Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum 9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

 User Name Remember Me? Password

 Notices Sadly I have to announce that Locknar is leaving the moderating team. He's contributed massively to keeping this place going over the years. Thanks for all your hard work especially dealing with the new registrations (yeah really thanks for leaving me with that!)

 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

 19th August 2010, 12:58 PM #241 DGM Skeptic not Atheist     Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,583 Originally Posted by ergo No. How's that? __________________ "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
 19th August 2010, 12:58 PM #242 ergo Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 4,339 Originally Posted by uke2se This is shaping up to a nice Stundie factory. Ergo, imagine two scenarios: 1. I drop a cement block on a flat surface. The cement block is 1m3, and to simplify, let's say it has a mass of 1 ton. 2. I empty a box of sand on the same surface. The total mass of the sand is 1 ton. In which scenario do I impart the largest amount of force on the surface? Scenario 1.
 19th August 2010, 01:00 PM #243 uke2se Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 11,598 Originally Posted by ergo Scenario 1. Please explain your reasoning, and if possible, show your math.
 19th August 2010, 01:02 PM #244 DGM Skeptic not Atheist     Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,583 Originally Posted by ergo They impacted the intact components of the building, yes. As I stated before. These components are not crushed; they deflect the rubble pieces, which then have to move in another direction. This is what resistance is. This is what we mean when we say "unless acted on by another object". Energy gets dispersed into different directions. So the lower part of the building still has to resist the actual mass of the top plus the total of the gravitational potential (after the initial fall). Yes? Can you show it can do this? __________________ "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 Last edited by DGM; 19th August 2010 at 01:06 PM. Reason: add:after the initial fall
 19th August 2010, 01:02 PM #245 ergo Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 4,339 Originally Posted by uke2se The energy gets dispersed? What caused the energy to disperse, ergo? Was some kind of force necessary for this to happen, or did it happen spontaneously? What part of the explanation I just provided don't you understand? Or are you "debunkers" merely trying to wear me out? Quote: They impacted the intact components of the building, yes. As I stated before. These components are not crushed; they deflect the rubble pieces, which then have to move in another direction. This is what resistance is. This is what we mean when we say "unless acted on by another object". Energy gets dispersed into different directions.
 19th August 2010, 01:03 PM #246 TheRedWorm I AM the Red Worm!     Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,452 By truther logic, a shotgun shell can't do any damage unless it's a deer slug, because shot is a loose collection of small particles. I have firsthand experience that this is not the case... __________________ I'll be the best Congressman money can buy! As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
 19th August 2010, 01:04 PM #247 uke2se Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 11,598 Originally Posted by ergo What part of the explanation I just provided don't you understand? Or are you "debunkers" merely trying to wear me out? So, the "components" deflecting the rubble pieces don't get crushed, but they still deflect the falling rubble? What kind of force is required for a rubble piece to change direction, and where does the energy go?
 19th August 2010, 01:05 PM #248 uke2se Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 11,598 I think what we have here is a case of "common sense" fail. This is the same type of thinking that leads people to believe that an asteroid impacting the earth is less dangerous if we just blow it up into many smaller asteroids. That the same amount of force is deposited into the earth doesn't seem to dawn on some people.
 19th August 2010, 01:06 PM #249 ergo Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 4,339 Originally Posted by DGM So the lower part of the building still has to resist the actual mass of the top plus the total of the gravitational potential. Yes? Are you back to talking about an intact upper block? And what do you mean "plus" the gravitational potential?. There's only one force here. Gravity. And yes, the lower part of the building resists the gravitational pull downward of the upper block because that force is deferred through a much larger, intact structure.
 19th August 2010, 01:08 PM #250 pgimeno Illuminator     Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Spain Posts: 3,322 Originally Posted by ergo Because the rubble is a loose and randomized collection of building fragments and tends to spill over the sides. Individual rubble pieces do not have sufficient mass to crush through intact building components. Where have I seen that argument before? Ah yes! http://www.internationalskeptics.com...18#post5266918 __________________ Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
 19th August 2010, 01:08 PM #251 uke2se Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 11,598 Originally Posted by ergo Are you back to talking about an intact upper block? And what do you mean "plus" the gravitational potential?. There's only one force here. Gravity. And yes, the lower part of the building resists the gravitational pull downward of the upper block because that force is deferred through a much larger, intact structure. I'm going to start requesting you to show your math from now on. Not only are you laughably wrong about how a falling objects act, you are not showing anything to back up your many ludicrous claims.
 19th August 2010, 01:10 PM #252 BigAl Philosopher     Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,397 Originally Posted by ergo Are we discussing particle physics or laws of motion? If we're discussing particles, why not discuss your intact upper block as a system of particles? Fine as long as you get the math, physics and initial conditions right. __________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.
 19th August 2010, 01:10 PM #253 ergo Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 4,339 Originally Posted by uke2se So, the "components" deflecting the rubble pieces don't get crushed, but they still deflect the falling rubble? What kind of force is required for a rubble piece to change direction, and where does the energy go? Why don't you apply this question to a croquet mallet hitting a ball? Do either of them break? Contrary to NIST physics, not everything in our physical universe "breaks" and "collapses" through collision.
 19th August 2010, 01:11 PM #254 Myriad Hyperthetical     Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 13,651 Originally Posted by uke2se I think what we have here is a case of "common sense" fail. This is the same type of thinking that leads people to believe that an asteroid impacting the earth is less dangerous if we just blow it up into many smaller asteroids. That the same amount of force is deposited into the earth doesn't seem to dawn on some people. Apparently. But we're also seeing calculated unwillingness to honestly consider related scenarios in which common sense gives the correct answer, such as that it takes just as much braking force (most of which is translated into force applied on the load by the truck) to slow down a truckload of loose granules as it does to slow down a truck carrying one large solid object of equal weight. Respectfully, Myriad __________________ A zømbie once bit my sister...
 19th August 2010, 01:12 PM #255 ergo Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 4,339 No, what we have here is a pile-on. In all these posts not a single one of you has shown how rubble can crush through a building through gravity alone. Your ridiculous notion does not stand up to scrutiny. In your parlance, that's a "Fail".
 19th August 2010, 01:14 PM #256 ergo Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 4,339 Originally Posted by Myriad such as that it takes just as much braking force (most of which is translated into force applied on the load by the truck) to slow down a truckload of loose granules as it does to slow down a truck carrying one large solid object of equal weight. This is not an analogy. You don't appear to understand what an analogy is.
 19th August 2010, 01:16 PM #257 uke2se Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 11,598 Originally Posted by ergo Why don't you apply this question to a croquet mallet hitting a ball? Do either of them break? Contrary to NIST physics, not everything in our physical universe "breaks" and "collapses" through collision. Please explain how your analogy applies to the situation with a collapsing building. Let me try to explain why you're wrong: What we're discussing is impact force. Let us say that the top block falling down has a mass of 1000 kg (just for ease of calculating it). We'll use this nifty online calculator. Again, for ease of calculating, let's imagine the height being 10 meters. Total impact force with these parameters is 1,400,000 N. Now, let's say the top block is split up into 1000 1 kg pieces. Other parameters remain the same. The pieces fall on the bottom block, each impacting with 1400 N. This happens a thousand times, giving us 1000*1400 = 1,400,000 N, the same force as if we dropped a solid block. Now, explain how this energy is deflected.
 19th August 2010, 01:18 PM #258 DGM Skeptic not Atheist     Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 24,583 Originally Posted by ergo Are you back to talking about an intact upper block? And what do you mean "plus" the gravitational potential?. There's only one force here. Gravity. And yes, the lower part of the building resists the gravitational pull downward of the upper block because that force is deferred through a much larger, intact structure. I'm afraid my patience for you has run out. You claim to understand physics yet you keep wanting to change the laws to fit your view. It doesn't matter if the top is intact or if the bottom is "stronger". Unless you can show that the bottom can resist the "gravitational potential" after one stories of drop (that takes math that I know you don't know how to do) this whole conversation is pointless' You want us to change your mind although your mind is not based on fact. This can't be done and I no longer care. Good night, (can't say I didn't try) __________________ "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
 19th August 2010, 01:19 PM #259 pgimeno Illuminator     Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Spain Posts: 3,322 Originally Posted by ergo In all these posts not a single one of you has shown how rubble can crush through a building through gravity alone. Maybe you have missed post #128? __________________ Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
 19th August 2010, 01:24 PM #260 ergo Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 4,339 Originally Posted by pgimeno Maybe you have missed post #128? http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=132
 19th August 2010, 01:26 PM #261 TheRedWorm I AM the Red Worm!     Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,452 Originally Posted by ergo I see an intact upper block crushing through some disabled floors. How is this a correct analogy? How crushed were the upper portions of the WTC towers, and how do you conclude this? __________________ I'll be the best Congressman money can buy! As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
 19th August 2010, 01:28 PM #262 triforcharity Banned   Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 13,961 Originally Posted by ergo Because the rubble is a loose and randomized collection of building fragments and tends to spill over the sides. Individual rubble pieces do not have sufficient mass to crush through intact building components. Correct in that individual significant mass to cause damage. Correct! However, you put MILLIONS of them together, Including things like desks, chairs, filing cabinets, copt machines, and thousands of tons of steel and concrete, and drop them on a single floor system, and you will excede the weight bearing capability of that floor. Now you have ADDED a WHOLE ENTIRE FLOORS WORTH of crap to the falling collection of rubble. Now, it hits the NEXT floor. and so on and so on....... Sure, some will be sent off to the sides, and out of the area, HOWEVER, more than enough will remain to collapse the next floor. Plain simple anology. Your roof of your house can support X amount right? We will use a number, so, 100 lbs. (not realistic number) Now, you can safely place 100 lbs of hurse crap on your roof. It will hold it, no problem. Can do this all day long, night and day. Now, take the 100 lbs of horse crap, and drop it on your roof from a height of 12 feet. Can your roof hold it? No. Why you ask? Dynamic Vs. Static loading. THis is simple really.
 19th August 2010, 01:41 PM #263 ergo Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 4,339 Originally Posted by uke2se What we're discussing is impact force. Let us say that the top block falling down has a mass of 1000 kg (just for ease of calculating it). We'll use this nifty online calculator. Again, for ease of calculating, let's imagine the height being 10 meters. Total impact force with these parameters is 1,400,000 N. 1,000kg produces 140,000 N. Quote: Now, let's say the top block is split up into 1000 1 kg pieces. Other parameters remain the same. The pieces fall on the bottom block, each impacting with 1400 N. This happens a thousand times, giving us 1000*1400 = 1,400,000 N, the same force as if we dropped a solid block. 1 kg gives 140 N. Quote: Now, explain how this energy is deflected. The 1,000 pieces hit the intact components differently. Force is applied differentially. As smaller discrete units, air friction and friction from other flying parts affects them differentially. The energy is deflected because a 1 kg object will not destroy the various building components. Damage perhaps, but not destruction. If the building part that the 1kg mass hits is not destroyed, the 1 kg object is deflected. It's like if I drop a bowling ball on your head from a window above, I would probably kill you. Your skull would be crushed. If I drop the broken fragments of a bowling ball on your head from a window above, it would hurt you, you would sustain bruises, but your skull would not be crushed.
 19th August 2010, 01:48 PM #264 pgimeno Illuminator     Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Spain Posts: 3,322 Originally Posted by ergo Ok, sorry, it's me who missed it. Originally Posted by ergo I see an intact upper block crushing through some disabled floors. How is this a correct analogy? 1. The layer between the falling section and the lower section is rubble. 2. The lower floors are not disabled in the sense that they can still bear the load of the upper section. 3. In fact, in some cases they are not disabled at all. Here's the text of the patent (EP 1,082,505) on that demolition technique (Google translation from the French original): Moreover, this method is also safe for operators because it is not necessary to weaken the structure of the building.(Translated from http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1082505.html) (ETA: Original text in french: "Par ailleurs, ce procédé est également sans danger pour les opérateurs étant donné qu'il n'est pas nécessaire de fragiliser la structure de l'immeuble") __________________ Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place. Last edited by pgimeno; 19th August 2010 at 01:50 PM.
 19th August 2010, 01:54 PM #265 ergo Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 4,339 Originally Posted by pgimeno Ok, sorry, it's me who missed it. 1. The layer between the falling section and the lower section is rubble. Being driven by an intact upper block. I asked how rubble alone could crush the lower part of the building.
 19th August 2010, 01:57 PM #266 Myriad Hyperthetical     Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 13,651 Well, ergo is remaining unconvinced that the laws of physics as applied by physicists, engineers, investigators, historians, and even truck drivers, actually work the way the textbooks and equations say they do. What fortitude! What determination! What strength of character! Unfortunately people who actually get to make decisions about engineering matters such as whether or not the issues covered in the NIST report should be re-investigated don't see it ergo's way. In fact, they seem to regard remaining unconvinced as not any sort of worthwhile accomplishment at all. Which means ergo gets to stay wrong, and the rest of us get to stay uninterested in ergo's opinions (and less likely to accept his word or his reasoning on anything else, to boot). Amazing! Another day of accomplishment for the Truth Movement! Respectfully, Myriad __________________ A zømbie once bit my sister...
 19th August 2010, 01:57 PM #267 TheRedWorm I AM the Red Worm!     Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,452 Originally Posted by ergo Being driven by an intact upper block. I asked how rubble alone could crush the lower part of the building. To which I responded with: Originally Posted by TheRedWorm How crushed were the upper portions of the WTC towers, and how do you conclude this? __________________ I'll be the best Congressman money can buy! As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
 19th August 2010, 01:58 PM #268 BigAl Philosopher     Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,397 Originally Posted by ergo No, what we have here is a pile-on. In all these posts not a single one of you has shown how rubble can crush through a building through gravity alone. Your ridiculous notion does not stand up to scrutiny. In your parlance, that's a "Fail". Here we go. Quote: "If you push something hard enough it will fall over." - Fudd's First Law of Opposition __________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.
19th August 2010, 02:01 PM   #269
pgimeno
Illuminator

