Continued from here.

The NISTers have, of course, not provided an example of something crushing through a larger something of the same material and density via gravity alone other than the Twin Towers, yet, because there isn't one.

The NIST/Bazant hypothesis describes an upper block of storeys that "crushes down" through the larger intact building then gets "crushed up" by the pile of rubble (never mind that it has been crushing against this pile of rubble throughout the collapse) at the end, all in the space of 13 seconds:

The Twin Towers were constructed with 240 perimeter structural steel box columns and 47 larger core box columns, ranging from 36" x 16" to 52" x 22", forming a dense core structure which, alone, comprised 25% of the total area in the buildings' horizontal span.

The NIST supporters have yet to address four gaping flaws in their theory. Not sure if they'll do it in this thread, or if they will just run away:

1) a step-by-step explanation of events after the collapse initiation

2) evidence of the existence of the upper blocks through the collapse progression

3) an example of top-driven gravitational collapse, and/or the law of physics that would explain it, and

4) math that accounts for what actually occurred, rather than what is hypothesized, and that is supported by accepted physical principles.

You have yet to provide any evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a law of physics.

Just reiterating what I said at the end of the last morass of a thread in the hopes it will be considered:

I saw that, Catchfire. I don't feel Fidel's language was offensive. I also note that the previous thread did have an effective hiatus over the long weekend. A few of us are ready today to resume the "debate" as it were. So if you'll permit us to continue, I would appreciate that.

Yes, I have. I said it violates Newton's First and Third laws. Please tell us what law supports your model. A question I have been asking since the last thread.

But you demanded that I provide evidence, and I did. And I have one retired research physicist for the US Navy to back me up on this.

Why should you conclude that it's an insult when someone tells you you're wrong? I don't understand this. You know you're wrong and apparently can't stand criticism yourself. You should be more careful when trying to prove something by intimidation alone, because someone is bound to call you on your bs. Like they say, bullshit baffles brains but not all of the time.

In this post from the last thread, Pants-of-dog attempts to present sheds crumpling from roof snow as an example of a top-driven gravitational collapse where the bulk of the structure is crushed down by a smaller portion of itself.

I pointed out to him that snow is not part of the structure; it is a force weighing down from above. The structure is not crushing

itself. The snow is.Then show us the numbers. Show us, mathematically, how it violates those laws.

Saying something is not at all the same as proving something, I hope you'll agree. And until you prove it, what you've said is absolutely spurious.

Thank you for clarifying your exact claim.

Can you please provide evidence that the gravitational collapse model contradicts the first and third Newtonian laws of motion?

If you understood Newton's First and Third laws, you would understand that it doesn't need to be shown mathematically.

No mathematical arguments are necessary in this debate. In fact, Pants has been unable to argue credibly without resort to Bazant's math--math that has already been shown to be grossly incorrect.

But, since you want to join the argument, PB, please explain to us what law of physics explains the top-down crushing of a structure by a smaller portion of itself. Thank you.

Can you please tell us what law of physics supports top-down crushing of a structure by a smaller portion of itself? Then we can go from there.

Didn't think so.

Then provide the evidence in a non-mathematical way.

Please provide evidence that my math or Bazant's math is incorrect. Thank you.

Didn't think so.

Conservation of mass and conservation of momentum are the two main ones.

Please provide evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a Newtonian law of motion. Thank you.

Can you please explain how these two principles support the top-down crushing of a structure by a smaller portion of itself?

Thank you.

I already have. I even broke it down mathematically for you. I then explained the math.

Please provide evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a Newtonian law of motion. Thank you.

Please point out where Newton's laws of nature suggest that one-fifth of a steel structure is capable of annihilating the other much more massive and rigid 80 percent of itself before self-destructing imediately after all that work is done and in such tidy manner as to suggest something very unnatural is being posited by pro wacky George Dubya guvmint conspiracy theorists.

And you still haven't explained what [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/science-fail-x4-supporters-ni... theory[/url] has to do with any of the events of 9/11. Why are you reluctant to tell us, Pants? Why do you refuse to answer our questions?

And I guess we'll just have cut you some slack on duration of impact and total force balance since you have no idea what Garcia was talking about in defence of Bazant's unproven theory. My guess is that this won't prevent you from supporting any other pro war conspiract theory based on proof by intimidation in future.

You don't know high school math, Pants. Why do you persist in telling us that you do?

That is a run-on sentence.

For the physics part of that question, see my preceding post for links tothe explanations.

I have already explained that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with it. Why do you keep asking this?

Do you understand why your calculation for duration of impact is incorrect?

If that is the case, then it should be simple for you to show me where my errors are.

Please do so. Thank you.

Please provide evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a Newtonian law of motion. Thank you.

This math doesn't show how conservation of mass or momentum are used. Please apply the conservation of mass and momentum to the theory you are supporting. Thank you.

Actually, it does. Would you like me to explain it again?

No, I want you to apply the principles of conservation of mass and consrevation of momentum to the theory you are supporting. You don't need math to explain this.

Do you need some help?

"WTC collapses discussion thread" ... would that it would.

Sorry. I know that's a troll, as well as a weak joke. I fully expect to be suspended for that. It's ok. I can take it like a man.

Conservation of mass tells us that the upper block does not magically disappear into thin air. So, once it started falling, all the mass had to go somewhere. Using the law of gravity, we know it went down. Using the law of conservation of momentum, we know that as it went down, it imparted energy to the lower floors.

You must have been introduced to the delta process in high school, or calculating mx + b slope intercept form of a line? I know I was, and change in x and y is not so different from estimating delta-t for velocity using a graph, rise over run, or v=delta-s(metres)/delta-t(seconds), ie. Newton's motion equations.

It's not a leap of faith to conclude that you don't understand the math. And especially after you asked us how the variable term delta-t itself accounts for transfer of momentum and ignoring Garcia's second law equation for impulse monentum. That's just bizarre. It's as if you aren't even on the same page and day dreaming. I'm not saying you're a pathological liar or anything just that you seem to be trying to do just what Manuel Garcia attempts to but without using any math sense whatsoever.

Even if the upper blocks did remain rigid, and which neither video evidence nor laws of nature support, they still could not have annihilated the much more massive and stronger lower sections of the steel framed towers by gravity and momentum alone. A&Es for truth have shown how energy deficits made it physically impossible. Nature does not work the way Bizarro Bazant and NIST suggest it did on 9/11 with neither any physical proof nor precedent for it happening on the planet earth. Perhaps I should go even further and specify, not within the earth's atmosphere and where Newtonian laws of physics apply to avoid any non-truther confusion with the way things might work on Mars or any other planetary bodies 100 million miles away.

This does not show how my math is wrong. Please show how my math is wrong. If, as you say, I am incapable of even doing high school math, then show me my error.

Please provide evidence for the bolded claim.

1. I already have. And besides, you have no problem with the math I've nailed up for you to respond to, and you haven't replied to any of it by what I've seen. Therefore, I can only assume you either can not or will not be replying now or in the near future.

In fact, you haven't posted any new math for us lately and that isn't a blatant cut and paste job from any of wikipedia, Bazant, Greening or Garcia. I think you assume we are dazzled by their math. But we aren't. I understand Manuel Garcia's math whereas you do not.

2. We already have, several times. Apparently you missed it, and so we have no alternative but to conclude you have nothing to say in reply. FYI, that's not normally the way people are persuaded to your point of view in a debate.

I don't know if the discussion has so much collapsed as it has merely succumbed to a natural biological rotting process.

No, you have not shown me where my math is incorrect. You have simply said that I was wrong over and over again.

Your trigonometry calculations were correct in that the math was correctly done. It was simply irrelevant to the discussion of the mechanics of collapse.

I have pointed this out, as has PB66.

I understand Garcia's math, but I have no idea why you think I don't. Nor did I copy my math from anyone, but if you think I did, please provide evidence that I have done so. Please provide evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a Newtonian law of motion. Thank you..

Please provide a link to your evidence.Thank you.

You are incorrect about several things here. I never claimed that duration of impact could only be solved through calculus. You put those words in my mouth.

I claimed, correctly, that you are using a constant velocity for duration of impact. I also claimed, correctly, that velocity would change during that period. The fact that Garcia uses a constant velocity implies that Garcia's calculation for duration of impact is only an approximation. But if you wish to keep repeating your claim that I made an error, I suggest you reread the discussion and figure out what I was

actuallyclaiming.What I was actually claiming was that your calculation for duration of impact is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with change of momentum. As for your research physicist, he is wrong if he did the same thing.

Feel free to point out exactly where I was wrong.

You said some time ago that Griscom and I are working with constant velocity instead of instantaneous velocity when caclulating dt. I described how your claim is patently false and that we are actually using Dr Garcia's calculation for instantaneous velocity of -7.7 m/s at that point in time when impact begins.

Otoh, you are the one claiming this is wrong but provide no evidence or mathematical statements showing it's wrong. That is not a persuasive argument, and you are the one attempting to disprove what I am saying not the other way around. I have a research physicist backing up what I am saying.

You, otoh, have nothing but your flimsy claim that duration of impact can only be calculated using the calculus. Do you remember saying this? Maybe you can google yourself for what you actually said, and then get back to me sometime so as to confirm for for us that you have not contradicted yourself.

[color=red][u]Question for Pants[/u][/color]

If you have two 2000 kg cars rolling down two ramps, one at a 45 degrees from horizontal and the other at 60 degrees, what are the net downward forces applied by each?

If angle of tilt for the upper block of WTC2 is irrelevant, then angles of incline in this problem shouldn't matter to calculation of net force either way. That's if what you say is true. And it isn't.

"" See above.

Go chase your tail. You've created a lot of work for yourself and are way behind schedule. Perhaps you will address some of these concerns about your credibility sometime soon. And before I forget, thanks in advance.

[color=red][u]Question for Pants[/u][/color]

If you have two 2000 kg cars rolling down two ramps, one at a 45 degrees from horizontal and the other at 60 degrees, what are the net downward forces applied by each?

If angle of tilt for the upper block of WTC2 is irrelevant, then angles of incline in this problem shouldn't matter to calculation of net force either way. That's if what you say is true, and it isn't.

The normal force is equal to mass x acceleration due to gravity x the cosine of the angle.

Of course, the normal force has nothing to do with

duration of impact(not net force), so it seem like you are simply continuing to add irrelevant math to the discussion.[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/911-collapse-theory-discussio... you say that calculus is necessary when calculating delta-t.

I've shown you how that statement is patently false. Admit it. You're not sure whether your asshole was punched or bored, do you? In fact, you don't know the truth about that either.

ETA: And it's clear by now that you don't understand vectors either. You're a liar and a fraud.

I see why you are confused. You seem to think that when I decide to accept a specifc claim

for the purposes of discussionthat I am actually claiming that to be true. I do not believe that calculus is necessary. Have you ever heard the phrase "for argument's sake"? Even the most cursory reading of that post shows clearly that I never claimed that it had to be the only way.But please keep speculating on my knowledge of my own rectum. Very classy.

But then you went on to say and insist that:

You don't know what you're talking about. You are a confused young man who dreams of imaginary castles. They say the problems begin when you actually move in to that castle.

This is your explanation?

Calculus can be used, and should be used, if you want an exact answer for duration of impact. I never suggested that calculus is the

onlyway to get an answer. However, you seem to be missing the point that your calculation of duration of impact has nothing to do with change in momentum.LOL. Not just yet, Pants. We'll get to that. First we need to discuss conservation of mass and momentum. Are you sure you've applied the principles to the theory correctly? For example, how did the descending block "impart energy to the lower floors"?

