The Psychology of 9/11 & "Brainwashing"

Discussion in '9/11' started by psikeyhackr, Jan 29, 2011.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your continued dodging of the question is noted.
     
  2. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you think I bother talking to you?

    My last post just explained that the buildings took longer then 25 seconds to completely collapse. I also explained that the buildings did not fall in levels like you keep assuming. What was this entire post about?

    How can you apply the conservation of momentum without accounting for the amount of mass that remained standing after the initial collapse took place? How can you apply the conservation of momentum in a system that is not closed?

    This is simple physics, Psikey. Simple.

    Oh, and since you know the other way to calculate buckling, why don't you explain it here? Tell us what you would do if given the mass distribution that you keep demanding.
     
  3. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Idiotic drivel.

    Anybody can watch the videos and see SOMETHING happening to the buildings LEVEL by LEVEL.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iT7mmmc-YY"]YouTube - 9/11: North Tower "collapse" northwest corner closeup[/ame]

    That video says TEN SECONDS. So if people just BELIEVE YOU then I'm wrong.

    But it is obvious in that video that something is moving DOWN THE BUILDING.

    So if this was all caused by the airliner and fire then how are you accounting for it. Oh Great Physicist.

    The only people who come up with 25 seconds are using the time for the remaining "spire" not all of the material that cam down outside the core.

    psik
     
  4. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At least I got you to admit the building didn't fall down in levels.

    What's the mass of the remaining spire, Psikey? Surely you can measure that from your grainy internet video.
     
  5. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9Iv_4ZfNI"]YouTube - Steve Jones and "The WTC Spire"[/ame]

    You can think you are accomplishing something all you like.

    You explain it Oh Great Physicist.

    The point of my model is that collapse could not explain the observed phenomenon. But what could airliner impact and fire do besides cause collapse? So if something other than collapse from the top happened then what was it? I am no claiming to know. I am merely demonstrating that the top 12% of a self supporting structure could not destroy everything below.

    More than 75% of the mass came down in less than 18 seconds. So why haven't physicists been asking about the distribution of steel for almost a decade?

    psik
     
  6. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I knew Dr. Judy would make an appearance soon.

    By your inclusion of this video, psik, are we to infer that you support the DEW theory?
     
  7. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except you didn't demonstrate that.
     
  8. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So you can TALK a lot. Where is your model demonstrating that it is possible?

    Somewhere with that energy explanation in the column buckling video?

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrdO8hPJGyg"]YouTube - Buckling of a Thin Column.MP4[/ame]

    psik
     
  9. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You can infer whatever you want. I am not responsible for your stupidity.

    I just looked for a video of the spire. I didn't even watch the whole thing. I have no idea what it said about Dr. Wood.

    I never discuss what did destroyed the buildings because I do not know. I am simply saying there is no way airliner impacts and fires did all of that in that little time. I am not interested in your character assassination debating bullsh(*)(*).

    psik
     
  10. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You posted a DEW video to support your theory, without ever watching it or knowing what position it took. Then you make reference to my stupidity??

    You made a claim based on your own incredulity and speculation. Can you show any math to support your lack of understanding?
     
  11. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I posted a video of the "spire" because that is what Fangbeer brought up. I don't care what audio anybody added to it. I didn't like the music and didn't want to listen.

    Proceed with your guilt by association all you want. I could not care less.

    psik
     
  12. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not saying you are guilty of anything, other than lazy research. You demand specific details of the building, ignore evidence when pointed out to you, and post up videos supporting DEW theories.

    Silly, silly 'truthers'.
     
  13. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When I asked you finally admitted that you believe that someone found thermite in the rubble.

    Regardless,

    You have a model that collapses in what you call "levels," yet the building did not collapse in levels as you define them. The video evidence that you linked shows that large portions of the building remained standing after the top segment had hit the ground. This means that large segments of the building's inertia did not have any impact at all on the mass of the falling top segment.

    So how does your theory account for these large segments of mass that remained standing after the initial collapse took place? How do you intend to measure the amount of mass that remains standing?

    I also noticed that you didn't happen to explain the other way to calculate buckling that you are going to use to explain how much energy it takes to lower the load bearing capacity of the lower portion of the building. Weird. You would think that someone who's been thinking about this for 10 years would know how to do this by now.
     
  14. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I pointed you at a source that CLAIMED to have an explanation. I don't have any WTC dust or the equipment to test it.

    If I offered an explanation you would just demand evidence and I'm supposed to go off on some other blathering bullsh(*)t. I'm not interested.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iT7mmmc-YY"]YouTube - 9/11: North Tower "collapse" northwest corner closeup[/ame]

    Lying again. The video never even shows the end of the collapse or the after math.

    psik
     
  15. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Very good shilly. You keep taking notes and perhaps one day, the truth might sneak into your poisoned brain.
     
  16. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That was weak, Psikey. On a different forum here:

    http://counterknowledge.com/2008/12/15-questions-911-truthers-now-need-to-answer/#comment-107271

    I asked you, "If gravity didn’t do it, what did? Don’t have an answer for that one, do you? Yeah, I didn’t think so."

    To which you responded.

    I said that this shows you believe someone found thermite in the rubble. Are you saying you posted a link about themite in the rubble but you don't believe that thermite was found in the rubble? How exactly is the statement I made incorrect?

    Seriously. If you think someone found thermite in the rubble, own it. You posted it.

    When did I say the video shows the end of the collapse or the aftermath? I said: The video evidence that you linked shows that large portions of the building remained standing after the top segment had hit the ground. Watch the stupid video. At 13 seconds you can see columns from the inner core of the building that remain standing. That's supposedly after the top part hit the ground, right? What part of that statement is a lie?
     
  17. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You can call it weak all you want. Accurate physics should be able to predict possible outcomes if ALL of the original conditions are known. I have been saying all along that airliners and their consequences could not destroy the towers. I never claimed to know what did it. You want to complain about my not expalining it so I linked you to someone who CLAIMS to. I don't know and don't care.

    I linked two videos. One showed the spire which was about your 25 second business and one was a collapse which was about your level-by-level comment. That collapse video did not have the top reaching the ground. Neither did the spire video.

    You pretend to know physics so you explain why you don't want to know the original conditions of the building, like accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete, but provide a link to a video about buckling and claim energy calculations are there.

    The point of my model is that gravity could not complete the destruction even if the airliner and fire started it in the north tower. So physicists have spent NINE YEARS making fools of themselves by not demanding complete data on the initial conditions.

    psik
     
  18. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Curious about something....

    Do you believe that every law of physics has been discovered?

    If so, do you believe that every contingency for those laws has been investigated?
     
  19. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I hope not.

    Due to the fact that physicists discovered that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing it is certain that some things are still to be figured out.

    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3137

    However that involves things much bigger than planets. I do not doubt that there are also things smaller than atoms that have not been worked out.

    But the in between reality of Newtonian physics is pretty well known and until there is clear evidence that something new has turned up in the size region between anthills and small mountains I will operate on the assumption that no new physics was involved in 9/11.

    psik
     
  20. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why do you operate under that assumption? Obviously no similar real life episode has ever happened before--two of the world's largest buildings being hit by high speed large aircraft taking out 20 floors of a third building?
     
  21. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If some NEW PHYSICS occurred on 9/11 then that is all the more reason for LOTS OF PHYSICISTS to be crawling all over the incident. But where are the physicists demanding to know simple information like the distributions of steel and concrete? I saw a video of Steven Jones saying the steel got thinner toward the top but that is about all.

    psik
     
  22. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay...what do you want them to demand to know? Its not as if we're going to re-create the event to see what happens. :bored:
     
  23. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Everything was new on 9/11. Cast aside logic, physics, and common sense, and welcome to the land of make believe, Cinderella, and shills.
     
  24. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I didn't just call it weak. I showed exactly why it was weak. You posted a link to a claim that thermite had been found in the rubble because you believe that thermite had been found in the rubble. To claim otherwise is dishonest. You seriously need to cede the point that my statement was correct. You believe that someone found thermite in the rubble.

    All the original conditions are not known. It is impossible to know the exact mass distribution in the building. It is possible to make a very good estimate. We have a very good estimate. That is good enough. The difference between the static and dynamic loads that that estimated mass generates exceeds the structural capacity of the building by an order of magnitude. This means that our estimate can be wrong by 50% and the building still would have behaved as expected.

    And you have failed to prove this hypothesis.


    1. The building was not held up with magic supports that resist the effects of gravity. Your models do not deal with this issue at all, because you don't have any understanding of how to calculate buckling.

    2. The building did not collapse in levels. Your models do not deal with the dynamic way in which the building collapsed.

    3. Your models do not deal with scale. The building did not collapse at 100th scale in normal Earth gravity.

    The last thing your models don't deal with, is that the building DID collapse and it did not violate the laws of physics in doing so. So either you are right, and every honest physicist and structural engineer in the world is wrong / complacent to some deception, or you have no idea what you are talking about and your self professed high school understanding of physics does not describe the collapse.

    I never claimed you did know. In point of fact, I claim the exact opposite.

    Right. You don't care. That makes sense. That's why you've been peddling this on forums all over the internet. It's because you don't care.

    How do you know? The video does not show the ground. It does show a time stamp. Are you saying that it took longer than 12 seconds for the top to hit the ground? Beyond that, does the top have to hit the ground to use that video to illustrate the point I made that there were large sections of the building still standing after the collapse had progressed past their "level" in the building? If you were given the exact mass distribution within the building, how would you account for that mass that you still see standing after the rest of the building fell away around it? Can you provide an exact measurement of that mass so that you can remove it from your "levels?"
     
  25. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What OFFICIAL SOURCE do you claim gave us a very good estimate?

    Greening said Urich's data was the best in human readable. Urich said it came out of the SAP2000 database from NIST. But Urich said he had to do an interpolation of the exterior wall panels from the 9th floor to the top.

    But the 19 tons he uses for the bottom panels doesn't match the 22 tons in an article from 1970.

    So specify you source of GOOD ESTIMATES rather than just claiming it exists.

    psik
     

Share This Page