9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

[Kent1]

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:



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.)

[qimg]http://www2.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/2hour/slides/jpg_672x504/Slide132.PNG.jpg[/qimg]

Thanks for the correction!

That's always cracked me up. These goofballs often point to the very things they claim didn't happen.

More photos and links toward the bottom here.
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

I have more photos on my computer.

 

[Kent1]

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

LIES!

Are you telling me that the concrete would often break up when it falls down and smashs into other things? LOL!

 

[uke2se]

I can't help but notice that ergo still hasn't presented any evidence for anything he asserts, but demands that everyone else quotes exact paragraphs of text, not settling for references to works he should have read when discussing this.

How about you produce some math, ergo? Is that too much to ask?

 

[ergo]

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.

"Could be" 5 inches?

Storey height 3.66 m, ceiling height 2.62 m.

Anyway, the pictures that Kent1 linked to show what pancaked floors look like, since you folks obviously have no clue. No pancaked floors at ground zero.

 

[ergo]

I can't help but notice that ergo still hasn't presented any evidence for anything he asserts, but demands that everyone else quotes exact paragraphs of text, not settling for references to works he should have read when discussing this.

You're the ones defending this absurd theory. So defend it.

 

[carlitos]

one more try

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?

Do you see why the above question is relevant?

 

[uke2se]

You're the ones defending this absurd theory. So defend it.

Sorry, no. You are the one making assertions. We have a rather extensive amount of evidence to rely on, much of which has been presented in this thread. You have - thus far - zero. Now, present your evidence or stfu.

Present your math, ergo. I have asked for this for several pages, and I will keep asking. You can run away from the challenge, but the more you do, the more the people you are attempting to sway can see what fragile ground the twoofer case is built on.

 

[ergo]

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?

Do you see why the above question is relevant?

I was not missing your point, I explained to you why the subject of pancaking, which I couldn't care less about, was raised in this thread. Pancaking may be what we (intelligent people) would expect of a steel-framed building collapse. But the core would not be able to pancake, so we would see it still standing, as we do with the Windsor Hotel fire in Madrid.

My claim is that the Bazant/NIST hypothesis, which serves as the official collapse theory (and which, incidentally, tosses out the pancaking model) is incorrect and is inadequate as an explanation. There is no upper block evident through the collapse progression; crush-up would occur before crush down, in accordance with Newton's Third Law; rubble cannot crush through a 90-storey building; and "crushing" is not a correct description anyway of what we observe. I'm sure I've missed a few points here, too.

Funny though, the "debunkers" seem hesitant to come up with a word that replaces "crush", but that reasonably describes what we can all plainly see.

 

[carlitos]

rubble cannot crush through a 90-storey building;

That's quite an assertion there. How about a million tons of rubble? How about a trillion tons? How about an asteroid belt made up entirely of rubble? When are you going to do the math to show 1) how much energy was available and 2) how much was required? Then you might have a case. Subtract 2 from 1 and there's the extra energy needed. Simple!

And anyway, your "claim" is not what I asked. I asked what your explanation for the events of 9/11 is. Not Bazant or NIST or even FEMA or the 9/11 Commission; their claims are clear and they have provided evidence. They employed the scientific method, developing a hypothesis that could be tested. What is your hypothesis?

 

[uke2se]

My claim is that the Bazant/NIST hypothesis, which serves as the official collapse theory (and which, incidentally, tosses out the pancaking model) is incorrect and is inadequate as an explanation. There is no upper block evident through the collapse progression; crush-up would occur before crush down, in accordance with Newton's Third Law; rubble cannot crush through a 90-storey building; and "crushing" is not a correct description anyway of what we observe. I'm sure I've missed a few points here, too.

Ok, this is your claim. Now, let's see your evidence. You have made a definitive assertion that can be tested. We have already showed you that you are wrong earlier in this thread, but let's disregard that and look at the positive evidence you bring for your assertion.


This is the evidence you have presented thus far:

 

[ergo]

And anyway, your "claim" is not what I asked. I asked what your explanation for the events of 9/11 is.

I don't have one. You don't need to have an alternate theory in order to point out the obvious flaws in the one proposed.

Not Bazant or NIST or even FEMA or the 9/11 Commission; their claims are clear and they have provided evidence. They employed the scientific method, developing a hypothesis that could be tested.

Their claims are most certainly not clear. They have developed incomplete hypotheses based on incomplete and, at times, false or misleading evidence, and they have never tested these hypotheses except in some computer modeling which was at first not shared with the scientific community; I don't know if they have shared it since.

 

[ergo]

Ok, this is your claim. Now, let's see your evidence. You have made a definitive assertion that can be tested. We have already showed you that you are wrong earlier in this thread, but let's disregard that and look at the positive evidence you bring for your assertion.

You have not once in this thread shown me that anything I have stated was wrong. Most of you have avoided my questions, or responded to them with questions of your own.

 

[carlitos]

I don't have one. You don't need to have an alternate theory in order to point out the obvious flaws in the one proposed.

Do you expect me to believe that you have no idea at all what happened on 9/11/2001? None?

• Terrorists?
• Planes?
• Sharks with lasers?
• Bombs?
• Thermite?
• Termites?
• Missile?
• Holograms?

No opinion at all? You haven't seen enough info, or what?

eta - when are you going to show proof for your assertion that "rubble cannot crush a building?"

 

[Myriad]

All "pancaking" means is that floors impacted the floors below them.

Suspend a one-acre square floor twelve feet over another. Now, drop it. (It doesn't matter how you cause it to drop, nor what condition the floor is in once it begins dropping.)

If you can somehow arrange for the dropped floor to completely miss the floor below it, 110 times in a row, then -- hey, no pancaking. Otherwise, you have pancaked floors.

Thus, whatever else you're trying to argue about pancaking -- that it's impossible, that Bazant's model omits it, that it happened and shouldn't have, that it didn't happen and should have, or whatever (it seems to change from one sentence to the next) -- is equally ridiculous.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[ergo]

No opinion at all? You haven't seen enough info, or what?

I have an opinion, sure. I don't have enough knowledge to be able to argue it. I leave that to those who care to.

 

[uke2se]

I don't have one. You don't need to have an alternate theory in order to point out the obvious flaws in the one proposed.

You need an alternative hypothesis in order to replace an old hypothesis, especially when the old one is well established with plenty of evidence, which the NIST model is.

Their claims are most certainly not clear. They have developed incomplete hypotheses based on incomplete and, at times, false or misleading evidence, and they have never tested these hypotheses except in some computer modeling which was at first not shared with the scientific community; I don't know if they have shared it since.

In your unprofessional and entirely biased opinion.

Now, how about that evidence? Are you going to present any today, or do you plan to keep us in the dark? Is next Tuesday a good evidence-presenting day for you? If so, we could simply put the thread on hiatus until then. Whenever's good for you.

 

[carlitos]

I have an opinion, sure. I don't have enough knowledge to be able to argue it. I leave that to those who care to.

200+ posts (under this username anyway) on the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" subforum, and you haven't deigned to share this theory with anyone here?

 

[uke2se]

You have not once in this thread shown me that anything I have stated was wrong. Most of you have avoided my questions, or responded to them with questions of your own.

As it is clear that you don't understand anything about the subject at hand, it was evident that you were going to deny us having shown you wrong. That's why I said to disregard that and to present some evidence. Now, please start presenting evidence.

Thus far, the evidence count from ergo is: zero.

 

[ergo]

All "pancaking" means is that floors impacted the floors below them.

If you can somehow arrange for the dropped floor to completely miss the floor below it, 110 times in a row, then -- hey, no pancaking. Otherwise, you have pancaked floors.

Thus, whatever else you're trying to argue about pancaking -- that it's impossible, that Bazant's model omits it, that it happened and shouldn't have, that it didn't happen and should have, or whatever (it seems to change from one sentence to the next) -- is equally ridiculous.

No, that's not correct. Pancaking implies that the floors compact one on top of the other. This is clearly not seen in the collapse progression, or at Ground Zero, except for the one picture that Kent1 linked to of the floors in the basement. It would also, as I already stated, not explain the disappearance of the core structure, as the core structure would not be able to pancake.

But please, take up your pancaking objections with NIST. I'm sure they'd love to hear them.

 

[ergo]

You need an alternative hypothesis in order to replace an old hypothesis, especially when the old one is well established with plenty of evidence, which the NIST model is.

You need to be able to show why the old hypothesis doesn't work in order to demonstrate the need for a new one. I have already outlined the main points that scientists and engineers have raised about this. In this very thread. None of you have been able to refute these.