Psychologists explain why some people support alternate conspiracy theories concerning 9/11

To quote Swami and colleagues: "believing that John F. Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman or that the Apollo moon landings were staged increases the chances that an individual will also believe 9-11 conspiracy theories."

Being someone who tried to research the JFK case a great deal I find it rather unfortunate It got a mention like that in all honesty.

Actually In all seriousness It's just plain dumb. I, and just about anyone else who's actually bothered to research this case in particular for, oh let's say, a whole 5 minutes (and I'd hazard a guess and say Swami wouldn't be one of those people), would be able to tell you something isn't quite right. Or something doesn't quite add up about the official story. Hell, even members of the Warren Commission (those responsible for the official story) itself highlighted such doubts about the authenticity of it. Independent researchers can quite literally tear the story apart and 99.999% prove, for one thing, that Oswald was not the shooter.. and wasn't even on the 6th floor at the time It was taking place. It's practically an impossibility.

Some witnesses report seeing more than one figure in the 6th floor at the time also - if true proves a conspiracy. Some witnesses claim to have seen a gunman from the grassy knoll, as well as hearing a shot and seeing smoke originating from this location. Not forgetting smelling gunpowder - If true can either show a second gunman or show that the OS is incorrect in there final conclusion. Jack Ruby can be proven to have had connections to Oswald and members of the crime organisations said to be involved prior to the assassination - proving the WC lied in at least this area of the case. And to top it all off an investigation conducted on the case in the mid-70's actually concluded that and I quote a "probably conspiracy" had taken place. These just being a couple of quick points about the conspiracy angle of the case...

Undoubtedly a conspiracy had taken place here here in one form or another and there's just no doubt that Oswald didn't fire the fatal shot at all. It's not crazy to suggest a thing - It's because It's so unbelievably obvious to see when you have all the facts. It really is unfortunate to see this case constantly fall into the "Crazy conspiracy theory" category, It certainly doesn't deserve to be there in my humble opinion.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
This entire business has the of keeping most people from understanding this grade school physics.

If more people had an understand of grade-school physics we'd see less people claiming there was some violation of physics that day.

Anyone claiming there was a violation of physical laws that day hasn't the most rudimentary understanding of it because no bomb or other device could create any violation of physical laws. Such arguments simply reveal one's ignorance.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
This entire business has the of keeping most people from understanding this grade school physics.

If more people had an understand of grade-school physics we'd see less people claiming there was some violation of physics that day.

Anyone claiming there was a violation of physical laws that day hasn't the most rudimentary understanding of it because no bomb or other device could create any violation of physical laws. Such arguments simply reveal one's ignorance.

So build a physical model that can completely collapsed by its top 15%.

The model has to support its own weigh. It has to crush its own supports. But the only source of energy is gravity accelerating the falling upper portion. It can't produce enough energy to destroy itself.

But without knowing the weight of steel and concrete on every level of the WTC the potential energy can't be computed. So how does the grade school physics get done without the data?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So how does the grade school physics get done without the data?

Are you claiming that the collapse of the twin towers violated some law of physics?
Yes? No?

reply to post by psikeyhackr

But without knowing the weight of steel and concrete on every level of the WTC the potential energy can't be computed. So how does the grade school physics get done without the data?

I don't know, how did you do it? You claim to have reached an conclusion within two weeks of 9/11/2001 tha the airplane couldn't have done, ergo you must have been able to complete the computations without the data, how did that work?

Or are you just pulling our legs and you really don't have a clue and just like to say the word physics?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
If more people had an understand of grade-school physics we'd see less people claiming there was some violation of physics that day.

The grade-school physics in the OS are just that.....grade-school, like first grade. That's the problem with the whole thing.

Peace

Originally posted by Dr Love

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
If more people had an understand of grade-school physics we'd see less people claiming there was some violation of physics that day.

The grade-school physics in the OS are just that.....grade-school, like first grade. That's the problem with the whole thing.

Peace

Are you claiming that the collapse of the towers revealed a violation of the laws of physics?
Yes? No?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So build a physical model that can completely collapsed by its top 15%.

Physical models already exist and have existed for years- falling dominoes. When the first domino is tipped over and hits the second domino, it produces enough force to overcome the second domino's resistance and it begins to fall in turn. When the second domino hits the third domino, not only does it overcome the third domino's resistance, the force is actually twice the amount of force as before because the second domino is pushing against the third domino while the first domino is still pushing against the second domino. And so on, down the line.

Then, there's the WTC. Each floor was held in air from the external columns to the interior core, so every floor was exactly the same in construction and load bearing capacity as every other floor and no floor added to the structural integrity of any other floor. If enough force was placed upon the first floor so that it would overcome its structural integrity and cause it to collapse, physics dictate that the force would be increasingly capable of overcoming the structural integrity of every other floor below it becuase each collapsing floor was added to the mass that was collapsing. The conspiracy theorists are chronically guilty of ignoring this fact, instead imagining (or being lied to by these damned fool conspiracy web sites) that the WTC had the exact same construction as every other building, when it was the unique construction of the building that caused it to collapse in the way it did to begin with.

The question isn't over whether a building can collapse completely from the top 15%. The question is whether there was enough damage from the impact and the fires that would cause the top 15% to start collapsing to begin with.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So build a physical model that can completely collapsed by its top 15%.

Physical models already exist and have existed for years- falling dominoes. When the first domino is tipped over and hits the second domino, it produces enough force to overcome the second domino's resistance and it begins to fall in turn.

That is just further demonstration of why this trivial crap problem does not get resolved.

Where is energy expended DAMAGING THE DOMINOES?

In my washer and paper loop experiment energy must be expended to crush the paper loops. It cannot be rebuilt with the same paper loops. It takes 0.118 joules to crush a loop. The energy comes from the kinetic energy of the falling mass thus reducing its velocity and halting the collapse.

You give us an excellent demonstration of the psychology of rationalizing with nonsense. Correct physics is not nonsense.

psik

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Indeed, the CTist seeks only to enforce a preconceived notion for which there exists no evidence.

Y'all keep saying this and maybe You think if You say it enough, it will come true.

There is BUTT-loads of evidence. Piles and piles and piles. But don't look at that. Just claim no evidence and it will go away.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So how does the grade school physics get done without the data?

Are you claiming that the collapse of the twin towers violated some law of physics?
Yes? No?

Bazant's paper has a problem with the 3rd Law of Motion. This has been said by many people many times.

Likewise the incredibly rapid, near-free fall time would also never happen from a “gravity-driven” collapse because of both Entropy and Newton’s third law– the reactant upward force of the bottom layers.

bogus911science.wordpress.com...

It should have been obvious to physicists within weeks of 9/11 that it was necessary to know the distributions of steel and concrete in order to do the analysis. So the fact that the physics profession has not made a big stink about the information is telling. The steel has to hold up the concrete. The weight of the concrete has to be known in order to know how much steel to put where to support it. And obviously the steel must be distributed to support the added steel. So it had to have increased down the building.

So talking about the top 15% coming straight down and destroying everything below in less than double free fall time from the top without discussing the distribution of self supporting mass below is TOTALLY RIDICULOUS.

So physicists are being very disingenuous by not talking about it. To put it mildly.

psik

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

But without knowing the weight of steel and concrete on every level of the WTC the potential energy can't be computed. So how does the grade school physics get done without the data?

I don't know, how did you do it? You claim to have reached an conclusion within two weeks of 9/11/2001 tha the airplane couldn't have done, ergo you must have been able to complete the computations without the data, how did that work?

Or are you just pulling our legs and you really don't have a clue and just like to say the word physics?

It is not my fault that you can't comprehend something as simple as a skyscraper. This is not a problem on a knife edge. Either it is easy for the skyscrapers like that to collapse or it is extremely difficult to the point of impossibility. So if it is impossible then people who believe it are extremely dumb. So after ten years this is an intense psychological conflict.

But if it is easy for the buildings to collapse then why should there be any problem with making the data available? There can seem to be only one reason to not make it available. The shape of the CN tower shows how the support needs to be distributed.



It makes far more sense that the top would fall down the side then come straight down destroying everything below. This is especially true for the south tower where we see the top tilted 22 degrees. A lighter portion crushing a stronger heavier portion is the case that makes the least amount of sense.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
In my washer and paper loop experiment energy must be expended to crush the paper loops. It cannot be rebuilt with the same paper loops. It takes 0.118 joules to crush a loop. The energy comes from the kinetic energy of the falling mass thus reducing its velocity and halting the collapse.

Your washer and paper experiment is a poor analogy. The paper loops are not separated from the structure after the impact so they continue to act as a shock absorber between their respective upper and lower washers throughout the experiment. In the case of the collapse of the towers, it is irrefutably shown that the building is being crushed from the top down, so the individual floors were no longer part of the intact building once structural failure occured. They were part of the wreckage falling down and causing subsequent intact floors to fail. The ony way your experiment would be remotely applicable is if the individual paper tubes were removed in sequence from the top down.

Of course, that doesn't even go into the fact that the towers weren't made out of a twelve inch stack of paper tubes and metal washers. They weren't made out of cardboard boxes either, but that's Richard Gage's failure, not yours.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
In my washer and paper loop experiment energy must be expended to crush the paper loops. It cannot be rebuilt with the same paper loops. It takes 0.118 joules to crush a loop. The energy comes from the kinetic energy of the falling mass thus reducing its velocity and halting the collapse.

Your washer and paper experiment is a poor analogy. The paper loops are not separated from the structure after the impact so they continue to act as a shock absorber between their respective upper and lower washers throughout the experiment. In the case of the collapse of the towers, it is irrefutably shown that the building is being crushed from the top down, so the individual floors were no longer part of the intact building once structural failure occured. They were part of the wreckage falling down and causing subsequent intact floors to fail. The ony way your experiment would be remotely applicable is if the individual paper tubes were removed in sequence from the top down.

Of course, that doesn't even go into the fact that the towers weren't made out of a twelve inch stack of paper tubes and metal washers. They weren't made out of cardboard boxes either, but that's Richard Gage's failure, not yours.

And the explanation you just gave pretends that THE CORE did not exist.

So obviously we don't need to know the tons of steel that were on each LEVEL of the core.

That is just further example of the psychology of the issue. Just disappear any inconvenient reality. So people on one side are supposed to be too stupid to notice the distortions of reality. But in TEN YEARS no engineering school in the nation that put men on the Moon can build a collapsing model.

Each WTC tower did not weigh 3.5 pounds either. A model much lighter than the real thing must use a much weaker material to collapse at all but it still must be strong enough to support its own STATIC LOAD. Your psycho-LOGIC is absolutely brilliant.

psik