Do Truthers Understand Basic Physics?

So, are you a liar, can't read or just stupid. All combined?

You left out the part about "Center of Gravity"!

It is right there in the quote you copied. The tilt and the center of gravity of the tilted mass are not the same thing, though the CoG can matter in what happens.

 

Rotation due to buckling moment, not "tilt"



And if the load actually became eccentric, (I don't think it did) that would have just reduced the amount of necessary buckling force.

 

Tell your brilliant NIST authorities.

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaste...ade-center-disaster-study/about-investigation

 

ROFLMAO

A brilliant debunker response. How many tons of water flooded into the top of the south tower? Did the Titanic sink at 9.8 meters per second? 2 meters per second? I present a picture of a tilted mass almost 1,000 feet up and you talk about a ship. That just shows that there are no comparable incidents for dummies to pretend they do not have to explain in a competent manner.

 

Hey, your question was:

And I gave you the example of a 50,000 ton 883 foot long ship that buckled due to a bending moment.

https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/why-a-low-angle-break.html

But do keep trying to deflect away from the point that you've had 16 years to learn structural mechanics. Do you realize that there are kids who were in grade school the day the towers fell that have earned their Masters degrees in engineering in the time it has taken you to get absolutely nowhere on this issue?

 

Second only to helicopter video shot from the other side!



The other side rules!

Do we think blowing it all to hell has any bearing on the matter?

We can see the top being pulverized through its full length

If You put this in cad, the cog is between com and edge of the building, it should have simply tipped over the side, but instead as we seen in countless videos it simply vaporized as we can see in the helicopter video as every window on every floor is being blown out and the corner is being sliced like an egg slicer and we can see the building peel away before anything started to move, or for those who wish to split imaginary hairs too close to call.

and 7 we can see the whole damn demolition sequence so whats to argue about? LMAO

The skeptics site is joke, they wouldnt even let me on there after I hammered ozeco and white eagle's propaganda spinning asses into the ground. They were all butt hurt, that was a nice compliment.

I dont post much any more on 911 because there are no debunkers, never were, only posers and they are boring as hell.

 

That's too bad Koko because your posts are always informative and quite welcome. You should be posting for those who want to know (such as myself), not for the phonies who have no legitimate purpose and certainly a false agenda.

 

So the "strength of materials" argument shows that concrete and steel vaporizes into dust complete with multiple ejections and nothing to crush the top when the top of a skyscraper begins to tilt and descend. That happens all the time. But what do "truthers" know, they can only cite Newton and he of course was a wacko, tin foil hat wearing "truther".

 

And grade school kids would notice that I included a picture of a mass the height of the Titanic above the ground. You just expect me to be deflected onto your BS while all of your experts can ignore a concept as simple as Center of Gravity.

 

Yes, the subject disappearing seems useful to some people.

 

Can you think of a reason why we don't hire grade school kids to engineer tall buildings?

 

Because they are not posers? Honest maybe?

 

posers dont care about anything outside their agenda and its a huge waste of time because to them facts are irrelevant and anyone still promoting the official lies are posers and their only concern is to sell the lie and if they cannot sell the lie at a minimum cause indecision to paralyses anyone not capable of sorting it all out on their own merits, which is why we have a few universities on the gubmint payroll joining the propaganda efforts. either way serves the gubmints agenda.

 

Agreed but they do serve a useful purpose. By responding to them, you and I and other posters who know we've been lied to can educate others who don't know the facts and don't understand the science. It's not about them, it's about the reality of 9/11.

 

Thread summary:

Based on the Truther posts on this thread, Truthers definitely don't understand basic physics.

To cover for their lack of understanding, they toss out some buzzwords they read off a conspiracy blog, and then demand everyone accept their conclusion. Anyone familiar with actual physics instantly sees that they're just making up nonsense.

From this thread, I'm trying to decide which is dumber:

Claiming that puffs of smoke coming out of the side of a collapsing building represented explosives

or

Claiming that the tilt of the top before it crumbled was somehow a problem for the sane theory, based on mysterious claims of "center of gravity."

They're both totally nonsensical claims, so it's a tough decision.

 

At one point in his life, maybe still, Koko argued in favor of the idea that the towers were disintegrated at the atomic level by a hurricane powered, space based, directed energy weapon.

Psi, in contrast, stacked some washers and paper rings on a dowel and decided that should have been an analog for the tower.

The nonsense hole goes way deeper than those two claims you mentioned.

 

Koko never made any such ridiculous arguments, are you having difficulty distinguishing fantasies from reality again?

