|
You're ignoring the fact that the buildings were weakened by a planes crashing into them, and then further weakened on a much larger scale by the ensuing inferno that engulfed an ever increasing portion of the buildings for something like an hour.
You're describing how a building with uncompromised structural integrity would behave.
The falling bits of the building crashing into soon-to-be-but-not-yet falling parts of the building don't have as much resistance as you posit. The momentum of the falling mass is obscene, and the inertial mass of the not-yet-collapsed building is still being accelerated by gravity. The weakened structure of the entire area of the start of the collapse is going to offer little to no resistance as the momentum first builds. The momentum of the falling bits increases as the square of distance fell. The inertial mass of what it lands on is the same. I.e. the momentum of the falling bits started nearly unopposed, and increased quite rapidly, whereas the stuff it fell into had somewhat compromised structural supports at best, and its inertia was constant.
The outer parts of the building falling are not falling straight down, because the collapse sprays material outward. The most easily visible parts of the collapse are in unobstructed free fall. The dust cloud expands spherically and obscures the visibility of what's deeper inside the cloud.
You're arguing against the conclusions of "experts," but not arguing against the facts that lead those people to their conclusions, nor arguing against the reasoning those people gave for connecting the dots between data and conclusion.
You're denying that there is pertinent science on the subject, and asserting your own conclusions are somehow as valid as those published reports on the basis of your uneducated understanding of physics. You're now discussing this with a trained physicist and engineer. I'm willing to explain the details to why I, in my professional opinion, having seen the videos and read the analysis of the collapses, think it's plausible that they fell without any need for demolitions.
I can't argue that there were definitely not demolitions. I can only say they weren't necessary, and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest the buildings could not have fallen as they did, given the circumstances we know, without speculation.
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Climate change... I feel I need to emphasise I am not a climate change denier. I'm skeptical, but on balance believe it's probably happening. It does make sense, but this is a subject I brought into the discussion because it's highly political and an excellent example of people assuming logic plus consensus equals indisputable fact. This isn't science, it's faith.
To the extent that the facts have been obfuscated by politicians for political ends, that much is mostly BS. I wouldn't call it a hoax.
To the extent that there is over a century of research confirming that the climate of Earth has been changing for millions of years, it is not faith by any measure. The fossil record is there for you to analyze yourself. The publications that draw these conclusions are there for you to read, and to argue against their methods or to find logical faults in their conclusions. You're not doing that. You're not denying there were ice ages. You're not denying tectonic plates shifting ocean currents around has a dramatic effect on the overall climate.
The evidence of global climate change is NOT a political question. I don't know of a politician who denies any of these facts.
To the extent that there are decades of research detailing the specific climate change the Earth is now undergoing is a wave of global warming, as has been concluded by hundreds of independent studies by scientists all over the world, with access to constant weather data from global satellites for decades.
To say "consensus is not fact" is great, but literally no one has shown a credible argument that the Earth is not in a period of global warming. This is totes science.
If you're arguing against the data and/or methods scientists used to draw the conclusion, then that is healthy skepticism. To the extent you let a politicians pie hole noise convince you that there is no objectively knowable way to determine the facts, that is science denial.
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And the covid thing, I mean I don't actually think it's a full scale hoax. I would have to question how it would be possible to get health care workers either on board, or fooled. I can get behind the global scale of the conspiracy, in terms of governments, because these people are crooked the world over, but ordinary people on the scale we're talking, it would require a level of control that doesn't seem plausible. But to think that it's possible... it's not science denial. I don't know why you keep saying that. Science denial is to make scientifically illiterate claims, not to dismiss scientific findings. To say otherwise is to say that calling Newtonian gravity wrong or incomplete in the 1600s is science denial. There must be countless other examples I could cite where science got it wrong. What did people think magnetism was before we solved that problem? Witchcraft? Would it be science denial to say magnetism is electricity before we knew that was the case?
Re bold: I'm explaining why it's science denial.
If you are poking holes in the way the data was acquired, that's science, not science denial.
If you are poking holes in the way the data was interpreted, that's science, not science denial.
If you are poking holes in the logical links between the data and the conclusions, that's science, not science denial.
If you are ignorant of the science by choice, and you are not criticizing any specifics, but instead insisting there is nothing to criticize, that is science denial.
If you are choosing not to watch any of the thousands of vlogs by various healthcare workers describing how this pandemic is affecting everything they know... that's fine. If you then assert you have no way of knowing whether or not healthcare workers are in on the hoax, that's science denial.
If you are asserting that there have not been over 17 million deaths due to COVID-19, and you're offering any sensible explanation of where all the dead bodies came from, nor even acknowledging that the dead bodies exist, that is science denial.
To the extent that there are facts to be known and you are ignoring them, that's fine.
To the extent that you then assert those facts are either unknowable or untrustworthy, that is science denial.
|