It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Psychology101 to Psychology911

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Okay. Almost everyone of your questions is answered within the parts you quoted. Either you are screwing with me or English is not your first language, Though you seem to write it convincingly enough.


I never mentioned a vacuum

I just explained why

And I have never seen that mentioned before. But it’s nice to know I understand it correctly. You can damned well bet they are air tight. You ever seen someone open a window on the 50th floor? Any gaps in those outside walls would literally howl due to pressure differences between the inside and outside, not to mention high speed winds outside at that altitude. Air does not disperse instantly throughout the building. The shafts can’t account for all the air on a floor You cannot squeeze 400,000 cubic feet of air through a few 400 square foot holes instantly. Not to mention that the air will not move from top to bottom immediately. The air that is being pushed will always be a little denser because it’s being pushed against other air. It’s not a vacuum.
The rest of what you describe is not what is in the videos. It was a very uniform blowout a couple floors ahead of the collapse. Exactly how you would expect the air to behave. I believe it’s called fluid mechanics.


EDIT: I explained WTC 7 in my first post. You read it well enough to challenge it, but apparently you fail to understand it.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by Grimstad]




posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad
You can damned well bet they are air tight. You ever seen someone open a window on the 50th floor?


You're talking about the collapsing mass being air tight and causing compression inside the towers, not just the parts of the building that were still intact. Think about how air tight a bunch of busted up concrete slabs or thin steel trusses are going to be as they "fall," ie are ejected out into the air in all directions around the building. At least tell me you don't think in all seriousness that solid debris being thrown out all around the building is indicative of an air tight container.

Even assuming air was compressed down the shafts in the core, the compression is still going to equalize at the end of the shaft, not travel like a bullet across office space and blow out one or two windows.


Any gaps in those outside walls would literally howl due to pressure differences between the inside and outside, not to mention high speed winds outside at that altitude.


There weren't high winds on 9/11, and the floors the collapses initiated from already had huge holes in the side of them. You can watch what little smoke and flame are around the impact holes and see how bad of a pressure difference you can notice. The NIST report even makes a point of how the perimeter columns would have been at almost full reserve capacity for wind loading on 9/11.


Air does not disperse instantly throughout the building. The shafts can’t account for all the air on a floor You cannot squeeze 400,000 cubic feet of air through a few 400 square foot holes instantly.


You're right about all that. But none of that reconciles what I'm saying, it only validates it. Have you seen how many explosive ejections there were out of the towers? They came out all the way up to 50 floors below where the building was collapsing. How did so much pressure accumulate so fast and so far ahead of the actual falling mass? You're the one saying air can't travel instantly. I agree with you.



The rest of what you describe is not what is in the videos. It was a very uniform blowout a couple floors ahead of the collapse. Exactly how you would expect the air to behave. I believe it’s called fluid mechanics.


I'm talking about individual explosive ejections that were ahead of the collapsing building.

Like these:



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Do you honestly think the internal collapse would be along the line of external collapse? Seeing as to how the collapse happened in the center of building so to speak.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   
I havent made it past the first 2 minutes of the video before I stopped to star and flag, just so I wouldn't forget. Great post!



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Do you honestly think the internal collapse would be along the line of external collapse?


Excuse the quality of these images but I have a link to the video they come from here: italy.indymedia.org...





The reason the skylobby is labeled is because a member named WeComeInPeace used it to show how far down these were appearing:




So what was collapsing around the exterior that far down and why? Do you guys have any idea how these things are supposed to have failed in the first place?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


“I've heard that a million times but the floors weren't even airtight.”
“You're talking about the collapsing mass being air tight”

2 windows in approximately 10 stories is not….
“You expect me to believe air is going to go down up to 50 floors ahead of the collapse wave, travel out from the core without decompressing (because that's where all the shafts running between floors were: in the core), and burst out of a random window, dust and large debris and all.”


I think I’m through with you.

And thus ends this exploration into the psychology of the Truther Religion.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad
“I've heard that a million times but the floors weren't even airtight.”
“You're talking about the collapsing mass being air tight”

2 windows in approximately 10 stories is not….


How do you count the uppermost stories (the ones falling) in this image?:



Do they look airtight?

Another problem with your theory is that air was actually rushing up the stairwells in the core according to a firefighter's testimony (just ask for a link if you're interested). Air was rushing up to where the floors were being destroyed and blown outside.



I think I’m through with you.

And thus ends this exploration into the psychology of the Truther Religion.


Aw, you didn't even try.

So now that I've been ordained by a true authority, is Truther Religion kind of like Nazism? Ah, no, wait, because the Nazis were the perceived majority in their day, that's right. Everyone loved the Homeland, remember? Did you know that we went to war with Spain because of the USS Maine incident, and scientific reports of the day showed an external explosion sunk it, but in the 1970's it was finally proven that an internal explosion caused it to sink? It took that long to "finally" learn what was behind an event that caused a war. I guess it was just too painful to learn so soon; what do you think? Or are you still wondering what the Nazis have to do with anything?

You can think what you want but I get around in the world just as well as everybody else on this board, I feel confident in my sanity, and what I see happening to this country, and if you can't come up with a response to what I say then maybe you should just consider why you can't come up with a response. Re-read my posts and think about it?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 

Fun .. My degree is in psychology AND ....


AND .... ? You never finished.



I fully believe that airplanes hit the World Trade Center as well as the Pentagon. 'cuz they did!


What was the proof that convinced you that an airplane hit the pentagon?


I fully believe that those aboard flight 93 brought the plane down - either the hijackers or the passengers brought it down. 'Cuz they did.


Which is it, the hijackers or the passengers?


(they brought it down before the airforce could show up and do the job themselves)


Really, and you have absolute proof of this?


19 Radical fundamentalist muslims hijacked four planes and used them as weapons.


I see you have not researched 911


In September 2002, [FBI Director Robert Mueller] told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers." [Insight]
The FBI says there is no evidence to link the above men to the 9/11 hijackings.
So, one fact is apparent. If those who hijacked the 9/11 airplanes were using stolen identities, then we don't know who they were or who they worked for. We can't. It's impossible.
We don't know who planned 9/11 attacks.
But we do know who they wanted us to think they were.
We do know who they intended America to blame for the attacks.

whatreallyhappened.com...


WASHINGTON -- FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged Thursday that investigators may not know the true identities of some of the 19 suspected airplane hijackers from last week's suicide attacks.
Mueller said last week that he had "a fairly high level of confidence" that the FBI knew the real names of the hijackers, based on flight manifests and follow-up interviews.

s3.amazonaws.com...

As for the so call proof of said airplanes you should read this.


F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage

pilotsfor911truth.org...


Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and sometimes a radical islamic extremist is just a radical islamic extremist.


You can fool all the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.


The passengers aboard the plane that hit the pentagon are all dead and they died on impact (or by having their throats cut by the hijackers).


I like to base my beliefs on hard facts and not on assumptions. Where is your proof that a plane hit the pentagon and not a missile? Where in the world did you get your proof that the passengers had their throats cut? Can you prove that all these so-called passengers were real? Besides quotes from the lying FBI what proof do you have?


That includes Barbara Olsen. None of them are being held someplace by the government and none of them were killed off by the government. They all died when the plane hit the pentagon.


Really, and you have proof to share with us right! Please show your source or are you just assuming. We like to talk about the facts however, if you are just given your “opinion” then please state that.


Israel knew about the 9/11 attacks before they happened.


Wonderful, that makes them terrorist to doesn’t it; however, you have no proof to substantiate your theory.


They let it happen because they wanted the USA to side with them against radical islamics.


Just your opinion, there are no facts that support your beliefs to this statement but it dose show a genuine dislike against Israel to point the finger at them, without a shred of proof.


Israel knew about it through their own intelligence investigations and NOT because they made it happen.


I would love to know where you get your info from. If you have a lick of proof to any of this, please provide a link to it.


Israel knew .. but New York Jews did not. Any conspiracy theory that all the Jews were missing on 9/11 from NYC and the Pentagon are just anti-Jewish bunk.


So the JEWS KNEW? Funny I have been researching 911 for years and this is the first time I have heard of this ridiculous statement. Please provide creditable proof


The US Government did not pull off 9-11.


You have absolutely no proof to support you conspiracy theory. The fact is, the US Government “did” cover-up 911.


But shear ineptness and major financial cutbacks in security programs caused serious security lapses which made the job of the 9/11 hijackers much easier.


Really, so NORAD and the military and the FBI, and CIA had such financial cutbacks that the military could not afford to send “one” fighter jet to intercept any of those airplanes. However, the military just sat back and watched four supposedly hijacked planes fly around for an hour and did nothing, just because they didn’t have enough funding, but they had enough money to fund their war games which were going on at the same exact time. Can you explain this?


The Saudi Royals fund the Wahabbis .. they appease them with hopes that the Wahabbis will bite them last. Therefore, the Saudi Royals are partly to blame for building up the Wahabbis and for fueling that dangerous cult.


I disagree, why don’t you demonstrate by showing us some proof to your accusation.
My “opinion” it was our tax dollars that funded 911. Like the 2.6 billion dollars of missing money, that Rumsfield said at a Press conference the day before 911 happened and was never investigated because all the auditors that were trying to locate the missing monies were killed and their reports were destroyed in the pentagons when it exploded.


Most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia ... something that the gov't wants to downplay.


Really, then why don’t you tell that to Robert Muller head of the FBI because he has made it very clear at a Press conference that we may never know who the hijackers were. Muller said there was no paper trail to link any of the hijackers in the US or abroad, and the FBI has admitted that these so call hijackers were using stolen identities. Maybe that explains why seven out of the nineteen hijackers are still alive and have filed lawsuits and complaints to clear their names.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You ask questions and I answer them but you don’t appear to read them. You argue based on things I did not say. You change a previous statement and try to show I’m wrong.

It’s not your sanity I question.
Deny Ignorance. Learn it. Live it.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   
It's quite simple really.

The lines in the experiment were "OBVIOUSLY" set up to make an easy correct answer.

Now relate that to all of the theories of "how the buildings fell" and see if it makes any sense to you with the information at hand.

You really don't have to be a geniuos to figure ANYTHING out in physics. Just a lot of common sense, like anything else.

IMO a genious does = common sense, which I guess a lot of people do not have these days or maybe ever.

But umm, if you can figure out what 137 means, LMK. ALL physicist WANT the answer to that one, BADLY, including myself.



----edited---
this post was directed towards the person wanting to know how a psychologist could explain anything dealing w/ physics.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by a703o]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by a703o
 


Um. I am not sure what you are trying to say or even prove here but the list of so called "experts" you provided were psychologists and not in any position to judge the matter at hand.
So I shall I share with you my dentist's facts on Quantum Physics? He has some great points that is denied by Quantum Physicists.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad
You ask questions and I answer them but you don’t appear to read them.


Are you talking about me or you? I ask how what exactly do you think was compressing the air? I'm talking about some kind of mechanical movement, not just some generic response like "the building falling." Just an example, can you at least tell me that much?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
The debunker mind is also reflective of the group think mentality.

Case in point...

As an educator I have fun with this all the time and it really opens up my students minds about their behavior.

1. I have one student walk to the office or otherwise run a meaningless errand.

2. I then draw two lines on the board, one clearly longer than the other one, but not by much.

3. I tell the rest of the class, "I want all of you to pick line number 1 when I ask which line is longer, even though line number 2 is the longer line."

4. The student returns and then I pose the question. "Which line is longer, 1 or 2?" "Raise your hand if you think number one is." And of course they all raise their hand.

5. Every time I do this, the odd student out turns and looks and then raises their hand despite knowing that line 2 is longer.

6. The student displays classic group think psychology. When asked why they chose the wrong line, they inevitably respond, "Because everyone else did."

This mentality is the same with adult debunkers with regards to 9/11. Arguably the majority of American's still think 9/11 was an outside job, due mostly to lack of knowledge. When the debunker is exposed to this knowledge, they continue on with the group think mentality and reject anything suggesting 9/11 was an inside job. Often times they will comment about the number of people who disbelieve the conspiracy theories, etc. etc. to go on to prove the group mentality point.

This explains many of the debunker's mentality at least in my experience.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 


Thank you for getting us back on track SD. I think it's brilliant that you have found a way to incorporate this experiment in your class. Curious...did you ever have issue with any of students who were the unsuspecting suspect lash out with a complaint to administration?... or do you pick your suspects based on the thickness of their skin?... and what type of class and demographic are you teaching?

As for the OP and what has transpired since... I think part of the reason why the majority of the posts turned this thread titled "Psychology101 to Psychology911" into "Physics101 to Physics911" could be attributed to classical cognitive dissonance. In the face of undeniable truth... holding this mirror up to the debunkers... anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment sets in and the instinctual knee-jerk reaction is to detour, deflect and fabricate. Nothing new... many of us have seen this over and over again.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad
When WTC 7 took the last drop, most of the floor area was already gone. The air that would normally be between the floors (which would normally still be attached to the walls), and acts as a cushion as it collapses, was not there. The building was essentially an empty cylinder. There was no air to be pushed out of the way.


So, the interior collapsing produced a vacuum? How is that possible?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grimstad
You can damned well bet they are air tight. You ever seen someone open a window on the 50th floor? Any gaps in those outside walls would literally howl due to pressure differences between the inside and outside, not to mention high speed winds outside at that altitude. Air does not disperse instantly throughout the building. The shafts can’t account for all the air on a floor You cannot squeeze 400,000 cubic feet of air through a few 400 square foot holes instantly. Not to mention that the air will not move from top to bottom immediately. The air that is being pushed will always be a little denser because it’s being pushed against other air. It’s not a vacuum.
The rest of what you describe is not what is in the videos. It was a very uniform blowout a couple floors ahead of the collapse. Exactly how you would expect the air to behave. I believe it’s called fluid mechanics.


Do you even realize that you negated any type of free-fall acceleration?

This is exactly what bsbray is trying to explain to you but you want it to be fluid dynamics when it comes to air being pushed out the towers, but a vacuum when WTC 7 falls at 9.83 m/sec^2.



EDIT: I explained WTC 7 in my first post. You read it well enough to challenge it, but apparently you fail to understand it.


I'm sorry to admit that it doesn't seem like bsbray is the one not understanding the catch 22 you've created for yourself.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Ok Watcher-In-The-Shadows i have finally found the time to reply to you. So you falsely claim that the OP is a logical-fallacy/ad-homin... and then in the next post you create one yourself with the following...


Since when are psychologists in a place to make any sort of statement as to the validity of things like physics that would have to do with a falling building and etc? But in that case can I ask my dentist for his thoughts on Quantum Phyics and report it here as truth?


Obviously each profession has their area of expertise. Never once did i state that one or the other should give advice on the other's specialty. I made it abundantly clear, that the psychology in question is used to keep the majority of people from questioning the official story. This is the intent of this thread, to investigate the manipulative approaches in altering perception of reality to favor a fallacy.

As for all of this typical 911 battle banter i can only explain it in part as a diversion tactic encouraged by the debunkers in our midst.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
As for all of this typical 911 battle banter i can only explain it in part as a diversion tactic encouraged by the debunkers in our midst.


Couldn't this be seen as on topic though. Meaning the psychology of using diversionary tactics.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Um. I am not sure what you are trying to say or even prove here but the list of so called "experts" you provided were psychologists and not in any position to judge the matter at hand.

Every person in the world has their own opinion to judge whatever they like, so who are you to say who can judge what? Secondly, psychologists are in a position to say whether conspiracy theorists are crazy or not for believing in conspiracy theories. Not only do the one's I listed above not think people that believe 9/11 conspiracy theories are crazy, they actually support the 9/11 truth movement.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
MY GOD. It's no wonder you guys believe the things you do.
I know you speak English but do you understand it?
I never said anything about a vacuum in WTC 7.
The floors were over half gone when the exterior fell.
Over half the roof was GONE.
Nothing to contain the air, that would have created the cushion.

Why don’t you print it out and take it to your science teacher and maybe he / she can explain it to you.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join