Tag Archives: twin towers

Why Do People Believe In Conspiracy Theories?

By via International Business Times

History has shown any cataclysmic event in the world has resulted in not just grief and shock among the masses but a host of conspiracy theories also.

From the assassination of former U.S. President John F Kennedy to the death of Princess Diana, a member of British royal family; from the world-changing collapse of the twin towers in New York to the baffling disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370, people have never shied away from putting their own spin on the details of an event when the reasons from the authorities concerned have failed to satisfy them.

Some conspiracy theories have been simply outrageous, while others have offered a kernel of truth. But there’s no denying the fact that conspiracy theories strongly influence the outlook of a certain section of people. Now the question is why do people give in to these conspiracy theories?

A study published in the journal Social Psychology in July tries to answer this question by suggesting that the need to be special and unique drives the people to believe in conspiracy theories.

More than 1,000 people took part in the study titled “I know things they don’t know!” that was co-authored by Anthony Lantian, Dominique Muller, Cécile Nurra, and Karen M. Douglas of Grenoble Alps University. “An intriguing feature in the rhetoric of people who believe in conspiracy theories is that to justify their beliefs, they frequently refer to secret or difficult-to-get information they would have found,” Lantian was quoted as saying by psychology news website Psypost in a report published in August.

“This fascination for what is hidden, emerging from conspiracy narratives, led us to the concept of need for uniqueness,” he added.

The researchers found evidence to support three main tenets of their hypothesis:

Continue Reading @ International Business Times – – –

WTC Building 7 Explained

EdwardCurrent via YouTube

An expanded/updated version of my 2011 video “Building 7 Explained,” focusing on 7 World Trade Center’s construction. The tube-frame steel design explains why its collapse looks similar to a controlled demolition — thus creating a generation of modern conspiracy believers.

The animation at 5:00 is scale-accurate: The east face of the frame really did tip that much to the north (the smaller building shown is Fiterman Hall). Meanwhile, the west face appears to have tipped to the south. There is no evidence whatsover that the frame collapsed “into its own footprint.”

Addressing other top talking points:

“Thousands of architects and engineers disagree…” And many, many thousands more agree. I made comedy out of the generally poor professional qualifications of those who have signed the petition put forward by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: https://youtu.be/lpEnvGBfgnI

“You haven’t looked into the evidence…” Actually I have, because I used to be a Truther: https://youtu.be/UULUQfEQFuU

“A collapse like that due to fire would violate the laws of physics.” That’s interesting since NIST created a simulation that was quite accurate up to the last (and hardest to model) part of the collapse, using the program LS-DYNA, which — believe it or not — relies on the laws of physics to operate. If you don’t like the job NIST did, you can make your own simulation and see what happens — the construction and materials of the building are a matter of public record. In the meantime, feel free to point to one paper in a legitimate peer-reviewed engineering journal that supports this “violation of physics” claim.

“Professor Leroy Hulsey of the University of Alaska just released the results of a two-year study…” With funding by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Hulsey and two graduate students computer-modeled two floors where NIST found that collapse initiation *might* have taken place, and found scenarios where the collapse did not initiate. The team did not attempt to model any other cases where the collapse might have initiated. Not exactly an exhaustive scientific investigation, but hey, they’re still seeking donations to keep this hope alive.

“You believe everything the government tells you.” The government in reality is fairly incompetent. And, you’re asking people to believe that this same government pulled off a perfectly executed secret operation AND has maintained this secret conspiracy for 16 years and counting, after the operation was carried out and with hundereds of thousands of people worldwide working to expose a cover-up. The skeptical person finds this to be a highly unlikely scenario. See: “How to Apply Occam’s Razor”: https://youtu.be/AQNxNeQ9cxw

“Witnesses heard explosions in WTC7 before it collapsed.” Lots of things explode in fires. Transformers, gas lines, fire extinguishers, fuel tanks, even pneumatic office chairs have been shown to explode in a fire. That’s very different from high-velocity detonations necessary to cut even one major steel column of a skyscraper, which would exceed 150 decibels a half mile away.

“You are obviously paid by the government to make these videos.” Thank you for demonstrating your standards for evidence that confirms your pre-existing beliefs.

“But military-grade super-nanothermite that no one knows anything about . . . .” Okay, we’re done.

 

10 Obscure Conspiracy Theories You’ve Probably Never Heard Of

10 Shocking Conspiracies About 9/11

By Alltime10s via YouTube

More than a decade after the terrorist attacks that shook the nation, questions still surround what happened during 9/11.

From the collapse of the twin towers, to whether the White House had inside knowledge, AllTime 10s brings you, the 10 most shocking conspiracies about 9/11.

9/11 conspiracy theorists just refuse to listen to plain, simple logic. Here’s a really good example of that

ANTHONY SHARWOODBy Anthony Sharwood via news.com.au

IMAGINE, for a moment that the awful terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were in fact a conspiracy. That they were an inside job.

 Conspiracy believers tell you that no buildings had ever previously fallen because of fire. One, this is a complete lie. Two, were there ever fires caused by jetfuel in buildings massively weakened by the impact of two huge planes? Source: News Corp Australia

Conspiracy believers tell you that no buildings had ever previously fallen because of fire. One, this is a complete lie. Two, were there ever fires caused by jetfuel in buildings massively weakened by the impact of two huge planes? Source: News Corp Australia

Imagine that the Twin Towers were detonated rather than just fell. Imagine that the Twin Towers had been deliberately wired up for destruction and collapsed from the top down, even though buildings wired for demolition always collapse from the bottom.

Now imagine the legions of people who would’ve had to spend months, completely undetected, concealing tonnes of explosives in the two towers to generate enough explosive force to take down both buildings. Imagine those people performing this sinister covert work despite the security and sniffer dogs which had been permanently stationed on site ever since the Trade Center truck bombing in 1993.

Keep imagining. Imagine that the plane which struck the Pentagon was, as some claim, a missile. Overlook the fact that a hijacked civilian aircraft, which was clearly visible on the radar at the Pentagon, completely disappeared off the radar right at the moment the Pentagon was impacted by the ‘missile’.

Imagine these and many other incredible acts of stealth and coincidence. And now consider this. That no American, in 14 years, has ever come forward to admit it. That not a single one of the tens of thousands of people required to orchestrate the greatest attack on American soil has ever felt guilty about it, or been moved to speak for any reason.

agent smith 928_250pxConsider that not one of these people, not one, ever felt moved to spill the beans because they were broke and thought they could make money with a book or movie deal.

Ask yourself whether you truly believe that so many Americans would be evil enough, compliant enough, covert enough and efficient enough to pull an operation like this off without detection.

Or is it more likely, perhaps, that a small group of 19 men, trained and led by a well-funded international terrorist organisation, were better placed to organise the operation undetected.

Ask yourself that question, and then ask yourself this.

Did a man widely considered to be the least intelligent US president of all time really have the capacity to organise this? And if so, why? Plenty of previous US presidents had mobilised the military in the Middle East and beyond without murdering 2,973 of their own citizens.

Why concoct such a fiendishly intricate plot? To what end?

These are the questions conspiracy theorists won’t answer. Because they can’t. Because no one can.

Continue Reading . . .

Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 1 of 7 – Free fall and how the towers collapsed

Who doesn’t like Myles Power? 🙂

By Myles Power via YouTube

Myles Power confronts 9/11 truthers to see if their claims can stand up. In this video he discusses the World Trade Center’s Design to withstand airplane impacts, fule or oxygen-starved fires, how the World Trade Center’s Collapse, the twin towers falling at free fall speed and the damage to the lobbies.

Also See: 9/11: Were Explosives Used? (iLLuMiNuTTi.com)

▶ Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 1 of 7 – Free fall and how the towers collapsed

This is a seven (7) part series by Myles Power debunking the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

This is part 1 – Free fall and how the towers collapsed – in the YouTube playlist.

If you have the time, Myles is worth watching.

Myles Power confronts 9/11 truthers to see if their claims can stand up. In this video he discusses the World Trade Center’s Design to withstand airplane impacts, fuel or oxygen-starved fires, how the World Trade Center’s Collapse, the twin towers falling at free fall speed and the damage to the lobbies.

Basic maths fail
I said if you triple the speed, you get eight times the energy. That should be nine times!

Why the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speed

OR . . . Static Versus Dynamic Loading

By Dave Burton via Burton Systems Software – (burtonsys.com)

WTC_Tower_2_collapse_200pxSome conspiracy theorists are puzzled about why the WTC towers fell at almost free-fall speed on Sept. 11, 2001. They suppose that the speed of collapse is evidence that something or someone must have destroyed the structural integrity of the undamaged lower part of each tower.

After all, they reason, “only the upper floors of the building were damaged, so why did the lower floors collapse, and why did they fall so fast?”

This web page answers those questions, simply enough for even a conspiracy theorist to comprehend (I hope). I do use some simple math and some very basic physics, but even if you don’t understand that part you should still be able to comprehend the basic reasons that the towers fell so fast.


What the conspiracy theorists apparently don’t understand is the difference between static and dynamic loading. (“Static” means “while at rest,” “dynamic” means “while moving.”)

If you don’t think it can make a difference, consider the effect of a stationary bullet resting on your chest, compared to the effect of a moving bullet striking your chest. The stationary bullet exerts a static load on your chest. A moving bullet exerts a dynamic load.

bullet apple 03_flat

As a more pertinent example, consider a 110 story building with a roof 1,368 feet high (like the WTC Twin Towers). Each floor is 1368/110 = 12.44 feet high, or aproximately 3.8 meters.

Now, suppose that the structural steel on the 80th floor collapses. (Note: I’m using as an example 2 WTC, which was the building that collapsed first.)

The collapse of the 80th floor drops all the floors above (which, together, are equivalent to a 30 story building!) onto the 79th floor, from a height of aproximately 12 feet.

Of course, the structure of the lower 79 floors has been holding up the weight of the top 31 floors for many years. (That’s the static load.) So should you expect it to be able to hold that same weight, dropped on it from a height of 12 feet (the dynamic load)?

The answer is, absolutely not!

Here’s why.

MORE . . .



Download HD version of this video for reposting: http://tinyurl.com/7rjrsjr

%d bloggers like this: