Split Thread Was global collapse of WTC inevitable?

[Dave Rogers]

And typing this out as if it's scientific and logical doesn't embarrass you. Really?

I'm glad to see that the concept of embarrassment isn't a completely foreign one to you. You need to work on the practical side a little more, though, if you think it's embarrassing to point out that rubble isn't weightless.

So, where is the visual evidence of the existence of either of the upper blocks halfway through collapse progression?

Please feel free to offer up any of the visual evidence you like, if you want the grown-ups to explain it to you. In particular, there's this stuff called "dust" that's produced when things like plasterboard and drywall get crushed, and it's very difficult to see through. You might also like to look up the word "smoke".

Dave

 

[Andy_Ross]

Ergo is it your contention that all the worlds engineers and architects with relevant qualifications and experience are 'in' on the 9/11 plot?
If they aren't why don't the yfind any major problems with the findings and models of why the towers collapsed?

YOur argument is the same as those Moon Hoax proponents who claim the 'moon rocks' are fakes and all the worlds geologists that have studied them and all those seleneologists and astronomers who have based their work on the Apollo data are all either duped or 'in on it' and only a small handful of unqualified whistle blowers know the truth.

From outside the 'truther' circle the whole movement looks rediculous.

 

[twinstead]

From outside the 'truther' circle the whole movement looks rediculous.

This can't be stressed enough.

 

[Furcifer]

Wait a minute, wait a minute... I have that guy on ignore. Did he just try to refute Bazant and Zhou's limiting case by claiming it doesn't match the collapse itself? And after all these years that we've been explaining exactly what a limiting case is and means? OMG... Clueless. Absolutely clueless.

Yep, he's taking the "upper block wasn't "intact" so Bazant et. al. must be lying" approach.

He's a Heiwa savant.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

<nevermind>

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Ergo is it your contention that all the worlds engineers and architects with relevant qualifications and experience are 'in' on the 9/11 plot?

It's their contention that because "none of them speak out about it" you "can't possibly know the position they take on it. Then when that doesn't work we're all apparently afraid of losing our jobs and contracts, When that doesn't work we're all apparently cowards. Considering that the building codes have seen considerable changes as a direct result of the inquiries already undertaken I would think if the they were based on fraudulent research that Gage himself would be contesting these results, strangely he doesn't touch it

 

[twinstead]

It's their contention that because "none of them speak out about it" you "can't possibly know the position they take on it. Then when that doesn't work we're all apparently afraid of losing our jobs and contracts, When that doesn't work we're all apparently cowards. Considering that the building codes have seen considerable changes as a direct result of the inquiries already undertaken I would think if the they were based on fraudulent research that Gage himself would be contesting these results, strangely he doesn't touch it

Yes. Every expert who doesn't explicitly provide every member of the truth movement with a signed statement, in triplicate, that they at this time don't believe 9-11 was an inside job may just be a secret truther, cowering in the shadow of the jack-booted NWO secret police.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's their contention that because "none of them speak out about it" you "can't possibly know the position they take on it. Then when that doesn't work we're all apparently afraid of losing our jobs and contracts, When that doesn't work we're all apparently cowards. Considering that the building codes have seen considerable changes as a direct result of the inquiries already undertaken I would think if the they were based on fraudulent research that Gage himself would be contesting these results, strangely he doesn't touch it

Just like apollo, They forget that if NASA had just invented the APollo data then any future Lunar landing would show it all to be a hoax. SOme argue that China, Russia and ESA are all in on it as well somehow.

Look at the Freeman on the Land crowd. They lose court case after court case using their 'ideas' so they claim that all the Judges and Lawyers know the 'Freemen' are right but they won't let on they are all 'in on it'

It seems to be a common conspiracy delusion.

 

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Carlos
An extreme example: if you drop an anvil on a sand castle, the force applied to the sand castle will be exactly the same force applied on the anvil. This is Newton's Third Law, which states only the existence of a pair of action-reaction forces.

Which actually demonstrates why rubble has less ability to apply force than intact material. Thanks.

Bee dunkers always bring up these ridiculous examples, thinking they're somehow analogous.

Gee how dumb can you get?? I highlighted where you failed to understand Newton's Laws.

 

[1337m4n]

Alright, I'm going to do it. But before I do, I wish to stress that I am not to be held liable if ergo actually tries this.

ergo: Since your argument is that "rubble" is incapable of exerting destructive force, I am hereby challenging you to drop 500 pounds of loose sand on your head all at once from a height of at least 10 feet. If your argument is sound, then you have nothing to fear. The sand cannot possibly harm you since all it is is "rubble".

Right?

 

[Quiproquo]

Alright, I'm going to do it. But before I do, I wish to stress that I am not to be held liable if ergo actually tries this.

ergo: Since your argument is that "rubble" is incapable of exerting destructive force, I am hereby challenging you to drop 500 pounds of loose sand on your head all at once from a height of at least 10 feet. If your argument is sound, then you have nothing to fear. The sand cannot possibly harm you since all it is is "rubble".

Right?

Isn't the "10 feet" here the problem? The upper block did not fall "100 feet" onto the lower block.

I am not betting my life on this, but if you suddenly release 500 pounds onto a 1x1 square meter area, around the level of my head, I think I may still be standing up, and I am not even made up of steel, trusses, and core beams!

(I have very little physics expertise, just using my common sense)

 

[Pardalis]

(I have very little physics expertise, just using my common sense)

There's your problem right there.

 

[Oystein]

Isn't the "10 feet" here the problem? The upper block did not fall "100 feet" onto the lower block.

I am not betting my life on this, but if you suddenly release 500 pounds onto a 1x1 square meter area, around the level of my head, I think I may still be standing up, and I am not even made up of steel, trusses, and core beams!

(I have very little physics expertise, just using my common sense)

Let's see.
My body, when standing, covers a ground area of 55cm X 17cm (width of shoulders X depth of chest), or 0,0935sqm. Ah heck, make that 0.1sqm.
So 500 (metric) pounds on 1sqm would dump 50 pounds on me.
I believe I can statically support about 180 pounds (90kg) without crashing. Apply a safety factor of 3, and a safe static load for me is 60 pounds. Sooo I guess your assumption is fair.
Let's drop 60 pounds of sand on me.

After a fall of 10 feet - make that 3m - that sand has a speed of 7.7 m/s

Now, the maximum force that I can bear is 180 pounds X 9.8 m/s² - make that 900 m kg/s².
With that force, I can thus decelerate the 60 pounds of sand at a rate of 30m/s². To slow down from 7.7m/s to 0, it takes about 1m

So these 60 pounds of sand would shorten be by 1m before I can arrest it. Ok, let's suppose that half of the impulse gets deflected to the side - it would still break my back.



You see, a little knowledge of physics really helps sometimes.

 

[Quiproquo]

We got a team of pros on our hands.

 

[ergo]

Apply a safety factor of 3, and a safe static load for me is 60 pounds. Sooo I guess your assumption is fair.
Let's drop 60 pounds of sand on me...

So these 60 pounds of sand would shorten be by 1m before I can arrest it. Ok, let's suppose that half of the impulse gets deflected to the side - it would still break my back.

Whereas a 500 lb. anvil would do what to you, Oystein?

Quipro, I wouldn't worry about it. They frequently use incorrect and inapplicable analogies like these. We've been through a number of them. They apparently see no difference in an object's ability to do work whether it's intact or fragmented.

 

[excaza]

They apparently see no difference in an object's ability to do work whether it's intact or fragmented.

Except that's not what you're saying. You're implying that fragments cannot do any damage, ever. Hence your moon-sized rubble field gaffe.

 

[Dave Rogers]

They apparently see no difference in an object's ability to do work whether it's intact or fragmented.

Enlighten us, ergo. Here's an example for you to work through for us. What is the useful work available from an intact object weighing 1kg suspended at a height of 10m above ground level, and what is the useful work available from a 1kg bag of sand suspended at a height of 10m above ground level?

Dave

 

[ergo]

Enlighten us, ergo. Here's an example for you to work through for us. What is the useful work available from an intact object weighing 1kg suspended at a height of 10m above ground level, and what is the useful work available from a 1kg bag of sand suspended at a height of 10m above ground level?

Fixed that for you.

 

[ergo]

Except that's not what you're saying. You're implying that fragments cannot do any damage, ever. Hence your moon-sized rubble field gaffe.

Have you modeled this moonful of rubble yet, ex? Does it really require a moonful of rubble?

 

[excaza]

Have you modeled this moonful of rubble yet, ex? Does it really require a moonful of rubble?

Enlighten us, ergo. Here's an example for you to work through for us. What is the useful work available from an intact object weighing 1kg suspended at a height of 10m above ground level, and what is the useful work available from 1kg of sand suspended at a height of 10m above ground level?