• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

9/11 Physics from Non-Experts

Totovader said:
What critics?

He just blocks them all and removes their comments. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
He could do comedy physics, but has chosen to do censor-NAZI.

I still think if he added some more "Sam Kinison" type rant, he could make money selling his physics class for the physics challenged engineering dropouts.

I hope he does one solid rant video, it is cool how I start believing gravity stops as he rants. I was floating all over the house. The Titanic never sunk, and the WTC never fell. What is next, I will never fall through rotten floors because the ground is pushing up. I always wanted to meet the ground and thank him for pushing up.
 
Vincent Vega said:
And the energy involved in moving masses as large as the WTC are just not applicable to everyday experiences, which is where most "Woo-Fiziks"
originates from...better known as "common sense".
Click to expand...

It isn't that difficult though. Most people understand the analogy of resting a bowling ball on a glass table, and then dropping it from six feet above. When it's explained that the top of the building was falling and whacking into the floors below, most people intuitively get the idea of what happened. In order to not get it, it's necessary to have no intuitive feel for the physics, and the capacity to misabsorb some ideas from random areas of physics.

In this case, he's convinced himself that forces must always be exactly balanced. If that were really the case, then all motion would be impossible. As with most CT thinking, he hasn't correctly applied his own mistaken ideas, and hasn't thought through the implications. If it really were the case that the forces were in exact equilibrium, it would have been impossible to destroy the building under any circumstances.
 
He is the Charles Schultz of 9/11 denial.

oh boy....that is just bad.

TAM:)
 
westprog said:
It isn't that difficult though. Most people understand the analogy of resting a bowling ball on a glass table, and then dropping it from six feet above. When it's explained that the top of the building was falling and whacking into the floors below, most people intuitively get the idea of what happened. In order to not get it, it's necessary to have no intuitive feel for the physics, and the capacity to misabsorb some ideas from random areas of physics.

In this case, he's convinced himself that forces must always be exactly balanced. If that were really the case, then all motion would be impossible. As with most CT thinking, he hasn't correctly applied his own mistaken ideas, and hasn't thought through the implications. If it really were the case that the forces were in exact equilibrium, it would have been impossible to destroy the building under any circumstances.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Due to the fact that conspiracists often seek to confirm their predetermined conclusions, they often put their foots in their collective mouths when they attempt to cross over into the realm of science. When they do this, they must stop short of any calculations or actually completing their assertions, because their failed logic quickly shows them how wrong they are... They avoid the scientific method like the plague.

This is really no different than Judy Wood or Steven Jones.

As you said- if his assertions were true... then movement would be impossible. And challenging their own positions is just absolutely unheard of in the conspiracists realm.

This is precisely the reason he tried to backtrack and claim that others are strawmanning his argument when they challenge the statements he's made about the collapse itself- he tries to backtrack and refocus his claims to the utterly simple "zero net force" claim and only that (despite the fact that 2 seconds later he contradicts it).

There's so many fallacies in his statements it's difficult just narrow it down to simple error. It's a pattern of irrational thinking.
 
There is one good side to all of this: CT'ers are now reading JREF.
Now, if any of this sinks in, eventually some of them must get it.
 
westprog said:
It isn't that difficult though. Most people understand the analogy of resting a bowling ball on a glass table, and then dropping it from six feet above. When it's explained that the top of the building was falling and whacking into the floors below, most people intuitively get the idea of what happened. In order to not get it, it's necessary to have no intuitive feel for the physics, and the capacity to misabsorb some ideas from random areas of physics.

In this case, he's convinced himself that forces must always be exactly balanced. If that were really the case, then all motion would be impossible. As with most CT thinking, he hasn't correctly applied his own mistaken ideas, and hasn't thought through the implications. If it really were the case that the forces were in exact equilibrium, it would have been impossible to destroy the building under any circumstances.
Click to expand...

I am refering to the usual claim that to have occur what we witnessed (violent expulsion of debris during the collapse) there would have to have been explosives on every floor.
 
westprog said:
It isn't that difficult though. Most people understand the analogy of resting a bowling ball on a glass table, and then dropping it from six feet above. When it's explained that the top of the building was falling and whacking into the floors below, most people intuitively get the idea of what happened. In order to not get it, it's necessary to have no intuitive feel for the physics, and the capacity to misabsorb some ideas from random areas of physics.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's the ones that don't have any intuition that inherently ask "So the building was made of glass?" They are totally incapable of resolving this analogy. It in variably becomes "I'm too smart for you, i know the building wasn't made of glass."
 
Miragememories said:
I'll return to your sandbox tomorrow beachnut.

MM
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


After observing them closely for a year, it still amazes me that fantasists are absolutely impervious to knowledge. R. Mackey painstakingly dissected--in exhaustive detail--your sophistries regarding the landing gear in the Twin Towers. Your sciolism having been laid bare, you return to make sneering comments to someone else who knows vastly more about technical subjects than you do.
 
This is pretty amazing stuff. Has anyone else seen this one?



He's trying to model the collapse of the towers using (empty) coke cans. It's reminiscent of the glued together egg model.

I'm trying to decide if the guy is a real believer or just putting on a routine.
 
Last edited:
Having fixed the link, I've now watched the video. Wow. He doesn't want computer sims, as they are unrealistic, but he's okay with diet Coke cans?

We should link him to the chicken wire guy, where he figured out that his model was several hundred times stronger (relatively speaking) than the WTC, because he underestimated the scaling factors.

It's the effect of scaling that these guys (call them modelers) don't get. Of course he figures the biggest problem is that he hasn't set the whole thing on fire!

This is just another examle of a twoofer who can't do science. Part of science is recognizing the limitations of your models and experiments, but he simply cannot figure out where the limits of his model are. His attempts to do that are all pretty pathetic, and in most cases, he argues that the limits are in the favour of the official story, which simply isn't true.

On another note, most people don't realize exactly how strong those cans are in compression. If there are no dents or flaws in the sides of the can, they can hold up a heck of a lot of weight. Back in high school, just a few years after they were introduced into our area, I used to impress people by balancing a person on one of these. If they didn't wobble too much, the can would hold their weight quite well. People would ohh and ahh - then I'd give a small flck to the side of the can, and it would fold up almost instantly. Just a bit of a flick was enough to destroy the integrity of the structure! But while it holds, the strength to weight ratio is ridiculously high!

I think I'll make a video of that, and post it too him......I just need a cute girl who won't mind me posting her weight on the interweb.....I suppose I could settle and use bricks....
 
I can't watch at work, but I am reminded of a thread over at LCF. They were talking about critical temperature and how the steel would vaporize, laughing at what an expert was writing about. Of course, they never realized that they had wiki'd critical temperature of gasses and had no idea what it meant for steel.
 
Also, from one of his earliest defenders, perhaps this:



was his inspiration?

It is a rare example of a Conspiracy Fantasist trying to be funny. I think he scores slightly higher than Kevin Barrett.

We have to deduct points for banging on about common sense, though.
 
Minadin said:
This is pretty amazing stuff. Has anyone else seen this one?



He's trying to model the collapse of the towers using (empty) coke cans. It's reminiscent of the glued together egg model.

I'm trying to decide if the guy is a real believer or just putting on a routine.
Click to expand...

I was waiting to post that one because I figured I have over-extended my YouTube posting for this week... but this is absolutely hilarious.

He's a real believer- even then I wondered, though. Burnvictim77 and I have both dealt with his claims before, and like this latest woo-aholic, he just blocks people who disagree with him. In one case he made such egregious errors that he made his videos private because Burnvictim77 had exposed some flat-out lies in his statements.

Perhaps the funnest thing of all is watching these conspiracists go through the process of cognitive dissonance. I know it's kind of like poking them with a stick- but it's hard to back off when you get such classic comedy like the "pop-can as a model for the Twin Towers" stuff. I just can't help but put more quarters in the machine...

I spend so much time laughing- though- that I'm a bit disillusioned when I see that people actually believe it.
 
Yeah I noticed that too Horatius... the bit about "no computer models, it's not realistic...here's a diet coke can" :faint:

To be fair, I don't think scaling is this guy's problem. The chicken wire guy at least tried to represent the structure, as did the paper tower guy.

This guy is using FIVE COKE CANS.

It would be kind of funny to do a strength to weight ratio for a coke can and extrapolate from that how much weight the WTC "should" be able to hold.

I imagine it would be obscenely heavy.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
This guy is using FIVE COKE CANS.

It would be kind of funny to do a strength to weight ratio for a coke can and extrapolate from that how much weight the WTC "should" be able to hold.

I imagine it would be obscenely heavy.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...



That's my plan. I've decided I will make a video of a can holding up a heck of a lot of weight. It'll take a bit of time, but I'll get to it. Hopefully this week, as I'm off on vacation soon after that.

I'll need to scrounge up a good set of balances, to weigh the can. I've got some bricks lying around, which I'm pretty sure won't be enough to crush the can. That and a video camera, and I'm set!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom