If we’ve learned anything at all from** psikeyhacker**, it’s that tall buildings should be contructed out of wooden dowels, washers and paper.
A generic post - Conspiracy theorists (my neologism is Conspiracionists) believe in conspiracies because they find it easier than accepting the truth. The truth is that there is no security in this world and random things can happen to kill us or our loved ones and we have no control. But - if we can find someone to blame, then it is no longer random! There are other psychological reasons too. (A need for security in a world where there is none is also one reason why religions prevail.)
And humans are great deniers. We all find a good mystery story intriguing and try to work it out for ourselves.
In my experience on a Language Forum, the ‘Conspiracionists’ were all from the US. The government, (citizens need guns so they can overthrow the government if it becomes “too oppressive”) the police, teachers, the Masons, and Muslims were all targets. One chap could not make a post without bringing in Banksters no matter the topic. JFK, the moon landing, and 9/11 were all favorite theories. I forget some of the others. After a while these threads became annoying.
One chap from the south was sure the government was dropping aluminum from airplanes over his area. Recently he posted a video ‘proving’ that there are Illuminati still trying to create a ‘New World Order’ and he had celebrities and presidents, including Bush and Obama on the list. I watched a bit.They had G.W. Bush saying sarcastically he could not comment because ‘it was secret’ as proof he belonged to the Illuminati. It was hilarious.
But one subsequent poster said it was time for a revolution. So if you say something often enough, people start to believe.
The idea that any 911 conspiracy dork, or any CTer for that matter could start run, or even function in a revolution is hilarious.
Oh, I don’t know if that’s entirely true. Seems to me there’s a great deal of overlap between CT’ers and Tea Baggers. Teabaggery is not exactly a revolution but it’s not without political influece in the US. I don’t know how to characterize the sudden right turn that’s taken place in European politics (France, for example), but it does seem to have some common isolationist/nationalist threads with American teabaggery.
Hitler, for example, might have been categorized as a CT’er given his tendency to blame the Jews for much of Germany’s (and his own) problems.
So the names of the various movements change but conspiracy theories appear to be a common theme among them.
Then you should not have any problem supplying complete data on the horizontal beams in the core.
Got a link to it?
The real things are not “models”! It is the ability to duplicate and repeat that gives models their usefulness.
psik
I think I understand: The actual reality of what happened(the towers themselves falling) doesn’t match up with your fantasies, so you would like to see some gimmicked models that will.
Models don’t scale for this sort of thing. Come up with a new trick, we’ve seen this one before and we know how it’s done.
You say this while ignoring the fact that the “experiment” was duplicated and repeated on 9/11/2001.
But he won’t believe the buildings fell until he sees it done with totally inaccurate models.
I note that (still) there are no alternate theories put forth by Psikey.
But you didn’t say anything about the strength in relation to that weight which is what the square cube law is about.
I presume the missing zero is a typo.
Yes, so a true scale model of the same materials would be 100 times as strong in relation to its weight therefore collapse would be even less likely.
That is why I used supports that I could test the strength of in relation to the static load they had to support and make them AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE.
But then it still did not collapse in two drops. So where has anyone made any self supporting structure with equally distributed mass or bottom heavy where the top 15% or less by height could fall and destroy the supporting structure below?
If people claim it could happen in reality then why can’t they model it? Even a computer model would have to have correct data.
psik
Newton’s third law got repealed?
Are you saying the bottom LEVEL of the falling 15 stories didn’t get crushed like the top LEVEL of the 90 stories? But if they both got crushed where did the energy to accomplish it come from?
One of us believes in magic physics.
TWELVE YEARS and no one can build a model to duplicate what supposedly happened on 9/11. It only took 4 months to do the 1/200th scale oscillating model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940. Computers must slow things down.
psik
Alternate theory, guy. Put up or shut up.
Tell us what you think happened, in simple, declarative sentences. Otherwise, you’re just… uh… grolling. Yeah, that’s it. You’re grolling.
psikeyhackr,
From your errudite point of view, what caused the collapse of the two towers?
WTF?!.. :smack:
Your concept of an accurate model is beyond laughable as is your grasp of basic physics.
Why do you need to model something that happened live on TV? The Towers fell, get over it. There was no demolition, it’s a product of some insane mind that you bought into.
You do not understand physics. Whether the bottom floor of the 15 stories that fell was crushed or not, it was still part of the mass that was falling – so the next floor down felt the weight of all 15 floors (even if one or more were subsequently crushed), and then added its own mass to the falling floors, so each subsequent floor ‘felt’ enough falling mass to crush it.
Alternate theory, Psikey or we start arguing that the collapses didn’t happen. 