9/11 Collapse Theory Discussion III

158 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Just want to remind anyone who is still reading this that we use the experiment of a drop from a height to help out the supporters of this absurd theory, although this was not the case in the WTC where it is estimated by NIST that 85% of the structural columns remained in the floors where the jets impacted.

Please note that jas forgets to mention that many of the remaining columns were damaged by the impact, many others had their fireproofing removed and were severely weakened by fire, and many others were stressed beyond their limit because they were taking the load that had been carried by the damaged and severed columns.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Okay, drop it from a height of 8 inches, which is the approximate height of a concrete masonry unit. Probably nothing will happen. Now drop it from two feet. The top block might get scratched up, but no serious damage. Now drop it from 100 feet. Chances are most of the bricks get broken. From this thought experiment we can see that the height of the fall is one factor.

The ratios you use here are not analogous. And you don't seem to get back to a true analogy in the rest of this post.

Quote:
Now, let us use glass blocks instead of concrete ones. I think we can say with some certainty that we won't have to drop the top block from quite as high to break all of the lower bricks. From this thought experiment, we can see that the material is another factor.

How many blocks and from how high? You don't bother saying.

Quote:
Now, let us go back to the concrete blocks. This time, stack 78 on top of each other. Drop 19 blocks onto them from a distance equal to 6 blocks. This will make more of a mess, so we can see that the number of blocks on top and on the bottom is yet another factor.

How much of a mess? The 78 blocks are not pulverized. This is the closest you come to a true analogy, and your theory is show to not work. What is the point of your example?

Your other examples make no sense.

writer writer's picture

Many of the elevators did speed down the shafts to basement levels, right? And at least some were on fire?

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:
Your house of cards, or house of concrete slabs (for all it matters) example is not an example of anything crushing through anything else. You are talking about things toppling. Please find a true example.

But the WTC towers were not a case of everything being crushed. Remember that there was mass being ejected laterally from the towers during collapse. A large part of this mass being ejected was the perimeter columns, and they were not crushed. They toppled out of the building, for the most part.

jas wrote:
The other thing I would ask is, are you questioning the "crushing down" effect that is claimed by Bazant?

I think it would be more correct to say that I am questioning your incorrect interpretation of Bazant. I do not believe that Bazant claims that every part of the building was entirely "crushed".

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Please note that jas forgets to mention that many of the remaining columns were damaged by the impact, many others had their fireproofing removed and were severely weakened by fire, and many others were stressed beyond their limit because they were taking the load that had been carried by the damaged and severed columns.

The fireproofing being removed is something that NIST guessed at. The columns were designed to absorb 2000% of their live loads. NIST estimates a variance of between 20% and 35% of load bearing on the remaining columns, with some of the load lessening in some areas, some increasing. Pant's picture over-exaggerates in a gross fashion.

 

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

...

The ratios you use here are not analogous. And you don't seem to get back to a true analogy in the rest of this post.

...

How many blocks and from how high? You don't bother saying.

...

How much of a mess? The 78 blocks are not pulverized. This is the closest you come to a true analogy, and your theory is show to not work. What is the point of your example?

Your other examples make no sense.

It is more of an illustration of the various factors that would affect whether or not there would be a global collapse occuring from gravity alone. The only example that even remotely resembles the WTC towers would be the final one.

writer writer's picture

Yesterday I watched a whole series of videos of the buildings collapsing. No question that whole sections of the concrete "face" can be seen coming off.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

jas wrote:
Your house of cards, or house of concrete slabs (for all it matters) example is not an example of anything crushing through anything else. You are talking about things toppling. Please find a true example.

But the WTC towers were not a case of everything being crushed. Remember that there was mass being ejected laterally from the towers during collapse. A large part of this mass being ejected was the perimeter columns, and they were not crushed. They toppled out of the building, for the most part.

You yourself cited his discussion of the mass shedding factor. What does he say? And, if you don't agree with my interpretation, what then does he mean by "crush-down, crush-up"?

