9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

[Kent1]

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.



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.

Again repeating the same hollow claims. You expect US to support our claims. Now we ask the same of you.

 

[ergo]

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.

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

Evidence for this has not been presented. This is my whole point. Bazant does not provided the analysis for rubble. His model assumes an intact upper block which "gains" mass from the accumulating rubble. Not rubble alone. NIST doesn't even bother trying to figure this out. So you must be agreeing with me that Bazant's model does not reflect reality.

 

[ergo]

And if his model doesn't represent the reality, his calculations are obviously going to be wrong.

 

[uke2se]

Evidence for this has not been presented. This is my whole point. Bazant does not provided the analysis for rubble. His model assumes an intact upper block which "gains" mass from the accumulating rubble. Not rubble alone. NIST doesn't even bother trying to figure this out. So you must be agreeing with me that Bazant's model does not reflect reality.

No. Your view on how moving particles and kinetic energy works is what doesn't reflect reality.

Now I want to see your calculations. No more dodging. No more stalling. Present your evidence now, or admit that you've got nothing.

 

[ergo]

No. Your view on how moving particles and kinetic energy works is what doesn't reflect reality.

Well, we're back to the rubble argument again. Maybe this requires its own thread.

 

[uke2se]

Well, we're back to the rubble argument again. Maybe this requires its own thread.

I'll take the lack of evidence presented in your post as an admission that you have none.

Thread over?

 

[carlitos]

In order to have wrong calculations, you have to do calculations. Something you are refusing to do in order to prove this assertion:

rubble cannot crush through a 90-storey building;

or this assertion:

This still would not collapse the building at the speed of 90 storeys in 13 seconds. (sic)

Just taking the first one:

• A speck of rubble, dropped from z height, will not initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
• A pound of rubble, dropped from z height, will not initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
• X tons of rubble, dropped from z height, will not initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
• Y tons of rubble, dropped from z height, will initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.

(Y is assumed to be greater than X in the above)

Everyone here reading this can understand my point. At some point, you will reach enough rubble that it would crush the remaining floors of the WTC. You can pretend not to understand, but even you realize that a moon-sized field of rubble, dropped from some height, would crush a skyscraper.

Assuming whatever height x, what is your calculation for Y above? How much energy would it need to generate? How much energy did the upper block apply on the floor below it? Why wasn't this enough to initiate collapse?

 

[Myriad]

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

Maybe, but it's very unlikely that you are actually dim enough to have been confused on that particular point. Bizarrely, it appears far more likely that for whatever reason, you wish to pretend to be. Of course in the end, it doesn't matter which.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[bill smith]

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

If we can get stand-up comedians winking and nudging about the government and 9/11 we will already have come a long way Myriad. Do you think we are far short of that ?

 

[pgimeno]

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.

Problem is, all he has is his will for disbelief, and that is driving his ideas and arguments below rational threshold.

Now I want to see your calculations. No more dodging. No more stalling. Present your evidence now, or admit that you've got nothing.

He already did:

Again, please provide visual evidence of these mountains. And, as I've already stated, the mass of a collection of chunks and particles will not have the same kinetic energy as the mass of an intact block.

You've stated this again and again without providing any justification. Care to provide at least one reference?

If I could find one, I would. I base this on how we know rubble and other particulate matter to behave. Could you please provide evidence of this mountain of rubble? Thank you.

​

Just out of curiosity, here's a question for you, ergo: can you think of anything which you would count as a refutation of any one of your ideas, and if so what is it? I might do better if I know exactly what type of evidence/argument you're looking for.

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.

That's a lie. You have already been shown this video:


and these explanations:

The linear momentum of a system of particles is the vector sum of the momenta of all the individual objects in the system
​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Linear_momentum_of_a_system_of_particles

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

and you still don't accept it as such evidence or explanation as the ones you're requesting. You just deny reality.

And if that's the description of what would convince you but in reality nothing does, it means that you are acting like a religious fanatic.

And the fact that in these conditions you keep arguing here makes you a troll.

 

[beachnut]

"Could be" 5 inches?

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.

You posted proof of a WTC being about 5 inches when it is crushed. Thanks! The large mass is 3 or more floors crushed together, and if you can't realize that you are lost in ignorance.

How thick is the floor pan? This is funny since all the floor pans in the WTC stacked up is a very small pile.

All the floor of the WTC concrete is only 440 inches. 37 feet tall.

The floor pans are only how tall. Can you do research, or are you all delusions idea posting 911 truth cult member who regurgitates what you are told to.

The core can not stand without the floors and shell. WTC is not like the Madrid building at all! Except the steel only structure of the Madrid building collapsed due to fire, like the WTC! And like WTC 1, 2, and 7, the Madrid building was totaled due to fire.

The OP presentation was excellent, and debunks 911 truth. Of course all 911 truth has is delusions; not much to debunk.

 

[ergo]

Again, please provide visual evidence of these mountains. And, as I've already stated, the mass of a collection of chunks and particles will not have the same kinetic energy as the mass of an intact block.

You've stated this again and again without providing any justification. Care to provide at least one reference?

Hey, pgimeno, thanks for pointing out that you still haven't provided any evidence of these "mountains" of yours! Are they "theoretical" mountains? I guess they would have to be for your theoretical collapse!

The linear momentum of a system of particles is the vector sum of the momenta of all the individual objects in the system
[/indent]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Linear_momentum_of_a_system_of_particles

Thanks for bringing this up again. I asked Big Al several times to explain this definition and how it applies to the alleged crushing rubble in the WTC. Perhaps you would care to explain, since you seem to understand so much about it.

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

What does this mean? How does it define system? It also says:

However, this quantity, as with single objects, depends on the inertial frame of the system observer. In systems of masses where two or more masses are traveling with different velocities, the system kinetic energy can be minimized by choice of inertial frame,

What does that mean?

You guys are pretty good at posting wiki links, pretty crappy at explaining how that information applies to what we're talking about. It almost makes me think you're just googling stuff without really knowing what any of it means. If I'm wrong, please take this opportunity to explain it clearly. Thanks.

 

[ergo]

You posted proof of a WTC being about 5 inches when it is crushed. Thanks! The large mass is 3 or more floors crushed together, and if you can't realize that you are lost in ignorance.

Oh, ffs.

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.

Moving goalposts and twit logic on top of it. Stop wasting people's time.

 

[AZCat]

Hey, pgimeno, thanks for pointing out that you still haven't provided any evidence of these "mountains" of yours! Are they "theoretical" mountains? I guess they would have to be for your theoretical collapse!



Thanks for bringing this up again. I asked Big Al several times to explain this definition and how it applies to the alleged crushing rubble in the WTC. Perhaps you would care to explain, since you seem to understand so much about it.



What does this mean? How does it define system? It also says:

What does that mean?

You guys are pretty good at posting wiki links, pretty crappy at explaining how that information applies to what we're talking about. It almost makes me think you're just googling stuff without really knowing what any of it means. If I'm wrong, please take this opportunity to explain it clearly. Thanks.

I think if you really don't understand the concepts for which you are requesting an explanation then you are getting a bit ahead of yourself when you ask for an energy analysis re. the collapses of the towers.

 

[ergo]

Maybe, but it's very unlikely that you are actually dim enough to have been confused on that particular point. Bizarrely, it appears far more likely that for whatever reason, you wish to pretend to be. Of course in the end, it doesn't matter which.

No, believe it or not, when you said "collapse", I assumed you meant collapse.

 

[ergo]

This is what I mean by using correct terminology. I know many "debunkers" consider correct terms to be merely inconvenient, a silly insistence on "semantics", and that we should all be able to intuit what you really mean, but in the real world, we do have to make arguments, and if you're fudging your words or using vague terms or changing them all the time, and people don't understand you, guess what? It's not their fault. It's your fault.

What I think is often happening with "debunkers" is they're doing it on purpose so they can either mask the fact that they're really not clear on what they're saying, or they are leaving themselves some wiggle room so they can change their meaning at some point later if reality ends up forcing them to.

 

[ergo]

I think if you really don't understand the concepts for which you are requesting an explanation then you are getting a bit ahead of yourself when you ask for an energy analysis re. the collapses of the towers.

That's a fair comment. Except that I am asking for an energy analysis of the rubble's ability to crush 90 storeys. My request for such is mainly to point out that there isn't such an analysis, and even if there was, it probably wouldn't be calculated by any of the posters who are demanding similar from me.

 

[TruthersLie]

Anyway, it's sort of a moot point.

anyways that handwave is very nice... keep it up.

It is a point which has been shown to you. Pancaking DID occur.

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.

You are too funny...

 

[TruthersLie]

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

What is false about it?

that there were some pancaked floors? Oopsie there were.

that the connections broke as the dynamic load was much higher than the connections were capable of supportign and caused the building to "unzip?"

and that LOOSE particles in an system have the same mass....

I'm still waiting for you to provide any math to back up your assertion that the Mass of the towers was any less due to the "rubble" or "loose particles," I"m sure you will be providing that anytime now right?

 

[TruthersLie]

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

Stop watch yet?
It has been 9 years... and you can't even use a stopwatch? Really?