9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

[carlitos]

I know you weren't asking me, but...

How thick do you think each story was?

The floors were 4" thick, so 10 stories worth of concrete would be ... 40 inches (a little over 3 feet), assuming that the concrete didn't pulverize to be even less thick. So what Doyle and Kirby observed (10 stories in 6 feet) seems reasonable. I'm sure that this has been covered here before a few times; maybe if someone was really interested in learning about it, they could use the search function.

 

[Kent1]

... and again.

Looks like you beat me to it. Thanks.

 

[Disbelief]

The floors were 4" thick, so 10 stories worth of concrete would be ... 40 inches (a little over 3 feet), assuming that the concrete didn't pulverize to be even less thick. So what Doyle and Kirby observed (10 stories in 6 feet) seems reasonable. I'm sure that this has been covered here before a few times; maybe if someone was really interested in learning about it, they could use the search function.

I know, just curious what ergo thinks. I wonder how high of a pile they think should have been at GZ.

 

[ergo]

The floors were 4" thick, so 10 stories worth of concrete would be ... 40 inches (a little over 3 feet), assuming that the concrete didn't pulverize to be even less thick. So what Doyle and Kirby observed (10 stories in 6 feet) seems reasonable. I'm sure that this has been covered here before a few times; maybe if someone was really interested in learning about it, they could use the search function.

Yes floors. How about walls, columns, the core structure, elevator shafts, file cabinets, desks, chairs and other office furniture, human bodies...? Ten storeys in 6 feet? If the floors are taking up 3 feet of that?

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

How do you get a "stream" from a bucket that is dumped? Maybe you have a different defintino of a "stream" than I do... it is called MASS even of loose particles

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

Dodge noted. Not it collapsed because of the rubble and upper floors falling on it... which is MUCH more stable and connected than water... the entire point of the video you keep handwaving away.

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?

******** and a LIE. There is oral evidence from the iron workers at Ground Zero about cutting into an 8 foot section and finding 14 floors pancaked.

and we have the "meteorites" truthers LOVE to try to pass off, which showed 4 compressed/pancaked layers

an there are images from steve spak which show 5 levels of compacted floors near the base of the debris.

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.

Please quote the NIST times to me (pretty please, I will OWN you ass for that.. pretty please. 10 seconds for the intact outer paneling to strike the ground (which collapsed at freefall because it broke off).

10 to 13 accepted by who? Do you not know how to use a stopwatch? I have timed both.. have you? (the answer is no, because you are afraid to or maybe you don't have opposable thumbs.)

Time them yourself. I know you won't.

A YouTube video by amateur "debunkers" making silly claims isn't something many people are going to pay attention to.

Then you choose a video, post it here and we'll both time it. feel free.

 

[carlitos]

I know, just curious what ergo thinks. I wonder how high of a pile they think should have been at GZ.

It's hard to say, since apparently the laws of physics were suspended that day (seriously, particles have less kinetic energy?). Maybe it's something to do with anti-matter.

Remember "flat debris pile at GZ?" Good times.

 

[TruthersLie]

Please quote the relevant text.

do your own *********** homework. You have been given the quotes, now show those investagoogling skillz...

 

[ergo]

Anyway, it's sort of a moot point. You can't have significant pancaking while trying to explain the core collapse. The core structure would not be able to "pancake". And there was no obvious body of pancaked floors at ground zero. So, generally speaking, pancaking, which we might expect to happen, largely didn't. The visual evidence both of the collapse progression as well as the rubble pile confirms this, and you folks can't "but-but-but..!" this away.

 

[carlitos]

Yes floors. How about walls, columns, the core structure, elevator shafts, file cabinets, desks, chairs and other office furniture, human bodies...? Ten storeys in 6 feet? If the floors are taking up 3 feet of that?

All of the above are known entities. Please do the calculations and show your work. Until then, your argument from incredulity is all you have.

 

[ergo]

All of the above are known entities. Please do the calculations and show your work. Until then, your argument from incredulity is all you have.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to waste time on what is largely a moot point.

 

[carlitos]

Do you actually have a point though? I can't see what it is. Do you have an alternative hypothesis about what happened on 9/11/01?

 

[Kent1]

You can't have significant pancaking while trying to explain the core collapse. The core structure would not be able to "pancake".

Agree

And there was no obvious body of pancaked floors at ground zero.

Disagree

So, generally speaking, pancaking, which we might expect to happen, largely didn't. The visual evidence both of the collapse progression as well as the rubble pile confirms this, and you folks can't "but-but-but..!" this away.

The visual evidence confirms that it did occur to an extent, but I wouldn't expect the floors (during the rumble and tumble of the collapse) to be all perfectly sitting on each other either. Such as what happened with the lower floors.
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc6.html

 

[ergo]

Do you actually have a point though? I can't see what it is. Do you have an alternative hypothesis about what happened on 9/11/01?

The discussion about pancaking in this thread began when I pointed out the obvious falsity of this statement:

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

 

[ergo]

The visual evidence confirms that it did occur to an extent, but I wouldn't expect the floors (during the rumble and tumble of the collapse) to be all perfectly sitting on each other either. Such as what happened with the lower floors.
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc6.html

Yes, the second picture down is what we would expect to see. This appears to be in the basement. Again, yes, evidence of some pancaking. However, this is not what the pile above ground looked like.

I would also point out to you that I see three floors pancaked there, twice the height of the firefighter looking on.

 

[Kent1]

Yes, the second picture down is what we would expect to see. This appears to be in the basement. Again, yes, evidence of some pancaking. However, this is not what the pile above ground looked like.

I would also point out to you that I see three floors pancaked there, twice the height of the firefighter looking on.

Who's we?

You can tell how many floors by looking at the concrete slabs and floor pans. But if you want to see more pancaked floors google "hanger 17." There are also more photos from the location.

http://www.wfsb.com/family/14698858/detail.html
"The composites, where you get to see the floors that have collapsed on one another, just really exemplifies, I don't know what the word is, but the enormity of it, that these 110-story buildings are now in five-foot packs of floors," Matt Keane said. "There are some pieces of composite that who knows what's in those pancakes?"

 

[pgimeno]

Back into topic...

Dave, I have noticed a little detail in your (very well done, by the way) presentation: page 11 ends in point 7, but page 12 starts in point 9. Are they misnumbered, or is there an omission?

Confess, why was point 8 removed? What are you hiding from us?

 

[carlitos]

The discussion about pancaking in this thread began when I pointed out the obvious falsity of this statement:

You are missing my point. How does pancaking / non-pancaking fit into the overall picture of what happened that day? What is your hypothesis, and where does this aspect fit into it?

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Back into topic...

Dave, I have noticed a little detail in your (very well done, by the way) presentation: page 11 ends in point 7, but page 12 starts in point 9. Are they misnumbered, or is there an omission?

Confess, why was point 8 removed? What are you hiding from us?

Goodness gracious! I hadn't realized I'd lost one of Gage's points. No worries, a visit to the ae911truthiness page shows that missing item is:

8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found

The supreme irony, of course, is that Richard Gage actually displays a picture of exactly this - "pancaked floors" - but calls it a METEORITE, and doesn't realize it's what he's demanding under point #8. (It's on the lower right.)

Thanks for the correction!

 

[beachnut]

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



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.

Each floor is only 4 inches of concrete on a thin steel plate with steel ribs. Each floor could be 5 inches. 10 floors, 50 inches. 10 floors less than 6 feet. Math, it is what 911 truth does not do!

These hold up the floor pans, the floors are 4 inches of concrete. The WTC is 95 percent AIR!.

The floors smashed together have paper in them. You should research what happen on 911 from reality based sources instead of bringing idiotic lies and delusions.

You have no idea what walls are made of do you? Do you understand office furniture is used to store stuff in so it is not solid? Do you understand the walls are wall board which is smashed into dust; you can crush the wall by hand. People stuck in the Elevator during 911, scratched their way through the WTC walls to escape; wallboard! Never worked with wallboard? eh

GOT MATH???

The WTC is 95 percent air! 10 floors is 100 feet! Without air 10 floors is 5 feet. Add office contents which are crushed with the force of 130 tons of TNT during a gravity collapse and you have 10 floors with everything crushed to 6 feet! MATH, learn how to do math and physics and RESEARCH!

 

[excaza]

Wait, you mean every floor isn't a foot thick chunk of concrete?

LIES!