The Psychology of 9/11 & "Brainwashing"

You do understand that there can be problems caused by CONVERSION of video between different formats ???

You do understand that the video was shot somewhere where PAL is used.

You are aware that the US format is NTSC.

You are aware that the number of scan lines between the formats are different ... 486 for NTSC and 576 for PAL ... resulting in 90 LESS scan lines on the video released on the Internet.

Meaning that PAL to NTSC conversion SQUASHED the VERTICAL while the horizontal proportion REMAINED the same ... !!!

Are you "aware" enough to realise that explains why the faces look different ???

 

So you have no substantive response to my post, then? Instead you deflect by changing the subject, proving my utter correctness.

 

Actually I prefer to call it BRAINSOILING.

It is putting dreck into people's heads. The recipients just can't sort it out. The schools are to blame for nopt producing people that can think for themselves. Oh yeah, the schools put dreck into kid's heads to start with.

psik

 

That certainly does explain the 'truth movement'.

 

yeh in one word "credible"

 

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

So where is your video of a self supporting model that can be completely collapsed by the fall of its top 15% or less which anyone can duplicate?

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

I can't change the physics for anyone that tries to duplicate my model. Isn't duplicating results an important part of experimental science? Only one person has duplicated it so far but he admitted he got the same results.

The curious thing is he sent me that PM in September and he hasn't posted to the site since then. I don't comprehend people's emotionalism over this issue because I don't give a d(*)m(*) who did it. I am not interested in attacking the government. I just happen to think that lying about grade school physics is really STUPID and skyscrapers MUST be able to hold themselves up. So this NINE YEAR 9/11 charade is REALLY DUMB!

psik

 

Do try and stay on topic.

 

I started the thread and 9/11 is about the physics of a collapse.

What's wrong? Your psychology can't cope with your failure of physics?

Is the brainwashing slipping?

psik

 

This thread is not about your failed view of physics, or your habit of changing the subject when you are caught misrepresenting the facts.

But knock yourself out, write whatever you wish. You have yet to gather any credibility.

 

Yes, yes. Do try and step where you're being led as opposed to focusing too closely on the facts.

 

So let's see you build a physical model that can completely collapse.

Don't bother with the house of cards irrelevancies.

I won't be holding my breath.

psik

 

I am neither a physicist nor an engineer.

Have you taken your challenge to a professional, or to a school to see what they would say about it?

 

You have no idea how it shows!

I am a professional LOL

Have you listened? NO

 

Have you ever stacked cardboard boxes with heavy contents on top of one another and had the sides of the bottom box get crushed and possibly the whole stack fall over?

Do you need to be a physicist or an engineer to understand that the bottom box must be stronger to hold the weight of all of the boxes above?

So in a skyscraper the bottom levels must be stronger. That means thicker steel. That means MORE steel. That means the weight of steel must be greater on lower levels. So the designers of skyscrapers must figure out how to distribute the steel through the entire building. Why is the CN Tower shaped like this:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBzLhy3Q7sY"]YouTube - Wonders of the Modern World - CN Tower[/ame]

So in order to UNDERSTAND any supposed collapse on 9/11 it is only reasonable to expect the experts to tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the buildings. So if the experts don't even bring up the subject much less supply us with the data then the experts expect us to be STUPID and believe whatever idiotic drivel they say just because they are EXPERTS.

So it is certainly interesting that Richard Gage and his fellow experts at AE911Truth don't discuss the distribution of mass even though they claim that WTC1 & 2 were controlled demolitions. It is as though they want structural engineering to be this GREAT MYSTERY even though the Empire State Building will be 80 years old this year. Of course if the experts make it look simple after NINE YEARS then people will start wondering how this nonsense was allowed to drag on for NINE YEARS and why the experts did not settle it in SIX MONTHS.

It's grade school physics.

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

psik

 

In his defense, you know, the air was very thick and could have offered the same resistance as would if the buildings were in a vacuum. Those 47 VERTICAL columns couldn't have offered any resistance, slowing down the fall a bit. Oh...that's right. The beams were sliced up conveniently sized, ready to be shipped off. Still though...Steel, concrete, how would any of that stuff offer resistance and more resistance than the very thick air? Oh wait....um...I've got my junior high physics book around here somewhere.

 

It is peculiar how the mind works and does not work. What questions do we fail to ask?

In the core there was vertical and horizontal steel. The 47 columns were connected by horizontal beams. But what was the total footage of those beams? Each level was 12 feet tall so there was 47 * 12 = 564 feet of vertical steel. But the core was 136 * 86 feet and with 47 columns that was almost a 6 * 8 array. So 6 * 136 + 8 * 86 = 1504 feet. Therefore in terms of length there was more horizontal steel in the core than vertical steel. I don't recall anyone pointing that out.

I don't think they make structural steel beams thinner than 1/4 inch thick. So near the top of the building the weight of horizontal steel in the core should have been greater than the weight of vertical steel.

But we are not even told the total weight of steel at every level in the core. How thick were the horizontal beams at every level in the core?

I guess part of brainwashing is not providing the information necessary to think with.

psik

 

So what you are saying is ... no one pointed out that the buildings were taller than they were wide?

Good observation.

 

Seldom have so many characters been used to say absolutely nothing. Pffft!

 

ROFLMAO

Boy are you a genius.

I pointed out that there were more feet of horizontal steel than there were of vertical steel.

Are you sure you can read?

psik

 

Yes ... are you sure you can comprehend? Is there a building anywhere where this is not true?

 

Did any of those buildings supposedly collapse?

The distribution of steel is only of interest in the WTC because they supposedly collapsed after impact and fires. So how is the analysis supposed to be done without accurate information on the subject?

Where have our physicists been asking about that?

Where has Richard Gage asked about that?

Grade school physics is so difficult.

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

I guess 9/11 is a psychological problem.

psik

 

Only for some.

 

Grade school physics is difficult for most apparently.

 

What exactly is your point here?

Are you pointing out...

-There are a lot of horizontal members in a building?
-No one noticed there is a lot of horizontal members in a building?
-No one has taken into account the deadload of the horizontal members in a building?
-You don't know how to size a horizontal steel member?
-You don't understand how a building is framed?
-You don't know?

 

I have been saying that it is necessary to know the TONS of STEEL that were on every level of the WTC for some time in order to analyze the event.

Numerous sources emphasize that there were 47 core columns and many pictures show the horizontal beams connecting those columns. But I have never seen a picture claiming to show an accurate layout of the beams. So it occurred to me to wonder what was the length of all of those beams relative to the length of all of the 12 foot column sections on a level. I had never done that before or seen anyone mention or compute it.

As far as I know structural steel does not come in thicknesses of less than a 1/4 inch. So if the horizontal beams on the 110th level are more than twice as long as the vertical then the weight of horizontal steel must have been much greater than that of the vertical. I presume the horizontal beams are not as thick as the vertical all of the way down the building.

So I was pointing out something OBVIOUS but not mentioned about the structure but would be necessary to know to analyze a supposed collapse. How thick were the horizontal beams in the core where they had to collide in the supposed collapse of the north tower? It is just funny how one tends not to think of the obvious. But what should be obvious to skyscraper construction PROFESSIONALS and normal people thinking about skyscrapers should not be the same.

When have our EXPERTS discussed this?

psik