ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Dave Thomas , richard gage , wtc collapse

Reply
Old 28th June 2010, 12:30 PM   #41
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,211
Originally Posted by newton3376 View Post
There will likely be talk of "free fall" speed......"into it's own footprint" etc....

Does anyone know if this debate will be focused on science issues (like Jones et al analysis of the red/grey chips) or will it be a broad overview of topics (like eyewitnesses hearing explosives, lack of videos of the pentagon crash etc)?

You just never know what wild and wacky theories those truthers will bring up......
Are you kidding (bold)? We're talking about "truthers".
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2010, 03:24 PM   #42
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
 
newton3376's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Are you kidding (bold)? We're talking about "truthers".
Heh....a valid point to be sure.....
__________________
AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%
newton3376 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2010, 11:04 AM   #43
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,445
maybe see if danny jowenko would do a phone in? i know...lost cause but i figured i would throw it out there.
__________________
For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 04:10 PM   #44
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Whoah.

This is so not what happened.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 06:34 PM   #45
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Whoah.

This is so not what happened.
As a matter of fact, it's exactly what happened.
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 06:39 PM   #46
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Yeah, I don't see the upper block there. Could you point it out?
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 06:54 PM   #47
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Maybe I can help you out with that.

The upper block (piledriver) doesn't actually survive crush down.

It crushes up first, as it impacts the intact building. The intact building begins to fall after the upper block has half crushed itself. The upper block's descent is not driving the collapse. It is a consequence of the collapse, as David Chandler and Gordon Ross point out.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 07:13 PM   #48
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Maybe I can help you out with that.

The upper block (piledriver) doesn't actually survive crush down.

It crushes up first, as it impacts the intact building. The intact building begins to fall after the upper block has half crushed itself. The upper block's descent is not driving the collapse. It is a consequence of the collapse, as David Chandler and Gordon Ross point out.
Poor David Chandler, the Truth Movement's gonna be a little disappointed in him when I prove he underestimates the force of the impacting floors by a factor of 100.

If the real impact force was represented by a 100-story building, Chandler's underestimate would be represented by a small grass hut.

Tune in Saturday, should be interesting.

Dave
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 07:22 PM   #49
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
Poor David Chandler, the Truth Movement's gonna be a little disappointed in him when I prove he underestimates the force of the impacting floors by a factor of 100.
Indeed, that should be interesting. Kinda doesn't change the fact that there is no upper block, though...
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 08:16 PM   #50
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Indeed, that should be interesting. Kinda doesn't change the fact that there is no upper block, though...
Sez you. You do realize that your saying it doesn't exist doesn't necessarily make that true, right?
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 08:32 PM   #51
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Yes, which is why I linked to the videos.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 08:33 PM   #52
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,257
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Maybe I can help you out with that.

The upper block (piledriver) doesn't actually survive crush down.

It crushes up first, as it impacts the intact building. The intact building begins to fall after the upper block has half crushed itself. The upper block's descent is not driving the collapse. It is a consequence of the collapse, as David Chandler and Gordon Ross point out.
Oi. Ross. Remedial reading:Chandler.You need to read previous threads. Their errors and misrepresentations have already been discussed.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 08:50 PM   #53
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
I've found that some NISTers don't understand Newton's Third Law, and therefore can't understand Chandler's and Ross's arguments.

I should point out, however, that no amount of mathematical contortions can bring into physical existence the upper block of storeys needed for crush-down. Do you agree? Or do you believe that math can materialize things?
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 09:01 PM   #54
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,257
Ross doesn't understand math.
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Haven't you read Newtons Bit's analysis of Ross? It's more than a minor nitpick, Ross's entire analysis rests on a fundamental error which is not just serious but utterly absurd.

I came up with a good analogy for Ross's error, in fact. Suppose I go out shopping with a hundred dollars, buy a forty-dollar pair of shoes, buy some lunch, and come back with thirty-three dollars. Analysing this according to Ross's approach, I must have stolen the shoes. Why?

Starting cash: $100
Amount spent shopping: $67
Amount left: $33
Therefore there was not enough money left over after shopping to buy a $40 pair of shoes.

Check Ross's energy tables. The analogy is exact.

Dave
Chandler has made other mistakes, well documented. Until you read previous threads, there's nothing to discuss. You are literally 3 years behind everyone else on these topics. Read links. Stop posting until you're up to speed.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 09:04 PM   #55
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
I will agree to read your threads. Will you agree to show me where the visual evidence supports the existence of the upper blocks through the collapse progression? 'Cuz if there isn't an upper block, the math is merely hypothetical, isn't it? And wrong.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 09:15 PM   #56
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,374
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I've found that some NISTers don't understand Newton's Third Law, and therefore can't understand Chandler's and Ross's arguments.

I should point out, however, that no amount of mathematical contortions can bring into physical existence the upper block of storeys needed for crush-down. Do you agree? Or do you believe that math can materialize things?
The whole language of crush up/crush down is a red herring which fools both sides of the argument and confuses the "lurkers".

Once the top block started falling for both towers the top block fell apart at some stage which matters little when. The material of the top block whether still an integral block OR partly dismembered OR totally in pieces fell inside the outer tube of columns.
(Note point #1 It did not land on top of those columns and crush them - they were peeled off to fall over and land in various sized sheets splayed out from the original line of the four walls of the tower. - many videos to prove that point)
So the top block is falling on the floors of the lower tower in sequence AND on the core.
(Note point #2 the top block columns did not and could not have been in alignment or remained in alignment with the corresponding lower parts of the same columns. Childishly simple logic. The top block was falling. Got it?? - If not think again - its not rocket science.)

So what is being "crushed" in the crap language of "crush up" OR "crush down"?

The floors of the outer office space were hit with a falling and overwhelming weight with at least 20 times the static overload needed to cause immediate failure - and that without allowing for the impact effects. And both sides of the debate get that bit wrong. Those on the "no demolition" side who get the reasoning wrong only get the answer right because there was a massive oversupply of available energy.

When the word "crush" appears ask two questions:
(1) What is getting crushed. (clue: Talking about the Top Block OR the lower towers as if they were integral structures is off the rails.)
(2) So what? (Or what is the consequence of that bit getting crushed?)

Final Hint. Neither the "top block" NOR the lower towers were crushed in any meaningful sense of the word "crushed".

Chandler has no argument all same as Szamboti who looks for a fantasy jolt because he does not work with the actual mechanism of collapse. He has no idea how the top block and the lower tower interacted.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 09:16 PM   #57
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,257
No, you read the links period. I'm not going to provide evidence for some strawman model because the actual collapse model isn't one of any upper "block" failing any lower one. It's one where rubble fails floors, not blocks, and removes columns ability to stand. There's no discrete upper block, and the only models that ever used them were Bazant's enveloping one (which was simply an energy argument), Heiwa's dip**** analysis, and all you truthers misinterpretations that flowed from that. I can't give evidence for your fantasy of what happened, I can only give it for what really occurred.

Until you realize that the significant issue is the strength of the floors connections to the columns, there's nothing to discuss. You're not even talking the collapse, you're talking some other story. So read the damn links and catch up to where everyone else is. Until you do that, there's no reason to interact further with you.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 09:19 PM   #58
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
@ ozeco: So you don't agree with the Bazant/NIST hypothesis? That's fine. But you should be aware that that is the official theory.

Last edited by ergo; 17th August 2010 at 09:20 PM.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 09:22 PM   #59
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
I'm not going to provide evidence for some strawman model because the actual collapse model isn't one of any upper "block" failing any lower one.
Bazant's math is entirely dependent on this model. Have you folks discarded Bazant? That is perfectly fine with me.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 09:26 PM   #60
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I've found that some NISTers don't understand Newton's Third Law.
Do you even know Newton's 3rd Law? That's the question!
9/11 Chewy Defense is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 09:29 PM   #61
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
No, the question is, if you have discarded the Bazant/NIST crush-down, crush-up hypothesis, what/whose model are you using, and does it have any relevance to the officially accepted theory?
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 09:31 PM   #62
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
No, the question is, if you have discarded the Bazant/NIST crush-down, crush-up hypothesis, what/whose model are you using, and does it have any relevance to the officially accepted theory?
Chandlers hypothesis wasn't even accepted offically. So WTF are you trying to prove other than that there's another idiot in this forum, and it's not us debunkers?
9/11 Chewy Defense is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 09:32 PM   #63
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by 9/11 Chewy Defense View Post
Chandlers hypothesis wasn't even accepted offically.
Um, yeah, I know. I don't think you understood what I said.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 09:39 PM   #64
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Um, yeah, I know. I don't think you understood what I said.
I don't think you understand what everyone on this forum is trying to tell you. Or don't you get the hint??
9/11 Chewy Defense is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 09:49 PM   #65
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by 9/11 Chewy Defense View Post
I don't think you understand what everyone on this forum is trying to tell you.
Is it written in invisible ink??
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 10:04 PM   #66
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Is it written in invisible ink??
According to you, since you're a Truther and all, yeah, it must be written in invisible ink.
9/11 Chewy Defense is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 10:06 PM   #67
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
...
Once the top block started falling for both towers the top block fell apart at some stage which matters little when. The material of the top block whether still an integral block OR partly dismembered OR totally in pieces fell inside the outer tube of columns.
(Note point #1 It did not land on top of those columns and crush them - they were peeled off to fall over and land in various sized sheets splayed out from the original line of the four walls of the tower. - many videos to prove that point)
So the top block is falling on the floors of the lower tower in sequence AND on the core.
(Note point #2 the top block columns did not and could not have been in alignment or remained in alignment with the corresponding lower parts of the same columns. Childishly simple logic.
Suspending my incredulity at the moment...

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
The top block was falling. Got it?? - If not think again - its not rocket science.)
What was it "falling" through?

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
So what is being "crushed" in the crap language of "crush up" OR "crush down"?
My question exactly. What, then, is happening?

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
The floors of the outer office space were hit with a falling and overwhelming weight
A "weight". What kind of matter is this weight composed of? I hope you're not going to say rubble...lol...

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
....
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Final Hint. Neither the "top block" NOR the lower towers were crushed in any meaningful sense of the word "crushed".
So what happened to them?
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 10:10 PM   #68
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Suspending my incredulity at the moment...



What was it "falling" through?



My question exactly. What, then, is happening?



A "weight". What kind of matter is this weight composed of? I hope you're not going to say rubble...lol...





So what happened to them?
In other words: "They fell down & went BOOM!" But not in an "explosive" sense of the word.
9/11 Chewy Defense is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2010, 11:38 PM   #69
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,198
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I've found that some NISTers
I think that FEMA-NISTers would be more witty.

I know that may be a stretch for some Truthers but have they ever used that term?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2010, 01:52 AM   #70
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I think that FEMA-NISTers would be more witty.

I know that may be a stretch for some Truthers but have they ever used that term?
You don't think FEMA snd NIST are witty Angrysoba ? What about this side-splitter from NIST ?

Reporter Jennifer Abel:"..what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?"

Michael Neuman [spokesperson at NIST, listed on the WTC report]: "Right, because there was no evidence of that."

Abel: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?

Neuman: "If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time... and the taxpayers' money."

Incidentally does David Aaronovitch still get down and dirty on the forums these days ?
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2010, 02:36 AM   #71
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 22,198
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Incidentally does David Aaronovitch still get down and dirty on the forums these days ?
No idea. Why don't you do a search for his name?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2010, 03:53 AM   #72
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
No idea. Why don't you do a search for his name?
lol. I don't think I need to go as far as that..
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 18th August 2010 at 03:56 AM.
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2010, 03:59 AM   #73
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
Poor David Chandler, the Truth Movement's gonna be a little disappointed in him when I prove he underestimates the force of the impacting floors by a factor of 100.

If the real impact force was represented by a 100-story building, Chandler's underestimate would be represented by a small grass hut.

Tune in Saturday, should be interesting.

Dave
I see that David Chandler and I are now pretty much on the same page about the top part of WTC1 being merely an assembly of 12 single floors and the the bottom part being a more strongly built assembly of 98 single floors. In other words they destroy each other a floor at a time leaving the top 12 floors gone while 86 floors of the lower assembly still remain in a worst-case scenario.
What would really happen as we should all know intuitively is that the top assembly would fall on the lower assembly causing some local damage to both assemblies and then the collapse would almost immediately arrest leaving the top part again sitting on the lower part that had already carried it for 40 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeC...layer_embedded
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2010, 07:41 AM   #74
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
I see that David Chandler and I are now pretty much on the same page about the top part of WTC1 being merely an assembly of 12 single floors and the the bottom part being a more strongly built assembly of 98 single floors. In other words they destroy each other a floor at a time leaving the top 12 floors gone while 86 floors of the lower assembly still remain in a worst-case scenario.
What would really happen as we should all know intuitively is that the top assembly would fall on the lower assembly causing some local damage to both assemblies and then the collapse would almost immediately arrest leaving the top part again sitting on the lower part that had already carried it for 40 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeC...layer_embedded
Thanks, Bill, for yet another sterling example of Chandler making his 100-times-too-small error!

Interesting that Chandler says the floors above and below the impacts were "consumed". Who was up there, eating all that steel and concrete, making it VANISH?

FYI, being damaged, broken or crumbled is not the same as being "consumed".

In the former, your structural integrity may be weakened, but not your total mass.
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2010, 07:47 AM   #75
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
I think that FEMA-NISTers would be more witty.
That's actually pretty funny. I think I have seen it before. I wouldn't use the term though, since the FEMA hypothesis is no longer in the running.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2010, 07:49 AM   #76
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
FYI, being damaged, broken or crumbled is not the same as being "consumed".

In the former, your structural integrity may be weakened, but not your total mass.
Because rubble still retains the mass?
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2010, 08:15 AM   #77
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Because rubble still retains the mass?
By, George, I think she's got it!
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2010, 09:04 AM   #78
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
Thanks, Bill, for yet another sterling example of Chandler making his 100-times-too-small error!

Interesting that Chandler says the floors above and below the impacts were "consumed". Who was up there, eating all that steel and concrete, making it VANISH?

FYI, being damaged, broken or crumbled is not the same as being "consumed".

In the former, your structural integrity may be weakened, but not your total mass.
Bear in mind the type of structure we are dealing with. An assembly of 12 spaced single floors above and a more strongly built assembly of 98 spaced single floors below. These assemblies are natural pre-made shock absorbers. Both assemblies wil suffer local damage as they mesh together with each absorbing the other's energy and almost immediately reaching a new equlibrium.

This will mean that whatever is left of the falling assembly that amounts to one-tenth of the building will end up sitting on top of the assembly amounting to nine-tenths of the building. Just as it had always been for the previous 40 years.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 18th August 2010 at 09:18 AM.
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2010, 09:15 AM   #79
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Hey Dave I have what I consider to be a very good question for Niels Harrit. I will post it right before the show. It is in everybody's interest to test all the 9/11 individuals rigorously.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2010, 10:01 AM   #80
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Hey Dave I have what I consider to be a very good question for Niels Harrit. I will post it right before the show. It is in everybody's interest to test all the 9/11 individuals rigorously.
I heard from the Coast-to-Coast people that it will be just Gage and me for the 1st two hours (11 PM MDT - 1AM MDT), then we'll be joined by Harrit and Johnson.

Of course, you could just call in at the half-way point and ask Harrit yourself.

Dave
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:06 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.