9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

[ergo]

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)

I agree that Y tons of rubble may have the power to crush through or partially destroy a floor or floors below it.

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.

I'm not sure even a moon-sized field or mountain of rubble, dropped from a height of 12 feet would entirely crush the WTC. No. If you had it coming down from a higher height, in a steady stream over a long period of time, we would certainly see some major damage. Total collapse? I'm not sure.

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?

Because the buildings had inherent load-absorbing capacity, like any modern highrise. When force is coming from above, it is referring ultimately through the entire structure. It would take a much greater force, from a much greater height to "crush" the building. Gravity cannot do it, because the building's design prevents it, as do all modern highrise designs.

 

[ergo]

Here is what you posted:

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.

Yes, the upper portion appears to be about equal with the lower.

 

[excaza]

I'm not sure even a moon-sized field or mountain of rubble, dropped from a hieght of 12 feet would entirely crush the WTC. No. If you had it coming down from a higher height, in a steady stream over a long period of time, we would certainly see some major damage. Total collapse? I'm not sure.

Support this, show that a moon-sized field of rubble, dropped from a height of 12 feet, will not cause a total collapse.

Because the buildings had inherent load-absorbing capacity, like any modern highrise. When force is coming from above, it is referring ultimately through the entire structure. It would take a much greater force, from a much greater height to "crush" the building. Gravity cannot do it, because the building's design prevents it, as do all modern highrise designs.

You keep saying this, but not providing any calculations to support your statement. A high rise is not an infinite energy sink, at some point it will fail. Do some basic stress calculations, show how much force it would take to cause the supporting structure in a modern high rise to fail. You know the approximate weight of each floor, the yield strength of steel is a discrete number, and the structural layout is easily found.

 

[ergo]

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.

The cause is from fire. What you describe should happen to other buildings that burn for an hour or more.

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.

It's supported by theory only. It's not supported by reality, and we have not seen the simulations.

 

[ergo]

You keep saying this, but not providing any calculations to support your statement. A high rise is not an infinite energy sink, at some point it will fail. Do some basic stress calculations, show how much force it would take to cause the supporting structure in a modern high rise to fail. The yield strength of steel is a discrete number, and the structural layout is easily found.

Others have provided the calculations, as you well know. I do not have that kind of mathematical knowledge.

 

[excaza]

it's supported by theory only. It's not supported by reality, and we I have not seen bothered to look at the simulations.

ftfy

 

[Disbelief]

Yes, the upper portion appears to be about equal with the lower.

Add counting to something else you can not do correctly.

 

[excaza]

Others have provided the calculations, as you well know. I do not have that kind of mathematical knowledge.

You can't do the physics, yet you are confident in your assertion that the official explanation is wrong? You do realize that makes no sense?

 

[ergo]

You can't do the physics, yet you are confident in your assertion that the official explanation is wrong? That makes no sense.

Yes, because others who have that knowledge have made those calculations and have confirmed my common sense understanding of how buildings collapse.

 

[ergo]

You can't do the physics, yet you are confident in your assertion that the official explanation is wrong? You do realize that makes no sense?

I understand the physical principles. I understand some of the basic calculations, but I could not provide a calculation of the energetic requirements in all these different scenarios. And neither could about 90% of you, judging by the posts I see here.

 

[excaza]

Yes, because others who have that knowledge have made those calculations and have confirmed my common sense understanding of how buildings collapse.

Ok, then please show the calculations you are using to base your insistence that rubble cannot collapse a building, and that a high rise is designed to withstand this type of dynamic load. Other than your assertion that this is "common sense," you have not provided any of this. I'm particularly interested in whose calculations you are using to base your theory about the behavior of particles and the analysis showing that 12+ floors of structural material cannot overload an already weakened structure.

 

[uke2se]

Ergo has now admitted to having no evidence and not being able to do the calculations necessary to support his insane assertions. It's another example of "common sense fail", just as I thought.

If you want to salvage any dignity, ergo, I suggest that you present the calculations you base your delusions on, whoever made them.

Evidence count for ergo: still zero.

 

[TruthersLie]

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

As soon as you take out a stopwatch and time the collapses, I'll be HAPPY to answer this question.

 

[ergo]

Ok, then please show the calculations you are using to base your insistence that rubble cannot collapse a building,

There are no calculations yet because there are no calculations yet insisting that rubble can.

and that a high rise is designed to withstand this type of dynamic load. Other than your assertion that this is "common sense," you have not provided any of this. I'm particularly interested in whose calculations you are using to base your theory about the behavior of particles and the analysis showing that 12+ floors of structural material cannot overload an already weakened structure.

As for the bolded, Gordon Ross explains it pretty clearly. As well as David Chandler. As I've stated before.

As for the behaviour of particles as a system, we would need to see the support first for the argument that they can do what you are claiming.

 

[BigAl]

Because the buildings had inherent load-absorbing capacity, like any modern highrise. When force is coming from above, it is referring ultimately through the entire structure. It would take a much greater force, from a much greater height to "crush" the building. Gravity cannot do it, because the building's design prevents it, as do all modern highrise designs.

Wrong. Buildings don't compress and absorb and dissipate energy in the vertical axis and that is what would be required in the design for your claim to be true.

Highrise buildings are designed to flex, absorb and dissipate energy to deal with hurricanes and earthquakes. That would be in the horizontal.

Buildings sway, they don't bounce up and down. A tall building that doesn't sway will collapse in a mild earthquake.

 

[ergo]

Ergo has now admitted to having no evidence and not being able to do the calculations necessary to support his insane assertions.

One large piece of evidence I will cite is your inability to come up with an example in nature or engineering in which an object or structure is crushed gravitationally by a smaller portion of itself.

 

[BigAl]

one large piece of evidence i will cite is your inability to come up with an example in nature or engineering in which an object or structure is crushed gravitationally by a smaller portion of itself.

wtc1 , wtc2

 

[ergo]

Wrong. Buildings don't compress and absorb and dissipate energy in the vertical axis and that is what would be required in the design for your claim to be true.

Please provide evidence for this claim. I think most structural engineers would disagree with you.

 

[excaza]

Please provide evidence for this claim. I think most structural engineers would disagree with you.

Find one. We'll wait.

Heck, if you want, I'll give you my department head's e-mail so you can ask him.

 

[carlitos]

I don't have much physics, so someone please help me here.

I'm not sure even a moon-sized field or mountain of rubble, dropped from a height of 12 feet would entirely crush the WTC. No. If you had it coming down from a higher height, in a steady stream over a long period of time, we would certainly see some major damage. Total collapse? I'm not sure.

At least you are honest that you don't understand the science or physics. But really, how can you make assertions if you don't understand it?


If you just gently rested this debris field on top of one of the towers, think about what you are saying:

Mass of the moon = 74750000000000000000000 kg
Mass of the World Trade Center tower = 450000000 kg

I don't have time to do the equations now, but I think you are mistaken, to put it mildly.