What is a 9/11 "Conspiracy Theorist"?

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Is playing word games all you can do?

They're your words. I'm just repeating them. You drew your conclusions and then complained time and time and time again that there wasn't enough information provided to draw a conclusion.

Here is my solution:

There you go again. You've allegedly described your solution yet claim you don't have enough info.

Where is your physical model that can be completely collapsed by less than its top 15%?

WTC 1 & 2. Full scale models.

Which engineering school has made a model that can completely collapse?

None, they're too busy actually doing real things.

reply to post by hooper

WTC 1 & 2. Full scale models.

If your experiment is not repeatable it is not science. It is glorified storytelling at best.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Where is your physical model that can be completely collapsed by less than its top 15%?

WTC 1 & 2. Full scale models.

Here, hooper demonstrates that he has little idea why models are created.

A very lame answer that completely avoids the valid question that psikeyhackr asked.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
Where is your evidence that it is a vertical columns section and not a horizontal beam from the core?

It's a fair question. I am in fact using the very photo that you conspiracy mongors introduced me to. It's the one with the central core columns that were cut by acetalyne torch. Namely, this one-

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/86f00c67e186.jpg[/atsimg]

The cut columns are exactly the same kind of rectangular box column with the H flanges on the corners as the bent column is. Your fellow conspiracy mongors insist on using this photo to claim the core columns were destroyed by secret hush-a-boom exploding thermite, so I have to presume you accept this photo of what core columns look like is legitimate. Ergo, this bent column came from the core.

Incorporate the fact into your conspiracy propaganda as you see fit.

Even if it is a vertical columns you have no explanation of what caused it. If the top of the north tower could destroy everything below then why aren't we told the amount of steel on every level? Didn't that have to be determined to construct the building.

You are right, there's no way I can irrefutably explain what caused it. I can, however, explain what irrefutably did NOT cause it, and that's explosives or thermite. Explosives would show scorch marks, impact marks or shattered steel, while thermite would have melted it. This wasn't exploded or melted, it was physically bent, and barring Superman coming by and twisting the steel, I have to conclude it was bent from the mechnical forces of the collapse itself. Physics necessarily have to apply to your conspriacy stories just as they apply to everyone else, you know.

..as for "why we weren't told how much steel was on each level", the answer is easy- nobody cares except for you conspiracy mongors, and the only reason you want to know such a trivial detail is because you're grasping at straws in desperation from not having a microbe of tangible evidence backing your conspiracy claims up.

The steel had to hold up the CONCRETE. So not talking about the concrete in what you CLAIM was a gravitational collapse is nonsense. I am not interested in DEBATING against you. This is about resolving a grade school physics problem. The longer it takes to get resolved the more stupid the people that can't figure it out will look.

If you're genuinely out to resolve a grade school physics problem, then here's one for you. The question isn't over whether the steel can hold up concrete. The question is whether the steel could hold up the massive amounts of wreckage from the upper sections crashing down on it regardless of whether it was holding up concrete, and the photo of the bent core column shows that it couldn't. You can whine, you can insult me, or you can hold your breath until your face turns blue for all I care, but at the end of the day your not liking this fact does not make this fact any less of a fact.

This whole "how much concrete was it holding up" is nothing but a red herring on your part.

9/11 is the biggest joke in scientific history.

No, I'd have to give that to the encyclopedia of inane conspiracy stories those damned fool conspiracy websites are churning out. Demolition charges that explode silently AND melts steel AND burns for months, energy weapons from outer space that disintergrates buildings but not people, tactical nukes that only blow up fifty square feet and leaves no radiation, gigantic hologram projectors, the list of stupid things the conspiracy people are blindly parroting without thinking goes on and on.

Don't even get me started on the "missile pods on the wings" idiots. They are "conspiracy theorists" by everyone's definition.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It's a fair question. I am in fact using the very photo that you conspiracy mongors introduced me to. It's the one with the central core columns that were cut by acetalyne torch.

So you say that to say NOTHING.

I don't give a damn about your CONSPIRACY MONGERS brush.

We don't have data on the length of horizontal steel on each level in the core. We don't have the weight of steel on each level of the core. And all of these pictures of the aftermath do not explain how the event could occur. How could the mass above the impact on the north tower force down the intact mass below the impact.

That is the question.

All of you crap about CONSPIRACY MONGERS is just drivel. This is a physics problem.

So we have had TEN YEARS of bullsh# physics because we don't have data on the buildings that was necessary to design them to make them stand for 28 years.

You are right, there's no way I can irrefutably explain what caused it. I can, however, explain what irrefutably did NOT cause it, and that's explosives or thermite.

So why are you talking to me about explosives when I never said anything about them?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
We don't have data on the length of horizontal steel on each level in the core. We don't have the weight of steel on each level of the core. And all of these pictures of the aftermath do not explain how the event could occur. How could the mass above the impact on the north tower force down the intact mass below the impact.

All right, let's recap this conversation. You, yes YOU, demanded to know...

"If you don't distinguish FLOOR and LEVELS either accidentally or deliberately that is your problem. But for the north tower 15 LEVELS came down and the core came down on the core. I have no reason to think that the 15 FLOORS became separated from the core. So you explain how the core was destroyed."

...so I gave you an explanation on how the the core was destroyed, and even gave you a photo of a recovered core columns that showed what happened to it. You, yes YOU, then demanded proof that this beam came from the core...

"You have no evidence whatsoever about what the columns in the core did. You are just talking. That picture does not tell us where that steel came from in the building whether it was a column or a horizontal beam from the core."

...so I showed you another photo of the core columns that proved this beam was a core column. In short, you demanded to know how the floor braces failed and I explained it to you. You demanded to know how this compromised the core columns and I showed it to you, and you demanded to see evidence that the evidence I showed you were in fact core columns and I showed that to you as well. Now, you're running away from your own questions and are attempting to change the subject back to the what happened to the floor braces I already answered umpteen posts ago.

You keep trying to cop an attitude and pretend that everyone around you has comprehension problems, when the only comprehension problems I'm seeing here is coming from you. How many times does it need to be repeated that the floors were hit with a force greater than their ability to support before you start to understand that the answer to your question is that the floors were hit with a force greater than their ability to support? Keep on asking the exact same question over and over, if you want. We're only going to give you the exact same answer that the floors were hit with a force greater than their ability to support over and over.

It's obvious that the problem isnt that there are no answers to your questions, because there obviously are. The problem is that you have a political agenda and you don't want to accept the answers you've been given.

So why are you talking to me about explosives when I never said anything about them?

Because you keep insisting that "9/11 is a joke" and "we've only been given ten years of bullsh# physics, so it's clear you don't accept any of the FEMA, NIST, MIT, Purdue, etc., non-conspiracy reports. If you're not one of the controlled demolitions groupies, then the only ones left that I'm aware of are the "lasers from outer space" groupies and the "nukes in the basement" groupies. Which conspiracy are you trying to push?

What is a 911 conspiracy theorist? In most cases they are people looking for truths. I am sure there are a few people who are convinced that lasers from outer space brought down the WTC. However most people who have done some simple research and have read what the experts and have discovered and read their scientific reports will be convince that the WTC were destroyed by demolition as evidence proves this.
www.ae911truth.org...

911 Conspiracy theorists, are not a bunch of tin foil hatters who want to believe in ridiculous conspiracies, they are not people with too much time on their hands that sit in mommy’s basement creating impossible conspiracies for fun.
911 Conspiracy theorist are people of all walks of life from around the world, many where credible eyewitness at ground zero who went on public record to have witness multiple explosions and flashes going around all three WTC as they were coming down. The fact is over 500 eyewitnesses at ground zero such as NYC Firemen, NYC Police, first responders, office workers and many spectators saw something different that doesn’t support the official story of 911.
Apparently the FBI decided to bury their written statements from the public. Several years later the New York Times sued the NYC Government under the FOIA and won their lawsuit and everyone can now read their credible statements here.
graphics8.nytimes.com...

Many 911 Conspiracies theorists are:
www.ae911truth.org...
www.patriotsquestion911.com...
www.lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com...
www.pilotsfor911truth.org...
firefightersfor911truth.org...
www.journalof911studies.com...
911truth.org...
We are in here to deny ignorance not to embrace it as a few on this thread will try to convince you to believe.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
...so I gave you an explanation on how the the core was destroyed, and even gave you a photo of a recovered core columns that showed what happened to it. You, yes YOU, then demanded proof that this beam came from the core...

"You have no evidence whatsoever about what the columns in the core did. You are just talking. That picture does not tell us where that steel came from in the building whether it was a column or a horizontal beam from the core."

...so I showed you another photo of the core columns that proved this beam was a core column.

Because you keep insisting that "9/11 is a joke" and "we've only been given ten years of bullsh# physics, so it's clear you don't accept any of the FEMA, NIST, MIT, Purdue, etc., non-conspiracy reports. If you're not one of the controlled demolitions groupies, then the only ones left that I'm aware of are the "lasers from outer space" groupies and the "nukes in the basement" groupies. Which conspiracy are you trying to push?

We don't even have accurate data on the HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the coare and you think you can just make some CLAIM and call it an EXPLANATION.

How strong were the joints between the horizontal beams and the columns relative to the strength of the connections to the trusses outside the core?

OOPS, we don't have information about that either.

So you make up buillshi# and call it physics. I'm so impressed.

psik

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Justoneman
How can anyone not connect these dots and see something is way off with the official version who is not a shill? ]

Because we are sane.....

Not because you are sane but because you imagine you can see a linear distribution of dots symbolizing bits of evidence, whereas if you really researched 9/11 properly and thoroughly instead of just accepting what you were spoon fed, you would realize that these dots really DO look like they are distributed randomly, few of them being mutually consistent, let alone consistent with hard facts.

Chris Mohr is a better sounding better debater than Gage but everything is explained by

GRAVITY DOES TERRIBLE THINGS!

He keeps saying that experts keep assuring him of things like enough energy. But Potential Energy is weight times height and Gage threw out a Kilowatt Hour number but where is the steel and concrete at what heights?

I wouldn't pick either of these two a want to slap both of them. It is like there objective is to resolve nothing and debate forever. It is like a debate about whether or not there was a controlled demolition not an explanation of how the top of the north tower could crush the rest or how the top 29 stories of the south tower tilt/rotated 22 degrees in a couple of seconds.

psik

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Justoneman
How can anyone not connect these dots and see something is way off with the official version who is not a shill? ]

Because we are sane.....

Not because you are sane but because you imagine you can see a linear distribution of dots symbolizing bits of evidence, whereas if you really researched 9/11 properly and thoroughly instead of just accepting what you were spoon fed, you would realize that these dots really DO look like they are distributed randomly, few of them being mutually consistent, let alone consistent with hard facts.

What a joke simple logic must have seemed to you as a child. Connecting dots from Pres Ike's speach about the "Miltary Industrial Complex" to the JFK coup to get started (CIA's own Hunt gave a deathbed confession/bragging to his family about why they had to do it and a reason as to why he was photographed as a bum in the Life mag pics). Then you can connect dots from JFK to the Gulf of Tonking Lie that made Viet Nam happen and at great cost in lives and money to the USA. Then you can connect the dots of the peacefull protesting MLK being murdered (The King family knows in their mind it wasn't James Earl Ray) and RFK being murdered in California on the day of the Primary elections as he was about to claim the Dem ticket and Presidency (I watched Sir Han Sir Han being found with a smoking gun who later stated sincerely he could NOT have shot RFK he dearly loved him. This even though we all saw him do it).

Just a taste of what has happened that proves to my satisfaction only an idiot could miss those dots and not see a common thread of liars telling a big fat lie about an official version of an event. Watergate was just a little bump in the road for the secret government being exposed, you know the ones that bungled the burglary that were CIA. I can't trust a group of people who are proven liars that have financially raped this land to ever tell me the truth but I can trust all the Civil and Structural Engineers who dispose of your silly and unreal OS. Your clinging to fiction about beams do not compare to the fact all of the rest of the worlds opinion is we were lied to in the OS. The fact that we all know the media is run by just a few people now, only they have the bully pulpit and they ridicule most attempts at getting to ANY real truth about ANYTHING, it seems. God forbid that facts would get in the way of a good story with an agenda to persuade people to do things for a 'greater cause'.

Ostriches keep their heads down and hope no harm comes while the upper end of the food chain knows this will get you killed. Which part of the people portion of the chain do you really belong to if your going to laugh off a lie?

reply to post by psikeyhackr


OOPS! My last post is in the wrong thread.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

We don't even have accurate data on the HORIZONTAL BEAMS in the coare and you think you can just make some CLAIM and call it an EXPLANATION.

How strong were the joints between the horizontal beams and the columns relative to the strength of the connections to the trusses outside the core?

OOPS, we don't have information about that either.

The how is it that you came to your conclusion and also were able to build a model that you swear mimmicks the reactions of the World Trade Center? Or are you admitting that the collapses were possibly the result of the plane crashes but just need a little more info to confirm the results?

Originally posted by hooper
The how is it that you came to your conclusion and also were able to build a model that you swear mimmicks the reactions of the World Trade Center? Or are you admitting that the collapses were possibly the result of the plane crashes but just need a little more info to confirm the results?

What does it mean to be a LIAR?

I swore nothing of the kind. I never say I swear this or I swear that. Not because of any religious reasons but simply because it is idiotic. The more someone says they swear to me the more I suspect they are lying.

My model is not a tube-in-tube structure. That is obvious and I never claimed it was.

But that is a gravitational collapse in my video. That should be obvious to anyone watching and there is sufficient information for anyone to duplicate it. One person has told me he duplicated it and got the same results.

Now people CLAIM that what happened to the twin towers were gravitational collapses. I say they could not be. But official sources don't supply data on distributions of steel and concrete and horizontal beams in the core and perimeter wall panels.

But everyone is supposed to BELIEVE that they could undergo complete gravitational collapses.

ROFLMAO

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Now people CLAIM that what happened to the twin towers were gravitational collapses. I say they could not be.

So no amount of additional information is required, correct? You've already reached your conclusion and determined that the gravitational collapse of any structure is impossible because your single model could not.

But official sources don't supply data on distributions of steel and concrete and horizontal beams in the core and perimeter wall panels.

But according to you its wholly irrelevant. Gravitational collapse is impossible in any model because in your model it was not possible. Why do you keep demanding information that doesn't matter.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Now people CLAIM that what happened to the twin towers were gravitational collapses. I say they could not be.

So no amount of additional information is required, correct? You've already reached your conclusion and determined that the gravitational collapse of any structure is impossible because your single model could not.

My model must support its own weight throughout its entire height. But I deliberately made it as WEAK AS POSSIBLE.

Who makes buildings as weak as possible? My model does not have to withstand the wind like a real skyscraper. I raised the falling portion proportionately higher than the top of the WTC. I dropped the top TWICE. It did not come near complete collapse.

It is the distribution of strength and mass that matter in a real building..

It is not my fault that DUMB people can BELIEVE crap that is REALLY STUPID.

Then there is the way the top of the south tower tilted so fast. I can't simulate that. But that is really the most weird thing about 9/11 but I haven''t heard any experts even vaguely coming up with a good explanation for that.

But according to you its wholly irrelevant. Gravitational collapse is impossible in any model because in your model it was not possible. Why do you keep demanding information that doesn't matter.

It seems that all you know how to do is distort what people say and accuse them of saying it.

In order for a vertical structure to be self supporting it must be strong enough to hold its own weight. The distribution of concrete will affect the distribution of steel and the distribution of steel will affect the distribution of steel because it must support the added steel. So its own ability to hold itself with a safety margin and handle the wind makes a straight down collapse due to the top 15% to be a ridiculous idea.

Not accusing me of swearing anymore?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


So answer the question: Do you need further information in order to determine if the collapse could have been casued by the plane impacts or have you drawn your final conclusions?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So answer the question: Do you need further information in order to determine if the collapse could have been casued by the plane impacts or have you drawn your final conclusions?

He should say YES because we need to prosecute the real criminals and we need to get THAT evidence which supports the real story as opposed to the lie we where told, on the table. Hooper I pray your just ignorant as opposed to a shill because then you could can be educated on physics an issues like credentials of the engineers who have signed the petition to reopen the investigation because the OS is just WRONG. Shills just want to help a group of proven liars.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by hooper

 

WTC 1 & 2. Full scale models.

If your experiment is not repeatable it is not science. It is glorified storytelling at best.

Interesting then that nobody has been able to replicate Steven Jones' results. Despite trying.