Common Sense

[Architect]

das is fur 28iq ist eine big meally puddin' mit nae brains aber mit access von internet sur die ordinateur muti....

 

[28th Kingdom]

And just what "commonly known and accepted piece of information" are we supposed to apply the unprecedented collapse of two 110 story buildings in order to come up with your "common sense" answer that it had have been an inside job?

"Common sense" tells me that "common sense" don't know jack **** about what happens when a jumbo jet crashes into one of the tallest buildings in the world.

Dude... you can use common sense a thousand ways to prove NIST's theory to be impossible. I've done it several times... go read some of my posts.

One way... I proved their theory false, was by observing the upper mass on WTC 2, that fell over to the side... NIST claims this upper mass is the force that crushed the lower floors all the way to the ground... yet, we can clearly see, that seconds after the collapse began... the upper mass was already tilting over. Apply the law of inertia to this event... and you learn that this upper mass will never return to its original position i.e. completely covering the lower floors.

If the upper mass is tilted... than at best, there will only be one of the bottom corners (of the upper mass) touching the lower floors... so what is causing the walls on the other THREE sides of the lower floors (that has no contact with the falling upper mass) to explode into a million pieces?

http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/95/wtcsouthtowerlq9.jpg

That's how you use common sense.

 

[Architect]

what a crock

 

[Kage]

Dude... you can use common sense a thousand ways to prove NIST's theory to be impossible. I've done it several times... go read some of my posts.

Surely not a thousand? I've unfortunately wasted my existence reading some of your posts, and I have yet to see a single instance where you have proved anything about the NIST report or 9/11 in general, aside from your keen knowledge of the date on which the attacks occured. Common sense is not applicable and does not prove anything. When you can use your common sense to build a building the size of the WTC, then you can use it to describe how the buildings collapse.

What is the difference between being on 28th's ignore list and just being someone who 28th ignores? He's just going to post off topic again.

 

[uk_dave]

Dude... you can use common sense a thousand ways to prove NIST's theory to be impossible. I've done it several times... go read some of my posts.

One way... I proved their theory false, was by observing the upper mass on WTC 2, that fell over to the side... NIST claims this upper mass is the force that crushed the lower floors all the way to the ground... yet, we can clearly see, that seconds after the collapse began... the upper mass was already tilting over. Apply the law of inertia to this event... and you learn that this upper mass will never return to its original position i.e. completely covering the lower floors.

If the upper mass is tilted... than at best, there will only be one of the bottom corners (of the upper mass) touching the lower floors... so what is causing the walls on the other THREE sides of the lower floors (that has no contact with the falling upper mass) to explode into a million pieces?

http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/95/wtcsouthtowerlq9.jpg

That's how you use common sense.

Thank you 28K. That was a perfect example of how your application of 'common sense' means you have no understanding of how assembled structures behave in the real world when they are stressed beyond their design parameters.

Of course, apart from dear old 28k, the best proponent of the 'common sense' approach to dealing with complicated facts, is our old friend killklown and his "well it don't look like a crash site to me" analysis of the shanksville site, based upon nothing more than his own limited imagination as to what should be evident on the ground.

Imagination is truly what the woowoos lack, because they have established their world view and cannot be deviated from it by annoying facts.

Killklown thinks the tail section of the plane at shanksville and the pentagon should be evident, and since it isn't he cannot imagine how such a thing is possible.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Surely not a thousand? I've unfortunately wasted my existence reading some of your posts, and I have yet to see a single instance where you have proved anything about the NIST report or 9/11 in general, aside from your keen knowledge of the date on which the attacks occured. Common sense is not applicable and does not prove anything. When you can use your common sense to build a building the size of the WTC, then you can use it to describe how the buildings collapse.

What is the difference between being on 28th's ignore list and just being someone who 28th ignores? He's just going to post off topic again.

Why don't you be a man... and directly address what I said... instead of hurling insults at me. Tell me how... my statements about the tilting of the upper mass on WTC 2 don't prove anything. Are you saying that if the upper mass were to of fallen completely off of the collapsing tower... that the lower floors would have continued to explode all the way to the ground?

Tell me how a 10,000 page report on the COLLAPSES of 9/11 - was not a report on the COLLAPSES of 9/11 - but merely a PRE-COLLAPSE Theory... that doesn't even address the actual collapse.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Thank you 28K. That was a perfect example of how your application of 'common sense' means you have no understanding of how assembled structures behave in the real world when they are stressed beyond their design parameters.

Of course, apart from dear old 28k, the best proponent of the 'common sense' approach to dealing with complicated facts, is our old friend killklown and his "well it don't look like a crash site to me" analysis of the shanksville site, based upon nothing more than his own limited imagination as to what should be evident on the ground.

Imagination is truly what the woowoos lack, because they have established their world view and cannot be deviated from it by annoying facts.

Killklown thinks the tail section of the plane at shanksville and the pentagon should be evident, and since it isn't he cannot imagine how such a thing is possible.

Damn... is that a debunking of what I said? Gee... I don't know... seems like you didn't even address what I said at all... So, if the upper mass fell off completely....the lower floors just continue to explode to the ground, right?

 

[uk_dave]

Damn... is that a debunking of what I said? Gee... I don't know... seems like you didn't even address what I said at all... So, if the upper mass fell off completely....the lower floors just continue to explode to the ground, right?

Well gee whiz and golly gosh 28k, I didna' know you was a' lookin' for a debunkin'.

Are you claiming that the top of the tower did indeed slide off?

If not, then what happened to the mass of the material contained within that top section?

Common sense must tell you that it didn't just disappear into thin air, right?

Debunking ahoy: Because the top of the tower tilted it must indicate that the structure upon which it was bearing had failed.

As the top portion tilted it DID NOT topple off and end up in the road beside the tower, simply because it's structural integrity was destroyed by the tilt. The lower floors of the tilting section crumpled and momentum was acheived by the top portion falling as a whole.

Coomon sense tells you that the top portion must have stayed intact because you lack the imagination to understand how the forces at work on such a assembled structure would stress it to breaking point as soon as it moved out of upright. That's why the design of the WTC towers could not have been used for anything other than an upright structure.

 

[pvt1863]

1. It is possible to add insulation to a pipe and, as a result, increase the heat transfer rate between the pipe and the ambient air.

Are you serious?

You think this is a common sense question? You guys don't have a clue what common sense is... COMMON SENSE doesn't provide the answer to any and everything you know.

You need a commonly known and accepted piece of information to apply to an event before you can make a prudent judgment based off of a simple perception of the facts. What common piece of information are we suppose to apply to these (events) questions?

This is very much a common sense question. Our typical experiences are that insulation decreases heat transfer between two regions. Common sense tells us that insulation always does this (because that is what it is designed to do and because we have no experience of this not being the case). This true/false question challenges that idea. If the answer is FALSE, then common sense holds and insulation always insulates. If the answer is TRUE, then common sense is wrong because there are cases where insulation does the opposite of insulating. Which is it?

Which of my true/false statements are true and describe cases where common sense fails? Which are false, meaning that common sense is correct and I simply made up the claim?

You also are missing the whole point of the test. I want to demonstrate one of the key reasons why common sense and intuition are not valid scientific explanations. Common sense and intuition rely upon personal experience, are subject to personal bias, often are only applicable on a specific scale, can oversimplify complex events, and completely fail when faced with counter-intuitive truths. This is why people become experts in various fields. Experts apply science so that they can make decisions and determinations based on verifiable evidence, not intuition. If an expert is forced to speculate, he does so with in-depth experience and knowledge that can make his speculation more accurate than those of someone who is not an expert in the applicable field.

In short, you are not an expert. Your "common sense" is not applicable to the events of 9/11.

 

[uk_dave]

yeah, what pvt1863 said.

 

[babazaroni]

This 'sliding off' claim has been debunked before.

The backside columns acted as a hinge point as the top tilted towards the damaged side.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Coomon sense tells you that the top portion must have stayed intact because you lack the imagination to understand how the forces at work on such a assembled structure would stress it to breaking point as soon as it moved out of upright. That's why the design of the WTC towers could not have been used for anything other than an upright structure.

What do you mean the top portion didn't stay intact? Of course, the space (floors) between the upper and lower floors gave out...

What the hell are you saying? Jesus... draw me a picture with a vertical rectangle... that is broken into two pieces... where the top piece is tilted at the same angle shown in the picture I linked to... and show me how all four sides of the top piece are still touching the lower piece.

If the upper mass falls completely off...the collapse stops, yes? Why? BECAUSE the upper mass isn't (touching) applying pressure to the lower floors... how can the upper mass apply pressure to the lower floors...WHEN IT'S NOT TOUCHING IT!

That's why I need you to draw an illustration that shows that the upper mass could have still been touching (applying pressure) to the lower floors even at the angle shown in the picture I linked to.

 

[Oliver]

What do you mean the top portion didn't stay intact? Of course, the space (floors) between the upper and lower floors gave out...

What the hell are you saying? Jesus... draw me a picture with a vertical rectangle... that is broken into two pieces... where the top piece is tilted at the same angle shown in the picture I linked to... and show me how all four sides of the top piece are still touching the lower piece.

If the upper mass falls completely off...the collapse stops, yes? Why? BECAUSE the upper mass isn't (touching) applying pressure to the lower floors... how can the upper mass apply pressure to the lower floors...WHEN IT'S NOT TOUCHING IT!

That's why I need you to draw an illustration that shows that the upper mass could have still been touching (applying pressure) to the lower floors even at the angle shown in the picture I linked to.

Even the NON-NWO expert JOWENKO said "Nope, WTC 1&2 -no controlled demolition".

What´s your problem?

Are you an expert, too?

 

[28th Kingdom]

This 'sliding off' claim has been debunked before.

The backside columns acted as a hinge point as the top tilted towards the damaged side.

Really... and what has been debunked about it? I'm not claiming the upper mass fell completely off. (I was just using that scenario 'image' to illustrate a point) But, go ahead and answer the questions I put forth in the posts before this one.

 

[Thunder]

28th kingdom- you moron. the structural engineers understand perfectly why the towers fell. you dont understand...because you dont want to. you need bush to be responcible for 9-11...because u hate bush. and no amount of evidence will ever convince u that it was not an inside job. why? because you dont really care about evidence. its all political for you.

Please refrain from using insults.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Patricio Elicer

 

[R.Mackey]

Why don't you be a man... and directly address what I said... instead of hurling insults at me. Tell me how... my statements about the tilting of the upper mass on WTC 2 don't prove anything. Are you saying that if the upper mass were to of fallen completely off of the collapsing tower... that the lower floors would have continued to explode all the way to the ground?

This 'sliding off' claim has been debunked before.

The backside columns acted as a hinge point as the top tilted towards the damaged side.

Correct. And 28^th Kingdom's "common sense" is even more incorrect than that.

Even supposing the upper stories had managed to "fall off completely," how would they get there?

Newton's Third Law -- that whole "equal and opposite" thing -- says that, if enough force was exerted to shift or rotate the upper floors that much, an opposite force would have applied to the rest of the tower. If you actually work out how much force that is, and it is mind-bogglingly huge, it's also enough to start the collapse.

Likewise, the "hinge" doesn't stay that way for long. Structural steel will buckle when it reaches a mere 3% deflection, roughly. That means if you cut out the columns on one side at the bottom, the tower doesn't tip over, but rather tips a slight amount and then collapses straight down. Rather like what we saw. How surprising.

Your alleged "common sense," 28^th Kingdom, is an error. One that is easy to correct with even a modicum of scientific knowledge. Your greater error is insisting that your "proof" somehow trumps the entire scientific establishment, both within the US and abroad. Now do shut up, please.

 

[Arus808]

judging by the answer 28th has given, i dont think he even knows what 'common sense' means.

 

[mist]

However it is good that 28th Kingdom thought about the situation in a critical way, and that should be noted even if his conclusion is not completely true.

Likewise, 28th Kingdom, it would be very mature and nice of you if you could thank people for explaining things to you. Like, "hey I never thought about it that way, thanks man!".

 

[Arus808]

mist - you are new here. 28th critical thinking is to ignore people who rebut his claims with technical explanations. He's put several of us regular posters on ignore for pointing out flaws in his claims.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Correct. And 28^th Kingdom's "common sense" is even more incorrect than that.

Even supposing the upper stories had managed to "fall off completely," how would they get there?

Newton's Third Law -- that whole "equal and opposite" thing -- says that, if enough force was exerted to shift or rotate the upper floors that much, an opposite force would have applied to the rest of the tower. If you actually work out how much force that is, and it is mind-bogglingly huge, it's also enough to start the collapse.

Likewise, the "hinge" doesn't stay that way for long. Structural steel will buckle when it reaches a mere 3% deflection, roughly. That means if you cut out the columns on one side at the bottom, the tower doesn't tip over, but rather tips a slight amount and then collapses straight down. Rather like what we saw. How surprising.

Your alleged "common sense," 28^th Kingdom, is an error. One that is easy to correct with even a modicum of scientific knowledge. Your greater error is insisting that your "proof" somehow trumps the entire scientific establishment, both within the US and abroad. Now do shut up, please.

What do I say to that? What part of please address exactly what I said and tell me how it doesn't make sense don't you understand?

If the upper mass isn't touching the lower floors... can it still apply pressure to the lower floors?

The upper mass tilted, because it was simply off balance...from the uneven failure of the impact floors... please don't interject some magical super force of energy...that counter reflected to the lower floors...

What is your trip? We are talking common sense here. I am asking utterly simple questions, and you are all scared to answer them. Now... if the upper mass isn't touching the lower floors can it still apply pressure to the lower floors? That is a common sense question... can you answer it?