Common Sense

[Horatius]

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?

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.


That's how you use common sense.

Okay, now he's just being stupid. "Now" you say?

Everybody and his cat has at some time used a thermos bottle or a picnic cooler. They're insulated, and everyone knows that is supposed to reduce the flow of heat between things. This is about as "common knowledge" as you can get.

For him to claim anything else is either incredibly stupid, or deliberately lying.

You be the judge.

 

[HeyLeroy]

If the upper mass isn't touching the lower floors, WTF is suspending it in space, 28th?

Did the Death Star have it locked in a tractor beam?

(ETA) Horatius, I don't believe Thermoses (Thermi?) are all that great. The other day I brought soup and a popsicle to work for lunch. Not too impressed. Nope.

 

[Horatius]

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

Are you starting to speak German with a Scottish accent? That's almost as weird as the time my Iaido Sensei translated English into English with a Japanese accent.....

 

[Dave_46]

Wow, you can build a small railroad in those hangars!

<snip>

Yes, that thought did occur to me. 3m is longer than a lot of model railways.

I've wanted to build myself a model railway since I was about fifteen, I'm up to sixty years now, and still not got around to it.

Dave

 

[Oliver]

That 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?

Oops, i forgot to honor myself - here´s your Badge, Oliver:
Wear it proudly and let everyone know how proud you are
to wear it.

 

[uk_dave]

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

Good golly, miss molly!

You just make this up as you go along dontcha?

lol

 

[beachnut]

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?

You never will have any facts. You have no idea how or why the WTC fell. You are helplessly lost. You have no practical experience; how does if feel to be useless when it comes to help your fact-less truth movement.

What, the upper mass was the classic crushing tilt. It looked like it fell and tilted and then the undamaged side was failing in extension, you know the side still in tack was extension, the failure side in compression and the mass destroying the entire building. You and I lack about 2 years of structures to understand what we saw. You are devoid of facts on this issue; but what we see is what we get. BTW there is not enough explosives to stop or change how the buildings fell. The building had the energy of 248 TONs of TNT. You know 496,000 pounds of TNT. We need no stinking explosives to damage the WTC towers; the towers can destroy themselves as seen. If you do not agree it is due to the fact you are ignorant and lack experience and understanding of anything and everything; it appears I am right again. This is why you are so much fun, you are so stupid even a slow BSEE and pilot can feel smart. (you are the king of doubletroubletripledoltthink)

I can tell you I know common sense, I have used common sense, and you have no common sense, you have never experienced common sense. You are the best weapon against the truth movement anyone could hope for.

 

[R.Mackey]

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?

Yes, indeed, what do you say to that?

Total nonsense, that's what:

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

First time I'm seeing this question. Damn stupid one, too. I'll address it in a minute. Before I do that, let's look at the rest of your prattle:

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...

That "magical super force of energy" you refer to is known to the rest of us as "gravity." Perhaps you've heard of it.

The upper mass tilted as a result of uneven failure of the impact floors, correct. When part of the impact floors sagged more than others, there are two major forces at work:

(1) Gravity pulling down the upper block

(2) A reactive force supplied by the remaining structure

Since, as you pointed out, the remaining structure was asymmetric, this leads to a "force couple," imparting angular momentum into the upper structure. However, the magnitudes of these forces are very large. Both lower and upper block were not intended to experience an asymmetric load, so this force leads to secondary failures.

The next thing that fails is the remainder of the impact floors. The surviving columns (also weakened by heat), now loaded with the full weight of the upper block, are also subject to lateral forces, and even stretching as it tries to fight rotation of the upper block. Failure is imminent.

Even "common sense" should tell you that much.

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?

I'm only scared to answer this question because it appears to be the ravings of a lunatic.

If the upper floors aren't touching the lower floors, i.e. there is no structural connection between them, then there is very little "pressure" applied, I agree. However, this situation clearly never happened. The upper floors were never suspended in midair, and the upper floors were never traversed such that they were not above the lower floors. Your question is, as noted above, completely bonkers. Now, again, please do shut up. Your inability to participate in a discussion about Common Sense is highly revealing.

 

[JimBenArm]

She knows

Dave

Did you tell? No wonder she's been giving me odd looks.

 

[mist]

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.

Thanks for your comment, I've read this entire thread and I've seen that. I was thinking if you verbal reward people for any brain power they show, they will start showing more and more. That's why I said so.

 

[Horatius]

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.

Would it be possible to re-post your quiz here? I'm not a member over there, and so can't read that thread.

Thanks!

 

[Horatius]

(ETA) Horatius, I don't believe Thermoses (Thermi?) are all that great. The other day I brought soup and a popsicle to work for lunch. Not too impressed. Nope.

Well, I admit, you've got me there. 9/11 was an inside job!!!!!

 

[Bell]

Yes, that thought did occur to me. 3m is longer than a lot of model railways.

I've wanted to build myself a model railway since I was about fifteen, I'm up to sixty years now, and still not got around to it.

Dave

I thought that modeltrain in your avatar was yours. But you're never to old to start building a layout, I think. There are a lot of fine examples of small (4x8 foot) layouts. John Olson's Jerome & Southwestern is a good example, and also John Allen's Gorre & Daphetid is a fine classic example. Both US layouts btw, not English.

 

[JimBenArm]

I was wondering. Did they have to circumcise 28K so he could breathe?

JAQ!

 

[Horatius]

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.

Perhaps we could get NonBeliever the Philosopher over here to answer this question. Certainly there's no "common sense" answer available

 

[Kage]

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?

So, are you saying that if you were to remove the mass above the impact, the collapse wouldn't have continued? Sure. If you are saying that if you were to remove the mass about the impact after the collapse initiated, that the collapse would have stopped? This is a much more complex problem. As the collapse progressed, the mass moving downward increased. This additional mass at the velocity we are talking about would most likely could continue the collapse, but this depends on the time the mass was removed. If the downward mass is large and/or moving fast enough it would continue to collapse the building. If you are saying that the mass should have tilted and fallen off, then you are assuming that the mass above the collapse is rigid while the mass below collapses. This is not the case. There isn't a solid enough fulcrum to cause the mass to tilt sufficiently.

If you truely believe in CD, why fly a plane into the building to begin with? Why not bomb the building, which would mean you wouldn't need to hide the CD?

 

[A W Smith]

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.

are you saying the southern portion of the building acted as a hinge and literally lifted the northern half off the floors below?

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!

it is still making contact all the way around. The initial progression of the collapse in floor plan is just not symmetrical within the crush zone at that point,

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.

Unfortunate the security settings of the nist document i have do not allow extraction of the 3d model I would show you

 

[28th Kingdom]

That "magical super force of energy" you refer to is known to the rest of us as "gravity." Perhaps you've heard of it.

The upper mass tilted as a result of uneven failure of the impact floors, correct. When part of the impact floors sagged more than others, there are two major forces at work:

(1) Gravity pulling down the upper block

(2) A reactive force supplied by the remaining structure

Since, as you pointed out, the remaining structure was asymmetric, this leads to a "force couple," imparting angular momentum into the upper structure. However, the magnitudes of these forces are very large. Both lower and upper block were not intended to experience an asymmetric load, so this force leads to secondary failures.

So what you're saying is that the energy released from the tilting of the upper mass is what generated the force required to push all of the lower floors into failure, yes?

The next thing that fails is the remainder of the impact floors. The surviving columns (also weakened by heat), now loaded with the full weight of the upper block, are also subject to lateral forces, and even stretching as it tries to fight rotation of the upper block. Failure is imminent.

Failure is imminent... according to what? Your opinion? Your speculation? Where are your calculations for this fact? What lateral forces? Where are your calculations? Are we talking about the wind?

The surviving columns are weakened all the way to the bottom of the structure from heat? How are the remaining lower floors bearing the FULL weight of the upper mass? Where is the proof for this statement?

If the upper floors aren't touching the lower floors, i.e. there is no structural connection between them, then there is very little "pressure" applied, I agree. However, this situation clearly never happened. The upper floors were never suspended in midair, and the upper floors were never traversed such that they were not above the lower floors.

Who said the upper floors suspended in mid-air? Why do you imply that? Where did I say that? Why do the upper floors have to be suspended in mid-air in order for them to be separated (in part) from the lower floors? Why do you say things like this...

 

[28th Kingdom]

So, are you saying that if you were to remove the mass above the impact, the collapse wouldn't have continued? Sure. If you are saying that if you were to remove the mass about the impact after the collapse initiated, that the collapse would have stopped? This is a much more complex problem. As the collapse progressed, the mass moving downward increased. This additional mass at the velocity we are talking about would most likely could continue the collapse, but this depends on the time the mass was removed. If the downward mass is large and/or moving fast enough it would continue to collapse the building. If you are saying that the mass should have tilted and fallen off, then you are assuming that the mass above the collapse is rigid while the mass below collapses. This is not the case. There isn't a solid enough fulcrum to cause the mass to tilt sufficiently.

If you truely believe in CD, why fly a plane into the building to begin with? Why not bomb the building, which would mean you wouldn't need to hide the CD?

How would arab terrorists get access to plant explosives in the buildings? That's why you fly planes into buildings.

What increasing mass? The floors were exploding... so how was the upper mass increasing in size? Were the floors pancaking? That couldn't be the case, cus NIST says a pancake collapse isn't possible on the WTC Towers... even though, they also claim the upper mass increased in size as it fell... so, how is it increasing in size? The floors are exploding outward... so what material is being added to the upper mass that increases its size as the collapse progresses?

 

[pvt1863]

How would arab terrorists get access to plant explosives in the buildings? That's why you fly planes into buildings.

What increasing mass? The floors were exploding... so how was the upper mass increasing in size? Were the floors pancaking? That couldn't be the case, cus NIST says a pancake collapse isn't possible on the WTC Towers... even though, they also claim the upper mass increased in size as it fell... so, how is it increasing in size? The floors are exploding outward... so what material is being added to the upper mass that increases its size as the collapse progresses?

Do you have proof that the collapsing region was losing mass through expulsion (which you incorrectly call "exploding") faster than it was gaining mass from the the collapse of additional floors? Or are you just looking at pictures and using your "common sense" again?

And I know you've been told this before, but NIST ruled out pankaking as the reason for the initiation of the collapse. Nowhere do they say that pankaking could not be the reason that the collapse, once initiated, propagated down the towers.