It is easy to use science as a smokescreen to support ideologies that have nothing to do with science.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?
- Thread starter tanabear
- Start date
It is easy to use science as a smokescreen to support ideologies that have nothing to do with science.
You have totally misunderstood R.Mackey's points, and have attributed to him a claim he has never made (unless your phrase "in any location" could be interpreted to mean "in any similar location relative to any similar building collapse"). But it's blindingly obvious that he's not suggesting that Lioy's samples would resemble samples taken from GZ itself.
I suspect he'll be along eventually to address this.
In the meantime you could avoid the perils of what you see as "emotional and ideological investment " by simply concentrating on the substance of what is being said and making more of an effort to understand it. It also would be nice if you could offer some substance yourself one of these days instead of skipping gaily from one point to another when the first becomes uncomfortable for you. All we've had from you so far is unsubstantiated opinion. Waffle, in other words.
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
It's rather alarming that Heiwa doesn't understand the difference between a fluid and a collection of rather small solids.
FYI Heiwa, the reason why soils fail and create landslides is because on some plane on the hill the shear capacity of the solid is exceeded and it fails. (Fluids don't have any shear capacity) It starts moving after that. I recommend looking into Mohr's Circle. This is pretty basic stuff.
FYI Heiwa, the reason why soils fail and create landslides is because on some plane on the hill the shear capacity of the solid is exceeded and it fails. (Fluids don't have any shear capacity) It starts moving after that. I recommend looking into Mohr's Circle. This is pretty basic stuff.
No, I won't. JihadJane has consistently misrepresented the events of September 11th, our understanding of those events, the evidence in support of our understanding, papers providing and discussing that evidence, and my posts explaining the papers, in that order. This is a clean sweep. I have better things to do than be called "Acceptalist" and accused of "using science to bludgeon, bully, and obfuscate."
If anyone else has questions on the content or significance of the dust investigations, etc., feel free to drop me a line. JihadJane doesn't appear to be interested.
Hm, I thought it was clear from messages/context that I understand the difference between fluid and solid.
OTOH 'a collection of rather small solids' has not even been discussed. What are you talking about? A bag full of diamonds?
A friend of mine is in the mixing business, i.e. mixing solid particles of some sorts with a fluid of some other sort or mixing a fluid with solid particles. Result - a semi-fluid mixture. The mix biz is big. I do it in the kitchen occasionally.
But back to topic! Can anybody explain to me how/why the bottom floor of the upper block remains intact after collapse initiation and during crush down of structure below and crush up of structure above and where this apparently very solid floor is today?
It belongs in a museum!
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2007
- Messages
- 10,049
Cognitive dissonance is normal for you, isn't it? Are you aware that soil is made up of particles that are both solid and have a definitive size? I'm guessing not since you lept to a bag full of diamonds.
Last edited:
Who is this royal "we"?
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
JIhadJane appears to be a textbook case of "Where ideology and reality conflict, a way must be found to get rid of reality".
Her whole "The science does not matter as much as political awareness" routine is pretty much Deconstrutionism gone wild. Pure Marxist Woo.
Her whole "The science does not matter as much as political awareness" routine is pretty much Deconstrutionism gone wild. Pure Marxist Woo.
So soil is now a collection of rather small solids? So you build houses on a collection of rather small solids?!?! You must be joking.
Mark Felt
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
- Messages
- 518
cmcaulif
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2007
- Messages
- 405
you're the goofbag who insists on the power of friction, now you are incredulous of it?
Imagine a collection of rather small solids, which forms a mass. If we load the mass, particle to particle friction(yes, contact between the individual small solids) keeps the mass from shearing under the load.
What happens if there is no p-to-p contact? The soil has no strength, and you have quicksand, also called heave.
ETA: I was going to reccomend Mohr's circle but I see NB has already done that
Last edited:
No. Soil always has been a collection of rather small solids.
I recall a school experiment where we shook up a soil sample in water and let it settle out, in order to determine its composition. There were sand particles, clay particles, some small stones, particles of organic material .... All solids, and varying from very small to rather small.
What do you think soil is, Heiwa?
Originally Posted by R.Mackey:
Originally Posted by JihadJane:
I see. When did R.Mackey become plural?
Where I live only the Queen and, to much hilarity, Margaret Thatcher refer to themselves as "we". In the latter case it was seen as a sign of delusional pomposity gone wild.
Originally Posted by JihadJane:
I see. When did R.Mackey become plural?
Where I live only the Queen and, to much hilarity, Margaret Thatcher refer to themselves as "we". In the latter case it was seen as a sign of delusional pomposity gone wild.
The poster above has had to make up an apparent quote to put in my mouth and fabricate an entirely different argument to mine in order to make his/her Woo point. I'll explain my original reasoning a little, later, in response to dudalb's similar post on another thread here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3985874#post3985874
Soil=life!
As an aside, every particle of soil is surrounded by water which teems with life upon which we depend for our existence.
As an aside, every particle of soil is surrounded by water which teems with life upon which we depend for our existence.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
About the same time you demonstrated that you are interested in a technical discussion.
[/sarcasm]
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Foundations are often laid on top of soil, sort of like floats or snow shoes
And in many cases, foundations must be designed to prevent uplift by the building.
Completely unlike floats or snow shoes.
You have a remarkable ability to misunderstand, seemingly wilfully. Do you work on this in your spare time or is it accidental ?
Mackey's use of "our" could mean the human race, the scientific community, the JRef membership or any group whatsoever. It clearly isn't the Royal "we", though.