9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

ergo said:
You're the ones defending this absurd theory. So defend it.
Click to expand...

Oh P. I figured you would remember the asswhipping I gave you at DBS about burden of proof?

I can post those 4 full posts with the full defintiion of burden of proof here if you really want me to.

Or we can just boil it down to the Burden of proof is on the claimant. The common narrative has been accepted by over 90% (I"m being extremely nice to the twoof with this number... personally I think it is closer to 95%) of the world. As such the burden of pwoof is on da twoof.

Got any? After not being able to use a stopwatch, i'm not suprised you don't.
 
ergo said:
You have not once in this thread shown me that anything I have stated was wrong. Most of you have avoided my questions, or responded to them with questions of your own.
Click to expand...

I have shown you at least 3 things you have gotten wrong.

the basic one is the collapse time of the towers.

Have you timed it yet? Why not?
 
ergo said:
Sure, any example in our physical universe in which something is crushed down vertically by a smaller top portion of itself.

And an example or explanation of how rubble can crush through a 90-storey building in under 13 seconds.

There's probably more, but that's good for now...
Click to expand...

15 and 20+ seconds.

Why do you continue showing your ignorance and inability to use a stopwatch?

and you have been given a link to a verinage technique in which 4 floors crushed down 12 floors below them... Gee... how did that happen? (oh wait.. it must have been an edit right?)

Water crushing a car, not in a a stream, just a mass of water falling... how did that happen again?
 
ergo said:
Not push someone downwards, but crush itself through the earth. And no, it wouldn't, because avalanches don't do that. That's my point. That's why an avalanche is an incorrect analogy.



Because you are suggesting that rubble can fall to the ground, through a 90-storey building, in only 4 seconds faster than it would take to fall through air.
Click to expand...

stopwatch? Got one? Didn't think so.
 
ergo said:
What does this mean? How does it define system?
Click to expand...
You are lying again by pretending you don't know. In the conversation with The Almond, with respect to the conservation of energy you specified to him:

ergo said:
In a closed system.
Click to expand...
So stop trolling and pretending you don't know what a system is.

Re the reference frame, what is important is the reference frame of the columns receiving the impacts, which are the ones receiving the energy. Since they don't move with respect to the ground, it's a classic physics problem in which defining an alternate reference frame makes no sense at all. I won't care to explain to you what a reference frame is, I just will point out that the paragraph you copy can't be applied in any way that favors your case, and that it's pointless to try to explain to you if you keep protecting your ignorance against any knowledge.
 
ergo said:
No, that's not correct. Pancaking implies that the floors compact one on top of the other. This is clearly not seen in the collapse progression, or at Ground Zero, except for the one picture that Kent1 linked to of the floors in the basement. It would also, as I already stated, not explain the disappearance of the core structure, as the core structure would not be able to pancake.

But please, take up your pancaking objections with NIST. I'm sure they'd love to hear them.
Click to expand...

Please show us where "pancaking" implies that the floors compact one on top of the other. That is merely your interpretation.

Mine is that the floors did fall ahead of the outer and inner structure, They are not strong enough to have remained as discrete floors but were smashed up in the impacts (likely the source of most of the dust) but the weight remains much the same whether the floor is in one piece or a thousand and ,once moving, would be unstoppable. The growing mass of the falling floors would press both inwards bucking the interior column or shearing their joints, and similarly outwards buckling and ripping the exterior columns sections apart.
 
carlitos said:
In order to have wrong calculations, you have to do calculations.

  • A speck of rubble, dropped from z height, will not initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
  • A pound of rubble, dropped from z height, will not initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
  • X tons of rubble, dropped from z height, will not initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
  • Y tons of rubble, dropped from z height, will initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
(Y is assumed to be greater than X in the above)

Everyone here reading this can understand my point. At some point, you will reach enough rubble that it would crush the remaining floors of the WTC. You can pretend not to understand, but even you realize that a moon-sized field of rubble, dropped from some height, would crush a skyscraper.

Assuming whatever height x, what is your calculation for Y above? How much energy would it need to generate? How much energy did the upper block apply on the floor below it? Why wasn't this enough to initiate collapse?
Click to expand...

No answer? Shocker.
 
Ergo, I ask again:

Over what time frame do you think that the rubble from the upper section impacted the uppermost floor of the lower section?
 
ergo said:
Sure, any example in our physical universe in which something is crushed down vertically by a smaller top portion of itself.

And an example or explanation of how rubble can crush through a 90-storey building in under 13 seconds.

There's probably more, but that's good for now...
Click to expand...

I notice no one has answered this question. I always enjoy the "debunker" answers to this.
 
ergo said:
i notice no one has answered this question. I always enjoy the "debunker" answers to this.
Click to expand...

wtc1 & wtc2

I notice you haven't answered Carlitos yet:
carlitos said:
  • A speck of rubble, dropped from z height, will not initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
  • A pound of rubble, dropped from z height, will not initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
  • X tons of rubble, dropped from z height, will not initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
  • Y tons of rubble, dropped from z height, will initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
(Y is assumed to be greater than X in the above)

Everyone here reading this can understand my point. At some point, you will reach enough rubble that it would crush the remaining floors of the WTC. You can pretend not to understand, but even you realize that a moon-sized field of rubble, dropped from some height, would crush a skyscraper.

Assuming whatever height x, what is your calculation for Y above? How much energy would it need to generate? How much energy did the upper block apply on the floor below it? Why wasn't this enough to initiate collapse?
Click to expand...
 
X said:
Ergo, I ask again:

Over what time frame do you think that the rubble from the upper section impacted the uppermost floor of the lower section?
Click to expand...

In the crush-down model (not in reality) and judging by the time of collapse and the video evidence, whatever rubble was created in the initial crush-up of the upper block would have allegedly hit the uppermost floor of the lower section in a fraction of a second.

However, the video I posted from plaguepuppy shows that the lower part of the building starts to descend independently from what the upper part is doing.
 
excaza said:
wtc1 & wtc2
Click to expand...

Thank you. I should have clarified: any other example in our physical universe. What we're going for here is an example that demonstrates the principle that you folks are trying to pass off as accepted physics.
 
Well, there's verinage, but why does there have to be another example? Skyscrapers don't exactly collapse regularly, 2 examples isn't enough? If it's never happened in the past, it can never happen? Is that the point you're trying to make?

Also, why are you ignoring the question? You claim to know physics better than we do, this should be a straightforward calculation.
carlitos said:
  • A speck of rubble, dropped from z height, will not initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
  • A pound of rubble, dropped from z height, will not initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
  • X tons of rubble, dropped from z height, will not initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
  • Y tons of rubble, dropped from z height, will initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
(Y is assumed to be greater than X in the above)

Everyone here reading this can understand my point. At some point, you will reach enough rubble that it would crush the remaining floors of the WTC. You can pretend not to understand, but even you realize that a moon-sized field of rubble, dropped from some height, would crush a skyscraper.

Assuming whatever height x, what is your calculation for Y above? How much energy would it need to generate? How much energy did the upper block apply on the floor below it? Why wasn't this enough to initiate collapse?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
excaza said:
Why does there have to be another example? Skyscrapers don't exactly collapse regularly, 2 examples isn't enough? If it's never happened in the past, it can never happen? Is that the point you're trying to make?
Click to expand...

Skyscrapers never collapse completely from fire. That's the point. The WTC was a completely out of the ordinary, unexpected collapse. Highly unusual.

If you are using as an example the very thing you are trying to explain about this highly unusual event, that's not science, it's circular logic. Any model of the Twin Towers' collapse that attempts to suggest the top portions crushed, smashed or pummeled through the intact portion of a building needs to point to where else this kind of event via the same gravitational mechanism has occurred. All you have so far is a tautology, that "collapse was inevitable after the first floor was crushed through." In fact, Newton's Third Law says this isn't true at all. Collapse was most certainly not inevitable. It was in fact highly improbable.
 
Mr. Third Law, please answer the question. You keep insisting physics agrees with you. Show it.

carlitos said:
  • A speck of rubble, dropped from z height, will not initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
  • A pound of rubble, dropped from z height, will not initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
  • X tons of rubble, dropped from z height, will not initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
  • Y tons of rubble, dropped from z height, will initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
(Y is assumed to be greater than X in the above)

Everyone here reading this can understand my point. At some point, you will reach enough rubble that it would crush the remaining floors of the WTC. You can pretend not to understand, but even you realize that a moon-sized field of rubble, dropped from some height, would crush a skyscraper.

Assuming whatever height z, what is your calculation for Y above? How much energy would it need to generate? How much energy did the upper block apply on the floor below it? Why wasn't this enough to initiate collapse?
Click to expand...
 
ergo said:
Verinage is not an example of a minor portion of a structure crushing through via gravity its major portion.
Click to expand...

Here is what you posted:

ergo said:
Sure, any example in our physical universe in which something is crushed down vertically by a smaller top portion of itself.
Click to expand...

Verinage has a smaller upper portion collapsing the rest of the lower portion. Are you denying that the upper block is smaller? There are videos showing this.
 
I can't believe ergo is still posting at all. If I was caught with my pants down as he has, I would quietly leave the discussion. It seems he's a masochist.

Since ergo has admitted to not having any evidence for anything he says (admitted so by ignoring any requests for it), the following goes without saying:

Evidence count for ergo: zero.
 
ergo said:
Skyscrapers never collapse completely from fire. That's the point. The WTC was a completely out of the ordinary, unexpected collapse. Highly unusual.
Click to expand...
It didn't collapse completely from fire. Fires around the impact area weakened the steel support structure to the point where they could not support the upper portion, initiating the collapse of the upper portion of the towers that could not be arrested by the lower portion of the building.

Any model of the Twin Towers' collapse that attempts to suggest the top portions crushed, smashed or pummeled through the intact portion of a building needs to point to where else this kind of event via the same gravitational mechanism has occurred.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Just because something hasn't occurred in the past doesn't mean it can't possibly occur. The hypothesis regarding collapse initiation and propagation is supported by theory, simulation, and reality. Unless you can illustrate how this cannot possibly happen (which you could start with by answering carlitos' question), you have nothing to stand on. The physics necessary to get even a basic debunk of the "official conspiracy theory" aren't incredibly difficult, it would not be much of a chore to fix your flawed understanding of it.
 
Last edited:
excaza said:
Mr. Third Law, please answer the question. You keep insisting physics agrees with you. Show it.
Click to expand...

carlitos said:
* A speck of rubble, dropped from z height, will not initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
* A pound of rubble, dropped from z height, will not initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
* X tons of rubble, dropped from z height, will not initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.
* Y tons of rubble, dropped from z height, will initiate the collapse of the WTC tower.

(Y is assumed to be greater than X in the above)
Click to expand...

I agree that Y tons of rubble may have the power to crush through or partially destroy a floor or floors below it.

Everyone here reading this can understand my point. At some point, you will reach enough rubble that it would crush the remaining floors of the WTC. You can pretend not to understand, but even you realize that a moon-sized field of rubble, dropped from some height, would crush a skyscraper.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure even a moon-sized field or mountain of rubble, dropped from a height of 12 feet would entirely crush the WTC. No. If you had it coming down from a higher height, in a steady stream over a long period of time, we would certainly see some major damage. Total collapse? I'm not sure.

Assuming whatever height z, what is your calculation for Y above? How much energy would it need to generate? How much energy did the upper block apply on the floor below it? Why wasn't this enough to initiate collapse?
Click to expand...

Because the buildings had inherent load-absorbing capacity, like any modern highrise. When force is coming from above, it is referring ultimately through the entire structure. It would take a much greater force, from a much greater height to "crush" the building. Gravity cannot do it, because the building's design prevents it, as do all modern highrise designs.
 
Last edited:
Disbelief said:
Here is what you posted:

Verinage has a smaller upper portion collapsing the rest of the lower portion. Are you denying that the upper block is smaller? There are videos showing this.
Click to expand...

Yes, the upper portion appears to be about equal with the lower.
 
ergo said:
I'm not sure even a moon-sized field or mountain of rubble, dropped from a hieght of 12 feet would entirely crush the WTC. No. If you had it coming down from a higher height, in a steady stream over a long period of time, we would certainly see some major damage. Total collapse? I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
Support this, show that a moon-sized field of rubble, dropped from a height of 12 feet, will not cause a total collapse.

Because the buildings had inherent load-absorbing capacity, like any modern highrise. When force is coming from above, it is referring ultimately through the entire structure. It would take a much greater force, from a much greater height to "crush" the building. Gravity cannot do it, because the building's design prevents it, as do all modern highrise designs.
Click to expand...

You keep saying this, but not providing any calculations to support your statement. A high rise is not an infinite energy sink, at some point it will fail. Do some basic stress calculations, show how much force it would take to cause the supporting structure in a modern high rise to fail. You know the approximate weight of each floor, the yield strength of steel is a discrete number, and the structural layout is easily found.
 
Last edited:
excaza said:
It didn't collapse completely from fire. Fires around the impact area weakened the steel support structure to the point where they could not support the upper portion, initiating the collapse of the upper portion of the towers that could not be arrested by the lower portion of the building.
Click to expand...

The cause is from fire. What you describe should happen to other buildings that burn for an hour or more.

No it doesn't. Just because something hasn't occurred in the past doesn't mean it can't possibly occur. The hypothesis regarding collapse initiation and propagation is supported by theory, simulation, and reality.
Click to expand...

It's supported by theory only. It's not supported by reality, and we have not seen the simulations.
 
excaza said:
You keep saying this, but not providing any calculations to support your statement. A high rise is not an infinite energy sink, at some point it will fail. Do some basic stress calculations, show how much force it would take to cause the supporting structure in a modern high rise to fail. The yield strength of steel is a discrete number, and the structural layout is easily found.
Click to expand...

Others have provided the calculations, as you well know. I do not have that kind of mathematical knowledge.
 
ergo said:
Others have provided the calculations, as you well know. I do not have that kind of mathematical knowledge.
Click to expand...

You can't do the physics, yet you are confident in your assertion that the official explanation is wrong? You do realize that makes no sense?
 
Last edited:
excaza said:
You can't do the physics, yet you are confident in your assertion that the official explanation is wrong? That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Yes, because others who have that knowledge have made those calculations and have confirmed my common sense understanding of how buildings collapse.
 
excaza said:
You can't do the physics, yet you are confident in your assertion that the official explanation is wrong? You do realize that makes no sense?
Click to expand...

I understand the physical principles. I understand some of the basic calculations, but I could not provide a calculation of the energetic requirements in all these different scenarios. And neither could about 90% of you, judging by the posts I see here.
 
ergo said:
Yes, because others who have that knowledge have made those calculations and have confirmed my common sense understanding of how buildings collapse.
Click to expand...

Ok, then please show the calculations you are using to base your insistence that rubble cannot collapse a building, and that a high rise is designed to withstand this type of dynamic load. Other than your assertion that this is "common sense," you have not provided any of this. I'm particularly interested in whose calculations you are using to base your theory about the behavior of particles and the analysis showing that 12+ floors of structural material cannot overload an already weakened structure.
 
Last edited:
Ergo has now admitted to having no evidence and not being able to do the calculations necessary to support his insane assertions. It's another example of "common sense fail", just as I thought.

If you want to salvage any dignity, ergo, I suggest that you present the calculations you base your delusions on, whoever made them.

Evidence count for ergo: still zero.
 
ergo said:
I notice no one has answered this question. I always enjoy the "debunker" answers to this.
Click to expand...

As soon as you take out a stopwatch and time the collapses, I'll be HAPPY to answer this question.
 
excaza said:
Ok, then please show the calculations you are using to base your insistence that rubble cannot collapse a building,
Click to expand...

There are no calculations yet because there are no calculations yet insisting that rubble can.

and that a high rise is designed to withstand this type of dynamic load. Other than your assertion that this is "common sense," you have not provided any of this. I'm particularly interested in whose calculations you are using to base your theory about the behavior of particles and the analysis showing that 12+ floors of structural material cannot overload an already weakened structure.
Click to expand...

As for the bolded, Gordon Ross explains it pretty clearly. As well as David Chandler. As I've stated before.

As for the behaviour of particles as a system, we would need to see the support first for the argument that they can do what you are claiming.
 
ergo said:
Because the buildings had inherent load-absorbing capacity, like any modern highrise. When force is coming from above, it is referring ultimately through the entire structure. It would take a much greater force, from a much greater height to "crush" the building. Gravity cannot do it, because the building's design prevents it, as do all modern highrise designs.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Buildings don't compress and absorb and dissipate energy in the vertical axis and that is what would be required in the design for your claim to be true.

Highrise buildings are designed to flex, absorb and dissipate energy to deal with hurricanes and earthquakes. That would be in the horizontal.

Buildings sway, they don't bounce up and down. A tall building that doesn't sway will collapse in a mild earthquake.
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
Ergo has now admitted to having no evidence and not being able to do the calculations necessary to support his insane assertions.
Click to expand...

One large piece of evidence I will cite is your inability to come up with an example in nature or engineering in which an object or structure is crushed gravitationally by a smaller portion of itself.
 
ergo said:
one large piece of evidence i will cite is your inability to come up with an example in nature or engineering in which an object or structure is crushed gravitationally by a smaller portion of itself.
Click to expand...

wtc1 , wtc2
 
BigAl said:
Wrong. Buildings don't compress and absorb and dissipate energy in the vertical axis and that is what would be required in the design for your claim to be true.
Click to expand...

Please provide evidence for this claim. I think most structural engineers would disagree with you.
 
ergo said:
Please provide evidence for this claim. I think most structural engineers would disagree with you.
Click to expand...

Find one. We'll wait.

Heck, if you want, I'll give you my department head's e-mail so you can ask him.
 
Last edited:
I don't have much physics, so someone please help me here.

ergo said:
I'm not sure even a moon-sized field or mountain of rubble, dropped from a height of 12 feet would entirely crush the WTC. No. If you had it coming down from a higher height, in a steady stream over a long period of time, we would certainly see some major damage. Total collapse? I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
At least you are honest that you don't understand the science or physics. But really, how can you make assertions if you don't understand it?


If you just gently rested this debris field on top of one of the towers, think about what you are saying:

Mass of the moon = 74750000000000000000000 kg
Mass of the World Trade Center tower = 450000000 kg

I don't have time to do the equations now, but I think you are mistaken, to put it mildly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom