|jangbones - 2011-09-10 |
Was there ever a time when the scientific opinions of actual experts were given more value than the scientific opinions of food service workers and retirees and truck drivers?
opinions don't figure in to science at all.
'specially not the "opinions" of no neckbeard scientist what got all his learnin' outta some fancy BOOK.
Right, exactly. The title of a person, or the source of the information is unimportant. Observation and experimentation reveal the true worth of any ideas.
Has anyone noticed how Trutherism is basically exactly like a religion?
1.)It begins with pre-supposed conclusion and belief (there was an elaborate conspiracy to bring down the towers) which is automatically assumed to be the correct one because the followers basically want it to be true really badly. (BU$H IS LIKE HITLER AND WORSHIPS THE REPTILIAN STAR GOD)
2.)It has a pre-built in excuse to dismiss and/or challenge non-believers which is effectively that anyone who is NOT a Truther is either in on the conspiracy or is too uncomfortable with the truth. No other alternative possibly exists.
3.) The use of reason, logic, and science is only accepted as peerless and professional if it serves to enforce the belief. If it contradicts it or shows flaws in it, it is dismissed (and often, point #2 is invoked)
4.) It has central figures whose writings and works on the topic are considered almost infallible and cannot be contradicted.
5.) If someone cannot come up with instant conclusions that solve all unanswered aspects of the tower collapses, then the belief is, by default, 100% the only possible explanation, period.
6.) The believers become angry, irrational, and easy-to-provoke when confronted with any arguments outside their belief that their apologia cannot immediately dispense with.
7.) Nothing can ever challenge their belief which is, and always will be, correct even if proven not to be correct. It is still correct.
Conspiracy theorists practice "reverse scientific method";
1) establish belief
2) inflate evidence that supports your belief
3) ignore and dismiss all evidence that refutes your belief
4) feel morally superior while getting laughed at
The Dunning–Kruger effect applies to the abilities of others as well as one's self, so the worse someone is at something, the more likely they are to think some other idiot is an expert, and the real experts are just EDUCATED STUPID.
After all, how can you boast about your superiority over the sheeple if you admit that something is too complex for you to comprehend? That's probably why Global Conspiracies are actually less intricate than the Machiavellian plotting that genuinely goes on behind a local City Council.
|gmol - 2011-09-10 |
I need to find a video that compares the outcomes of finite element analysis at different mesh spacings...
|Scrotum H. Vainglorious - 2011-09-10 |
Preload had me thinking this was the "snakes snake snakes snakes" math wizard.
|Riskbreaker - 2011-09-10 |
What did truthers had before 9/11? Just the moon landing.
The JFK assassination, which is still superior to 9/11 as a nucleus that other conspiracies can snowball around to form a crystal of crazy links to Rothchilds, free energy, Area 51, cures for cancer, Freemasons, reptoids, The Vatican, your neighbors, etc.
Then again... shit is pretty scary...
I still can make some sense about people coming with super crazy theories about the JFK thing. With 9/11 it's just one (crazy) angle: THE USA AUTHORITHIES DID IT!
Yeah, 9/11 as a conspiracy theory sucks. It boils down people saying "what I saw is not real" and then hours upon hours of dissecting footage with the only conclusion being "BUSH DID IT" or something, which is more boring than Al Qaeda living in the US and learning to fly as narrative and doesn't even relate to buildings not falling down the way conspiracy theorists say they should.
As someone who likes conspiracy theories, I kind of hate it for eclipsing JFK because it's terrible.
|Dread Pirate Roberts - 2011-09-10 |
Okay, let me explain a few things in a short paragraph here:
The World Trade Center towers were built on an Exo-skeleton architecture style. The exterior walls were the reinforcement for the buildings themselves. The interior was almost completely clear of beams and girders. That was how they built it so large, and had so much office space within it.
Now, when the planes hit, that was several tons of jet fuel burning in those towers, weakening the walls, and burning through the floors. By the time the towers 'fell', they were extremely weak and bending.
The top section fell, and disintigrated, and it essentially poured down through the towers, and peeled the exterior walls like a bannana.
I would agree with this guy's bus/van analogy if the bus had been on fire for a half an hour, and was completely empty on the inside, and had not axle. Of course the bus isn't going to collapse on itself! It has no reason to!
The WTC towers were essentially hollow concrete tube with floors and a semi-solid concrete interior tub that served as the elevator shafts. Leaving it to burn in jet fuel, and then having the walls fail... of course the thing is going to completely fail. You have like 500 tons of rubble falling down on an already weakened building.
Sorry, that was more than a paragraph, but you get the jist of it.
So the towers were put together in such a way such that conservation of energy and momentum no longer applied? Cool.
dancingshadow, are you a food service worker, a retiree, or a truck driver?
Never mind, this is the internet, so you are obviously a molecular physicist with two Nobel Prizes.
It doesn't matter who I am. The laws of nature remain.
I can understand the temptation to make personal attacks. The alternative would have you attacking the collected knowledge of Newton, Galileo and so many others whose discoveries described our world so well for so long.
Dread Pirate Roberts
Newton didn't plan for giant towers. :P
In any reality, the physics for a building (and a strangely built building at that) is far different than that of a school bus.
Dancingshadow, please explain what you mean instead of a sarcastic catch all: I'd like to see how your brain works.
if you are not just trolling, and if you really refuse to believe the evidence laid out by the multitude studies by educated people that clearly explained and demonstrated how the collision of planes led to the collapse of the towers of the World Trade Center, then your opinion is actually less than worthless, it is a reflection of a pathetic trend, the phenomenon of the "idiot expert" who's opinion is given validity for no reason
anyway, it really doesn't matter if you reply to this with a seventy paragraph dissertation containing real, expert evidence explaining how the planes did not destroy the towers, and it doesn't matter if you respond with "ha, trolled u", the fact is that truthers will continue to be loathsome and nothing that I or anyone writes or says will ever make them any less disgusting
good luck in the food service industry
Galileo was the truther of his time. Now matter how many people believe something. No matter the source of the information. If it doesn't stand up to real work experiment. It is wrong.
Yeah, who can forget how Galileo drew a picture of the sun and declared heliocentrism 'common sense', what a pioneer in the field of Lazy Half-Assed Science.
I'll note here that the video I submitted with subject "No sarcasm in this one... just science" sits in the hopper at -1. I guess it's harder to personally attack a velocity v time graph, and harder to casually dismiss simple experimentally verifiable evidence.
Than a pencil drawing of cars? Probably.
If I remember the results from the last simulation study I saw, I thought they showed that the fire probably had very little effect; and that they could explain most features of the collapse simply by the speed and mass of the plane parts hitting the beams....was this refuted?
"Galileo was the truther of his time"
God I want to smack your face so hard.
|Pompoulus - 2011-09-10 |
Common sense should probably dictate that a building is not two cars, and that if one's goal is to debunk reams of data explaining in painful detail why a pair of towers came down, one should probably start with that data.
And not a goofy story about cars.
That's the nice thing about fundamental laws. They apply to everything regardless of scale. Be it the interaction of 2 cars, 2 planets, or 2 giant hunks of concrete and steal. The same fundamental laws are always obeyed.
I know you wish you could half-ass your way around an entire field but I'm not buying it. Do some work and link to your paper or just go away.
now that you mention it, I do remember seeing a car crash where both cars liquified and then formed a single bigger car due to gravity of the mass.
some of the left over orbiting debris eventually formed into a small motorcycle.
What happened to those cars (and that tiny motorcycle) was the result of a controlled explosion, Solro, and you're a fool not to see it.
you need to understand things like how surface area changes with the respect to volume, energy density, flux and finite element analysis.
Suggesting that you can find the answer by naively applying the conservation of momentum to a very complicated multiphasic system suggests you haven't solved a high school physics problem near the end of the textbook.
haha, I never had much of a problem with high school physics.
Just keep your eyes open man. It really is pretty obvious once you get over the mental block or whatever it is. It took me like a year.
I admit, I do find it a little depressing that it's been 10 years. I thought science was stronger.
What mental block are you referring to?
The Purdue study, to my knowledge, is the most detailed finite element simulation of the 9/11 event. The main conclusions that were derived from the study were that it was the mass of the fuel and the bullet action of the titanium shafts that were the main factors to damaging the building core.
These types of conclusions are not easy to determine, and certainly not intuitive; yet they are the most sophisticated application (to date) of the physics laws that you seem to like reference.
What is your precise argument against the models and assumptions employed in these studies?
His very precise argument is the very specific "you know... fundamental laws". I know this because he's said it about fifty times without elaborating in any way.
Hey, sorry for my douchy sarcastic comments on this vid, but this topic gets to me.
To try and quickly answer your question gmol, spikestoyiu is right, it comes down to energy. The only engery in the system is the gravitational energy in the towers. There is not enough energy to cause the effect we see on that day. Not by a long long long shot. And that's before you count week long steel fires or even looking at building 7. The energy isn't there and nothing I have read addresses that. The official story that gravity was all that it takes to do all that is just ridiculous.
But that reasoning just worked for me because I understand and trust the math through personal experience.
I also think it may be harder for americans to look at the events objectively because the painful implications hit so close to home. I see all the comments up there, people babbling about jews or aliens or whatever, and burning this sort of truther strawman the've created. Just seems like a defence mechanism.
Forget about the implications. Just look at the events of the day. and ask yourself honestly does it make any sense? Steel fires, building 7 just losing all cohesion, the whole thing is bunk.
Best of luck to y'all. My thought go out to all those who suffered as a result of this day.
Reasonably certain that spikestoyiu's comment had a rather large element of sarcasm, I can't see how you would interpret that as confirming your reasoning.
"The only engery in the system is the gravitational energy in the towers"
well...that and a plane running into it at a rather high speed.
It is very difficult to make sweeping statements about energy in a complicated system like this one. In physics, we can have trouble with much simpler things, like accurately modelling a fluid splashing around, a strand of honey breaking from being pulled in two directions or sand clumping in air as it is dropped in a vacuum. Take a look at how long it took to convincingly figure out the Pioneer anomaly (and the sophistication of the arguments employed).
Take a look at some of those examples, then ask yourself if you trust your intuitive reasoning applied to the 9/11 event. I'm guessing you don't have as much of physics background, ask yourself why you would trust your own opinion over someone else that seems to know a touch more (though not nearly enough).
Your constant appeals to emotion, intuition, and 'common sense' are getting pretty tiresome Dancingshadow.
Wait... I was making fun of you. I don't want anyone thinking I was backing you. I figured my sarcasm was clear. I get enough shit here as it is.
I thought you'd like that spikes...
gmol, those examples you mentioned are much more complicated than this (and still energy is conserved). I only took physics up to around the 300 level.
This really is a simple system, despite all the smoke and fire.
At the time of the collapse, the only energy was gravity. the only contribution of the plane at this point (an hour later) is its mass.
One last example, then I'll shut the fuck up.
Imaging you had a column of cement (of any density and structure) and you wanted to crush it from the top down using gravity. Well, you would raise a giant ball of dense material up there and drop it on it.
The energy of that ball is mass x height x g(we'll call this a constant).
If the ball is heavy enough, made of some heavy metal or something, it could crush the column all the way down.
If we lowered the density of the crusher ball we lower the energy. Now it might only crush the column halfway down before it stops.
now imagine the ball is the same material as the column. Would it have the energy to crush the whole thing to the ground? And there is another huge problem here. The ball would be crushing itself at the same time because of newtons third law. If a wrecking ball was made out of the same material of the building it was smashing it would only get in 2 or 3 whacks before it destroyed itself in the process.
(*alternatively instead of imagining this, you could exmperiment yourself and try and find some way to make this happen. We're not building an MRI machine here, it a couple of towers of concrete.)
There's simply not enough energy, and no amount of mathy smoke and mirrors can account for that. (And again, this is without even adding in the insane underground heat or Building 7 or all the other piles and piles of evidence which just pin the needle on the energy requirements.)
Anyway, sorry for babbling like an asshole for all this time, but I do think this is an important topic to look at still today.
Have a good sunday everyone, thanks for indulging me, I think I needed it.
Your post is some melange of text book language ('let's call this a constant'), an equation and 'Red Green' style reasoning ('two or three whacks').
I can't make any actual sense of it.
Sadly, to model a concrete cylinder getting 'crushed' (however you are defining that) by a sphere would require a fair bit of fancy 'smoke and mirrors' math :(
I suggest learning physics from a place other than the school of hard knocks.
dancingshadow's "chunk of metal" and "column of cement" analogies remind me of when I was a little kid and couldn't understand why Hot Wheels cars didn't smash apart realistically when I hit them together like car crash, except I was smart enough to go and ask some grown-ups.
That's cute Syd,
What did the grown-ups tell you?...
About why the hot wheels don't smash like car crash...
The answer is simple... Ursa_minor knows the answer.
I could explain it to you.
|MacGyver Style Bomb - 2011-09-10 |
Ugh. I already saw "The Big Lie" on the recommended rack at the comic book store. I don't need this.
Fuck these people.
|Void 71 - 2011-09-10 |
Modern conspiracy theorists lack both imagination and perspective. The whole 911 conspiracy doesn't need to hinge on pre-planted explosives and whether or not a plane hit the pentagon. These are irrelevant side conspiracies. Fucking amateurs.
Somebody needs to buy these guys a copy of everything that Robert Anton Wilson ever wrote.
|THA SUGAH RAIN - 2011-09-10 |
Guys they flew a giant airplane into the side of a building. No one needs to crack open the fizzix to figure this one out.
B25's weren't armored afaik
What if everything were made of tiny busses? What if there are, like millions of tiny busses in your finger right now?
THA SUGAH RAIN
Catpenis27 is roughly 67 years old and suffering from early onset dementia. We know this because in response to a video about 9/11 he somehow rambled through B25s, his old car, demolition derbies, and proclaimed that old stuff = better stuff than the kids make these days. His poetv handle is Catpenis 27 because he has forgotten his log-in information 26 previous times.
|Robin Kestrel - 2011-09-10 |
This guy finds it really hard to talk and draw at the same time, and it took him half the video to figure that out.
|Chalkdust - 2011-09-10 |
I don't know if SolRo or Abstract Fainter had my favorite retorts in this mess. Oh well, five stars to each of them for clearly being in on it (the nine-elevens).
|BorrowedSolution - 2011-09-11 |
As a reformed truther/believer in pseudo-scientific nonsense, I can only feel embarrassed for this jerk and his family.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|