9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

[uke2se]

Alien, next time there's an avalanche or landslide, stand there and watch to see whether it comes toward you, or "crushes" vertically downward through the rock and earth, in other words, through the path of greatest resistance.

Ah, so the rubble should actually have jettisoned the lower floors horizontally?

Jesus tap dancing Christ, this thread got stupid when ergo joined it.

 

[uke2se]

Sure, any example in our physical universe in which something is crushed down vertically by a smaller top portion of itself.

And an example or explanation of how rubble can crush through a 90-storey building in under 13 seconds.

There's probably more, but that's good for now...

In other words, this is another example of cmatrix's wager. We need to explain to someone who's completely scientifically illiterate how a complex system works, we need to do it so he understands it, and we need to do it with him denying reality at every turn. I think this is the very definition of "talking to a brick-wall".

While we're at it:

Evidence count for ergo: still zero.

 

[ergo]

It seemed you had trouble understanding the simple fact that NIST doesn't discuss the collapse because their aim was to explain collapse initiation, and as such didn't talk about pancaking. This is more a question of "twoofer" logic than anything.

Well, as pgimeno points out, NIST does mention pancaking, at least three times. Twice to say their findings don't support pancaking, and once to say that "pan-caking" did occur above the intact portion of the building.

Butyou're forgetting that it was my point that NIST discarded the pancaking model. For good reasons.

 

[Myriad]

Neither does FEMA. Why? Because pancaking wouldn't be occurring before collapse!

"Debunker" logic is at the very least, amusing.

FEMA's hypothesis was that separation and pancaking of floors occurred prior to the failure of any columns (that is, before the global collapse).

You appear to be very good at providing fast and wrong arguments. Unfortunately outside casual internet forums with no influence on public policy or action, such arguments are ineffective for any purpose. That is why there will be no new investigation, no rewriting of history books or textbooks, no criminal charges, no public uprising, and generally no significant change in the status quo of our understanding of 9/11 resulting from the Truth Movement or its enthusiasts.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[ergo]

Irrelevant to the discussion of momentum and the collapse of the WTC towers.

No, actually, the discussion of avalanches is irrelevant. As I already have pointed out.

 

[ergo]

Ah, so the rubble should actually have jettisoned the lower floors horizontally?

Strawperson.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

First off, the core of the WTC was never designed to stand on it's own. Sorry, it wasn't. Secondly, the core of the Windsor Tower remained standing because it was CONCRETE! You ave been explained this before, numerous times.

Do youprefer more descriptive words like, demolished, caused to come from togetherness, broke, smashed, beat to ****? Pick one, they still mean the same thing.

 

[uke2se]

Butyou're forgetting that it was my point that NIST discarded the pancaking model. For good reasons.

So, present your reasons. Preferably with supporting mathematical evidence.

Evidence count for ergo: zero.

 

[ergo]

FEMA's hypothesis was that separation and pancaking of floors occurred prior to the failure of any columns (that is, before the global collapse).

Okay. So the pancaking occurred before column failure. What is the point again?

no rewriting of ...textbooks

I sincerely hope you're right about this.

 

[uke2se]

Strawperson.

Then explain the post I quoted. Why would a mudslide push someone downwards, through the ground, and why did you think this was a good simile for what happened on 9/11?

Evidence count for ergo: zero.

 

[Lyrandar]

Sure, any example in our physical universe in which something is crushed down vertically by a smaller top portion of itself.

And an example or explanation of how rubble can crush through a 90-storey building in under 13 seconds.

There's probably more, but that's good for now...

... I thought we already had provided an explanation as to how rubble can crush through a 90-story building. I am not a physicist or a structural engineer, so I can't personally confirm that the math done is correct, but to the best of my knowledge it is correct and based on perfectly sound equations and laws. Can you explain why that isn't sufficient?

(This feels so familiar. I feel like I should write down what I think ergo's response is going to be and see how close I can get...)

 

[Kent1]

For about the billionth time:

NIST doesn't speak towards whether floors "pancaked" during the collapse because they don't speak towards the collapse at all. They speak towards collapse initiation. What happens after the collapse starts is another thing entirely. So the proper answer to the whole notion of NIST "tossing out" the idea of "pancaking collapse" progression is to note that the person saying that does not understand and has misrepresented the NIST findings to begin with, and is not discussing the NIST model at all.

Until these conspiracy addicts start identifying and discussing events that actually did occur on that day, instead of fictionalized truther substitutions for them, there is nothing to talk about. They're not discussing the collapse, nor are they even accurately representing the "Official Story". They're discussing a fiction.

------

And as a minor pedantic point: Pancaking is probably an oversimplification of what happens post initiation anyway. The reality is that debris is impacting the floors, and it's not clear whether those floors gave as a unit, failed in such a way as to cantilever, or broke in even more complex ways. Regardless, what actually happened is a very chaotic series of impacts severing floor-to-column connections, as well as column to column ones. And not all of those failures need to be straight down; imagine a truss giving way on one side that creates a basic "cantilever". Imagine it pulling and "pivoting" the column it's still connected to around the point where it connects to the column below. There's a failure also occuring at that column-to-column pivot point. It's not necessarily a motion that's "straight" down, but in the end it is part of an overall progression towards the ground. The point here is that even "pancaking" collapse is very much an abstraction, and the reality is even more complex than that. That's all I'm trying to say.

The bottom part of your post makes some great points however as shown above NIST does in fact discuss various collapse aspects within the reports and interviews.
By stating they do not discuss the collapse may complicate some otherwise simple points.

 

[ergo]

... I thought we already had provided an explanation as to how rubble can crush through a 90-story building. I am not a physicist or a structural engineer, so I can't personally confirm that the math done is correct, but to the best of my knowledge it is correct and based on perfectly sound equations and laws. Can you explain why that isn't sufficient?

The best explanation I've seen is in the Bazant crush+- model thread that describes the rubble being funneled onto the floors between the core structure and the perimeter columns. This still would not collapse the building at the speed of 90 storeys in 13 seconds.

 

[Myriad]

Okay. So the pancaking occurred before column failure. What is the point again?

The point is that your claim that "neither does FEMA" hypothesize any pancaking before collapse is one of many you have made that are not only false, but obviously false to anyone with the basic knowledge of the matters under discussion.

This suggests that you are entirely unconcerned, as you frame your arguments, with whether or not you are correct and whether or not you retain any credibility to try to convince anyone of your point of view.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[ergo]

Then explain the post I quoted. Why would a mudslide push someone downwards, through the ground,

Not push someone downwards, but crush itself through the earth. And no, it wouldn't, because avalanches don't do that. That's my point. That's why an avalanche is an incorrect analogy.

and why did you think this was a good simile for what happened on 9/11?

Because you are suggesting that rubble can fall to the ground, through a 90-storey building, in only 4 seconds faster than it would take to fall through air.

 

[ergo]

The point is that your claim that "neither does FEMA" hypothesize any pancaking before collapse

Maybe it's because you keep saying "before collapse", rather than "before column failure".

 

[Lyrandar]

The best explanation I've seen is in the Bazant crush+- model thread that describes the rubble being funneled onto the floors between the core structure and the perimeter columns. This still would not collapse the building at the speed of 90 storeys in 13 seconds.

Wow, that's not what I expected you to say.

So you're going after the math. Where did you get that conclusion about it not collapsing the building quickly enough, and how far off the target of 13 seconds is the actual answer?

 

[uke2se]

Not push someone downwards, but crush itself through the earth. And no, it wouldn't, because avalanches don't do that. That's my point. That's why an avalanche is an incorrect analogy.

The analogy was regarding how particles in motion generate kinetic energy just like a solid block in motion. It was yet another way of telling you that you are wrong about rubble not being able to crush anything.


Because you are suggesting that rubble can fall to the ground, through a 90-storey building, in only 4 seconds faster than it would take to fall through air.[/QUOTE]

Yes, and evidence for that has been presented. Now post your evidence that it couldn't happen.

Evidence count for ergo: zero.

 

[uke2se]

Wow, that's not what I expected you to say.

So you're going after the math. Where did you get that conclusion about it not collapsing the building quickly enough, and how far off the target of 13 seconds is the actual answer?

Yes, ergo, where's your mathematical model for the collapse that allows you to discard NIST's mathematical model?

Evidence count for ergo: zero.

 

[Kent1]

The best explanation I've seen is in the Bazant crush+- model thread that describes the rubble being funneled onto the floors between the core structure and the perimeter columns. This still would not collapse the building at the speed of 90 storeys in 13 seconds.

Why do you believe otherwise? Or why 13 seconds for that matter when it was likely longer than 14 seconds. 14-16 roughly sounds decent. With the core falling later.

http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html