• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Common Sense

So Pagan are you one of these days actually going to answer the rebuttals to your theory instead of talking crap?

You can accuse people of being blind Bush supporters in any thread you want, but the truth will track you down and put you in a logical headlock no matter where you hide.

So. A little less ad hom and a little more supporting your position with evidence and facts, huh?
 
pagan said:
I don't exactly know what you are getting at here? Me, a republican?

Hey, I am European SOB. Nothing republican in me. If I was an American I would vote for the Dems. Or more correctly on the libertarians.
Click to expand...
Then why are you helping republicans by making liberals look like fools? Why are you pushing an anti-government story if you would vote dem? If you are not republican, you sure are helping them. You're also helping conservative Alex Jones preach "hate the governemnt". You don't make a very convincing liberal.

You don't even know libertarians are more conservative than republicans. Liberals and dems would never vote libertarian. Heh!
 
FactCheck said:
You don't even know libertarians are more conservative than republicans. Liberals and dems would never vote libertarian. Heh!
Click to expand...
thats what happens when you use common sense, lol liberal - libertarian, make sense, no?

but common sense applies even less to politics than it does to science
 
Hell if they could see what I think of Bush and conservatives in general I would be in a stress position in a government cell somewhere.

Conservatives are just unimaginative people afraid of change so they try and palm off the good old days as the best way to live.

BUT, I’m smart enough to see that there is a so called "Liberal" wing that is not truly progressive in nature. I call them the "low life left" the "liberal hillbilly". The truthers seem for the most part to be these pseudo-progressives.

They pretend an intellectual superiority but in fact no better then your typical KKK mouth breather bumpkin. They believe in pseudoscience over real science. Real science is not PC enough. They want to accept all ideas as valid but don't realize some ideas are pure ******** and need to thrown away even if it hurts someone self esteem.

The 911 Truth Movement is one of those things that needs to be **** canned. We have a chance to push out the conservatives and get a truly progressive government in office but the "nutcase" liberal could ruin the whole thing.
 
On the subject of common sense I believe the concept of why large scale structures do not have the same strength as a comparable smaller structure is important when trying to understand how the WTC fell like it did. This seems counter intuitive but is a reality.

Galileo on Scaling

People have this distorted view as to the strength of the WTC Towers, How could something with support columns so huge fall so easily and fast? This warped view is very common with the people in the 911 truth movement who do not understanding the physics of large scale structures and conversely buy all sorts of conspiracy theorist conceptions involving explosives and some even believing in building melting death rays from space. Some have even gone as far as making models of the towers out of various materials to try and replicate the collapse not realizing the scaling problem would make them useless tests.

Galileo addressed this misconception long ago in a lectures on scaling. Addressing the idea that imperfections in the material not size would make large scale object weaker he said

Yet I shall say it and will affirm that, even if the imperfections did not exist and matter were absolutely perfect, unalterable and free from all accidental variations, still the mere fact that it is matter makes the larger machine, built of the same material and in the same proportion as the smaller, correspond with exactness to the smaller in every respect except that it will not be so strong or so resistant against violent treatment; the larger the machine, the greater its weakness.

Basically he is saying what we all know, The bigger they are the harder thy fall. It’s impossible to build two similar structures of the same material, but of different sizes and have them proportionately strong. The mater that makes up steel will be the same irregardless of the amount, the atomic bond is the same big or small.

He goes on.

And to make sure that we understand each other, I say that if we take a wooden rod of a certain length and size, fitted, say, into a wall at right angles, i. e., parallel to the horizon, it may be reduced to such a length that it will just support itself; so that if a hair’s breadth be added to its length it will break under its own weight and will be the only rod of the kind in the world.* Thus if, for instance, its length be a hundred times its breadth, you will not be able to find another rod whose length is also a hundred times its breadth and which, like the former, is just able to sustain its own weight and no more: all the larger ones will break while all the shorter ones will be strong enough to support something more than their own weight. And this which I have said about the ability to support itself must be understood to apply also to other tests; so that if a piece of scantling will carry the weight of ten similar to itself, a beam having the same proportions will not be able to support ten similar beams.

Your perceptions of things you deal with on a daily basis is not the same in the world of giants such as the WTC. You can build a desk of wood or even steel with reasonable size legs and put what to you is huge amounts of books on it and it will not fail. You can consider it common sense that a desk a thousands time bigger would be a thousands time stronger BUT you would be wrong.

The WTC were a delicate balancing act the taller you make it the stronger you need to make the supports, the bigger the supports the more weight you add and you have to now add strength to hold this extra weight. But on the other hand you build with eye towards lightness and depend on a clever distribution of loads rather then super strong (heavy) construction you can build super tall with lots of open office space.

The WTC achieved its strength not by over engineering but by a clever design that made optimum use of a center core and an outer box wall design. Unfortunately when those two elements were compromised by aircraft impacts and fire we all saw what happened, 911 would have been no surprise to Galileo.
 
notheist said:
On the subject of common sense I believe the concept of why large scale structures do not have the same strength as a comparable smaller structure is important when trying to understand how the WTC fell like it did. This seems counter intuitive but is a reality.

Galileo on Scaling

People have this distorted view as to the strength of the WTC Towers, How could something with support columns so huge fall so easily and fast? This warped view is very common with the people in the 911 truth movement who do not understanding the physics of large scale structures and conversely buy all sorts of conspiracy theorist conceptions involving explosives and some even believing in building melting death rays from space. Some have even gone as far as making models of the towers out of various materials to try and replicate the collapse not realizing the scaling problem would make them useless tests.

Galileo addressed this misconception long ago in a lectures on scaling. Addressing the idea that imperfections in the material not size would make large scale object weaker he said

Yet I shall say it and will affirm that, even if the imperfections did not exist and matter were absolutely perfect, unalterable and free from all accidental variations, still the mere fact that it is matter makes the larger machine, built of the same material and in the same proportion as the smaller, correspond with exactness to the smaller in every respect except that it will not be so strong or so resistant against violent treatment; the larger the machine, the greater its weakness.

Basically he is saying what we all know, The bigger they are the harder thy fall. It’s impossible to build two similar structures of the same material, but of different sizes and have them proportionately strong. The mater that makes up steel will be the same irregardless of the amount, the atomic bond is the same big or small.

He goes on.

And to make sure that we understand each other, I say that if we take a wooden rod of a certain length and size, fitted, say, into a wall at right angles, i. e., parallel to the horizon, it may be reduced to such a length that it will just support itself; so that if a hair’s breadth be added to its length it will break under its own weight and will be the only rod of the kind in the world.* Thus if, for instance, its length be a hundred times its breadth, you will not be able to find another rod whose length is also a hundred times its breadth and which, like the former, is just able to sustain its own weight and no more: all the larger ones will break while all the shorter ones will be strong enough to support something more than their own weight. And this which I have said about the ability to support itself must be understood to apply also to other tests; so that if a piece of scantling will carry the weight of ten similar to itself, a beam having the same proportions will not be able to support ten similar beams.

Your perceptions of things you deal with on a daily basis is not the same in the world of giants such as the WTC. You can build a desk of wood or even steel with reasonable size legs and put what to you is huge amounts of books on it and it will not fail. You can consider it common sense that a desk a thousands time bigger would be a thousands time stronger BUT you would be wrong.

The WTC were a delicate balancing act the taller you make it the stronger you need to make the supports, the bigger the supports the more weight you add and you have to now add strength to hold this extra weight. But on the other hand you build with eye towards lightness and depend on a clever distribution of loads rather then super strong (heavy) construction you can build super tall with lots of open office space.

The WTC achieved its strength not by over engineering but by a clever design that made optimum use of a center core and an outer box wall design. Unfortunately when those two elements were compromised by aircraft impacts and fire we all saw what happened, 911 would have been no surprise to Galileo.
Click to expand...

Good post. I have tried to make this argument to troofers many times, but they lacked the wit to comprehend what I was telling them.

The example I used was: "Try flipping a doghouse upside down. Observe what happens. Now try to imagine what would happen if you flipped a REAL house upside down."

Their response was something like "LOL TEH WTC WON'T MADE OF WUD LOL".
 
Another good example is the Titanic.

When found it was discovered it had broken in half and this jived with what witnesses had observed.

This massive ship was designed to remain horizontal in water, when it sank it was pulled to a vertical position and the force of gravity broke it in half.

The WTC was designed to stand upright. if you tried to make it fall over it would crumble like a bunch of matchsticks. Only in Godzila movies can buildings be knocked over. Truthers watch too many movies and don't read enough real science books. AND their main guy, David Ray Griffin has stated in the past, "if the WTC had fallen over" DUH!!!! Stick to theology Dave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom