2 questions re 1120 'Missing bodies' from WTC 1&2 & media complicity in mass murder

[LSSBB]

The answer to why a 1300 foot building with it's own energy of collapse spreads debris for 600 feet is not unusual. Solve for the energy available, E=mgh, and see if there is enough energy to eject small (yes tons of material, but small parts of a 207x207x1300 foot building) parts of a building hundreds of feet. We are talking about energy equal to more than 260 2,000 pound bombs. Have you seen what a 500 pound bomb can do, not to mention a 2,000 pound bomb times 260?

You posted photos of buildings 30 feet high with debris spread 15 feet. Thus, 1300 foot WTC spreads debris 650 feet.

Did you think before you debunked yourself with your own evidence?

Where did you go? Get yourself to the nearest physics class, do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars.

Where did you go? I was going to make exprsso...

Heh.

(It's espresso, btw)

 

[beachnut]

Heh.

(It's espresso, btw)

Caught again, another F for plagiarism.

Darn, I fixed that before I cleaned the driveway; must of hit the wrong key. Another reason to retire the LC in the KC...

 

[000063]

Well, all that moving mass eventually DID come to a full stop, which means kinetic energy was dissipated 100% eventually. There are three potentially significant energy sinks (that I can think pf) that it dissipated to:
1. Inelastic deformation
2. Seismic waves (going into the ground)
3. Heat (through friction and other processes)

[snip]

However, already during the collapse, as kinetic energy is increasing, a fraction of the potential energy is converted to destruction. For example, if the collapse (actually: the center of gravity of the falling portion of the building) is measured to accelerate at 70% of gravity, then indeed 30% of the potential energy differential is dissipated elsewhere, and mostly as inelastic deformation, iow: destruction.

No, I can't do that calculattion, as I am sure the result, the way you word it, is incorrect. Perhaps you are mixing up things?

Probably. But, like I said, the thread is defunct. I believe someone took the weight of one of the falling sections, calculated how much force it would impact with after falling 1 (or several) floor's distance, and said it would be something like 30 times its static weight. Again, working from memory.

An easy way to look at this would be a simple model:

Start out with a free-fall of the upper part through the height of one floor - let's call that distance "1 fl". It then meets another floor. This floor somehow is designed to carry a maximum load statically, and that would, initially, be the maximum force it can exert without deforming inelastically. That force would slow the impacting mass down, but the impacted, lower floor would have to move down doing so. If it didn't move down, it would be totally inflexible and stop the upper mass instantly - that would be equivalent to in infinite force - and thus impossible.
So the impacted floor has to give way - in elastic deformation, if it is not to be damaged.
Now: How far can the lower structure deform before it fails, by breaking, shearing, whatever? 1 inch? 6 inches? A foot?
If you assume that it can give way elastically for 10% of a floor height (36 cm or so), AND you want to arrest the collapse in that space, then the force it would have to exert would have to be 10 times (100%/10%) the force of gravity - PLUS once more the force of gravity, because gravity of course is also pulling down.

As for columns, truthers usually assume that those have a safety factor of perhaps 3 - so if those can deform elastically by 10% of their length, that would not suffice to arrest the collapse.

In the case of the floor slabs, NIST has determined that the floor-to-column connectors could carry about 10-12 times the static weight of one floor. So if these commectors could deform flexibly by 36 cm, they might just barely be able to arrest the collapse of one floor falling freely through 1 fl.

I'd just like to point out to any truthers that the static weight of 10-12 floors is quite different from the dynamic, falling weight of a dozen and two dozen floors.

However, just looking at these connectors, it is easy to see that they would fail sooner, after a shorter distance of deformation, so in fact they could NOT arrest the fall of one floor - let alone the fall of multiple floor slabs plus that portion of the columns which dropped on the floor slabs, too.

Once two floor slabs have pancaked, the rest of the slabs will be outperformed by even larger margins.

So it takes only 0.1 fl or less to break the static support of a floor, and then the rest of the distance to the next slab, 0.9 fl, occurs in essentially free-fall.

And that is why speed is gained on balance on each floor slab: The connectors could only dissipate a fraction of the kinetic energy won by the fall through 1 (or 0.9) fl.



(In reality, of course, things are a lot more complicated; with the top part having tilted, being somewhat flexible and malleable itself, some mass shedding, etc. That's why there is no easily descernible jolt).

But...but...there should be! It should be perfectly possible to make out a jolt that might've taken a fraction of a second, at most, from blurry low-res video cameras hundreds of feet away!

It is reasonable, IMO, to assume that the pancaking collisions are mostly inelastic, i.e. most of the deformation is destructive, and the loading of any "springs" is marginal. Applying the laws of Conversation of Momentum and Conversation of Energy to inelastic collisions results in a certain proportion of the kinetic energy being dissipated by the inelastic collision itself - and the magnitude of that soon and easily exceeds that which is needed to just break critical static supports. So the crushing of non-structural material, such as concrete, furniture and people, is directly where that much of that dissipated kinetic energy goes.

Thanks.

... If we're talking about pancaking, we're talking about contents being squashed and flattened. How does this pulverize into fine particles and spew them laterally and upward at an average rough rate of 0.18 seconds per floor? What you are seeking is some kind of grinding action. There simply wasn't enough time or energy for that. And even if you found grinding action, this would not really occur along with propulsive action.

Well, it's not like air would be expelled from the collapsing structure at high speed or anything, or we actually have photographs of precisely that happening with structural members. Say, if you apply the same lateral force to a few grams of remains and a large steel beam, which is likely to go farther?

The particle-ization of all the buildings' contents does not suggest flattening or pancaking. The fact that many witnesses reported hearing and seeing explosions take place, the fact that furnishings and bodies were fragmented into pieces less than an inch and propelled laterally, and the obvious explosive appearance of the buildings' destruction suggests to normal people that explosions took place.

1. "Normal people" are wrong all the time. George Washington didn't chop down a cherry tree. No one ever said "Beam me up, Scotty." The Eskimo language doesn't have a large number of words for "snow". Everyone who was educated already knew the world was round in 1492. Napoleon wasn't particularly short for his day. Heck, the lifetime rape incidence for women isn't even 1 in 4.
2. Why are truthers the overwhelming minority of people in the world, then? They are, by definition, abnormal, and declining every year. You're using a bandwagon fallacy, except the bandwagon's empty.
3. Why have you never explained the lack of barotrauma and large amounts of blown out windows, to my knowledge? Heck, I've never seen any truther try to explain it barring some sort of hand-waving about "shaped charges" or magical technology the government totally has, u guiz. As for the lack of audio, it's "explained" as some sort of high-tech nanothermite Schrodinger's explosive, which is both explosive enough to sever steel and quiet at the same time.

And I've never gotten any sort of detailed answer as to how They knew WTC 7 would be hit by debris in a way that wouldn't damage the charges there. In fact, only Clayton Moore has ever tried to answer, and he just hand-waved it with "computer simulation" and then clammed up when I asked for more info.

Of course, Ergo, this is shouting into the wind, since you have me on ignore because I kept asking these sorts of questions, but I doubt you'd be much more likely to answer if you did not.

 

[Scott Sommers]

2. Why are truthers the overwhelming minority of people in the world, then? They are, by definition, abnormal, and declining every year. You're using a bandwagon fallacy, except the bandwagon's empty.

It is because their work is done. Truthers have already transformed the Earth. It is only a a tenacious handful of doubters at the JREF who will not admit the 9/11 Truth. Just take a walk down to your local police or fire department and ask them what they think about 9/11 Truth. Try chatting up that hot girl at the bus stop with talk of the 9/11 Truth. Try writing about the 9/11 Truth on your SAT or GRE exams. Then you'll see how 9/11 Truth has changed the way we think about things, even as you scoff here on the JREF, 9/11 Truth has already won!!

 

[ergo]

Bump for Oystein.

 

[LSSBB]

Hey ergo, are all "Explosions" from "Explosives"?

Bump for ergo

 

[Oystein]

Bump for Oystein.

Oh, you haven't received your serving of whoop-ass today? Well then...

This is a bizarre an irrelevant figure. An "average" drop for 100+ floors? Why do you need that?

Because that is what actually happened. 100+ floors did in fact drop. They did in fact drop, on average, 200+ meters, and all their potential energy of about 200 meters times their total mass times g was in fact mostly converted to destruction.

Thus, it is a highly relevant figure if you want to get a feel for why all that stuff was destroyed in a gravitational collapse.

No, the first floor to "collapse" was 3.5 metres high.

Wrong, the first floor in the North Tower that dropped on another floor was about 300 meters high, and by the time it stopped dropping, it was about 300 meters lower, having most of its potential energy = 300 meters x mass x g converted to destruction.

No free fall drop is possible in your model, and certainly not one lasting 2.2 seconds. You are borrowing a calculation from 9/11 researchers and trying to fit it into your model and it's illogical.

It isn't illogical - you just don't understand the logic. Ok, blame it on me. I should have known better: You are a truther, therefore you have trouble with sound logic.

What matters is that the collapse front moved at an average speed of about 21.5 m/s - on account of the collapse taking about 15 seconds to reduce a 415 m high tower to little over 0 m.

So my model calls for masses colliding at that average speed of 21.5 meters. That's all there is to that bot of the model.

There are many ways to bring a mass to that speed - you could haul it with a truck, have an army of midgets push it, attach rocket engines to it - or let it drop from a height of 23.5 meters. After falling freely from 23.5 m up, which takes about 2.2 seconds, it has attained a speed of 21.5 m/s - and that's all that matters.

I figured having you imagine such a fall would give you a good feel for how fast that is.

You seem to want to use the word "concrete" a lot, which is strange since 9/11 bedunkers go to great lengths to ensure everyone is aware of how little concrete there was in the towers. But if you acknowledge you are also talking about core box columns (leaving out the perimeter columns for these purposes), support walls, partition walls, 100+ storeys of office furniture, steel floor assemblies, carpeting and fixtures, then we are at least on the same page.

Red herring, handwaving...
I said "steel, concrete and stuff"
If you have troubles getting in your head that it doesn't even matter at all, only thing that matters is mass, velocity, hight, energy, try this:

Imagine the tower wasn't made of "steel, concrete and stuff" but "frozen chicken meat, kauri wood and kryptonite" instead. Drop 150,000 tons of that from 200 meters up unto yourself, and observe.

So bedunkers agree on a pancaking model? Does Ryan Mackey agree? Would Major Tom agree with this model?

You're playing the wrong goal posts here.

It would be mildly interesting to know if YOU agree that in fact floors ended up on top of each other, with little to no air left between them, AND that the collapse occurred from the top down, such that Floor 70 would be deflated of all its air before Floor 69, and that before Floor 68, etc. In other words, that the floors did in fact pancake onto one another.

But even if you don't, you could try to tell me what you think happens when 110 floors drop an average of 200+ meters, and experience lots of collisions in the process as potential energy get converted to kinetic energy, and eventually almost completely to destruction.

Actually, filled with core box columns, support walls, partition walls, 100+ storeys of office furniture, steel floor assemblies, carpeting and fixtures.

Correct. Mostly.

You know of course that many of the core box columns did get to bear much of the collapsing mass - you know very well that significant parts of the cores remained standing for many seconds after all the office floors had pancaked to the ground, and perimeter columns had peeled off.

Just picture what happens to support walls, partition walls, 100+ storeys of office furniture, steel floor assemblies, carpeting and fixtures when you drop 100,000 tons of floor slabs from, say, 23.5 meters up on them.

Yes they get pretty flattened, even after a drop of 23.5 metres, which of course never happened in the towers.

The equivalent of a drop of 23.5 metres (on average) happened 100+ times in the towers.

So they get "pretty flattened", hahaha. How about "destroyed beyond recognition"?

That's the same energy. From gravity. And there's no free fall.

No. You forgot to add the potential energy that gets converted to destruction eventually, to the tune of 3.6 meters of free fall every 3.6 meters - it doesn't matter by the way if free-fall actually happened. Every time your 100,000 tons worth of building structure drop 3.6 meters - and come to a full stop eventually, no matter what the effective acceleration, it all (mostly) gets converted to destruction.

Well, it's a rough sketch made with crayons, as yours was. I was indeed even assuming somewhat of the Bazantian crush-down model, where the top section of building does not get obliterated before collapse progresses through the intact lower building.

Strictly speaking, in your model, collapse arrest would have occurred earlier.

Nope, because (as Bazant's very first limiting case model showed) the actual load-bearing steel structure could never absorb the 3.6 meters worth of potential energy that get converted to destruction each time the top part drops another 3.6 meters, let alone absorb the kinetic energy already accumulated. That's why kinetic energy / speed increases floor by floor by floor.

No new effect. As in real world physics, one has to account for energy dissipation through normal resistance and deformation. Let alone pulverization.

Exactly. This has been accounted for. By Bazant (limiting case for deformation/buckling of steel structure) and Greening (adding pulverization). The energy thus dissipated per story is less than the potential energy differential released by the fall through the height of one story.

And that is why kinetic energy increases floor by floor by floor.

That's right, they didn't, and there were not.

Strange. Two answers - but you quote five questions! Could you please answer all five of them separately - here, I'll number them for you (and reword them, to avoid double negations):
The collapse in fact arrest on the ground - TRUE or FALSE, ergo?
The collapse did in fact progress all the way down, at an average speed of 21.5 m/s (give or take some) - TRUE or FALSE, ergo?
All floors had, on average, a mass of more than 100,000 tons above them, that eventually dropped down on them - TRUE or FALSE, ergo?
All floors did in fact drop an average of about 200 meters from their original height to where they eventually came to a full stop - TRUE or FALSE, ergo?
There were in fact 109 floor-on-floor collisions in that collapse, as all 110 floors fell to the ground, none were magically removed from the pile before the collapse was over, and no two floors ended up separated by as much as an inch of air - TRUE or FALSE, ergo?

If we're talking about pancaking, we're talking about contents being squashed and flattened. How does this pulverize into fine particles and spew them laterally and upward at an average rough rate of 0.18 seconds per floor? What you are seeking is some kind of grinding action. There simply wasn't enough time or energy for that. And even if you found grinding action, this would not really occur along with propulsive action.

No. If you slam thousands of tons of hard stuff on tiles, wallboard, concrete, fire-resistant foam, and do so repeatedly, your gonna crush much of that to crumbles and dust.

Most of the dust was from such materials.

The only mystery here is your inabilty to imagine 300,000 tons of all sorts of stuff, including gypsum, fire-protection fibers and light-wiehgt concrete, falling 200 meters down, and that this will crush a lot of that stuff.

The particle-ization of all the buildings' contents does not suggest flattening or pancaking.

It appears that you have never read Greenings papers on the topic of concrete comminuition in the WTC, or else you wouldn't write such ignorant nonsense.

On the contrary, yes, the particle-ization of all some of the buildings' contents, particularly concrete and gypsum, suggests exactly that. It has been shown that this is PRECISELY what must be expected from just that sort of collapse.

The fact that many witnesses reported hearing and seeing explosions take place,

...corroborates what every investigator knows perfectly well already: That many witnesses describe things inadequately, and that many witness testimomies must be interpreted with care.

the fact that furnishings and bodies were fragmented into pieces less than an inch

Absolutely expected considering the forces and energies involved that are far far far beyond anyone's human experience and even farther beyond your personal comprehension, as you amply demonstrate in this thread.

Oh, by the way, those fragements "less than an inch" of human bodies, they make up what percentage of the mass of all human bodies crushed in the events? Do you know?

and propelled laterally,

Some were, sure. You are aware that many people were already in tiny shreds before the collapses even began, right? Those humans affected by the plane crashes (passengers and office workers in the plane's path).

Why should such human shreds, particularly the smaller ones, not get ejected with the air that's pushed out the windows as the volume of air in a floor is reduced from over 14,000 cubic meters to nothing in a fraction of a second?

Can you estimate the average wind speeds thus produced?

and the obvious explosive appearance of the buildings' destruction suggests to normal people that explosions took place.

Nothing obvious here: There were no audible detonations loud enough to be ascribed to explosive charges sufficient to sever structural steel.

To all but the deluded fringe, the appearance of the towers was that of gravitational collapses. Especially to the experts. Remember Danny Jowenko? What he thought about the twin towers and CD? You think you are smarter about the look of CDs than Danny Jowenko was?

To Danny Jowenko, it was obvious that the twin towers could not possibly have been explosive demolitions.

 

[ergo]

Because that is what actually happened. 100+ floors did in fact drop. They did in fact drop, on average, 200+ meters, and all their potential energy of about 200 meters times their total mass times g was in fact mostly converted to destruction.

You're either proposing a pancaking collapse or you're not. If you are, then 100+ floors did not "drop". Even if you're arguing Bazant's crush down model, 100+ floors did not "drop". Both of those models describe a sequential collision of floors. If there were any moments in the descent of the building where you could say a floor "dropped", it only ever dropped 3.5 metres.

Wrong, the first floor in the North Tower that dropped on another floor was about 300 meters high, and by the time it stopped dropping, it was about 300 meters lower, having most of its potential energy = 300 meters x mass x g converted to destruction.

Please explain which floor was 300m high. Thanks.

It isn't illogical - you just don't understand the logic.

Lol. That's a bedunker classic!

What matters is that the collapse front moved at an average speed of about 21.5 m/s - on account of the collapse taking about 15 seconds to reduce a 415 m high tower to little over 0 m.

So my model calls for masses colliding at that average speed of 21.5 meters. That's all there is to that bot of the model.

In that 21.5 m per second, in your pancaking/crush-down model, approximately 6 storeys are colliding.

Not only does this beg the original question of where has the normal resistance gone here, but how does pulverization of steel flooring and office furnishings, including, say, heavy oak desks, marble slabs, metal filing cabinets, plumbing, couches, upholstered chairs, numerous heavy plastics such as chairs and desks, lamps, computers, photocopy machines, how does pulverization occur in this pancaking action?

There are many ways to bring a mass to that speed - you could haul it with a truck, have an army of midgets push it, attach rocket engines to it - or let it drop from a height of 23.5 meters. After falling freely from 23.5 m up, which takes about 2.2 seconds,

Again, you derived a free-fall drop of 23.5 m based on calculations that cannot be explained by a pancaking or crush-down collapse model. You are using faulty logic here. Working backwards from an observation that cannot be explained gravitationally in order to justify a fictional and illogical model.

No drop of 23.5 m is possible in the model you are presenting. If you insist this is true and what happened, please cite some sources.

It would be mildly interesting to know if YOU agree ....

But even if you don't, you could try to tell me what you think happens when 110 floors drop an average of 200+ meters, and experience lots of collisions in the process as potential energy get converted to kinetic energy, and eventually almost completely to destruction.

It doesn't matter because not only did this not happen in real life, it could not happen in your model either.

The equivalent of a drop of 23.5 metres (on average) happened 100+ times in the towers.

Again, this is faulty logic that takes you to a bizarre and unreal result. You really are pulling from Red Queen territory here.

No. You forgot to add the potential energy that gets converted to destruction eventually, to the tune of 3.6 meters of free fall every 3.6 meters - it doesn't matter by the way if free-fall actually happened. Every time your 100,000 tons worth of building structure drop 3.6 meters - and come to a full stop eventually, no matter what the effective acceleration, it all (mostly) gets converted to destruction.

Is it 3.6 m or is it 23.5? It hardly matters to deal with the rest of your statement here. We're far beyond rationality here.

Nope, because (as Bazant's very first limiting case model showed) the actual load-bearing steel structure could never absorb the 3.6 meters worth of potential energy that get converted to destruction each time the top part drops another 3.6 meters, let alone absorb the kinetic energy already accumulated. That's why kinetic energy / speed increases floor by floor by floor.

I won't try to argue against Bazant's many-times-over debunked crush-down model here (which, incidentally, can only apply to his many-times-over debunked crush-down model and not willy-nilly to any other model that a random joe from the street finds convenient) but will simply point out to you that you seem to be inventing energy sources here. There is only one mechanical energy source in your model: gravity. It is expressed either as potential energy (not yet converted to kinetic energy) or as kinetic energy. Kinetic energy in this case is expressed as the movement of mass downwards, as per gravity, and/or as the energy used in the destruction of intervening matter. When that kinetic energy from gravity is spent in destroying the intervening building structure, much of it is lost in heat, sound and deformation. You are also talking about pulverization into fine particles here. Considering the materials in the building, and the time frame we're talking about (i.e., not geological epochs) this requires an energy source beyond mere gravity.

Exactly. This has been accounted for. By Bazant (limiting case for deformation/buckling of steel structure) and Greening (adding pulverization). The energy thus dissipated per story is less than the potential energy differential released by the fall through the height of one story.

And that is why kinetic energy increases floor by floor by floor.

Again ignoring the supernaturally derived energy here, Greening I believe only discussed the energy required to pulverize concrete. Not steel flooring and office furnishings such as heavy oak desks, marble slabs, metal filing cabinets, plumbing, couches, upholstered chairs, numerous heavy plastics such as chairs and desks, lamps, computers, photocopy machines, carpeting and other things.

Strange. Two answers - but you quote five questions! Could you please answer all five of them separately - here,

Why?

No. If you slam thousands of tons of hard stuff on tiles, wallboard, concrete, fire-resistant foam, and do so repeatedly, your gonna crush much of that to crumbles and dust.

Most of the dust was from such materials.

And what happened to the "hard stuff"?

It appears that you have never read Greenings papers on the topic of concrete comminuition in the WTC, or else you wouldn't write such ignorant nonsense.

Addressed above. He was discussing concrete only.

On the contrary, yes, the particle-ization of all some of the buildings' contents, particularly concrete and gypsum, suggests exactly that. It has been shown that this is PRECISELY what must be expected from just that sort of collapse.

What wasn't particle-ized? Do you have evidence of steel flooring, heavy oak desks, marble slabs, metal filing cabinets, plumbing, couches, upholstered chairs, numerous heavy plastics such as chairs and desks, lamps, computers, photocopy machines, carpeting, and, I'm sorry, but large human body parts?

...corroborates what every investigator knows perfectly well already: That many witnesses describe things inadequately, and that many witness testimomies must be interpreted with care.

In the absence of opposing testimony (as in, "no, we heard no explosions at all") you have to take what testimony does exist.

Oh, by the way, those fragements "less than an inch" of human bodies, they make up what percentage of the mass of all human bodies crushed in the events? Do you know?

Not sure. But I suggest you read the OP of this thread.

Some were, sure. You are aware that many people were already in tiny shreds before the collapses even began, right? Those humans affected by the plane crashes (passengers and office workers in the plane's path).

Yes, aware of that. Again, read the OP.

Why should such human shreds, particularly the smaller ones, not get ejected with the air that's pushed out the windows as the volume of air in a floor is reduced from over 14,000 cubic meters to nothing in a fraction of a second?

What we're really looking at here is how the bodies 1) got "shredded" in pancaking floor collapses, and 2) how pancaking floors would eject these contents if most of their own structure has also been particle-ized (in your model).

Nothing obvious here: There were no audible detonations loud enough to be ascribed to explosive charges sufficient to sever structural steel.

Many reported audible explosive sounds. You also cannot say what detonations from the inner core of fully furnished buildings would sound like from half a kilometre up in the sky. Can you?

To all but the deluded fringe, the appearance of the towers was that of gravitational collapses.

Source? Most at the time commented how the "collapses" looked like implosions/controlled demolitions. Even Bazant claimed to speak for structural engineers when he commented that "few were expecting the towers to collapse" [paraphrase].

Especially to the experts. Remember Danny Jowenko? What he thought about the twin towers and CD? You think you are smarter about the look of CDs than Danny Jowenko was?

To Danny Jowenko, it was obvious that the twin towers could not possibly have been explosive demolitions.

I'm not sure what DJ said about the towers. I wonder if his opinion was based more on the projected difficulty in bringing down such towers with such (relative) precision.

 

[Oystein]

You're either proposing a pancaking collapse or you're not. If you are, then 100+ floors did not "drop".

Hmm. Strange.

Which of the 100+ floors did NOT drop? One floor # will do for starters.

Even if you're arguing Bazant's crush down model,

I am not. I am arguing my own models.

100+ floors did not "drop".

How many did drop? How many did not drop?

Both of those models describe a sequential collision of floors. If there were any moments in the descent of the building where you could say a floor "dropped", it only ever dropped 3.5 metres.

The 110 floor started at a height of ca. 410 meters.
20 seconds later it was somewhere between 0 and perhaps 10 meters.
That's a height differential of about 400 meters.

How did it achieve that by dropping just 3.5 meters?

I say it dropped 400 meters.

Please explain which floor was 300m high. Thanks.

About the 80th floor. Which is roughly where the plane slammed into WTC1, and where that collapse initiated.

Lol. That's a bedunker classic!

And oh so true, as the next bit shows:

In that 21.5 m per second, in your pancaking/crush-down model, approximately 6 storeys are colliding.

Nonsense.
All 110 floors collided with their respective floors below. At various relative velocities, averaging 21.5 m/s.

Not only does this beg the original question of where has the normal resistance gone here, but how does pulverization of steel flooring and office furnishings, including, say, heavy oak desks, marble slabs, metal filing cabinets, plumbing, couches, upholstered chairs, numerous heavy plastics such as chairs and desks, lamps, computers, photocopy machines, how does pulverization occur in this pancaking action?

Easy: Imagine an average of 100,000 tons of stuff crashing on steel flooring and office furnishings, including, say, heavy oak desks, marble slabs, metal filing cabinets, plumbing, couches, upholstered chairs, numerous heavy plastics such as chairs and desks, lamps, computers, photocopy machines at a speed of 21.5 m/s.
(Which is, if you can't imagine what 21.5 m/s fall speed is, equivalent to the speed a falling object would reach after falling freely from 23.5 meters up. Notice I did not say anythinbg DID fall freely 23.5 meters, but the collapse front moved at an average velocity of 21.5 m/s, or else it would not have reached the ground within the time observed.)

Again, you derived a free-fall drop of 23.5 m based on calculations that cannot be explained by a pancaking or crush-down collapse model.

Well, good then that ot didn't.

Ok. How fast DID the crush front progress down, on average? Regardless of model - just in observed reality?

You are using faulty logic here.

No.
You don't understand the logic.
Actually, I am pretty sure you deliberately misrepresent it



Gotta run.

 

[carlitos]

Thread has a swine / pearls inversion problem.

 

[000063]

I love how ergo gets called on dodging questions, and when told he needs to answer all of them, all he can say is "why?"

Of course, he'll never get around to explaining "why not?"

This from the man who often accuses other of dodging his questions.

 

[ergo]

Most of Oystein's questions here are irrelevant or based on faulty premises. Or they're irrelevant because they're based on faulty premise. When you point out the faults in his premises, you don't need to then go answer the questions that arise from that mistaken understanding.

Indeed, I'm waiting for Oystein to finish answering my questions, which continue from where he stopped. He seems to think he's done. But alas, we still have no pulverization model based on the visual evidence, witness testimony, and accepted principles of physics.

 

[LSSBB]

Most of Oystein's questions here are irrelevant or based on faulty premises. Or they're irrelevant because they're based on faulty premise. When you point out the faults in his premises, you don't need to then go answer the questions that arise from that mistaken understanding.

Indeed, I'm waiting for Oystein to finish answering my questions. He seems to think he's done. But alas, we still have no pulverization model based on the visual evidence, witness testimony, and accepted principles of physics.

Say ergo, do explosions equal explosives?

 

[ergo]

Say ergo, do explosions equal explosives?

When you have good reason to suspect explosives, then yes, you do need to investigate for explosives.

 

[fitzgibbon]

When you have good reason to suspect explosives, then yes, you do need to investigate for explosives.

But was that the question asked? Or was that the question you preferred to answer?

Fitz

 

[twinstead]

When you have good reason to suspect explosives, then yes, you do need to investigate for explosives.

Fitzgibbon rightfully reminded you that this isn't an answer to the question, but when you say "when you have good reason to suspect explosives", who exactly do you mean? Is there anybody who matters who suspects explosives?

 

[Starving for Truth]

When you have good reason to suspect explosives, then yes, you do need to investigate for explosives.

We already know that small tactical nukes, in combination with nanothermite and bombs (not as spectacular, but right for the purpose), were used. There is really no need to go this path.

The truth is out. Watch Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth - Experts Speak Out, try to keep up and understand the evidence.

 

[LSSBB]

When you have good reason to suspect explosives, then yes, you do need to investigate for explosives.

So you admit there are things that cause explosions that are not explosives?

 

[000063]

Most of Oystein's questions here are irrelevant or based on faulty premises. Or they're irrelevant because they're based on faulty premise. When you point out the faults in his premises, you don't need to then go answer the questions that arise from that mistaken understanding.

Except you haven't merely been pointing out the faulty premises, you've been ignoring them entirely and pretending they don't exist, often actively deleting them from quotes without notice.

For example, I referred to specific questions Oys asked which you evaded, and you respond to make vague generalizations about "most of Oystein's questions", not the specific ones I talked about. The question in question could be included in that "most" or they might not, or they might partially be. You made no indication that those were the questions arising from what you think are false premises. You just chose not to address them. Just plain old true or false questions. The only possible false premise was that the statements in question could only be true or false. Of course, there was "I don't know", but you rarely admit to that. Which means you were either hiding your lack of knowledge, the answer wasn't true or false but "neither" and you neglected to say so, or you don't want to answer the questions because you feel it would be bad for your position, then made up some nonsense about "false premises" as a shabby excuse.

Guess which I'd put money on.

Ironically, those questions were Oys premises. If they were wrong, then his entire argument was moot. And yet you chose not to address them.

Of course, you've been asked dozens of questions over the years which you similarly evaded. You even did it in post #334, and quite blatantly. I do wonder if you actually believe the line you're selling.

Indeed, I'm waiting for Oystein to finish answering my questions, which continue from where he stopped. He seems to think he's done. But alas, we still have no pulverization model based on the visual evidence, witness testimony, and accepted principles of physics.

I note that "physical evidence" isn't in there. And, again, it is nakedly hypocritical for you to complain about other people's alleged dodging of your questions, especially since the post you linked to as an example involves your non-response to Oys pointing out you dodged his questions. In other words, he asked questions, you dodged them, and then dodged again when he pointed it out, and then made up a vague excuse to "rebut" me.

Also, your understanding of physics has been shown to be woefully lacking. You scoffed at a calculation made using the basic principle of a sundial, using information from the US Naval Observatory. You didn't say it was wrong, you just mocked it. It's common in people who don't want to actually find out if their beliefs are wrong.

 

[dafydd]

We already know that small tactical nukes, in combination with nanothermite and bombs

No, we don't. We never will, that is just a silly truther fantasy,