• 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.

A Truther writes...

Sword_Of_Truth said:
Hey Bill, when you get a chance, I'd like to see you explain why spaghetti is ok but dominoes are not.
Click to expand...

As I have shown, spaghetti is great.

Bill hasn't addressed the spaghetti modelling issues so far that I have pointed out. Especially the consideration that his spaghetti model would have to have a mass of at least one metric ton to be roughly to scale, and that the initial failure would involve the mass of two grown men falling on top of 6 pounds of spaghetti.
 
bill smith said:
Hey there Sarge. Nah you have it all wrong.. this is the way to look at it.

.when the top 13 floors fall onto the bottom 97 floors - is that a block of 13 floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors or is it an assembly of 13 single floors dropping on an assembly of 97 single floors ? '

So one floor meets one floor at a time and with equal force according to Newton's famous and inviolable Law Each time the 13 floors reduce by one. Soon there are none. But there are still more than 80 floors of WTC1 left.

But in the real world we all know what should happen without the explosives/incendiaries....collapse arrest.
Click to expand...

Where did those floors go Bill? You say that an assembly of 13 floors collided with an assembly of 97 floors. So, using your logic, there are not 12 floors and 96 floors left. Where did those two floors go?
 
triforcharity said:
Where did those floors go Bill? You say that an assembly of 13 floors collided with an assembly of 97 floors. So, using your logic, there are not 12 floors and 96 floors left. Where did those two floors go?
Click to expand...

They were smashed into dust and small rubble that fell on the lower, much bigger and stronger part with much of it cascading over the edges. The dust component rolled away in the fresh air as we all saw and any bits that came to rest struck with ther own individual small masses and were carried by the structure below that had carried them anyway for the previous 40 years. Not so complicated really.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
They were smashed into dust and small rubble that fell on the lower, much bigger and stronger part with much of it cascading over the edges. The dust component rolled away in the fresh air as we all saw and any bits that came to rest struck with ther own individual small masses and were carried by the structure below that had carried them anyway for the previous 40 years. Not so complicated really.
Click to expand...

You don't actually believe that **** do you Bill?

The idiocity in that post is staggering.
 
Oystein said:
As I have shown, spaghetti is great.

Bill hasn't addressed the spaghetti modelling issues so far that I have pointed out. Especially the consideration that his spaghetti model would have to have a mass of at least one metric ton to be roughly to scale, and that the initial failure would involve the mass of two grown men falling on top of 6 pounds of spaghetti.
Click to expand...

Yes, he'll run like Forrest Gump, legs a flailing to and fro. How embarrassing to suggest a model that proves his own failed ideas horribly wrong. You gotta love unintentional twoofer humor in the morning!


 
bill smith said:
They were smashed into dust and small rubble that fell on the lower, much bigger and stronger part with much of it cascading over the edges. The dust component rolled away in the fresh air as we all saw and any bits that came to rest struck with ther own individual small masses and were carried by the structure below that had carried them anyway for the previous 40 years. Not so complicated really.
Click to expand...

What was the factor of safety of the floor supports? typically they are about 2X in buildings....ie the floor supports are twice as strong as they need to be to support the STATIC load of the actual floor and its contents.....

so if you gently lowered the floor above onto one floor it would stay up however if you drop that floor onto the one below then the DYNAMIC load is much higher and the floor would fail and the two floors would fall onto the the floor below.......and so on until you run out of floors.

The now unrestrained exterior and central columns buckle or their joints fail and they peel away and collapse just behind the floors.

there is some loss of mass due to dust etc but the vast majority would just keep adding mass to the falling floors .

This is all so elementary to anyone with an tech education...........
 
and any bits that came to rest struck with ther own individual small masses and were carried by the structure below that had carried them anyway for the previous 40 years.
Click to expand...

The weight of each floor was supported by the columns, with the floor mounting brackets designed just to support the weight of just one floor (and could support two maybe three as a static load with their safety factor)

Its the strength of the individual floor brackets that matters, not the strength of the supporting columns. In fact if anything the strong columns made things worse as they contained the mass of the collapsing floors allowing little to fall off to one side. They were the "cylinder" to the the floors "piston"
 
bill smith said:
'm sure that's all very very interesting and the Readers can read it if they want. But I am appealing to people's personal experience and intuition here. To what they know in their bones. And I believe that they know in their bones that one tenth of an object will never crush nine tenths of the same structure down flat on the ground by gravity alone as we saw on 9/11.

You can maybe convince a few Readers by here and now describing a documented event in the entire recorded history of this planet where one-tenth of any object, large or small has crushed the other nine-tenths of the same structure by gravity alone. For instance the collapse of the spagetti model will arrest almost immediately. It's intuitive you see ?
Click to expand...
Do you take strange pleasure in embarrassing yourself?
 
Fine, though I presuppose you will refuse to budge from your "inside job" (which is a 100% impossibility, BTW) thinking.
Bill Smith said:
...one tenth of an object will never crush nine tenths of the same structure...
Click to expand...
Each of the Twin Towers, nor any large fraction of the buildings, was not an "object" insofar as you are pretending to argue. Your wish to appeal to "common sense" that 1/10 is smaller than 9/10, therefore making it such that it "never" could happen is flawed on its face. Try not to view the Twins as they were from afar, but rather inside their walls.

Also, any building is not a static object; it is, by successful design, winning the struggle against the constant and immense force of gravity. This is true whether the building is under construction, or hundreds of years completed. They are built to a safety standard, but if that is exceeded, as it would be when such a large load as an upper portion collapses on successive support structures, the entirely expected happens.

An example you may have read in these forums: Go to the gym and lift a weighted barbell over your head, the heaviest you can manage. Let's say it's 175 lbs. Now imagine holding the same aloft with a broken wrist.

Lastly, I notice your use of "gravity alone." You wouldn't be trying to minimize such a powerful force, would you?
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Fine, though I presuppose you will refuse to budge from your "inside job" (which is a 100% impossibility, BTW) thinking.Each of the Twin Towers, nor any large fraction of the buildings, was not an "object" insofar as you are pretending to argue. Your wish to appeal to "common sense" that 1/10 is smaller than 9/10, therefore making it such that it "never" could happen is flawed on its face. Try not to view the Twins as they were from afar, but rather inside their walls.

Also, any building is not a static object; it is, by successful design, winning the struggle against the constant and immense force of gravity. This is true whether the building is under construction, or hundreds of years completed. They are built to a safety standard, but if that is exceeded, as it would be when such a large load as an upper portion collapses on successive support structures, the entirely expected happens.

An example you may have read in these forums: Go to the gym and lift a weighted barbell over your head, the heaviest you can manage. Let's say it's 175 lbs. Now imagine holding the same aloft with a broken wrist.

Lastly, I notice your use of "gravity alone." You wouldn't be trying to minimize such a powerful force, would you?
Click to expand...

So where are the other examples I asked for that you may draw on from the entire recorded history of the planet Earth that demonstrate what you say ?

I really can't be nbothered with rubbish like this.
 
You continually ignore the point that the top 10th did not have to crush the other 90% all in one go, it only had to crush the floor below.
 
bill smith said:
So where are the other examples I asked for that you may draw on from the entire recorded history of the planet Earth that demonstrate what you say ?

I really can't be nbothered with rubbish like this.
Click to expand...

The problem with this challenge Bill is that has such arbitrary conditions.

This is very similar to David Ray Griffin's formula for attempting to apply empirical reasoning to the collapse of the World Trade Center. It goes like this "X has never happened before. Therefore X is impossible".

Surely, anyone could think of a counter-example that would show this form of reasoning to be false.

Spain just won the World Cup in South Africa. Before they won a lot of "expert" pundits "predicted" they would win but would face strong opposition from other "expert" pundits who pointed out that Spain have never won before so they can't win the World Cup this time.

Yet the Truthers believe they are on firmer ground when talking about a more scientific field such as structural engineering and don't let a complete dearth of knowledge of the subject deter them from making grand claims such as, "No steel-framed building has ever in the history of the universe ever been destroyed by fire therefore we can confidently conclude that it cannot happen."

When it is pointed out that McCormick Place was destroyed by fire, the parameters change:

The 1960 exposition hall was destroyed in a spectacular 1967 fire, despite being thought fireproof by virtue of its steel and concrete construction. At the time of the fire, the building contained highly flammable exhibits, several hydrants were shut off, and the sprinklers proved inadequate suppression.
Click to expand...

Then, despite the formula "Any given X has never happened therefore any given X cannot happen" was shown to be fallacious at least as far back as 1967, the Truthers decided that it is true if "any given X" is replaced with the arbitrary condition of "no steel-framed highrise building".

It's not clear to me what adding "highrise" to the formula actually changes but it was argued that it defies the conservation of momentum as there is not enough material at the top of the building to crush down the bottom of the building so the crushdown should be arrested and/or the top of the building should topple over and leave a big stump of a building remaining. Yet, some of the verinage videos show that the buildings being demolished there do not topple over and that they can indeed crush down the bottom of the building even when the collapse is initiated from way above the half-way point.
 
angrysoba said:
The problem with this challenge Bill is that has such arbitrary conditions.

This is very similar to David Ray Griffin's formula for attempting to apply empirical reasoning to the collapse of the World Trade Center. It goes like this "X has never happened before. Therefore X is impossible".

Surely, anyone could think of a counter-example that would show this form of reasoning to be false.

Spain just won the World Cup in South Africa. Before they won a lot of "expert" pundits "predicted" they would win but would face strong opposition from other "expert" pundits who pointed out that Spain have never won before so they can't win the World Cup this time.

Yet the Truthers believe they are on firmer ground when talking about a more scientific field such as structural engineering and don't let a complete dearth of knowledge of the subject deter them from making grand claims such as, "No steel-framed building has ever in the history of the universe ever been destroyed by fire therefore we can confidently conclude that it cannot happen."

When it is pointed out that McCormick Place was destroyed by fire, the parameters change:



Then, despite the formula "Any given X has never happened therefore any given X cannot happen" was shown to be fallacious at least as far back as 1967, the Truthers decided that it is true if "any given X" is replaced with the arbitrary condition of "no steel-framed highrise building".

It's not clear to me what adding "highrise" to the formula actually changes but it was argued that it defies the conservation of momentum as there is not enough material at the top of the building to crush down the bottom of the building so the crushdown should be arrested and/or the top of the building should topple over and leave a big stump of a building remaining. Yet, some of the verinage videos show that the buildings being demolished there do not topple over and that they can indeed crush down the bottom of the building even when the collapse is initiated from way above the half-way point.
Click to expand...

Very interesting post above.

And taking the world cup analogy one step forard I know how we can prove the the CD once and for all. We just need Paul the Octopos to chose either NIST or CD.

And if it choses CD then I think the argument will be settled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom