The future of 9/11 truth

reply to post by psikeyhackr


why dont the truthers build a replica tower and then prove they are right?

right now they're the ones challenging the accepted view of events.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

It is curious that I can't find steel and concrete distributions on any of them.

Are you thinking that all of them have pre-packed with explosives?
Or could it be that all the plans are not in the public domain? Possibly for security reasons.

I didn't say anything about explosives or plans.

The tons of steel and tons of concrete on each level does not specify the number and positions of columns. But it would provide information to compute potential energy and conservation of momentum to analyze the possibilities of any supposed collapse from the top.

So people who know enough to design skyscrapers should know stuff that obvious just like physicists.

psik

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

why dont the truthers build a replica tower and then prove they are right?

right now they're the ones challenging the accepted view of events.

How can you build a decent replica model without accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete?

You are talking crap just like Ryan Mackey. He presents the concept of a physics model then he runs away when I talk about getting the mass distribution similar to the real buildings. My model only makes some degree of sense because I deliberately make the support as weak as possible relative to the weight I am using.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr
with this , from your post"The Kennedy assassination did not involve a HUGE defiance of the Laws of Physics and thus did not involve the entire Physics Profession" I take it you do not know of the magic bullet then. as too the rest of your post, there are some out there web sites and you tube videos that show how this was done from the inside out , why do you think I put the 1993 in there.

all you would need is 5 floors all filed with the same office type furnishings' this could be done on a 1/5 the scale model add a model plane of the same type and fuel at the same speed set to scale that being 1/5 and see what happens. Then on an other model add demo charges to see if was an inside job.

Originally posted by Sigurd
reply to post by lampsalot

 

On Christmas Eve in 1741, David Nitschmann and Count Nicolaus von Zinzendorf, leading a small group of Moravians, founded the mission community of Bethlehem along the banks of the Monocacy Creek by the Lehigh River in the colony of Pennsylvania. They named the settlement after the town of Bethlehem in Judea, the birthplace of Jesus. Originally it was a typical Moravian Settlement Congregation, where the Church owned all the property. Until the 1850s, only members of the Moravian Church were permitted to lease land plots in Bethlehem. The historic Brethren's House, Sisters' House, Widows' House and Gemeinhaus (Congregation House) with the Old Chapel are remnants of this period of communal living.

en.wikipedia.org...#

Eugene Grace, President of Bethlehem Steel Corporation.

The city is the location of Pennsylvania's largest casino, the Sands Casino Resort Bethlehem, located on the former Bethlehem Steel property.

en.wikipedia.org...

Very interesting. Don't know what it has to do with 9/11 but very interesting. It also happens to be near my hometown. As a side note, the long term residents of the area would much prefer the Steel plant was still there. They're not that crazy about the casino.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

It is curious that I can't find steel and concrete distributions on any of them.

That's because you refuse to read the report. Not suprising you can't find it. Its like being suprised you can't find a deer but refuse to go into the woods.

Give me some math. That is the language of physics. You should be able to prove, mathematically, that 9/11 was not possible. You may even assume any range of "steel and concrete distribution" that makes you happy. That's what scientist do when they are confronted with an unknown (in this case unknown only to you), they assume a range of possibilites and then work to the conclusion. They then compare the point in the range with the known charateristics and decide the relative possibilites.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

with this , from your post"The Kennedy assassination did not involve a HUGE defiance of the Laws of Physics and thus did not involve the entire Physics Profession" I take it you do not know of the magic bullet then. as too the rest of your post, there are some out there web sites and you tube videos that show how this was done from the inside out , why do you think I put the 1993 in there.

You can assume whatever you want. I have seen the videos of Kennedy's head moving in the wrong direction relative to where the bullet supposedly came from. I said HUGE defiance of the Laws of Physics. We would practically have to make a list of things that make no sense about 9/11 that involve hundreds and tens of thousands of tons of material. The Kennedy assassination is no comparison. Sorry, but I don't care about it.

I regard it as a distraction that goes into Conspiracy Land rather than physics. The Physics Profession has created a problem for itself by letting this 9/11 business go unresolved this long.

psik

yes, this is the standard "I do not care reply from your post"

Sorry, but I don't care about it.

yes well you should, for this is the reason to ask why and how and who is behind it, why did the towers fall like they did , why in a short time , and why would they come they come down.
Who could have done it, who stood to gain from it, and who could have made it happen.
How could it have been done, how was it done and, and how was it planed

Originally posted by bekod
yes, this is the standard "I do not care reply from your post"

Sorry, but I don't care about it.

yes well you should, for this is the reason to ask why and how and who is behind it, why did the towers fall like they did , why in a short time , and why would they come they come down.
Who could have done it, who stood to gain from it, and who could have made it happen.
How could it have been done, how was it done and, and how was it planed

I am not concerned about WHO IS BEHIND IT. Or why they did it.

Physics is not really about people. But people cannot defy the Laws of Physics.

Haven't you noticed that most people appear to believe that Arab terrorists did the whole thing with airliners? So if the physics alone can prove airliners could not have destroyed the buildings even if they were hijacked by Arabs and flown into the towers then shouldn't that help move people toward finding out who really did it?

So I do not understand why most of the conspiracy theorist types are not promoting the understanding the simple physics to help solve the problem.

psik

Originally posted by bekod
all you would need is 5 floors all filed with the same office type furnishings' this could be done on a 1/5 the scale model add a model plane of the same type and fuel at the same speed set to scale that being 1/5 and see what happens. Then on an other model add demo charges to see if was an inside job.

The most important issue with the north tower is if the portion above the impact zone could crush that intact part below the impact zone. A five story model ist totally useless. I use 33 levels of similar design because it is a multiple of 11 like the WTC and then drop 4 of the 33 to get a ratio similar to the north tower.

The washers are sorted with the heaviest toward the bottom but I am sure the mass distribution does not match the WTC. But because paper was the weakest support material I could find I had to make the paper loops stronger toward the bottom like a real skyscraper. It is not the crash and fire that is the smoking gun it is the "so called" collapse.

Accurate data on the structure should show the collapse could not happen with the currently known inputs.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

It is not the crash and fire that is the smoking gun it is the "so called" collapse.

Which, of course, was completely impossible with a model that had a huge broomhandle stuck in the middle that ensured that there would be no collapse.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

but I am sure the mass distribution does not match the WTC. But because paper was the weakest support material I could find I had to make the paper loops stronger toward the bottom like a real skyscraper

Since your model doesn't come anywhere close to the real thing maybe that's why the results doesn't come anywhere close to the real thing.

Correct me if I am wrong.
You had floors (washers) stacked on top of walls (paper rings). Alternating between the two.
That's not even close to the actual construction.

Now if you had floors (washers) glued to the inside of the walls (paper rings) you might get closer.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

but I am sure the mass distribution does not match the WTC. But because paper was the weakest support material I could find I had to make the paper loops stronger toward the bottom like a real skyscraper

Since your model doesn't come anywhere close to the real thing maybe that's why the results doesn't come anywhere close to the real thing.

It is not my fault that you cannot comprehend a model that demonstrates the relevant principles of physics.

But since no one seems to have the data on the strength of the truss connections relative to the weight of the floor assemblies it is impossible to build a realistic tube-in-tube structure. I have never even seen anyone specify the total weight of all of the trusses and floor pans. The concrete slab outside the core was 600 tons, four times the weight of the plane. So everybody is supposed to BELIEVE in the Official Conspiracy Theory on the basis of a lack of information.

psik

Of course it has a future. Assuming people are still free to speak in the future. Which is by no means certain.

I think it'll be kind of like the JFK thing. Eventually, you won't hear about it as much but it will always be there in the background. For those of us who just have that gut feeling, it's never going to go away.

And yeah. Unfortunately, a very substantial number of early "truthers" were simply liberals using whatever they could get their hands on to tear down Bush. Now that they have a president they like, they don't need the 911 thing anymore. They never truly cared.

I'd like to say we don't really need them but unfortunately, when our numbers shrink, we're going to be more vulnerable to suppression by brute force. Hopefully, they would never resort to this but I guess you never know.

For those of us who saw it happen on live TV that day, 9/11 is larger than life. But in the future, there will still be people who will look at it and wonder. If there is no evidence at all for conspiracy, they will still wonder. Because that's the nature of the human mind. We just instinctively know better than to trust. Everything we are tells us not to trust and we have to fight that every day to get through the day and do what we need to do in order to live our lives. Every "debunker" you ever met (assuming they weren't punching a clock) was terrified of the unknown. Even the possibility of it destroys the delicate illusion of trust they have built up in their minds in order to function.

But some are not afraid of the unknown and never trusted anyone anyway. There will always be some. Unless they find a way to genetically modify people so we're never born.

Originally posted by BrianFlanders
But some are not afraid of the unknown and never trusted anyone anyway. There will always be some. Unless they find a way to genetically modify people so we're never born.

It is not a matter of TRUST.

It is a matter of UNDERSTANDING.

Even if I believed airliners and fires destroyed the towers I would want details on how it happened because it is so AMAZING. Science is a TRUTH MOVEMENT. At least it is supposed to be.

psik

9/11 truth has an academic future. It may have a political future in the sense that people are more sceptical of the government now than they were before 9/11. 9/11 truth has been part of a growing movement to expose the machinations of governments, but I don't see any signs that governments are altering their modus operandi.

They are still pulling stunts and will continue to do so. Why?

Because "if it doesn't affect me, I'm not interested", is the response of most of humanity to any given political development.

Most of these people don't subscribe to Pericles' notion that people who don't take an interest in politics should beware, because politics might take an interest in them.

Another big problem with 9/11 is that it is an IQ test of sorts, an IQ test that most people, including me, failed. People don't like to admit that they were taken in. They don't like to admit that they elected monsters to high office.

Americans would rather jail the perps for tax evasion than mass murder, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It's not as disturbing.

I don't think 9/11 will get jail time for any of those responsible or their co-conspiritors and tools.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Another big problem with 9/11 is that it is an IQ test of sorts, an IQ test that most people, including me, failed. People don't like to admit that they were taken in.

Now that is funny. I have been thinking that for some time.

So what does that say about all of the PhD physicists who say nothing about the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers? How can the physics be analysed without the data? So are they deliberately avoiding the subject?

psik

reply to post by ipsedixit

They don't like to admit that they elected monsters to high office.

Or, conversely, they really don't like to admit that they were bamboozled by some fast talkers on the internet selling paranoia and self-delusion. Particularly when that deslusion includes visions of self-importance that may be lacking in every day life. Wouldn't it be nice to think that you're so important that the security apparatus of the most powerful nation in human history goes out of its way to hire people to talk to YOU on the internet?