9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

[TruthersLie]

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

Oh P. I figured you would remember the asswhipping I gave you at DBS about burden of proof?

I can post those 4 full posts with the full defintiion of burden of proof here if you really want me to.

Or we can just boil it down to the Burden of proof is on the claimant. The common narrative has been accepted by over 90% (I"m being extremely nice to the twoof with this number... personally I think it is closer to 95%) of the world. As such the burden of pwoof is on da twoof.

Got any? After not being able to use a stopwatch, i'm not suprised you don't.

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

I have shown you at least 3 things you have gotten wrong.

the basic one is the collapse time of the towers.

Have you timed it yet? Why not?

 

[TruthersLie]

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...

15 and 20+ seconds.

Why do you continue showing your ignorance and inability to use a stopwatch?

and you have been given a link to a verinage technique in which 4 floors crushed down 12 floors below them... Gee... how did that happen? (oh wait.. it must have been an edit right?)

Water crushing a car, not in a a stream, just a mass of water falling... how did that happen again?

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

stopwatch? Got one? Didn't think so.

 

[pgimeno]

What does this mean? How does it define system?

You are lying again by pretending you don't know. In the conversation with The Almond, with respect to the conservation of energy you specified to him:

In a closed system.

So stop trolling and pretending you don't know what a system is.

Re the reference frame, what is important is the reference frame of the columns receiving the impacts, which are the ones receiving the energy. Since they don't move with respect to the ground, it's a classic physics problem in which defining an alternate reference frame makes no sense at all. I won't care to explain to you what a reference frame is, I just will point out that the paragraph you copy can't be applied in any way that favors your case, and that it's pointless to try to explain to you if you keep protecting your ignorance against any knowledge.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

Please show us where "pancaking" implies that the floors compact one on top of the other. That is merely your interpretation.

Mine is that the floors did fall ahead of the outer and inner structure, They are not strong enough to have remained as discrete floors but were smashed up in the impacts (likely the source of most of the dust) but the weight remains much the same whether the floor is in one piece or a thousand and ,once moving, would be unstoppable. The growing mass of the falling floors would press both inwards bucking the interior column or shearing their joints, and similarly outwards buckling and ripping the exterior columns sections apart.

 

[excaza]

In order to have wrong calculations, you have to do calculations.

• 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?

No answer? Shocker.

 

[X]

Ergo, I ask again:

Over what time frame do you think that the rubble from the upper section impacted the uppermost floor of the lower section?

 

[ergo]

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 notice no one has answered this question. I always enjoy the "debunker" answers to this.

 

[excaza]

i notice no one has answered this question. I always enjoy the "debunker" answers to this.

wtc1 & wtc2

I notice you haven't answered Carlitos yet:

• 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?

 

[ergo]

Ergo, I ask again:

Over what time frame do you think that the rubble from the upper section impacted the uppermost floor of the lower section?

In the crush-down model (not in reality) and judging by the time of collapse and the video evidence, whatever rubble was created in the initial crush-up of the upper block would have allegedly hit the uppermost floor of the lower section in a fraction of a second.

However, the video I posted from plaguepuppy shows that the lower part of the building starts to descend independently from what the upper part is doing.

 

[ergo]

wtc1 & wtc2

Thank you. I should have clarified: any other example in our physical universe. What we're going for here is an example that demonstrates the principle that you folks are trying to pass off as accepted physics.

 

[excaza]

Well, there's verinage, but why does there have to be another example? Skyscrapers don't exactly collapse regularly, 2 examples isn't enough? If it's never happened in the past, it can never happen? Is that the point you're trying to make?

Also, why are you ignoring the question? You claim to know physics better than we do, this should be a straightforward calculation.

• 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?

 

[Disbelief]

I notice no one has answered this question. I always enjoy the "debunker" answers to this.

verinage

 

[ergo]

Why does there have to be another example? Skyscrapers don't exactly collapse regularly, 2 examples isn't enough? If it's never happened in the past, it can never happen? Is that the point you're trying to make?

Skyscrapers never collapse completely from fire. That's the point. The WTC was a completely out of the ordinary, unexpected collapse. Highly unusual.

If you are using as an example the very thing you are trying to explain about this highly unusual event, that's not science, it's circular logic. Any model of the Twin Towers' collapse that attempts to suggest the top portions crushed, smashed or pummeled through the intact portion of a building needs to point to where else this kind of event via the same gravitational mechanism has occurred. All you have so far is a tautology, that "collapse was inevitable after the first floor was crushed through." In fact, Newton's Third Law says this isn't true at all. Collapse was most certainly not inevitable. It was in fact highly improbable.

 

[ergo]

verinage

Verinage is not an example of a minor portion of a structure crushing through via gravity its major portion.

 

[excaza]

Mr. Third Law, please answer the question. You keep insisting physics agrees with you. Show it.

• 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 z, 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?

 

[Disbelief]

Verinage is not an example of a minor portion of a structure crushing through via gravity its major portion.

Here is what you posted:

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

Verinage has a smaller upper portion collapsing the rest of the lower portion. Are you denying that the upper block is smaller? There are videos showing this.

 

[uke2se]

I can't believe ergo is still posting at all. If I was caught with my pants down as he has, I would quietly leave the discussion. It seems he's a masochist.

Since ergo has admitted to not having any evidence for anything he says (admitted so by ignoring any requests for it), the following goes without saying:

Evidence count for ergo: zero.

 

[excaza]

Skyscrapers never collapse completely from fire. That's the point. The WTC was a completely out of the ordinary, unexpected collapse. Highly unusual.

It didn't collapse completely from fire. Fires around the impact area weakened the steel support structure to the point where they could not support the upper portion, initiating the collapse of the upper portion of the towers that could not be arrested by the lower portion of the building.

Any model of the Twin Towers' collapse that attempts to suggest the top portions crushed, smashed or pummeled through the intact portion of a building needs to point to where else this kind of event via the same gravitational mechanism has occurred.

No it doesn't. Just because something hasn't occurred in the past doesn't mean it can't possibly occur. The hypothesis regarding collapse initiation and propagation is supported by theory, simulation, and reality. Unless you can illustrate how this cannot possibly happen (which you could start with by answering carlitos' question), you have nothing to stand on. The physics necessary to get even a basic debunk of the "official conspiracy theory" aren't incredibly difficult, it would not be much of a chore to fix your flawed understanding of it.