Do Truthers Understand Basic Physics?

Discussion in '9/11' started by psikeyhackr, Apr 10, 2018.

Tags:
  1. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What's that a 5 foot tall 1 inch wooden dowel holding the whole thing up?

    Do you not understand that the dowel is restraining your short columns? Do you not understand that a Wood dowel scaled up to the size of the WTC couldn't even support its own weight without buckling?

    At any rate, take that dowel out and then talk to me about weak as possible. You can't because your design would buckle before you even drop the weight, right?
     
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,115
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    83

    he isnt the one with the problem. no, the design does not buckle by simply stacking them. He said that. Try reading for comprehension, the dowel only is used to keep them aligned and prevent them from tipping it is constructed as weak as possible and they are not restrained like the columns in the wtc, or glued to stay in position and when the top section is released and impacts the bottom section. the columns in the wtc were restrained. How else do you expect him to guide them down? the force? the short columns did buckle when impacted by the upper section, this is 101 ffs

    The whole thing was used to demonstrate conservation of momentum.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2018
  3. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, it does in fact.

    What you are describing is called buckling. It’s the torque that an applied force creates in a structural member. People who know what they are talking about call that tendency a moment. The mass of the paper loops and washers in the upper levels creates a moment in the entire stack of paper loops and washers and that causes them to want to rotate. The dowel prevents that rotation.

    That makes the dowel an important structural component. It forces the loops to fail individually instead of as a system, and since they are not slender they fail in a crush mode rather than a buckling mode. Take out the dowel and the whole structure will topple straight down just like the towers.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2018
  4. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,115
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    83
    so your problem is that it did not fall over LOL

    guess what, thats everyones problem with wtc2!

    furthermore you have the ASSumption the loops which were not glued to each mass, the washers, had enough time to rotate, or even would rotate at all at that speed, lets see your math please.

    It should be painfully obvious to you that he made this as weak as is possible and still it proves conservation of momentum arrested its total collapse
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2018
  5. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My problem is that you and your buddies have had almost 2 decades to educate yourselves on the subject you claim to care about and it’s absolutely clear that no such education has taken place. It’s strange to see someone ask the same questions for 16 years while making no attempt at all to study the answers. For someone who’s supposedly super concerned about how buildings function, there’s been no attempt at all to learn about how buildings function. You all could have masters degrees in structural mechanics right now, but instead you still think a 100 story building can tip over like a fallen tree. This desire to hold on to your prejudgment of the situation and blind yourself to the information that disproves that prejudgment is astonishing to me. Your behavior is religious in nature, not scientific, and I’m just amazed that anyone would turn this event into a religion.

    You clearly don’t understand what a moment is. If you want to see the math, go back to the videos I posted. The math is explained quite clearly. Pay close attention to the explaination of area moment of inertia.

    Psi’s claim about weakness is in the y dimension. The dowel provides strength in the x dimension. The wooden dowel increased the entire structure’s area moment of inertia, and prevented any part of the structure from buckling. Without the dowel, the so called columns would rotate around the x dimension in the y dimension and the system would collapse. But why take my word for it? Let him take out the dowel and see what happens.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2018
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,115
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    83

    I assure you there was some degree of rotation in his rings even at the high speed they were crushed, but not very damn much.

    Its you who should have gone to school during this period because to this day you do not understand how your theories actually apply and to what extent. that is the failing of every poser I have ever seen come on these boards.

    Same as that bill guy who can only go so far as fire+damage=collapse, improper conclusions due to improper ASSumptions.

    What you are suggesting is wacko crazy, you cant demonstrate conservation of momentum in the physical world the way you are demanding, cant happen.

    Right back to misapplication.

    The wtc was a completely constrained self distributing matrix, and here you are whining that he has a dowel? Care to get serious already?
     
  7. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right. Remember, long long ago, when you said:

    It’s fun to watch you pick through, try, and abandon items from your bucket of disproven arguments. You just decided that trying to prove me wrong that the items didn’t rotate was a bad move, now you’re trying to prove yourself right for the opposite reason. How much more evidence do we need that you have no clue what you’re talking about?

    Psi’s levels only rotated “some degree” because they were prevented from rotating further by the dowel. They can’t rotate through the dowel, and they didn’t have the mass to accelerate the dowel’s moment of inertia. This restraint by the dowel prevented the total collapse of his model.

    I’m going to have an extraordinarily hard time finding an accredited college that teaches your space based pocket nuke disintegration theory. I dare say it would be impossible.

    Yeah, and this fact applies to the actual tower too....the actual tower collapse can’t be described by conservation of momentum for the exact same reason. Time to throw this statement back into your bucket of disproven arguments. Trot it out on someone that doesn’t realize that it actually disproves the truther theory that conservation of momentum should have totally arrested the collapse prior to the total collapse of the building.
     
  8. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,115
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    83
    yer going to have an impossible time finding any modern nuke theory past 1945, its all locked up.

    that was a typo, you should have known enough about the experiment to know they were not glued.

    neither could the wtc rotate through is 47 dowels.

    You have done nothing to prove there is anything wrong with his experiment.

    If you want to prove your point stop blowing a lot of hot air theory and replicate the experiment anyway your heart desires so we can see your work. Instead of pontificating your wacky ideas instead prove how they make any significant difference, you could have made thousands of models, so do it already. without a dowel! Use the force!

    I cant wait!

    Oh and meanwhile you are building your model,

    why dont you explain that truss sag pulling in the exo theory again?

    and I cant wait to hear your theories on how so much tritium wound up on the site, obl terrorist op maybe?
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2018
  9. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Keep recycling that box of discarded arguments. They’re awful dusty. Once again I’ve reduced your discussion to a lawn sprinkler of stupid.

    Silly rabbit. Tritium cannot fission, and since it’s an isotope of hydrogen, it didn’t undergo fusion. It emits a beta particle so weak that it loses it’s ionization at a distance of 6mm in the open air. Its presence in the debris can be explained by its use in emergency exit signs, watches, clocks, and other devices that glow in the dark. So much for the idea that it was used to dustify steel.

    And before we get into how sagging floor systems change the way load is transmitted through columns let’s first get you to admit you’re wrong about the purpose of the wooden dowel. If you don’t understand how the dowel handles the load in Psi’s structure, you’re not going to understand how the columns handle load from the floor systems.
     
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,115
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ths only dusty discarded argument here is your buckling argument that is primary school since the wtc was as distributed load, and you cant post anything past one column.

    Apparently not only dont you comprehend what you read you cant read. I already to told you that there were 50 times greater tritium than those signs had, and that is after the place was sprayed down with millions of gallons of water, which washes down the sewer.

    kool cant wait to hear you how you plan on handwaving away the sagging fraud.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2018
  11. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your use of the term distributed load shows you don't know what you're talking about. The purpose of all structures is to distribute load. Yeah, the WTC columns distributed load. Do you think that means they can't buckle? It doesn't.
     
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,115
    Likes Received:
    393
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I already posted how that was to be interpreted please try to keep up

    [​IMG]

    47? never in a million years.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2018
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,387
    Likes Received:
    1,198
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just as I expected, you don't have the spine to answer a simple question. It's obvious you're no engineer. You call something you've never read and claim you have no interest in reading a "nut case study". That's not someone with a background in engineering much less someone with any interest in science or truth. It's ok, I expected as much from a phony poster.
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,387
    Likes Received:
    1,198
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Irrelevant nonsense (skipped along with other irrelevant nonsense).

    So then aside from the nonsense, you agree that controlled demolitions are NOT a "wild theory" and that they can and do bring down buildings in a matter of seconds. It's about time you faced reality. I never said anything about all buildings which fail are the result of a controlled demolition. Why did you introduce a red herring into what I asked?

    1. I didn't make any claims.
    2. I asked about Dr. Hulsey's study. Do YOU have any comments (in technical terms) regarding Hulsey's study?
     
  15. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pictures you don’t understand aren’t arguments.

    Especially when the only thing they have to do with the WTC is the fact that you added the text at the bottom and arrows all over the place.

    https://www.tineye.com/search/414aedc99ff1cf98b22d37e9e06155de11c29d0d/
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2018
  16. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2018
  17. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If someone dies by falling off a ladder would you call the opinion that they died in a car crash a wild theory? People die in car crashes after all.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2018
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,387
    Likes Received:
    1,198
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing that addresses anything in any discussion. The usual irrelevant hot air. Why are you even posting in this section of the forum?
     
  19. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I specifically addressed the logic of your question. Building demolition isn't a theory. The idea that the WTC towers collapsed due to building demolition is a theory, and it's a wacky one. In the same way, car crash is not a theory. The idea that someone that fell off a ladder died in a car crash is a theory, and it's a wacky one.

    I'm posting here in this thread because every now and then I like to remind myself what cognitive dissonance looks like.

    Like your reaction to koko's info-less info graphic.
     
  20. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Like you can talk about what is and isn't proven.

    Center of gravity went where? Oh, it doesn't exist. Sank with the Titanic.

    All of this crap about torque relates to long columns that buckle and the dowel in my physics demonstration does not participate in the collapse. Your torque issue regarding my paper loops is just another one of your pseudo-intellectual distractions.

    It only took 4 months to model the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940 but whatever "experts" you want to drag into the issue can't do it for the north tower in SIXTEEN YEARS.

    And that includes Richard Gage and his buddies. It is like they do not want people to understand they just want to believe.
     
  21. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,953
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the dowel does not participate in your experiment, remove it.
     
  22. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    4,866
    Likes Received:
    1,316
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It's quite relevant. Your consistent failure at basic logic is the heart of the issue. No wonder you don't want to talk about it.

    No, it's definitely a wild theory, being how long it would take to set it up, and how it would leave evidence behind, and how there was no evidence anywhere of such a setup, and no evidence left behind.

    See? You failed hard at logic there as well. You tried to pretend "controlled demolition exists" led to "controlled demolition is a sensible explanation", which was very illogical.

    By your standards, since you failed to address my link, you are admitting your complete inability to address the issue, hence there's no point in talking do you. You've failed completely.

    Better luck next time. If you do try again, you shouldn't use the "whoever presents a link wins!" argument, being it was your downfall here. Instead, do what the rational people do. State your case clearly, without insults, and present clear evidence.
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,387
    Likes Received:
    1,198
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The "logic" of my question is like addressing the grammar or spelling. You failed to address my question on multiple occasions.

    No **** Sherlock, so then why did it take so long for you to answer? Afraid to face reality?

    The above is a wacky statement. If the WTC towers were subject to a controlled demolition, then they were demolished, they didn't collapse. Also, your wacky statement would be a theory, not fact. The theory that the WTC towers "collapsed" naturally due to the events of 9/11 has no proof. There is only one known way that buildings can be destroyed in a manner similar to a controlled demolition, that is by controlled demolition. That is not theory, it's fact, anything else is strictly theory. So much for your logic, you have shown nothing in the way of logic.

    If you need a reminder, try a mirror.
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,387
    Likes Received:
    1,198
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now you've contradicted yourself. First you agreed that controlled demolitions are not a "wild theory" and now you changed your mind. Talk about failed logic, you are all over the place and can't even admit that controlled demolitions are fact, not theory. You also failed to address anything about Hulsey's study, so there is nothing more to discuss.
     
  25. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Can you read? Or do you think that you demonstrate intelligence by playing word games?

    psik
     

Share This Page