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,322
Originally Posted by ergo
Being driven by an intact upper block.
Interesting. So, are you saying that the upper section of each building remains intact until it reaches the floor?

Even in the last building? Here's that one alone, again:

 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
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

 19th August 2010, 02:04 PM #270 ergo Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 4,339 Originally Posted by TheRedWorm To which I responded with:How crushed were the upper portions of the WTC towers, and how do you conclude this? I'm not sure how this matters. They were either half crushed or completely crushed. The posters here seem to have differing opinions on this. In my opinion, completely crushed. I conclude this by observing the absence of any visible upper block during the collapse progression. A photo of which I posted earlier in this thread.
 19th August 2010, 02:07 PM #271 uke2se Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 11,598 Originally Posted by ergo 1,000kg produces 140,000 N. Not when you factor in drop height. You should look at the link I provided. Originally Posted by ergo 1 kg gives 140 N. Again, you forget drop height. However, it doesn't really matter. Originally Posted by ergo The 1,000 pieces hit the intact components differently. Force is applied differentially. As smaller discrete units, air friction and friction from other flying parts affects them differentially. Uhm... no. Originally Posted by ergo The energy is deflected because a 1 kg object will not destroy the various building components. Damage perhaps, but not destruction. If the building part that the 1kg mass hits is not destroyed, the 1 kg object is deflected. Uhm... no. You see, we are discussing total impact force and the sustainability of an object to said force. The total force is the same whether the objects falling are many or a single one with the same mass. You are simply wrong here, and I have demonstrated such. Originally Posted by ergo It's like if I drop a bowling ball on your head from a window above, I would probably kill you. Your skull would be crushed. If I drop the broken fragments of a bowling ball on your head from a window above, it would hurt you, you would sustain bruises, but your skull would not be crushed. If you could arrange it so that all the pieces of the ball struck me, the impact force on my head would be the same. Seriously, this is high school physics. Did you attend high school? ETA: If you want to factor in air resistance and assert that that would provide a strong enough counter force, you need to show your math. Keeping with our example, what kind of air resistance would we expect with a 10m drop height. How much smaller would the total impact force be? Last edited by uke2se; 19th August 2010 at 02:10 PM.
 19th August 2010, 02:09 PM #272 TheRedWorm I AM the Red Worm!     Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,452 The collapse is obscured by dust, you can't say for sure the the upper block is completely crushed. Also, you seem to discount the effect of mass, without even realizing how big of a factor mass and velocity play in the event. I likened it to a shotgun shell and a cannon, do you understand why I chose such an analogy? __________________ I'll be the best Congressman money can buy! As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
 19th August 2010, 02:14 PM #273 Miragememories Banned   Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Earth Posts: 4,473 Originally Posted by uke2se Seriously, this is high school physics. Did you attend high school? Did you? MM
 19th August 2010, 02:20 PM #274 ergo Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 4,339 Originally Posted by uke2se Not when you factor in drop height. You should look at the link I provided. Pretty sure I did. But, as you say, it doesn't matter for our purposes. Quote: Uhm... no. In logical argument, you can't just say "um, no" without explaining yourself. Well, you can, but no one will take you very seriously. Quote: Uhm... no. You see, we are discussing total impact force and the sustainability of an object to said force. The total force is the same whether the objects falling are many or a single one with the same mass. You are simply wrong here, and I have demonstrated such. You're just repeating your same false assertion. The total force is not the same when you have particles instead of a single solid mass. Quote: If you could arrange it so that all the pieces of the ball struck me, the impact force on my head would be the same. Seriously, this is high school physics. It would be close, but not the same. But it doesn't matter, does it? This isn't what happened in the WTC.
 19th August 2010, 02:24 PM #275 BigAl Philosopher     Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,397 Originally Posted by ergo Pretty sure I did. But, as you say, it doesn't matter for our purposes. In logical argument, you can't just say "um, no" without explaining yourself. Well, you can, but no one will take you very seriously. You're just repeating your same false assertion. The total force is not the same when you have particles instead of a single solid mass. One more time. Quote: "The linear momentum of a system of particles is the vector sum of the momenta of all the individual objects in the system" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum __________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.
 19th August 2010, 02:25 PM #276 uke2se Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 11,598 Originally Posted by Miragememories Did you? MM Yes. You?
 19th August 2010, 02:27 PM #277 uke2se Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 11,598 Originally Posted by ergo Pretty sure I did. But, as you say, it doesn't matter for our purposes. You didn't, but I'll let it slide. Originally Posted by ergo In logical argument, you can't just say "um, no" without explaining yourself. Well, you can, but no one will take you very seriously. Since I have gone out of my way to try to explain this to you and you get to simply handwave it away with unsupported assertions, an um, no is all you're going to get. Nobody takes you seriously as it is, so you'd do well to actually show some frigging math some time soon. Originally Posted by ergo You're just repeating your same false assertion. The total force is not the same when you have particles instead of a single solid mass. The total force is the same when you have particles instead of a single solid mass. If you believe otherwise, show me the math. Originally Posted by ergo It would be close, but not the same. But it doesn't matter, does it? This isn't what happened in the WTC. It isn't, so why did you bring it up?
 19th August 2010, 02:28 PM #278 ergo Illuminator     Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 4,339 Originally Posted by pgimeno Where have I seen that argument before? Ah yes! http://www.internationalskeptics.com...18#post5266918 I am extremely flattered to have my argument compared with that of Tony Szamboti's, and very pleased with myself that I could come to the same (albeit stupidly obvious) conclusions as he, considering his knowledge of physics is vastly superior to mine. Thank you. I know I'm on the right track.
 19th August 2010, 02:28 PM #279 Miragememories Banned   Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Earth Posts: 4,473 Dropping a bag of sand onto a structure has the potential to focus more destructive force than dumping the contents of the same bag onto the structure. You have to talk to OCTers at a kindergarten level ergo or theydon't get it. MM Last edited by Miragememories; 19th August 2010 at 02:29 PM.
 19th August 2010, 02:29 PM #280 uke2se Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 11,598 Originally Posted by Miragememories Dropping a bag of sand onto a structure has the potential focus more destructive force than dumping the contents of the same bag onto the structure. You have to talk to OCTers at a kindergarten level ergo or theydon't get it. MM Show your math. They don't teach math at kindergarten, but you could ask an adult to help you.

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit