Do Truthers Understand Basic Physics?

I can not stop thinking of the results if a team of so call 911 truthers was given the assignment of designing and then building a skyscraper of say only thirty stories.

At what point in the process would these experts have piles of rubbles in the surrounding streets without any need for planes to run into the building or someone carrying high explosives into the job site.

Love how truthers are able to disregard the experts, who have design skyscrapers ,statements as while they can not design or build such buildings they surely can come up with wild theories in how they can fail.

 

Cognitive dissonance is an amazing thing.



Above is psi's attempt to model the mechanics of the WTC collapse. He's convinced that buildings hold themselves in place with inertia, and is completely ignorant of the principles of buckling.

The fact that his model requires a rigid dowel to function as a structure in the first place is quite lost on him. The fact that his paper columns are not slender is quite lost on him. The fact that gravity doesn't scale is lost on him. Area moment of inertia, critical load, tensile strength, all lost on him.

He's had plenty of time to learn about these things. He keeps asking about these things. People keep explaining these things to him, but he refuses to accept that they know what they are talking about because of that pesky cognitive dissonance with his belief that the building collapse is a problem that can be solved with a layman's knowledge of physics. We keep hearing about how grade school kids view the world. It's no coincidence.

 

Oh, and the challenge of engineering is not to build a tall building that can stand up.


The challenge is to build one using the least amount of the least expensive materials, using the most efficient construction methods, providing the greatest amount of usable space that people are actually willing to buy.

Any moron can build a 100 trillion dollar pyramid. It takes brains to build a 1000 foot tall cantalever that makes money.

 

You think a controlled demolition is a "wild theory" of how a building can fail?

 

Lord in the 1970s I remember programming an analog repeat a analog computer to handle a model of a building being subjected to a mild earthquake.

Not too hard a problem that only required second order second degree difference equations if my memory is still good on the details.

Yes indeed modeling the collapse of those two twin towers would be a walk in the park with no need for any kind of understanding of even mildly advance math such as up to linear difference equations to said nothing of a good civil engineering book on the strength of materials.

Any layperson can deal with such problems assuming courses in mathematics at the undergraduate engineering or science level. Now days we all do have access to more then enough computer power, unlike in my days even needing to turn to an analog computer that output it results to an XY plotter.

 

Given the known details of the twin towers collapses the idea of controlled demolition having anything to do with it is beyond wild.

Why do you at a minimum read up on the subject of how controlled demolition is done with special note of the large amount of prep work that need to be done ahead of pressing the button involving large crews carefully weakening main supports with blow torches and drills before they plant the first explosive charges over a period of a month or more.

 

You think we're just talking about how buildings can fall?

 

You can give a modern computer to a monkey, but it's not going to be more productive than a monkey with a trs-80. You can't make a predictive model of something if you don't have a clue about the behavior of the system.

It's not just about the strength of the steel. It's about the temperature, shape, concentric and eccentric loading of the steel. It's about the joints that connect the steel. It's about how individual members function in support of the entire system of members.

Psi only describes the system as levels of mass. He's operating with two very basic principles. The first is that the strength of the steel has to increase the more mass there is above it. Therefore, as you decend through the floors the floor below should be more massive than the floor above. The second basic principle is the conservation of momentum. He concludes that since each impact (as he envisions the system) must be a lighter mass having a perfect inelastic collision with a heavier stationary mass. The inertia of the heavier mass(es) must eventually arrest the collapse.

The flaw in his thinking lay in both of those premises. The first is that the floors themselves only have to hold up the stuff on the specific floor, and restrain the columns that hold the mass above. The columns are more massive as you go down because of the mass above, but the floor decks only have to restrain the columns laterally, not hold up the floors above them. Remove that restraint, and the columns function as much more slender, and much more subject to a buckling moment. Buildings don't hold themselves up by the inertia of their mass. They hold themselves up by their ability to transmit load to the ground. Restrained the columns can do that. Unrestrained they can't. Weakened by heat they can't. Eccentricly loaded they can't.

