Conspiracy theories vs. mindset.

[psikeyhackr]

My original comment was that thrutherism (the belief that the WTC collapse on 9/11 was an inside job) was an easily disproved theory. That doesn't mean you aren't welcome to ask questions & not believe common evidence, as well as your eyes. I don't believe it warrants more of my time. I'm fine believing that no explosives were planted in the structure & that the crash of the planes knocking fire proofing off beams & columns, the high heat of the aviation fuel fire, the propensity of steel to expand under high heat, all contributed to the outcome forever etched in the memories of most adults who witnessed it in real time.
I'll be interested to hear your new evidence when you're done with you investigation.

Eyes do not think. They only provide observable data. My eyes don't tell me the location of the center of gravity of the tilted top of the South Tower.

But knowing about the hat truss and the maintenance floors at the top makes me wonder about that center of gravity and find it odd that lots of people haven't discussed it in 20 years. But I am not going to place much faith in the thinking of someone who had not investigated the core. Most people decide what to BELIEVE on the basis of their mindsets which is merely accepting what most people around them accept.

 

[jpevans]

Eyes do not think. They only provide observable data. My eyes don't tell me the location of the center of gravity of the tilted top of the South Tower.

But knowing about the hat truss and the maintenance floors at the top makes me wonder about that center of gravity and find it odd that lots of people haven't discussed it in 20 years. But I am not going to place much faith in the thinking of someone who had not investigated the core. Most people decide what to BELIEVE on the basis of their mindsets which is merely accepting what most people around them accept.

Stop dodging the question. What are you doing to investigate your theory, what ever that may be.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Stop dodging the question. What are you doing to investigate your theory, what ever that may be.

I have not given you any theory. I am even inclined to wonder if you understand what the word means.

Either the aircraft impact and resulting fire could cause the top to fall or not. But even if that did cause the top to fall it does not explain how it could come down so fast.

Now if you want to believe that I am the one with the problem because YOU can't figure out the importance of the distributions of steel and concrete are to the design and construction of skyscrapers in relation to a straight down collapse that is your problem. Even if I believed the Official THEORY I would have expected experts to provide and discuss that data to explain the collapse speed long before now. So now they have painted themselves into a corner. Are they going to admit that they refused to solve a simple physics problem for 20 years? The "scientist" who started this thread admitted that he did not think of the distribution of steel, but he is a chemist. I don't know how much he liked physics.

To me Americans are just like Russians who think the invasion of the Ukraine is justified. Think what authority tells you to think and don't ask obvious questions! After TWENTY YEARS the cultural failure to resolve a simple physics problem is more important than 9/11. It is not like I am the only person that thinks like this, most of us are just fed up with talking to NORMAL people. It is just like you are all Trump followers. I voted against the asshole twice and I am not a Democrat. Never voted a straight ticket in my life.

Do you ever think that it is odd that economists do not talk about planned obsolescence and the annual depreciation of automobiles? Is that a bigger deal than 9/11?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Stop dodging the question. What are you doing to investigate your theory, what ever that may be.

I have not noticed any comments on this:

Modeling & Testing


It is not a physical model of the North Tower, it is a physics demonstration. Paper is the weakest material I could think of for supports. The washers provide the mass for weight, momentum and kinetic energy.

A vertical structure must support its own weight. But it must get stronger toward the bottom to hold up more weight. So 1 paper loop was sufficient at the top an 3 were necessary at the bottom. The falling mass used up its kinetic energy destroying the paper loops.

So why didn't the top of North Tower stop. A really good model would cost thousands and require accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete. The square-cubed law would present a problem for any small model. That is why we should have physical and virtual models to test against each other for similar results.