The only problem with all of this, is that often times the so called conspiracy turns out to be true. So it's also wrong to just write off every conspiracy as wacko. What perpetrators know too is that people tend to write off conspiracies because they don't want to be considered nutjobs. So the perps purposely engage operatives to get the word out so to speak that something they're doing IS a conspiracy.Which conspiracies have turned out to be true?Gulf of Tonkin, US Gov experimenting with psychedelic drugs on unwilling subjects, US Gov selling arms to enemies, CIA overthrowing Iran/1953, US Gov overthrowing numerous democratically elected presidents of South American countries, and on and on. In each of these cases, at the time, these were considered "just a bunch of hogwash conspiracies". Except that they turned out to be true. Of course in retrospect we just consider them history. But at the time, they were conspiracies. It's your very loose use of the word "often" that bothers me. There is a deluge of conspiracy theories at the moment, and very few of them are true. Also, they persist. People still write books about Nostradamus. All of your examples were exposed within a few years. They hardly compare to the sort of secret uber-government theories where everything is controlled by forces we can't see.Very true, which is part of the problem/appeal of conspiracy theories. It's kinda like poetry...everyone can write poetry, there's tons of it out there, lots of it great, more of it bad, AND worse yet, even the same poet can create excellent and horrible poetry. Part of what you mention, Nostradamus, etc. though has a commercial aspect to it. There's lots of money to be made in Nostradamus, Ancient Aliens, etc. For the bigger stuff, like uber governments, that's a tough one too. I happen to believe nine eleven was an inside job. Unfortunately so does a kook like Alex Jones who also thinks awful things about immigrants. So he gives one theory a bad name because of his belief in others. Reminds me of that scene in Close Encounters, where they all had a "conspiracy theory" that there were aliens. So the gov gathers them all, including one nutjob who claimed to have seen Bigfoot. He tells his story, which is totally goofy, thereby making his belief in aliens appear goofy too, even though, in the context of the movie at least it was true.
I happen to believe nine eleven was an inside job.Look at this little gem tucked away in here!
Unfortunately so does a kook like Alex Jones who also thinks awful things about immigrants. So he gives one theory a bad name because of his belief in others.Yes Cuthbert, Alex Jones gives your "inside job" theory a bad name. If it wasn't for him, more people would probably come around, no? :lol:
I happen to believe nine eleven was an inside job.Look at this little gem tucked away in here!
Unfortunately so does a kook like Alex Jones who also thinks awful things about immigrants. So he gives one theory a bad name because of his belief in others.Yes Cuthbert, Alex Jones gives your "inside job" theory a bad name. If it wasn't for him, more people would probably come around, no? :lol:It must be nice being such a naive and trusting person in such an honest and open world.
It must be nice being such a naive and trusting person in such an honest and open world.Hmmmn...I wish I could be as astute and pragmatic as you Cuthbert. But alas...
Unfortunately so does a kook like Alex Jones Unfortunately so does a kook like Alex Jones Unfortunately so does a kook like Alex Jones
I happen to believe nine eleven was an inside job.Look at this little gem tucked away in here!
Unfortunately so does a kook like Alex Jones who also thinks awful things about immigrants. So he gives one theory a bad name because of his belief in others.Yes Cuthbert, Alex Jones gives your "inside job" theory a bad name. If it wasn't for him, more people would probably come around, no? :lol: I'm interested, Cuthbert, in hearing the details of the inside job. Care to explain? Lois
I happen to believe nine eleven was an inside job.Look at this little gem tucked away in here!
Unfortunately so does a kook like Alex Jones who also thinks awful things about immigrants. So he gives one theory a bad name because of his belief in others.Yes Cuthbert, Alex Jones gives your "inside job" theory a bad name. If it wasn't for him, more people would probably come around, no? :lol: I'm interested, Cuthbert, in hearing the details of the inside job. Care to explain? LoisDiscussed ad nauseum in other threads. Suffice it to say step 1 in their plan was to impeach Clinton, which they did successfully. Step 2 was to install a lackey as president, i.e. W, and a real powerbroker at the same time, i.e. Cheney. The rest is history.
Suffice it to say step 1 in their plan was to impeach Clinton, which they did successfully. Step 2 was to install a lackey as president, i.e. W, and a real powerbroker at the same time, i.e. Cheney. The rest is history.Yessss! Love it!! :lol: Wooo hooo!!
Back on point - the ability to be blinded
There is not a shred of evidence that a floor ever broke loose from the core and perimeter.What can you do with something like that. {I couldn't comment over there, but it's simply too stupefying a question not to point out.} Things like that remind me of how hopeless it actually is.
Back on point - the ability to be blindedPeople have been posting diagrams of truss connections for years. Funny how the number of truss connections is never mentioned. Try finding it. :lol: psikThere is not a shred of evidence that a floor ever broke loose from the core and perimeter.What can you do with something like that. {I couldn't comment over there, but it's simply too stupefying a question not to point out.} Things like that remind me of how hopeless it actually is.
Why would anybody bother?
The Beatles - A Day In The Life - YouTube
Hell they aren’t even testing why fuel would take a 90° turn when it gets to an elevator shaft. 
Why would anybody bother? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usNsCeOV4GM Hell they aren't even testing why fuel would take a 90° turn when it gets to an elevator shaft. ;-)That is the irony that makes "Center for Inquiry" so amusing. :lol: Can't see how obviously peculiar it is that a significant amount of fuel could go down hundreds of feet of elevator shaft and exit at the lobby. Among other things! psik
you still haven't explained who you think was involved in the conspiracy and how. Come on, give is something to chew on.The title of this thread is: Physics & Skyscrapers psikNo it's not! :smirk: Or you would have allowed enough structural physics to soak in to appreciate why your questions are irrelevant to experts who understand how these structures are built. I thought I found a perfect example that provided an opportunity to look at your specific physics questions regard level/floor to superstructure - something I have some direct understanding of. I'm no authority on sky scrapers, but I understand their construction principles, that is what I shared. You've avoided acknowledging all of that sound fundamental structural info and the physics that come along with it. You do not incorporated any new information you've been offered over the course of this thread. I emailed experts and received information on weight distribution, now you want to count the truss connectors - but the simple physical fact is such information is well enough known and definitely know to be irrelevant to the overall sequence of failures - by the experts that truly understand such matters.
Psik, forgive me, but I’m going to do my damnedest not to feed that Troll of a thread any longer.
Thus I moved your comment over here under a more appropriately titled thread.
9/11 Destroyed America https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2017/04/24/911-destroyed-america/Psik, for you I read the article but for all his opinions and convictions there's no substance. Where does that article reach beyond base bloviation? WHAT ARE THESE LAWS OF PHYSICS THAT WERE CONTRAVENED? As for the apparent inspiration of this article Steven E. JonesThink now about physicists. How many physics faculties do you know that are not dependent on federal grants, usually for military-related work? The same for chemistry. Any physics professor who challenged the official story of 9/11 with the obvious fact that the story contravenes known laws of physics would endanger not only his own career but the careers of his entire department. Truth in America is extremely costly to express. It comes at a high cost that hardly any can afford. Our masters know this, and thus they can dispense with truth at will. Moreover, any expert courageous enough to speak the truth is easily branded a “conspiracy theorist."psik
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones Jones' interests extend to archaeometry, solar energy,[11][12] and, like numerous professors at BYU, archaeology and the Book of Mormon.[13] He has interpreted archaeological evidence from the ancient Mayans as supporting his faith's belief that Jesus Christ (when resurrected) visited America.[14]Yuck, he's already of my shit list for his tendency to embrace faith rather than facts.
World Trade Center destruction controversy[edit] On September 22, 2005 Jones presented his views on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers and World Trade Center 7 at a BYU seminar attended by approximately 60 people. Jones claimed that a variety of evidence defies the mainstream collapse theory and favors controlled demolition, using thermite. The evidence Jones cited included the speed and symmetry of the collapses, and characteristics of dust jets. Later, Jones claimed he had identified grey/red flakes found in the dust as nanothermite traces. He has also claimed that the thermite reaction products (aluminium oxide and iron-rich microspheres) were also found in the dust.[20] ... Jones has published several papers suggesting that the World Trade Center was demolished with explosives, but his 2005 paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" was his first paper on the topic and was considered controversial both for its content and its claims to scientific rigor.[39] Jones' early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty;[40] shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners," and expressed doubts on whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[41] ... and on and on ...Nothing get's past innuendo. I'm supposed to believe that all the official soil test deliberately ignored traces of Thermite. Really, how would that be accomplished? Well, okay, but what if every technician and scientists wasn't in on The Big Secret? Also from other sources, it seems that none of the boom and concussion Thermite would created was detected (the seismic data is public), and some melting aluminum cascading out a window doesn't count.
FYI Psik:
Vaporizing the World Trade Center Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay Some Statistics Various sites give slightly different results but the following figures seem to be generally accepted. Steel used in the WTC: 200,000 tons (I will use metric tons, not short tons. A metric ton is 1000 kg). Volume of steel (at 7900 kg/cubic meter): 25,300 cubic meters. Concrete used: 425,000 cubic yards concrete = 325,000 cubic meters Mass of concrete (at 2400 kg/cubic meter): 780 million kg or 780,000 metric tons Dimensions: 415 and 417 meters high by 63 meters square The "bathtub" - the sunken basement of the buildings, is 60 feet (18 meters) deep. I will tend to use numbers on the high side since those make the best case for conspiracy theories. Some Derived Numbers . . . https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics1.HTMThe page ends with
"Your Estimates of Concrete are Too Large" One architect has criticized me for using too large a figure for concrete. He insists that the concrete was much lower in density. Bring it on. I'm all for it. The less the mass of the concrete, the easier it is to account for a lot of things. For example, if the floors were very porous light weight concrete, the energy needed to pulverize them would have been far less than that needed to break up standard concrete. And there would be a larger dust to solid ratio, and maybe even less dust overall, and the concrete would pulverize into smaller pieces. As I noted, I used large figures because those make the best case for conspiracy theories.You might want to check out the information the professor shares, that is if you are looking to understand your mystery. Then again some love mystery for mystery sake and refuse sober appraisals.Nutty 9-11 Physics Really Nutty 9-11 Physics Nanoparticles at the World Trade Center Return to Pseudoscience Index Return to Professor Dutch's Home PageCreated 30 January, 2006; Last Update 02 June, 2010 Not an official UW Green Bay site
The title of this thread is: Physics & Skyscrapers psikNo it's not! :smirk: Or you would have allowed enough structural physics to soak in to appreciate why your questions are irrelevant to experts who understand how these structures are built. How is structural physics done without knowing the distribution of mass in steel and concrete down a 1360 foot building? How much steel was on level one to support how much weight compared to level 55 to support how much weight? Then you take a quote from another thread and talk about what the title is not! psik
I emailed experts and received information on weight distribution, now you want to count the truss connectors .And you provided this data where? And where did you specify who these "experts" were? People have been showing the side views of trusses forever to imply that the connections were weak but then never say how many there were. If you are going to post pictures of trusses like you do here: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewreply/229964/ then why complain about my asking about your not providing complete information about the subject you chose? Aren't 10 connections stronger than 2 connections. Wouldn't 100 connections be stronger than 10 connections? How about 1000? So why bring them up without specifying how many and then accuse me of changing the subject. We know the standard concrete slabs were 600 tons and the weight of steel holding those slabs. That does not change. So the change in steel weight from level to level would be in the core and perimeter steel thickness. They are separate issues. psik
I emailed experts and received information on weight distribution, now you want to count the truss connectors .And you provided this data where? And where did you specify who these "experts" were?Go back to the thread I included all the pertinent information there.
author-psikeyhackr date-1494745280]http://fff-centerforinquiry-net/forums/viewreply/229964/ then why complain about my asking about your not providing complete information about the subject you chose? Aren't 10 connections stronger than 2 connections. Wouldn't 100 connections be stronger than 10 connections? How about 1000? So why bring them up without specifying how many and then accuse me of changing the subject. psik{quote author - psikeyhackr date-1488287897}People making a big deal of the FLOOR outside the core are constantly showing those truss connections. They rarely specify how many connections there were however. This is the problem with trying to discuss stuff with someone who obviously has almost no understanding of construction - but who is absolutely certain of himself and absolutely convinced the experts can't be trusted. "How many connections go between a truss and the super structure?" Hmmm, do you know what a truss is? Have you never seen them installed? How many fingers did the man have, if he'd have had twenty on each hand he'd a been even more dexterous. As my my carpenter hero and mentor would say YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO ASK THAT QUESTION - meaning: think fool, you know that answer and if you don't you don't belong here.
People have been showing the side views of trusses forever to imply that the connections were weak but then never say how many there were.FIND ME ONE EXPERT WHO CLAIMS THE WORLD TRADE CENTERS WERE WEAKLY BUILD - FIND A REAL ONE OR SHUT UP! Everything I've heard and read about them, indicated the WTCs where extremely well engineered, almost over engineered, they we build tougher than anything up to that date. What happened to them was beyond the bounds of what anyone imagined - and beyond what anyone could have engineered into a real high rise. The floor connecters where plenty strong - they could not have been engineered up to stopping twenty floors dropping on them! Psik, what's been so hugely sad about watch my attempt at constructive dialogue with you is how you continue to ignore fundamental high-rise construction reality. What's up with that? The entire reality of how floors/levels are only capable of carrying their own individual loads - and how floors/levels transfer their load to the super-structure, and it is the superstructure that carries the load of all the accumulating weight above that point. The catastrophic collapse was simple physics, inertia, momentum, stuff like that. This reminds me of the fool who didn't think twice entering the flood waters, "heck it's barely up to my knees - no problem" never taking into account the speed of the water. Have at it:
Original plans for WTC twin towers (123MB .zip file with 175 sheets in .tif format) archive.org/details/WTC-PLANS
Thinking of conspiracy theories.
Why does it seem that the CFI S.N. seems almost malevolent?