Same as last comment. If the pieces sustained no damage and the “structure” can be rebuilt with the same pieces then the demonstration is meaningless.
Dumbed Down Physics! :smack:
I cannot rebuild my model with all of the same pieces. The damaged paper loops must be replaced. They absorbed kinetic energy in the collapse bringing it to a halt.
Is that physics too complicated for everyone? 
psik
Paper loops?! Are you serious?
But they’re very smart paper loops. Not the dumbed-down kind.
Can you read the OP, then tell us what you think this thread is about?
It’s about six pages.
Ba-dum.
It’s less than three pages.
Cite: my personal settings. 
The very title of the thread has a problem.
The entire subject revolves around “conspiracy theorists” supposedly having some kind of mental problems.
But the people called “Truthers” are involved with the events of 9/11 not necessarily any other “conspiracy”. But many things about 9/11 involve physics and physics is not about psychology.
But just suppose it is impossible for 1300 foot skyscrapers to come straight down in less than 30 seconds without something other than fire causing destruction below where the aircraft impacted. That would mean all of the people who cannot figure out that grade school physics have mental problems.
So for it not to be determined by experimentation in TWELVE YEARS would mean there is a huge social mental problem. But then the believers in the 9/11 Religion who can’t actually comprehend the physics would have to blame someone else.
A 10,000 page report that took 3 years and cost $20,000,000 but can’t even specify the total amount of concrete for the towers but does it for the steel is pretty MENTAL. :smack:
psik
[In the interest of furthering the case study that’s going on here…]
So how do you deal with, or explain away, the 99.9% of engineers and physicists who have seen the towers fall and say they can understand why it happened? If grade-school physics is enough to show that it couldn’t happen, and these are people who have training in the field, how come they don’t see a problem? Do 99.9% of engineers and physicists have mental problems?
But when you combine that with tomndebb’s moderation in post #230, what do you think the subject of this thread is?
Good points.
Why do you think, psikeyhackr that the experts who have examine the evidence are incapable of seeing evidence that you say is clear and irrefutable? Without getting into what that evidence is, do you think that they are mentally deficient, just not well enough trained in their field, or do you think that something deliberate is going on here?
Dude, it is really quite easy to understand, and doesn’t require a scale “experiment” to model. Nor does understanding require knowledge of the “total amount of concrete” anywhere.
The towers were built to support their own weight, and some additional weight as a safety factor. What that total weight was, is irrelevant. Cite is the buildings standing on their own, pre-attack.
In the attack on each tower, a plane crashed into Floor X. The resulting blast and fire weakened the supporting steel columns such that they could no longer support the weight of the floors (X + e) above them. Thus the floors above fell down as a unit onto Floor X–1 at a speed caused by acceleration a (the acceleration due to gravity, roughly 9.8 meters per second per second) operating over the distance originally present between Floor X and Floor X-1.
The Force of Floors (X + e) at acceleration a landing on Floor X-1 is far higher than the static load Floor X-1 was designed to support, even with any possible safety factor, so Floor X-1 also collapses. Cite? We all saw it happen. Now Floors (X + e) plus Floor X plus Floor X-1 all accelerate downward onto Floor X-2 at a force that exceeds its design load by an even larger margin, and so X-2 now collapses. Lather, rinse, repeat for Floors X-3 all the way down to the ground. Pancake.
Capiche? I mean, in line with the purpose of this thread – who is showing a mental – ahh, err – ‘roadblock’? Those who see and accept the evidence for the Towers’ destruction as I offered above, or those conspiracy theorists who deny it?
It would seem to me that if a model (it does not need to be a physical model made of washes and paper, or Jenga blocks, or pancakes, or whatever; a model can be entirely equations) does not agree with the observed behavior of a system, then that model should be abandoned.
Now, is the argument here is that the Twin Towers’ collapse does not match the behavior of the washers and paper model? If so, then it behooves the modeler to continue to refine his model until it does match the observed behavior of the larger system. If the model does not match the observation than the doubt must be placed upon the model, not the observation.
Wrong.
The erroneous claims by World Trade Center CT enthusiasts regarding physics are completely in line with erroneous claims by Moon Landing Hoax CT enthusiasts who display ignorance of the physical properties of light and photography.
In either case, claiming that one is not one of “those” CT enthusiasts, (admitting that there are CT enthusiasts out there), while trying to claim an exemption for one’s own brand of CT enthusiasm does not actually give one license to promote one’s own favored CT in this thread.
Take your claims of “physics” to a separate thread if you feel the need to have multiple posters demonstrate your errors as they have already done in several previous threads. If you have a comment to make regarding the actual topic of this thread–whether CT enthusiasts are mentally or psychologically impaired–you may provide it. If you continue to try to argue the case that there is some other explanation for the WTCs’ collapse than that of the agreed upon by everyone other than CT enthusiasts, you will be Warned for repeatedly hijacking this thread.
This goes for anyone else who feels compelled to respond to perceived errors already posted. If anyone feels compelled to talk about WTC physics, open a new thread, (to which one may post a single link without further comment in this thread ).
[ /Moderating ]
A generic form of this statement that I gather can apply broadly to many CT ideas is “If X occurred, doesn’t that prove shenanigans?” which is then followed by the assumption that X did indeed occur proving there are indeed shenanigans involved.
Two issues, though:
I offer a related example: “If we can’t see stars in the background of pictures of Apollo astronauts, that proves the moon landings were faked.” But the reason we can’t see stars in the photos has a banal explanation involving film exposure time and such. Photographing stars from Earth requires a night-time shot with a long exposure, and since the astronauts landed during the moon’s “day” (i.e. the landing site was going to be facing the sun for two weeks), star photography was not feasible. The false premise is that it is impossible to take a photograph on the moon and not see stars, just as psikey’s false premise is that it is impossible to compromise a tower’s structure through impact and fire leading to its rapid and catastrophic collapse. A false premise can lead you anywhere you want.
I can reduce your entire post, with detail explaining why CTers are wrong, to one word.
Ignorance.
And while anyone (including me) can be ignorant about many things, CTers seem to be proud of it; wear it as a badge of courage; and resistant to education that might threaten it.
It seems that some people can be very tightly focussed in their obsessions. There are people who have “betes noir,” issues that resonate very intensely in their minds. We know of people who collect stamps…almost religiously. Or people who keep voluminous statistical data on football teams. And, alas, people who focus in, very tightly, on one single Conspiracy idea.
We know JFK assassination followers, who have huge personal libraries, but who don’t care anything at all about Fluoridation. How many Moon Landing Hoaxers really care where President Obama was born? How many anti-Vaccination Conspiracists pay any attention to Creationist literature?
Some Conspiracists are broader in their interests, and buy in to a whole category, or even many categories. I had a co-worker who bought into just about all of them! From Chemtrails to the Moon Landings to the Bilderberg Group to JFK to Fluoridation.
This, in itself, is an interesting difference in the ways that people react to conspiracy theories.
There is just a little bit of physics involved.
Launching the Saturn V meant getting a total weight of 3,100 tons off the ground and moving faster in 30 seconds than the north tower came down. Of course it only had to move through air.
The north tower was 400,000 tons coming down, but had gravity working in its favor, though it had to deal with solid mass strong enough to hold it up.
I am not aware of anyone saying that the mass of the car having anything to do with whatever happened to JFK so that entire event can be ignored as a physics problem.
The 9/11 problem should be easier since experiments can be done on Earth and the Moon launch was successful regardless of what did or did not happen on the Moon afterwards so to hell with that.
So it looks like the majority that can’t handle the physics has to simply declare it self sane due to its inability to come up with satisfactory experiments. LOL
psik
It was the launch that was over 300 tons. To hell with the Moon landing!
The twin towers were a few thousands of tons. People claiming to be “experts” can’t figure out small scale experiments to test the proposition in TWELVE YEARS?
The nation that put men on the Moon can’t tell everyone the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of buildings designed before the Moon landing? That is rather funny by itself. Computers everywhere and techno-savy Americans can’t think to ask the question?
No, guilt by association is good enough to resolve the debate.
psik
No one but you wants to know that, and you won’t tell us why it is so important.