• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

another kook for you guys to 'debunk'

ergo said:
Arrgh! So close! And then, for reasons unknown, you pick the one answer that isn't supported by any historical precedents
Click to expand...
That's nice but we use experimental data already conducted to determine material properties and structural system studies of the building to determine if the collapse mechanism has merit. Abusing precedents without accounting for the real world data we already have is just laziness.
 
I still don't understand the whole 'never before in history' thing. Couldn't you use that same logic to say the Challenger or even the Titanic were conspiracies instead of caused by (now) well-known material properties?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Very loud bangs a few seconds before the initiation of collapse. I don't need to appeal to NIST's authority; these sounds are absent from the sound tracks of videos of the collapse, except for the ones where they've been edited in by lying truthers.
Click to expand...

The loud bangs of conventional CD? There's another thread here discussing the thermate experiments of Jon Cole.

And you repeatedly ignore eyewitness and survivor testimonials in favour of your "no explosion" fantasy. Or you try and interpret for them what they heard. This is what passes for "analysis" and scientific inquiry with bee dunkers.

Nice move of the goalposts there. You said a few upper floor failures, and as anyone can see from the NIST analysis the failures were neither few, nor minor, nor confined to the floors. But good luck with your quest to uncover the truth by playing cheap debating tricks.
Click to expand...

We're talking about the failures that initiated collapse. What are you talking about?

In your head, maybe. However, even if that had been established in all cases (which is impossible, because it's trivial to construct a pathological case in which a solid object has a less severe impact on another object than a collection of particulate matter of the same mass), you would still not have begun to investigate the question of whether the impact of the rubble was sufficiently destructive to cause the collapse.
Click to expand...

This is your opportunity to model a rubble-driven collapse of anything (of itself) but preferably a steel-framed structure. In your absolute best verinage example (the one of three stories dropping through the height of two onto ten) we don't get to see the rubble pile or what's remaining of the building. And I don't think it needs repeating that this wasn't a steel framed structure.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
That's nice but we use experimental data already conducted to determine material properties and structural system studies of the building to determine if the collapse mechanism has merit. Abusing precedents without accounting for the real world data we already have is just laziness.
Click to expand...


"Abusing precedents" ! That's a new one! :D

This is the hallmark of anti-science.
 
excaza said:
I still don't understand the whole 'never before in history' thing. Couldn't you use that same logic to say ...the Titanic were conspiracies instead of caused by (now) well-known material properties?
Click to expand...

Because ships had never sunk before... :rolleyes: !
 
ergo said:
This is the hallmark of anti-science.
Click to expand...
Using precedents without any capacity to understand where each one is limited in comparison is the hallmark of incompetence and pseudoscience.
 
Why were no remains found of any explosive device, detonators, det chords, timers etc?

Not one piece, even after all the rubble and remains was sifted not one bit was found.

Why isn't there any recording of a series of explosions at the time of collapse consistent with demolition charges? If you want to cite presedence then there should be something similar to previous 'controlled emolitions'
 
TruthersLie said:
I'll happily explain to you how many floors would need to be rigged for the towers to have had a progressive collapse.

Just as soon as you explain to me how that water managed to crush that car, or how loose particles of water can destroy solid things... or even how a ton of sand falling wouldn't manage to do the same amount of damage as a ton of bricks or a ton block of marble. (provide it with the physics to show it.)

Feel free. I've been waiting for those answers for months now.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid your tombstone will read:


He was waiting for the answer.
 
ergo said:
What would happen to the explosives if they started burning? Might they detonate? Oh no!

The crash would presumably fulfill the purpose that any explosives that were destroyed by it would have. Other explosives on other floors would still be there. I don't see what the problem is, especially if you can get your mind out of the conventional CD thinking.
Click to expand...

What an odd thing to say since your whole case is built on "it looked like CD".
 
ergo said:
The questions were posed to Dave Rogers, but thanks for your interest. If you're concerned about the powers of your ton of sand I would suggest you go ahead and do your own analysis. It's already been shown that particulate matter cannot have the same impact on an object as another solid object would. That part of the argument is over.
Click to expand...
Really?
Then you can point me to the peer reviewed papers showing that this is true. I'll wait for them.

Or I'll even make it super duper simple... show it to me in a youtube video (that typical standard of truther proof).

I'll wait for it.


You have been asked to model a rubble-driven collapse. You have not yet done so.
Click to expand...

I have used the same level of proof that twoofs use. Youtube videos showing that 1/4 of a building can collapse the lower 3/4. I have show it to you repeatedly.

I have pointed you to real structural engineers analysis of the towers collapse. yet you keep spewing bs.

So provide the papers/videos that shows that "loose particles" do less damage and less impact than a solid mass.
 
ergo said:
What would happen to the explosives if they started burning? Might they detonate? Oh no!
Click to expand...

Only if you are stupid enough to use explosives that detonate when on fire. Unfortunately C4 and other types of HE usually need an electric spark to detonate...

weren't there sparks when the planes hit? yet they didn't go off... amazing that.

The crash would presumably fulfill the purpose that any explosives that were destroyed by it would have. Other explosives on other floors would still be there. I don't see what the problem is, especially if you can get your mind out of the conventional CD thinking.
Click to expand...

Your own pet truther explosives expert disagrees. Danny J states that the detonators for any explosives would fail at over 300 degrees... Gee... how hot were those fires again?
 
ergo said:
It's already been shown that particulate matter cannot have the same impact on an object as another solid object would.
Click to expand...

You keep ping-ponging between assertions. First it was "particulate matter cannot do damage" and now it's "cannot have the same impact." One is completely almost true and the other is completely false. They are not the same.

Can you make up your mind?
 
TruthersLie said:
So provide the papers/videos that shows that "loose particles" do less damage and less impact than a solid mass.
Click to expand...

The don't necessarily do the same amount of damage. It's dependent on what the impact is like (a.k.a the motion of the center of mass). If you take a bunch of loosely packed stuff and drop it, it's going to do less damage than if you packed it together. For example, a snowball and just a clump of snow.

However, this does not mean that it cannot do damage, as ergo has been asserting. Unfortunately, he keeps changing his statement between two things.
 
excaza said:
I still don't understand the whole 'never before in history' thing. Couldn't you use that same logic to say the Challenger or even the Titanic were conspiracies instead of caused by (now) well-known material properties?
Click to expand...


Homo sapiens are an inside job!
 
ergo said:
What would happen to the explosives if they started burning? Might they detonate? Oh no!

The crash would presumably fulfill the purpose that any explosives that were destroyed by it would have. Other explosives on other floors would still be there. I don't see what the problem is, especially if you can get your mind out of the conventional CD thinking.
Click to expand...

What would happen if they get hit by an airplane first? Would they detonate? Would they break apart? Oh noes! No more boom where we need it to be (at a minimum).

What other explosives? Are you now loading the whole building with explosives and saying that it could be done with NOBODY noticing them? Not one person has said that they saw, heard or smelled anything that might lead them to believe that someone was preparing a building for anything. The best you can do is to say that two IT guys almost twenty floors above an impact point said that they had the power off on their floor (with no corroboration I might add).

So I guess now you're a no-planer and/or a space beamer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom