View Poll Results: How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

Voters
51. This poll is closed
  • Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    22 43.14%
  • Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 0%
  • Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    10 19.61%
  • Allah!

    2 3.92%
  • People keep flogging a dead horse!

    17 33.33%

Thread: WTC Collapses

  1. #1241
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    I think he's a fairly intelligent man but if you're not someone who knows much about engineering, you can easily be fooled into believing the official story.
    We are dealing with at least 3 different factors, intelligence, knowledge and emotional blocks. Emotional blocks can interfere with intelligence. It is rarely easy to tell what it is.

    But the JREFers claiming my post was off topic was outside the box. There wasn't any basis for that. I was just being a little sarcastic in the joke. But why start another thread with it. I don't know if it was a different moderator that closed the thread or not. I just figured somebody would razz me about the sarcasm. I never conceived of that reaction. That entire incident goes in my stupid column.

    I asked Tricky to delete my previous suggested books. He hasn't responded.

    But there is the problem of people who actually come across as intelligent enough to easily understand why the planes could not do it but argue that they did anyway. That is how R. Mackey comes across to me and most of the time I get that impression with econ41 also. It is often like they are helping the not so smart BELIEVERS to believe what they prefer.

    psik
    Some people are clearly in on the deception. We can speculate on who is and who isn't but I personally find it's not really worth my time at present. The line between someone who's trying to deceive and someone who's angry that you would challenge their belief in the deception blurs in my view. I guess in the ending all you can do is keep on trying to show potential disbelievers the truth. Some people do eventually become persuaded. The other day, Headspin showed me a video of Plato's cave. The details may not apply in this case, but I definitely liked the concept...

  2. #1242
    I don't know if you guys are familiar with the term Authoritarian?

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiki
    The authoritarian personality is an influential theory of personality developed by University of California, Berkeley psychologists, Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford in their 1950 book of the same name. The personality type is defined by nine traits that were believed to cluster together as the result of psychodynamic, childhood experiences. These traits are conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, anti-intraception, superstition and stereotypy, power and "toughness," destructiveness and cynicism, projectivity, and exaggerated concerns over sex.[1] In brief, the authoritarian is predisposed to follow the dictates of a strong leader and traditional, conventional values.
    There's a really good book Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians which covers the results of a huge number of tests done on the authoritarian mindset.

    OK, what’s this book about? It’s about what’s happened to the American government lately. It’s about the disastrous decisions that government has made. It’s about the corruption that rotted the Congress. It’s about how traditional conservatism has nearly been destroyed by authoritarianism. It’s about how the “Religious Right” teamed up with amoral authoritarian leaders to push its un-democratic agenda onto the country. It’s about the United States standing at the crossroads as the next federal election approaches.

    “Well,” you might be thinking, “I don’t believe any of this is true.” Or maybe you’re thinking, “What else is new? I’ve believed this for years.” Why should a conservative, moderate, or liberal bother with this book? Why should any Republican, Independent, or Democrat click the “Introduction” link on this page?

    Because if you do, you’ll begin an easy-ride journey through some relevant scientific studies I have done on authoritarian personalities--one that will take you a heck of a lot less time than the decades it took me. Those studies have a direct bearing on all the topics mentioned above. So if you think the first paragraph is a lot of hokum, or full of half-truths, I invite you to look at the research.
    I have a feeling that most ardent creationists and defenders of the 'Official line' could be branched within this psychological profile.
    I can definitely see quite a lot of them on the Dawkins forum. Mostly on the thread about socialism vs. capitalism. The worst thing is you really can't change their mind, even when they come face to face with the evidence that proves them wrong.

    It's a good read, it'll broaden your understanding of them, or at the very least confirm your suspicions.

    I can't post a link, but just google it, it's on the net for free.

  3. #1243
    Quote Originally Posted by leeray666 View Post
    I don't know if you guys are familiar with the term Authoritarian?
    A little. Good wiki excerpt :-).



    There's a really good book Bob Altemeyer's - The Authoritarians which covers the results of a huge number of tests done on the authoritarian mindset.


    I have a feeling that most ardent creationists and defenders of the 'Official line' could be branched within this psychological profile.
    I can definitely see quite a lot of them on the Dawkins forum.
    Dawkins is a strong anti-creationist though. And sciforums doesn't exactly lend itself to them either. In all honesty, I think it's for this very reason that people like me, you and psikeyhackr can go on about 9/11 as an inside job in forums like this; because there is enough respect for theories that show they have scientific evidence.


    Mostly on the thread about socialism vs. capitalism. The worst thing is you really can't change their mind, even when they come face to face with the evidence that proves them wrong.
    I think they would say it doesn't :-p. However, I think that now that we truly have some really high calibur people in here, it's quite interesting to note that the official story people have evaporated in this thread; one might be led to believe that they're afraid to hear the truth...


    It's a good read, it'll broaden your understanding of them, or at the very least confirm your suspicions.

    I can't post a link, but just google it, it's on the net for free.
    Ok, may check out soon :-)

  4. #1244
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Atheists can be every bit as fanatically religious about their beliefs as any religious extremist. The offcial 911 story reinforces the beliefs of fanatical atheists in that they point to 911 as a way to justify what they have been saying all along "religion is bad, look at 911". It is similar to the liberal left Chomskyites who point to 911 as a way to demonise what they hate "if we keep bombing the arabs they will commit terrorist acts, look at 911". Vast numbers of people use 911 to reinforce their own doctrine. Fanatical atheist Dawks have a lot more in common with the creationists than they realise.

  5. #1245
    I see what you're saying. But I wouldn't bunch atheists up in anywhere near the same way as creationists. Yes, there are some that would point to 9/11 certainly and blame the event on religion, it has been done and it will forever be done. There are authoritarians in every group of people.
    Scott- I didn't mean I saw creationists on Dawkins site (man, they'd have to be brave).

    I actually set up my first thread on the Dawkins forum about questioning the 'official line', because I had seen many comments that worked against the Dawkins forum philosophy which is 'clear thinking rationalism'. I witnessed people attacking messengers, attacking the providers of evidence and on occasion burying their head in the sand and ignoring evidence, on many issues.
    So yeah, some 'Fanatical atheist Dawks' do have a lot in common with creationists. Which is really quite sad.

  6. #1246
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    10,260
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    However, I think that now that we truly have some really high calibur people in here, it's quite interesting to note that the official story people have evaporated in this thread; one might be led to believe that they're afraid to hear the truth...
    HA-HA-HA!!!!!! You really believe that don't you?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    The REAL truth is that we got tired of all the ignorant people here with their delusions, lies, half-truths and garbage!!!

    In fact, I dropped in just now to see how many of you fruitcakes were busy patting yourselves on the back since all the truly intelligent people here started ignoring you.

  7. #1247
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    929
    Quote Originally Posted by leeray666 View Post
    I don't know if you guys are familiar with the term Authoritarian?
    I have read articles about authoritarian personalities, never a book though. I encountered the term decades ago and immediately associated it with a lot of the jerks I had to deal with in Catholic schools. I decided I was an agnostic at 12 and mostly ignored them. Got straight D's in religion freshman year in high school. LOL

    But I had not connected Authoritarian Personality types with this 9/11 business. That explains the EMOTIONAL BLOCKS.

    Thanks!

    Damn but there are a lot of them.

    Physics trumps psychology and is incapable of giving a damn about it.

    Isn't being out of touch with reality part of the definition of INSANITY?

    Isn't physics REALITY?

    psik

  8. #1248
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    Quote Originally Posted by Read-Only View Post
    HA-HA-HA!!!!!! You really believe that don't you?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    The REAL truth is that we got tired of all the ignorant people here with their delusions, lies, half-truths and garbage!!!

    In fact, I dropped in just now to see how many of you fruitcakes were busy patting yourselves on the back since all the truly intelligent people here started ignoring you.
    Lol! Yeah...you can only beat your head against a wall so long.

    High caliber? Hail....Ive seen peashooters with higher caliber.

  9. #1249
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    929

    Rubber Band Man

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    Lol! Yeah...you can only beat your head against a wall so long.

    High caliber? Hail....Ive seen peashooters with higher caliber.
    Some people can do it forever since there is nothing to come out.

    Of course we can go on with comments like this forever and accomplish nothing.

    Someone on another site asked me about the Popular Mechanics article and provided a link to it. I have pointed out flaws in it before but I don't keep track of what I say but while looking at it agian I noticed the business about an engineer saying that steel loses 50% of its strength at 1100 deg F.

    So I searched the article for "conduct" to see if there was any mention of heat conduction. There wasn't any. Since the steel has to heat to 1100 degrees all of the way to its core to lose 50% of its strength, I searched on "core". The word appeared twice but not about what I was referring to.

    Since the south tower came down in less than 1 hour and the north tower in less than 2 then any explanation must account for how the steel got heated to the core in that time. But that cannot be done without talking about how much steel there was. How thick was the steel and connected to how much other steel?

    There were 34 tons of jet fuel but we don't know the quantity of steel. If there was 1500 tons of steel on the 5 impact levels are we supposed to believe that fuel could raise a significant amount of steel to 1100 deg F in less than two hours?

    But this comes to my pet peeve about not knowing the tons of steel on every level after SEVEN YEARS. I think I have a pretty good case for saying that people who can believe the airliners could bring the buildings down without even asking about the distribution of steel don't qualify as pea shooters. How about rubber bands that are so rotten they break when you stretch them?

    psik

  10. #1250
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    .......So I searched the article for "conduct" to see if there was any mention of heat conduction. There wasn't any. Since the steel has to heat to 1100 degrees all of the way to its core to lose 50% of its strength, I searched on "core". The word appeared twice but not about what I was referring to......

    psik
    I'm not sure what point your trying to make here...it's a pretty well know fact that steel is a good conductor of heat. It's why we use it to make our cooking pans.

    From my understanding, it was a failure of the floor joists that caused the collapse. Here's a picture of one.
    http://www.911truth.dk/first/img/wtcExtColumnsLarge.jpg

    It's some pretty light weight structure. I don't think there would be any problem with that heating up all the way to the core in a hour.
    Last edited by MacGyver1968; 01-20-09 at 03:14 PM.

  11. #1251
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    929
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    I'm not sure what point your trying to make here...it's a pretty well know fact that steel is a good conductor of heat. It's why we use it to make our cooking pans.
    ROFLMAO

    My point is that an article promoting the official story doesn't bring up an obvious point that you claim to understand. How could the steel weaken from heat in that little time if we don't even know how much steel there was? Especially since the steel should be able to conduct heat away from the fire thus keeping itself from getting hot enough to weaken.

    So why isn't EVERYBODY COMPLAINING about not having that information after SEVEN YEARS?

    Even people who believe the official story should think that is STUPID!!!

    The people who don't believe the official story should be pointing out that information is necessary for the analysis.

    psik

  12. #1252
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    ROFLMAO

    My point is that an article promoting the official story doesn't bring up an obvious point that you claim to understand. How could the steel weaken from heat in that little time if we don't even know how much steel there was? Especially since the steel should be able to conduct heat away from the fire thus keeping itself from getting hot enough to weaken.

    So why isn't EVERYBODY COMPLAINING about not having that information after SEVEN YEARS?

    Even people who believe the official story should think that is STUPID!!!

    The people who don't believe the official story should be pointing out that information is necessary for the analysis.

    psik
    I'm just curious...if you did have this data, what would you do with it? It seems it's all you talk about.

  13. #1253
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    10,260
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    I'm just curious...if you did have this data, what would you do with it? It seems it's all you talk about.
    It's the only thing he can think of to talk about.

    And he's certainly showing a gross lack of intelligence when ANYONE can see how tiny those floor joists are!! Plus, directly above them was a fair amount of concrete (the actual floor) which served as thermal-mass storage - keeping the area of the joists EXTREMELY hot!!

  14. #1254
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post

    ... Especially since the steel should be able to conduct heat away from the fire thus keeping itself from getting hot enough to weaken.



    psik
    I'll quote you "ROFLMAO"

    So your saying if I put a long steel rod directly in a 1300 degree fire, that the steel rod would be able to conduct enough heat away from the point heat source to keep the steel less than 1100 degrees? Please tell me that's not what you are saying.

    Look again at the structure of the floor joists. A good part of it is made from round steel rod. Probably not the easiest thing to cover with blow-on fireproofing. These joists had two important roles. One..to hold the weight of each individual floor...and secondly they were also held in "tension", connecting the heavier inner core columns with the outer "skin" of the building...preventing the skin from "bowing" outward under load.

    They are long span joists, with no support in the center. You see how light weight they were built. They get hot...they sag in the middle and pull on the connections to the outer skin. When enough of them broke loose, the outer skin buckled and failed. And then gravity took over.

    http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i4...mnsLarge-1.jpg

    The joist is made of a top rail, (indicated by my crudely drawn blue arrow) and the bottom rail (pink arrow) These are connected by one long steel rod (green arrow) bent in an "M" shape. When the rod got hot enough it allowed the top and bottom rail to sag. Pulling on the connection to the outer wall (yellow arrows)
    Last edited by MacGyver1968; 01-20-09 at 05:32 PM. Reason: typo

  15. #1255
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    929
    I'm just curious...if you did have this data, what would you do with it? It seems it's all you talk about.
    It is not a matter of ME having the data it is experts claiming an airliner could bring the towers down without providing it already.

    How did the NIST compute the structural damage without bringing up how much energy shook the building and yet they admit the building oscillated for FOUR MINUTES. Did you know the building oscillated for four minutes before I brought it up? If not then how do you know what information is necessary to solve the problem and why are you questioning anyone wanting any information?

    Do you expect everyone to just operate in trusting ignorance?

    So your saying if I put a long steel rod directly in a 1300 degree fire, that the steel rod would be able to conduct enough heat away from the point heat source to keep the steel less than 1100 degrees?
    You have not specified how thick the steel is and whether you have a method of measuring the CORE TEMPERATURE. You apparently think you can analyze anything on the basis of vague terms and then imply there is something wrong with other people demanding exact information.

    From my understanding, it was a failure of the floor joists that caused the collapse. Here's a picture of one.
    That is the CLAIM. They have to put the blame somewhere. But they tested 4 floor sections in a furnace and they did not fail in the required time. But they have not performed the obvious test of doing it without fireproofing which they CLAIM would make a difference. So why don't they just do the test and PROVE IT? That seems they obvious and scientific thing to do to me.

    Of course that still would not explain the conservation of momentum problem of the top 16 stories coming straight down and supposedly crushing everything below in less than 18 seconds. That is where the steel and concrete on every level comes in and hast hothing whatsoever to do with the fire. You did understand my mathematics in FALL OF PHYSICS right?

    psik
    Last edited by psikeyhackr; 01-20-09 at 05:16 PM.

  16. #1256
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    10,260
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    It is not a matter of ME having the data it is experts claiming an airliner could bring the towers down without providing it already.

    How did the NIST compute the structural damage without bringing up how much energy shook the building and yet they admit the building oscillated for FOUR MINUTES. Did you know the building oscillated for four minutes before I brought it up? If not then how do you know what information is necessary to solve the problem and why are you questioning anyone wanting any information?

    Do you expect everyone to just operate in trusting ignorance?



    You have not specified how thick the steel is and whether you have a method of measuring the CORE TEMPERATURE. You apparently think you can analyze anything on the basis of vague terms and then imply there is something wrong with other people demanding exact information.

    psik
    The majority of this post is pure nonsense because it clearly ignores the evidence presented in the photos above.

    You cranks are all alike - you ignore everything that doesn't fit with your pre-conceived paranoid fantasy.

  17. #1257
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,942
    Do you think they are covering up data? or just incompetent?

  18. #1258
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    929
    Quote Originally Posted by Read-Only View Post
    The majority of this post is pure nonsense because it clearly ignores the evidence presented in the photos above.

    You cranks are all alike - you ignore everything that doesn't fit with your pre-conceived paranoid fantasy.
    You mean the evidence in the NCSTAR1 report where the NIST admits that they tested 4 floor sections in furnaces and they did not fail. But you are capable of believing what you want on the basis of photographs.

    Those photographs are from before the 4 inch thick concrete slab was poured. So the fuel would be burning on top of the concrete and the steel would be protected. Now the heated air could rise to the bottom of the floor slab above. But why has't the NIST found any steel where the microscopic examination showed the temperature went higher than 600 deg C.

    Why don't you provide a quote from the NCSTAR1 report instead of trying to talk people into believing things on the basis of photographs? The Evince program in Linux will pull quotes out of the report. Adobe won't do it.

    I am a crank because the NIST can't specify the concrete in the towers after 3 years and $20,000,000. LOL

    Some people are too dumb to recognize bullshit.

    psik

  19. #1259
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    929
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    Do you think they are covering up data? or just incompetent?
    I don't give a damn. I am not interested in psychological bullshit. This is an engineering and physics problem and this is the nation that put men on the Moon. You don't get to the Moon and back on the basis of psychological bullshit. You don't build 1360 skyscrapers and have them stand for 28 years on that basis either.

    I don't care about motives, ONLY FACTS. You are talking about useless speculation.

    psik

  20. #1260
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    Do you think they are covering up data? or just incompetent?
    Any reason why you cropped off the three access holes in the box columns? were you "covering up data" ?

Similar Threads

  1. By Stryder in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 01-21-09, 01:23 AM
    Replies: 2517
  2. By reasonmclucus in forum General Science & Technology
    Last Post: 08-07-07, 12:14 AM
    Replies: 5
  3. By duendy in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 04-19-06, 08:20 AM
    Replies: 381
  4. By Brian Foley in forum World Events
    Last Post: 04-02-06, 05:11 AM
    Replies: 10
  5. By Raven in forum World Events
    Last Post: 01-05-06, 07:27 AM
    Replies: 1

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •