Split Thread Was global collapse of WTC inevitable?

[excaza]

You can't dismiss second-hand information written by Truthers by arguing they are subject to bias and manipulation only to then claim your own second-hand own sources are true.

They're not dismissed because of "bias and manipulation," they're dismissed because they don't coincide with reality.

Do you have specific technical objections to the sources provided to you?

 

[triforcharity]

Whereas a 500 lb. anvil would do what to you, Oystein?

Quipro, I wouldn't worry about it. They frequently use incorrect and inapplicable analogies like these. We've been through a number of them. They apparently see no difference in an object's ability to do work whether it's intact or fragmented.

Ok, so it I take say, 1,000 pounds of water. and dump it on a car, what is it going to do?

 

[Quiproquo]

They're not dismissed because of "bias and manipulation," they're dismissed because they don't coincide with reality.

Do you have specific technical objections to the sources provided to you?

You think I am going to spend more time reading debunking literature just for your own pleasure?

 

[excaza]

You think I am going to spend more time reading debunking literature just for your own pleasure?

So instead you just dismiss it out of hand? Makes total sense.

 

[tsig]

You think I am going to spend more time reading debunking literature just for your own pleasure?

For your education.

 

[tsig]

So instead you just dismiss it out of hand? Makes total sense.

I'm sensing hostilely on Q's part.

 

[excaza]

I'm sensing hostilely on Q's part.

Possibly not used to getting called out on his pseudointellectual babble

 

[ElMondoHummus]

This is all second-hand information written by Anti-truthers.

You can't dismiss second-hand information written by Truthers by arguing they are subject to bias and manipulation only to then claim your own second-hand own sources are true.

That information is sourced, and original sources of data can be tracked down and verified independently. Yours cannot. So yes, I can indeed dismiss second hand info written by Truthers because, from experience, I and others here have discovered it to be fraught with demonstrable, verifiable errors, misrepresentations, and outright distortions. Your side's attempt to protray a victim's list as a passenger manifest is one such example; the attempt to falsely frame the towers collapse as being due to molten metal is another. And we have built a justifiable mistrust of your side's sources specifically because they on investigation have been shown to be untrustworthy.

Yes, my own sources are indeed true. You can verify any of that data for yourself. Go look. And yes, your sources are indeed untrustworthy. Do a search in this forum for threads on any topic, and see how this is demonstrated. Your failure to dismiss my point is noted. My original point stands: The hijackers were indeed identified, and proven to have been involved. If you have a problem with it, you need to dispute the evidence, not perjure the documentation of the evidence establishing this.

 

[triforcharity]

Good question, excaza. Each set requires a different formula, doesn't it? Since you can't treat loose material, or a fluid, the same way as a solid. Right?

Which weighs more, 1 ton of bricks, or a ton of feathers.....

 

[catsmate]

Close but no cigar.

The problem was not just the design of the system, but also (and perhaps to a far greater degree) the very poor workmanship. When they opened-up the joints, the architects and engineers found that instead of being tightly grouted they were filled with any old crap including pieces of newspaper. In the absence of mechanical ties or anchors, this led to an inherrent weakness.

The other issue, however, was a realisation that - even if built properly - the partial collapse of part of the structure could cause a pancake or cascade effect and lead to dispropportionate failure.

This in turn led to the removal of gas from the affected properties, although it continued to be used in other high-rise properties of the period.

As an aside, architects and engineers study this - usually around first year at university. I therefore find it rather amusing that Truthers, for all their professed knowledge, barely know of it. Very peculiar indeed.

Interestingly I was watching Adam Curtis's documentary 'The Great British Housing Disaster' which dealt with the Ronan Point incident and the background to it, political and economic as well as technical.

 

[catsmate]

We got a team of pros on our hands.

If by "pros" you mean "people who know more about the subject than you and are capable of using reason to reach conclusions" then yes. Who do you mean?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Fixed that for you.

Fine. Go ahead and calculate the potential energy.

Good question, excaza. Each set requires a different formula, doesn't it? Since you can't treat loose material, or a fluid, the same way as a solid. Right?

Wrong. Potential energy is given by the simple expression:

E=mgh

where m is the mass, g is the acceleration due to gravity, and h is the height of the centre of mass. Please point out to me which term of this expression describes whether the mass under consideration is a solid, a loose material, or a fluid.

Alternatively, tell me how you think potential energy should be calculated.

Dave

 

[A W Smith]

You think I am going to spend more time reading debunking literature just for your own pleasure?

Of course not, We expect you to remain ignorant, We expect you to filter out any data or poison any well of knowledge that conflicts with your agenda driven conspiracy fantasy. Thank you for proving our point.

 

[Oystein]

But don't let that stop you from installing a swimming pool on your roof ergo.

Two years ago, I swam in a pool on top of a Hotel, with glass walls, overlooking Hong Kong's harbour.

Rooftop pools rock!

 

[Dave Rogers]

No, no, no. Theoretical physicists.

I know a few, and I'm sticking with philosophers.

Dave

 

[Quiproquo]

I see. And what "growing" technical analysis and professional opinion are you referring to, that I should attach greater weight to it than (say) Arup?

I believe this growing technical field of expertise has been discussed in other threads more than I or you probably care to talk about here.

I only know that if you, Archtct, do not have any first-hand technical or scientific expertise of what you are talking about, then I will believe Professors Jones and Harrit rather than I will believe you, a barrage of lame ad-homs notwithstanding.

I don't know what or who is Arup.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I believe this growing technical field of expertise has been discussed in other threads more than I or you probably care to talk about here.

I only know that if you, Archtct, do not have any first-hand technical or scientific expertise of what you are talking about, then I will believe Professors Jones and Harrit rather than I will believe you, a barrage of lame ad-homs notwithstanding.

I don't know what or who is Arup.

And I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Dave

 

[Nonpareil]

I believe this growing technical field of expertise has been discussed in other threads more than I or you probably care to talk about here.

I only know that if you, Archtct, do not have any first-hand technical or scientific expertise of what you are talking about, then I will believe Professors Jones and Harrit rather than I will believe you, a barrage of lame ad-homs notwithstanding.

I don't know what or who is Arup.

...Wow. Just... wow.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I believe this growing technical field of expertise has been discussed in other threads more than I or you probably care to talk about here.

I only know that if you, Archtct, do not have any first-hand technical or scientific expertise of what you are talking about, then I will believe Professors Jones and Harrit rather than I will believe you, a barrage of lame ad-homs notwithstanding.

I don't know what or who is Arup.

Architect is an architect in the UK. He's done high rises. Arup is a British Engineering firm. They are very well known.

 

[A W Smith]

I believe this growing technical field of expertise has been discussed in other threads more than I or you probably care to talk about here.

I only know that if you, Archtct, do not have any first-hand technical or scientific expertise of what you are talking about, then I will believe Professors Jones and Harrit rather than I will believe you, a barrage of lame ad-homs notwithstanding.

I don't know what or who is Arup.

We are not surprised.
http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download353.pdf