9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

[Woody-]

/De-lurk

For the bowling balls to be a proper analogy to the WTC a whole truck load of bowling balls would work better. Would you want to be hit on the head by whole truck with the bowling balls still on board as cargo or would you rather it dump the few thousand or so bowling balls ten feet above your head and then have the truck still hit you after the balls.

With the masses involved it probably doesnt make any difference, you are going to be pretty flat regardless. It is just like the WTC towers, the masses contained in the upper sections were so large compared to strength of the floors that it doesn't matter if they were one block or many smaller blocks when the impacted the lower floors.

/Re-lurk

 

[A W Smith]

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

here ya go

 

[beachnut]

I don't suppose you'll be able to point out in which ways he's "wrong", or how he has "failed to present physics." Or present any evidence contradicting his experiments?

His models are wrong. All of his claims about 911 are false. He is delusional if he thinks the video supports his lies about 911. If he understand physics correctly, then he is a fraud, a liar.

Point out one thing he got right about 911. You will not! Why?

I don't suppose you'll be able to point out what he got right?

 

[uke2se]

I have referred you repeatedly to the abundance of evidence against the NIST hypothesis. But, since you ask again, I was apprised earlier of this fantastic video. You may have perhaps seen it, but it's a good refresher course in basic physics that apply to the collapses, including experiments testing the crush-down hypothesis:

9/11 Experiments: The Arbitrator of Competing Hypotheses

I ask for evidence and this is what you come up with?

Pathetic just doesn't cut it in this case.

 

[ergo]

I don't suppose you'll be able to point out in which ways he's "wrong", or how he has "failed to present physics." Or present any evidence contradicting his experiments?

Didn't think so.

I wonder what experiments the "debunkers" have done to prove that crush-down is a universal principle of physics, one that makes collapses "inevitable" for any top-weakened highrise structure.

I look forward to seeing this evidence. Until then, maybe I'll just sit back and laugh.

 

[BigAl]

Didn't think so.

I wonder what experiments the "debunkers" have done to prove that crush-down is a universal principle of physics, one that makes collapses "inevitable" for any top-weakened highrise structure and poor fireproofing and no firefighting effort.

I look forward to seeing this evidence. Until then, maybe I'll just sit back and laugh.

Fixed that for you.

The WTC towers were "steel truss" construction. As shown below, steel trusses fail quickly in a fire where there is no firefighting. There was a truss collapse in the 1978(?) WTC fire in spite of the fact that the sprinklers worked and firemen fought the fire. There was no firefighting in 2001.

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/

(see table D-1 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/#ad )

NIOSH Publication No. 2005-132:
Preventing Injuries and Deaths of Fire Fighters Due to Truss System Failures


All-steel trusses present their own hazards when exposed to fire. The mass and surface area of steel truss components are factors that determine time to failure. A heavy, thick section of steel has greater resistance to fire than a lightweight section of the same length because of the increased mass. A large, solid steel truss can absorb heat and take longer to reach its failure temperature, whereas a lightweight steel truss such as an open-web bar joist will be heated to its failure temperature much faster.

Once the failure temperature is reached, heavy steel trusses and lightweight metal trusses will react to the fire and fail in a similar manner. A steel member fails at the internal temperature of the steel and not at the ambient air temperature. This temperature is often referred to as the critical temperature of the steel member.

Findings reported by the National Engineered Lightweight Construction Fire Research Project indicate that unprotected lightweight steel C-joists fail within 4 to 6 minutes of exposure to fire [Grundahl 1992]. Testing conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Standards (now known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST) showed that unprotected steel open-web bar joists reached 1,200: F in 6 to 8 minutes ...

 

[Arus808]

A 10 lbs of ice cubes falling from 12 feet is still the same mass as a 10lbs of a block of ice falling from the same height.

Easily testable in any environment. Heck, you can do this at home...

 

[pgimeno]

I don't think I'm claiming this. I'm claiming that the form of matter (i.e., whether particles or a solid object) affects its velocity and therefore its momentum, but I'll admit I'm thinking mostly of air resistance.

So that was the energy sink you neglected to mention earlier?

Guess what the energy of the particles will be converted into because of air resistance?

HEAT and SOUND.

The very same HEAT and SOUND that you have repeatedly dismissed.

 

[ergo]

Fixed that for you.

The WTC towers were "steel truss" construction. As shown below, steel trusses fail quickly in a fire where there is no firefighting. There was a truss collapse in the 1978(?) WTC fire in spite of the fact that the sprinklers worked and firemen fought the fire. There was no firefighting in 2001.

The design has nothing to do with it, Al. Fires didn't weaken any of the lower structure. Bazant's math claims simply that, once the impact floors were weakened and collapse was initiated, that collapse progression was "inevitable", based entirely on the mass of the upper block and gravity.

You folks argue that this is common-sense, simple physics. That any idiot can understand it, and anyone questioning it must be an idiot. Show us in an experiment. Demonstrate the inevitability of a top-weakened structural collapse.

 

[ergo]

A 10 lbs of ice cubes falling from 12 feet is still the same mass as a 10lbs of a block of ice falling from the same height.

Easily testable in any environment. Heck, you can do this at home...

If they're in a bag together. Otherwise, no. You have 300-something ice cubes, each with their own mass, falling separately. They, even acting as a system, could not do the same kind of damage that a block of ice could do singly.

 

[BigAl]

If they're in a bag together. Otherwise, no. You have 300-something ice cubes, each with their own mass, falling separately. They, even acting as a system, could not do the same kind of damage that a block of ice could do singly.

Wrong.

 

[ergo]

Wrong.

You had me at "acceleration", Al. Maybe you should have stopped there.

 

[BigAl]

The design has nothing to do with it, Al. Fires didn't weaken any of the lower structure.

Fire was unnecessary once momentum generated forces that exceeded safety factors. The fact that the tower had lost it's structural integrity was the icing on the cake.

 

[beachnut]

Didn't think so.

I wonder what experiments the "debunkers" have done to prove that crush-down is a universal principle of physics, one that makes collapses "inevitable" for any top-weakened highrise structure.

I look forward to seeing this evidence. Until then, maybe I'll just sit back and laugh.

All of it pertaining to 911 is wrong. It only take a grade school education to figure it out.

Please prove any part to us. You don't do physics because you think particles don't have mass. Prove any point you want. Use some math, or physics, or anything you think will help. Your delusions on 911 will not help.

Here you are proving you can't do physics.

If they're in a bag together. Otherwise, no. You have 300-something ice cubes, each with their own mass, falling separately. They, even acting as a system, could not do the same kind of damage that a block of ice could do singly.

You post nonsense, and keep posting it.

The design has nothing to do with it, Al. Fires didn't weaken any of the lower structure. Bazant's math claims simply that, once the impact floors were weakened and collapse was initiated, that collapse progression was "inevitable", based entirely on the mass of the upper block and gravity.

You folks argue that this is common-sense, simple physics. That any idiot can understand it, and anyone questioning it must be an idiot. Show us in an experiment. Demonstrate the inevitability of a top-weakened structural collapse.

Here is where you fail big time. No experiment needed, the WTC collapse is on video for all. Impacts and fires are the only inputs. Steel looses strength in fire, and is deformed in fire.

The chief structural engineer, the single greatest expert on the WTC structure, says impacts and fires destroyed the WTC. Now what, you come out of nowhere after 8 years and with your delusional physics think different.

What do you do? You don't do physics. What is your skill to determine impacts and fires did not bring down the WTC towers?

The design has nothing to do with it, Al. Fires didn't weaken any of the lower structure. ....

Fire didn't weaken any steel? lol, with big lies like this you failed before you started. Why do you lie and post idiot statements?

 

[TruthersLie]

I don't suppose you'll be able to point out in which ways he's "wrong", or how he has "failed to present physics." Or present any evidence contradicting his experiments?

Great.

So then when can we expect his "experiements" to be published in a peer reviewed journal? His physics are as bad as your ability to use a stopwatch or produce evidence... (you still haven't shown where these energy sinks are, or provided any links to any support other than a general "these people wrote about it.")

Again it is either scooby and the gang of dropouts (a discredited disgraced physicist, a known liar, a pizza delivery boy and the rest) vs the entire academic (engineering, architectural and physics) community...

Gee... that is a bit of a stretch... but if you can get just one. JUST ONE peer reviewed engineering journal which states ANY part of NIST is wrong, I'd LOVE to read it. Got one? (ps the answer is no we don't, because we can't do things right, like use a stopwatch)

 

[TruthersLie]

The design has nothing to do with it, Al. Fires didn't weaken any of the lower structure. Bazant's math claims simply that, once the impact floors were weakened and collapse was initiated, that collapse progression was "inevitable", based entirely on the mass of the upper block and gravity.

Stundied...

It is GREAT to know that the design is immaterial to how a building will react... Just like it is great to know that rubble won't hurt you... amazing.

You folks argue that this is common-sense, simple physics.

Often simple physics is counter intuitive and goes against "common sense." Argument from ignorance noted....

That any idiot can understand it, and anyone questioning it must be an idiot. Show us in an experiment.

I showed you rubble/loose particles crushing a car... we all know that avalanches, mudslides and tsunami's can crush and destroy...

Demonstrate the inevitability of a top-weakened structural collapse.

It has been demonstrated in numerous ways... you just don't understand them.

the burden of proof is on you to show that the common narrative is wrong... anytime now...

 

[ergo]

Fire was unnecessary once momentum generated forces that exceeded safety factors. The fact that the tower had lost it's structural integrity was the icing on the cake.

Yeah. We know. That's the "inevitability" theory. That's what I'm saying. Demonstrate that this is some kind of principle supported by physics. Show how a complete collapse must ensue (hence, "inevitability") from gravitation alone in a top-weakened structure.

 

[excaza]

Yeah. We know. That's the "inevitability" theory. That's what I'm saying. Demonstrate that this is some kind of principle supported by physics. Show how a complete collapse must ensue (hence, "inevitability") from gravitation alone in a top-weakened structure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_(engineering)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling
http://www.amazon.com/Engineering-M...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282927541&sr=8-3

 

[BigAl]

Yeah. We know. That's the "inevitability" theory. That's what I'm saying. Demonstrate that this is some kind of principle supported by physics. Show how a complete collapse must ensue (hence, "inevitability") from gravitation alone in a top-weakened structure.

On 9/11 there was no "must."

The towers did collapsible.

It's called reality, deal with it instead of trying to force-fit your "musts" and "can'ts" on it.

 

[ergo]

Just like it is great to know that rubble won't hurt you...

Are you claiming that rubble won't hurt a person?

Often simple physics is counter intuitive and goes against "common sense."

Oh, I thought "debunkers" were all about how "obvious" the progressive collapse was. Is it or isn't it?

we all know that avalanches, mudslides and tsunami's can crush and destroy...

Oh, they can crush and destroy, but they can't hurt human bodies? How do you make that claim?

Just for your information, avalanches take the paths of least resistance. Which is why they flow down valleys instead of over mountaintops. Right?

the burden of proof is on you to show that the common narrative is wrong... anytime now...

No, actually, you need to defend with evidence the theory you support. Show how top-weakened collapse is inevitable in any highrise structure.