Q's about AE911T

[triforcharity]

Hey Ergo,

Stop driving that Dodge like it's invisible and answer Dave et al's questions.

Do footprints usually include other buildings?

Yes

No

 

[Oystein]

Where does it go in any burning steel-framed highrise where elements are starting to fail?

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?

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

Footprint citation... still waiting

have you figured out how much damage "loose particles" can do in comparison to the "intact" amount yet? I would love to see a citation for that bit of incredulity... got one yet?

what crushed that car? Still waiting.

 

[ergo]

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

Yes, that's what I asked. Where does all that energy go in any burning steel-framed highrise where elements are starting to fail? In your own theory fire causes steel to weaken so easily that it can cause a sudden, rapid, global collapse. So, in highrise building fires such as the First Interstate Bank fire, the New York Plaza fire, the Beijing Mandarin, the Caracas Tower which burned for more than 17 hours, where did this all this energy go?

The Caracas tower was 56 storeys. About half the potential energy of the Twin Towers. Let's say 100 tons of TNT. Two floors failed early on in the collapse. Where did the potential 100 tons of TNT go?

 

[ergo]

Still waiting.

As I said, there's a post here of mine on JREF. I'm not going to search for it. You can keep waiting as long as you like.

 

[ergo]

- 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?

Yes, I concede this. The rest of my comment about Bazant and JEM stand.

- What is your definition of "footprint", and does it include neighbouring buildings, in common demolition industry parlance?

I've already answered this question.

 

[Horatius]

- What is your definition of "footprint", and does it include neighbouring buildings, in common demolition industry parlance?

I've already answered this question.

Perhaps you could do those of us less cunning than yourself the favour of highlighting which portion of that post answers the question asked?

Where? It's a yes or no question. Do CD footprints usually contain other buildings? Yes or no. Simple answer.

I'm helping you with your own question. See:

Usually they don't make them hit other buildings though. And they usually don't spread their contents over many acres.

So, Trifor, did the WTC7 collapse into its own footprint or not?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Honesty, ergo. You might want to try it out.

 

[triforcharity]

Yes, that's what I asked. Where does all that energy go in any burning steel-framed highrise where elements are starting to fail? In your own theory fire causes steel to weaken so easily that it can cause a sudden, rapid, global collapse.

If it doesn't collapse, it stays there. Yes, fire can and will cause steel framed structures to collapse. This is not a new discovery.

So, in highrise building fires such as the First Interstate Bank fire,

First Interstate Bank building fire was fought the entire time by firefighters, and there was fear that it would collapse.

It was cited by the USFA that "Unusually good application of fire resistive coating helped maintain structural integrity in fire."

See here.
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-022.pdf

the New York Plaza fire,

Two floors, and had firefighters fighting the blaze. I can't find my information about this fire. ILO didn't do a report, and I cannot find any NFPA or OSHA, or USFA report on this fire, but yet, two people died.

the Beijing Mandarin,

From what I have found, The Mandarin Tower had a concrete core, and was made with reinforced concrete.

the Caracas Tower which burned for more than 17 hours, where did this all this energy go?

It didn't collapse, remember?

The Caracas tower was 56 storeys. About half the potential energy of the Twin Towers. Let's say 100 tons of TNT. Two floors failed early on in the collapse. Where did the potential 100 tons of TNT go?

Two floors versus 15+ floors, and major structural damage to begin with.

Yeah, your argument is ******* retarded.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Since the thread is questions about AE911truth, I'd like to ask the following?

Are these architects and engineers concerned citizens -so brave enough as to take on the "omnipotent US government" as they seem to think it is - able to point out genuine flaws in the collapse reports?

What is their definition of a genuine flaw?

Are these concerned architects and engineers smarter than a rock?

Will they ever find Waldo?

Stay tuned..

 

[triforcharity]

Yes, I concede this. The rest of my comment about Bazant and JEM stand.

Because it hurts your feelings, and you cannot rebut Bazant et al's paper, you run from it like a schoolyard sissy.

I've already answered this question.

Yes or no. It's a very simple answer.

Does the footprint (Any of your definitions) include other buildings?

Yes.

No.

 

[DGM]

.

Yeah, your argument is ******* retarded.

Is he really asking where the potential energy of buildings that didn't collapse goes?

 

[Oystein]

Yes, I concede this. The rest of my comment about Bazant and JEM stand.

Let me quote your post inb full, and colour red the parts which you concede to be erroneous, or which rely on your erroneous assumption. I will then address the parts that remain black:

Um, no.

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. One need only read Bazant's "closure", which reads like a circus flyer, to understand this. It's like a colourful synopsis of his entire tome of 9/11 pseudo-science. Indeed, I wish JEM readers would read that closely and follow the references he cites. It would help 9/11 skepticism greatly.

Gourley's chronicle of his JEM paper submission process is here.

"He doesn't intelligently address a single one of Bjorkman's objections.": Bare-assed assertion. You fail to argue your point. You are wrong. Bazant intelligently addresses a very stupid discussion paper.

"Gourley's chronicle...": The most interesting line there is "I’m an attorney".
[ETA]By the way, ergo: Gourley mentions two other papers in that blog post: Harrit's "thermite found" paper at Bentham, and a piece at The Environmentalist. Since you raised concerns about the ethical integrity of JEM, do you also share in our concerns about the ethical integrity of the Bentham papers? After all, the editor in chief didn't even know that the paper got published, and the authors, rather than the editor, knew the peer reviewers, which is blatant breah of all peer review guidelines. Also does it worry you that of three truther papers published in 2008 about the probable cause of building collapses, none is by a scientist or professional from any field of study directly related with building structures, collapses, or fires? Why were the A&E not able to recruit a single architect or structural engineer to publish a single paper? Why did they leave the discussion of Bazant to a lawyer and chemical engineering B.S.?[/ETA]

I've already answered this question.

No, that linked post contains no answer. You continue to dodge where a 2- or 3-letter answer would suffice: Type the word "yes", or type the word "no" to answer the simple question:
Does your definition of "footprint" include neighbouring buildings, in common demolition industry parlance?

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Is he really asking where the potential energy of buildings that didn't collapse goes?

Yes, he really is.
This, after I said

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.

As I explained here, the gravitational potential energy of a mass m, raised to a height h, is mgh, where g = 9.8m/sec^2.

The height of the towers before collapse was 418 meters; after collapse, close to zero. That's why that 440 tons of TNT worth of energy was available to break, pulverize, crush, and heat things.

The Caracas Tower? The height before was 56 floors, the height after "collapse" (?!?!?) was still 56 floors (perhaps 54?), so the gravitational potential energy is still there (and wasn't converted to mechanical action, heat, etc.). Methinks ergo is having a problem with "If h = 0 , => mgh = 0".

ergo also has a problem answering if "footprints" contain adjacent buildings, or not:

Originally Posted by ergo
I've already answered this question.

That wasn't an answer, just another question.

But as for mgh, anyway, I'm going for the Stundie nomination. This will be hard to top.

 

[geno5150]

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.

You keep leaving out the really big and fast Boeing aircraft that created sizable holes. Not really a minor factor.

Or are you a no-planer, too?

 

[Horatius]

As I explained here, the gravitational potential energy of a mass m, raised to a height h, is mgh, where g = 9.8m/sec^2.

The height of the towers before collapse was 418 meters; after collapse, close to zero. That's why that 440 tons of TNT worth of energy was available to break, pulverize, crush, and heat things.

The Caracas Tower? The height before was 56 floors, the height after "collapse" (?!?!?) was still 56 floors (perhaps 54?), so the gravitational potential energy is still there (and wasn't converted to mechanical action, heat, etc.). Methinks ergo is having a problem with "If h = 0 , => mgh = 0".

If you're going to Stundie that, you should also note that based on this:

The Caracas tower was 56 storeys. About half the potential energy of the Twin Towers. Let's say 100 tons of TNT. Two floors failed early on in the collapse. Where did the potential 100 tons of TNT go?

...he's asserting that the height is the only thing that contributes to gravitational potential energy, ignoring the "mass" part of mgh. He assumes that the mass floors is essentially the same in these different towers, on the basis of nothing more than his own assumption.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

If you're going to Stundie that, you should also note that ...he's asserting that the height is the only thing that contributes to gravitational potential energy, ignoring the "mass" part of mgh. He assumes that the mass floors is essentially the same in these different towers, on the basis of nothing more than his own assumption.

Not only that, but there's a quadratic dependence on the number of floors. If the Twin Towers themselves had only been half as tall (55 stories instead of 110), their gravitational potential energy would have been about a quarter of that of the actual (110-story) towers, not a half.

So, here's a multiple choice test for Ergo:

(1.) If the mass of a floor is M, and gravitational acceleration is g, and there are N floors each of height H, then the Gravitational Potential Energy of the assembled Tower of N Floors is:

1. Zero
2. M*g*H*N
3. M*g*H*N*(N+1)/2
4. M*g*H*N²
5. Infinity
6. What are you talking about?

(2.)Do footprints usually include other buildings? :

1. Yes
2. No

The first question has one correct answer. The second question is for ergo alone, and has one honest answer, which we've been asking him to provide without success.

I predict ergo will fail both questions, or 50% at least. (Even if he stumbles on the answer of (1), I expect he'll continue to dodge (2)...)

 

[triforcharity]

Is he really asking where the potential energy of buildings that didn't collapse goes?

Yes, he really did.

And he wants to argue with US about physics?!?!?

 

[phatred]

Thanks for all the replies guys, the alienentity videos were really helpful. I didn't bother continuing the fb debate. My old friend's stance was basically "well, if 1400 engineers say it, it must be right" and "until someone comes up with a better explaination for society's problems I'll stick with Peter Joseph" At least I learned a few things by digging for some information.

 

[ergo]

Two floors versus 15+ floors, and major structural damage to begin with.

?? What building are you talking about Trifor? What happened to collapse must be inevitable?

Yeah, your argument is ******* retarded.