• 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.

Q's about AE911T

ergo said:
I understand the bazant/bee dunker argument for potential energy. That a burnt top section of a building can simultaneously hit and crush the remaining 80 and 90 intact floors of concrete and structural steel (as well as furnishings, walls, large mechanical equipment, massive filing systems, plumbing, 7-ton floor pans, stairwells, people etc..) at the rate of 0.15 secs per floor without any perceptible slowing down.
Click to expand...

Then you make this post that show you don't understand.

Amazing :eek:

ergo said:
Are you trying to deflect attention away from Trifor's claim of a 15+ story damage zone?
Click to expand...

You don't even understand what he's saying.


:boggled:
 
Sure I do. He's claiming that gas lines were run up the towers. :)
 
ergo said:
I understand the bazant/bee dunker argument for potential energy. That a burnt top section of a building can simultaneously hit and crush the remaining 80 and 90 intact floors of concrete and structural steel (as well as furnishings, walls, large mechanical equipment, massive filing systems, plumbing, 7-ton floor pans, stairwells, people etc..) at the rate of 0.15 secs per floor without any perceptible slowing down.

Are you trying to deflect attention away from Trifor's claim of a 15+ story damage zone?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. In relation to the Caracas Towers, I said, "Two Floors (collapsing on one) versus 15+ floors collapsing (on one)."

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

Caracas= 2 floor collapse. Not much kenetic energy, and much less mass.
WTC = 15 floors collapse. MUCH more kenetic energy, and much more mass.

Why is this so hard to follow? Everyone but you understood what I said. Is it because you twist my words to say something that I in fact did not?
 
ergo said:
Um, no I wasn't. The building I'm speaking of had two floors collapse early on in the fire. According to your theory, global collapse should have ensued, since "the fires were just too great" and structural damage had occurred as a result.

Why didn't global collapse ensue?
Click to expand...

since you noted the perimeter made of reinforced concrete... would you care to answer this rather (stupid) pointless question?

Why didn't global collapse occur? Hmmmm?

It might have something to do with the fact this building was a steel reinforced with concrete building unlike the twin towers or wtc7.

Gee... 5 minutes of research...
 
triforcharity said:
I didn't say that. In relation to the Caracas Towers, I said, "Two Floors (collapsing on one) versus 15+ floors collapsing (on one)."

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

Caracas= 2 floor collapse. Not much kenetic energy, and much less mass.
WTC = 15 floors collapse. MUCH more kenetic energy, and much more mass.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't understand the collapse initiation argument. Two floors in the Caracas tower represent the damage zone, not the "crush-down" block :rolleyes:
 
triforcharity said:
I didn't say that. In relation to the Caracas Towers, I said, "Two Floors (collapsing on one) versus 15+ floors collapsing (on one)."

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

Caracas= 2 floor collapse. Not much kenetic energy, and much less mass.
WTC = 15 floors collapse. MUCH more kenetic energy, and much more mass.

Why is this so hard to follow? Everyone but you understood what I said. Is it because you twist my words to say something that I in fact did not?
Click to expand...

Tri.

This is a false statement and rather misleading by Ergo, and you are buying into it.

In the caracas towers, you had two internal floors collapse. That would be the floor pans, the trusses etc. But the entire floor didn't collapse (the perimeter was still standing because it was reinforced concrete).

compare that vs the twin towers where you had a collapse of 2 or 3 entire floor spans occur (including the perimeter columns) with the mass of 15 entire floors above it.

Don't get sucked into a meaningless and completely irrelevant comparision.
 
ergo said:
You obviously don't understand the collapse initiation argument. Two floors in the Caracas tower represent the damage zone, not the "crush-down" block :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And the list of things we know you don't understand.
1. center of mass
2. momentum
3. architectural terminology
4. demolitions terminology
5. valid comparsions
6. basic research methods
7. physics...
 
Wow.........he's all over the place. I'm done.


(he's the same guy that claimed the rubble was a "different kind of mass" wasn't he?)
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Wow.........he's all over the place. I'm done.


(he's the same guy that claimed the ruble was a "different kind of mass" wasn't he?)
Click to expand...

yup... and that rubble wouldn't be able to damage the towers becaue it was just "loose particles."
 
ergo said:
Because you didn't use the words "absolute fact?" :)
Click to expand...

No, because I made this post.
triforcharity said:
Seymour,

I could be absolutley wrong. I'm still looking into confirming where the location of the kitchen would be in the WTC, and if there were gas for the appliances.
Click to expand...

and this one

triforcharity said:
Anyway, I am still looking for confirmation that there might have been NG/other gas lines higher in the towers. We know for a fact there were some in the kitchen.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was never able to confirm that there were gas lines running up the towers. Correct there.

Now, what we you saying?
 
ergo said:
You obviously don't understand the collapse initiation argument. Two floors in the Caracas tower represent the damage zone, not the "crush-down" block :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

As TruthersLie has pointed out, Caracas Tower was not a steel-framed structure.

You still lose.
 
How would you know what was structural or not? Would there be steel members that aren't structural? :)
 
triforcharity said:
As TruthersLie has pointed out, Caracas Tower was not a steel-framed structure.

You still lose.
Click to expand...

I asked ergo some time ago if he could do a case study of any one of the buildings he thought would best help his argument researching construction materials and systems. If he'd done any that maybe he'd have at least been shaken up over many of the claims he's issuing. But he's got the same research issues that make AE911 laughable; he thinks constructions materials and methods are the same for every structure and that you can anticipate a specific behavior in every building regardless of their differences in design. Whether it's plain old arrogance of not wanting to admit being in the wrong or genuine ineducability I don't know, but he's obviously not done any of the homework I gave him back in November. If he's not willing to do at least that much then he doesn't have any place in a discussion on this matter. For example, this would have answered his question about why claiming a concrete structure such as Madrid's Windsor tower to say the steel framed WTC is a stupid argument (2nd paragraph):

ref1b.jpg


As something of a standard book in University studies I imagine the AE911truth architects that studied in the US should have at least seen something similar to this. There should be absolutely no excuse not to be in the least bit familiar with reinforced concrete and today's steel framed construction
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom