Conspiracy theories vs. mindset.

[psikeyhackr]

Conspiracy theories are theories worked up to explain something. They are starting a point for investigation. Often easily proven or disproven, i.e. everybody saw the airplanes crash into the twin towers, the science of heat distorting metal is clear that beams will twist under high heat & the method of construction (hollow center) was primed for collapse. Others are harder to prove or disprove, like the assassination of JFK, MLK etc. Not being proven is not always the same as disproving.

LOL

And the quantity of steel is irrelevant, all that matters is temperature. Yeah Right!

A cubic foot of air weighs less than 1/10 of a pound. A cubic foot of steel is 500 lb. In 20 years we are not told the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each level of the towers but we should pay attention to some conspiracy.

The Laws of Physics do not care about any conspiracy. Where was the center of gravity of the tilted top of the South Tower? Why didn't it fall down the side. The NIST admits that it tilted 20 to 25 degrees but no mention of the center of gravity.

 

[jpevans]

LOL

And the quantity of steel is irrelevant, all that matters is temperature. Yeah Right!

A cubic foot of air weighs less than 1/10 of a pound. A cubic foot of steel is 500 lb. In 20 years we are not told the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each level of the towers but we should pay attention to some conspiracy.

The Laws of Physics do not care about any conspiracy. Where was the center of gravity of the tilted top of the South Tower? Why didn't it fall down the side. The NIST admits that it tilted 20 to 25 degrees but no mention of the center of gravity.

They were heavy section columns, but subject to distortion by high heat. I was an iron worker for 40+ years & have straightened beams & columns with an acetylene torch. The heat of burning airplane fuel combined with the building technique, the major columns were only around the parameter. caused the failure. Ever one saw the planes crash into the building, either live or on tape.
What do you feel was the cause?

 

[psikeyhackr]

They were heavy section columns, but subject to distortion by high heat. I was an iron worker for 40+ years & have straightened beams & columns with an acetylene torch. The heat of burning airplane fuel combined with the building technique, the major columns were only around the parameter. caused the failure. Ever one saw the planes crash into the building, either live or on tape.
What do you feel was the cause?

If the heavy columns were only around the perimeter then why does the NIST say that the core supported 53% of the weight.

Let me see you provide a link supporting your claim. I will search the NIST text on my phone for that 53% and provide the quote.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Chief engineer John Skilling achieved the objective of open space with a double support system: the first so-called tubular design, consisting of a dense array of 240 columns around the outer wall or perimeter, and a network of 47 huge columns at the core. The core columns supported about 53% of the weight of each building, and were massive, up to 52 inches wide. The steel in these monster columns was seven inches thick at the base.

The NIST Report on the World Trade Center Collapse one year later: Still Dead On Arrival | Visibility 9-11 with Michael Wolsey

The official blog for Visibility 9-11 with Michael Wolsey

www.visibility911.org

Finding that was faster. If 47 columns supported as much weight as 240 how thin could they have been?

Perimeter and core columns had to get progressively thinner going up the buildings so that is why I want to know the tons of steel and concrete on each and every level. Why does anyone have a problem with that? A need to cling to a simple explanation that doesn't raise any issues?

How must be determined before who can be sought. At this point I don't care who because our engineering schools should have been answering the questions I am asking within 6 months of 9/11.

People spreading misinformation since then is no use.

 

[jpevans]

The NIST Report on the World Trade Center Collapse one year later: Still Dead On Arrival | Visibility 9-11 with Michael Wolsey

The official blog for Visibility 9-11 with Michael Wolsey

www.visibility911.org

Finding that was faster. If 47 columns supported as much weight as 240 how thin could they have been?

Perimeter and core columns had to get progressively thinner going up the buildings so that is why I want to know the tons of steel and concrete on each and every level. Why does anyone have a problem with that? A need to cling to a simple explanation that doesn't raise any issues?

How must be determined before who can be sought. At this point I don't care who because our engineering schools should have been answering the questions I am asking within 6 months of 9/11.

People spreading misinformation since then is no use.

Your artical shows that the fire caused the columns to bow causing the crash, but raises questions that weren't addressed. What is your theory? Inquiring minds want to know, if it wasn't the trauma of the crash knocking fireproofing off the steal & the extreme heat. Do you have a theory about it?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Your artical shows that the fire caused the columns to bow causing the crash, but raises questions that weren't addressed. What is your theory? Inquiring minds want to know, if it wasn't the trauma of the crash knocking fireproofing off the steal & the extreme heat. Do you have a theory about it?

Coming up with theories without having accurate data on the thing being theorized about is idiotic. The Twin Towers were man made objects and lots of skyscrapers over 1000 ft tall have been constructed since then. Why is accurate data such a problem for people?

I don't buy the idea of the top falling straight down and destroying the larger, heavier and stronger portion. A little matter of the conservation of momentum and the energy required to bend the steel. But then people don't want to talk about the distribution of steel.

I find it very peculiar. It is like they would just prefer to sweep it under the rug.

In 1940 it only took 4 months to build a physical model of the Tacoma Narrows bridge in a wind tunnel to study the oscillations. They didn't have electronic computers. Now we can supposedly simulate the climate of the planet for the next 80 years but not the collapse of a 1360ft skyscraper.

Don't even want accurate data about the structure.



A physical model is after 3:30.

 

[jpevans]

Coming up with theories without having accurate data on the thing being theorized about is idiotic. The Twin Towers were man made objects and lots of skyscrapers over 1000 ft tall have been constructed since then. Why is accurate data such a problem for people?

I don't buy the idea of the top falling straight down and destroying the larger, heavier and stronger portion. A little matter of the conservation of momentum and the energy required to bend the steel. But then people don't want to talk about the distribution of steel.

I find it very peculiar. It is like they would just prefer to sweep it under the rug.

In 1940 it only took 4 months to build a physical model of the Tacoma Narrows bridge in a wind tunnel to study the oscillations. They didn't have electronic computers. Now we can supposedly simulate the climate of the planet for the next 80 years but not the collapse of a 1360ft skyscraper.

Don't even want accurate data about the structure.



A physical model is after 3:30.

Of course you’re free to look for more details, but what is the purpose. Do you VRA have a theory that you’re trying to verify. You don’t seem to have any faith in the report that says it was a combination of high heat & placement of the columns as a result of the planes crashing into the towers at speed.
I’d like to hear your theory.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Of course you’re free to look for more details, but what is the purpose. Do you VRA have a theory that you’re trying to verify. You don’t seem to have any faith in the report that says it was a combination of high heat & placement of the columns as a result of the planes crashing into the towers at speed.
I’d like to hear your theory.

What report says anything about heat in the lower 90 stories of the North Tower?

If most people cannot comprehend the difference between BELIEVING and UNDERSTANDING that is their problem. They can listen to economists who have ignored the depreciation of durable consumer goods for the last 70 years too.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE ECONOMY?

Morons going into debt for junk designed to become obsolete maybe?

 

[jpevans]

What report says anything about heat in the lower 90 stories of the North Tower?

If most people cannot comprehend the difference between BELIEVING and UNDERSTANDING that is their problem. They can listen to economists who have ignored the depreciation of durable consumer goods for the last 70 years too.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE ECONOMY?

Morons going into debt for junk designed to become obsolete maybe?

Is that your theory.
The floors above the crash sight pancaked the lower floors.
My question is what are you trying to say, do you have a theory that is different from the excepted theory of what happened?

 

[Gordy327]

Hi, MamboDervish!

If I accept your statement as true, it leads to a question; Why do they do this? It's a question perhaps best answered by sociologists and psychiatrists.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

I would say itvcan be any number of reasons why: attention seeking, emotional/psychological comfort, delusion, confirmation bias, ignorance, gullibility, ect..

 

[psikeyhackr]

Is that your theory.
The floors above the crash sight pancaked the lower floors.
My question is what are you trying to say, do you have a theory that is different from the excepted theory of what happened?

I don't say 'floors' very much. I say 'levels' because so many people ignore the CORE.

How do YOU go about Understanding things? If there are gaps that do not make sense do you just ignore them?

It should be obvious to middle school students that lower levels of a skyscraper must support more weight than upper levels. Of course before 9/11 there was no reason for anyone other than a structural engineer to really give a damn. But I think it is really peculiar for architects and engineers to not discuss it especially Richard Gage. He is not explaining, just expecting people to believe him.

Why do you have this fixation on THEORY? Why don't you want a good simulation? That is another thing I find odd about society, so much talk about education with so little mention of curiosity. What is wrong with Wanting to KNOW without wasting time on useless speculation.

I find it funny that this thread was started by someone claiming to be a Scientist. Does the conservation of momentum have anything to do thousands of tons colliding with tens of thousands of tons?

 

[jpevans]

I don't say 'floors' very much. I say 'levels' because so many people ignore the CORE.

How do YOU go about Understanding things? If there are gaps that do not make sense do you just ignore them?

It should be obvious to middle school students that lower levels of a skyscraper must support more weight than upper levels. Of course before 9/11 there was no reason for anyone other than a structural engineer to really give a damn. But I think it is really peculiar for architects and engineers to not discuss it especially Richard Gage. He is not explaining, just expecting people to believe him.

Why do you have this fixation on THEORY? Why don't you want a good simulation? That is another thing I find odd about society, so much talk about education with so little mention of curiosity. What is wrong with Wanting to KNOW without wasting time on useless speculation.

I find it funny that this thread was started by someone claiming to be a Scientist. Does the conservation of momentum have anything to do thousands of tons colliding with tens of thousands of tons?

I don’t know what you think about the commission report. You want to make a simulation, go ahead. It’s beyond my pay grade.
If you come up with new facts, tell someone who can verify.
You sure act like you have a different POV than the scientific majority. So it stands to reason, you have a theory. What are you thinking?

 

[Torus34]

I would say itvcan [sic] be any number of reasons why: attention seeking, emotional/psychological comfort, delusion, confirmation bias, ignorance, gullibility, ect.. [sic]

Hi, Gordy327.

Yup! That's why I made the comment I did. Deciding among those and other possibilities is a job for the pros.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

 

[Gordy327]

Hi, Gordy327.

Yup! That's why I made the comment I did. Deciding among those and other possibilities is a job for the pros.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

While some certainly need professional help, there are those who make it so obvious, even an amateur can diagnose them.

 

[jpevans]

I don't say 'floors' very much. I say 'levels' because so many people ignore the CORE.

How do YOU go about Understanding things? If there are gaps that do not make sense do you just ignore them?

It should be obvious to middle school students that lower levels of a skyscraper must support more weight than upper levels. Of course before 9/11 there was no reason for anyone other than a structural engineer to really give a damn. But I think it is really peculiar for architects and engineers to not discuss it especially Richard Gage. He is not explaining, just expecting people to believe him.

Why do you have this fixation on THEORY? Why don't you want a good simulation? That is another thing I find odd about society, so much talk about education with so little mention of curiosity. What is wrong with Wanting to KNOW without wasting time on useless speculation.

I find it funny that this thread was started by someone claiming to be a Scientist. Does the conservation of momentum have anything to do thousands of tons colliding with tens of thousands of tons?

One man’s floor is another man’s ceiling.

 

[Torus34]

While some certainly need professional help, there are those who make it so obvious, even an amateur can diagnose them.

Hi again.

Thank you for your comment.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

 

[psikeyhackr]

One man’s floor is another man’s ceiling.

And there is more to functional 1360 foot buildings than floors. I noticed that you didn't try to disagree when I provided the link on the core supporting 53% of the weight. Did you not know that. And they would have had suspended ceilings to hide the trusses supporting the floor slab.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I don’t know what you think about the commission report. You want to make a simulation, go ahead. It’s beyond my pay grade.
If you come up with new facts, tell someone who can verify.
You sure act like you have a different POV than the scientific majority. So it stands to reason, you have a theory. What are you thinking?

ROFL

Actually the "scientific majprity" has said nothing whatsoever. The issue is mostly ignored.
If you can't figure out that the distribution of steel must be important to a skyscraper supporting itself then it demonstrates the pay grade of your intellect.

 

[jpevans]

ROFL

Actually the "scientific majprity" has said nothing whatsoever. The issue is mostly ignored.
If you can't figure out that the distribution of steel must be important to a skyscraper supporting itself then it demonstrates the pay grade of your intellect.

So you can't or won't state your theory? There are other theories beside those formed in the FEMA & the NIST reports, some involving molten Aluminum & water, some more CT in nature.
As a retired Iron worker, with a hobby of Blacksmithing, I know about how Iron expands with heat & though I've never worked with such massive sections, the principle remains the same. So, I'm aware of your reluctance to accept prevailing theories, what I don't know is what you're looking for.
You can insult my intelligence if you can't think of anything else to do, but I'm just a Blue collar guy, not a scientist or intellectual & don't claim to be.

 

[psikeyhackr]

So you can't or won't state your theory? There are other theories beside those formed in the FEMA & the NIST reports, some involving molten Aluminum & water, some more CT in nature.
As a retired Iron worker, with a hobby of Blacksmithing, I know about how Iron expands with heat & though I've never worked with such massive sections, the principle remains the same. So, I'm aware of your reluctance to accept prevailing theories, what I don't know is what you're looking for.
You can insult my intelligence if you can't think of anything else to do, but I'm just a Blue collar guy, not a scientist or intellectual & don't claim to be.

You keep talking about being an iron worker but apparently didn't know how much steel was in the core after 20 years implying that the building was supported by the perimeter.

Why don't you want to know how the steel had to be distributed in a 1360 ft skyscraper? Is the conservation of momentum too difficult for steel workers?

Why haven't scientists and engineers been asking about modelling? Raise the top 20 stories of the North Tower 60 feet and drop it on the bottom 90 stories. What would happen?

Americans are like the Russians. Most believe what authority tells them. Turn their brains off and don't think for themselves.

 

[lwf]

I'm a retired scientist. That professional lifetime, itself the result of a desire to become a chemist first felt at the age of 6, has defined my patterns of thought to a large degree. In other words, I tend to seek to rationally understand things through demonstrable fact as opposed to 'common sense'. This provides me with what may be a built-in resistance to conspiracy theories.

Take, for example, the flat earth theory. I live near the Atlantic coast of the US. I've watched ships go hull-down over the horizon. 'Nuf said.

Conspiracy theories, more often than not, are not rooted in demonstrable fact but, rather, in what some person or group of people have stated to be true. They're based in an acceptance of the authority of a person or group. If, for instance, you accept what well-known Democrats are saying, you are in danger of accepting falsities, Exchange Republicans or liberals or conservatives for Democrats and the same caveat applies.

Adopting a mindset of "Show me through solid evidence" can do much to keep junk from accumulating on the shelves of our minds.

Another useful addition to one's thinking toolkit is a good knowledge of, and ability to recognize, logical fallacies.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

I would add that conspiracies are also deeply rooted in the irrational mistrust of other people. The deeply ingrained sense that everyone is either secretly deceptive and that the truth is something that everyone else is deliberately hiding from a tiny minority of like-minded people, or that everyone else except a tiny minority of like-minded people is stupid. The only way one would trust an anonymous person on the internet's explanation for a given phenomenon over the consensus of people who devote their lives and careers to studying said phenomenon is if they feel that all of those other people are secretly evil, or stupid.

 

[Torus34]

I would add that conspiracies are also deeply rooted in the irrational mistrust of other people. The deeply ingrained sense that everyone is either secretly deceptive and that the truth is something that everyone else is deliberately hiding from a tiny minority of like-minded people, or that everyone else except a tiny minority of like-minded people is stupid. The only way one would trust an anonymous person on the internet's explanation for a given phenomenon over the consensus of people who devote their lives and careers to studying said phenomenon is if they feel that all of those other people are secretly evil, or stupid.

Hi, lwf!

"We vs. them" comes in many guises. I try to separate people into two groups: those I've met and those I haven't yet met. It's a nice, simple system.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

 

[jpevans]

You keep talking about being an iron worker but apparently didn't know how much steel was in the core after 20 years implying that the building was supported by the perimeter.

Why don't you want to know how the steel had to be distributed in a 1360 ft skyscraper? Is the conservation of momentum too difficult for steel workers?

Why haven't scientists and engineers been asking about modelling? Raise the top 20 stories of the North Tower 60 feet and drop it on the bottom 90 stories. What would happen?

Americans are like the Russians. Most believe what authority tells them. Turn their brains off and don't think for themselves.

I was an Iron worker, not an structural engineer. Are you an engineer or a scientist? Because I'm sure they have done all the work. Two aircraft smashed into the twins at speed, causing fire & heat.
Do you have some other theory you wish to defend. State your theory or not.

 

[psikeyhackr]

So you can't or won't state your theory? There are other theories beside those formed in the FEMA & the NIST reports, some involving molten Aluminum & water, some more CT in nature.
As a retired Iron worker, with a hobby of Blacksmithing, I know about how Iron expands with heat & though I've never worked with such massive sections, the principle remains the same. So, I'm aware of your reluctance to accept prevailing theories, what I don't know is what you're looking for.
You can insult my intelligence if you can't think of anything else to do, but I'm just a Blue collar guy, not a scientist or intellectual & don't claim to be.

You keep talking about being an iron worker but apparently didn't know how much steel was in the core after 20 years implying that the building was supported by the perimeter.

Why don't you want to know how the steel had to be distributed in a 1360 ft skyscraper? Is the conservation of momentum too difficult for steel workers?

Why haven't scientists and engineers been asking about modelling? Raise the top 20 stories of the North Tower 60 feet and drop it on the bottom 90 stories. What would happen?

Americans are like the Russians. Most believe what authority tells them. Turn their brains off and don't think for t

I was an Iron worker, not an structural engineer. Are you an engineer or a scientist? Because I'm sure they have done all the work. Two aircraft smashed into the twins at speed, causing fire & heat.
Do you have some other theory you wish to defend. State your theory or not.

Electrical not structural but we are all stuffed with Newtonian physics in freshman year.

I would think the straight down collapse of a 1360 foot self supporting structure would be very interesting. But it seems schools produce chicken shits.

So the psychology of nonconformists is more important than the stupidity of conformists. The steel worker must excuse his ignorance of the core.

 

[lwf]

Hi, lwf!

"We vs. them" comes in many guises. I try to separate people into two groups: those I've met and those I haven't yet met. It's a nice, simple system.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.

That is also a system that is prone to mislead you. If everyone you have met personally believes a thing, that doesn't necessarily make that thing likely to be true. It could be that you are simply fanning the flames of ignorance. However, the scientific method allows us to "see the work" of people we haven't met, gauge how large a consensus there is between people we haven't met who nonetheless have the credentials to be considered an authority on a subject, and come to conclusions that might not correspond to the "common knowledge" of the very small fraction of a fraction of a percent of people that we have met personally.