The Psychology of 9/11 & "Brainwashing"

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

  1. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,779
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The sap2000 model gave us a very good estimate. Urich could not have interpolated data if the data did not exist within the model to begin with. It simply wasn't broken out in the way Urich broke it out.

    What does an article from 1970 have to do with anything? I read an article the other day claiming that a criminal shot at police with a "40mm Glock." Does that mean that Glock actually makes a handgun that shoots golf ball sized ammunition?

    Besides the questionable validity of your source from 1970, what do you have to say about the claim that the dynamic load exceeds the capacity of the load bearing structure by an order of magnitude? If you disagree, where is your calculation that shows otherwise?

    If you are using your conservation of momentum method, how exactly do you account for the support structure that remained standing above the plane of collapse? How do you account for exterior wall panels (visible as large sections in free fall outside the footprint of the building) that were removed from the total mass that existed at the plane of collapse?
     
  2. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You obviously have not even read what Urich did.

    All he did was an interpolation based on the total weight of the wall panels on each building. It sounds like the SAP data did not specify how it was distributed on the building at all.

    But a linear distribution based on 22 tons panels at the bottom results in negative computations at the top. So Urich decreased the value at the bottom. In real life this would result in lighter WEAKER panels at the bottom and stronger HEAVIER panels at the top thereby working in favor of collapse.

    Physicists have done a great on the 9/11 decade.

    'The "9/11" Decade: Rethinking Reality'
    http://artsresearch.brighton.ac.uk/...for-papers-the-9-11-decade-rethinking-reality

    That "Rethinking Reality" business is funny as hell.

    Google this:

    "9/11 Decade: Rethinking Reality"

    and get more than 3000 hits

    Google this:

    +"9/11 Decade: Rethinking Reality" +physics

    and it goes down to 4 hits

    So does physics contradict reality or thinking? :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

    psik
     
  3. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,779
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where did he get the value of the total weight of the walls panels?

    Where are the answers to the questions I asked you?

    How exactly do you account for the support structure that remained standing above the plane of collapse? How do you account for exterior wall panels (visible as large sections in free fall outside the footprint of the building) that were removed from the total mass that existed at the plane of collapse? How do you intend to calculate the the amount of force required to buckle the structure without the use of of Euler?
     
  4. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ask Urich yourself. I don't have a SAP200 program.

    Who said I intended to calculate the force? That is the job of the NIST that claims "collapse was inevitable" but they don't tell us the quantity of steel on every level.

    I demonstrated that a structure strong enough to support itself should progressively slow down a small percentage of its own mass which it could hold under static load. The NIST admitted that the distribution of weight of the building needed to be known just to analyze the impact. Then proceeded not to do it. So when are they going to do it?

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo"]YouTube - WTC Modeling Instruction & Testing in the Real World[/ame]

    Soon to be TEN YEARS and Official Government Sources can't tell the world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of buildings designed before the Moon landing.

    Of course the people claiming to be physicists have had a great decade. Hiding under rocks. :chainsaw:

    psik
     
  5. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, they did "officially" write a report about it. That's more than adequate for the shill loving public.
     
  6. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,779
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why not?

    http://www.csiberkeley.com/support_downloads.html

    The person who said that the support structure should be enough to arrest the collapse should be required to back up that claim. Don't you think?

    And it's a job that they did perform. You didn't read or understand the concepts and math that they used to prove your claim to be false.
     
  7. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The people that claim airliners weighing less than 200 tons with 34 tons of fuel could OBLITERATE buildings more than 400,000 tons each that can't even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers should be laughed at.

    Along with all of the physicists that have not been demanding the obviously relevant information for ALMOST 10 YEARS.

    Grade school kids can build a model showing the absurdity.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo"]YouTube - WTC Modeling Instruction & Testing in the Real World[/ame]

    Where have any of those physicists built a model that can completely collapse?

    A magical computer program without supports takes 12 seconds to collapse just because of the conservation of momentum. So shouldn't physicists have immediately found it peculiar that the towers could come down so fast. And then they don't ask about distributions of steel and concrete. FAXCINATING!

    Considering that there were planes in WWII that could do 400+ mph it is also curious that those physicists can't talk about the planned obsolescence of automobiles either. The Laws of Physics don't change style every year do they? And then our economists don't talk about the depreciation of all of those cars. So it looks like our supposed EDUCATED ELITE really doesn't do much besides leave out important information.

    psik
     
  8. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Strangely silent for some reason. Huh. Go figure.
     
  9. Dingo44

    Dingo44 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    661
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because this argument is old and irrelevant. It has been refuted time and time again. You can only beat a dead horse so much.
     
  10. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's one possibility. Another would be we're getting too close to truth for comfort.
     
  11. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,779
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't respond within three hours and that means I'm strangely silent? Weird. What does it mean that you didn't respond in the shill thread in over 24 hours? Did you get modded out of the thread?

    Has your search for the total amount of concrete extended beyond an Acrobat search for the terms "concrete" and "mass" in over 10 years?

    If the grade schools kids built a model that is similar to yours, it would not be congruent with the collapse, and thus the only absurdity would be the idea that the model is somehow relevant.

    Where's the answers to the questions I asked you?

    How exactly do you account for the support structure that remained standing above the plane of collapse? How do you account for exterior wall panels (visible as large sections in free fall outside the footprint of the building) that were removed from the total mass that existed at the plane of collapse? How do you intend to calculate the the amount of force required to buckle the structure without the use of of Euler?
     
  12. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You are the one that claimed energy was mentioned in this video.

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

    It is the responsibility of those claiming the top of the north tower could destroy everything below to explain how it could happen. So EXPERTS can just leave out any information they want and everyone is supposed to just BELIEVE.

    But after NINE YEARS the physicists have put themselves in a peculiar position. You have no choice but to claim my simple model is invalid because otherwise it demonstrates they are a bunch of idiots. When have any asked about the center of mass of that tilted top portion of the south tower? What does that say about the curiosity of these so called SCIENTISTS?

    psik
     
  13. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Transformers only go bang when they are energized.

    SOP when fighting fires in a building or structure, is turn off electric power.
     
  14. I_Gaze_At_The_Blue

    I_Gaze_At_The_Blue New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,988
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So are transformers the ONLY thing electric which can go "bang" during fire and/or damage ???

    And how do you know whether or not that they would have enough time or even the means to turn power off ... how do you know what SOP is ???
     
  15. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, Hannity claims everybody knew it was going to fall all day long. Common sense would dictate the power would be turned off sometime prior, in such a well known event that will inevitably occur later in the day.
    I did hear about those exploding number 2 pencils stored there. Maybe that's what everybody heard, and why they knew all day long about its destiny with collapse.
     
  16. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am an electrical contractor. Systems are built with firefighting SOP engineered into it.
     
  17. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't know anything about transformers, why would they only explode when energized?

    Also, the power was cut to WTC 7 by the collapse of the north tower (as well as the water) according to witnesses.
     
  18. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Have you ever seen, heard or felt the arc flash from an energized 277V
    20 amp circuit going to ground?




    If the power was cut by falling building, then there were no transformers popping.
     
  19. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No I haven't

    Ok, I'll take your word for that.
     
  20. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Good one. I'm no electrical engineer, but I do know that if power were indeed cut to said transformers, they COULDN'T explode. Basic electricity 101. I did take that class. I guess it must have been explosive drywall that people heard.
     
  21. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Your ruined his fun..
     
  22. I_Gaze_At_The_Blue

    I_Gaze_At_The_Blue New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,988
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course you are.

    Such as ???

    Do they still work if damaged ???
     
  23. Buzz62

    Buzz62 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,206
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Aggressively reject science?
    And what science might that be? The science that says one should not really investigate physical evidence but that half-baked theories will suffice?
    Is that the kind of science your babbling on about?

    I find t6he acceptance of that hoakie piece of trash, the 9/11 report, to be nothing more than a public acquiescence made in lieu of real investigation. The reason for this, IMO, is that the alternative to that waste of paper, is so bloody ugly. American patriotism will simply not allow for that.
     
  24. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,779
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yup. And those systems use power.

    Elevators, for example, have fire service mode. The fire detection systems in a building can automatically put elevators into fire service mode when smoke or fire is detected. Elevators don't work when the power to a building has been cut so having such a mode would be worthless if the SOP was to cut power to the entire building in the event of a fire.

    The detection system can trip breakers within the building, but that doesn't mean the whole building is no longer energized. In many cases electrical systems are tripped ON with the detection of smoke or fire. Alarms blare, lights flash, PA systems give direction, and all of these systems use both mains power and their own backup source.

    That said,

    I wonder when Psikey is going to answer my questions.
     
  25. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So you can mention Euler. I guess you think that sounds intelligent.

    You said the energy required to buckle a column was specified in the video that YOU SELECTED. So point it out.

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

    psik
     

Share This Page