I can 'trust experts' so long as they aren't trying to tell me something that common sense says otherwise.
B'man this shows where you have
completely the wrong mindset regarding this.
For "common sense" is mostly wrong here ... "common sense" tells you that the world is flat and the sun moves around the Earth, yet it is wrong.
Some things in life
require a greater understanding than just common sense ... common sense can often be flawed.
You're more than willing to believe crackpot sites, flawed science and people who weren't even there, yet also more than willing to ignore the majority backing here ... I find that rather silly.
Do you never stop to wonder why those "questioning" this are always talking far outwith their spheres of expertise, does that not bother you that the
only people questioning this are not experts in
that field.
Does it not tell you that those real experts see nothing to question regarding the sciences involved ... why do you find people talking outside their area to be credible ???
Far more importantly ... no serious researchers ANYWHERE in the WORLD have discovered errors of science ... such discoveries being the exclusive domain of angry, unintelligent, badly educated adolescents, failed scientists outside their fields and nutters !!!
The "truth" movement has published no peer-reviewed articles. ... why ???
Do you not find that worrisome, that such an event which can ONLY be fully described by science ... has utterly, utterly failed to present
to science ???
Does that not tell you something is amiss about their theories and credibility ???
Go watch the movie 'idiocracy', you sound like that lawyer telling the judge "and he talks like f*g"
See here you go again with the movie connection, seriously B'man, movies are not real life they are only ever mildly allegorical, they should not be taken
this seriously !!!
Your whole worldview seems coloured by movie references and that, ultimately, is wholly simplistic.
Movies have no more relevance to reality than did Aesops Fables or the Greek legends, yes, the contain truisms as far as human nature is concerned and can be useful as a guide but they are
not the dominating explanation of life, stop taking them so seriously ... it is naive and sophomoric in the end.
Aesop's Fables
Why does he sound retarded?
Because his whole premise
is retarded, now Cole may be a licensed engineer but he is still wrong ... why he believes this is his own affair, but you do need ask yourself why it is only a few, in reality a very few, qualified people whom are asking these things.
Is it truly possible to fool the majority, I know you will say yes B'man, blaming MSN and "brain-washing" guff ... but you are wrong.
It is YOUR mindset that leads you to unquestioningly fall for this, and for no better reason than it satisfies your instinctive mistrust and bias.
You
want this to be true, you may deny it but on a deep unconcious level you
need it to be true for it reinforces your worldview, which because it is based on analogies and untruths told you by conspiracy sites is flawed on many levels
Sir Arthur Conon Doyle, an otherwise erstwhile intelligent man, believed in fairies ...
BBC News | ENTERTAINMENT | 'Fairy' pictures fetch £6,000
Being skilled in one thing does
not shield you from strange beliefs, but when pinned down you will find that those the twoof ascribe "expert" to, usually have a strong political bias or distrust behind their comments as well as mostly being elderly or retired and so not up to date.
I "get" the whole appeal to authority guff, but considering how few real experts in any relevant field they have, it is weak beyond belief ... for sometimes a particular bias or need can blind someone to reason.
Have you ever stopped to wonder why the twoof movement has so few supporters in any of the fields they are talking about, especially considering how obvious the flaws supposedly are, so obvious that complete rank amateurs can spot it and yet not real PhD's or those that work in these fields ???
Please do not give the standard response of them "fearing" their jobs, for that is plainly nonsense ... do you understand what tenure is and how difficult it is, in the real world, to remove someone at the top of their field ???
And considering that there is always a dearth of professionals at high levels there would ALWAYS be positions for them.
Intelligence is
no barrier to asinity or insanity.
And quite frankly many of the big names behind Da Twoof are genuinely bat-guano crazy ... enter Dr. Judy Wood, Ace Baker !!!
Why does Da Twoof have so many crazies ... does that not
bother you at all ???
When the physics of the equation says that when there's a collision there's going to be a reduction in acceleration.
But not if the dynamic force is greater ... it will always overcome the static strength, as is demonstrted with vérinage.
Were the buildings the same height as the Towers, times would be consistant with a gravity-induced collapse ... period !!!
The increasing momentum was more than enough to overcome any reduction ... yet there clearly was a reduction, therefore resistance, as is seen in the photographs showing the core area which stood for a while longer.
http://nistreview.org/WTC-REPORT-GREENING.pdf
In a sense I agree... yes, those are 'full'... but the way a building is put together, EVERYTHING is tied to everything.... but the main point was that the top block would break as quickly as the bottom block was broken.... and even then only after many many 'swings'.
And by being so tied together share stresses ... compromise one you overstress the other.
And how then do you explain vérinage ... which shows that a small part
can and does have enough energy to crush itself ...
A technique which uses hydraulics to push or pull out a single or several flooors of a building and then lets WEIGHT and GRAVITY do the rest !!!
No appeal to explosives, thermite or any other exotic method ... simple hydraulics and gravity !!!
Thats all vérinage is ... weight and gravity ...
Vérinage is just removing some small support to instigate structural overload which then leads to a total gravitational collapse ... so please explain
how impact damage further added to by intense fires could not cause structural overload ???
Does France work outside of the known universe then ???
Once he went to the larger scale with the bricks and having the same results... what would you have had him do, get some steel girders together and build the building to 1:10 size??
But scale matters !!!
So any model is
not going to be wholly representative or accurate, however the FEA's done by Purdue are the best going, which have been shown the most articulate models used in everything from designing a new watch to buildings.
Seriously B'man, Coles wee toys are retarded, poor poor stuff, designed to fool the scientifically illiterate !!!
Finite element method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FEA - Finite Element Analysis - Wilde Analysis
It's a demonstration of principle. It's not like the top block was made of concrete and iron and the bottom was made like a gingerbread house. It's the same material the whole way through.
No it is not ... it is a deeply, deeply flawed presentation,
But so what about the materials used ... by that criteria buildings could never collapse !!!
... it proves the point that by DROPPING an object onto another object of the same material what will happen. The point is, even if 5 stories collapsed... 30 stories to account for the whole top block, there's not enough energy left over. Gravities force ONLY = 9.8Newtons
Firstly B'man the force of gravity itself is not usually measured in Newtons ... it is a standardised g or 9.81 m/s
2/32.2 ft/s
2.
Newtons is a measure of force EXERTED ... gravity isn't exerted, it just is, and is the amount of net force required to accelerate a
mass of one kilogram at a rate of one meter per second per second.
Gravity is not measured in Newtons as it is the effect of gravity ON a object, not gravity itself, so considering that you do not use even the correct terms, a simple thing, then
how can you trust your judgement here.
And this is where scale
does matter, for you cannot ignore the sheer weight or that a moving or dynamic mass will always be greater than the static.
Don't forget that gravity is proportional to mass as well.
Dynamics
count ... like a bullet is the same size, weight and mass whether you throw it or fire it at a door, but the added velocity of being fired rapidly makes the difference between falling harmlessly off the door or blowing a bloody great hole in it !!!
A
really simple way to see the difference between a static load and a dynamic one is to imagine a brick placed on your head, a weight you could support indefinately, now imagine dropping that same brick on your head ... do you notice a difference ???
Why is it different, it has the same weight and mass as before, where did the extra energy to cause damage come from !!!
