ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 9th June 2017, 04:59 AM   #1
brazenlilraisin
...tart
 
brazenlilraisin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 660
Free Thought Project Meme

I just recently facebook-friended the nicest lady. We seem to have similar political views and share interest in such obscure things as the fate of Radio Shack. Then this morning, this shows up in my feed



I posted that any expert on physics could tell her the claims are nonsense. Since I'm not an expert on physics, is there a simple summation I can give her if she challenges me?
__________________
"LMAO! pure intelligets, have you read my posts?"--superlogicalthinker
brazenlilraisin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 05:57 AM   #2
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,108
Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin View Post
I posted that any expert on physics could tell her the claims are nonsense. Since I'm not an expert on physics, is there a simple summation I can give her if she challenges me?
Its simple: The starting assumption is wrong. It isn't 15 floors acting on 90 floors, its 15 floors acting on 1 floor, then 16 floors acting on one floor, then 17 floors acting on one floor, then 18 floors acting on one floor, etc, etc, etc,....
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 06:01 AM   #3
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,619
That's way too simple an explanation....
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 08:22 AM   #4
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,240
I'd ask her to explain exactly what laws of physics were violated and how. After she fails at that, ask her for calculation to show there was not enough energy.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 9th June 2017 at 08:25 AM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 08:30 AM   #5
Porpoise of Life
Illuminator
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,041
In my experience people who believe in conspiracies have emotional reasons for doing so.
"it violates the laws of physics" actually means: "I am assuming this thing here somehow validates what I want to believe, but I don't know any of the details and will interpret critical questions as a personal attack."

So my advice would be: don't bother.

Last edited by Porpoise of Life; 9th June 2017 at 08:33 AM. Reason: typo
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 10:53 AM   #6
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,769
There is an extremely verbose way to cover this but the short technical explanation is that towers would only behave in the fashion CT's think if they were monolithic structures with no in-between smaller interconnected pieces. Referencing the lower stories not being on fire is irrelevant... everything that failed below the impact regions failed because the elements along the collapse interface got overloaded and too eccentrically loaded in rapid succession to act as part of the overall structural system.
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 12:29 PM   #7
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,184
Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin View Post
I just recently facebook-friended the nicest lady. We seem to have similar political views and share interest in such obscure things as the fate of Radio Shack. Then this morning, this shows up in my feed

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=11248

I posted that any expert on physics could tell her the claims are nonsense. Since I'm not an expert on physics, is there a simple summation I can give her if she challenges me?
Hell, anybody who got a "C" or better in High School Physics could debunk that crap.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 12:39 PM   #8
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,240
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Hell, anybody who got a "C" or better in High School Physics could debunk that crap.
The problem is, there is no actual claim as to what laws of physics were violated, so what would they be "debunking"?

This whole "campaign" is a no starter at face value. It's based on a false starting assumption and it really just goes down hill from there. Their energy bullet points are kind of funny considering they more or less express the same thing but fail to explain an interaction.

I'm sure their target audience will total get what they are saying.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 9th June 2017 at 12:47 PM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 12:52 PM   #9
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
 
cantonear1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,605
Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin View Post
I just recently facebook-friended the nicest lady. We seem to have similar political views and share interest in such obscure things as the fate of Radio Shack. Then this morning, this shows up in my feed

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=11248

I posted that any expert on physics could tell her the claims are nonsense. Since I'm not an expert on physics, is there a simple summation I can give her if she challenges me?
To expand on Mark F's point:

The live load of 1 WTC floor was about 29,000,000 lbs.

The mass of the15 floors she allows is 66,000,000 lbs.

66,000,0000 > 29,000,000

How could the Towers stop collapsing?
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump

Last edited by cantonear1968; 9th June 2017 at 01:14 PM. Reason: Grammar
cantonear1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 06:28 PM   #10
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,108
Originally Posted by fagin View Post
That's way too simple an explanation....
Geared to the comprehension level of the intended audience.

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I'd ask her to explain exactly what laws of physics were violated and how. After she fails at that, ask her for calculation to show there was not enough energy.
I'd shortcut that; What about a controlled demolition allows the laws of physics to be suspended? The only thing being violated is the application of physics.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2017, 08:19 AM   #11
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,788
oops, already covered

Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin View Post
I just recently facebook-friended the nicest lady. We seem to have similar political views and share interest in such obscure things as the fate of Radio Shack. Then this morning, this shows up in my feed

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=11248

I posted that any expert on physics could tell her the claims are nonsense. Since I'm not an expert on physics, is there a simple summation I can give her if she challenges me?
The WTC was a very strong building, a system of made up of a core, a shell and floors. The floors are "hanging" on the core and shell and provide that important connection to the shell and core. The shell is the lateral support for the WTC, making it possible to stand in hurricane force winds, the core and shell hold up the WTC, the floors only hold up themselves attached to the core and shell. The floor connections at the shell and core fail above 29,000,000 pounds about the mass of ~12 floors; thus dropping a mass of 15 floors will destroy each floor connections in turn with the shell being ripped up into parts as it was built, and the core failing since it can't stand without the shell for lateral support.

The strength of the WTC is also its weakness. Unlike the Empire State Building, the WTC could stop aircraft impacts at 200 mph with energy of 200 pounds of TNT. The ESB could not stop an 18 pound of TNT impact.

Floors fail above 29,000,000 pounds. But prepare for the Gish Gallop of cold fire, steel can't fail, thermite, thermate, C4, Planes can't fly fast, terrorists can't fly, nukes, free-fall, squibs, explosives in the basement; and if she comes up with something new, share it.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2017, 03:36 AM   #12
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,679
Originally Posted by cantonear1968 View Post
To expand on Mark F's point:

The live load of 1 WTC floor was about 29,000,000 lbs.

The mass of the15 floors she allows is 66,000,000 lbs.

66,000,0000 > 29,000,000

How could the Towers stop collapsing?
WRONG... the live load was NOT 29,000,000 pounds

the DESIGN live load was:

55psf x 208' x 208' which is about 2,300,000 pounds.

The actual live load was probably less than that.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2017, 03:40 AM   #13
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,679
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
The WTC was a very strong building, a system of made up of a core, a shell and floors. The floors are "hanging" on the core and shell and provide that important connection to the shell and core. The shell is the lateral support for the WTC, making it possible to stand in hurricane force winds, the core and shell hold up the WTC, the floors only hold up themselves attached to the core and shell...
Not exactly correct.

The 3 main elements... facade, floor membranes (slabs) and the core were all part of the wind load resistance strategy as they were interconnected and "composite".
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2017, 02:13 PM   #14
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,788
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Not exactly correct.

The 3 main elements... facade, floor membranes (slabs) and the core were all part of the wind load resistance strategy as they were interconnected and "composite".
Quote:
The floors are "hanging" on the core and shell and provide that important connection to the shell and core.
Quote:
"The tubular framing system for the perimeter walls resisted all of the lateral forces imposed by wind and earthquake, as well as the impact loads imposed on September 11." - Leslie Robertson
Yes, the WTC was a strong system, the ESB failed to stop an 18 pound KE impact, the WTC would stop a 187 pound impact at the shell.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2017, 11:46 AM   #15
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
 
cantonear1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,605
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
WRONG... the live load was NOT 29,000,000 pounds

the DESIGN live load was:

55psf x 208' x 208' which is about 2,300,000 pounds.

The actual live load was probably less than that.
From NIST FAQ #12

"The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C)."

If that is not the live load I'll stand corrected.



Edit: Ok I think I see where I am going wrong. Live Load refers to the people and furnishings. Gravity Load refers to the Live and Dead loads together. I see your point regarding Live Load and it agrees with the estimate by Thomas Eager:

"With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t [2,600,000 lbs] beyond its own weight."

Thank you for the clarification.
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump

Last edited by cantonear1968; 15th June 2017 at 11:57 AM.
cantonear1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2017, 12:56 PM   #16
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,815
Originally Posted by cantonear1968 View Post
"The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C)."

If that is not the live load I'll stand corrected.
...
Actual Capacity > Design Load
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2017, 05:45 PM   #17
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,769
Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin View Post
I just recently facebook-friended the nicest lady. We seem to have similar political views and share interest in such obscure things as the fate of Radio Shack. Then this morning, this shows up in my feed

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=11248

I posted that any expert on physics could tell her the claims are nonsense. Since I'm not an expert on physics, is there a simple summation I can give her if she challenges me?
By they way... simple explanation on this might be to compare how basic college level physics problems are treated vs what the towers actually are. I recall my college level classes started in basics with single-element problems, where you dealt with one simple solid mass, following one simple direction of motion in a frictionless environment...

The towers had tens of thousands of interconnected pieces scaled exponentially higher than simple physics problems. Look at what engineers have to do in order to calculate how these things have to be designed before they're constructed, in order for the final product to work as intended...

That meme follows the casual simple body concept of physics and tries to scale it to that of a skyscraper... there's a pretty simple, uncomplicated reason why that line of thinking is wrong.
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 05:30 AM   #18
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,729
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
By they way... simple explanation on this might be to compare how basic college level physics problems are treated vs what the towers actually are. I recall my college level classes started in basics with single-element problems, where you dealt with one simple solid mass, following one simple direction of motion in a frictionless environment...

The towers had tens of thousands of interconnected pieces scaled exponentially higher than simple physics problems. Look at what engineers have to do in order to calculate how these things have to be designed before they're constructed, in order for the final product to work as intended...

That meme follows the casual simple body concept of physics and tries to scale it to that of a skyscraper... there's a pretty simple, uncomplicated reason why that line of thinking is wrong.
Exactly it is a result of connections being forced to work individually because of essesive loading in a dynamic Collapse, that results in rapid energy transfer that can not be shared or compensated for by sharing loads in the structure, as outlined by James Clark Maxwell.
Connections are most effected by the time interval of sudden undesigned for loads, the faster the loading occurs the less time for the energy to dissipate though the structure.
That's what Maxwell said in his pinned beam equations.
That's why the top block represention is so wrong.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2017, 05:37 AM   #19
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,729
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
WRONG... the live load was NOT 29,000,000 pounds

the DESIGN live load was:

55psf x 208' x 208' which is about 2,300,000 pounds.

The actual live load was probably less than that.
The live load is meaningless once the forces become dynamic, because load timing comes into play the faster the loading and momentum of impacts the less time for collective load sharing between connections.

Time, momentum, and individual strength of the connections are the key factors the Cters argument is so pour that it can't even be considered physics.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:30 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.