9/11 Link To Saudi Arabia Is Topic Of 28 Redacted Pages In Government Report; Congressmen Push For R

[William Seger]

202. Actually, it's those versed in "truther" pseudo-science

... courtesy of the likes of Richard Gage, who gullibly believe that the buildings should have toppled over like trees if they weren't controlled demolitions. As we have already been discussing (or rather, as I have been discussing and you have been ignoring), "those versed in the fundamental laws of physics" such as Professor Bazant, understand that toppling over like a tree would require pushing the center of mass of the falling block 100 feet to the side, to the edge of the building, and that by Newton's 3rd Law, there would be an equal and opposite reaction on the structure below for that to happen. Those who are also versed in structural mechanics, such as Professor Bazant (who has written 6 textbooks and over 450 peer-reviewed articles on the subject) are able to calculate that the necessary reactive force was about 10 times what the tower structures could resist. To "those versed in the fundamental laws of physics" that means that down was the only way the top blocks could go once the tilting pivot points succumbed to that horizontal force.

The "path of least resistance" applies to liquids flowing downhill: When they encounter an obstacle, they are free to flow to the side. To the the extent that the buildings behaved like a liquid in following the "path of least resistance," about 95% of the rubble ended up outside the building footprints, because it spilled over the sides of the falling pile of debris, but that happened only after it had contributed to the dynamic impulse force that destroyed the structure below the falling mass.

"Truthers" who create mysteries out of their own ignorance and then simply refuse to have those mysteries solved are also refusing to be among "those versed in the fundamental laws of physics." But that doesn't stop them from blathering about the "laws of physics" on message boards anyway.