Koko on the other hand expertly analyzes 72 dpi gif images shot from a moving helicopter a mile away at the atomic level and concludes that the towers were dustified (Judy Woods word not mine) by a space based directed energy beam. There's no computer you can plug that gibberish into to get a rational result.

 

As you can see even after using crayolas and pretty animated pictograms these guys still have no conception about the charateristics of a distributed load.

Now you take fang, he thinks the wtc was built with one column which is why he is stuck on buckling, and yes fang 60microns is dust by most peoples standards but feel free to make the argument they are really boulders if you wish.

 

Neither of you answered the question you both quoted (as expected). I'll ask again, perhaps you need a dictionary or lessons in English grammar (or both)?

You think a controlled demolition is a "wild theory" of how a building can fail?

 

I'll bet at least one of these two do, you realize they're both pretending, right? You see they both deliberately evaded my question and changed the subject. Typical intellectual dishonesty by OCT grovelers.

 

I have to disagree, if it were intellectual it would be like the sagging truss joke and it would sneak past a lot of people, but I dont see it as intellectual being the proper description since it sneaks past no one. When it sneaks past no one a better description is juvenile.

Same thing they with the nuke issue, add up all the trituim from every sign and they still found levels more than 50 times higher than that, and this was measured 2 weeks after they had been pouring millions of gallons of water on it diluting it by washing down the sewer. They dodge that and of course hook me in with judy woods who is light years smarter than all the poser brainpower added together, so I suppose in a way that is a compliment. They dodge the tritium matter as well, because anything that starts with the 'n' word has to have a mushroom cloud, they have no explanation why there were such high levels of tritium which is caused by a nuke but cant be a nuke 'just because'. I have an answer though that they can understand, OBL hi jacked the sewer system and peed in the water! that sneaky wabbit.

The whole ****ing thing is a joke. You could have went to the ME and on any given day ask any 100 people where obl was and every one of them could tell you, but americas best couldnt find him for years! OBL in the ME was like the queen of england iin the UK, everyone always knew.

 

Intellectual dishonesty is NOT intellectual, it's actually a perversion of intellect.

http://wiki.c2.com/?IntellectualDishonesty

 

Then you should like this SF story:

Unwise Child, by Gordon Randall Garrett
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/23335/23335-h/23335-h.htm

Published in 1962 when Radio Row still existed.

psik

 

It is so impressive to read someone talking about cognitive dissonance when he can't address the center of gravity in a huge mass tilted more than 20 degrees. Maybe that is proof of you expertise in cognitive dissonance.

I did a search on engineering schools and found a site listing 377 in the United States. It is interesting that none of these schools has made a collapse model yet. Why not if your insistence on expertise is significant?

https://www.findengineeringschools.org/Search/by_state.htm

You bring up CD since your only argument is based on psychological BS and cannot address the simple physics.

psik

 

Thanks for bringing up that memory!!!!

Yes indeed I do love that story and to this day have the book on my bedroom bookshelf.

My copy date all the way back to my membership in the science fiction book club of the era.

The book is so old it is now in the public domain and can be downloaded at http://www.gutenberg.org.

That book and similar books was the reason I ended up with an engineering career.

 

So you are either an idiot or a liar. If you read the description I point out that the model is AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE. That is not how skyscrapers are constructed. Without the dowel in the center the stack of paper loops and washers cannot even hold itself up straight. It falls over.

So the problem with the north tower is how the top portion could supply the energy necessary to destroy its own supports so rapidly as to came down in less than triple free fall time.

 

Yet another anonymous self proclaimed "engineer" who swears by NIST's pseudo-science theory on the "collapse" of the WTC towers. So Mr. "engineer", with such an illustrious background, why is it you keep evading a simple question I posed to you that should have a simple yes or no answer?

Once more (rewording for the benefit of the reading comprehension impaired):

Do you think a controlled demolition is a "wild theory" of how a building can fail or is it an incontrovertible FACT that it can cause and is commonly used to cause ANY TYPE of building to fail catastrophically (in a matter of seconds)?

What say you Mr. "engineer"?

And for bonus points, what is it you dispute (in detailed technical terms, not the usual name calling) about Dr. Hulsey's research and conclusions with regard to his team's analysis of NIST's WTC7 report?

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-scam-exposed-in-all-its-glory.458597/page-13

(you can start reading from post #241 on)

This should all be a snap for an "engineer" such as yourself (as you claim to be).

 

The energy was supply by the fires that destroy the strength of the metal along with the plane impacted taking out large elements of supports in the first place along with removing the heat insulation on the beams to a large extent

Given everything the design of those buildings was damn good.

 

Sorry life is too short to dig into some nut case study when I along with tens of millions saw with our own eyes the reasons for the two towers to come down.

That reason did not include a hundred or so experts crawling around the two towers for a month or more setting up the conditions for bringing them down with explosive charges and only after the two planes hit them for some strange reason.

Hell one hell of a large charge in the buildings parking lots years earlier did not come near to bringing those buildings down.

 

I'd say such a question reveals the questioner's total inability to use even the most basic logic, and thus everything such a clueless person says should be considered to be cult raving, unless independent evidence shows otherwise.

The fact that controlled demolitions can bring down buildings does not lead to the conclusion that all buildings which fail are the result of a controlled demolition.

Given your near total reliance on name-calling, you just caused everyone's hypocrisy-meter to peg high and blow a fuse.

This link beats the crap out of your claims.

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-uaf-study-shows-wtc7-could-not-have-collapsed-from-fire.t9056/

Now, refute every single point that link makes. According to your standards, you're required to do that. If you don't, you forfeit the debate and become the ultimate loser. And we're not required to speak to you again until you refute every single point in specific detail. Not our standards, but since they are your standards, you are bound by them.

 

Which elements were taken out? List them and provide your expert analysis of each.

So now you concede you cant do it?

What reasons did you see?

How do you think that compares to professional demolition? Explain the differences.

Which experts what were their qualifications and lets see the evidence.

there are hundreds of links in there what would you like to discuss, post it.

yo may wish to take 1 second to read for comprehension that is not what he said.

He is not even remotely close to an engineer any more than fang is

NIST faked the freefall analysis and it was so obvious that a high school teacher busted and showed them to the total *******s they are and they had to make changes!

NIST sagging truss theory is nothing short of beer farts and belches, how many posers have figured that one out yet though its been explained and proven by FEA

 

afaik you set out to demonstrate the conservation of energy. you did that quite well and you are correct the towers should have arrested.

remember the gubmints first analysis put out that it was a pancake collapse which is what should have resulted if in fact floor loading increased successively as the guts came down. However when looking at the debris it was correctly determined that clearly this did not happen.

The problem is that the core was gone. had it pancaked through progressively greater floor loading the core the connections would have been randomly broken all the way down leaving both the exoskeleton and core standing with thousands of broken truss connections all the way down, and if not standing then tipped over on its side and even if all the horizontals were broken we would have had verticals laying all over the place. Had they not broken it would be a tangled pretzel, they was not.

Fangs buckling shtick is nothing more than a laughable red herring that takes exactly ZERO load distribution into account, and would not have happened if in fact overloaded floors actually happened.

These people do a quick wiki read or pull some junk off of a debunker site and repeat it incessantly and they try to sell the lie from incompatible angles at the same time.

 

The fire was only in the region where the plane impacted.

A few of the people who were above the impact zone in the south tower were able to get through. They said that the building was in normal condition from the 75th floor down.

 

So shouldn't "experts" have been able to make physical or virtual models of the north tower collapse in SIXTEEN YEARS?