9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

[ergo]

You said you don't know how to do the math, I provided you the resources. Go learn.

The "math" is what supposedly implies inevitability of collapse. Nothing else. We don't have any demonstrations of that principle. Please show me your evidence that this is some kind of universal principle, which claims of "inevitability" imply.

 

[carlitos]

plonk

I don't have one. It's not my primary concern.

Got it.

 

[TruthersLie]

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

according to you a bowling ball broken up into pieces when dropped won't hurt someone...

I have seen people crushed to death under sand (just loose particles) that have fallen from about 8 feet... but hey you claim it...

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

Oh Stundie... YOu are too much fun. When you do the MATH (which you haven't provided, but what do you expect from someone who can't operate a stopwatch), you will then find it was "obvious" and inevitable that once a collapse started it would continue...

PROVE IT WRONG. It should be easy.

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

that is what you have implied... that those loose particles can't do damage to intact structures.

Just for your information, avalanches take the paths of least resistance.

which is exactly what the top portion of the towers did. Since they were FALLING down, they impacted what was below them and it gave way, which continued as the mass increased.

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

It has been shown repeatedly. It has been demonstrated and ACCEPTED by the vast majority of the engineers in the WORLD. Now the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU.

So prove it wrong.

It is very simple. Just one peer reviewed engineering journal article anywhere in the world, in any language which says NIST is wrong... or are all of the structural engineers in the world in on it?

 

[TruthersLie]

Yes, I have read it. This is a hypothesis. It's not an experiment. You have to be able to test a hypothesis. So test it.

I love it when twoofs move goalposts...

You disagree with the accepted narrative... prove it wrong. It should be EASY if simpeltons like truthers can see all of these "problems."

I eagerly await your first peer reviewed journal article in any peer reviewed engineering or physics journal anywhere in the world in any language... when can we expect that?

 

[Disbelief]

Ratios aren't even close.

How heavy are the goalposts? Yesterday you said that it had to be a smaller upper structure crushing a larger lower structure. Now, there has to be a certain ratio? What is that ratio? how did you calculate it?

 

[excaza]

The "math" is what supposedly implies inevitability of collapse. Nothing else. We don't have any demonstrations of that principle. Please show me your evidence that this is some kind of universal principle, which claims of "inevitability" imply.

The impact of the falling floors exceeded the yield strength of the support structure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_(engineering)

Causing them to fail and buckle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling

A more in-depth understanding can be found here
http://www.amazon.com/Engineering-M...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282927541&sr=8-3

Go learn.

 

[ergo]

You know, if you don't want to defend the Bazant/NIST hypothesis, I don't blame you. But don't pretend that you can, when you clearly haven't, and don't insult others who have demonstrated, through theory and/or experiment, the many ways it doesn't work.

 

[uke2se]

It's so sad to see that the whole twoof movement operates entirely on incredulity.

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

You have ignored several videos of verinage where less than 50% has crushed down more than 50% of the building. Handwaving it away

You have ignored a verinage where there are 3 intact floors which crush down about 12 floors below it... handwaving it away..

now you want it in the "comparable ratio" to the WTC.
Woo Hoo!!! You sound a great deal like Heiwa... in the whole 10% can't crush down 90%...

<chortle>

 

[uke2se]

You know, if you don't want to defend the Bazant/NIST hypothesis, I don't blame you. But don't pretend that you can, when you clearly haven't, and don't insult others who have demonstrated, through theory and/or experiment, the many ways it doesn't work.

I sense that ergo is about to run off and claim victory as he's realized he can't BS his way out of this discussion.

 

[carlitos]

Just thinking about the ratios, wasn't it 30 stories crushing down one story, then 31 stories crushing down another story etc? What the hell kind of logic do these boneheads have? If I make a smoothie, do 100% of the bananas have to be blended the instant I push the 'blend' button?

 

[TruthersLie]

You know, if you don't want to defend the Bazant/NIST hypothesis, I don't blame you. But don't pretend that you can, when you clearly haven't, and don't insult others who have demonstrated, through theory and/or experiment, the many ways it doesn't work.

Stundie...

I'm going to tell you a story about how to earn a Phd EASY.

This comes from my PhD advisor, and I"m taking his advice because it is so easy.

Do you know the way to earn a PhD in any field? Find some other PhD's work, and then show they are wrong.

Simple. Fast. Easy. And there is your dissertation. All wrapped up in a nice, tight little bow.

9 years since Bazant's first BOE paper... 9 years. And yet, not a single truther has managed to show that the LIMITING CASE of the BEST CASE scenero is WRONG.

You have the opportunity of a lifetime. You can correct one of the BEST structural engineers on the planet. And if you do it, you will not only earn a Phd almost immediately (once you defend it), I can guarantee you will be hired by the BEST engineering schools in the world. Immediately.

Where is that peer reviewed refutation of Bazant? I'm still waiting for it. Do you have it, or just arguments from incredulity and ignorance?

 

[ergo]

Just thinking about the ratios, wasn't it 30 stories crushing down one story, then 31 stories crushing down another story etc?

Well, for the record, I don't think either of the upper blocks was 30 storeys. And the notion of 30, or 25, or 12 against one anyway is a misunderstanding of how load is absorbed in an impact. I thought this was already clear.

 

[TruthersLie]

You know, if you don't want to defend the Bazant/NIST hypothesis, I don't blame you. But don't pretend that you can, when you clearly haven't, and don't insult others who have demonstrated, through theory and/or experiment, the many ways it doesn't work.

Oh BTW...

Who are these folks again?
Where have they published their work again?

 

[TruthersLie]

Well, for the record, I don't think either of the upper blocks were 30 storeys. And the notion of 30, or 25, or 12 against one anyway is a misunderstanding of how load is absorbed in an impact. I thought this was already clear.

Please lecture us prof... pretty please tell us how the load paths of the towers were set up to withstand the impact of 12 floors...

I eagerly await your thesis...
(of course that is assuming you have figured out how to use a stopwatch yet)

MATH is your friend... got some? If so, provide it.

 

[carlitos]

I sense that ergo is about to run off and claim victory as he's realized he can't BS his way out of this discussion.

Just to clarify my earlier post, 'plonk' is a usenet term, meaning I put him on ignore. Arguments from incredulity get old quickly.

 

[ergo]

Just to clarify my earlier post, 'plonk' is a usenet term, meaning I put him on ignore. Arguments from incredulity get old quickly.

Arguments with no evidence get silly pretty quickly. But yes, put me ignore. As Bill pointed out, the future for you folks is in stonewalling.

 

[TruthersLie]

Arguments with no evidence get silly pretty quickly. But yes, put me ignore. As Bill pointed out, the future for you folks is in stonewalling.

then provide some evidence.

provide the names and papers written which show that NIST and Bazant are WRONG.

I have asked you for this repeatedly and you just handwave it away...

pretty please.

 

[beachnut]

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

It was. Since your physics is pure fantasy and junk, you are unable to understand Bazant, fire science, physics, or the WTC collapse.

Now you prove you can't understand engineering models, and you debunk yourself. You are your own debunker as you mangle physics beyond recognition.

You are the debunker, you are self-debunking. Your posts are nonsense when it comes to physics. What is next?

... you have presented nothing to debunk, but you debunk yourself with idiotic statements on physics. How can you be worse as you ask for proof but have no clue what you are talking about. What is your next delusional point? Wait, you failed to make any points you are asking questions which expose your complete lack of knowledge in all areas of 911.

 

[uke2se]

Arguments with no evidence get silly pretty quickly. But yes, put me ignore. As Bill pointed out, the future for you folks is in stonewalling.

You haven't provided any evidence, so you can imagine why we think you're silly then.