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

The fireproofing being removed is something that NIST guessed at. The columns were designed to absorb 2000% of their live loads. NIST estimates a variance of between 20% and 35% of load bearing on the remaining columns, with some of the load lessening in some areas, some increasing. Pant's picture over-exaggerates in a gross fashion.

You should provide evidence for your claims. Here is mine:

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf

 

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

You yourself cited his discussion of the mass shedding factor. What does he say? And, if you don't agree with my interpretation, what then does he mean by "crush-down, crush-up"?

Bazant calculates the probable amount of mass ejected by putting in different percentages of mass ejected and then solving the calculations to see the results. He then kept those percentages that agreed most with video and seismic evidence. This range was in between 10% and 30%.

Bazant is not discussing actual crushing of the structure. Part of it is crushed, part of it is toppled, part of it is buckled, and a part of it is pulverised. The phrase "crush-up, crush-down" is simply a shorthand over-simplification.

Pants-of-dog

writer wrote:

Many of the elevators did speed down the shafts to basement levels, right? And at least some were on fire?

From what I understand, fires did spread from floor to floor in at least one of the towers. I do not know if the actual elevators were on fire.

jas

writer wrote:

Quote:

For example, Writer suggests that you can drop a small rock on a bigger rock and the rock below will break. Do you think this is true?

This isn't what I wrote. I said nothing of size. As far as I know, the towers were rectangular, with each floor matching the square foot of the one above. And a huge section of the top floors together pancaked down each single floor below the point of impact. I'm not a mathmetician or physicist, it's true. But that is what I see when I watch the collapse. 

A tip: I am not swayed when you insult me or misrepresent what I write.

Writer, that's not really a fair things to say, is it? I asked for an example of a smaller something crushing through a larger something. That was the example you provided. If you weren't talking about a smaller rock hitting a larger rock, then your example isn't correct, is it? Is it my fault your example wasn't correct?

And the floors didn't pancake. NIST denies that pancaking occurred, and there is no visual evidence of pancaked floors at ground zero. They were pulverized. We have had to repeat this fact throughout these threads and its gets tiring arguing with people who don't take the time to understand  what the official collapse theory is.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

From what I understand, fires did spread from floor to floor in at least one of the towers. I do not know if the actual elevators were on fire.

Really, pants? In one of the threads you were insisting that no fires escaped the impact zone. Then I pointed out to you that the upper blocks did indeed experience fire on many different floors. Then you insisted that no fires occurred below the impact zone.

Are you changing your story again?

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

From what I understand, fires did spread from floor to floor in at least one of the towers. I do not know if the actual elevators were on fire.

Really, pants? In one of the threads you were insisting that no fires escaped the impact zone. Then I pointed out to you that the upper blocks did indeed experience fire on many different floors. Then you insisted that no fires occurred below the impact zone.

Are you changing your story again?

Yes. My beliefs about the collapse will change as I encounter new evidence.

That is how science works.

Are you saying that your story has never changed?

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Yes. My beliefs about the collapse will change as I encounter new evidence.

So what evidence are you citing regarding fires below below the impact zone?

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

jas wrote:

The fireproofing being removed is something that NIST guessed at. The columns were designed to absorb 2000% of their live loads. NIST estimates a variance of between 20% and 35% of load bearing on the remaining columns, with some of the load lessening in some areas, some increasing. Pant's picture over-exaggerates in a gross fashion.

You should provide evidence for your claims. Here is mine:

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf

Please quote the relevant text.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Bazant is not discussing actual crushing of the structure. Part of it is crushed, part of it is toppled, part of it is buckled, and a part of it is pulverised. The phrase "crush-up, crush-down" is simply a shorthand over-simplification.

1) Do you have a source that confirms your interpretation of Bazant?

2) Crushing and pulverizing, for our purposes, are the same thing. Pulverizing more accurately describes what was left at ground zero.

3) What toppled?

4) Where below the impact zone did the columns buckle?

And 5) whatever other forces were at play in the actual collapse (not the cause of) can be taken as a given by both sides of the argument. It doesn't matter. Bazant's theory both describes and uses the terms "crush down, crush up".

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

So what evidence are you citing regarding fires below below the impact zone?

Quote:
Several of the large express passenger elevators, which service the sky lobbies, plunged to the main lobby level. At least one of those falling elevators was accompanied by a huge fireball that burst into the lobby and concourse levels. Only four people are known to have survived in the south tower express elevators.

http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/wtcelevatorshafts

jas

Just to sum up this most recent flurry of posts. Pants has not provided an example of anything on the earth's surface that can crush through something the same as but larger than itself through gravity. He is now moving the goalposts, saying that Bazant "really doesn't mean" crushing, that that's just a convenient term he uses.

writer writer's picture

The technical terms are not my strength. So pancake is the wronge term, perhaps.

What I mean is I see several floors above the impact. I see many more below the impact. I see the area around the impact give way. I see all those floors above come down in the space that gives way, hitting the first whole floor below impact, and then the next and then the next and then the next.

When I look at the drawing you keep posting, I see something that seems to argue about the impossibility of the whole above the point of impact maintaining momentum through the lower parts of the buildings in equivalent segments. Watching the videos, I don't see all of the x# of floors above destrowing at the same instant exactly the same # of floors below. I see x# of floors above impact going through the collapsed space onto one floor, the next floor, the next floor, the next floor, each floor then adding to the mass coming down. Below the points of impact, I see windows being blown out and paper, lighter debris coming out as the air is pushed out from above.

That is what I see. I have not read the NIST report, nor would I be able to make any sense of it.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Several of the large express passenger elevators, which service the sky lobbies, plunged to the main lobby level. At least one of those falling elevators was accompanied by a huge fireball that burst into the lobby and concourse levels. Only four people are known to have survived in the south tower express elevators.

http://sites.google.com/site/911stories/wtcelevatorshafts

Fireballs don't shoot down elevator shafts through 90 storeys. NIST says the jet fuel was consumed in a large but brief kerosene fire upon impact. This looks like old previously debunked information, probably still hanging around the 'net from one of the defunct collapse theories.

But maybe you should make sure. Does NIST confirm this somewhere else in their report?

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

jas wrote:

The fireproofing being removed is something that NIST guessed at. The columns were designed to absorb 2000% of their live loads. NIST estimates a variance of between 20% and 35% of load bearing on the remaining columns, with some of the load lessening in some areas, some increasing. Pant's picture over-exaggerates in a gross fashion.

You should provide evidence for your claims. Here is mine:

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf

Please quote the relevant text.

I'm sorry, I must have missed your link to your evidence. Can you please post it again?

As for my evidence...

The discussion on damge from impact begins on page 15/34, with a nice summary on page 23.

The discussion on fire and stress begins on page 24.

jas

.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Just to sum up this most recent flurry of posts. Pants has not provided an example of anything on the earth's surface that can crush through something the same as but larger than itself through gravity. He is now moving the goalposts, saying that Bazant "really doesn't mean" crushing, that that's just a convenient term he uses.

Yes. Everyone should ignore my claim that if you built a house of cards, but with ceramic tiles, you could easily collapse the larger porion with a smaller portion, and even get some crushing in the mix.

And jas, you would be gravely disappointed to actually read Maugham's "Of Human Bondage". You see a title is not always a perfect summary of the entire contents of the work.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Bazant is not discussing actual crushing of the structure. Part of it is crushed, part of it is toppled, part of it is buckled, and a part of it is pulverised. The phrase "crush-up, crush-down" is simply a shorthand over-simplification.

1) Do you have a source that confirms your interpretation of Bazant?

2) Crushing and pulverizing, for our purposes, are the same thing. Pulverizing more accurately describes what was left at ground zero.

3) What toppled?

4) Where below the impact zone did the columns buckle?

And 5) whatever other forces were at play in the actual collapse (not the cause of) can be taken as a given by both sides of the argument. It doesn't matter. Bazant's theory both describes and uses the terms "crush down, crush up".

1) Yes, Bazant's work.

2) So, if a piece of concrete was crushed to the size of a watermelon, it would be accurately described as pulverised?

3) Exterior columns toppled.

4) I don't know if they did. They definitely did in the impact zone, though.

5) And you are incorrectly assuming that he means global pulverisation.

jas

The stats I quote are from Kevin Ryan in his video presentation "A New Standard for Deception". Kevin Ryan was a manager and lab director for Underwriters Laboratories, who certified the WTC steel. You can find Jim Hoffman's summary of this presentation which has the figures I cite in text.

Fidel

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:
I will say this one final time:

Garcia uses delta-v in his equations.

I used the same instantaneous velocity Garcia used in his force balance equations. You're barking up the wrong tree, 'dog.

Garcia does not use an instantaneous velocity to calculate delta-t.

And do I? You are contradicting your own contradictory argument again. Your reasoning is circular and incoherent.  Garcia does use instantaneous velocity in his equation for impulse momentum form of Newton's second law. You don't know what you're talking about.

You still haven't answered me as to what quantum physics has to do with Newton's third law and three WTC buildings collapsing. Zany.

[url=http://911review.com/articles/ryan/garcia.html]Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don't Exist[/url] Kevin Ryan 2006

Quote:
Quantum Behavior

In his "Physics of 9/11", Garcia offered his new "twisted joints" theory, adding more conjecture to the miasma that NIST spent three years crafting. Garcia may have twisted a few joints himself before writing these articles, but it is clear that he did not put much time into reviewing NIST's WTC report before putting his reputation, and perhaps much more, on the line to defend it. NIST did not actually describe the all-important forces that supposedly pulled in the tower's external columns. In their computer model, these forces were phantom forces, applied to the external columns by sagging floors that had, paradoxically, been disconnected from those columns. Garcia's talk of twisting joints is, therefore, only imaginative conjecture at best.

Garcia seems to admit his own sloppy dishonesty by claiming that high temperatures in the impact zone were sufficient to soften the steel, and that floors in the impact zone sagged. One only has to read the summary of the NIST report to know that the impact zones were far from where NIST says the buildings failed. However, there could be another explanation for this "spooky action at a distance." Garcia may have stumbled upon a new demonstration of the principle of Physics known as non-locality, one in which steel heated in one place causes steel located in another, far away place to soften and fail. That would be amazing if true.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Yes. Everyone should ignore my claim that if you built a house of cards, but with ceramic tiles, you could easily collapse the larger porion with a smaller portion, and even get some crushing in the mix.

Where would you get vertical crushing down through mass of equal density near the rate of free fall in this example? Your example provides a very unclear picture.

If you insist on using the house of cards analogy, you will have to tape the ceramic tiles together with duct tape, say, and then produce a vertical "crushing down" from upper floor failure, because this is what  happened to both Twin Towers, so it's not a mere anomaly.

jas

writer wrote:

Watching the videos, I don't see all of the x# of floors above destrowing at the same instant exactly the same # of floors below. I see x# of floors above impact going through the collapsed space onto one floor, the next floor, the next floor, the next floor, each floor then adding to the mass coming down.

Really?? Writer sees things that others say, including Pants, are obscured by the dust clouds!

writer writer's picture

This thread is becoming impossible to open, so this is my last post.

Yesterday, I saw a real-time video of the lobby, with firefighters rushing in. I posted it in this thread. The videographer voice-over says something like, "Over to my right, there were two people on fire. I just ... didn't want to film that." While speaking, the viewer can hear blood-curdling screams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfce_C8GzdE

The jets came in, broke apart, slid through the building. The fuel, with forward momentum, also ran forward until it met the shafts, where gravity took over, and the liquid went down, perhaps while beginning to catch fire. Meantime, cables were sliced by the remnants of the plane still able to carry momentum. Elevators with cables remaining / and/or close to the ground could be caught by the fast-moving fuel.

And so the vivid scene, with firefighters rushing into the lobby and two people screaming, on fire.

