged but unproved behavior of rubble.
Click to expand...

My apologies for "shifting" the discussion away from bowling balls and back to the WTC. I thought answered all your questions regarding that.


Sadly for him, Greening and Bazant also account for that energy in their papers which he hasn't read,
Click to expand...

Greening's paper discussed the energy required to crush concrete and what size of concrete particles were produced. Not how rubble can be expected to crush intact building components through 90 storeys in under 13 seconds. You're moving the goalposts again.

It turns out that NIST didn't disprove FEMA as he says and I already noted to him, but he chose to ignore; NIST even talked about the floors "pan-caking" during collapse, see NCSTAR 1-3C sect. 3.5.3.
Click to expand...

Please quote the relevant text.

You and I weren't discussing pancaking, so I'm not sure why you'd be trying to convince others that you "already" pointed something out to me about pancaking. Nor did I say that NIST "disproved" FEMA. I simply quoted what they wrote.
 
pgimeno said:
This has been discussed again and again. Please stop derailing with your ignorance.
Click to expand...

I see only one source cited in those two references provide. And that one source clearly says: "Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom