Jonathan Kay - Among the Truthers

May 23, 2011

Host: Chris Mooney

From Birthers, to Truthers, to Deathers—to occasional Liars—America seems to be crawling right now with fevered conspiracy mongers. What's up with that?

To find out, Point of Inquiry turns in this episode to Jonathan Kay, author of the new book Among the Truthers: A Journey into America's Growing Conspiracist Underground. In it, Kay provides a fascinating look at some of our indigenous kooks, and why they seem to be thriving right now.

Jonathan Kay is the managing editor of Canada's National Post newspaper and a weekly columnist for its op-ed page.

Kay's writing covers a diversity of subjects, and he's been published in a variety of outlets including Commentary, the New York Post, Reader's Digest, and the New Yorker. In 2002, he was awarded Canada's National Newspaper Award for Critical Writing, and in 2004 he won a National Newspaper Award for Editorial Writing.

Books Mentioned in This Episode:


Comments from the CFI Forums

If you would like to leave a comment about this episode of Point of Inquiry please visit the related thread on the CFI discussion forums

Thank you for another great episode. I always like episodes that have special relevance to current issues.

Posted on May 24, 2011 at 12:57pm by Eero T. Eloranta Comment #1

Great episode. Around 22:30 into the episode, Mr. Kay says that Truthers on the left and right agree on 99% of the details of 9/11 except for who organized the plot. He says, “It’s a textbook example of a phenomenon that has been observed throughout history… that the radical fringes of the left and the right tend to resemble each other.”

I disagree. I think it demonstrates how people mold the conspiracy theory to fit their existing viewpoint. It’s the usual cognitive biases, accepting facts or claims that fit their preferred narrative, forgetting or ignoring or de-emphasizing facts or claims that don’t fit their preferred narrative.

Anyway, the left/right spectrum doesn’t map political positions adequately. They need to be charted on an X, Y and maybe Z axis, at which point it becomes too complicated to make an easy or useful visualization. Unfortunately the left/right political spectrum is often used as part of a middle ground fallacy. I always imagine members of Mussolini’s fascists around maybe 1940 having a debate with members of the Nazi Party about differences in their specific party platforms, then one of them saying, “Gentlemen, please, we’ll find the middle ground between our two extremes.”

(Yeah, I think I just Godwinned.)

Posted on May 24, 2011 at 2:50pm by deidzoeb Comment #2

Was it just or did it sound like one of these two guys was playing a video game throughout the interview?

Posted on May 24, 2011 at 9:33pm by Clete Comment #3

The conspiracy theorists will stay nuts through the second Obama term it seems safe to say, but they should take comfort that it’s almost certain a white president will be elected in 2016.

Though I’m sure she’ll be subject to lots of conspiracy theories herself.

Posted on May 24, 2011 at 11:27pm by ericf Comment #4

As a Finnish person I’m especially interested in conspiracy theories as they are gaining ground in here also. With the political rise of the so called “True Finns” (Perussuomalaiset) it seems like conspiracy theories are everywhere.  (They incorporate extreme left and right.) It’s very frightening because it seems to go hand in hand with the so called “climate skepticism” and anti-scientific attitudes in general.

Posted on May 25, 2011 at 1:16am by Eero T. Eloranta Comment #5

With the political rise of the so called “True Finns” (Perussuomalaiset) it seems like conspiracy theories are everywhere.

That’s funny. In English, there’s a fallacy known informally as No True Scotsman, when people basically define “True” to mean whatever characteristics they want.

Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn’t like haggis!
Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

I assume the people calling themselves “True Finns” are guilty of the same fallacy.

Posted on May 25, 2011 at 5:50am by deidzoeb Comment #6

With the political rise of the so called “True Finns” (Perussuomalaiset) it seems like conspiracy theories are everywhere.

That’s funny. In English, there’s a fallacy known informally as No True Scotsman, when people basically define “True” to mean whatever characteristics they want.

Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn’t like haggis!
Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

I assume the people calling themselves “True Finns” are guilty of the same fallacy.

My English is limited but I know “No True Scotsman” and I believe it is a fallacy in Finnish also. :) It must not be related to the language we use.

“True Finn” is not an accurate translation. Actually it would be like “Common Finnish Folk”. It’s stupid anyway. :)

Posted on May 25, 2011 at 6:32am by Eero T. Eloranta Comment #7

It would have been useful to indicate clearly that Mr Kay is an ideologically-oriented writer, and not a dispassionate journalist. He works for the clearly right-wing National Post, which I would characterize as somewhere between Fox News and the Washington Times in tenor (although it’s much more polished in appearance). His animus towards the left was quite clear, as much as his willingness to excuse the right.

Other than that, it was a good show, with many good points made.

Posted on May 25, 2011 at 10:28am by Denis Robert Comment #8

The notion that the good old days when news could only be gotten from the corporate media was a better time was fairly amusing.
What’s a conspiracy? Any group of people meeting with an agenda behind closed doors are basically conspiring. The question is which of these is believable or not based on the evidence.
The notion that Americans should just eat up whatever the media throws at them is just silly at this point.
The fact that Iraq was invaded in response to 9/11 is enough to show that some conspiracies just exist period.
As for 911 itself, who knows if the government didn’t just let it happen? There is plenty of evidence that they were warned about it and yet the entire protocol to deal with this sort of thing just failed miserably… maybe. The notion that WTC 7 fell on it’s own is hard to take with a straight face. 
I also enjoyed the way Chris and the guest were sort of struggling to admit that Chomsky (are they even fit to wash is feet, intellectually speaking?) was no truther even though they don’t agree with him on other issues (which, and why we will never know).

Posted on May 25, 2011 at 11:58am by Jack Lewis Comment #9

Did Denis Robert and I listen to the same podcast? Kay was very critical of the right and somewhat critical of the left conspiracy theorists. I take Kay for what he says and how persuasive he is and don’t automatically write him off as biased because the paper(s) he writes for don’t exactly fit my political persuasion. This was one of the best interviews in a long time.

Posted on May 25, 2011 at 1:19pm by pjbourque Comment #10

Did Denis Robert and I listen to the same podcast? Kay was very critical of the right and somewhat critical of the left conspiracy theorists. I take Kay for what he says and how persuasive he is and don’t automatically write him off as biased because the paper(s) he writes for don’t exactly fit my political persuasion. This was one of the best interviews in a long time.

No, you apparently did not hear the same podcast.
Kay seemed to me to almost entirely focused on conspiracy theories from “the left” when he stated and restated 911, Iraq, Afghanistan (2x, not again and again, and again) as the examples of topics for conspiracy theories. This seemed to continue until well past the 20 minute mark. In the remaining minutes jabs to the right were criticisms of what seemed to be a narrow group of (Ron Paul) Libertarians, and finally the birthers. So i can see how the other poster might not agree that Kay was very critical of the right and somewhat critical of the left.

And to a person that would call oneself a “progressive” or liberal, it would seem odd for Kay to focus on how the left has a “responsibility” for the flourishing of conspiracy theories side by side the influence of AM radio and Cable News (Fox maybe?). As best i could transcribe and paraphrase what he said—

“They talk about AM radio, they talk about Glen Beck on the right and how the right has become amenable to conspiracy theories. I did think it was important to my book that the left is not blameless here.”
“And i did give some examples, i think it was in chapter 9 of my book, of showing scholars who had attended conferences and voiced full fledged conspiracy theories, whose theories were even published in journals. You can say this is a fringe phenomenon ... and to the extent they were popular they are not popular now .... yet to a certain extent a whole generation of scholars especially in modern languages and the liberal arts more generally was raised on the idea that you should give some deference to other peoples construction of reality. Especially if those people come from a different social class, or from a different race.
So there has been some resistance, at least in some cohort of scholars, to really emphasize the idea of a single reality and to debunk people who clearly depart from that. There is a little bit of romanticism of people who have so called alternative narratives.
I encountered this when i went to law school, in the mid 90’s, although even by then it was dying out a little bit then. So i think its influence is less than - say - talk radio and cable news, but there is a certain faction of the intellectual left that i think were influenced by this a little bit.”

Mooney—fair enough, it is a part of intellectual history and we can mark it that way.

(with a chuckle, perhaps to avoid calling out his guest’s use of this reason for including this as a criticism of the left for some sort of balance(?). That these ideas are held by some, and now fewer, and were dying out, but it influences a certain faction of the intellectual left a little bit.)

This is compared to (balanced against?) the influence of talk radio and cable news, and Glen Beck(!?) on the tendency of politically right-leaning folk’s inclination to accept conspiracy theories?

“The idea that you should give some deference to other peoples construction of reality” is not necessarily an example of postmodernism.
Rather, it may instead be a gentle attempt to encourage people who believe that “there is a RIGHT and a WRONG by GOD and I learned it the right way at or across my Father’s knee” to imagine/understand and maybe even attempt to see how events, actions and such could/would be perceived differently through the lens of another persons world view (e.g. see George Lakoff, strict father vs nuturing parent morality).

sorry for my silly screen name. i did not realize that folk here use ‘real names’. i do not post anywhere often.
i fear that the above will be revealed to be a horribly illiterate and confused attempt to communicate come morning. at least i hope it will be seen as an attempt to communicate.

at least i didn’t mention Hitler.

Posted on May 25, 2011 at 11:51pm by conflict-diamond Comment #11

So apparently anyone who questions the official version of 9/11 is a “Truther” “nut”? That doesn’t seem very fair, when you consider how little evidence there really is for the official story. And as Jack Lewis points out, WT7 is very hard to explain, unless you just “go with it” in an almost faith-based way (isn’t that something we don’t like around here?).

It just seems unfair to me. Why believe the Bush administration’s story? We didn’t trust them on anything else.

Posted on May 26, 2011 at 2:25pm by bduffy Comment #12

Because a conspiracy of that magnitude would be impossible to pull off. Plus there is no motive for it.

Posted on May 26, 2011 at 2:34pm by domokato Comment #13

I don’t see why Chris Mooney is bothered by the reference to postmodernism.  I think that postmodernism has had an insidious effect on a great deal of the thinking and dialog that goes on is this country often without the perpetrator even realizing it.  I hear it, see it all the time.  I’m not certain that postmodernism has much to do with these conspiracy theories but I don’t see why Mooney has a pet peeve about mentioning it…?

Posted on May 26, 2011 at 3:38pm by drstrangelove Comment #14

I think that Mooney and Kay might do well to think about the distinction between IQ and “CTQ” (Critical Thinking Quotient, to coin a term).  When discussing how some of these conspiracy people may have higher IQs then the general population it ignores the possibility that they have very low “CTQ"s, which is my suspicion.  I’ve talked to conspiracy fans and often find that they’re very susceptible to such things as logical fallacies.

Posted on May 26, 2011 at 3:54pm by drstrangelove Comment #15

Great podcast. I think a lot of conspiracy theories cross over between left and right, and the real culprit for this mushy thinking isn’t any particular political perspective, but rather a lack of the basic education in the scientific method that could prevent faulty ideological and/or “common sense” reasoning—a kind of reasoning which is, after all, normal for uneducated humans. (See the book How We Decide for more about that.)

Some false beliefs that are embraced by both Christian Right and New-Age Left homeschoolers: the natural vs chemical logical fallacy and resulting beliefs such as anti-vax, fear of big pharma, unproven “natural” remedies and rejection of proven “chemical” remedies, expensive health foods,  inconvenient eating practices (like all-raw diets), and expensive visits to unqualified “practitioners”. An example of an education fallacy that was embraced by the left, and is usually blamed on the left, but has also been vigorously opposed by a many presumably left-leaning academic linguists, is the Whole Language method of teaching reading (see an article about the linguists’ opposition here: http://www.howtotutor.com/bel/November_1995.pdf). Scientific thinking and skepticism could be promoted by showing the left the parallels between their anti-vax logic and the birthers’ logic, and showing the right the parallels between their birther logic and the whole-language logic.

As Kay pointed out, there is a smidgen of truth in most conspiracy theories—the US government did promote lies about why we were invading Iraq, and pharmaceutical companies do sometimes behave unethically. Skeptics in the media are in a great position to explain, to those of us with less education in science and critical thinking, why a few disturbing truths don’t logically justify being a full-on “truther”.  The interview with Kay was really interesting, but I’d still like to hear less smugness about “nonsense” and more explanation of exactly where, within these conspiracy theories, the logical fallacies lie.

Posted on May 26, 2011 at 4:53pm by Nema Tode Comment #16

ROFLMAO

So journalists think they are intelligent.  I am so impressed.

Conspiracies are irrelevant!

Whether or not two airliners weighing less than 200 tons with 34 tons of jet fuel can TOTALLY OBLITERATE two skyscraper TWO THOUSAND TIMES their mass in LESS THAN TWO HOURS is a physics and engineering problem.  Since the engineering is mostly applied Newtonian Physics the whole thing is a physics problem.

So is having a table specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level of the towers FROM AN OFFICIAL SOURCE a concept that is TOO DIFFICULT for journalists to understand?  Can Kay find that information in the NIST report?  Skyscrapers do have this peculiar characteristic of having to hold themselves up and withstand the wind.

So 90% of his blather was about psychology and conspiracies and people not trusting AUTHORITY.  But nothing about Grade School Physics that can be demonstrated to 12 year olds.  He just mentioned “evidence” and “scientists” and “peer reviewed”.  So why doesn’t the NCSTAR1 report even mention the total amount of concrete in the towers?  Try finding the total weight of a floor assembly specified anywhere.  Some science. :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Why doesn’t Kay go to an engineering school and get some experts to demonstrate a self supporting physical model that can be completely collapsed by dropping the top 15% or less onto the rest?

But since it will soon be TEN YEARS this is a very peculiar problem.  Far too many people would have to admit to themselves that they have been STUPID for ten years.  There is a serious psychological problem alright.  The nation that put men on the Moon should be laughed at for the next 1000 years.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.

psik

Posted on May 26, 2011 at 6:37pm by psikeyhackr Comment #17

“Did Denis Robert and I listen to the same podcast? Kay was very critical of the right and somewhat critical of the left conspiracy theorists.”

I agree that the guest didn’t seem biased one way or the other.  Methinks somebody is too sensitive.

Posted on May 26, 2011 at 7:30pm by Taylor Comment #18

So apparently anyone who questions the official version of 9/11 is a “Truther” “nut”? That doesn’t seem very fair, when you consider how little evidence there really is for the official story. And as Jack Lewis points out, WT7 is very hard to explain, unless you just “go with it” in an almost faith-based way (isn’t that something we don’t like around here?).

It just seems unfair to me. Why believe the Bush administration’s story? We didn’t trust them on anything else.

We don’t have to trust them. WT7 was next to a far larger building that came crashing down, and was on fire at the time. If WT7 hadn’t been at least severely damaged, then you’d have something difficult to explain. Also, if the whole attack was faked just to start a war, there was no benefit to going to the trouble of bringing down WT7. Surely the twin towers were enough to start a war.

Posted on May 26, 2011 at 9:17pm by ericf Comment #19

We don’t have to trust them. WT7 was next to a far larger building that came crashing down, and was on fire at the time.

ROFLMAO

What does “next to” mean?

Debris from the collapsing North Tower breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the building. (This means the debris had to travel across WTC 6 and Vesey Street—a distance of at least 355 feet—penetrate the outer wall of WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet of the building, including a concrete masonry wall.)

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html

So how fast did this debris have to be traveling?  It had to do a minimum of 27 mph horizontally just to reach WTC7 and that is thrown from the top of WTC1 and hitting WTC7 at the base.  So to hit higher up and penetrate 50 feet of the building it would need much more horizontal velocity.

So that would raise the question of what could give it that velocity?

Can’t unbelievers figure out the obvious physics questions?

psik

Posted on May 27, 2011 at 9:36am by psikeyhackr Comment #20

I have to agree with psik.

There are a bunch of “conspiracy theories” out there, but WTC7 is a matter of physics.

Those who allow a scientific analysis of its freefall collapse to be clouded by a label of “conspiracy” are no more skeptical than a Christian that hasn’t read the bible and just knows that it’s true.

Let’s look at WTC7 and discard any hypotheses on the basis of evidence and the laws of physics.  Anything less is disingenuous.

BTW - I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am a scientist, and when someone explains to me (including NIST) a viable alternative hypothesis to demolition, capable of causing the vertical freefall collapse of a 50 storey building in NYC, I’ll happily accept it albeit with some embarrassment.  Till then I’ll continue to be a skeptic.

Posted on May 27, 2011 at 12:50pm by sciblo Comment #21

Got any motive for demolishing WTC7?

Posted on May 27, 2011 at 3:12pm by domokato Comment #22

Got any motive for demolishing WTC7?

It is just amazing how many people have chosen not to investigate jack shit but will call people conspiracy loonies.  But the motives are still irrelevant to the physics.  People should have been all over this for the PHYSICS NINE YEARS AGO.

Before the attack, SEC investigations of corporate fraud by companies such as Enron and Worldcom were the subject of many news reports—reports that virtually vanished in the wake of the attack.

http://911review.com/attack/wtc/b7.html

More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

“According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions,” Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that’s $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

http://www.citizensforgovernmentaccountability.org/?p=1573

To hell with the motives and the money.

Deal with the PHYSICS!

No matter who did it or why they did it they cannot change PHYSICS!

A big reason why this crap drags on is people focusing on BULLSHIT!

psik

Posted on May 27, 2011 at 3:31pm by psikeyhackr Comment #23

If there was a motive, I might be more inclined to investigate

EDIT: without a motive, your claim that the physics is wrong leads me to suspect your facts or analysis is wrong rather than suspect the building might have been demolished

Posted on May 27, 2011 at 3:41pm by domokato Comment #24

If there was a motive, I might be more inclined to investigate

EDIT: without a motive, your claim that the physics is wrong leads me to suspect your facts or analysis is wrong rather than suspect the building might have been demolished

LOL

You need someone to explain to you the characteristics of skyscrapers and what is necessary for them to hold themselves up?  You shouldn’t need to be told the physics is screwy.  Each building was more than 2000 times the mass of the plane and the steel supposed weakened in less than ONE HOUR.  Both of those FACTS should ring alarm bells.

Imagine you had 110 pizzas in boxes.  Suppose each one weighed 4 pounds.  Imagine trying to stack them all up.  That would mean the pizza box on the bottom would have to be strong enough to support

436 pounds.

Obviously no one makes pizza boxes that strong.  But skyscrapers must be designed to hold the weight and then constructed from the bottom up.  WTC 1 & 2 were actually 116 stories.  6 were underground.  Building that big must be constructed up from bedrock so they dug down and built up from there.  So the designers had to figure out how thick the steel had to be on every level in order to be sufficiently strong to support the weight all of the way up.  So the fact that we do not have any Official Source providing us with the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level nearly TEN YEARS after the event is certainly telling.

But that the citizens of the nation that put men on the Moon don’t understand enough grade school physics to ask the obvious question speaks volumes for the so called educational system.  But then our so called journalists choose to focus on CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.  Definitely and interesting culture we have here.

Then there is the problem of the energy required to collapse each level of the core all of the way down even though they got stronger and heavier.  So I have provided and demonstrated the physics with a model that anyone can duplicate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Of course there is the psychological problem of people admitting they have believed nonsense for TEN YEARS.  The trouble with that is that physics is incapable of giving a damn about anybodies’ psychological nonsense.  Of course a reasonably decent movie was done about it years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQLCYR9iROs

psik

Posted on May 27, 2011 at 5:05pm by psikeyhackr Comment #25

If there was a motive, I might be more inclined to investigate

EDIT: without a motive, your claim that the physics is wrong leads me to suspect your facts or analysis is wrong rather than suspect the building might have been demolished

LOL

You need someone to explain to you the characteristics of skyscrapers and what is necessary for them to hold themselves up?  You shouldn’t need to be told the physics is screwy.  Each building was more than 2000 times the mass of the plane and the steel supposed weakened in less than ONE HOUR.  Both of those FACTS should ring alarm bells.

Hmmm…changing topics away from WTC7?

I can’t tell if you’re just trying to bait me into an argument, but your logic as it stands here is clearly flawed. It wasn’t the planes alone that brought the buildings down; there was also a raging fire due to the burning jet fuel. Saying that the buildings couldn’t have been brought down by the mass of such small planes is an extremely weak argument..

Posted on May 27, 2011 at 6:03pm by domokato Comment #26

Hmmm…changing topics away from WTC7?

I can’t tell if you’re just trying to bait me into an argument, but your logic as it stands here is clearly flawed. It wasn’t the planes alone that brought the buildings down; there was also a raging fire due to the burning jet fuel. Saying that the buildings couldn’t have been brought down by the mass of such small planes is an extremely weak argument..

I thought the topic was neurotic conspiracy theorists.

LOL

But if the physics dictates that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the skyscrapers to have collapsed from the reported causes then who is neurotic?

Are you saying that physics worked differently on WTC7 than it did on WTC 1 & 2?

Actually I think WTC7 is so obviously a demolition that it is boring.  The obvious give away is how the roof line came down so simultaneously and remained so straight all of the way across the building.  How could damage from the “collapse” of WTC1 create such ideal behavior?  How could fire do it?  It’s ridiculous to think such random phenomenon could cause such a precise result.

At least airliners smashing into skyscrapers is interesting.

OH yeah jet fuel.  Sometimes known as kerosene.  There were 34 tons of it.  FEMA says about 50% of it was used up in the initial explosion.  But how much mass are we talking about in the vicinity of the impact?  They never tell us how much a complete floor assembly weighed.  But it is easy to compute the weight of a concrete floor slab on the basis of dimensions and density.  One concrete slab outside the core weighed 600 tons.  How much all of the trusses and corrugated pans weighed I have never seen.  I am guessing around 200 tons.  There were 236 perimeter columns and 47 core columns.  But we are completely missing data on the horizontal beams in the core.

Now with each level 12 feet tall that means there were 564 feet of vertical steel in the core on each level.  But the cores were 86 feet by 136 feet.  Now the columns were not in an evenly spaced 6 by 8 grid with one missing.  I have never seen the layout of the horizontal beams specified.  But the length of horizontal steel should be about 8 * 86 + 6 * 136 or 1504 feet of steel.  Much more than double the length of vertical steel.  So how are we supposed to analyze whatever happened when we don’t even know the tons of steel on each level inside the core?

That is part of the absurdity of this business.  Steven Jones and Richard Gage don’t even ask relevant questions to help resolve this issue.  Everybody is supposed to be focused on emotional bullshit like conspiracy theories and controlled demolition which would have to be some kind of conspiracy.

But physics is incapable of caring about human motivations.  An airliner is an inanimate object and so is a skyscraper.  So if airliners could cause the complete destruction of the buildings in so little time then physicists should be able to thoroughly explain it with complete data on the towers.  So why haven’t most been asking about the distribution of steel down the buildings for nearly TEN YEARS?  Why isn’t it obvious to grade school kids that the data is important?  Where is the SCIENTIFIC CURIOSITY of these supposed SCIENTISTS?

The distribution of the mass of steel is important for THREE REASONS:

#1 .  Analyzing the airliner impacts.  The NIST provides empirical data indicating the south tower deflected only 15 inches due to the impact.  They provide a graph based on a digital camera showing the deflection and four minutes of oscillation.  The distribution of mass of steel and concrete had to affect that. The supposed SCIENTIFIC simulation created by Purdue does not have the core columns moving which they had to do according to empirical data from the NIST.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UvPWny_PBc

#2.  The south tower came down 54 minutes after impact and yet there had to be enough steel on the 81st level to support another 29 stories but we are not told how many tons of steel were there.  So how did enough steel weaken enough for collapse to begin in that little time?

#3.  A top down collapse means the falling upper portion must accelerate the stationary mass below while simultaneously destroying the supports underneath which held that mass for 28 years and due to Newton’s 3rd law the bottom of the falling mass must be crushed simultaneously thereby destroying itself while absorbing its own kinetic energy to perform that destruction.  So it should slow down so how did all of this happen in less than 18 seconds.

I have two different models to demonstrate two phases of the event.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Sorry, I am not going to try to do the fire thing.

psik

Posted on May 27, 2011 at 7:49pm by psikeyhackr Comment #27

Wow some complete nutters here…

1) No plausible motive for demolishing the WTC7.

2) There was an INTERNAL collapse that was underway before the external structure collapsed. It didn’t collapse all at once.

3) The building was on fire ALL DAY and firefighters are quoted plenty of times talking about how dangerous the building looked. It was “leaning” and “creaking” could be heard before it fell. They recognized this and evacuated the area.

4) There are no demolition sounds. Ever been to a demolition? Ever watched one on youtube? The BOOMS aren’t just loud… they can be heard for miles and no such blast event was heard at any point on 9/11 by the hundreds of news teams and amateur footage.

5) Do you have any idea how much work goes into demolishing a building? For a building of that size it would take months. It certainly couldn’t be done under the nose of thousands of office workers and security and couldn’t be done in just a few hours either.

6) Absolutely no evidence of demolition materials in the pile despite teams at the scene with professional experience in demolitions.

edit - Ahhh… psikeyhackr I remember you from Sciforums.. you are coo-coo.

Posted on May 28, 2011 at 3:38am by kennykjc Comment #28

Psik’s nonsense theories about 9/11 have been demolished on this forum more times than there are days in the year. Just FYI.

Posted on May 28, 2011 at 5:45am by dougsmith Comment #29

Psik’s nonsense theories about 9/11 have been demolished on this forum more times than there are days in the year. Just FYI.

The people on this forum just avoid the physics and claim to have won and escape into psychological bullshit just like Jonathan Kay is doing.  I don’t have any theories and have never proposed any.  I don’t give a damn who did it or why.  All I talk about is the physics of the supposed cause of the destruction.  The theories are just a diversion into the weeds of psychological bullshit.

He ridicules the so called Truthers but the NIST doesn’t even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

I point out that we don’t have data on the horizontal beams in the core and dougsmith says nothing about that just claims I have been demolished before.  :lol:

Where is doug’s physical model that can completely collapse?  Where is anybody’s physical model that can completely collapse?  Why don’t you provide a link to my previous demolitions doug?  I’ll have to find one and add the link later.  The rational scientific atheists haven’t resolved a grade school physics problem in TEN YEARS.  Do they submit to the psychological authority of government like the religious do to religious authority?  Do not the Laws of Physics not give a damn about either one?  :lol:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/9953/

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/3464/P300/

[660]
psik

Posted on May 28, 2011 at 7:46am by psikeyhackr Comment #30

Wow, what a show. Jonathan Kay spoke of a kind of ‘standing up’ against people who think they know the truth or are skeptical of particular or ‘official’ story lines, right? Well, what does that mean? He went on to say that he can’t win an argument w/ them(us!). This is funny to me…as if it were a warning to others to be weary of those who are ‘very intelligent and think they know everything’, he said this. Hmmm, that seems a bit redundant but w/ a pinch of sophism. I have to say that I don’t go to MSM for any information in the least, and I use the internet almost exclusively. Mr. Kay seemed to be speaking against this. The irony is that I would not have been able to hear what he had to say w/out the internet, you see? I can’t fit his stance w/in a framework of seeking truth, which probably sounds incoherent—its hard to articulate maybe what I am saying but he comes across as a sophist. In the past people have called me a conspiracy theorist w/ my questioning things like ‘Executive Privilege’ which simply seems to be an oxymoron w/ no real meaning and is used to undermine the ‘sovereign state’; an executor can’t have privileges, it isn’t possible—yet it is law of the land. But these same people ascribe to ‘one of the biggest problems in America are ‘civil liberties’ ‘, or, ‘libraries tell lies!’ This is funny, right? I mean, you can’t debate someone who doesn’t believe in the free flow of information, it is impossible. The issue wouldn’t be whether or not ‘I’ had a point but how I got the information in the first place, which btw is ad hominem. I can’t be preached to on the one hand and have my public library defunded w/ the other, that is groundless, that is plunder—for nothing and will only lead to further ‘breaking’. But Jonathan Kay says be weary of my kind of ‘truth seeking’, WOW! LOL
Nice.

Posted on May 29, 2011 at 9:00am by neolib=plndr Comment #31

About Jonathan Kay, I’d hope that he would be able to speak on others issues that concern conspiracy theorists like America being the windiest place on the planet while having the greatest need for the finite energy resource, crude and subsidizing the industry at the same time. That is groundless and will only lead to further ‘breaking’. Where would he be on this?

Posted on May 29, 2011 at 12:18pm by neolib=plndr Comment #32

One thing I noticed was a little bit of an attempt to show an equivalence between Truthers and Birthers. While they may come at it with some of the same impulses, I think there is no question that 911 Truthers are a bit more “out there”. To pull off the 911 Conspiracy would have taken thousands of people and would have been virtually impossible to keep secret. It requires utterly perfect control of everyone involved.

By contrast, covering up a birthplace would have been far less involved, and there are agencies who create new identities all the time (intelligence and witness-protection, to name a couple). It ‘s not such a stretch that a well-connected person could pull that off.
But with only a bit of checking, it’s pretty obvious that it did not happen. In my mind, that fact that Hilary Clinton’s opposition research people didn’t find any proof of it closed the case in my mind.  But I don’t think it’s nutty to have wondered about that in the same way I do think it’s nutty to think 911 was an inside job. One is far more feasible than the other. It’s like saying that “John Edwards is covering up an affair” is a conspiracy just as likely as “the govt is hiding alien spacecraft and bodies at Area 51”.

Posted on Jun 01, 2011 at 12:42am by Jansob Comment #33

I think there is no question that 911 Truthers are a bit more “out there”.

So let’s see you build a self supporting physical model that can be completely collapse by its top 15% or less.  And why don’t you provide a diagram of the horizontal beams in the core of WTC1 while you are at it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Physics is incapable of giving a damn about mathematics much less psychological bullshit. 

psik

Posted on Jun 01, 2011 at 8:04am by psikeyhackr Comment #34

That POI was pretty tough on a lot of people, I think.  They really took jabs at many, and dismissed them all.  It was harsh.  Certainly not the good Joe Nickel tactful open-minded approach. :down:

I think that doubt is a good thing, basically.  I just think that it can lead people astray if they take it to extremes of doubting every shred of information that isn’t tailored to their favorite slant, dismissing all experts in the field for a self appointed messiah who claims to know all but is standing nowhere near the action.  I see those messiahs sometimes saying speculative things like “It could be true that A is not equal to A.”  And then making that crucial step, that leap of logic, that leap so large that it has to be called a leap of faith, that leap from a “could” to an “is”.  Where the idea becomes, “It is true that A is not equal to A.”  If one is not involved in the applicable field, then they are an amateur, and its easy to make many amateur mistakes.

Posted on Jun 01, 2011 at 12:31pm by jump_in_the_pit Comment #35

I think there is no question that 911 Truthers are a bit more “out there”.

So let’s see you build a self supporting physical model that can be completely collapse by its top 15% or less.  And why don’t you provide a diagram of the horizontal beams in the core of WTC1 while you are at it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Physics is incapable of giving a damn about mathematics much less psychological bullshit. 

psik

No offense, but I’ll go with the mechanical engineers on this one.
and I’ll upgrade that to WAAAY more out there.
I think this comment thread is about done for. Head on back to infowars and prisonplanet, guys, you won’t get far here.

Posted on Jun 01, 2011 at 3:53pm by Jansob Comment #36

I think there is no question that 911 Truthers are a bit more “out there”.

So let’s see you build a self supporting physical model that can be completely collapse by its top 15% or less.  And why don’t you provide a diagram of the horizontal beams in the core of WTC1 while you are at it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Physics is incapable of giving a damn about mathematics much less psychological bullshit. 

psik

No offense, but I’ll go with the mechanical engineers on this one.
and I’ll upgrade that to WAAAY more out there.
I think this comment thread is about done for. Head on back to infowars and prisonplanet, guys, you won’t get far here.

WON’T GET FAR?  :lol:  Notice Doug didn’t provide links to where he claimed I was demolished.  I supplied them.

I don’t give a damn about infowars or prisonplanet.  Try to offend me all you want, I don’t give a damn about that either.  I have been banned from forums for saying what I really think of people that don’t demand to know the distributions of steel in skyscrapers.  Notice that neither Richard Gage nor Steven Jones talk about that.  Gage got a surprised look on his face when I asked him about it in 2008.  He gave me the lame excuse of the NIST not releasing accurate blue prints.

Which mechanical engineer has told you the distributions of steel and concrete in WTC1 & 2?  I concluded in two weeks that airliners could not destroy those buildings.  It never occurred to me this brainless insanity could drag on this long.  The size of the buildings dictated that they had to have too much mass therefore they had to be too strong to be totally destroyed by planes less than 1/2000th their mass with 34 tons of fuel.  So why can’t the mechanical engineers do the collapse time calculations strictly on the basis of the conservation of momentum?

By the way, haven’t you noticed that the vast majority of mechanical engineers are actually saying NOTHING WHATSOEVER?  People just keep implying that all of the engineers are in agreement with the official story.  But this physics is so simple that if the official story was true then they should ALL be agreeing and explaining how simple it is.  But instead all of them have to pretend that the distribution of steel is not important by not talking about it.

:lol:

Duh, how do skyscrapers hold themselves up?  The Empire State Building will be 80 years old this year.  What kind of computers did they use to determine how to distribute the steel back then?  That certainly makes this TEN YEAR charade ludicrous.

So if the top of the north tower could destroy the lower portion of the building in less than 15 seconds then why can’t physicists build a physical model of the phenomenon in NINE YEARS?

psik

Posted on Jun 01, 2011 at 10:15pm by psikeyhackr Comment #37

Since you said the lower part of the tower was “destroyed in less than 15 seconds”, if you’re trying to say the momentum of the collapse couldn’t do it, then you could only be arguing for explosives to do it that quickly…

Just a tiny problem with that: #wherearethebooms

We have plenty of footage of the collapses on 9/11 and absent in all of them are the unmistakable BOOMS that occur when a building is being explosively detonated.

Posted on Jun 03, 2011 at 12:03pm by kennykjc Comment #38

We have plenty of footage of the collapses on 9/11 and absent in all of them are the unmistakable BOOMS that occur when a building is being explosively detonated.

There is no footage of the core whatsoever.

The NIST report says the core supported 53% of the weight of the tower.

If you watch the Purdue simulation of the north tower impact you will see that there were horizontal beams connecting the 47 core columns.  Since each level was 12 feet high there were 564 feet of vertical steel on each level.  But because of the dimensions of the core there had to be more than twice as many feet of horizontal steel.  So how many tons of steel were on each level of the core?  Why don’t we have that information after NINE YEARS?

Why hasn’t it occurred to you to ask?

The belief that what happened can be understood by watching videos is absurd.  If we had accurate data on the distribution of mass then the degree to which just the conservation of momentum alone would slow any supposed collapse could be accurately calculated but even simple assumptions demonstrate that the buildings came down to fast.

Here is a computer program based only on the conservation of momentum.  You can run it yourself.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post10572.html#p10572

So let’s see you build a physical model that can completely collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

psik

Posted on Jun 03, 2011 at 6:53pm by psikeyhackr Comment #39

The belief that what happened can be understood by watching videos is absurd.

Don’t dodge my question.

Why are no BOOMS heard on any of the dozens of videos from 9/11? If explosives were used they would be heard just as they are on the countless other videos of ACTUAL demolitions.

It’s not that explosives in demolitions are difficult to hear over the background of collapsing debris. They can be heard for miles as I found out in 2007 when a bridge 2 miles from my home was demolished and I heard the booms.

Posted on Jun 03, 2011 at 7:02pm by kennykjc Comment #40

The belief that what happened can be understood by watching videos is absurd.

Don’t dodge my question.

Why are no BOOMS heard on any of the dozens of videos from 9/11? If explosives were used they would be heard just as they are on the countless other videos of ACTUAL demolitions.

It’s not that explosives in demolitions are difficult to hear over the background of collapsing debris. They can be heard for miles as I found out in 2007 when a bridge 2 miles from my home was demolished and I heard the booms.

I considered that too DUMB to even pay attention to.

I am not responsible for the degree to which you do not investigate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP—wz0

If you can’t comprehend the grade school physics of skyscrapers that is your problem also.  And I am not making any claims about controlled demolitions or any other explanation of what brought the buildings down.  Why don’t we have accurate data about what it took to hold the buildings up for 28 years?  Can’t our EXPERTS handle that?

psik

Posted on Jun 03, 2011 at 8:04pm by psikeyhackr Comment #41

It’s no use bringing “grade school physics” into it, I’m sure there are many nobel prize winners in physics that would think you are a kook also.

If you can’t answer why there are no BOOMS then it wasn’t a controlled demolition. End of discussion.

Posted on Jun 03, 2011 at 9:47pm by kennykjc Comment #42

It’s no use bringing “grade school physics” into it, I’m sure there are many nobel prize winners in physics that would think you are a kook also.

If you can’t answer why there are no BOOMS then it wasn’t a controlled demolition. End of discussion.

We’ve had this conversation with him before. In general, he’s quite rational - except, apparently, on this particular subject.

Posted on Jun 04, 2011 at 4:09am by TromboneAndrew Comment #43

It’s no use bringing “grade school physics” into it, I’m sure there are many nobel prize winners in physics that would think you are a kook also.

If you can’t answer why there are no BOOMS then it wasn’t a controlled demolition. End of discussion.

We’ve had this conversation with him before. In general, he’s quite rational - except, apparently, on this particular subject.

Oh really?

Let’s see you name ONE physics Nobel winner that has confirmed that an airliner could destroy one of the towers.  Provide a link.

Have you ever heard of POTENTIAL ENERGY?

Isn’t that weight times height?

So how can you accurately compute the potential energy of WTC 1 or 2 without knowing the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each level of the towers?  Is that physics too difficult for RATIONAL atheists?  :lol:

I did not say it was or was not a controlled demolition.  I was talking about the physics of skysccrapers and what information was needed to analyze the supposed destruction by an airliner.  Your supposed pseudo-logic is that if it can’t be proven that something other than airliners did it then airliners must have done it.  I am saying if airliners did it then why don’t we have accurate data on the buildings so we can analyze the event.  Are you saying that wanting accurate data is irrational?

But we are supposed to put up with the RATIONAL psychological BS of Jonathan Kay with his flying saucer and WTC towers on the cover of his book.  A guilt by association psychological game.

[1439]
psik

Posted on Jun 04, 2011 at 7:20am by psikeyhackr Comment #44

It’s no use bringing “grade school physics” into it, I’m sure there are many nobel prize winners in physics that would think you are a kook also.

If you can’t answer why there are no BOOMS then it wasn’t a controlled demolition. End of discussion.

We’ve had this conversation with him before. In general, he’s quite rational - except, apparently, on this particular subject.

...ad nauseum…I don’t even address it anymore…no sense in raising MY perfectly normal blood pressure..

Posted on Jun 04, 2011 at 4:31pm by asanta Comment #45

Oh really?

Let’s see you name ONE physics Nobel winner that has confirmed that an airliner could destroy one of the towers.  Provide a link.

I didn’t think you’d be sad enough to jump all over that. I never said I had any. It was a hypothetical - if they could read your posts - thing.

I’m sure just about every living Nobel physics laureate is well aware of the events of 9/11 and none have said anything truthers would cheer. I just found it ironic when you claim its “grade school physics” when scientists laugh at you.

I did not say it was or was not a controlled demolition.

You have a very short memory. In this very thread, you said

Actually I think WTC7 is so obviously a demolition that it is boring

And what else could it be if not a progressive collapse? The fact is you could not explain why there are no BOOMS and so keep changing the subject back to talking about your blurry interpretation of physics.

No booms = no demolition and your physics are wrong.

Posted on Jun 04, 2011 at 5:42pm by kennykjc Comment #46

You have a very short memory. In this very thread, you said

Actually I think WTC7 is so obviously a demolition that it is boring

And what else could it be if not a progressive collapse? The fact is you could not explain why there are no BOOMS and so keep changing the subject back to talking about your blurry interpretation of physics.

My apologies.  WTC7 wasn’t hit by an airliner.

You are free to explain how the roof line remained so straight as it came down.

You are also free to search youtube for

WTC explosions

for videos.  Anybody that wants to believe what you say about no videos with the sounds of explosions can do that also.  Now if you are not talking about the physics of the supposed progressive collapses of WTC 1 and 2 then I don’t see much point in responding to you.  You explain progressive collapse without knowing distribution of mass of a structure that could support its own weight.

Physics does not care about rhetoric:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c

Let’s see your physical model of progressive that collapses completely.

psik

Posted on Jun 04, 2011 at 8:53pm by psikeyhackr Comment #47

You are also free to search youtube for

WTC explosions

I’ve seen all the videos. The only thing I ever saw that sounded like an “explosion” was the video of the firefighters at the phone and you hear a loud bang. Only problem is that this was not happening whilst any buildings were actually collapsing and clearly was not loud enough for the type of explosion necessary for slicing a steel column; otherwise it would have been heard by all other footage DURING or immediately before the collapse of any of the buildings.

Anybody that wants to believe what you say about no videos with the sounds of explosions can do that also.

There are none. That’s an empirical fact. All 3 collapses were caught on multiple cameras/microphones (dozens/hundreds in fact), and no booms are heard on any of them.

You explain progressive collapse without knowing distribution of mass of a structure that could support its own weight.

The thing is, with WTC1 + 2 the outer columns were mostly held in place by the floors. The falling debris from above blasted away each floor easily since they were not load bearing and this meant that the outer columns were essentially free-standing after the floors in the middle gave way. The inner columns? Video footage shows that at least on the South tower most of the inner core was still standing long after the floors around it collapsed.

It’s easy to think that everything is happening at the very same moment at first glance of the footage, but that just isn’t true. And it seems to me that your physics depends on the assumption that ALL of the supports should have evenly resisted the non-static load simultaniously.

And I’ve seen your physical models years ago, and as I told you before, they have one major flaw. Scale. It’s like comparing a toy car hitting a brick wall at 40mph to a full scale car hitting a wall at 40mph.

Posted on Jun 04, 2011 at 10:28pm by kennykjc Comment #48

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

Is that you narrating the video psikeyhackr?

psikeyhackr, dismissing math as a basis for modeling a structure is a very bad way to start an analysis, the narrator dismissed math at [3:43].  Math is what puts the rigor in an analysis, it is what puts the hard in hard science.  I think that a structural engineer is the proper person to analize a structure collapse.  Being short one structural engineer, I’ll put my two cents in. 

Using a paper and steel washer model of the Twin Towers?  Paper folds and crushes, I doubt its a good model for springy steel which snapped in the famous 9/11 close-up video.  Steel washer, I doubt that its a good model for concrete floors that crumbled that day, and probably powdered to form the cloud over ground zero.  What convinced you that those materials are valid models for the real materials?

It would be easy to make a structure that collapses, just use little enough material compared to the forces involved, how ‘bout a tissue paper structure?

What exactly is the doubt about 9/11 anyway, no-one is doubting that the towers collapsed, are they?

Posted on Jun 04, 2011 at 10:43pm by jump_in_the_pit Comment #49

Video footage shows that at least on the South tower most of the inner core was still standing long after the floors around it collapsed.

Why don’t you provide a link to a video showing MOST of the inner core still standing?

If MOST of it was still there it would not have collapsed.  It was the horizontal beams in the core that gave the building most of its rigidity. 

So we aren’t told the distribution of steel so the so called collapse before the remnants of the core became visible cannot be analyzed.  We don’t even know how much horizontal steel was in the core on each level.  Curious how so many PhD physicists don’t seem to be interested in such simple information.

psik

Posted on Jun 04, 2011 at 10:55pm by psikeyhackr Comment #50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

psikeyhackr, dismissing math as a basis for modeling a structure is a very bad way to start an analysis, the narrator dismissed math at [3:43].  Math is what puts the rigor in an analysis, it is what puts the hard in hard science.  I think that a structural engineer is the proper person to analize a structure collapse.  Being short one structural engineer, I’ll put my two cents in. 

Using a paper and steel washer model of the Twin Towers?  Paper folds and crushes, I doubt its a good model for springy steel which snapped in the famous 9/11 close-up video.  Steel washer, I doubt that its a good model for concrete floors that crumbled that day, and probably powdered to form the cloud over ground zero.  What convinced you that those materials are valid models for the real materials?

It would be easy to make a structure that collapses, just use little enough material compared to the forces involved, how ‘bout a tissue paper structure?

What exactly is the doubt about 9/11 anyway, no-one is doubting that the towers collapsed, are they?

Are you saying that physics did not work before math was invented?

The math must conform to the physics the physics is incapable of giving a damn about the math.

So what is stopping ANYONE from building a self supporting model of ANY MATERIAL that can collapse completely?  Why hasn’t anyone done it in NINE YEARS?

Bazant can do all of the math he wants.  What he claims violates Newton’s third law.  My model demonstrates the falling portion crushing itself in the process of crushing the top of the stationary portion.  That crushing requires energy.  The only source of energy is the kinetic energy produced from gravity accelerating the falling component.  But expending the energy to crush the loops means the falling component SLOWS DOWN until it is arrested.

There is nothing stopping anyone from trying to build a similar model using something other than paper.  People just try to rationalize excuses for why paper does not make an adequate model.  The square cube law dictates that something weaker than steel must be used but it must also be strong enough to support the static load of the structure.  And then they want to talk about math when they can’t even come up with accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the buildings.  Math is important when you say it is but data is not important when you say it is.  Expecting to do math without data is SO RIGOROUS!

That is truly LOGICAL.

It makes for a really good 9/11 Religion in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdTOY-giMy4

psik

Posted on Jun 04, 2011 at 11:14pm by psikeyhackr Comment #51

Using a paper and steel washer model of the Twin Towers?  Paper folds and crushes, I doubt its a good model for springy steel which snapped in the famous 9/11 close-up video.  Steel washer, I doubt that its a good model for concrete floors that crumbled that day, and probably powdered to form the cloud over ground zero.  What convinced you that those materials are valid models for the real materials?

It would be easy to make a structure that collapses, just use little enough material compared to the forces involved, how ‘bout a tissue paper structure?

What exactly is the doubt about 9/11 anyway, no-one is doubting that the towers collapsed, are they?

There is no doubt that WTC 1 & 2 were destroyed.

It is a question whether or not a gravitational collapse could have destroyed them.

My paper model is a physics model of a gravitational collape.  I used 33 levels because it is a multiple of 11 since the towers were 110 stories tower.  The paper loop at each level had to be strong enough to support all of the weight above.  The top 11 levels are single paper loops, the next 17 are double loops and the bottom 5 are triple loops.  My model had to get stronger toward the bottom.  So did the WTC.  That is a large part of why a complete collpase of the WTC was impossible due to the physics.  But increasing strength means increasing steel which means increasing weight.

So talking about a 110 story building undergoing a top down gravitational collapse without talking having accurate data on the steel and other mass on every leve like concrete is stupidly insane.  Talking about math without that data is hilariously stupid.

So my model is actually just a physics demonstration of a gravitational collapse of a self supporting structure not the WTC.  My model is not a tube-in-tube structure like the WTC.  Building a tube-in-tube structure would be much more difficult than what I built and undoubtedly much more expensive.  Whatever happened to the WTC would be more complex in detail than my model but the principles would be the same.  So I am modeling the principles not the details which I really can’t imagine how anyone can model without detailed data on the distribution of steel and other mass.

My washers are sorted in order with the heaviest toward the bottom but the mass cannot correspond to the WTC because I don’t know what it is.  But who does?  Where is the data?  Everybody talking about math but not demanding and expecting to be told the distributions of steel and concrete are being ridiculous.

And after NINE YEARS “ridiculous” is not a stron enough word.

So if anyone can make a physical model that can collapse I certainly want to see it.  I say it can’t be done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4yGICFsi8

:lol:    :lol:    :lol:

[1582]
psik

Posted on Jun 05, 2011 at 7:46am by psikeyhackr Comment #52

What exactly is the doubt about 9/11 anyway, no-one is doubting that the towers collapsed, are they?

Are you saying that physics did not work before math was invented?  The math must conform to the physics the physics is incapable of giving a damn about the math. 

Of course, I agree that the math must conform to the measurements of physics, that agreement is part of the discovery process, and that discovery process has made lots of progress, and so now we know that physics and math are one and the same thing.  No-one can remove the math from the physical world, that is how the world works, really and precisely.  So please don’t dismiss the math, it is relevant.

That’s not to say that people will never make a mistake when doing math (don’t blame math for the human’s mistake), nor does it say that a very simple mathematical model would be insufficient for approximating a structure collapse, simple might be adequate.

So what is stopping ANYONE form building a self supporting model of ANY MATERIAL that can collapse completely?  Why hasn’t anyone done it in NINE YEARS?

They have no reason to build models (either math or physical) until someone poses a credible question, one that a model can answer.  This is your puzzle, don’t expect them to solve it for you.  Is there a question here about the WTC collapse?  What is it, do some people think that the buildings could not have collapsed merely due to gravity and structural damage?  Has someone analysed the system with rigor and mathematics, and found that the total energy was not enough to overwhelm the structure?  That would be an interesting discovery if it existed, but it needs to be done rigorously and mathematically to be a credible conclusion.  Where’s the math behind the question?  The people who want to promote a question about the WTC collapse are responsible for providing an analysis that shows that their questions are credible, don’t turn that responsibility around onto others.

But expending the energy to crush the loops means the falling component SLOWS DOWN until it is arrested.

I expect its true that a strong enough structure would remove velocity from the falling mass each time the mass impacts the next story.  But can’t you agree that a tower made of ordinary thin tissue paper would collapse completely just because of gravity?  That’s because a tissue paper tower would have so little material, such a weak structure, that it couldn’t even resist gravity.  My point here is that there is a balance of forces, if the structure is strong enough to resist the force of the upper stories collapse, then the structure will still stand.  But if the structure is weak, then the collapse of the upper stories would overwhelm the lower stories, and end in a complete collapse.  It depends on all the forces involved, and how they balance with each other.  I have seen buildings completely collapse in controlled demolition videos, and in person, they can completely collapse when damaged I’m sure.

Posted on Jun 05, 2011 at 10:19am by jump_in_the_pit Comment #53

What exactly is the doubt about 9/11 anyway, no-one is doubting that the towers collapsed, are they?

Are you saying that physics did not work before math was invented?  The math must conform to the physics the physics is incapable of giving a damn about the math. 

Of course, I agree that the math must conform to the measurements of physics, that agreement is part of the discovery process, and that discovery process has made lots of progress, and so now we know that physics and math are one and the same thing.  No-one can remove the math from the physical world, that is how the world works, really and precisely.  So please don’t dismiss the math, it is relevant.

physics and math are one and the same thing

Totally idiotic bullshit.

So build a physical model that will do what you say the math predicts. 

A physical model has to run on REAL PHYSICS.  Physics does not give a damn about math. Talk about math is really cheap.  If an individual accurately understands the physics then the correct equations can be selected and the correct data can be plugged into the variables.  But even when applied correctly the math is not the physics.  Math is abstractions in people’s heads.

psik

Posted on Jun 05, 2011 at 10:56am by psikeyhackr Comment #54

Why don’t you provide a link to a video showing MOST of the inner core still standing?

I won’t do that. I’m not going to spend the time necessary to go dig up old videos or articles or quotes relating to 9/11. I’ve done it adnauseum in the past. I believe the video in question was from a documentary showing the unmistakable shape of the core through the dust. You can sit there and say this video doesn’t exist, but I don’t care enough to go find it for you since you are not open to reason anyway.

The fact is for the South tower the core was still standing after the floors around it collapsed. Even the North tower.. large core columns were still seen standing in many photos long after the floors collapsed around them.

If MOST of it was still there it would not have collapsed.  It was the horizontal beams in the core that gave the building most of its rigidity.

For you to say if the core was still standing the buildings wouldn’t have collapsed is absurd. The floors were NOT supported by the core any more than they were supported by the perimeter columns. They were simply hooked on to the columns and were not load bearing in any significant sense. Thus, the falling debris from above just punched through the floors very easily and this meant that all the supporting columns were FREE-STANDING and eventually collapsed.

Posted on Jun 05, 2011 at 12:00pm by kennykjc Comment #55

Why don’t you provide a link to a video showing MOST of the inner core still standing?

I won’t do that. I’m not going to spend the time necessary to go dig up old videos or articles or quotes relating to 9/11.

Fine, I’ll ignore you.

You are not worth my time on this subject then.  People are supposed to believe what you say just because you say them.

psik

Posted on Jun 05, 2011 at 12:13pm by psikeyhackr Comment #56

Why don’t you provide a link to a video showing MOST of the inner core still standing?

I won’t do that. I’m not going to spend the time necessary to go dig up old videos or articles or quotes relating to 9/11.

Fine, I’ll ignore you.

You are not worth my time on this subject then.  People are supposed to believe what you say just because you say them.

psik

Hmmmm, left hand ‘pot’....disparaging right hand ‘kettle’??? :lol:

Posted on Jun 05, 2011 at 5:11pm by asanta Comment #57

Why don’t you provide a link to a video showing MOST of the inner core still standing?

I won’t do that. I’m not going to spend the time necessary to go dig up old videos or articles or quotes relating to 9/11.

Fine, I’ll ignore you.

You are not worth my time on this subject then.  People are supposed to believe what you say just because you say them.

psik

Hmmmm, left hand ‘pot’....disparaging right hand ‘kettle’??? :lol:

He made this CLAIM:

Video footage shows that at least on the South tower most of the inner core was still standing long after the floors around it collapsed.

But then won’t take the time to provide a link to a video to support his CLAIM.  So it makes no sense to spend the time reading his posts.

The core had horizontal beams in the core on every level.  The length of horizontal steel had to be more than double the length of vertical steel.  The core that is visible after the collapse is called “The Spire”.  The remaining vertical columns can be seen swaying and there are definitely fewer than 47 columns visible.  Since they are swaying then it looks like a lot of that horizontal steel was gone.  So claiming that MOST of the core was still there is ridiculous.  So he runs away from proving a link.

Here are links that are easy to find that aren’t worth his time even though he brought up the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaysznxCBzA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s8JGCGQ_9E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t64rlnaCqY8&NR=1

It looks like the top is more than 5 stories of only ONE COLUMN when there were originally 47 columns connected by horizontal beams but he says MOST.  :lol:

So all you can do is come up with psychological bullshit.  I’m so impressed.

Like Jonathan Kay putting flying saucers and the WTC on his book cover.

psik

Posted on Jun 05, 2011 at 8:37pm by psikeyhackr Comment #58

I’ve changed my mind…replace the ‘pox’ with a ‘plague on the house of’.....

Posted on Jun 05, 2011 at 9:20pm by asanta Comment #59

But then won’t take the time to provide a link to a video to support his CLAIM.  So it makes no sense to spend the time reading his posts.

The core had horizontal beams in the core on every level.  The length of horizontal steel had to be more than double the length of vertical steel.  The core that is visible after the collapse is called “The Spire”.  The remaining vertical columns can be seen swaying and there are definitely fewer than 47 columns visible.  Since they are swaying then it looks like a lot of that horizontal steel was gone. So claiming that MOST of the core was still there is ridiculous.  So he runs away from proving a link.

Since you took it as a personal victory that I “ran away”, I actually spent the time trying to find the video. First of all I was talking about the South tower as I made clear. I only mentioned that part of the North towers core was still standing. But the fact that the core was seen still standing after the floors collapsed means that your cartoonish idea that all supporting collumns were resisting the collapse was nonsense.

Here’s the video showing most of the South towers core still standing after the collapse (go to the 35 second mark):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

I predict that you will pretend you can not see it… just like you pretended you could hear BOOMS.

Posted on Jun 06, 2011 at 12:00pm by kennykjc Comment #60

Since you took it as a personal victory that I “ran away”,.

Victories in Newtonian are for people trying to play ego games.  That psychological BS is for kids.

This is about scientific kid’s stuff.  Newtonian physics is 300 years old.

People that can’t figure out grade school physics 42 years after the Moon landing just deserve to be laughed at.

When you can build a self supporting model that can be completely collapsed by the fall of its top 15% or less then I may take you seriously.  The fact that you even said most of the of the core was still standing was just laughable.  I have seen that video plenty of times.  Your CLAIM could only sound plausible to someone who had not seen it.

How can anyone know how much most of the core consisted of when we NEVER hear how many feet of horizontal steel were in the core?  We are never shown a layout of how the horizontal beams were arranged in the core.  The important information that is missing about those buildings merely demonstrates what a farce this entire business is.

And then Purdue joined the fray with their supposed SCIENTIFIC simulation of the north tower impact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

They show the horizontal beams in the core but then they have the core columns remaining stationary during the plane impact even though the NIST report provides empirical data indicating the south tower moved 15 inches due to the plane impact and then oscillated for four minutes.

So either Purdue or the NIST is being totally unscientific.  :lol:.  :lol:.  :lol:

psik

Posted on Jun 06, 2011 at 9:57pm by psikeyhackr Comment #61

I have seen that video plenty of times

So why did you demand that I went to the effort to provide you a link?

The fact that you even said most of the of the core was still standing was just laughable

Just as I predicted… you would deny being able to see the clear majority of the inner core still intact.

People that can’t figure out grade school physics 42 years after the Moon landing just deserve to be laughed at.

This is what you do when you have no answer for something. You mention something about grade school physics and start talking about something else other than what was raised against you. The south core was still standing and wasn’t resisting against the destruction of the floors and the outer columns on the south tower and you also have nothing to say about the lack of booms.

The demolition hypothesis fails at the drawing board. This is why nobody in science takes the twoofers seriously, because anyone with a reasonable mind can understand the common sense reasons why it WASN’T a controlled demolition.

Posted on Jun 06, 2011 at 10:24pm by kennykjc Comment #62

...anyone with a reasonable mind can understand…

There’s the key phrase. Give it up kennykjc. You are not dealing with a reasonable person.

Posted on Jun 07, 2011 at 5:31am by DarronS Comment #63

...anyone with a reasonable mind can understand…

There’s the key phrase. Give it up kennykjc. You are not dealing with a reasonable person.

I thought psik was a Mensa member…

Posted on Jun 07, 2011 at 6:18am by George Comment #64

I have seen that video plenty of times

So why did you demand that I went to the effort to provide you a link?.

Because YOU CLAIMED that most of the core was still standing.

Do you think you can CLAIM anything you want and not have to provide supporting evidence and expect everyone to believe you?

The fact that you even said most of the of the core was still standing was just laughable

Just as I predicted… you would deny being able to see the clear majority of the inner core still intact.

Since they were so easy to find I did find it amusing that your excuse was that you would not take the time.  :lol:

I provided the links.  You are free to explain how you see most of the core.  There were 47 core columns but toward the top I only see ONE.  So you need to claim vast psychologically predictive powers but don’t say anything about what is actually in the video.

psik

Posted on Jun 07, 2011 at 8:41am by psikeyhackr Comment #65

...anyone with a reasonable mind can understand…

There’s the key phrase. Give it up kennykjc. You are not dealing with a reasonable person.

Yeah right!  :lol:

But I haven’t seen you or anyone else build a self supporting physical model that can be completely collapsed by its top 15%

I guess atheists don’t think experiments have anything to do with Science and Reason.

All they can resort to is psychological BS to try and convince other people that they are stupid.  :lol:

Are you saying it makes sense that the core columns don’t move in the Purdue impact simulation?

That is the problem with computer simulations.  They do not have to obey the Laws of Physics.

Physical models cannot escape the Laws of Physics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

psik

Posted on Jun 07, 2011 at 8:48am by psikeyhackr Comment #66

...anyone with a reasonable mind can understand…

There’s the key phrase. Give it up kennykjc. You are not dealing with a reasonable person.

I thought psik was a Mensa member…

I let my membership expire years ago.

Oh yeah, they told us that our IQs would drop 40 points if we let the membership expire.  :lol:

psik

Posted on Jun 07, 2011 at 10:33am by psikeyhackr Comment #67

I’m sad to say that I used to fervently believe in a version of the 9-11 conspiracy.  I even wrote a paper on it while in college shortly after it happened. I was never gullible enough to think that the Bush Administration actually planned the attack, but I did think they knew something was coming and kept it quiet to start a war. I still think that it is possible that someone in the Bush administration knew it was coming, but I now think it is more probable that 9-11 happened due to incompetence.

I’m glad to see that Kay is acknowledging that Truthers are from both the left and right spectrum.  I hate how people like Chris Matthews always tries to push the Birthers are on the right, Truthers are on the left narrative.

I have to disagree with him on the internet thing though.  We don’t technically have pen pals, but we do chat and post on message boards with people from many different countries and through this process I do think that we gain a more informed view of the rest of the world.

I also don’t think that people always just isolate themselves towards sources that they agree with.  I think a lot of people intend to do that, but discussion boards tend to allow people to see the other point of view even if they weren’t seeking them out.  I think the internet has been instrumental in getting people to turn away from religion.

Posted on Jun 08, 2011 at 10:07am by blahface Comment #68