Here is my issue with your replies..

You say margin of error or random variables don't matter in an experiment.

You say the angle of the planes impact is ridiculous..

Yet.. You offer no reasoning as to why..

I can only assume that you have devised a new form of scientific method and engineering mechanics..

I am very interested in how you can calculate the different forces exerted on a lego building..

Or should I assume that is ridiculous and or irrelevant..

Yes compare people asking questions about certain events in history that have never been answered and call the Schizophrenic.What a dumb article.

I think I understand what Sin is saying. A very simple thing really. You do not have to replicate the exact conditions to prove that it is possible to have a building collapse within its footprint.

I agree, but this really doesn't seal the deal does it? You have to explain the collapse.

You have to account for why each floor gave way until the terminal velocity was greater than the weight bearing capacity.

I believe when I read the report it explained this with the temperatures of the fire reducing the load bearing capacity of the supports.

I am no engineer, but I did understand the report, I just usually do not have much desire to argue with "truthers".

I find the level of conviction is usually astronomically high.

..I did explain it.

Thoroughly I might add.

So, I'll say it one more time.
Then I'm moving on.

You have one objective to prove.

"Can a building collapse into it's own shadow."

That is the argument before you.

You want to bring that much science into it, fine, whatever, be my guest; however, you don't need to in the situation in which you are trying to prove this point because, over everything else I've already previously mentioned, actually replicating the same exact situation is nearly impossible.

All you need to do is imitate the situation from a general aspect. If you delve too deep into science, you aren't going to convince a Truther anyway.

Basically, my point is; you can prove that the statement is either true or false without having to resort yourself to vigorous and endless scientific research just to prove whether or not a building can collapse a certain way.

However, I will agree, that there will be those who may 'demand' a more scientific approach, but then when this occurs, it is a new question that should/could be explored.

After all, it you can prove that a building can fall a certain way, the response is going to be made of one consisting of grasping at straws. That person never stated 'only this building cannot fall into it's own footprint'. She left it broad and open to any building not just a 30+ year old scraper.

If you prove it, on a final note, and present the evidence, it will prove to you, using your own sciences, that it is either true or false. Debating it without any testing at all diminishes science even more than just me representing the situation with legos and the demand for even further proof only shows their incantation to argue simply because she is stuck in the idea she is right, you are wrong, and everything is a conspiracy.

Finally...

We are not trying to prove Einstein's theory, or determine what kind of pressure resistance we require to delve to the depths of the ocean; it is an open wide statement that requires little of actual die-hard science to prove the truth or falseness of.

Did that make any sense or am I going to have to repeat myself again?

Conclusion:

I am not trying to disrespect scientists or their work, because I respect and admire both; I am merely stating that a scientists wouldn't delve deep into countless hours of research to prove or disprove such an open ended argument.

Further more, Legos would be a good starting block (no pun intended) to see if further testing would be required for you to prove your point. If you construct a building, with Legos, and toss a plane into it 100 times and if, out of those 100 attempts, it collapses straight down or comes close to it, then you may want to construct more in depth modeling. That is, and only then, when you would need to take into account heat pressure, velocity, etc. Still, the angle of the plane won't matter because all you need is to hit the structure of a building, weaken one spot near the top, and see if and when it collapses, how it actually collapses.

Precisely. You are not trying to replicate the entire situation, because it was not stated, 'The twin towers cannot collapse into their own footprint', it was stated 'No building can ever collapse into its own footprint no matter the situation. It just isn't possible.'



Agreed. It won't 'seal the deal', however, if you can disprove it is not possible with replications of a said event, and then present it to them, then, since they are a 'truther' will demand further testing.

Thing is with this, this is where you should state, then prove me wrong. They have more conviction to their beliefs without evidence to back it up, only their opinion. You went the extra mile to prove your point, let them take the next step if they truly have the desire to prove you right or wrong.



Most of this is relevant to what I stated above it.

Their title is: "Truther"

Thus you have less of an obligation to prove your side. A real Truther will prove whether or not something is or is not accurate. If they don't even bother, then they should change their title to BS'ers.

Most truthers don't go that mile, which is why they are are considered idiots in the eyes of the public. They take pictures, articles etc of someone elses work and instantly make it into fact because low and behold it agrees with their own perceived notions.

Challenge them to prove it.

If they don't want to, well my friend, you've already won, haven't you?

You missed the point of the article!

This is not about people who are asking legitimate unanswered
questions. Conspiracy theorists ignore actual evidence and latch
on instead to unsupported and unsupportable conspiracies of
increasing extremity in an attempt to rationalize a train of thought
which in a truly paranoid way seems threatening to them in a whole
variety of ways.

This paranoid delusional fear grows over time and so also do the
conspiracies grow to become all encompassing and block out all
rational, evidential, factually supported counterarguments!

And this kind of interference of "false messages" bears some
resemblance to what people with Schizophrenia seem to experience.
That is not to say that all conspiracy theorists are Schizophrenics
even if some are.

Those who have real valid questions based on evidence though are
not conspiracy theorists. They just have questions and they do not
ignore other valid scientific evidence and don't build outlandish
conspiracy theories that others are controlling them in secret
elaborate ways or aliens living among us etc.

The exaggerated level of conviction in a theory with no supporting
evidence is one of the hallmarks of paranoid conspiracy theorists.



Really there is no need to argue with them because they have no real
evidence. On the other hand I think it is important to point out the
paranoid and delusional nature of these conspiracies so that people
who do not have the educational background to appreciate the real
evidence are not misled by such crazy fake hypotheses.



The antidote for irrational speculation is real scientific education!

Don't take this wrong.. but I'm curious.

You call them 'delusional' because of their 'lack' of evidence to support their 'claims'. Claims that usually originated from an alternate source mentioning something along the lines of 'Hey this isn't right this is possible.'

I hope we can agree on that. This is usually where the basis and foundation of a Truthers' conspiracy begins.

At the same exact time..

Your 'evidence' is from an alternate source. Someone explains, using a different mannerism obviously, 'No that is not true because this happened and my science proves it'. Being men of science they could, hypothetically, create the 'illusion' that what they are presenting to you is, as they point it, fact or truth.

Therefore, and this is where my question arises, who is to state 'you are delusional' when, the actual truth behind it lies in the fact that you are both doing the same thing.

From my perspective, it is almost like you are both arguing that the kettle is a different shade of black, when in reality, the kettle's blue.

Of course, that's all just hypothetically speaking; cause we know the kettle is indeed black....... or do we?

xD

So, anyway, I'm just curious.

'Experts' say it happened this way. Someone says, 'No that's possible'. Who is to say what is truth and what is not without, you yourself, engaging in discovery and proving what is in actuality fact or not; because ultimately, you are criticizing them for doing the same thing, you, yourself are doing. Listen to someone else's explanation of what actually happened.

Professional, expert, doesn't matter. It is a known fact man, no matter where they were born, are capable of lying; and not only that, lying convincingly.

You say, 'A truther has no evidence to back up their claims'.

Well I ask, 'What evidence of your own do you have to back that his claim is actually false?'

No before you start whipping out some of the more ridiculous truths, because some of them are laughable and extreme; this one, however, is one that does concern me... Not because I totally believe them, but a part of me does think, 'What if they are right but just have no way to prove the truth of their claims?'

So, that's my question. :D

The whole "Truther" movement is a dose of ignorance, a big splash of nuttiness, a total lack of scientific understanding, and the ability to focus on anything that appears to support their claims as the truth, while any actual scientific proof as to it's looneyness false. The paranoia is obvious.

Leggos do not model any structural aspect of any modern structure. Perhaps some ancient civilization used large leggos to build. I doubt it.

Just for the record, any fire or similar event that would cause the floor system to fail before the exterior column system would cause a building to fall into it's own footprint. This is the basis of modern demolition.

Gravity always acts towards the center of the Earth.

I'm not saying it can or cannot happen. Just fyi.
You could use legos; and ancient civilizations didn't have legos.
However, the pyramids were built with block.

Regardless of all that nonsense..

You, at the end, just gave them fuel for their fire.

They are proclaiming the building was demolished, not a natural collapse.

Using the term, 'basis of modern demolition' would, in no way, help your case.

It is also a scientific fact that fire spreads predominately upward (yes it can go down I'm not arguing that.) However, the upper floors would catch fire far quicker than the lower floors.

From the pictures, videos, etc, the fires are predominately towards the upper portions of the building. Now, from their perspective, how did the building collapse like a demolition when, in an actual demolition explosives are rigged at several structural points; usually spreading across several floors.

This impact was high towards the top.

Watching the video in slower motion, it almost appears as if the building collapse from the bottom first causing the chain reaction to have each floor giving out and thus dropping into its own footprint.

That is the main argument.

Whether logical or not, that is what I've read about their claim.

The fact that the scientists who proclaimed how the building collapsed and verified also work for the government itself, is another reason they do not believe in your 'science'. Because in their already delusional corrupted minds; the government always lies to protect itself.

Therefore, with no pun intended, all you just did was put fuel on the fire. Especially by starting off with harsh, rash, discriminant name calling.

Just saying.

FYI

You are not saying it can or cannot happen. I am saying with absolute certainty, whether it can or can't happen.

Leggos cannot be used to model modern buildings. Period.

You don't know what ancient civilizations used and the pyramids are not a example.

It doesn't matter much where the plane hit with the notable exception of the top floor in which case the building probably would not have fallen.

There was no evidence of any kind (except garbage) that explosives were used. It would have been easily seen in video if so.

The building fell from the failure down regardless of what a untrained eye might believe.

The government did not say how the building fell. They repeated the statements of the structural engineers who reviewed the failure. The report was reviewed and confirmed by the ASCE structural division.

My statements were not "harsh" or "rash". They were simply the facts.

Your false statement that the structural engineers (not scientists) all worked for the government shows your lack of knowledge of this topic. The peer review was free. The scientific participation was minimal, and no government entity would understand the physics well enough to direct the review anyway.

There are only a few combination structural engineer/ scientists in the US that are members of the ASCE Structural Branch.

...and prove my point.

Thanks.

Later. :)

... and I joined the ASCE Structural Branch in 1980.

Demolitions are used to reduce the structural load bearing capacity of a building to get it to collapse into its footprint.

Fires inside of buildings are known to cause a reduction in the structural load bearing capacity of a that building. (empirical support for this, we have MANY such examples to use)

Just becuase one side of the equation is the same (users the same term), does not mean the other side of the equation users all the same terms.

2+2+1=5
2+3=5

If one cannot rationalize why this is true, one cannot hope to understand the finer details.

Fire and demolitions share a common capability, in no way did what Mwing say validate a demolition hypothesis. It is a failure in VERY basic logic that causes that assumption.

As you know, all the scientific evidence shows that the planes did
the damage and started the fires which resulted in the collapse of
the towers. I don't think I need to repeat any of the links again
do I?



That's the evidence. It has been analyzed by both governmental and
non-governmental scientists and engineers. I have read it and it
is overwhelming and that is why the conspiracy theories cannot be
right regardless of the claims.

So really I have no problem with asking questions but when the
questions are carefully and fully answered in detail and the answers
are ignored despite the overwhelming evidence then that is where it
goes "delusional". And the real comedy begins!

You confusing psychologists and psychiatrists. Psychologists are those that study the brain in relation to how we act, psychiatrists are the ones who sit you down and prescribe you treatment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41OCQvu7ULQ

WTC 5 the one building that did not have thermite. Amazing that fire does not collapse this inferno on WTC 5.

On the twin towers... one of the funniest conspiracy arguments I heard was that the fire didn't get hot enough to melt the metal in the structure so it wouldn't have collapsed. Yes, tell that to the centuries of blacksmiths who have never been able to melt their metal, but still manage to bend and fold and shape it into the products that won wars and built houses etc etc ;)

http://www.debunking911.com/

You know what's really funny you think this damage can cause an amazing engineered building to collapse in 56 minutes. South Tower hit 9:03, collapsed 9:59