9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

BigAl said:
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.
Click to expand...

So you disagree with Bazant, who claims that collapse was "inevitable" once it was initiated. Yes? Or no? Make up your minds, "debunkers".
 
ergo said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's what Bazant did. On September 13, 2001. Didn't you read it?

http://math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/

Why did the World Trade Center towers collapse?
Press Release, September 13, 2001
by Zdenek P. Bazant

McCormick School Professor and Walter P. Murphy Professor
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Northwestern University

The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
Click to expand...
 
ergo said:
So you disagree with Bazant, who claims that collapse was "inevitable" once it was initiated. Yes? Or no? Make up your minds, "debunkers".
Click to expand...

Well considering the mass on top the weakened structure below it, it was inevitable to collapse.

We've made up our minds long ago. How come you've never made up your mind on what conspiracy theory to follow once it gets debunked?
 
ergo, perhaps we could cut to the chase, rather than arguing past each other.

You point out Bazant's hypothesis. (ETA - which was tested and validated by NIST)

What is your hypothesis?
- about the building collapse
- about what happened on 9/11 - who, what, where, why, how?

Thanks. :)
 
ergo said:
As the chief structural engineer for the WTC already has claimed, the Twin Towers withstood the jet impacts. Try again.
Click to expand...

Impact, yes. Fire, no.

Enjoy.

Henry Guthard, engineer and one of [WTC designer] Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

Source: http://snurl.com/j54gc (Report From Ground Zero page 188)
Click to expand...
 
carlitos said:
What is your hypothesis?
- about the building collapse
- about what happened on 9/11 - who, what, where, why, how?
Click to expand...

My "hypothesis" is that the Bazant/NIST explanation of the Twin Towers collapses is incorrect and based on a model that doesn't work in real life. Crush-up would inevitably occur before crush down. My evidence is the video evidence showing that, indeed, the upper block is seen to be crushing up before the hypothetical crush-down could even begin, and is not seen again in any videos or photos showing the collapse progression.

More evidence is found here, which demonstrates that crush-down would not happen before crush-up. These experiments obviously could be done with rubble-ized materials against intact materials, with even more dramatically negative results.

9/11 Experiments: The Arbitrator of Competing Hypotheses

So, if you disagree with this evidence, please show us examples in real life where crush-down of a major portion by a minor portion occurs before crush-up. Using ratios that are comparable to those we see in the WTC.
 
Last edited:
BigAl said:
Impact, yes. Fire, no.
Click to expand...

Lol. But just a few minutes ago, Al, you claimed:

BigAl said:
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.
Click to expand...

So which is it? You're still arguing collapse "inevitability" after initiation. I'm telling you demonstrate it.
 
ergo said:
These experiments obviously could be done with rubblized materials against intact materials, with even more dramatically negative results.
Click to expand...

And yet, nobody has done them nor published the results. The Man is keeping them down.
 
ergo said:
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.
Click to expand...

So how did the water damage the car then?

We all agree that SOME of the mass of the rubble is lost as it flows out of the tower... but not ALL, nor HALF, not even A quarter...

This is where you keep stepping on your dick... you keep saying "people have shown" but you don't back it up.

Show us the MATH.

did the "loose" water (which wasn't directed in a stream) manage to crush the car?
 
ergo said:
My "hypothesis" is that the Bazant/NIST explanation of the Twin Towers collapses is incorrect
Click to expand...
We have another poster that does this; putting a word in quotes to give it a different meaning. Please don't do that. A "hypothesis" is not "x is wrong." A hypothesisWP is "y is right."

Why won't you state your hypothesis for why the buildings failed. Then we can test it. Heck, start a new topic and post it. Please make sure that it is sound physically, and it conforms to observed events. Bonus points for who, how, why, what, where.

As far as your evidence, it is refuted by the Verinage videos.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom