The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[Galaxian]

The saner members among us on RatSkep have been lambasted for years, here & on other forums such as RDF, & accused of being crazy 'tin foil hatter' 'conspiracy theorists'.

New research indicates that we who disbelieve the official account are infact in the majority, by over two-thirds, & by the metrics of psychology, are the level headed more rational people:

http://www.frontiersin.org/Personality_ ... 00409/full

http://therebel.org/index.php?option=co ... &id=666083

"Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

"The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.

"The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

"Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”

"Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true.

[Weaver]

Doesn't mean you aren't totally fucking wrong, though. All that study says is that those of use who accept reality are more hostile toward those who don't - a reflection of lost patience with idiocy more than anything else, I'd say.

Love how the bit posted ends with the biggest damn strawman of all - combines the "they cannot fly" with "dialysis in a cave in A-stan" to perpetuate the bullshit, long-denied claims of "truthers" who cannot help but lie at every opportunity.

[the_5th_ape]

The saner members among us on RatSkep have been lambasted for years, here & on other forums such as RDF, & accused of being crazy 'tin foil hatter' 'conspiracy theorists'.

New research indicates that we who disbelieve the official account are infact in the majority, by over two-thirds, & by the metrics of psychology, are the level headed more rational people:

http://www.frontiersin.org/Personality_ ... 00409/full

http://therebel.org/index.php?option=co ... &id=666083

"Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

"The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.

"The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

"Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”

"Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true.

Don't forget, those were "highly trained" mountain men. They are so well trained that they even managed to somehow turn the laws of physics upside-down by making a steel-framed building collapse symmetrically through their own mass, at free-fall speed, for the first time EVER in history. And all of that, masterminded by a bearded caveman in Afghanistan.

And OBVIOUSLY, the CIA and Pentagon could NOT have done anything to stop them. They were all so busy in alerting other nations about terrorist attacks, and somehow did not get any clues on what was about to happen to them.

[Agi Hammerthief]

... turn the laws of physics upside-down by making a steel-framed building collapse symmetrically through their own mass, at free-fall speed, for the first time EVER in history.

as if we haven't been over this load of utter crap a couple of dozend times with Piskey.

I guess you haven't been paying attention how (and how often) he got his butt handed to him.

[psikeyhackr]

Doesn't mean you aren't totally fucking wrong, though. All that study says is that those of use who accept reality are more hostile toward those who don't - a reflection of lost patience with idiocy more than anything else, I'd say.

ROFL

Reality that has yet to be supported by experiment.

3D printers could produce controllable, reproducable levels. 2 ft by 2ft times 1.5 inches. Stack 110 for a 13 foot structure. The problem is figuring out how to distribute the weight. But the strength of connections between the floors and perimeter and core could be controlled. The strength of the core and perimeter at every level could be controlled. So the experiments could be duplicated by computer controlled printing all over the world.

Where is the problem with that?

Of course there is the possible problem of some people finding that the realities of physics do not conform to their delusions so that would impact their attitude about society and government.

Oh, I forget. Experiments are not REAL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s

psik

[Agi Hammerthief]

Where is the problem with that?

go ahead, buy that 3D printer

[the_5th_ape]

I guess you haven't been paying attention how (and how often) he got his butt handed to him.

I know how. Its by computer simulation. Am i right?
Even I can program a computer simulation and make the WTC walk on legs, or dance like a drunken monkey. I can sit on my butt and talk about all the complexity that drives the simulation. As long as I dont have to show you any REAL MODEL, I can go on bragging about all the wonders of computer animation without having to waste my time talking about REAL STUFF. Because, if I talk about "real" stuff(steel structure), then I know there is no way to win the argument.

[Galaxian]

Where is the problem with that?

go ahead, buy that 3D printer

Psikey has already done the experiment, several times. You'd never accept ANYTHING against the official propaganda anyway: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/consp ... l#p1756728
So YOU buy the f'in printer & do the experiment... or ask NIST to give you a grant to do it & prove them right

[Agi Hammerthief]

So YOU buy the f'in printer & do the experiment..

ah, I was hoping Pisk would come up with that one first

Where is the problem with that?

someone else spending THEIR money to satisfy YOUR curiosity and incredulity?

THERE is the problem with it!

____________

I know how. Its by computer simulation. Am i right?

so...
a) you don't know,
and
b) no, you aren't right either

[Galaxian]

So YOU buy the f'in printer & do the experiment..

ah, I was hoping Pisk would come up with that one first

Where is the problem with that?

someone else spending THEIR money to satisfy YOUR curiosity and incredulity?
THERE is the problem with it!

His name is psykeyhackr, it is not Pisk. So, when are you buying the 3D printer? Do tell...we're waiting

I know how. Its by computer simulation. Am i right?

so...
a) you don't know,
and
b) no, you aren't right either

Oh dear... nothing to say...so you flounder about with BS? But you KNOW that 5th Ape is right on the nail. This 384 page thread has MANY references to how the deniers of facts have done their research; a) never done any research. b) used or referred to computer simulations... such as the NIST one that actually, as 5th Ape says, had the towers (or at least WTC 7) doing what had not been observed in reality. So;
a) 5th Ape DOES know.
and
b) He IS right, as well.

Still waiting for your contribution to the thread. Read all 384 pages. All your posts were waffles with syrup

[Agi Hammerthief]

His name is psykeyhackr, it is not Pisk.

psik

Attention Span Fail?

someone else spending THEIR money to satisfy YOUR curiosity and incredulity?
THERE is the problem with it!

when are you buying the 3D printer?

yeah, Attention Span Fail.
and no, I won't buy one for that purpose, I sorta hid that information in my reply.

why should I even try to debate with you when you don't comprehend content as simple as this?

All your posts were waffles with syrup

nope, they are peanuts
you fellows posts make perfect targets to snipe them at

I did enough contribution at RDF, but debating at people with such severe attention deficit...
I decided to sick with the peanuts on this forum, read my profile for details.

[psikeyhackr]

Where is the problem with that?

go ahead, buy that 3D printer

Actually if I had the money to play with I would. But the model I describe would be 13 feet and 9 inches so I would not have anywhere to put it and do the test.

But with the big deal that has been made of 3D printing lately I would expect a lot of engineering schools already have them. So I have been trying to spread the idea around. But that still leaves the problem of mass distribution and if people at the engineering schools already know a collapse is not possible then why would they want to do the test?

But if they know a collapse would happen why wouldn't they be eager to do the test?

More years of silence.

psik

[Agi Hammerthief]

if people at the engineering schools already know a collapse is possible then why would they want to do the test?

one word missing and the argument is just as good as before

Actually if I had the money to play with I would.

oh the irony!

if you had studied physics or engineering you would have the money and also the education to not feel the need to use it for this.

[psikeyhackr]

if you had studied physics or engineering you would have the money and also the education to not feel the need to use it for this.

Tell it to the news.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 39952.html

psik

[Weaver]

So YOU buy the f'in printer & do the experiment..

ah, I was hoping Pisk would come up with that one first

Where is the problem with that?

someone else spending THEIR money to satisfy YOUR curiosity and incredulity?
THERE is the problem with it!

His name is psykeyhackr (sic), it is not Pisk.

Though his full username is psikeyhackr (I notice you cannot spell it correctly) he ends every post with the abbreviated version "psik". Don't try to play Moderator, you aren't any better at it than you are at providing evidence or reasoned arguments.

[Weaver]

Where is the problem with that?

go ahead, buy that 3D printer

Psikey has already done the experiment, several times. You'd never accept ANYTHING against the official propaganda anyway: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/consp ... l#p1756728
So YOU buy the f'in printer & do the experiment... or ask NIST to give you a grant to do it & prove them right

Psikeyhackr's experiment shows nothing about the WTC. Continuing to bring it up as if it does is simply more lies and dishonesty from a CTer.

Also, insisting that others do experiment after experiment to demonstrate that the scientific consensus is correct is the wrong way to go about it. Those who have doubts should provide the experiments - they should construct VALID models that they think will disprove the hypothesis. That's how science is done, after all - doubters don't get to say "I don't believe it, prove it more" and insist on others doing their work for them.

[psikeyhackr]

Psikeyhackr's experiment shows nothing about the WTC. Continuing to bring it up as if it does is simply more lies and dishonesty from a CTer.

But anyone that disagrees whit me has no choice but to take that position but where do they build a model that actually does what supposedly happened to the north tower.

Does my model have significant mass unlike a house of cards? YES, my model weighs as much as 17 packs of cards and each washer dropped individually would fall like a stone, unlike an individual card from a deck.

Does my model get heavier toward the bottom? YES, the washers are of different thicknesses to my surprise so I sorted them. The top one should be about 1.4 oz and the bottom about 2.1.

Can the structure support its own weight? YES, that is obvious from the video.

Does the structure get stronger toward the bottom like a skyscraper? YES, The paper loops were tested for maximum static load capacity. 11 single loops at the top, 17 double loops in the middle and 5 triple loops at the bottom.

Do individual components sustain damage in the collapse? YES, also obvious from the video. Unlike a house of cards which can be rebuilt from the same parts, the paper loops sustain damage thereby absorbing kinetic energy from the falling mass slowing it and eventually arresting its progress. It takes about 0.118 joules to flatten a single paper loop.

So where is a model that can support its own weight and yet completely collapse when 15% or less by height and weight is dropped on the rest?

So all you can do it TALK!

So what can engineering schools do but avoid the subject? The 3D printer sounds like the most efficient way to do the test and build a real tube-in-tube structure and it would allow control for column thickness and strength without building a really big and potentially dangerous model. I would think engineering schools would love the idea if they wanted to do the test.

[110476]
psik

[Weaver]

Does your model feature tube-in-tube construction like the WTC? No.

Does your model feature outer supports which are bypassed during the collapse, like happened in the WTC? No.

Does your model have ANY BEARING WHATSOEVER ON THE GODDAMN WTC? No.

Stop talking about your stupid model as if it matters at all - it doesn't. And nobody is obligated to provide a better model - if you insist on models to challenge the NIST report and the scientific consensus, build one yourself.

[Weaver]

Tell you what, Psikeyhackr - I built a model. I took a car tire and stood it on edge, then hit it with a baseball bat. It fell over.

So there - now you have my irrelevant model against your irrelevant model. Ball is back in your court. You want to challenge the consensus, build a model that means something.

[psikeyhackr]

Does your model feature tube-in-tube construction like the WTC? No.

I admitted that from the very beginning and I put Ryan Mackey at the beginning of my video and the mathematical model that he talks about is not a tube-in-tube design either.

Does your model feature outer supports which are bypassed during the collapse, like happened in the WTC? No.

That is just another way of saying what you said above, it is not a tube-in-tube.

Does your model have ANY BEARING WHATSOEVER ON THE GODDAMN WTC? No.

Now you you are just going blah, blah, blah.

Stop talking about your stupid model as if it matters at all - it doesn't. And nobody is obligated to provide a better model - if you insist on models to challenge the NIST report and the scientific consensus, build one yourself.

Yeah, right! You can't make a model that can collapse so you can just go blah, blah, blah.

This comes down to AUTHORITY not showing it has the brains to justify its AUTHORITY. Believe what the schools say because they are AUTHORITY. But wait, how many schools have actually not said a damn thing about 9/11 since 9/11? Bazant has been at MIT but does he speak for the school? What has anybody from Caltech said? Purdue produced that "scientific" video of the north tower but they admitted that it is only a simulation of the top 20 stories so actually it says NOTHING about collapse.

What schools actually have any PUBLIC position on the events in New York on 9/11?

[110487]
psik