There is no silence. You’re just not listening.
I can think of over a hundred thousand things which have happened in this country which Neil has not commented upon. I take his silence on this particular item to indicate that he has no issue with the “official version;” as you have noted he can be extraordinarily vocal when something is presented which he sees is wrong.
(added - I do not know exactly when I’ll be seeing him again but I can make a note to ask him when I do.)
Are you trying to imply that not commenting on an issue is some kind of tacit disagreement with the accepted narrative?
If Tyson has said nothing about 9/11 it is because he has nothing to say about it. He isn’t astronomer and he is professional enough to leave the engineering details to engineers. Otherwise he has little reason to repeat the idea that slamming planes into buildings into buildings and having them burn can destroy the building.
And furthermore he has said something about truthers, along with most other conspiracy claims:
Dude, cut the crap. This claim of “silence” has been refuted time and time again in this thread. Many major scientific organizations have had a whack at the issue, and it’s been pretty much conclusively resolved for all but the deafest of cranks. I’m sorry, what exactly do you expect, for every random physicist with any media persuasion to weigh in?
…:smack:
And why would you expect Tyson to spend time talking about it? Apparently he finds the official explanation convincing. Just like most people with scientific backgrounds.
Imagine if a scientist put on their resume “I do not believe in the expanding earth hypothesis”. What would that say about that scientist to you? Oh, sure, he/she’s right, but they’re also wasting time addressing something that should reasonably be taken for granted at this point. Most scientists haven’t weighed in because since 2006 at the very latest, the 9/11 truther movement has been essentially nothing but CT cranks.
Another person who completely ignores what happened there by using absolutely idiotic models. It’s like a creationist appealing to the second law of thermodynamics.
psikeyhackr, you demonstrate again your misunderstanding of how science works. Science does involve confirmation through repetition of experimental results. After an initial publication, other scientists in the field may seek to confirm or contradict the original results. In this case the relevant results would be pretty much all of civil engineering. That kind of confirmation has been done and done. You know, like heating steel and finding that it gets softer. Frankly, if there were some novel new understanding of materials strengths to be found in the Twin Towers disaster, the first civil engineer to publish that factoid would be famous. The fact that no one has done so is its own confirmation of the accepted understanding of the event.
Please note that science does not involve confirmation by acclamation. There is no show of hands expected. Scientists in other fields have no reason to chime in with an “attaboy”, but this seems to be your expectation. Neil isn’t a civil engineer (to the best of my knowledge) so I can’t envision any reason for him to chime in on a civil engineering issue. He is (again to the best of my knowledge) an astronomer or perhaps an astrophysicist, and thus may have relevant comments on Gravity. And heck, everybody and his mother can find problems in Titanic ;).
Science doesn’t work. It’s an abstraction. Scientists do the work. What experiments have been done by scientists to test the north tower collapse?
Before 9/11 I would have regarded the physics of skyscrapers as beneath the notice of physicists.
And whether or not the sky was correct in Titanic was totally unimportant. But Tyson chose to make a big deal about it, I would think at least partially because it was funny.
But whether or not the top 15% or less by height of a skyscraper could fall and destroy the rest should be grade school physics and a large percentage of Americans should have been able to settle it while demonstrating knowing what data was relevant to the problem. Not just BELIEVING something. So how do physicists not discuss distribution of mass regarding an event so consequential for TWELVE YEARS?
the NIST report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. What scientists have pointed that out since the report was released?
psik
Since that isn’t the topic of this particular thread, do you have anything to say about the psychology of conspiracy theorists?
When it comes to types of conspiracy theories, I found this section in the “Conspiracy Theory” Wiki article that might shed some light. Among the different lists I think I prefer Jesse Walker’s:
psikeyhackr, science is a system, not an abstraction. Czarcasm, where does “but nobody will even look at the question!!” fit into Walker’s scheme? Is that the Enemy Within? 'Cause I’m not sure I can call psikey an enemy in this forum.
Well, maybe not directly, but this quote of his does cover 9/11 (among other topics) quite nicely: “Conspiracy theorists are those who claim coverups whenever insufficient data exists to support what they’re sure is true.”
(x.com)
If he doesn’t believe there is any conspiracy, just unexplained massive stupidity, then I don’t know why he is posting here at all. Perhaps he can go start a new thread on whatever it is he is talking about?
Psik I would suggest that you play a round of Jenga, the game in which you remove supporting blocks of wood and place them on top of the stack until collapse occurs. You can view this as a very crude model of the Twin Towers collapse. You might also note how much of the stack is destroyed by falling debris.
Your assertion that the collapse has not been studied is patently false, I believe you are misinformed. Modern Engineered structures fail so rarely that when they do they are studied intently by both practitioners and students. I seriously doubt the any reputable University in the World is handing out relevant degrees (Materials Science, Civil Engineering etc) without going into some detail on 9/11.
One of the relevant equations in regard to the “pancake” collapse is F=M*A, if you understand this then there is no mystery, it is basic physics.
Which brings me back to the OP. Truthers, Cters etc reject basic science in furthering their own beliefs, making them at least delusional IMO.
Capt
A better question might be “what models are in place to explain it”. And I welcome you to trawl through the data and examine it. I can’t be fucked. Every single major scientific authority that has examined it has come out with the same conclusion: a plane crashed into the building and the fires caused collapse. And you trotting out scientifically illiterate morons doesn’t help your case any.
No, not “beneath”. Outside their expertise. Contrary to popular beliefs, scientists are not necessarily all multidisciplinary geniuses. There’s a lot of very heavy specialization. Astrophysicists not only wouldn’t really consider civil engineering questions, they probably would not be qualified to do so.
psik, you appear to be holding this conversation single-handedly, in your head, with absolutely no notice of anyone else’s contributions. Let’s try this one more time. Multiple independent sources examined the evidence and found the official explanation convincing. Physicists have discussed such things over the past 12 years. You just haven’t been paying attention, being stuck in your CT bubble. And you never do. This is the reason you still have creationists that think that the second law of thermodynamics proves evolution false (despite the fact that this is a cruel bastardization of what actually happened). This is why you still have “truthers” who believe that the moon landing was a hoax (despite the fact that they literally did not have the technology back then to fake such a thing). This is why you still have people who think the “magic bullet” claim holds up (despite the fact that it’s based on a completely false reconstruction of how the two men were actually seated). Because a CTer NEVER FUCKING LISTENS. This is quite possibly the most defining characteristic of a conspiracy theorist.
BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MATTER.
Maybe he has, unintentionally. A lack of sufficient (or what the CTer thinks is sufficient) public discussion is evidence of suppression of public discussion. It reminds me of a comment I read about Afrocentrist theories a while back that remained resolute despite support: “Lack of proof comprises proof - proof of a successful conspiracy to destroy all proof.”
Soemthing like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBbz2eIoVDQ (video of 31-foot tall “Kapla” tower collapsing)
That was nifty! Very informative! Smaller (ten inch) Jenga towers tend to topple sideways, but this tower collapses almost entirely vertically. There seems to be a boundary value of size at which the collapse behavior changes.
I also laughed at the “Aftermath” bit, with the guys sweeping up. It made me think of the poor guy sweeping after the parade in Peabody and Sherman.
That was cool!
That is a much better model than mine and cool as hell to boot.
Thank You
Capt
How much damage do Jenga blocks sustain when they fall on top of each other?
It takes energy to collapse my paper loops. I tested for that by dropping a known weight from a known height to determine the minimum amounts to completely flatten a single loop. It takes 0.118 joules. So if your Jenga blocks just bounce off of each other they have nothing whatsoever to do with a building destroying itself in a gravitational collapse. My washers sustain no damage, they are too strong relative to the weight. But it is the paper loops that support the stack and must be strong enough to hold the static load.
Some people try to make their physics TOO BASIC and completely leave out information relevant information. You don’t suppose that means they are less smart than they think they are?
Maybe you should get Spock to check your results. 
psik