defy physics

[~enigma~]

An oft said phrase by the woowoo but I don't exactly understand why they say it. If somthing defies physics than it didn't happen unless one is going to give it a supernatural reason for occuring. Was 9/11 a supernatural event? Can someone give me a rational explaination for the use of the term "defies physics" by the woowoo. Maybe that will give some insight into their fantasy world.

[uk_dave]

An oft said phrase by the woowoo but I don't exactly understand why they say it. If somthing defies physics than it didn't happen unless one is going to give it a supernatural reason for occuring. Was 9/11 a supernatural event? Can someone give me a rational explaination for the use of the term "defies physics" by the woowoo. Maybe that will give some insight into their fantasy world.


I think they just say it because the reality we present to them defies what they percieve to be the laws of physics or, more commonly, it defies what someone else has told them are the laws of physics .... actually, most commonly it would be that someone has just told them it defies the laws of physics and the 'truthers' believe them 'cause they claim to have book smarts and don't believe the official account of 9/11.

Then again, I do believe that much of the hostility the woowoo's direct toward this forum is not only the product of the debunking of their fantasies about 9/11, but it is also the debunking of their other deeply held beliefs such as ghosts, ufos, telepathy and religion. Let's face it, if you're gonna believe in a massive but obviously flawed conspiracy such as 9/11, you're gonna believe all kinds of other crazy ****.

[~enigma~]

I think they just say it because the reality we present to them defies what they percieve to be the laws of physics or, more commonly, it defies what someone else has told them are the laws of physics .... actually, most commonly it would be that someone has just told them it defies the laws of physics and the 'truthers' believe them 'cause they claim to have book smarts and don't believe the official account of 9/11.

Then again, I do believe that much of the hostility the woowoo's direct toward this forum is not only the product of the debunking of their fantasies about 9/11, but it is also the debunking of their other deeply held beliefs such as ghosts, ufos, telepathy and religion. Let's face it, if you're gonna believe in a massive but obviously flawed conspiracy such as 9/11, you're gonna believe all kinds of other crazy ****.
But don't they understand that saying something defied physics is the exact same as saying it didn't happen unless it was supernatural? I wonder where they buy their rose colored glasses :)

[uk_dave]

Well I think they're saying it just didn't happen...ummmm...except the ones who say it did, but couldn't, so it must not have, even though it did.

or something.

[~enigma~]

Well I think they're saying it just didn't happen...ummmm...except the ones who say it did, but couldn't, so it must not have, even though it did.

or something.Is that you pdoh...damn you sure must like me alot :)

ETA - Best woowoo imitation i ever saw :)

[gumboot]

An oft said phrase by the woowoo but I don't exactly understand why they say it. If somthing defies physics than it didn't happen unless one is going to give it a supernatural reason for occuring. Was 9/11 a supernatural event? Can someone give me a rational explaination for the use of the term "defies physics" by the woowoo. Maybe that will give some insight into their fantasy world.


I think they intend it to prove the "official version" could not have happened because if it did, laws of physics would have been broken. What they utterly and embarassingly fail to realise is their own scenarios would defy precisely the same laws of physics.

For example, if a building fell "faster than freefall" it fell faster than freefall. What CAUSED it to fall then becomes totally irrelevant.

This is a telling revelation of the Truth Movement's objective. Their goal is not to EXPLAIN WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, but purely to REJECT THE OFFICIAL STORY. That is why they have such a myriad of theories. It doesn't matter what the explanation is, as long as it's different to what the government said. And that's why they have such a myriad of different details, because it's important to prove EVERYTHING the government has said is false.

Essentially the truthers goal is to convince people that every single tiny little thing the government has said about 9/11 is false. What ACTUALLY happened isn't important.

-Gumboot

[Coritani]

I've seen the "official theory defies the laws of physics!!!" argument parroted around widely.

When I ask about which laws the official theory breaks, the CTs answer sounds remarkably like crickets chirping.

[fuelair]

But don't they understand that saying something defied physics is the exact same as saying it didn't happen unless it was supernatural? I wonder where they buy their rose colored glasses :)

Actually, they don't buy the glasses - they pull them out of their rectums.:D

[Architect]

Aye, ye cannae change the laws o' physics, cap'n

[eeyore1954]

Maybe you don't understand because you don't know all the laws of physics.

Newtons 15th law. a grand piano will fall from the top of the world trade center in 30 seconds. (Newton was sorts of like Nostradamus in that he knew about the WTC even though he lived hundreds of years before) Also known as Fetzers corollary.

Newtons 16th law . A grand piano made out of lead and one made out of balsa wood will fall in the same amount of time from the top of the WTC (not in a vacumn ) if there surface areas are identical.

Newtons 17th law. A hoover vacumn full of lead and an empty oreck will both fall in the same amount of time from the top of the WTC because they are both vacumns.

1st law of demolition. A controlled demolition temporarily allows the laws of physics to be defied if they were set by either the NWO or the Bush administration.

[JimBenArm]

I don't have to follow the laws of physics, 'cause I never went to law school!

[JonnyFive]

I always figured it was due to their lack of understand of physics in general, especially in terms of how fundamental and comprehensive the laws of physics are.

They seem to misunderstand the fundamental aspects of concepts like "free fall", claiming that it is somehow possible to make something "fall" faster than free fall speeds. I guess if you redefine "fall" to mean "be propelled with rocket boosters", then yes. Yes it is possible. With rocket boosters. On the debris.

Also, magic.

[Alareth]

Maybe you don't understand because you don't know all the laws of physics.

Newtons 15th law. a grand piano will fall from the top of the world trade center in 30 seconds. (Newton was sorts of like Nostradamus in that he knew about the WTC even though he lived hundreds of years before) Also known as Fetzers corollary.

Newtons 16th law . A grand piano made out of lead and one made out of balsa wood will fall in the same amount of time from the top of the WTC (not in a vacumn ) if there surface areas are identical.

Newtons 17th law. A hoover vacumn full of lead and an empty oreck will both fall in the same amount of time from the top of the WTC because they are both vacumns.

1st law of demolition. A controlled demolition temporarily allows the laws of physics to be defied if they were set by either the NWO or the Bush administration.

You forgot the 18th Law: Gravity is altered on totally pulverized objects.

[Anti-sophist]

There's a second issue that I've found to be increasingly common. I skip the physics part and just ask them what the official story is. Almost all of them fail horribly.

To be clear, then, they do not know the official story. They do not know the law of physics.

And, nine times of ten, if you accept their wrong version of the official story, and their wrong version of the laws of physics, they are still wrong about their strawman official story violating their strawman laws of physics. I know they are in trouble when they make up all the rules and are still wrong.

[progressquest]

I think they intend it to prove the "official version" could not have happened because if it did, laws of physics would have been broken. What they utterly and embarassingly fail to realise is their own scenarios would defy precisely the same laws of physics.

For example, if a building fell "faster than freefall" it fell faster than freefall. What CAUSED it to fall then becomes totally irrelevant.

This is a telling revelation of the Truth Movement's objective. Their goal is not to EXPLAIN WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, but purely to REJECT THE OFFICIAL STORY. That is why they have such a myriad of theories. It doesn't matter what the explanation is, as long as it's different to what the government said. And that's why they have such a myriad of different details, because it's important to prove EVERYTHING the government has said is false.

Essentially the truthers goal is to convince people that every single tiny little thing the government has said about 9/11 is false. What ACTUALLY happened isn't important.

-Gumboot

Excellent post. I think this describes the CTers exactly.

PS. I hope I steal someones sig. :)

[Lurker]

Actually, I think you all are engaging in some strawman argument here when it comes to characterizing the CTers declarations about the law of physics.

My experience with the 9/11 trooth crowd is that their claim that 911 defies the law of physics is based on:

1. The buildings fell at near free fall speed. They do not claim they fell faster than freefall although there may be a few that say that and mean it or that say it and mean something else.

2. Where they think the laws of physics are broken is they feel that the building would have offered some resistance to collapse. Thus, as each floor falls down its accellerationo is slowed momentarily by the structural strength of the uncollapsed building below it.

So, if free fall is something like 9.2 seconds and the building fell in 10.5 seconds they feel that the structural strength of the uncollapsed building should have slowed the collapse down by a mere 1.3 seconds.

Unfortunately they offer no qualitative work demonstrating anything and instead only offer their "common sense".

Still, as skeptics we should refrain from erecting strawmen of their arguments and turning them into something they are not claiming.

Lurker

[Alareth]

1. The buildings fell at near free fall speed. They do not claim they fell faster than freefall although there may be a few that say that and mean it or that say it and mean something else.

I've seen the term "Faster than the speed of gravity" bandied about CT circles. I'm still trying to figure that one out as gravity does not have a speed. (Well technically the effects of gravity cannot travel faster than light. If the sun were to dissappear suddenly, we wouldn't notice the sudden loss of it's gravitational pull for about 8 minutes, which is the same time it takes for it's light to reach us.)

[Lurker]

Alareth,

Yes, I have heard that phrasing but I think most CTers mean what I delineated. At least when I explored it with them that is what they were trying to articulate.

Lurker

[babazaroni]

So, if free fall is something like 9.2 seconds and the building fell in 10.5 seconds they feel that the structural strength of the uncollapsed building should have slowed the collapse down by a mere 1.3 seconds.


Did you mean 'slowed the collapse down by more than 1.3 seconds?'

[Anti-sophist]

Another common "breaking the laws of physics" claim revolves around "simultaneous" and "symmetric" nature of the collapse. Or, more properly, they feel the supports gave away "too" simultaneously or "too" symmetrically.

Another is this bizarre claim that the building "fell through the path of the greatest resistance" as if it's some kind of electron that avoids resistance. I think these people feel it should have toppled over more.

And please do not discount the "faster than freefall" group. They are very real and very very misinformed. This is especially true when it comes to WTC7.

[CHF]

An oft said phrase by the woowoo but I don't exactly understand why they say it. If somthing defies physics than it didn't happen unless one is going to give it a supernatural reason for occuring. Was 9/11 a supernatural event? Can someone give me a rational explaination for the use of the term "defies physics" by the woowoo. Maybe that will give some insight into their fantasy world.

Yeah I've often wondered that.

I mean don't controlled demolitions obey the laws of physics?

[ihaunter]

I pretty much agree with what Lurker said for the logic behind this argument. I think some of the confusion for skeptics comes from the fact that so many CTists hear the argument and just parrot it without understanding. This is would explain the crickets we usually end up hearing when they are challenged on it.

[JonnyFive]

2. Where they think the laws of physics are broken is they feel that the building would have offered some resistance to collapse. Thus, as each floor falls down its accellerationo is slowed momentarily by the structural strength of the uncollapsed building below it.

I have also seen the implication that the resistance of the floors should have eventually stopped the collapse completely in a "normal" collapse (as opposed to a CD or space beam collapse, I guess).

Then there was the chicken wire tower. I just don't know what to make of that.

[Lurker]

Did you mean 'slowed the collapse down by more than 1.3 seconds?'

Yes. Thanks. They feel the collapse should have taken some indeterminate amount of time MORE than what was observed.

Lurker