You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #235: yeah, sure, keep digging [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-21-11 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #234
235. yeah, sure, keep digging
Each floor-- the lower floor of the upper block and the upper floor of the lower block-- was part of a larger connected structure of floors in the tower. This is a FACT, and it is a fact that the purveyors of the official story conveniently ignore.

Sorry, that's risible -- and apparently you will never understand why.

Yes, indeed, the bottom floor of the upper block is connected to floors above it -- which is why it's reasonable to consider the mass of the entire upper block in the simple analysis.

And yes, indeed, the top floor of the lower block is connected to floors below it, until the columns give way.

Look I understand why a hand can break a board and it is not a good analogy at all here.

Then I guess we agree that Spooked's Law isn't a law. We ought to be done now, but the fish will keep thrashing.

A better analogy is dropping a brick onto another brick from ten feet up. Both bricks will sustain damage, right?

I foresee another classic Spooked YouTube!

However... umm, no, not necessarily. What damage either brick will sustain depends on conditions that you haven't specified, and it isn't apparent how any brick-on-brick collision is analogous to the collapse of one of the towers.

"Spooked's Law of Equal and Opposite Damage" is simply Newton's third law. You're just playing word games here.

Newton's third law obviously doesn't say anything about equal and opposite damage; you did. Ergo, Spooked's Law obviously isn't Newton's third law.

Yes, there are collision scenarios that should lead to equal and opposite damage, but a mere appeal to Newton's third law doesn't demonstrate the applicability of any of them. If you'd prefer that I demote Spooked's Law to Spooked's Circumstantial Bald Assertion, I'm OK with that.

And I am saying that "Bazant, Zhou, Verdure, Greening, Mackey, various other authors, a host of peer reviewers, a much larger host of professionals"-- if they don't understand this point-- are flat out wrong. But they do this BECAUSE it helps them explain the official story-- which is their goal after all.

I guess that's Spooked's Brazen, Baseless Broadbrush Smear. So remarkably often in your posts, spooked, the transition from a faulty inference to mass character assassination (a much more sweeping faulty inference, I suppose) is practically instantaneous.

Seriously, I don't know where you get off saying that Bazant's goal is to explain the official story, nor the goal of any of the other people I named -- but you've gone several orders of magnitude beyond that. To you, apparently, it's obvious that if ten or twenty-plus stories fall on the rest of a building, the building either should not collapse, or should collapse very slowly, due to Newton's Third Law -- which, I hope we all can agree, is pretty basic physics. In your view as I understand it -- a tenuous understanding, to be sure, since your explanations have been foggy in the extreme -- one really doesn't have to think much more about the situation than that to realize that the towers must have been demolished by explosives or the like. The towers fell, ergo most engineers are tools or willing dupes, Q.E.D.

I envy your self-confidence, I guess, but yeesh.

I asked you where Bazant and Verdure show that they take simultaneous upper damage into account, and you never answered.

I'd suggest reading pages 5 and 6, very slowly, although I don't really expect it to go any better than it has in the past. I see no sign that you will construe anything short of complete agreement with you as a true "taking into account."

I know I had an argument with Seger about crush-up during the the "collapse", and he seemed to deny that it happened, not surprisingly, since again, it supports the official story to not have it happen.

Seger has said that both the top and the bottom were being torn apart. Your characterization of his view and motivations is of a piece with your characterization of... well, really, most people, I suppose. :shrug:

It's a shame, because trying to consider specifically how the towers collapsed is at least more interesting than debating simplified models. But you can't even get past, 'B-b-b-b-but a floor collided with another floor! How can you OCTers ignore that?!!'
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC