+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: 9/11 Debate (/thread-5114.html)
Re: 9/11 Debate - Thryleon - 03-22-2021
(03-22-2021, 09:53 PM)cookie2 link Wrote:LP, the mass of that part of the building below the fires would have offered huge resistance to the floors falling from above, even if the fall had started instantaneously, i.e. were vapourised. Have you done the calculations taking that into account? Say 13 or 14 floors falling on top of the rest. Are you assuming the steel throughout the whole building had failed?exactly my point. The planes hit about a third from top and the building was flattened like a pancake top to bottom.
Like I said I'm no physicist. The dropping a sledge hammer on your foot analogy is possibly the worst analogy, your foot isn't capable of supporting a sledge hammer in the first place.
Anyway, I could probably read up on it, but from start to finish this event will never sit well with me Nd is just one more reason why you always take the official story with a grain of salt. If its too simple to be true, it probably is.
Re: 9/11 Debate - Lods - 03-22-2021
I'm not one to put much credence into conspiracy theories.
That's just me though.
The basic reason is that it requires so many folks to be involved in the planning and execution, and they then have to maintain a level of secrecy with few or no leaks that it just defies logic.
From an initial thought (e.g. 'Let's start a war on terror')... how do you get from that point to recruiting people of power and expertise to your cause, and the end result of crashing planes and bringing down buildings?
Somewhere along the way someone must think it's not the brightest idea and say so.
That's not to say I don't believe in cover ups or distortions that individuals may promote to protect their own deficiencies or lack of action.
Perhaps the biggest problem with some of these theories is that the internet has provided such a wide range of information that you can find a group or article to support any idea or view of history.
We naturally gravitate and give more weight to those articles that support our own pre-conceived ideas.
A well written article with a couple of eminent names thrown in can have us questioning some theory.
A quick google and you can have a completely opposite view.
How do you make sense of that?
The more you read, the more confused or more zealous you get. (I'm in the confused camp)
The more technical the article the more confusing for simple folk.
It becomes a case of 'my eminent person' is more credible than 'your eminent person'... but again that's largely based on a personal bias.
We discard or discredit views that don't fit with our concept of things.
In such cases it's not necessarily a case of... 'the more you read the more informed you become.'
History shows that there are numerous cases of folks swimming against the mainstream of thought that in the end have been vindicated....but that works as an argument for both sides of the conspiracy debate.
People can believe what they want to believe, or choose to believe...you'll struggle to change folks minds on a football forum with links at ten paces.
Re: 9/11 Debate - cookie2 - 03-23-2021
Lods, I am not putting forward any conspiracy theories but just trying to understand how the "official" explanation hangs together.
Re: 9/11 Debate - LP - 03-23-2021
(03-22-2021, 09:53 PM)cookie2 date Wrote:LP, the mass of that part of the building below the fires would have offered huge resistance to the floors falling from above, even if the fall had started instantaneously, i.e. were vapourised. Have you done the calculations taking that into account? Say 13 or 14 floors falling on top of the rest. Are you assuming the steel throughout the whole building had failed?[member=36]cookie2[/member] Most buildings are basically eggshells or hollow wire frames with central/internal supporting columns, not solid like the pyramids. Those columns work in very specific circumstances, kept in alignment by the floors which act as supports and dampeners. As the floors begin to pancake they reduced lateral support to the columns and effectively the columns develop kinks from a shockwave, initially they almost ring like a guitar string at some fundamental frequency, then eventually under compressive force they bow like overloaded straws, once bowed even slightly in any direction they have a fraction of the required strength to support even the buildings static mass, let alone the ongoing force of continuing impacts.
But really, in a failure like this, you only test the very weakest component, and in this case it was probably the stays and struts that supported the floors.
Re: 9/11 Debate - LP - 03-23-2021
(03-22-2021, 10:58 PM)Thryleon date Wrote:Like I said I'm no physicist. The dropping a sledge hammer on your foot analogy is possibly the worst analogy, your foot isn't capable of supporting a sledge hammer in the first place.What's your foot made of, crepe paper?
A sledge hammer is typically only 5kg, the weight of a very healthy baby! :o
Re: 9/11 Debate - Mav - 03-23-2021
Well said, Lods. As well as the problem with confirmation bias, there’s also the issue of relying on our intuition/gut/common sense to evaluate scientific matters.
Intuition can sometimes mislead even highly-trained people: pilots with many hours of flying under their belts can experience spatial disorientation and conclude their instruments are faulty. Flash Airlines Flight 604 ended up crashing into the Red Sea because the experienced captain continued to bank to the right as he thought he was correcting excessive banking to the left. It’s thought that John F Kennedy Jnr put his Cessna into a death spiral on a calm night for much the same reason.
But intuition can improve with training or education. Unfortunately, many don’t bother trying to improve their intuition, believing that their “common sense” gives them superior judgement to those Ivory Tower academics.
This makes it easy for good marketers to appeal to common sense. Nigel Parkinson, a Tory politician wrote a book 50 odd years ago in which he marketed conservative economic policies by arguing running a government was like running a household, so everyone could just apply common sense. He then suggested that households needed to operate on a balanced budget, so governments running deficits invited disaster. That set the table for guys like Peter Costello to demonise deficits which has poisoned the well for anything but PPP deals (even though we’ve had extremely low interest rates for a long time). The only “good deficits” have been those caused by conservative governments cutting taxes on the rich on the specious basis that the benefits would trickle down (or a rising sea would lift all boats). A recent study of 17 countries over 50 years have disproved this “common sense” policy but has demonstrated that it sure does increase the wealth of the rich and inequality.
There are plenty of examples in science that show the limits of uneducated or undereducated intuition.
One of the most relatable is the Monty Hall problem, loosely based on the game show Let’s Make a Deal:
Quote:Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?
Those who haven’t studied conditional probability would say that there’s 2 choices remaining and there’s 50% chance of the car being behind either, so there’s no benefit in switching. But it turns out that switching would increase your chances of winning the car. I was told that you can realign your intuition to operate in the conditional universe but I haven’t made that jump. My intuition is still stuck in simple probability mode even though I don’t doubt the mathematical conclusion.
Another example is the Painter’s Paradox aka Gabriel’s Horn aka Toricelli’s Trumpet which involve certain hornlike shapes stretching out to infinity. Oddly enough, despite the rim projecting out forever it has finite volume! Even more bizarrely, even though it has finite volume, it has infinite surface area! This is where the Painter’s Paradox comes in. You could fill such a horn with a finite (though immensely large) amount of paint. But even though it’s sitting in the horn, there’s not enough paint to cover the inside of the horn (cue Twighlight Zone music).
Then you have Quantum Mechanics which requires you to throw out common sense completely. It also requires you to throw out Newtonian Classical Mechanics (as you also need to do where you have speed more than a tenth of the speed of light). An object can’t be in 2 places at the same time, right? No Grasshopper, it can be everywhere at the same time! Quantum Entanglement Internet could see us receiving data simultaneously to its generation at a distant place. Mindblowing ...
None of the above suggests I am one of those gifted individuals who know everything. I’d like to think I have more than average knowledge but I’m more like a trained monkey who can do a limited number of tricks. To go anywhere near being able to debate something as complex as the destruction of the WTC buildings, I’d need to do a load of preparatory work in a variety of areas. And even then, maybe I’d end up being like a budgerigar trying to learn calculus.
Re: 9/11 Debate - LP - 03-23-2021
(03-23-2021, 03:17 AM)Mav date Wrote:None of the above suggests I am one of those gifted individuals who know everything. I’d like to think I have more than average knowledge but I’m more like a trained monkey who can do a limited number of tricks. To go anywhere near being able to debate something as complex as the destruction of the WTC buildings, I’d need to do a load of preparatory work in a variety of areas. And even then, maybe I’d end up being like a budgerigar trying to learn calculus.[member=122]Mav[/member] very very nicely put! ;D
I mentioned earlier a class of Mechanics called Statics and Dynamics, a nice book is freely available to read about this, but the reader best be prepared to have their mind mashed like potato regardless of how good they think they are at maths!
Introduction to Statics and Dynamics (40MB download)
Andy Ruina and Rudra Pratap (These guys are a tad clever, one of them wrote the MathCAD manuals!) :o
I keep a copy in my library, to remind me of how stupid I really am!
Re: 9/11 Debate - PaulP - 03-23-2021
(03-23-2021, 03:17 AM)Mav link Wrote:...............................
This makes it easy for good marketers to appeal to common sense. Nigel Parkinson, a Tory politician wrote a book 50 odd years ago in which he marketed conservative economic policies by arguing running a government was like running a household, so everyone could just apply common sense. He then suggested that households needed to operate on a balanced budget, so governments running deficits invited disaster. That set the table for guys like Peter Costello to demonise deficits which has poisoned the well for anything but PPP deals (even though we’ve had extremely low interest rates for a long time). The only “good deficits” have been those caused by conservative governments cutting taxes on the rich on the specious basis that the benefits would trickle down (or a rising sea would lift all boats). A recent study of 17 countries over 50 years have disproved this “common sense” policy but has demonstrated that it sure does increase the wealth of the rich and inequality.
........................................
So so true. Poor suffering slobs have been fleeced for decades.
Re: 9/11 Debate - LP - 03-23-2021
(03-23-2021, 03:31 AM)PaulP date Wrote:So so true. Poor suffering slobs have been fleeced for decades.Even though they (the perpetrators of this heinous crime) are kents, ......... they are also likely to be savants!
There is a reason why corporate psychopaths dominate industry, the rest of us just can't think like them even when we try!
Are politicians a special class of the very same, a class that has realise being correct or truthful doesn't really matter as long as it seems you know what you are talking about?
Re: 9/11 Debate - cookie2 - 03-23-2021
(03-23-2021, 02:00 AM)LP link Wrote:[member=36]cookie2[/member] Most buildings are basically eggshells or hollow wire frames with central/internal supporting columns, not solid like the pyramids. Those columns work in very specific circumstances, kept in alignment by the floors which act as supports and dampeners. As the floors begin to pancake they reduced lateral support to the columns and effectively the columns develop kinks from a shockwave, initially they almost ring like a guitar string at some fundamental frequency, then eventually under compressive force they bow like overloaded straws, once bowed even slightly in any direction they have a fraction of the required strength to support even the buildings static mass, let alone the ongoing force of continuing impacts.
But really, in a failure like this, you only test the very weakest component, and in this case it was probably the stays and struts that supported the floors.
Well LP I will have to defer to your expertise on these matters. They are outside of my area so I will make no further comment.