Do Truthers still deny progressive collapse of WTC 1 & 2?

[Thunder]

Ive been doing a little more research into the collapses, and its has become painfully clear that if the sections of the towers above the impact zones fell even one floor as a whole, the amount of dynamic force would be waaaaay too much for the lower floor to hold, leading to a total collapse...all the way down.

Do Truthers still deny this? Do they really think the buildings should have just collapsed down a little..and then stopped?

do they honestly not understand the difference between static and dynamic loads?

once those section fell even a few feet..there was no stopping it. those buildings were toast.

 

[willhaven]

Of course they deny it.

 

[Thunder]

Of course they deny it.

i read that if the building sections fell even 1/2 meter, that would have created enough energy to begin an unstoppable collapse.

i guess "Truthers" have no respect for science.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You have to understand the reversed thought processes involved here. Firstly, the truther decides that the USA is guilty of all evil in the world. Then, this generalisation is applied to 9/11; obviously, the conclusion requires the premise that the USA was involved in 9/11. It has been pointed out that, if progressive collapse of the Twin Towers were disproven, then the understanding that the USA was not responsible for 9/11 would be untenable; therefore, progressive collapse must be refuted. This is attempted by a series of progressive refinements. Firstly, the collapse is claimed to have been grossly inconsistent with physical laws ('faster than freefall' is an example). When this is refuted, a more subtle premise must be advanced: that some major feature was inconsistent with physical laws (for example, Gordon Ross's energy balance argument, or Jim Hoffman's dust cloud expansion). When these too are refuted, something even more subtle must be advanced, for example Tony Szamboti's missing jolt. The reason I got bored with Gregory Urich's 9/11 forum was that it seemed to me to be dedicated primarily to this form of retreating premise generation, in which ever finer and more subtle inconsistencies in the collapses were advanced in an almost despairing attempt to find something - anything - that would serve as a foundation for the house of cards that the truthers struggle to erect from the top downwards.

If you start from a reasonable set of premises, there is only one possible conclusion regarding 9/11. Truthers, however, start from a conclusion, then try unsuccessfully to derive at least a feasible set of premises from it. It's Occam's razor in reverse, and it's the reason why their thought processes are so difficult for rational people to understand.

Dave

 

[Thunder]

funny...how it seems soo very simple to me. dynamic load was 30x the static load weight capacity of the floor...so it went crash. so on, and so on, and so on.

its called math and science.

yes, to the unthinking and uncritical eye, it looks like a "demolition". but once the evidence is looked at, and the experts do their analysis, the Truth comes to light.

 

[McHrozni]

Ive been doing a little more research into the collapses, and its has become painfully clear that if the sections of the towers above the impact zones fell even one floor as a whole, the amount of dynamic force would be waaaaay too much for the lower floor to hold, leading to a total collapse...all the way down.

Do Truthers still deny this? Do they really think the buildings should have just collapsed down a little..and then stopped?

do they honestly not understand the difference between static and dynamic loads?

once those section fell even a few feet..there was no stopping it. those buildings were toast.

What the twoofers claim is that the lower portion of the WTC towers would act in unison to arrest the collapse. This would be a quite reasonable assumption, if they were solid uniform monoliths, like this rock:

Not surprisingly, they weren't. I suspect the need for an office building to have office space had something to do with it. Clearly a cunning NWO plan to be sure.

McHrozni

 

[Thunder]

Truthers think the WTC towers were like a solid tree.

 

[aggle-rithm]

What the twoofers claim is that the lower portion of the WTC towers would act in unison to arrest the collapse. This would be a quite reasonable assumption, if they were solid uniform monoliths, like this rock:

[qimg]http://www.sxc.hu/pic/m/k/ka/kaliyoda/270285_stone_monolith.jpg[/qimg]

Not surprisingly, they weren't. I suspect the need for an office building to have office space had something to do with it. Clearly a cunning NWO plan to be sure.

McHrozni

I love it when truthers ask, "How could an airliner destroy a skyscraper in less than two hours?"

I always respond, "hard work, no bathroom breaks." The mental image is hilarious.

 

[Edx]

I love it when truthers ask, "How could an airliner destroy a skyscraper in less than two hours?"

I always respond, "hard work, no bathroom breaks." The mental image is hilarious.

If they say that I just try and point out that a single match can burn down an entire house in less than 2 hours as well.

 

[T.A.M.]

Does a bear crap in the woods?

TAM

 

[sylvan8798]

Does a bear crap in the woods?

TAM

Not if you haven't got it on video. Where are the verified serial numbered crap parts? Do you have a source proving bears do their duty in woods, rather than say, fields? Do you have a valid model of this process?

 

[Thunder]

Not if you haven't got it on video. Where are the verified serial numbered crap parts? Do you have a source proving bears do their duty in woods, rather than say, fields? Do you have a valid model of this process?

I LOVE you avatar.

 

[alienentity]

..
Do Truthers still deny this? Do they really think the buildings should have just collapsed down a little..and then stopped?

do they honestly not understand the difference between static and dynamic loads?...

Haven't you been reading the threads on Tony Szamboti and David Chandler?

 

[Thunder]

Haven't you been reading the threads on Tony Szamboti and David Chandler?

um...they sound like the names of a doubles-male figure skating team.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

What the twoofers claim is that the lower portion of the WTC towers would act in unison to arrest the collapse. This would be a quite reasonable assumption, if they were solid uniform monoliths, like this rock:

http://www.sxc.hu/pic/m/k/ka/kaliyoda/270285_stone_monolith.jpg

Not surprisingly, they weren't. I suspect the need for an office building to have office space had something to do with it. Clearly a cunning NWO plan to be sure.

McHrozni

ironically truthers compare the lower portion to a rock (or tree, or other solid object) but when it comes to the top, then its 90% air and weak as a house of cards

 

[Thunder]

ironically truthers compare the lower portion to a rock (or tree, or other solid object) but when it comes to the top, then its 90% air and weak as a house of cards

that's...highly unscientific.

 

[Newtons Bit]

funny...how it seems soo very simple to me. dynamic load was 30x the static load weight capacity of the floor...so it went crash. so on, and so on, and so on.

its called math and science.

yes, to the unthinking and uncritical eye, it looks like a "demolition". but once the evidence is looked at, and the experts do their analysis, the Truth comes to light.

Ignoring a memo from the department of redundancy department about how load is weight, do you have calculations showing this 30x multiplier?

 

[CHF]

Do Truthers still deny this? Do they really think the buildings should have just collapsed down a little..and then stopped?

Of course! That's why the top portion should have shifted off to the side and taken the path of "least resistance" (thanks to that mystery horizontal force that only truthers seem to know about).

do they honestly not understand the difference between static and dynamic loads?

Nope, they haven't a clue.

 

[Thunder]

Ignoring a memo from the department of redundancy department about how load is weight, do you have calculations showing this 30x multiplier?

you know, i am looking through my web browsing history for today, and i can't find where i got that number.

oh well. fact is the dynamic force of the top section moving down one floor at the speed of gravity equaled much more than the static load the floors were built to hold up.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Do they really think the buildings should have just collapsed down a little..and then stopped?

Heiwa thinks they should have bounced

http://boards.trutv.com/showthread.php?p=39257&highlight=bounce#post39257