I will give you your long and detailed explanation as soon as you do one thing: you have to successfully show me that Bazant or Greening or the NIST have violated a law or principle of physic in their model of the collapse.

Maybe if I bold and edit my text, you will read it.

Considering how irrelevant the whole discussion about calculus is (i.e. it is highly irrelevant), I am not sure why you would bring it up again.

I would rather you actually provide evidence showing that the gravitational collapse model contradicts a Newtonian law of motion.

Fidel, I'm getting tired of this. Please try to be more adult.

No it doesn't need to be used in this case. Garcia used no calculus in his Counterpunch essay.

Griscom used no calculus in his reply to Garcia.

And I did not use calculus in estimating how Griscom arrived at duration of impact = 0.14s as opposed to Garcia's magical number of 0.01s.

YOU are the only one saying that calculus needs to be used to calculate duration of initial impact for the upper block of floors of WTC2.

I AM saying that you are wrong, and that using calculus would not nullify such a relatively large and outstandingly bad error of omission on Garcia's part. His is not an error of math but one of omission. Your error is one of misunderstanding in general. We can go over this a thousand times if you like. I'm thinking your math teachers must have put you in the corner a lot so as not to disrupt the rest of the class.

D of t by itself does not describe Newton's second law. And you can not isolate delta-t and suggest that because it does not express transfer of momentum in this instance, then I must be wrong. Use your head for something other than a hatrack fcs,

Did you read any of Garcia's essay in support of Bazant's theory? I don't believe you did in derailing yet another thread beyond all hope of for the most casually interested who might hope to understand some serious issues concerning mass murder and the worst building/engineering failure in the history of steel framed buildings by 9/11/2001. You make mock of mathematics and physics in general, and it must be thoroughly confusing for someone who might want to participate if it wasn't for your chaotoc and asinine meanderings littering these threads on 9/11. You're not well informed and seem to be proud of derailing our serious discussions concerning a false flag incident on 9/11. It's sad.

No, I will not do as you command mods to do here. I will continue to point out how silly your asinine arguments are until at least one of the mods with a shred of math ability finally understands your real motive for posting in 9/11 threads. Your goal is to confuse people and derail these discussions.

And I will continue to lobby mods to have you turfed from these threads, and it's because your idiotic and unscientific nonsense has no place in a serious thread concerning 9/11 discussion. You deserve a D-grade for all your bad math and utter nonsense concerning 9/11.

Fidel, you're going to have to dial back the insults. Now.

If this discussion can't continue in a calm manner I will be closing this thread.

Please don't close the thread Maysie.

This discussion is by far the most relevant thing on rabble, without it I would have precious little reason for dropping by every day.

I hope this isn't too 'insulting', but living in the post 9-11 world has been like being stuck on the Planet of the Apes without a bus ticket home for 9 years. I long for the sound of other 'human' voices.

Thank you, jas and Fidel, for being here.

I've already explained how numerous times. The fact that you can't find any other example in nature or engineering of a top-down collapse of something by a smaller portion of itself demonstrates this. This kind of gravitational collapse doesn't exist because it violates Newton's First and Third laws.

I could go into more explanation about that specifically but first we need to know how your model uses conservation of mass and momentum. How specifically do these principles apply? It also would help to know what the model is--that is, after collapse initiation. It's not scientifically valid to simply state, "collapse progression was inevitable after this." Newton's Third Law states it is certainly not inevitable, not even probable, and most likely not possible.

I'd like to request that another person moderate these 9/11 threads in a fair and impartial manner and preferably someone who pays a little attention to what's actually being said and not just how many messages are in their queue accusing me of giving the 'dog a difficult time of things for his bad math and otherwise falsifiable claims in general. There is a term describing what Pants is up to in these threads, but it's a bannable offense proclaimed by the pro American inquisition to even mention it apparently. This is ridiculous.

## Pages