Self selection in conspiracy theorists

[_canpakes]

Shades -

You might check out some online vids of how buildings react and collapse during controlled demolitions. Note that the explosions initiate failure at the base area, while the building's structure elsewhere otherwise remains largely intact until it approaches ground level where it then crushes down and disintegrates.

In contrast, the WTC towers collapsed first high up, at areas affected by airliner impact, and not in any place where charges would have been located. They disintegrated from nearly the top area downward.

There have been some excellent analyses written that explain how particular architectural and construction characteristics of the Towers dictated their method of collapse once weakened by impact and fire. Their failure occured in a logically consistent manner given the circumstances.

[_Smokey]

The problem is, most people have just divided into teams and pick their issues and argue them based on their team’s positions. Presidents are good at illustrating this. Enormous births of benefit of the doubt are given to your team’s President, while the others’ feet are held to the fire.

It’s happening now on television. It happened during the last administration. Switch presidents, switch the teams, it’s still the same thing. It’s always happened, but it’s definitely accelerating. Trump is the chaos president.

God bless the people like Dr. Shades who are willing to entertain and evaluate a theory based on the merits, fearing not those team players who want to add an e r to the end of a word to mark them as an other.

As “conspiracy theories” (a propagandist term) become more illegal (look up Bush’s statement at the United Nations about “never tolerating” 9/11 conspiracies), people like Dr. Shades will become rare and people in government become more powerful.

One Last thing: Jews did 9/11 and the Holocaust is Soviet Propaganda. Just kidding. I totally believe everything I’m supposed to.

[_Dr Exiled]

Wouldn't further investigation resolve a lot of the issues you raise? It seems to me that the best way to shut up people like smokey is to investigate their claims, publicly, with as many people as possible commenting on the evidence and reviewing it. Interview and cross examine all the witnesses, etc. Flat earthers' claims are easy to debunk that way. Holocaust deniers can also get their a$$es handed to them that way as well.

That doesn't happen with flat earthism at all. Coordinated teams of scientists aren't out there investigating the claims of flat earthers with systematic reviews of evidence and argument. Scientists occasionally respond to flat-earthers mostly as a hobby.

Yes, but investigating claims is beneficial, right? It may be a very quick process as with flat earthers, but obviously, that changes with the strength of the claim that is at issue.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Dr. Shades,

Where do you stand on the controlled demo versus collapse due to physics issue with regard to 9/11 now?

- Doc

[_Dr. Shades]

Dr. Shades,

Where do you stand on the controlled demo versus collapse due to physics issue with regard to 9/11 now?

- Doc

I stand with needing to ask markk if the interior structural supports were located in or around the elevator shafts, which would allow access without intruding on the tenants.

[_canpakes]

Dr. Shades,

Where do you stand on the controlled demo versus collapse due to physics issue with regard to 9/11 now?

- Doc

I stand with needing to ask markk if the interior structural supports were located in or around the elevator shafts, which would allow access without intruding on the tenants.

In fact, the central shaft area was a critical element within the building’s structural design.

A question that you might want to ask instead is if the shaft failed first.

[_Markk]

I stand with needing to ask markk if the interior structural supports were located in or around the elevator shafts, which would allow access without intruding on the tenants.

I would have to look at the plans, but from what I have read it is basically is a steel "moment" system. Thousands of steel columns, beams, and braces creating a diaphragm/s. I am no structural engineer, but I deal with them almost daily, and have gathered a bit of understading over 40 years of building. From your house, to the twin towers the same basic concepts apply... Load (gravity), shear (lateral), and drag (ties it all together), to assume an elevator shaft somehow supports the entire building is assuming allot. It could I suppose be used for continuity if designed as such, but hardly for building the size and proportion of the towers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... b_east.JPG

Take a look at the steel columns and beams of the tower, if you look closely you can see the columns at the interior.

In order to have a coordinated timed implosion, key supports would need to be opened for access, the steel prepped, and the charges placed with again, 1000's of feet of connecting wires to sequence the charge. And all this without anyone knowing?

Do you really think that Bush organized a team of engineers to first plan the event, and then organized a team to execute the planting of the explosives, opening and closing walls in occupied spaces in a fashion that no one could catch on?

To answer your question simply, the entire building is a "moment" and the entire building is one support system...there is not any single interior, or exterior support that holds up the building.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Dr. Shades,

Where do you stand on the controlled demo versus collapse due to physics issue with regard to 9/11 now?

- Doc

I stand with needing to ask markk if the interior structural supports were located in or around the elevator shafts, which would allow access without intruding on the tenants.

That’s fair. I googled ‘debunking controlled demolition world trade center’ and got this result:

https://www.google.com/search?q=debunki ... e&ie=UTF-8

So I clicked on:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/techno ... 4/4278874/

Here’s a breakdown of NIST’s final report on WTC 7:

https://www.metabunk.org/have-you-actua ... g-7.t9082/

FAQs with regard to WTC 7:

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-fa ... estigation

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

Wouldn't further investigation resolve a lot of the issues you raise? It seems to me that the best way to shut up people like smokey is to investigate their claims, publicly, with as many people as possible commenting on the evidence and reviewing it. Interview and cross examine all the witnesses, etc. Flat earthers' claims are easy to debunk that way. Holocaust deniers can also get their a$$es handed to them that way as well.

No. Additional investigation never resolved anything as far as the CTer is concerned. He simply dismisses contrary evidence as part of the plot or its coverup. It’s easy to debunk a conspiracy theory if the rational portion of your brain is reigning in the patternicity and intentionality biases. But if those biases are running wild, no amount of additional evidence will persuade the individual to give up the conclusion that conspiracy is fooling the sheeple.

Read Smokey’s And then one day thread, and pay close attention to how he reacts when someone presents him with evidence that contradicts his claims. That’s all that additional investigation buys you. On the ball point pen issue. I’ve stayed away from presenting the actual evidence and focused on the lack of evidence to support his claims for exactly that reason. Now, suppose I started from the beginning and told the whole ball point pen story: where it came from, how the evidence had been distorted and lied about by holocaust deniers, how an in-depth, comprehensive study was commissioned to investigate the bases of claims that the diary was a forgery, and how that study specifically identified the ball point pen ink and absolutely put to rest any notion that anything having to do with ball point pen ink proved the diary was a fraud or forgery, how do you think he’ll react? Will he say any things resembling: Oh. Okay. You’re right. Three ball point pen issue is a nothingburger. Not gonna post that one again. Or will he say something very different.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Dr. Shades,

Where do you stand on the controlled demo versus collapse due to physics issue with regard to 9/11 now?

- Doc

I stand with needing to ask markk if the interior structural supports were located in or around the elevator shafts, which would allow access without intruding on the tenants.

Here’s another succinct NIST video on WTC 7:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc

Note the comment about the would-be necessary demo charge at the end of the video, and how no videos nor eye witnesses heard the kind of bang that would indicate that kind of explosion were picked up or reported.

- Doc