• 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

PS. Ergo,

Does any definition of footprint include other buildings?

Yes

No


Copy and past one of them.
 
ergo said:
And yet you pick some entirely inconsequential detail, a semantic nitpick, about the use of the term "footprint".

The rest of your "refutations" are just... well, they bee dunk.

You guys wouldn't be able debunk something if it took a poop right on your living room carpet. You would say something like..."it wasn't symmetrical!!"
Click to expand...

ergo said:
Yes, imperceptibly "brief but violent collisions" are what forced 80 and 90 intact floors of steel and concrete highrise (with furnishings, walls, mechanical equipment, massive filing systems, plumbing, 7-ton floor pans, stairwells, people etc..) to self-pulverize, at the rate of 0.15 seconds per floor, with nothing but shredded columns and miles and miles of dust to show for it at the bottom. As some point out, not even a toilet. All from gravity!

Human bodies dismembered, segmented into tiny pieces. Bones shattered into fragments less than 1 inch long, ejected laterally onto neigbouring rooftops. All from gravity.

And the fact remaining that no steel-framed highrise has ever, or since, collapsed to the ground from floor fires. Nor even from raging infernos.

This is quack science. Beedunker-level science.
Click to expand...

I see you decided to pick it off the floor and throw it on the wall to see if any sticks.
 
triforcharity said:
Incorrect. Lots of things were recovered from GZ.

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/longterm/documents/recovery.pdf

Here is a short listing.

"Approximately 4,000 personal photographs
$78,318.47 in domestic and foreign currency
54,000 personal items such as identification cards and driver licenses"

I found a laptop, and someone else found a mailcart or a food cart of some sort.
Click to expand...

You found a laptop? Oh, well, that proves everything. I hear they also found keys. And the remains of a bronze sculpture. Not the bronze sculpture itself, just a piece of one. Because bronze sculptures are so fragile, after all.

So we have a laptop, some keys, some papers, and a piece of bronze sculpture. Phew. And here I thought everything had been pulverized.
 
ergo said:
You found a laptop? Oh, well, that proves everything. I hear they also found keys. And the remains of a bronze sculpture. Not the bronze sculpture itself, just a piece of one. Because bronze sculptures are so fragile, after all.

So we have a laptop, some keys, some papers, and a piece of bronze sculpture. Phew. And here I thought everything had been pulverized.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a good thing that everything wasn't pulverized, eh there pumpkin?
 
Oystein said:
ergo said:
Um, no. :D

Bazant was granted the last word in the same issue that Bjorkman's article was published. Uncoincidentally, Bazant is a member of the review panel of JEM. He was also granted the last word (i.e., "closure") to Gourley's critique, and used the same dismissive, insulting tone that he used with Bjorkman. Highly unprofessional.

Moreover, Bazant never actually "closes" anything. He doesn't intelligently address a single one of Bjorkman's objections. He simply regurgitates the same ka-ka theorizing, citing his own papers, that those objections are intended to draw into question.

It's surprising to me that a professional journal would allow one of its authors, who is also member of its review panel, such a thing called "closure" twice on the same topic and both times occurring in the same issue that the critiquing article appears. What's the hurry? The articles are already reviewed prior to publication. If there are further comments, they can appear in subsequent publications. I question whether this is standard practice.

JEM's professional ethics and standards do seem questionable...
Click to expand...

It would have been dead easy to corroborate that this is indeed standard practice at the JEM, which is a leading and highly respected journal in its field for good reasons:

Just go and look at the journal!

If you look at back issues of the JEM, you will find that they frequently contain a section "DISCUSSIONS AND CLOSURES", and you will also find, that closures are always published, if at all (authors may chose not to respond) in the same issue. For example, take the February 2010, Juli 2009 or April 2009 issues, which contain discussions and closures by non-editors in the same issue.

It seems like ergo never reads scientific journals and is unable to do even the easiest and most basic research on scientific journals, such as scanning the table of contents. Yet he makes confident pronouncements and questions mightily their quality. Chuzpe can be a virtue, but often it is not.
Click to expand...


Bumped for ergo. Another point he raised and he ran away from after he was shown to be wrong.
 
Bumped for ergo: Another good challenge he dodged entirely.

Horatius said:
They do have a point. Your dodging of a perfectly simple yes-or-no question is a desperate attempt to ensure that no one other than you notices the glaring problem with your position.

Recall that you said:

ergo said:
Whereas Building 7 does indeed drop like a controlled demolition, an implosion, into its own footprint.
Click to expand...

The reason they ask "Does "footprint" of any definition you choose, usually include other buildings?" is because, as anyone who has studied 9/11 in any depth should know, debris from WTC7 damaged several buildings around it. If, as you say, it fell into "its own footprint", then you must believe that somewhere, someone in some construction or demolition trade uses the word "footprint" in some context that supports that position.

That, or you know you're just making up crap, and are hoping not to get called out on it.

Well, so much for that last hope.

But do please continue dodging this quite simple and obvious point, as such behaviours are the single greatest evidence we have that people like you are approaching this entire discussion in an utterly dishonest and disingenuous manner.
Click to expand...




To sum up:
1. We all know that WTC7 damaged the roof of Fiterman Hall and crashed into the side of at least one other building
2. ergo calls this behaviour "drop like a controlled demolition, an implosion, into its own footprint"
3. So ergo needs to show that controlled demolitions result in footprints that include the roofs and faces of neighbouring parlance.
4. Alternatively, ergo could admit that he made up crap
5. There is no #5 - no other alterrnative.

ergo, go!
 
ergo said:
You found a laptop? Oh, well, that proves everything. I hear they also found keys. And the remains of a bronze sculpture. Not the bronze sculpture itself, just a piece of one. Because bronze sculptures are so fragile, after all.

So we have a laptop, some keys, some papers, and a piece of bronze sculpture. Phew. And here I thought everything had been pulverized.
Click to expand...

Again, why should anyone here care what you think? You can't/won't even answer the simplest questions about a "footprint."

Still, I'm loath to let you get away with dismissing the power of gravity so cavalierly, so I'll explain in detail why your comments on the energy released are wrong and unconvincing.

Perhaps you should even do this little bit of physics for your own edification/education: calculate the gravitational potential energy of each tower before collapse. I estimated the mass of each floor as 4.14 million kilograms. The potential energy of the bottom floor is its mass (4.14 million kg) times gravity acceleration (9.8m/sec^2) times the height (3.8 meters), or about 154 million joules. The potential energy of the second floor is its mass (4.14 million kg) times gravity acceleration (9.8m/sec^2) times its height (3.8x2 = 7.6 meters), or about 309 million joules. Continue in this manner until you get to the very top (110th) floor. The potential energy of the top floor is its mass (4.14 million kg) times g (9.8m/sec^2) times the height (3.8x110 meters = 418m), or about 17 billion joules.

The potential energy of the tower as a whole is simply the sum of the PE of each floor, (154 + 309 + ... 17,000) million joules ~ 942 billion joules.

Since 4.18 billion joules is equivalent to one ton of tri-nitro-glycerin (TNT), each tower possessed a potential energy of about 225 tons of TNT, or around a quarter of a kiloton of TNT.

That means that each tower's collapse released gravitiational energy of around a quarter-kiloton of TNT, quite similar to the US W-54 nuclear weapon :
W54falcon.jpg


The W-54's yield was 250 tons, very close to one tower's potential energy.

Here's a picture of a detonation of a "Davy Crockett" warhead of just 22 tons of TNT.
smallboy.jpg


Since each tower had ten times that energy to start with (220 tons TNT), the energy released by the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 was:


smallboy.jpg
X 20

The twin collapses released almost half a kiloton of TNT's worth of energy, or about twenty small nukes' worth.

That's enough energy to break beams, pulverize concrete, crush desks ... it's even enough to damage a bronze statue!
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
The twin collapses released almost half a kiloton of TNT's worth of energy, or about twenty small nukes' worth.

That's enough energy to break beams, pulverize concrete, crush desks ... it's even enough to damage a bronze statue!
Click to expand...


That you would believe that this was caused by minor floor fires and gravity (indeed, that such things could even produce such an effect) is what makes you a bee dunker.
 
ergo said:
That you would believe that this was caused by minor floor fires and gravity (indeed, that such things could even produce such an effect) is what makes you a bee dunker.
Click to expand...
We maybe "bee dunkers" but, at least people take us seriously.


BTW, How many buildings get damaged inside another buildings "foot print" (according to demolition standards)
 
ergo said:
I actually did link to some references in another thread. I can't be bothered to look them up. Demolitioners use the term footprint, and it obviously is not the same thing as a design footprint.

Do some bee-googling. Here are some terms: Demolition. Footprint.

I think it's pretty easy to find.
Click to expand...

It is really easy to find, but you can't be bothered to look it up. Doesn't sound that easy then. But feel free to prove to me how easy it is.
 
ergo said:
That you would believe that this was caused by minor floor fires and gravity (indeed, that such things could even produce such an effect) is what makes you a bee dunker.
Click to expand...

That you would completely ignore the well-documented force of gravity is what makes you just another pathetic example of someone who thinks he's important on the Internet.

Before they collapsed, the material of both twin towers provided a stored gravitational energy equivalent to the energy of 440 tons of TNT.

After they collapsed, the stored gravitational energy of the towers was close to zero, nothing, nada. They were collapsed, and no longer reached up 110 stories.

Science tells us energy is conserved. Where did that half-kiloton of TNT equivalent energy go, ergo? I submit that the potential energy of the towers went into breaking columns, pulverizing decks, crushing desks, damaging bronze statues, heating the materials, etc.

What do you think happened to that energy? Did it just vanish? Are you sure you want to ridicule the position that 440 tons of TNT "could even produce such an effect"?

But please, don't bother answering until you've closed on that simplest of questions, "Does a building's footprint include adjacent buildings?"
 
ergo said:
That you would believe that this was caused by minor floor fires and gravity (indeed, that such things could even produce such an effect) is what makes you a bee dunker.
Click to expand...

Still dodging.

Please try closure on the issues that YOU raised:
- Do you concede that that it is standard practice at the JEM to have discussions of papers, and replies ("closure") to the discussion by the original author, and that this does not compromise the integrity of a major science journal?
- What is your definition of "footprint", and does it include neighbouring buildings, in common demolition industry parlance?
 
ergo said:
Where does it go in any burning steel-framed highrise where elements are starting to fail?
Click to expand...


How about you answer a question, for a change. I know that you, as a truther, have a problem with honesty, but try it out. You might enjoy actually learning something, rather than denying everything.
 
ergo said:
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR
Science tells us energy is conserved. Where did that half-kiloton of TNT equivalent energy go, ergo?
Click to expand...
Where does it go in any burning steel-framed highrise where elements are starting to fail?
Click to expand...

Didn't anyone ever tell you that answering a question with a question is a pathetic dodge?

Where did all that energy go? On 9/11? Or in other collapses?

Your failure to answer the simple questions provides yet more validation of the hypothesis that 9/11 "truth" is just polemic crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom