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 18th August 2010, 10:19 AM   #81
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
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.
"Equilibrium".

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
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, 01:10 PM   #82
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post

Equilibrium,n........def....[A stable situation in which forces cancel one another]]
__________________
*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, 01:37 PM   #83
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Equilibrium,n........def....[A stable situation in which forces cancel one another]]
It's not that the 12 stories on the upper section "cancel out" the 1st 12 floors of the lower section, which would be
12 - 12 = 0
Instead, it's that the mass of the upper section is combined with the mass of the lower section as each floor is stripped off:
12 + 12 = 24
There is no mysterious concrete-steel eating leviathan that's making the mass, whether rubble or not, disappear. This "cancellation" you speak of exists only in your imagination - it does not describe the events of 9-11-2001.

You really need to do much better, Bill. When your arguments are so obviously pathetic, it reflects badly on your heroes Chandler and Gage et. al.
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, 01:45 PM   #84
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
It's not that the 12 stories on the upper section "cancel out" the 1st 12 floors of the lower section, which would be
12 - 12 = 0
Instead, it's that the mass of the upper section is combined with the mass of the lower section as each floor is stripped off:
12 + 12 = 24
There is no mysterious concrete-steel eating leviathan that's making the mass, whether rubble or not, disappear. This "cancellation" you speak of exists only in your imagination - it does not describe the events of 9-11-2001.

You really need to do much better, Bill. When your arguments are so obviously pathetic, it reflects badly on your heroes Chandler and Gage et. al.
Do you mean that it goes like the top one-tenth becomes two-tenths....three-tenths....four-tenths....five-tenths until the whole lower nine-tenths of the building is gone ? Are you going to make that argument on the radio ?
__________________
*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 01:47 PM.
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, 05:38 PM   #85
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Do you mean that it goes like the top one-tenth becomes two-tenths....three-tenths....four-tenths....five-tenths until the whole lower nine-tenths of the building is gone ? Are you going to make that argument on the radio ?
Not at all. I don't mean anything of that sort. This tenths business is something you came up with. My approach is more on the lines of 14+1=15, 15+1=16, ... 109+1 = 110.
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, 06:02 PM   #86
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Oh ****!! You all didn't tell me this was a CALL IN SHOW!! I will have to google for the number when I get a chance!! WOOT!!
triforcharity 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, 06:34 PM   #87
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,374
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
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....
SPOT ON!!! And the cause of much of my frustration with many explanations posted by the debunker side of 9/11. There has been enormous waste of bandwidth discussing and explaining the collapses as if it was an integral homogeneous block falling onto a similarly integral homogeneous lower tower. It wasn't and any explanation build on that wrong premise will be a wrong explanation HOWEVER it may come to the right answer.

Bazant's first paper dealt with the global aspects of available energy and concluded similarly to NIST that "global collapse was inevitable" (my recollection of NIST's terminology.) His assumptions were wrong but he got the right answer. (Note: I am aware than many Bazant supporters excuse the assumptions as valid simplifications. That may be true. But it is not true when debate enters the areas where his simplifications are wrong as this discussion has now done.)

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
....It's one where rubble fails floors, not blocks, and removes columns ability to stand. There's no discrete upper block,...
...slight disagreement there. It was a discrete upper block as it started to fall. It fell apart somewhere through the ensuing collapse. Most if not all of that block fell inside the outer tube of columns and landed on the floor area and core. And that happened whether the top block was initially a discrete entity, sometime later partially dismantled or even later fully reduced to rubble. The key points being that the falling mass bypassed the outer tube of columns, fell mostly on the floor(s) below and some onto core. And, to a first approximation, it was the same falling mass whether in one bit, several or thousands.
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
... and the only models that ever used [block on block models] 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.
....fully agreed - it echoes what I have said repeatedly on another forum - "they do not discuss the collapse mechanism which actually happened on 9/11". And many of the "good guys" are as guilty as the truthers of discussing fantasy collapse mechanisms rather than the "collapse which actually happened".
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
...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....
Well said - and my two key points already outlined.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Bazant's math is entirely dependent on this model. Have you folks discarded Bazant? That is perfectly fine with me.
Bazant analysed the collapses to see if there was sufficient energy to initiate and propagate collapse. To do so in his first paper he made simplifying assumptions about the mechanism of collapse. The assumptions he made require more energy to cause the collapse. He found that there was enough energy to cause collapse. Since the mechanism of collapse which actually happened required even less energy Bazant's conclusion was correct and was conservative.

I avoid using Bazant as authority where the actual collapse mechanism is at the core of the debate. Bazant's opinion is globally valid but invalid in some of the detail.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
@ 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.
The conflation of Bazant and NIST as if they were one explanation is faulty. And Bazant AFAIK is not "official'.

I have published my own explanations which agree with NIST on the key issue which I have debated viz "No Demolition" and the broad parameters of the collapses of WTC1 & WTC2. I don't disagree with the main points of Bazant OR NIST. My own explanations go further. I have published them in full detail on other forums.
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 18th August 2010, 07:16 PM   #88
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Oh ****!! You all didn't tell me this was a CALL IN SHOW!! I will have to google for the number when I get a chance!! WOOT!!
Wait a minute... You have a job that requires you to be up to monitor radios and phones and whatnot and you haven't found the weapons grade woo that is Coast To Coast AM? Man have you been missing out.

My favorite clip from the show.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Context: He's describing the video game Half-Life from the perspective of the character that you play.
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am 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, 07:39 PM   #89
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am View Post
Wait a minute... You have a job that requires you to be up to monitor radios and phones and whatnot and you haven't found the weapons grade woo that is Coast To Coast AM? Man have you been missing out.

My favorite clip from the show.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Context: He's describing the video game Half-Life from the perspective of the character that you play.
All I have to say is W. T. F?

Bookmarking it now, as we speak.
triforcharity 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, 10:32 PM   #90
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
SPOT ON!!! And the cause of much of my frustration with many explanations posted by the debunker side of 9/11. There has been enormous waste of bandwidth discussing and explaining the collapses as if it was an integral homogeneous block falling onto a similarly integral homogeneous lower tower. It wasn't and any explanation build on that wrong premise will be a wrong explanation HOWEVER it may come to the right answer.
Wow, are those goalposts now on wheels? It must be tiring for you guys to never quite know what it is you're supposed to be defending. Moreover, if you are disagreeing with the crush-down, crush-up hypothesis, congratulations. You've taken the first step towards intelligence. However, you are no longer supporting the official theory. Welcome to the "truther" side. Your badge is in the mail.

Quote:
Bazant's first paper dealt with the global aspects of available energy
"Global aspects" of available energy?

Quote:
It was a discrete upper block as it started to fall. It fell apart somewhere through the ensuing collapse. Most if not all of that block fell inside the outer tube of columns and landed on the floor area and core. And that happened whether the top block was initially a discrete entity, sometime later partially dismantled or even later fully reduced to rubble.
Wow, were you there hovering in a helicopter, watching it all? If not, could you perhaps provide some evidence for this claim?

Quote:
The key points being that the falling mass bypassed the outer tube of columns, fell mostly on the floor(s) below and some onto core. And, to a first approximation, it was the same falling mass whether in one bit, several or thousands.
Mass does not "stay the same" when it becomes many smaller pieces. The disintegration of any structure completely alters the way it functions, the way it moves, the friction it encounters, its ability to do work. This whole concept of rubble crushing through 80 and 90 intact storeys of steel-framed highrise is utterly idiotic. Shockingly idiotic.

If you disagree, please tell me what laws of physics support this ridiculous notion.

Quote:
Bazant analysed the collapses to see if there was sufficient energy to initiate and propagate collapse. To do so in his first paper he made simplifying assumptions about the mechanism of collapse. The assumptions he made require more energy to cause the collapse. He found that there was enough energy to cause collapse. Since the mechanism of collapse which actually happened required even less energy Bazant's conclusion was correct and was conservative.
Please explain how rubble requires less energy than an intact block to crush through 80 and 90 intact storeys.

Quote:
I avoid using Bazant as authority where the actual collapse mechanism is at the core of the debate. Bazant's opinion is globally valid but invalid in some of the detail.
It's Bazant's opinion that was ultimately adopted by NIST. It's Bazant's calculations that supposedly found "more than enough" energy to crush an intact highrise. If his model is incorrect, then his calculations are incorrect. You can't discard someone's entire model, but then say "oh, but he was mostly right."

Quote:
The conflation of Bazant and NIST as if they were one explanation is faulty. And Bazant AFAIK is not "official'.
Please provide evidence for this claim.

Quote:
I have published my own explanations which agree with NIST on the key issue which I have debated viz "No Demolition" and the broad parameters of the collapses of WTC1 & WTC2. I don't disagree with the main points of Bazant OR NIST. My own explanations go further. I have published them in full detail on other forums.
I believe we are talking about the official theory here, not about the theories of Internet posters. If you have your own theory, that's great. But it's hypocritical and just plain invalid to attack "truthers" for questioning the very aspects of the official theory that you yourself also object to.

Last edited by ergo; 18th August 2010 at 10:34 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 18th August 2010, 11:37 PM   #91
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
Not at all. I don't mean anything of that sort. This tenths business is something you came up with. My approach is more on the lines of 14+1=15, 15+1=16, ... 109+1 = 110.
This is Bazant's approach. Fourteen storeys--or is it layers of rubble??--plus one layer of rubble equals 15 storeys/layers of rubble. Fifteen storeys/layers of rubble plus the next layer of rubble equals 16 storeys/layers of rubble.

Funny thing, though. You sort of acknowledge that the upper block doesn't exist (but you also sort of don't--convenient!) and yet you draw it into your video. Or are those the layers of rubble? Either way, whatever you've drawn there is not there in 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 18th August 2010, 11:51 PM   #92
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
Not at all. I don't mean anything of that sort. This tenths business is something you came up with. My approach is more on the lines of 14+1=15, 15+1=16, ... 109+1 = 110.

Dave as a physicist you will certainly know that in a building where the top one-tenth and the somewhat more heavily built lower nine-tenths are of exactly the same construction you cannot say that the top 12 floors are a single block while the lower 98 floors are an assembly of spaced single floors. It must be seen as either two blocks or two assemblies of spaced single floors. You cannot mix and match.
Otherwise I could say for instance that the lower,more heavily built 98 floors were a single block with a lighter built assembly of 12 spaced single floors falling on that block .

Do you agree ?
__________________
*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; 19th August 2010 at 12:46 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 19th August 2010, 12:05 AM   #93
Humanzee
Muse
 
Humanzee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 530
Ever play with a set of dominoes? Does the first one knock down the rest in a single blow? Yes? No?
Come on. You know the answer B.S. What is the purpose of continuing this ruse? Find a better movement to endorse.
Humanzee 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 19th August 2010, 12:18 AM   #94
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Because steel framed structures behave like dominoes?
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 19th August 2010, 12:43 AM   #95
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Humanzee View Post
Ever play with a set of dominoes? Does the first one knock down the rest in a single blow? Yes? No?
Come on. You know the answer B.S. What is the purpose of continuing this ruse? Find a better movement to endorse.
'' One is dashed to pieces on the rocks : one does not dash the rocks to pieces ''
__________________
*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 19th August 2010, 05:14 AM   #96
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Dave as a physicist you will certainly know that in a building where the top one-tenth and the somewhat more heavily built lower nine-tenths are of exactly the same construction you cannot say that the top 12 floors are a single block while the lower 98 floors are an assembly of spaced single floors. It must be seen as either two blocks or two assemblies of spaced single floors. You cannot mix and match.
Otherwise I could say for instance that the lower,more heavily built 98 floors were a single block with a lighter built assembly of 12 spaced single floors falling on that block .

Do you agree ?
No, I don't. You and Ergo seem to think 58 million kgs of rubble coming down on you at over 8 m per second is nothing to worry about. Or that 62 million kgs of rubble coming down on you at over 11 m per second is nothing to worry about. Or that 66 million kgs of rubble coming down on you at over 13 m per second is nothing to worry about.

You get the idea.
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 19th August 2010, 05:35 AM   #97
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Mass does not "stay the same" when it becomes many smaller pieces. The disintegration of any structure completely alters the way it functions, the way it moves, the friction it encounters, its ability to do work. This whole concept of rubble crushing through 80 and 90 intact storeys of steel-framed highrise is utterly idiotic. Shockingly idiotic.

If you disagree, please tell me what laws of physics support this ridiculous notion.
Well, if you take a 5 pound block of concrete, and break it up with a hammer, it still weighs 5 pounds. It doesn't weigh 4 pounds, it still weighs 5.

It's not the SIZE of the rubble hitting the lower floors that continue the collapse, it is the fact that the weight of the impacting rubble that exceedes the lower floors weight rating, causing the failure.
triforcharity 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 19th August 2010, 05:39 AM   #98
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
No, I don't. You and Ergo seem to think 58 million kgs of rubble coming down on you at over 8 m per second is nothing to worry about. Or that 62 million kgs of rubble coming down on you at over 11 m per second is nothing to worry about. Or that 66 million kgs of rubble coming down on you at over 13 m per second is nothing to worry about.

You get the idea.
Sigh....you are thinking about a block falling on an assembly of spaced single floors again Dave.

To put you straight....if you insist on saying that the upper part is a block of 58 million kilos then you must understand that the lower part is a more strongly built block of almost 500 million kilos.
__________________
*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; 19th August 2010 at 05:57 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 19th August 2010, 06:32 AM   #99
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Sigh....you are thinking about a block falling on an assembly of spaced single floors again Dave.

To put you straight....if you insist on saying that the upper part is a block of 58 million kilos then you must understand that the lower part is a more strongly built block of almost 500 million kilos.
Which one is in motion Bill?

You have been explained this before, numerous times.
triforcharity 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 19th August 2010, 07:34 AM   #100
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
No, I don't. You and Ergo seem to think 58 million kgs of rubble coming down on you at over 8 m per second is nothing to worry about. Or that 62 million kgs of rubble coming down on you at over 11 m per second is nothing to worry about. Or that 66 million kgs of rubble coming down on you at over 13 m per second is nothing to worry about.
Yes, it would hurt to have a massive pile of concrete and steel rubble fall on a human body. It would not greatly hurt an intact, steel-framed building. Which has just withstood a jet impact.
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 19th August 2010, 07:37 AM   #101
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
I do hope this "rubble" theory of building collapse gets discussed on national radio. Would love for mainstream America to hear what is actually being proposed about the collapse of the Twin Towers and the deaths of their loved ones.
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 19th August 2010, 07:48 AM   #102
excaza
Illuminator
 
excaza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,593
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, it would hurt to have a massive pile of concrete and steel rubble fall on a human body. It would not greatly hurt an intact, steel-framed building. Which has just withstood a jet impact.
Care to back this up, or are you content to let incredulity do the talking?
__________________
excaza 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 19th August 2010, 07:57 AM   #103
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
If you drop a truck the height of a truck onto another truck, you will probably partly crumple the dropped-on truck, and the dropping truck will also be damaged. If you drop the pieces of a truck the height of one truck onto another truck, the dropped-on truck will sustain some dents but not be crumpled.

If you drop a cinder block etc... onto a stack of cinder blocks, well, the dropping cinder block may break. Not much will happen to the standing stack. If you drop pieces of a cinder block onto a stack of cinder blocks, the pieces will merely deflect to the side. The standing stack sustains no damage whatsoever.
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 19th August 2010, 08:03 AM   #104
excaza
Illuminator
 
excaza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,593
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
If you drop a truck the height of a truck onto another truck, you will probably partly crumple the dropped-on truck, and the dropping truck will also be damaged. If you drop the pieces of a truck the height of one truck onto another truck, the dropped-on truck will sustain some dents but not be crumpled.

If you drop a cinder block etc... onto a stack of cinder blocks, well, the dropping cinder block may break. Not much will happen to the standing stack. If you drop pieces of a cinder block onto a stack of cinder blocks, the pieces will merely deflect to the side. The standing stack sustains no damage whatsoever.
What happens when you drop the pieces of 12 floors onto one floor?
__________________

Last edited by excaza; 19th August 2010 at 08:05 AM.
excaza 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 19th August 2010, 08:07 AM   #105
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,387
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
If you drop a truck the height of a truck onto another truck, you will probably partly crumple the dropped-on truck, and the dropping truck will also be damaged. If you drop the pieces of a truck the height of one truck onto another truck, the dropped-on truck will sustain some dents but not be crumpled.
Considering trucks aren't built the same as a building, your analogy fails.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief 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 19th August 2010, 08:08 AM   #106
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
[...] It must be seen as either two blocks or two assemblies of spaced single floors. [...]
This is an utterly nonsensical dichotomy.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond 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 19th August 2010, 08:13 AM   #107
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
Considering trucks aren't built the same as a building, your analogy fails.
Oh, then please provide a workable analogy in which a disintegrated structure can crush through an intact structure.
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 19th August 2010, 08:14 AM   #108
excaza
Illuminator
 
excaza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,593
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Oh, then please provide a workable analogy in which a disintegrated structure can crush through an intact structure.
The WTC
__________________
excaza 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 19th August 2010, 08:14 AM   #109
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by excaza View Post
What happens when you drop the pieces of 12 floors onto one floor?
The floor may fail.
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 19th August 2010, 08:15 AM   #110
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by excaza View Post
The WTC
I asked for an analogy that demonstrates the principle of what you are suggesting about the WTC collapses.
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 19th August 2010, 08:17 AM   #111
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,374
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I do hope this "rubble" theory of building collapse gets discussed on national radio. Would love for mainstream America to hear what is actually being proposed about the collapse of the Twin Towers and the deaths of their loved ones.
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
If you drop a truck the height of a truck onto another truck, you will probably partly crumple the dropped-on truck, and the dropping truck will also be damaged. If you drop the pieces of a truck the height of one truck onto another truck, the dropped-on truck will sustain some dents but not be crumpled.

If you drop a cinder block etc... onto a stack of cinder blocks, well, the dropping cinder block may break. Not much will happen to the standing stack. If you drop pieces of a cinder block onto a stack of cinder blocks, the pieces will merely deflect to the side. The standing stack sustains no damage whatsoever.
Whether or not your guess is correct as to what happens to trucks or cinder blocks you have the analogy wrong if applied to WTC collapse. This is what happened:

...excuse the drawing quality - I'm no artist.
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 19th August 2010, 08:19 AM   #112
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Drawing a picture of your fantasy with the words "massive overload" included in it unfortunately doesn't demonstrate anything.
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 19th August 2010, 08:19 AM   #113
excaza
Illuminator
 
excaza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,593
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I asked for an analogy that demonstrates the principle of what you are suggesting about the WTC collapses.
the wtc didn't do this?
__________________
excaza 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 19th August 2010, 08:21 AM   #114
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,387
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Oh, then please provide a workable analogy in which a disintegrated structure can crush through an intact structure.
Why do your work for you? You tried the tower of cars in a previous incarnation, and failed miserably then too. Since you can not figure how the upper structure could destroy the single floor below, and continue to take out each floor to the ground, there is no analogy that will help you see the light.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief 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 19th August 2010, 08:25 AM   #115
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,374
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Drawing a picture of your fantasy with the words "massive overload" included in it unfortunately doesn't demonstrate anything.
Wilful ignorance cannot be overcome by any analogy or explanation.

And the illustration is not an analogy - it shows what actually happened. So I leave you to your self serving self delusion.
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 19th August 2010, 08:26 AM   #116
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
Why do your work for you? You tried the tower of cars in a previous incarnation, and failed miserably then too. Since you can not figure how the upper structure could destroy the single floor below, and continue to take out each floor to the ground, there is no analogy that will help you see the light.
I'm sorry: are you talking about an "upper structure" or rubble? Please make up your mind.
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 19th August 2010, 08:28 AM   #117
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by excaza View Post
the wtc didn't do this?
In logical argument, you can't use the example of something to demonstrate the principle that you are trying to prove about that very same thing. You need to find another example or analogy.
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 19th August 2010, 08:29 AM   #118
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,384
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Oh, then please provide a workable analogy in which a disintegrated structure can crush through an intact structure.
There's no need for a workable analogy. Analysis of the structural resistance of the WTC Twin Towers and the kinetic energy of the falling block makes it perfectly clear that there is a very large excess of kinetic energy over fracture energy once an initial failure has caused the upper block to fall through the height of a single storey; this was the finding of Bazant and Zhou within a few days of the collapses.

There's also the example of the Bailey's Crossing collapse, that's been referred to here before, in which the top three floors of a 24-floor structure collapsed and crushed through all the structure below. That's not a weak analogy; it's an actual real world example of a disintegrated structure crushing through an intact structure below.

Summary of the above: Progressive collapse is a known phenomenon.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 19th August 2010, 08:31 AM   #119
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
SPOT ON!!! And the cause of much of my frustration with many explanations posted by the debunker side of 9/11. There has been enormous waste of bandwidth discussing and explaining the collapses as if it was an integral homogeneous block falling onto a similarly integral homogeneous lower tower. It wasn't and any explanation build on that wrong premise will be a wrong explanation HOWEVER it may come to the right answer.
This, too is a bit of an issue I have. One of the problems that I've noticed is that, should someone make an incredibly stupid statement:

The Earth is supported by a turtle standing on an infinite series of turtles. Prove that I'm wrong.

The correct response is: You're an idiot. But more often, a "debunker" response can take many forms:
  • There is no such thing as an infinite series of turtles
  • The earth's crust could not support its own weight on a single point
  • The infinite turtle series does not explain tides, the seasons, eclipses and the martian retrograde.
  • There is no need for any "support" because outside of the earth's gravity field...
All of these responses are true and valid criticisms of the initial argument, but none address the underlying idiocy. It attempts to use inductive style scientific reasoning to show where a theory is lacking or faulty. But the theory itself is not scientifically derived, and so any scientific argument is useless. Too often, in order to show how one aspect of a theory is idiotic, we over-simplify to the discredit of the entirely accurate and scientific reasons supporting our overall conclusions. The block A, block B argument is a perfect example. It's perfectly reasonable to draw A-B diagrams to explain an initial Truther idiocy (that part A should have toppled over). But over extending the simplified model makes it wrong.

It's beating your head against the wall to try an explain such minutiae, though. Best to use it as a tool to goof off for a few minutes a day.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond 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 19th August 2010, 08:32 AM   #120
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
There's no need for a workable analogy. Analysis of the structural resistance of the WTC Twin Towers and the kinetic energy of the falling block makes it perfectly clear that there is a very large excess of kinetic energy over fracture energy once an initial failure has caused the upper block to fall through the height of a single storey; this was the finding of Bazant and Zhou within a few days of the collapses.
Oh, so it is a block. Thank you. A question I asked above is: what is it "falling" through? And could you please point out where we see this "falling block" through the collapse progression?
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
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 02:40 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.