• 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

Oystein must also believe that the towers fell "all over the place", too, smacking buildings to the north, south, east and west as it descends. Like a drunk weaving his way through a crowd. I wonder where we see this in Bazant's calculations.
 
Bazant's calculations are about collapse progression, not debris dispersal. Not that you would know, but hey, it's cool.
 
This is stupid. What flippin' difference does it make if it was "pieces of the building" or "the building" or where it hit or what it hit or anything? The commonly-held narrative of the event states that the building collapsed due to damage and unfaught fires alone. Until a theory is presented formally in the scientific community that includes CD, and is supported by ALL the available evidence (not just what part of the building fell where) then--ergo's protests aside--the NIST report stands as the BEST theory

It is called "commonly-held" for a reason.
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Bazant's calculations are about collapse progression, not debris dispersal. Not that you would know, but hey, it's cool.
Click to expand...

And how, in Bazant's model, does the collapse progress, little fire professor? What kind of collapse mode does he describe?
 
You would know this if you read Bazant's paper, and could understand it.
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed Uncivil remarks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
twinstead said:
This is stupid. What flippin' difference does it make if it was "pieces of the building" or "the building" or where it hit or what it hit or anything? .
Click to expand...

You should ask Dave Thomas, Oystein, Truthorlies, and some of your other comrades here. They insist that the damage pattern proves that the building didn't fall staight down. It weaved like a drunk, listing north, then south, also east and west, crashing into things as it collapsed.
 
ergo said:
You should ask Dave Thomas, Oystein, Truthorlies, and some of your other comrades here. They insist that the damage pattern proves that the building didn't fall staight down. It weaved like a drunk, listing north, then south, also east and west, crashing into things as it collapsed.
Click to expand...

Apart from that being a lie, you're the one who believes that the damage to all the buildings outside the footprint proves that all of the building fell into its footprint.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Apart from that being a lie, you're the one who believes that the damage to all the buildings outside the footprint proves that all of the building fell into its footprint.
Click to expand...

Arguing with Dave Rogers, as with the other Dave, is like arguing with a five-year-old. Entertaining, but it feels futile--and a bit unfair. But here goes again:

It was evidently pieces of the building that hit other buildings. Pieces of a building are not the building itself. Videos show the building largely falling straight down, with a list to the south towards the end. The debris pile is centered over the building's footprint. This is my position and always has been.

I don't know why pieces of a building could be propelled laterally in all directions in a natural collapse. I think this is something bee dunkers should be asking themselves.
 
ergo said:
I don't know why pieces of a building could be propelled laterally in all directions in a natural collapse. I think this is something bee dunkers should be asking themselves.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should be asking this in reverse...

Why would pieces of a building be ejected laterally in all directions in a controlled demolition?
 
ergo said:
I don't know why pieces of a building could be propelled laterally in all directions in a natural collapse. I think this is something bee dunkers should be asking themselves.
Click to expand...

Got physics?
 
ergo said:
Arguing with Dave Rogers, as with the other Dave, is like arguing with a five-year-old. Entertaining, but it feels futile--and a bit unfair. But here goes again:

It was evidently pieces of the building that hit other buildings. Pieces of a building are not the building itself. Videos show the building largely falling straight down, with a list to the south towards the end. The debris pile is centered over the building's footprint. This is my position and always has been.

I don't know why pieces of a building could be propelled laterally in all directions in a natural collapse. I think this is something bee dunkers should be asking themselves.
Click to expand...



:D
 
WTC_7_aerial_photo.jpg




Ergo, in the above picture could you differentiate for me:

ergo said:
pieces of the building that hit other buildings.
Click to expand...

AND

ergo said:
the building itself
Click to expand...

Thanks in advance for the cognitive dissonance.
 
Last edited:
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Click to expand...

Darn. I was hoping we'd see some videos of actual natural building collapses with lateral ejections.

Oh well, at least you now admit it was pieces of the building, and not the building itself.

By the way, Dave, is that a rubber ball you're using in your "ricochet" experiment? :D And a plastic stick "snapping" under compression?
 
ProBonoShill said:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/WTC_7_aerial_photo.jpg

Ergo, in the above picture could you differentiate for me:

AND

Thanks in advance for the cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...

Um, did you know the building completely destroyed itself? Or did no one mention that to you?
 
ergo said:
Darn. I was hoping we'd see some videos of actual natural building collapses with lateral ejections.

Oh well, at least you now admit it was pieces of the building, and not the building itself.

By the way, Dave, is that a rubber ball you're using in your "ricochet" experiment? :D And a plastic stick "snapping" under compression?
Click to expand...

Gee, ergo, I was only trying to answer your question:
I don't know why pieces of a building could be propelled laterally in all directions in a natural collapse. I think this is something bee dunkers should be asking themselves.
Click to expand...

Are any of the three mechanisms I mentioned not capable of producing lateral ejections in a gravitational collapse?

Don't bother answering; this one requires more than a LOL or "bee-dunker" epithet toss.

The main reason you shouldn't bother answering is based on experience: no one cares what you think, because you don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom