Psychologists explain why some people can't accept alternate conspiracy theories concerning 9/11.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
You trust Newton, don't you?

Of course not, Newton is dead.

Physics is not Newton.

Experiments can be done with physics now.

You can just come up with rhetorical bullsh#!

psik

Why dont YOU calculate the impact loads possible washer man!!!! then STFU about newtons laws if you are going to quote them USE them fully, work out the IMPACT LOAD!!!

PLENTY OF CALCULATORS ON THE NET HERE TRY THIS ONE

www.livephysics.com...


HEIGHT 3.66 mts (floor height for wtc)
Mass 700 tons for the concrete in a floorslab so 700,000 kg
Gravity 9.8
Distance traveled after impact thats the tricky part.

Who cares about a floor slab?

What was the weight of all of the steel in the core of the top portion of the north tower? The floors in that portion of the building were attached to the core. So just talking about the weight of a floor is nonsense.

Why don't you just build a model that can completely collapse? Where is an engineering school that has done it in TEN YEARS?

psik

Originally posted by OGKushKiller
This is Brian Birdwell, a pentagon 9/11 burn victim. Pretty sad story to hear what its like to have actually been on the verge of death on 9/11 and what was going on in THERE head.


www.iamsecond.com...

I had to eat my lunch through tears. I love I am Second, but it's not always easy.

reply to post by roughycannon


You obviously haven't studied the evidence too hard then, because there are about 1000 holes in the official story.

9/11 Commission Admits: We Never Got All Of The Facts
www.infiniteunknown.net...

www.t-room.us...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
might not agree on a certain viewpoint.......

yeah. debunker's can't agree with a viewpoint that all three collapses looked like controlled demolitions.
which has been recorded by 100s of cameras. so much for "certain viewpoints". lol.

Wow is right.

I am not a "truther", but I am a realist. 9/11 was obviously a false flag attack. A good trait to have is when you can honestly debate with yourself and accept when you're wrong about something.

It's funny because recent 9/11 documentaries like "BBC : 9/11 Ten Years On", suggest that anyone who asks questions is mentally ill. Saying that "conspiracy theorists" just can't accept the fact that things are out of control and they just don't have answers for everything. Kind of making asking questions and seeking the truth a taboo subject which is obviously not the way any rational human being should think.

So now what I've said a million times is actually presented in a video and you OS believers get all kurfuffeled. So what??! You can call someone who seeks truth and asks questions a mentally ill tin foil hat wearing stoner who sits in his mom's basement....but when the truth comes out that it is a self defense mechanism that your brain uses to discredit anything so out of your own realm of thinking and to make you more comfortable about yourself, we are just ridiculing blindly?? I don't think so that is not the way it works.

The truth is there are many people in denial about what actually goes on and it is a collectve sickness throughout society that even I was subject to. It really isn't your fault that you are so stuck to your beleifs of good government and them actually looking out for your best interests. It really isn't....we have all undergone massive brainwashing for decades so of course when something that goes against the status quo your brain is going to get in a defensive mode its a primal instinct.

We really need to let this issue stop seperating us as a whole....

If you do't believe 9/11 was an inside job thats fine. Do yourself a favour and study history very thouroughly. Lookup how aids was introduced or how they put cancer in your vaccines or how they drop biological weapons on populations for testing or how they flouridate the water or how they fund both sides of wars. By the book from the club of rome : Mankind : At the turning point. That gives you a sense of just how these people think. Just please don't blindly go on based on a few crackpot conpiracy theories out there that we are all crazy. Besides the issue of 9/11 there is alot more that points to exactly what is going on.

Embrace it when you are wrong because it only makes you smarter.

Originally posted by KILL_DOGG

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by ziggyproductions05
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

Did you even watch the video?

sure did.......and I think its pretty underhanded to tell people there is something wrong with them just because they might not agree on a certain viewpoint.......

Took the words right out of my mouth man. I'm sorry, but I don't buy all the paranoid delusions about thermite and controlled demolition. What happened that day was horrible, and to my mind the only conspiracy I have ever believed in in regards to 9/11 is that the government knew that an attack was eminent and didn't react quick enough to stop it. But to say that there's something wrong with people who don't believe every youtube video that comes out about holographic planes is just dumb and shows that the truthers will do just about anything to be believed.

Why not? The U.S. government has done it in the past.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Again with the molten metal.

Jet Fuel Doesn't Get Hot Enough to Melt Steel

For the umpteenth time, nobody ever claimed the steel melted. It got hot enough to lose its strength.
So Where Did All The Molten Steel Come From? There are lots of accounts alleging that rescue workers encountered molten steel. The first question that comes to mind is whether these witnesses know the difference between incandescent and molten. Steel can get hot enough to glow long before it gets hot enough to melt. The fact that glowing steel was pulled out of the rubble doesn't mean it was molten.


One particular red herring that crops up frequently is that temperatures in the rubble were high enough long after the collapse to melt aluminum. Since aluminum melts at 660o C (1220o F) I don't have the slightest doubt of it. Since a backyard trash fire can melt aluminum, so what?

Apparently, the melting of steel signifies the use of explosives or thermite cutting charges. But the purpose of either is to cut steel, not melt it. A controlled demolition simply does not produce large amounts of molten steel. You might as well argue that all the concrete dust shows the buildings were taken down by an army of gnomes armed with grinding wheels.

If the World Trade Center was hot enough to melt steel, where's all the molten concrete? Iron melts around 1500o C but so do many of the silicate minerals in concrete, and a mixture of silicate minerals would melt at a temperature lower than any of the individual minerals (I'm a geologist - I get paid to know about stuff like that). The fine particle size of the concrete dust would facilitate melting. So why wasn't there a huge puddle of molten concrete at Ground Zero? (There was some, but about what you'd expect from a large fire; certainly not what you'd expect from something hot enough to melt large amounts of steel.)

In a paper by Steven E. Jones, who bills himself as a "Physicist and Archaeometrist," there are pictures of glowing material falling from the World Trade Center, together with this comment:
Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000o C

1000o C, is about 500o C below the melting point of iron.

Oh, by the way, there would have been cutting of steel during the construction. And there's another construction process that melts steel. Welding.

There was no molten steel, melted aluminum yes but not molted steel.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Your blog states that every floor on WTC has to hold the combined weight of every floor above. From what I know, this statement is incorrect. Each floor has a capacity, true, but each floor does -not- have to carry the combined weight of all floors above it. Each floor is instead held up by the central columns, not by the floor(s) below it. This highlights a potential problem with WTC 1&2.

In the pancake collapse, the buckling and heating at the higher floors caused them to collapse. We know from recorded videos that buckling was present just before the collapse of both towers. Since each floor only has a rated capacity for itself alone and not the floors above it, the collapsing floors were able to tear through the floors below them in rapid succession.

As far as I understand it, the only confusing part is how the central columns did -not- survive the collapse. In the pancake collapse simulations, for example, the core remains.

edit on 21-9-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

In the case of the north tower, 94 floors, all the way to the ground, to within a few seconds of absolute free fall, in nothing but air.

If that "makes sense" (absent the use of explosives) then please enlighten us!

reply to post by GenRadek


911review.com...

whatreallyhappened.com...

reply to post by Mcupobob

The presence of iron microspheres in the dust PROVES that there was indeed motlen steel present, specifically, atomized or sprayed molten steel.

reply to post by Mcupobob

I can totally understand this. My mother is one hard to believe of these "crazy talks". Her main reasonings are usually, "well if it is true why isn't anyone doing anything about it?" She is one who wants OTHERS to do the bidding while she sits at home and watches on tv.

That's the problem with this country, including most of us here on ATS, is that we are waiting for something to happen to make us go. However in my mothers case she wouldn't be one to do anything sadly... Keep it going nothing to see here

reply to post by malcr


Wrong again sonny.
911research.wtc7.net...

Proof of thermite.

Originally posted by psyop911

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
might not agree on a certain viewpoint.......

yeah. debunker's can't agree with a viewpoint that all three collapses looked like controlled demolitions.
which has been recorded by 100s of cameras. so much for "certain viewpoints". lol.

Yes they can. However, they do not agree that 'looks like' means 'is'. I've seen what looks like the Mona Lisa painted on a cereal box. Doesn't mean it is.

Originally posted by Mcupobob
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Again with the molten metal.

...

There was no molten steel, melted aluminum yes but not molted steel.

Ok. Others have reported differently. Those who were there on the scene.

From: thermalimages.nfshost.com...

Red Hot Debris. The removal of debris from the collapsed areas requires the safe lifting and maneuvering of very heavy steel beams, often twisted and tangled from the force of the collapse. Some beams pulled from the wreckage are still red hot more than 7 weeks after the attack, and it is suspected that temperatures beneath the debris pile are well in excess of 1,000°F.

So who do You believe? If that was the ONLY questionable thing on 9/11, I'd believe the OS. But if it was a conspiracy (which evidence strongly supports), I would expect "experts" talking molten aluminum (600ish deg) to downplay or obfuscate the actual temps found in the rubble.

In the case of the north tower, 94 floors, all the way to the ground, to within a few seconds of absolute free fall, in nothing but air.

If that "makes sense" (absent the use of explosives) then please enlighten us!

Actually, it doesn't make sense even with explosives. Even if the supports were cut, they still would not be moving at free fall when they were hit the stuff coming down. It's like a car going 30MPH hitting one going at 10MPH. The 10MPH will speed up, and the 30MPH will slow down.

So, if 'free fall' is impossible with explosives, and it's impossible without explosives, then it's just plain impossible.

This ignores the lack of audio-visual evidence consistent with explosives. And lack of barotrauma or witness testimony(any explosives would've been audible across Manhattan), or the sheer unfeasability of sneaking tons of explosives into two occupied, heavily trafficked buildings in the middle of Manhattan, or any of the other things Truthers like to ignore.

Psychologists explaining that some folks simply refuse to submit to dementia because they are already demented? How's that for drumming up business?

See a shrink, give him money, since either way you go, you have to be a nutter.

ROFLMFAO!

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Mcupobob
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Again with the molten metal.

...

There was no molten steel, melted aluminum yes but not molted steel.

Ok. Others have reported differently. Those who were there on the scene.

From: thermalimages.nfshost.com...

Red Hot Debris. The removal of debris from the collapsed areas requires the safe lifting and maneuvering of very heavy steel beams, often twisted and tangled from the force of the collapse. Some beams pulled from the wreckage are still red hot more than 7 weeks after the attack, and it is suspected that temperatures beneath the debris pile are well in excess of 1,000°F.

So who do You believe? If that was the ONLY questionable thing on 9/11, I'd believe the OS. But if it was a conspiracy (which evidence strongly supports), I would expect "experts" talking molten aluminum (600ish deg) to downplay or obfuscate the actual temps found in the rubble.

Too bad the melting point of steel is around of 2,500 F.

If the beams were still red-hot, that means they were still shaped like, y'know, beams, not melted into puddles. It's like saying ice is past its melting point, but is still ice.

reply to post by 000063


Free fall, or near free-fall, is not impossible with explosives. Who said this? Have you ever timed a controlled demolition?

Originally posted by smarterthanyou
reply to post by 000063

 

Free fall, or near free-fall, is not impossible with explosives. Who said this?

Me and Isaac Newton. Who said a CD falls at freefall?

Have you ever timed a controlled demolition?

Have you? Find a full video of a CD moving at freefall.

Keep in mind that the WTC demo would not have been a typical demolition; the bad guys couldn't pre-weaken beams and remove walls like they would in a conventional CD. It would have to be secret.