Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

William Seger

(11,294 posts)
1. "Where are you now, we need you brother," says the YouTube poster
Tue Jul 23, 2013, 04:56 AM
Jul 2013

Gordon Ross disappeared from the "truth movement" in 2007 when his "Momentum Transfer Analysis" collapsed at near-freefall acceleration when a gigantic error was found: In his "energy balance" analysis, he counted the kinetic energy lost in the inelastic collision of the falling section as one line item, and energy lost to deforming steel and pulverizing concrete as separate line items. In fact, the kinetic energy lost in the inelastic collision is the energy that went into deforming steel and pulverizing concrete -- that's where the kinetic energy went. With that one error corrected (even without correcting several other less significant errors), his analysis actually shows that total collapse was unavoidable. It must have been pretty embarrassing for a Master Engineer to make a blunder like that.

But regarding this video, there are three general classes of errors: inaccurate observations; imaginative and unsubstantiated speculations for things that have simple explanations; and ignoring facts that don't fit his speculations. He begins his argument with a great example of all three, starting with the inaccurate observation that the antenna started falling before the corner of the roof, which he concludes "must" be because the 47 core columns were destroyed first. In reality, that's an optical illusion caused by the fact the collapse began with the tower tipping away from that camera, which can be seen in videos from different angles. In fact, it is well known (and was known when Ross made this video) that the perimeter columns on one side were observed to be bowing inward for at least 20 minutes prior to the collapse, and that the collapse began when those columns buckled inward -- behavior which simply cannot be explained by Ross' demolition hypothesis. One might think that a Master Engineer would also wonder why there were no sounds or seismic waves anywhere near the magnitude that would be produced by enough explosives to destroy the core columns -- not just once, but every three floors according to Ross. And in fact, it is known that most of the columns in the building were simply broken at the column splices because they were pushed aside when the floors that held them vertical were simply ripped away by the collapsing debris. It must take a lot of determination to convince yourself that silent, sucking explosives is the best explanation.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

"Where are you now, we need you brother," says the YouTube poster William Seger Jul 2013 #1
How do you explain the Thermite? damnedifIknow Jul 2013 #2
No need to explain things that didn't happen William Seger Jul 2013 #3
I hate to chastise you, but... tomk52 Aug 2013 #4
Who has replicated Dr. Millette's findings? And what peer-reviewed journal has published them? Ace Acme Oct 2013 #8
I guess we don't need all the demolition experts then. ConcernedCanuk Aug 2013 #5
Not if the demolition experts want to remain employed: cpwm17 Aug 2013 #6
"the building will come straight down" William Seger Aug 2013 #7
WTC7 came straight down in terms of its E and W walls remaining plumb. Ace Acme Oct 2013 #9
Pointless point William Seger Oct 2013 #10
Point: it came straight down absolutely for most of its fall. Ace Acme Oct 2013 #11
Hmm, good point -- except for being wrong William Seger Oct 2013 #12
The NIST simulations bore no resemblance to reality Ace Acme Oct 2013 #13
The NIST simulation William Seger Oct 2013 #14
Oh brother Ace Acme Oct 2013 #15
Oh brother, read it again: The CURTAIN WALL panels are not in the model William Seger Oct 2013 #16
Are you claiming that the perimeter columns fell down with the rest of the structure Ace Acme Oct 2013 #17
Umm, no William Seger Oct 2013 #18
What you expect is not what NIST's models show Ace Acme Oct 2013 #19
You are pointlessly running around in circles William Seger Oct 2013 #20
You seem to be obfuscating Ace Acme Oct 2013 #21
Obfuscating? You seem to not understand much of what I say William Seger Oct 2013 #22
It's not my fault I don't understand what you say Ace Acme Oct 2013 #23
I can explain it to you; I can't understand it for you William Seger Oct 2013 #24
You're going in circles Ace Acme Oct 2013 #25
Here we go round the Mulberry bush William Seger Nov 2013 #27
You believe that the perimeter columns remain standing when the interior of the building fell down. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #30
Another pointless point William Seger Nov 2013 #31
The NIST simulations bore no resemblance to reality Ace Acme Nov 2013 #32
Your "wet paper bag" is completely pointless William Seger Nov 2013 #34
It's not my "wet paper bag"; it's NIST's "wet paper bag" Ace Acme Nov 2013 #35
"... it shows that NIST's computer models are completely off the beam." William Seger Nov 2013 #36
The models bear no resemblance to reality. Nor do your claims. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #37
I've watched that many times, and what I see... William Seger Nov 2013 #38
What you "see" in the video is your own fantasy about an explanation Ace Acme Nov 2013 #39
You claim "no resemblance" but then just ignore a list of resemblances William Seger Nov 2013 #40
The behavior of the building exterior in the sim bears no resemblance to reality. Ace Acme Nov 2013 #41
Why would Saddam go through the trouble and risk of planting explosives in buildings greyl Oct 2013 #26
Who said Saddam did anything at all? Ace Acme Nov 2013 #28
Members of Bush Gang Swore Under Oath Saddam Was Behind 9/11 greyl Nov 2013 #29
Did they swear up and down that Saddam planted explosives in the the towers? nt Ace Acme Nov 2013 #33
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»This message was self-del...»Reply #1