Last time we talked koko took you to school on buckling so its no surprise you need to attack me by spinning incomprehensible wild tales that are untrue, but if thats the best ya got it certainly does tell a story about the strength of your arguments now doesnt it.

 

sure but one quick glance and you can see they have nothing to offer but **** slinging. They are all in over their heads and too blind to know the difference. I dont have the patience for that any more.

and teach them what? That explosive demolition makes puffs of smoke?

 

I didn't say every post requires a response. Some are so FOS that responding to such trash is a complete waste of time.

I believe most of them know the reality but merely invent things without providing any support. There are of course the cognitive dissidents who do that just to comfort themselves.

Of course that's your call. Not everyone can or wants to keep 9/11 in the forefront, many drop out. That's what the criminals who perpetrated 9/11 are hoping for.

Sometimes yeah, it's worth reminding them that black is still black and white is still white. For example, you see how the initial Bush science propaganda that it was a "pancake collapse" is still spewed and supported by many despite that even NIST abandoned it. It's the same reason why many still believe Saddam Hussein had WMDs and the capability to create "mushroom clouds" all over the US.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels

 

Oh you take issue with your own support for Judy Wood? Fine. What about your golf ball sized pocket nuke theory? That's not whacky, right?

 

If you are going to accuse me of supporting something the least you can do is be honest about it. I havent found anyone qualified to have a nuclear discussion on these boards, do you know anyone? Wacky? Depends on who you are. Nice try at ridicule, the telephone was 'wacky' too. Not a claim just saying. Do you understand?

You need to worry about much simpler things like the wacky ill-thought buckling theory that you keep peddling.

 

Here I expect both you and psi have seen this before, but when these guys come out blathering about buckling and show a single column this is where you can LYAO, because it demonstrates total lack of understanding and comprehension of the building design, and forces involved. The arguments are so juvenile its not worth my time frankly.



Who have you ever heard, well except European engineers correctly describe the loading characteristics of the tube-in-tube design.

Then as a bonus round the absolute unadulterated ludicrous claims by posers thanks no less to NIST lies...... is that a truss which no longer has the strength to support its design load in their wild imagination magically has several times more strength than prior to heating heating and magically pulls in the exoskeleton.

Everything science is magic to them because they do not have the required education to understand the physics of fundamental engineering concepts how these things work and they spend their time selling their voodoo schtick spin rather than the facts to others who are not capable analyzing these complex issues.

Its been proven in FEA that is cant happen, yet they continue to dodge and duck the facts ridicule what they know little to nothing about, and the only way that can happen is if they take the core out 'from below the impact point' and the core pulls it down. This has all been proven in FEA.

You want to corner posers and watch them squirm duck and dodge point those 2 issues alone out and they vaporize from the discussion or bring in some obscure irrelevant point to distract everyone from these facts. Just like a magician always tries to keep you looking at one hand while the other takes care of business.

 

I haven't seen that particular graphic before but I really don't need to in order to understand the basic forces at work in a structure such as the WTC building. A lot of it is common sense even when one is not well versed in the science of physics. But for others, such a graphic is important to help those who can't grasp the physics or the common sense to understand the issue(s). You see you posted a perfect example of why posters such as yourself can educate those who truly want to know. Again, it's not for the "posers", it's for those who do want to know. And on occasion, you've enlightened me as well in terms of detail. That's selfishly important to me.

That's yet another example of how a "poser" can be used to educate the uninitiated when responding to their silly claims (parroted from NIST's pseudo science).

And in some cases by live experiment. For example, there were at least two experiments conducted prior to 9/11 that clearly showed that a steel frame structure does not collapse under a deliberately exaggerated fire. There was never any experiment that shows the opposite. If it can't happen under experiment, it can't happen and can only remain theoretical, if that. OTOH there are many live examples of controlled demolitions proving buildings can be fully destroyed in the manner similar to all 3 WTC buildings. So that is not theory, it's demonstrable, incontrovertible fact.

So no matter what kind of pseudo science these "posers" tend to spew that sounds scientific, they can never support their claims with anything legitimate. And the above is quite straightforward so anyone can understand.

 

I hated the world trade towers due to them wiping out the blocks of what use to be known as radio row.

One electronic store after the other with even bins containing such things as high voltage capacitors on the streets in front of the stores.

I would take the Jersey shore train into NYC and spend the time browsing and shopping in those few blocks for all manner of electronic components.

God I hated those damn towers.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...turned-to-dust.252559/page-16#post-1061748625

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-nuclear-event.392831/page-12#post-1064872289

Right, pocket nuke, boy.