Again, I'm no scientist. It just makes sense - as I'm sure other scenarios could.

writer writer's picture

Last comment: those videos are there for anyone to look at.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:
Fireballs don't shoot down elevator shafts through 90 storeys. NIST says the jet fuel was consumed in a large but brief kerosene fire upon impact. This looks like old previously debunked information, probably still hanging around the 'net from one of the defunct collapse theories.

But maybe you should make sure. Does NIST confirm this somewhere else in their report?

More confirmation:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm

See page 21/40 of this pdf:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

And there is also this:

Quote:
Despite the massive localized damage caused by the impact, each structure remained standing. However,
as each aircraft impacted the building, jet fuel on board ignited. Part of this fuel immediately burned off
in large fireballs that erupted at the impact floors. Remaining fuel flowed across the floors and down
elevator and utility shafts, igniting intense fires throughout upper portions of the buildings.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixn.pdf See page 5/42

 

jas

writer wrote:

Yesterday, I saw a real-time video of the lobby,

I'm sorry guys, but "fireballs" would not cause the marble to break and dislodge, or ceiling to come down. It wouldn't blow out the windows.

It's obvious that you read the testimony of building workers who saw, felt, and were thrown by explosions in the basements and you're trying to come up with some fake-ass explanations for this. NIST claims that the kerosene was consumed in the initial explosion in the impact zone.

jas

Old info, pants. NIST has revised their report several times since then.

jas

Perhaps writer could locate your missing-in-action piledrivers for you, Pants, since she seems to be able to see things that others don't.

jas

Also how would these fireballs blow out the lobbies like a bomb while at the same time blowing out several sub-basement levels? I'm just humouring you now.

Pants-of-dog

Fidel wrote:
And do I? You are contradicting your own contradictory argument again. Your reasoning is circular and incoherent.  Garcia does use instantaneous velocity in his equation for impulse momentum form of Newton's second law. You don't know what you're talking about.

Show me where Garcia uses an instantaneous velocity to calculate the amount of time it takes for the velocity to change.

 

Fidel wrote:
You still haven't answered me as to what quantum physics has to do with Newton's third law and three WTC buildings collapsing. Zany.

It doesn't have anything to do with quantum physics. I never said it did. I was discussing the difference between rigid and deforming bodies and why conservation of momentum equations made more sense to use than Newton's 3rd law.

 

Fidel wrote:
[url=http://911review.com/articles/ryan/garcia.html]Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don't Exist[/url] Kevin Ryan 2006

Quote:
Quantum Behavior

In his "Physics of 9/11", Garcia offered his new "twisted joints" theory, adding more conjecture to the miasma that NIST spent three years crafting. Garcia may have twisted a few joints himself before writing these articles, but it is clear that he did not put much time into reviewing NIST's WTC report before putting his reputation, and perhaps much more, on the line to defend it. NIST did not actually describe the all-important forces that supposedly pulled in the tower's external columns. In their computer model, these forces were phantom forces, applied to the external columns by sagging floors that had, paradoxically, been disconnected from those columns. Garcia's talk of twisting joints is, therefore, only imaginative conjecture at best.

Garcia seems to admit his own sloppy dishonesty by claiming that high temperatures in the impact zone were sufficient to soften the steel, and that floors in the impact zone sagged. One only has to read the summary of the NIST report to know that the impact zones were far from where NIST says the buildings failed. However, there could be another explanation for this "spooky action at a distance." Garcia may have stumbled upon a new demonstration of the principle of Physics known as non-locality, one in which steel heated in one place causes steel located in another, far away place to soften and fail. That would be amazing if true.

What am I supposed to gather from that? That Kevin Ryan is adept at creating strawmen?

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

The stats I quote are from Kevin Ryan in his video presentation "A New Standard for Deception". Kevin Ryan was a manager and lab director for Underwriters Laboratories, who certified the WTC steel. You can find Jim Hoffman's summary of this presentation which has the figures I cite in text.

Please quote the relevant text.

writer writer's picture

jas, why do you keep claiming I say things I don't? It is so super annoying. And please stop with the mindreading and putdowns. Seriously. Gross.

jas

writer wrote:

I see x# of floors above impact going through the collapsed space onto one floor, the next floor, the next floor, the next floor, each floor then adding to the mass coming down.

