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
    So the answer is, you're not going to answer my questions?
     
  2. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

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

    Nice sidestep. Transformers CAN'T explode without power. Unbelievable.
     
  3. WanRen

    WanRen New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,039
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What you are doing to yourself is very mentally unhealthy, you are basically self brainwashing yourself.
     
  4. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, yes. Please follow the script.
     
  5. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So you are saying my mental health affects the behavior of this model.

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

    So that means because you are more mentally healthy you can build a self supporting model that does completely collapse?

    Let's see you do it. :mrgreen:

    In order to be NORMAL you have to be a MORON? LOL

    psik
     
  6. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You never pointed out the energy mentioned in that video after you said it was there.

    April 2, 2011:
    http://counterknowledge.com/2008/12/15-questions-911-truthers-now-need-to-answer/

    Here is the video:

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

    You go from Young's Modulus to Euler's equation but you can't build a model that collapses and the falling mass has to have enough energy to crush the supports.

    But then you don't want to know the amount of steel on every level either. So it will soon be TEN YEARS and people calling themselves physicists can't build a model and haven't been demanding to know the distribution of steel.

    Brilliant!

    But how can they admit they have let this nonsense go on for TEN YEARS if the knew airliners could not do it.

    9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.

    psik
     
  7. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,779
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And since you can not answer my question that makes it abundantly clear you wouldn't have the slightest clue what to do with the data you keep asking for. You've admitted that your method does not determine the point at which the building should have arrested. You do not have a method that could determine this point. Am I to assume that you expect that people who are smarter then you should be able to figure it out from the data you keep demanding?

    The problem is that the people who are smarter then you did figure it out, and they realized that they don't need the data you keep demanding in order to do so.

    Maybe you should study the buckling video I showed you a little more.
     
  8. WanRen

    WanRen New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,039
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To be normal is understanding who the enemy is and the enemy are the Islaimst led by al Qaeda, to be mentally unstable is kept on ignoring that and pretending that the islamist are the good guys and we should just lay back and allow them to attack us.

    That video you presented is basically in that regards.
     
  9. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I am not talking about Islam, al Qaeda or enemies.

    I am talking about whether or not an airliner weighing less than 200 tons containing 34 tons of kerosene can TOTALLY A DESTROY a skyscraper weighing more than 400,000+ TONS in less than TWO HOURS.

    There is a certain amount of physics involved in making a building 1360 feet tall hold itself up and withstand the wind. So not knowing the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the building is ridiculous.

    Islam and al Qaeda have nothing to do with that.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQLCYR9iROs"]YouTube - 9 11 Mysteries - Full Length[/ame]

    I don't mind people concentrating on Islam and al Qaeda but don't pretend they affect the physics.

    psik
     
  10. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So why can't the people that you claim are smarter than me build a model that can completely collapse.

    You just think you can shift the debate to smartness AS DEFINED BY YOU and then claim anyone that does not conform to YOUR DEFINITION OF SMARTNESS must be wrong.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling

    We KNOW the building had to hold itself up therefore every level had to have enough steel and the designers had to figure out how thick that steel had to be. So for almost TEN YEARS people claiming to know physics have not been demanding to know how much steel there was so now you can claim the SMART PEOPLE don't need to say.

    All of you STUPID PEOPLE are supposed to believe whatever you are told because we SMART PEOPLE say so.

    So what if we can't build a model that can collapse. :mrgreen:

    Grade school kids can duplicate my model and try finding a weaker material than paper if they want. You can apply Euler's formula to my paper loops if you want.

    When 15 stories are supposed to destroy 90 stories doing all of those calculations is ridiculous. You just need an excuse to try to persuade people that you are not UTTERLY STUPID.

    ROFL

    The energy required to crush a stationary level is going to be more than that required to crush one of the falling levels because the stationary levels are farther down the building. Knowing the TONS OF STEEL on each level would tend to indicate how much stronger those levels got without even doing any calculations. The only source of energy to destroy levels was the kinetic energy of the falling mass. It would slow down. Most likely 50 levels would stop 15.

    So after NINE YEARS the physicists would have egg on their faces because they can't explain how 90 stories got destroyed if they can't keep people BELIEVING it. :fart:

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

    psik
     
  11. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

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

    I guess they just have to lie. We should simply accept that and then cease all debate about it because.....well...everybody lies, so, we should just believe whatever they say, without question. Everybody lies, don't they? Lies are the only thing that matter. It shows the ability to lie "officially". Case closed.
     
  12. 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
    Where ???

    No, you should accept it because it is the real truth ... no matter how much you wish it not to be so, it simply is.

    And going by the historical record of truthers and their various lies ranging from sock-puppetry to falsely putting words in others mouths ... this comment is more telling of your own side really !!!

    Pretty ironic that for your "truth" to grow wings requires so many falsehoods, eh !!!
     
  13. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The truth should stand up to scrutiny. Some "non confiscated" truth would help too. The "falsehoods" are all too apparent from the missing evidence and the lack of reasonable explanations throughout the fairy tale.
     
  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
    It has ... and it did !!!

    You may not like it, but these analysis, which you so erroneously call the "official one", have been examined in detail WORLDWIDE ... the subjects of intense discussion at conferences and proceedings by the relevent fields of science and engineeering all across the entire planet ... to the extent that building codes have been changed to reflect them.

    That you FAIL to see and understand that genuine science and engineering are NOT conducted through the internet, forums, blogs and YooToob is your cross to bear ... in the REAL world of experts this has been found true.

    All your whining will never change that !!!

    So "apparent" that only complete non-experts on the internet can see it ...<<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>>
     
  15. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,779
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've explained this to you many times. You're looking for a physical model of a system that can not be scaled. Gravity can not be scaled, and the strength of materials can not be scaled. You can not make a simple physical model of a building that resists the acceleration of gravity the same way as a full scale model. The forces do not scale.

    Your metal washer and paper loop model does not simulate the way load was distributed through the structure of the real building. (and I'm not talking about the distribution of mass here, I'm talking about the way force is transmitted to the ground.)

    Your paper loops do not simulate the stress/strain properties of the materials that formed the structure of the WTC. In fact, your paper loops are not calibrated to anything other then your ridiculous claim that they "are as weak as possible."

    And last, your drop test does not simulate the dynamic load generated by the actual top portion of the building falling through a floor of space to impact the lower portion of the building. Your model, in scale, simply cannot model this event.

    This is what you need to get through your head. Even if you knew the exact distribution of mass in the building you (Specifically you, Psikey) could not build a model of the building that could be expected to behave the same way. And as we've all seen, you (Specifically you, Psikey) would not be able to use that distribution of mass to mathematically determine the exact point at which the building should have arrested itself. You leave this to people that you describe as smarter then you despite the fact that you denigrate these same people as idiots who don't understand high school physics. How you resolve this little contradiction I'll never know.
     
  16. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Great excuses for not doing what can't be done so you can alwasy claim what could not happen did happen.

    So why can't the physicists tell us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the towers after NINE YEARS? You can't scale what you don't know.

    Why can't we find how the horizontal beams were laid out on every level in the core?

    Where was the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower? Why didn't it fall down the side? How did the bottom move sideways 20 feet in a few seconds when the impact of the plane only moved the building 15 inches?

    Yeah, the physics profession has done a great job of demonstrating its scientific curiosity and competence with Newtonian physics with this 9/11 business.

    I guess the nonsense will have to drag on for 1000 years. :earth:

    So why was Ryan Mackey talking about modeling if it made no sense? But then he didn't do it. He just pretended to be intelligent. I guess you must be smarter than he is. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

    Funny how nobody talks about my use of Ryan Mackey for explaining modeling. LOL

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

    psik
     
  17. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,779
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ryan was not talking about a physical model. He was talking about a mathematical model. The diagram he shows is to illustrate the mathematical model. You know, like the one Bazant constructed of that fancy calculus you said that you couldn't understand. Diagrams are useful to help explain concepts and the application of math.

    He does not suggest that you can or should build a physical model out of materials you found laying around the house.
     
  18. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,779
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your mathematical model is missing something important; namely the amount of force that it took to break the supports from floor to floor. You, admittedly, have no way to calculate this. You called the method to determine this, "fancy calculus" and you clearly showed no understanding of it. You said that this problem could be solved simply using math you learned in high school.

    I challenge you to prove that statement.

    Calculate the amount of force required to buckle the structure of tower on a floor to floor basis. You do not need to know the mass from floor to floor to calculate this amount.

    This is what you have to do to prove your assertion that the building should have had enough strength to support the dynamic load of the falling top portion.

    If you first calculate the capacity, you'll find that the dynamic load generated by the falling top portion exceeded capacity by a large amount. It was exceeded by such a large amount that an exact calculation of mass distribution is not necessary.
     
  19. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You are changing what I was talking about regarding the fancy calculus for but I do not care. It is ENERGY that matters in crushing the levels and your video does not provide the information for computing that energy.

    Complain to Ryan Mackey about his calculations. I know he has them wrong.

    I demonstrated the physics. Physics is incapable of giving a d(*)m(*) about mathematics. But I computed the amount of energy required to crush loops and the potential energy of the mass I dropped. The matched far better than I expected. One minute you want to talk about scaling and the next you want to talk about mathematics. But if we don't know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every lever we cannot do either one.

    But you don't complain about not having that data and the physics profession has not been demanding it for NINE YEARS.

    So you people have spent NINE YEARS making fools of yourselves just keeping things confused and creating obfuscating excuses. Steven Jones does not even talk about needing accurate distribution of steel and concrete data.

    GREAT PHYSICS!

    Where does Richard Gage the ARCHITECT discuss the importance of that info? :chainsaw:

    psik
     
  20. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Go find Mackey's original Hardfire program.

    He was complaining about the physical models some Truthers built. I don't care how many idiots think mathematics is more important than physics or that mathematics is physics. It is the physics that tells when the math is nonsense.

    Bazant violates Newton's 3rd Law. Real intelligent!

    psik
     
  21. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,779
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    Trophy Points:
    113
    .

    What does it matter? You don't know how to calculate the energy used in breaking either. You're argument falls flat right at the point when you get the information that you're screaming for simply because you have no idea what to do with it when you get it. You're a dog chasing a car that doesn't even exist.

    No, you didn't and I explained why. To those points you made no comment. Your model does not address the difference in strength due to scale, and it does not address the difference in force due to the inability to scale gravity.

    .

    Apparently it is an attribute that you also share.

    What you failed to do was scale your loops to anything significant. Your loops are not in any way congruent to the structure of the WTC. If they are not congruent in any way, they cannot be representative in any way. Your model is a great big straw man argument with paper and washers trying to stand in for the structure of the WTC. Would your model work differently with glass filaments, or tungsten wires providing support? How would the energy wave be dispersed though rods made of ice? Oh, I forgot, your paper loops are as weak as possible. Because you said so.

    How about you take the elephant out of the room and try and get your model to stand up to the collapse without the massive amount of support provided by the central dowel?

    The rest is you repeating yourself, like you've done for the last nine years.
     
  22. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    In a collapse of the core the horizontal beams would hit horizontal beams. What would calculating the energy of buckling columns do?

    But we have even less data about the horizontal beams than about the columns.

    You keep focusing on calculations like you can prove you are smart that way but the video you supplied about buckling didn't have energy calculations anyway even though you said it did.

    Reality doesn't care about calculations. It only matters to the over-inflated egos of people trying to prove they are smart but can't build a model that will collapse completely. Do calculations you can fudge and impress people with Euler, Euler, Euler, Euler.

    What is the point of doing calculations on buckling columns when it is far more likely that horizontal beams will impact each other. Didn't that occur to you, OH GREAT PHYSICIST?

    psik
     
  23. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,779
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to the video that you posted, the core collapsed after the outer spandrels and floor slabs had fallen away. How could horizontal beams hitting horizontal beams affect the collapse that had already taken place?

    Come on now, Psikey. I thought this was high school physics class? You need to take a second to get your story straight. Your argument is that it was the energy that it took to break the supports that should have arrested the collapse. Are you now saying that momentum alone could have arrested the collapse? The conservation of momentum cannot arrest the collapse. It is the buckling of columns that you assert uses enough kinetic energy to arrest the collapse. You can't make this assertion, if you don't know how much energy it should have taken.

    You keep saying that. I'm sure it make sense to you in some way. But I don't understand how you intend to describe how the collapse should have taken place without first learning the math that you don't understand.

    Because the horizontal beams aren't just held in place by their own inertia, buddy. They are held in place by columns. They can't impact each other unless the columns that support them buckle or their pins shear. Each of these circumstances requires math that you don't understand. Each of these circumstances make describing the collapse in terms of the conservation of momentum rather silly.

    Beyond that, the simple fact is that it's not necessary for all of the horizontal beams to have hit each other at all. The beams were pinned by columns that buckled in all sorts of vectors. Some columns buckled to the north, some buckled to the south, some buckled east, and some buckled west. As a result, some of the horizontal beams that remained pinned were rotated away from the beams immediately below them.
     
  24. WanRen

    WanRen New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,039
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Al Qaeda and Islamist has everything to do with your topic because they have clearly claim responsibilities and have continue to carry out and plot such terrorism. Your presentation is just a cover up to justify their terrorism and demonstrate your anti-Western views.
     
  25. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And I can claim responsibility for the bombing of Nagasaki. The plutonium would not give a d(*)m(*).

    You can concentrate on terrorism and who is responsible all you want.

    It has not effect on how steel and concrete had to be distributed in the WTC towers. The planes were still less than 200 tons each. We still never hear how much a single floor assembly weighed. The physics profession has still spent almost TEN YEARS making a fool of itself.

    psik
     

Share This Page