9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

[Lyrandar]

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.

... I can't believe I sat all the way through that.

Anyway. I'm going to agree with just about everyone else and say that that video is very, very crappy. Several of the experiments used homogeneous materials; that's not even close to the conditions present in the WTC. The closest, I guess, was the concrete block one, but it wasn't scaled down properly, and that "structure" won't react the same way as the actual building did in response to anything due to its different design. So it still wasn't an accurate simulation of the conditions. Setting up experiments that don't reflect reality and then complaining when they produce results that don't match what really happened isn't a good way to make any points.

 

[beachnut]

... As Bill pointed out, the future for you folks is in stonewalling.

Bill? She posts delusions, and you use her as your only Point?

Stonewalling? You have failed to present a logical argument or valid question which supports your non-stand on 911. You have no stand on 911; you offered no position. You have no evidence, you can't explain your position. You offer nothing but posts like this where you cite Bill, who has not posted anything of value on 911; her post are exclusively lies and delusions.

You post nothing at all.

 

[excaza]

Bazant's report and the NIST report are both well documented and referenced. Your only argument against them is incredulity, and you refuse to take any time to learn about what you're trying to disprove. You've been given the resources necessary to fix your flawed understanding, but you ignore them completely.

What exactly do you want ergo?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Thanks, Chewy

Don't mention it, EVER!

Still a question to be answered:

How come you've never made up your mind on what conspiracy theory to follow once it gets debunked?

 

[alienentity]

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.

You've been shown the real-world evidence thru verinage.

Yet you've handwaved the evidence away. That's your problem, not realities...

You're just wrong, nothing remarkable about it.

 

[twinstead]

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.

Who do you mean by "you folks"? The JREF isn't the creator of the commonly-held narrative of 9-11. We aren't trying to convince you of anything. That's why it's called the commonly-held narrative. We didn't make it up. Are you suggesting that the world's engineering and scientific communities are 'stonewalling'?

the very fact that this debate, if one can call it that, is happening in cyberville on obscure internet forums instead of in the halls of academia should make you do a mighty HMMMMMMMMM.

 

[alienentity]

Ratios aren't even close.

Bare assertion fallacy. You cannot dismiss evidence by just saying 'it doesn't apply'. That's juvenile.

You would have to present a mathematical case to show why the mass of theWTC upper blocks was not sufficient. But of course you can't do that, since it wouldn't be true, and no competent math could support your bare assertion.

So my prediction: You'll keep making the bare assertions while offering no math and no proof for your arguments. And you'll keep ignoring and handwaving the actual evidence.
you're quite typical in your willful ignorance.

You should know that many a truther has abandoned the arguments you're making (because they're so easily falsified) and has moved on to some other assertions - but I won't tip the hand by telling you what those new assertions are. i doubt you could come up with them on your own, since you clearly do not understand physics sufficiently to make an intelligent argument for yourself.

Even if you do eventually stumble upon the new arguments, they're still false anyway so you're in no better position scientifically - you will still fail. The fact that truthers like yourself are stuck making such weak arguments is a testimony to how weak the 9/11 Truth movement is from a scientific and intellectual POV. Emotionally it's not weak of course - pointing a finger at someone else always has power and appeal, and it always will.

'Burn the witch' is essentially the 9/11 Truth battle cry, translated into 'Larry Silverstein and the NWO did the inside job' or something like that.

 

[alienentity]

ergo, are you that desperate that the Cole video is your standard for scientific proof?

Do you have any idea how foolish you are? I'd expect more insight from a child than what you're offering, sorry to say.

The great thing about this is that the 9/11 Truth movement is being reduced to true believers like ergo who are just completely clueless about science. Richard Gage, in his recent debate with Dave Thomas, also revealed the intellectual vapidity of truther arguments.

I've wanted to start a new thread on that subject. I will when I have time. It will be based on a recent NYTimes article about how America is turning into a 'know-nothing' nation, where 'alternative' media sources spread whatever crap they like with virtual impunity. Scary but true. 9/11 Truth is part of this trend of anti-information.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Ergo,

In referring to a post by 'X', you said:

I'm not sure if your math is completely correct.

I just wanted to say (as someone with a PhD in math) that I am sure that his math is completely correct.

Also, regarding the video you posted, I would mention that experiments are useless unless you can show that your experiment is a valid test of the phenomenon you are investigating - that video did nothing but compare apples to oranges. Badly.

As I understand it, your hypothesis is that after the collapse was initiated (however it was initiated) and the upper block dropped through the height of 1 floor, the intact floors below the impact zone should have been able to arrest the collapse. Let's put this in a context that we can wrap some math around. In order for the collapse to arrest, the intact columns must retain the capacity to support the load of the upper block AFTER they absorb all of the kinetic energy left after the upper block impacts the lower block (i.e. after they halt the motion of the upper block). Using conservation of momentum we can determine the velocity of the two floors that impacted each other and hence their kinetic energy. After impact the columns below the impact will be exerting force to slow the impact floors (now moving slower than the rest of the upper block) and the columns above the impact floors will be exerting force to slow the rest of the upper block (and transmitting that load to the impact floors). If we assume that the lower block can exert a force equal to the weight of the building times the safety factor (roughly accurate) then the lower block can at best decelerate the upper block by (safety factor) * g. In order to dissipate the kinetic energy of the upper block, the columns of the lower block must exert force over a distance (i.e. they must do work)

If we do the math (using the floor by floor masses given by Gregory Urich in the Journal of 9/11 studies and basic physics - I'll show my work upon request) for an impact between the 95^th floor and the 94^th floor we find that immediately after impact the combined floors are moving at about 4.24 m/s and the rest of the upper block is moving at 8.5 m/s - a total mass of about 40 kilotons with 1.36 gigaJoules of kinetic energy and that if the columns of the lower block can continuously exert the maximum amount of force possible they would have to compress at least 3.4m divided by the safety margin in order to dissipate this kinetic energy. Think about it - if the safety margin (the number of times its own weight the building can support) is 6, then the columns would still have to compress over half a meter in order to dissipate the kinetic energy and while they were doing this they would have to retain their full strength while heating up (that's how they dissipate the kinetic energy) significantly. It seems all but certain that in the case of the WTC the top of the lower block would be unable to exert its maximum force due to weakening by damage and fire and the fact that the weight would not be bearing where it was designed to (along the columns), but more generally spread out along the floor pan. There would be no rubble before this first impact, so you've got no missing mass and a damaged floor to try to catch a 40 kiloton mass with 1.36 gigaJoules of kinetic energy which at best (in a unphysically optimistic scenario) would require more than half a meter to do. Talk to a structural engineer and ask them if steel columns can perform this way. If the first floor impacted cannot survive, can the second fare any better? With a collapse speed of around 8.5m/s most of the newly created rubble will be unable to exit the footprint of the building (unless you can suggest a method that will impart greater lateral velocities to the rubble) and the mass will roughly double the kinetic energy that the next floor with have to deal with. It rapidly becomes totally inconceivable that a floor could survive. If you still think that the collapse should have arrested after one floor, please tell me how the kinetic energy of the upper block would have been dissipated.

 

[ergo]

Also, regarding the video you posted, I would mention that experiments are useless unless you can show that your experiment is a valid test of the phenomenon you are investigating - that video did nothing but compare apples to oranges. Badly.

Please explain how these experiments are comparing "apples" to "oranges".

^{(Then please explain how comparing apples to oranges can be done "badly". :p)}

 

[TruthersLie]

Please explain how these experiments are comparing "apples" to "oranges".

^{(Then please explain how comparing apples to oranges can be done "badly". :p)}

Sure thing.

Just as soon as you
a. tell us the time it took for each tower to fall (if you have managed to figure out how to use a stopwatch yet).
b. provide citations and links to the "papers" by the people you claim have shown bazant and NIST are wrong.

I'll wait for it.

 

[Arus808]

why wait? guys 22 pages, and ergo hasn't presented one shred of evidence.

He's already stated over and over and over again that he doesn't understand physics, yet ALL of you persist in engaging him as if he did.

HE KNOWS nothing about physics, yet is trying to argue PHYSICS.

Can't you all see that this is going absolutely nowhere.

Ergo is on other forums as well (yes you are ergo). He has been arguing his 911 conspiracy theories for at least a year..


HE will not learn a thing. He just repeats the same lies over and over and over again.

911 denialism is dead. No one in the SANE world believes the truthers anymore.


MOVE ON. Please. these threads are nothing more than goals for the deniers to claim a fake victory BECAUSE you keep engaging them!

 

[Slartibartfast]

Please explain how these experiments are comparing "apples" to "oranges".

^{(Then please explain how comparing apples to oranges can be done "badly". :p)}

As Lyrandar pointed out, his simulated buildings were homogenous and he made no attempt to scale the structural strength in his experiment to levels comparable to the WTC. 'Badly' comes in when he obviously doesn't realize that anyone who understands science will immediately see that his experiments are of no significance whatsoever.

Are you going to explain how that 1.36 gigaJoules of kinetic energy should have been dissipated or will you admit that the collapse was self-sustaining after it was initiated?

 

[pgimeno]

why wait? guys 22 pages, and ergo hasn't presented one shred of evidence.

He's already stated over and over and over again that he doesn't understand physics, yet ALL of you persist in engaging him as if he did.

HE KNOWS nothing about physics, yet is trying to argue PHYSICS.

Can't you all see that this is going absolutely nowhere.

Ergo is on other forums as well (yes you are ergo). He has been arguing his 911 conspiracy theories for at least a year..


HE will not learn a thing. He just repeats the same lies over and over and over again.

911 denialism is dead. No one in the SANE world believes the truthers anymore.


MOVE ON. Please. these threads are nothing more than goals for the deniers to claim a fake victory BECAUSE you keep engaging them!

Seconded entirely.

Summary of ergo's participation in this forum:

"You are all wrong, I have no idea why and I don't want to know, yet I am smarter than any of you".

 

[ergo]

As Lyrandar pointed out, his simulated buildings were homogenous and he made no attempt to scale the structural strength in his experiment to levels comparable to the WTC.

Anyone who understands science will understand that those experiments are demonstrating conservation of momentum. If you think that conservation of momentum only works for some materials, but not mysteriously for "special" ones, then you clearly don't understand the concept. The structural strength or composition of materials in these experiments are irrelevant. Why? Because the upper block in the WTC was made of the same components and designed the same way as the lower block. Both had equal strength. Actually, the lower block had more strength because it was designed to. You could do the same experiments with glued-together toothpick structures and you would see the same results.

The experiments demonstrated that, because of conservation of momentum, crush down does not occur before crush up, and his main point was that there is a visible deceleration of the upper moving body upon impact.

Please explain how the experiments shown do not demonstrate conservation of momentum, and/or why and how the materials and "structural strength" of the Twin Towers would alter this law and disprove these experiments. Thank you.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Anyone who understands science will understand that those experiments are demonstrating conservation of momentum.

Demonstrating conservation of momentum does not equate to exact results between two very different assemblies.

 

[ergo]

Demonstrating conservation of momentum does not equate to exact results between two very different assemblies.

Please explain why.

 

[AZCat]

Please explain why.

Geometric similitude does not imply dynamic similitude.

 

[ergo]

Geometric similitude does not imply dynamic similitude.

In what ways does it not between the experimental models and the WTC?

 

[AZCat]

In what ways does it not between the experimental models and the WTC?

Because the forces seen by structural members in the model and in the original are a function of mass and cross-section, and those two properties do not scale the same. Mass scales as a function of the cube of the scale factor, and cross-section scales as a function of the square, therefore a scale model of the WTC towers will not have dynamic similitude.