People on both sides of the argument agree that not much can be seen of the intact buildings' collapse, as it is obscured by dust clouds. If you have a video that shows this crushing of floors by the upper block after it goes through the impact zone, please link to it. Thanks.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Where would you get vertical crushing down through mass of equal density near the rate of free fall in this example? Your example provides a very unclear picture.

If you insist on using the house of cards analogy, you will have to tape the ceramic tiles together with duct tape, say, and then produce a vertical "crushing down" from upper floor failure, because this is what  happened to both Twin Towers, so it's not a mere anomaly.

I have no idea what you are asking in your first paragraph.

Duct tape would be the worst material to use because that would make the joints the strongest part of the structure. In steel hgh rises, the connections are often the weakest part of the structure. To be more representational of the WTC, you would need some sort of joint attachment that was made of the same material as the rest of the structure.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Old info, pants. NIST has revised their report several times since then.

Please provide the latest report then.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Please quote the relevant text.

Why should I? You didn't quote from your MIT pdf, which is probably something from Thomas Eagar anyway.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Also how would these fireballs blow out the lobbies like a bomb while at the same time blowing out several sub-basement levels? I'm just humouring you now.

The over-pressurisation of air that could be accomplished by a swiftly descending elevator (i.e. one which has had its cables cut by impact with a plane), as well as the introduction of a large superheated air mass into the elevator shaft (i.e. the fireball on impact).

jas

Quote:

Please provide the latest report then.

Burden of proof is on you, my friend. You're the one making the claim about great balls of fire.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Pants-of-dog wrote:

Please quote the relevant text.

Why should I? You didn't quote from your MIT pdf, which is probably something from Thomas Eagar anyway.

Then you should minimally provide a link and a written summary of where I could find the information, if you wish to do this on a quid pro quo basis.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Quote:

Please provide the latest report then.

Burden of proof is on you, my friend. You're the one making the claim about great balls of fire.

Did you ignore the other links I provided?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm

Quote:
Elevator shafts worked like chimneys, funneling unbearable smoke to floors above the crashes. The shafts also channeled burning jet fuel throughout both towers. Fire moved not only up and down but also side to side, from shaft to shaft, unleashing explosions in elevator lobbies and in restrooms next to the shafts.

jas

Pants-of-dog wrote:

jas wrote:

Where would you get vertical crushing down through mass of equal density near the rate of free fall in this example? Your example provides a very unclear picture.

If you insist on using the house of cards analogy, you will have to tape the ceramic tiles together with duct tape, say, and then produce a vertical "crushing down" from upper floor failure, because this is what  happened to both Twin Towers, so it's not a mere anomaly.

I have no idea what you are asking in your first paragraph.

Which is why you don't understand why your analogy is incorrect.

Quote:
Duct tape would be the worst material to use because that would make the joints the strongest part of the structure. In steel hgh rises, the connections are often the weakest part of the structure. To be more representational of the WTC, you would need some sort of joint attachment that was made of the same material as the rest of the structure.

Okay, rivet them together. They have to be fastened together somehow if you wish this to be even remotely analogous.

Just so you know, many of the steel columns found at ground zero had to be cut into transportable pieces. judy Wood's site has pictures of beams and columns which have been cut at the ends but in the middle is the intact rivet area. In most of these pieces shearing had taken place. The rivets were intact.

jas

pants wrote:
Did you ignore the other links I provided?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm

2002. They're assuming the FEMA hypothesis.

Pants-of-dog

jas wrote:

Which is why you don't understand why your analogy is incorrect.

Then explain how my "analogy" is incorrect.

 

jas wrote:
Okay, rivet them together. They have to be fastened together somehow if you wish this to be even remotely analogous.

Just so you know, many of the steel columns found at ground zero had to be cut into transportable pieces. judy Wood's site has pictures of beams and columns which have been cut at the ends but in the middle is the intact rivet area. In most of these pieces shearing had taken place. The rivets were intact.

Please provide a link.

Pages

Topic locked