We haven't had a 9/11 CON video in a long long while...

[dutch508]

Not since the heady days of chicken wire and gasoline have we had this much excitement...

gyroscope (1,092 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/113511690

Can the official theory of the twin tower collapses be proven with experimentation?

Let's see if the pancaking or pile driver theory can be replicated through real-world experimentation using models. We will also see if fire can cause a structure to collapse and freefall symmetrically into its own footprint. Since 9/11 was the first time in history skyscrapers have collapsed in such a manner outside of controlled demolition, experimentation is all the more important. A theory is little more than mental masturbation if it can't be empirically tested and proven.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNzaMRsN00[/youtube]

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford Dictionaries Online define the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses". Experiments need to be designed to test hypotheses. The most important part of the scientific method is the experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
0

      
 

BigOleDummy (181 posts)
1. WTF?

Take this crap back to Breitbart.

gyroscope (1,092 posts)
7. All you have are insults?

Hurling insults is the favored method of Republicans in an attempt to shut down the discussion before it begins. I would expect that kind of behavior from Trump supporters but not posters on DU. I guess they aren't much different anymore.

Star Member exboyfil (7,430 posts)
5. Ridiculous

In any controlled demolition you hear the sound of the charges going off. Not so in any of the video from 9/11.

The collapses start at the point of impact. We know the jets hit the building. We have video of the first impact (not to mention thousands and thousands of eyewitness reports). We have probably at least 50 videos of the second impact. Both collapses start at the point of impact - where you would have expected the charges to have been most disrupted if they had been placed.

So you wait around for the building to start collapsing at the point of impact and then set off the charges to bring the rest of the building down?

No one observed hundreds of charges being placed in the building?

Scaling is a factor in engineering. His simplified model does not reflect the actual construction of the building.

Listen for the lack of sound of charges going off.

gyroscope (1,092 posts)
9. NY Fire Chief: Devices were planted in the buildings.

Every major media news outlet have reported on massive secondary explosions (ones that took place after the initial plane impacts) described by their on-scene reporters and other witnesses on that day. I don't know how anyone can say there were no secondary explosions. Many reporters mentioned how much the collapses resembled controlled demolition. Yet after that day they never said anything about the explosions again. Censorship is alive and well.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EQV223Y-M[/youtube]


 

[98ZJUSMC]

A theory is little more than mental masturbation if it can't be empirically tested and proven.

Uh-huh.   Let's talk about ....... 

[DumbAss Tanker]

Ironically, there was just a story on the news last night about a fire (In the Philippines, I think) around the base of a steel high voltage line pylon, which collapsed from the heat of a simple fire, no tactical nuke nor nothin' exotic involved.

[DUmpDiver]

Teh Stooped is strong with that one.

It does have a wee bit of entertainment value however.

[SVPete]

BigOleDummy (181 posts)
1. WTF?

Take this crap back to Breitbart.

I know Breitbart.com is a Bogeyman-Central, a source of much evil to DU-folk, but do they really imagine Breitbart.com is into 9/11 Trutherism? A simple search, "truther", on Breitbart.com sufficed to see that Breitbart.com holds 9/11 Truthers in disdain. Now, if BOD had Googled msnbc 9/11 truther ...

[dixierose]

Ironically, there was just a story on the news last night about a fire (In the Philippines, I think) around the base of a steel high voltage line pylon, which collapsed from the heat of a simple fire, no tactical nuke nor nothin' exotic involved.

How bout that bridge collapse in Atlanta? That was caused by a fire too...

[ExGeeEye]

 My 9/11:

I was home, recovering from a work injury. I had got in the habit of doing internet while watching Fox and Friends.

I was watching when E.D. Hill said that there was news of a small plane hitting the WTC, and the reportage of this “accident” continued until the second plane went in. I knew, then, and I think so did everyone else. I called my mother, who lived elsewhere in the state, after the second plane to get her to turn on the TV, and we called back and forth a couple of times during the morning.

My sister, who lived in Finland at the time, was visiting our mother; they had just been to visit me, and my sister had brought one of her Finnish friends to try to match up with me (it didn’t take, and she and I are happily wed to others today), and they were back at Mom’s, getting ready to fly back to Finland on the 12th (which obviously didn’t happen...they got out 3 or 4 days later).

This friend was a structural engineer by trade. During either the first or second call, before it happened, she said “those buildings will fall; they cannot stand.” We asked “how will they fall?” Fearing for those caught under them falling like trees. “Probably straight down,” she said. So when it happened we were not terribly surprised, and I was immunized against all of the “deliberate demolition” conspiracy theories before they appeared.

[freedumb2003b]

Anyone who watched even ONE Mythbuster episode knows the distance between scale modeling and reality.

[YupItsMe]

My 9/11:

I was home, recovering from a work injury. I had got in the habit of doing internet while watching Fox and Friends.

I was watching when E.D. Hill said that there was news of a small plane hitting the WTC, and the reportage of this “accident” continued until the second plane went in. I knew, then, and I think so did everyone else. I called my mother, who lived elsewhere in the state, after the second plane to get her to turn on the TV, and we called back and forth a couple of times during the morning.

My sister, who lived in Finland at the time, was visiting our mother; they had just been to visit me, and my sister had brought one of her Finnish friends to try to match up with me (it didn’t take, and she and I are happily wed to others today), and they were back at Mom’s, getting ready to fly back to Finland on the 12th (which obviously didn’t happen...they got out 3 or 4 days later).

This friend was a structural engineer by trade. During either the first or second call, before it happened, she said “those buildings will fall; they cannot stand.” We asked “how will they fall?” Fearing for those caught under them falling like trees. “Probably straight down,” she said. So when it happened we were not terribly surprised, and I was immunized against all of the “deliberate demolition” conspiracy theories before they appeared.

DU Mode  "So you're friend was in on it? "  /DU Mode.  When anybody questions me about them falling straight down I always tell them to talk to Sir Isaac Newton.  It's a little thing called gravity.    Unless somebody notched out the bottom like cutting a tree that's the most logical way they would collapse.

[ADsOutburst]

DU Mode  "So you're friend was in on it? "  /DU Mode.  When anybody questions me about them falling straight down I always tell them to talk to Sir Isaac Newton.  It's a little thing called gravity.    Unless somebody notched out the bottom like cutting a tree that's the most logical way they would collapse.

The left, the supposed "scientifically literate" crowd, gets it wrong again.

[Delmar]

The science was settled years ago by the smartest, most sciency people on the internet:

Can a jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse a steel structure? An experiment.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x56836

[jukin]

Dear DUmbass,

Look up thermal expansion. That will explain the buckling that occurred. Add in that material strength at elevated temperatures is less and it is easily explained...if you have an IQ above 80. So you will have to trust me.

[landofconfusion80]

Popular mechanics did a whole write up about this right after all the conspiracy theories came out. They debunked every single one

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[SVPete]

Popular mechanics did a whole write up about this right after all the conspiracy theories came out. They debunked every single one

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

And expanded the article(s) into a book.

When you predicate wrong questions on incorrect factoids you get wrong answers. For example:

* The WTC fires were not open flame, with heat escaping into open air;

* Jet fuel was not the only flammable fueling the WTC fires - there were lots of flammable wood and plastic products fueling it as well;

* Steel does not have the same strength at high temperatures short of melting.

It's pathetic, but the Cameline and Caprine Copulators seem to have understood this all this where Troofers - on DU and elsewhere - don't and won't.