9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

BigAl said:
wtc1 , wtc2
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6263526&postcount=615

wiki said:
A rhetorical tautology can also be defined as a series of statements that comprise an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the propositions is guaranteed or that the truth of the propositions cannot be disputed by defining a term in terms of another self-referentially. Consequently, the statement conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity making it unfalsifiable. It is a way of formulating a description such that it masquerades as an explanation when the real reason for the phenomena cannot be independently derived. A rhetorical tautology should not be confused with a tautology in propositional logic, since the inherent meanings and subsequent conclusions in rhetorical and logical tautologies are very different.
Click to expand...
 
ergo said:
There are no calculations yet because there are no calculations yet insisting that rubble can.
Click to expand...

Ok, now we have ergo admitting to not being able to produce the calculations, but insisting that others have produced them, and yet here he says that there are no calculations. I think it's safe to say that ergo is basing his ideas not on any calculations, but rather his intense wanting for a government conspiracy, i.e, a religious faith.

Again, ergo leaves us with no evidence, presumingly because of what I stated above, so:

Evidence count for ergo: zero.
 
excaza said:
Find one. We'll wait.

Heck, I'll give you my department head's e-mail so you can ask him.
Click to expand...

Why don't you ask him? Here's the statement Al made:

BigAl said:
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.
Click to expand...

This can be debunked by anyone without engineering credentials. Buildings have to withstand their own gravitational pull. All floors have to be able to support the floors above them. This requires a vertical structure with considerable strength and redundancy. In the case of very tall buildings this also requires a vertical structure that can flex without breaking.
 
ergo said:
Why don't you ask him? Here's the statement Al made:



This can be debunked by anyone without engineering credentials. Buildings have to withstand their own gravitational pull. All floors have to be able to support the floors above them. This requires a vertical structure with considerable strength and redundancy. In the case of very tall buildings this also requires a vertical structure that can flex without breaking.
Click to expand...

Start presenting evidence.
 
uke2se said:
Ok, now we have ergo admitting to not being able to produce the calculations, but insisting that others have produced them, and yet here he says that there are no calculations. I think it's safe to say that ergo is basing his ideas not on any calculations, but rather his intense wanting for a government conspiracy, i.e, a religious faith.
Click to expand...

Your statement makes no sense. The calculations for the energy required for rubble to crush through a 90-storey building don't yet exist. If I'm wrong about that, please cite the appropriate study.
 
ergo said:
I

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.
Click to expand...

Facepalm.
ergo, apparently you do not possess the knowledge to understand the subject at hand. The answer you just gave demonstrates this beyond a shadow of doubt.

Now, if you were to present a paper to an engineering journal with the above admission, you would expose yourself to some corrections from the peers (well, not your peers) who were reviewing it for publication.
I urge you to do this. Perhaps then you will accept the inevitable.

I'll respond to your other problematic statements as well.
 
ergo said:
Your statement makes no sense. The calculations for the energy required for rubble to crush through a 90-storey building don't yet exist. If I'm wrong about that, please cite the appropriate study.
Click to expand...

No, you present evidence for your assertion that the top of the WTC couldn't crush the bottom part.

If my statement makes no sense, it is because it was a summary of what you wrote.

Evidence count for ergo: still zero.
 
ergo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Already done earlier in this thread with thhe verinage. Can you count?

Post 627.
 
ergo said:
Why don't you ask him?
Click to expand...
I'm not your keeper.

This can be debunked by anyone without engineering credentials. Buildings have to withstand their own gravitational pull. All floors have to be able to support the floors above them. This requires a vertical structure with considerable strength and redundancy.
Click to expand...
Of course a building is designed to carry its own weight, do you not understand the difference between static and dynamic loading? Also, why would they bother wasting the money on materials and construction making any significant vertical reinforcement? There's absolutely no reason to plan for floors to start randomly dropping, much less a collection of them. It would be like building a car to withstand the impact from another car falling on top of it, it makes for an impractical car.

In the case of very tall buildings this also requires a vertical structure that can flex without breaking.
Click to expand...
Which is relevant to floors dropping, how?
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
All currently standing highrise structures. All other building collapses outside the WTC.
Click to expand...

No, that's not evidence. That's like claiming there are no murders because there are so many people alive.

Start presenting evidence for your assertions. This would mean mathematical evidence, the sort you sometimes claim that you have, sometimes claim that others have and sometimes claim doesn't exist. Get on with it.
 
ergo said:
Your statement makes no sense. The calculations for the energy required for rubble to crush through a 90-storey building don't yet exist. If I'm wrong about that, please cite the appropriate study.
Click to expand...

It's 1/2 mass times velocity squared. To get velocity, you need time of fall, less drag (you can probably safely ignore drag here). Just use 9.8 meters per second per second, mass of the moon and 12 feet (~3.66 meters).
 
ergo said:
Please provide evidence for this claim. I think most structural engineers would disagree with you.
Click to expand...


Don't know physics much, do you. The things you demand evidence or proof for are simple applications of basic physics.

Here are features used in buildings in earthquake zones to handle horizontal sway. There is nothing comparable in the vertical axis.

# 4 Seismic vibration control

* 4.1 Dry-stone walls control
* 4.2 Lead Rubber Bearing
* 4.3 Tuned mass damper
* 4.4 Friction pendulum bearing
* 4.5 Building elevation control
* 4.6 Simple roller bearing
* 4.7 Springs-with-damper base isolator
* 4.8 Hysteretic damper
Click to expand...
 
BigAl said:
Here are features used in buildings in earthquake zones to handle horizontal sway. There is nothing comparable in the vertical axis....
Click to expand...

"...because I'm not including it here" ! :D
 
uke2se said:
No, that's not evidence. That's like claiming there are no murders because there are so many people alive.
Click to expand...

Then please show me where other highrise buildings naturally collapse the way the Twin Towers did.
 
ergo said:
I already responded to that, and my estimation is correct.
Click to expand...

Actually, you responded in general to verinage, not to the specific example I cited, so you are wrong again.

Thank you for proving you can not count.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom