Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: Money
its quite funny how sceptics have the largest share of the vote in the poll, yet 90% of posts are from OMG TIN FOIL HATS 4 U HAHA
i am fully convinced all these people decrying `truthers` simply bash and reiterate the lies to convince themselves that 9/11 really was done by angry afghanis.
after all, i too wish that 9/11 was not a false flag attack, but unfortunately, all the evidence points to that being the case
Your post is a good example why all 9/11 posts regardless of fact or ficttion needs to be disallowed totally!!
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Hey friend,
Okay, here are some easy questions for you. #4 is most pertinent to our conversation right now.
1) If planes did not bring down the WTC, what did? How did it get there? A controlled demolition on the scale required by the WTC would have required thousands of pounds of explosives, miles (miles!) of detonation cord, and months of preparation. Have you ever seen videos of buildings when they're wired to come down? There is wire and explosives everywhere. In the WTC there was nothing. I hate to break it to you, but it would be nearly impossible for all of that stuff to be hidden.
2) What exactly blew up the building? Thermite? Thermite doesn't explode and, if this was a controlled demolition, why didn't the terrorists or whoever use real explosives rather than relying on something that has never been used to demolish a building before?
3) Who exactly was involved? At first glance, any sort of conspiracy greater than the planes implicates at least hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Knowledge of demolition, especially on the scale required to bring down the WTC is a rare commodity and would have been done by an expert. Again, that doesn't make it an impossibility, but if the "government" is involved are you accusing the NIST, FEMA, the military, the president, FDNY, the thousands of experts (both government and employed and not) who have independently concluded that the government is right, the NYPD, the hijackers, etc? Really? 21 guys versus thousands?
4) If the government is going to blow up a building, why do they concoct a complicated plan that involves hijacking a plane and slamming it into the building? There is WAAAY too much that could go wrong. What if the hijackers fail to take control of the plane? What if the plane misses the building? Why would they not make the cover story easier -- terrorists snuck truckloads of explosives into the building and blew it up? I mean, we already had an attack on the WTC which was exactly that, why not replicate it? PLUS, if you're going to go to the trouble of hijacking planes and slamming them into the building, why bother planting explosives? Why not load the planes with explosives? Why are there two high-risk operations being conducted simultaneously? This makes zero sense.
In the case of WTC7, why not hijack a 4th plane and hit it with that? If the government's intention was to make everyone believe that the planes brought down the WTC buildings, why leave #7 out? As you point out, it IS the most mysterious because, outside of falling rubble, it was not actually hit by anything. So... if you're planning this thing, why would you not simply hit the motherfucker with a plane, removing any doubt about why it came down? Why even make this a question? After planning such a massive operation, I don't see how the government could overlook something so simple as "oh, yeah we forgot to hit WTC 7 with anything, but we'll take it down with explosives... nobody will ask questions!"
5) Finally, I would ask you to simply outline a coherent theory about what happened on 9/11. The beauty of the true story is that it is a complete story. We know who was where and when. We know what they did, why they did it, and when they did it. Conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 are laughable because they aren't theories at all, they simply try to insert shadowy agents and figures into the gaps in our knowledge, they attack what they can and ignore the mountain of evidence that they cannot disprove. When one element of their charade is disproved, they simply flash to the next. We've seen this over and over again, so all I ask is that you explain to us who did it and why. Please. Once you attempt to do this, you'll realize that there is no coherence to your theory and that it's not a theory at all.
Originally posted by: kylebisme
2) While WTC7's period of free fall acceleration was prevoisly denyed by the government agaencies which investgated the event, due to the widely avalable video evidence NIST was eventually persuaded to to admit this fact, as documented here:
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: WildHorse
Summary: WTC 7 OWNER publically declared it was intentionally demolished.
Soon one hand you have the OWNER OF THE WTC 7 openly stating that he decided to intentionally demolish it,
vs. on the other hand some AT P&N greybeards arrogating to themselves "superior" knowledge of why WTC 7 fell.
By intentionally demolish do you mean that the owner decided that the building was not worth the loss of life that could occur if the fire dept tried to save the building? And by intentionally demolish do you mean to say that he felt the best course of action would be to get the fireman out of WTC7?
Because, in essence, that was what the owner of WTC7 was saying when he "intentionally demolished" WTC building 7.
Why do I get into these ridiculous threads?
Originally posted by: Sclamoz
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
perhaps because they have no frickin clue what the insides of the WTC looked exactly like the day it was it. perhaps because they have no frickin clue what sort of wear and tear was on the steel beams of the WTC after the numerous years of use.
There are plenty of clues for those who understand the physics in question. The fact that it was standing until it fell proves that until the fall started the structure had over 100% of the resistive force to hold up the roof. The fact that shortly after their roof started to sag it fell with a period of free fall acceleration over a distance of approximately 105 feet proves that what had previously been over 100% of the resistive force to hold up the roof lost the ability to provide any notable resistive force at all. These facts together prove that an outside force removed approximately 105 feet of structural resistance, though I understand that it is a fact which many find difficult to accept.
You're right. For people who understand physics, rely on fact and don't put their faith in conspiracy theories they read on the internet there are plenty of clues as to why the WTC collapsed.
Originally posted by: Pulsar
Dude, seriously? That's your single fact?
Very clearly, you are NOT an engineer.
On August 21, 2008, NIST released its draft report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, beginning a period for public comments.[32] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[44] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers. But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, including on floor 13, where a critical interior column buckled. With the buckling of that column, adjacent columns also failed along with the floor structure above. This triggered a vertical progression of floor failures to the roof. The collapse then progressed east-to-west across the structure, and ultimately the entire structure collapsed. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[45]
Structural members are only strong in a certain direction. For instance, if you take a drinking straw (column), it's actually quite strong if you try to collapse it vertically but keep it in column. You can easily rest your hand on it and it will hold your hand up. However, the second it goes out of column, the plastic folds, and it becomes literally ORDERS of MAGNITUDES (x100 or x1000) easier to collapse it.
Structural members in buildings are NO different. Once they buckle, they have absolutely no strength. When you start talking about the weight of 30 stories of material above that, the amount they can slow that fall is statistically completely insignificant - or to put it another way, totally immeasurable because their effect is so minimal once they've lost structural cohesiveness.
You clearly don't even understand the most basic tenants of engineering. Rigidity, structural support, bending momemnts, etc. Your "single" fact is one of the single biggest FAILS of the entire WTC conspiracy.
You're a nutjob. Go away.
-Signed, an engineer with 25 years of experience.
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Posts like this one always force me to stop and look around to try and spot the lunatics near me. I know you're always out there somewhere, but I really wish you'd carry signs that say "I'm batshit fucking crazy, please stand back."
I was about to say something similar.
It's amazing how so many people here are closet truthers.
Originally posted by: amdhunter
Originally posted by: kylebisme
What brought down WTC7?
Crazy ass Muslims.
Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Topic Title: What brought down WTC7
Maybe I can put this to bed for you.
I worked there, well six stories below ground level where there was a Telecom switch.
We had massive storage tanks of diesel for the backup generator.
Flames from the collapsing two Twin Towers filled the connecting cable pipes.
The fires made it all the way to WTC7 infrastructure after obviously quite a while.
The flames had to travel horizontal through the interconnects.
When it got to the data center all hell broke lose.
When the diesel tank erupted in flame the temps went above the structural integrity for the supporting steel for the office building above.
That switch had to be rebuilt from scratch 30 blocks further uptown.
That solve the mystery for you?
Wow. When *Dave* says you're loony, you really are off-base.
Nice, you take one nut post by a non truther and now you see Bush haters everywhere. Can we have some examples from actual truthers to support your theory or shall we just consider you farting in the wind.Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Money
its quite funny how sceptics have the largest share of the vote in the poll, yet 90% of posts are from OMG TIN FOIL HATS 4 U HAHA
i am fully convinced all these people decrying `truthers` simply bash and reiterate the lies to convince themselves that 9/11 really was done by angry afghanis.
after all, i too wish that 9/11 was not a false flag attack, but unfortunately, all the evidence points to that being the case
I think most people realize 9-11 was carried out by a bunch of angry Saudi's. They saw the biggest events unfold with their own eyes on live TV. Then watched as the leader of the group who organized it dicsussed it on video.
Now I am sure this is where somebody tells us Bin Laden is a CIA plant from the 80s and Bush personally detonated the explosives that really took down the towers after he remote controlled the planes and cruise missile that hit the pentagon all while reading a childs book in Florida to pre school kids. The man is a damned mastermind obviously!
lol im always amazed when "truthers" say how bush did this. Are we talking about the same bush?
Originally posted by: alchemize
QFT.Originally posted by: FuzzyBee
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Topic Title: What brought down WTC7
Maybe I can put this to bed for you.
I worked there, well six stories below ground level where there was a Telecom switch.
We had massive storage tanks of diesel for the backup generator.
Flames from the collapsing two Twin Towers filled the connecting cable pipes.
The fires made it all the way to WTC7 infrastructure after obviously quite a while.
The flames had to travel horizontal through the interconnects.
When it got to the data center all hell broke lose.
When the diesel tank erupted in flame the temps went above the structural integrity for the supporting steel for the office building above.
That switch had to be rebuilt from scratch 30 blocks further uptown.
That solve the mystery for you?
Wow. When *Dave* says you're loony, you really are off-base.
Maybe we could make these threads be a honey pot for conspiracy whack jobs, and ban them whenever they surface, like whack-a-mole!
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Sclamoz
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE
perhaps because they have no frickin clue what the insides of the WTC looked exactly like the day it was it. perhaps because they have no frickin clue what sort of wear and tear was on the steel beams of the WTC after the numerous years of use.
There are plenty of clues for those who understand the physics in question. The fact that it was standing until it fell proves that until the fall started the structure had over 100% of the resistive force to hold up the roof. The fact that shortly after their roof started to sag it fell with a period of free fall acceleration over a distance of approximately 105 feet proves that what had previously been over 100% of the resistive force to hold up the roof lost the ability to provide any notable resistive force at all. These facts together prove that an outside force removed approximately 105 feet of structural resistance, though I understand that it is a fact which many find difficult to accept.
You're right. For people who understand physics, rely on fact and don't put their faith in conspiracy theories they read on the internet there are plenty of clues as to why the WTC collapsed.
Such as?
Double Trouble says lots of experts say no conspiracy. He takes on arrogance with that but still, if he's right that puts the ball over in his court, no? What sensible person that knows nothing would argue with folk qualified to assess assuming there isn't some strong reason to believe those experts don't have some agenda of their own?
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Money
its quite funny how sceptics have the largest share of the vote in the poll, yet 90% of posts are from OMG TIN FOIL HATS 4 U HAHA
i am fully convinced all these people decrying `truthers` simply bash and reiterate the lies to convince themselves that 9/11 really was done by angry afghanis.
after all, i too wish that 9/11 was not a false flag attack, but unfortunately, all the evidence points to that being the case
I think most people realize 9-11 was carried out by a bunch of angry Saudi's. They saw the biggest events unfold with their own eyes on live TV. Then watched as the leader of the group who organized it dicsussed it on video.
Now I am sure this is where somebody tells us Bin Laden is a CIA plant from the 80s and Bush personally detonated the explosives that really took down the towers after he remote controlled the planes and cruise missile that hit the pentagon all while reading a childs book in Florida to pre school kids. The man is a damned mastermind obviously!
lol im always amazed when "truthers" say how bush did this. Are we talking about the same bush?
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Money
its quite funny how sceptics have the largest share of the vote in the poll, yet 90% of posts are from OMG TIN FOIL HATS 4 U HAHA
i am fully convinced all these people decrying `truthers` simply bash and reiterate the lies to convince themselves that 9/11 really was done by angry afghanis.
after all, i too wish that 9/11 was not a false flag attack, but unfortunately, all the evidence points to that being the case
I think most people realize 9-11 was carried out by a bunch of angry Saudi's. They saw the biggest events unfold with their own eyes on live TV. Then watched as the leader of the group who organized it dicsussed it on video.
Now I am sure this is where somebody tells us Bin Laden is a CIA plant from the 80s and Bush personally detonated the explosives that really took down the towers after he remote controlled the planes and cruise missile that hit the pentagon all while reading a childs book in Florida to pre school kids. The man is a damned mastermind obviously!
And I'm sure that if some nut says the sky is blue you will say it's green, right. Your post says nothing.
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Posts like this one always force me to stop and look around to try and spot the lunatics near me. I know you're always out there somewhere, but I really wish you'd carry signs that say "I'm batshit fucking crazy, please stand back."
LOL... :laugh:
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Q: What brought down WTC7?
A: Gravity.
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Hey friend,
Okay, here are some easy questions for you. #4 is most pertinent to our conversation right now.
1) If planes did not bring down the WTC, what did? How did it get there? A controlled demolition on the scale required by the WTC would have required thousands of pounds of explosives, miles (miles!) of detonation cord, and months of preparation. Have you ever seen videos of buildings when they're wired to come down? There is wire and explosives everywhere. In the WTC there was nothing. I hate to break it to you, but it would be nearly impossible for all of that stuff to be hidden.
2) What exactly blew up the building? Thermite? Thermite doesn't explode and, if this was a controlled demolition, why didn't the terrorists or whoever use real explosives rather than relying on something that has never been used to demolish a building before?
3) Who exactly was involved? At first glance, any sort of conspiracy greater than the planes implicates at least hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Knowledge of demolition, especially on the scale required to bring down the WTC is a rare commodity and would have been done by an expert. Again, that doesn't make it an impossibility, but if the "government" is involved are you accusing the NIST, FEMA, the military, the president, FDNY, the thousands of experts (both government and employed and not) who have independently concluded that the government is right, the NYPD, the hijackers, etc? Really? 21 guys versus thousands?
4) If the government is going to blow up a building, why do they concoct a complicated plan that involves hijacking a plane and slamming it into the building? There is WAAAY too much that could go wrong. What if the hijackers fail to take control of the plane? What if the plane misses the building? Why would they not make the cover story easier -- terrorists snuck truckloads of explosives into the building and blew it up? I mean, we already had an attack on the WTC which was exactly that, why not replicate it? PLUS, if you're going to go to the trouble of hijacking planes and slamming them into the building, why bother planting explosives? Why not load the planes with explosives? Why are there two high-risk operations being conducted simultaneously? This makes zero sense.
In the case of WTC7, why not hijack a 4th plane and hit it with that? If the government's intention was to make everyone believe that the planes brought down the WTC buildings, why leave #7 out? As you point out, it IS the most mysterious because, outside of falling rubble, it was not actually hit by anything. So... if you're planning this thing, why would you not simply hit the motherfucker with a plane, removing any doubt about why it came down? Why even make this a question? After planning such a massive operation, I don't see how the government could overlook something so simple as "oh, yeah we forgot to hit WTC 7 with anything, but we'll take it down with explosives... nobody will ask questions!"
5) Finally, I would ask you to simply outline a coherent theory about what happened on 9/11. The beauty of the true story is that it is a complete story. We know who was where and when. We know what they did, why they did it, and when they did it. Conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 are laughable because they aren't theories at all, they simply try to insert shadowy agents and figures into the gaps in our knowledge, they attack what they can and ignore the mountain of evidence that they cannot disprove. When one element of their charade is disproved, they simply flash to the next. We've seen this over and over again, so all I ask is that you explain to us who did it and why. Please. Once you attempt to do this, you'll realize that there is no coherence to your theory and that it's not a theory at all.
No way,to a Neocon Gravity is just another one of those BS theories like Evolution.Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Q: What brought down WTC7?
A: Gravity.
shhh...
Gravity is a neocon conspiracy.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Q: What brought down WTC7?
A: Gravity.
shhh...
Gravity is a neocon conspiracy.
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I confess I did it.
You see I found this device buried in my back yard. It was really strange looking and it had all sorts of symbols on it. It looked like a some sort of touchscreen computer. So I pushed a symbol and it powered up. Awesome! Immediately before me was a 3-D impression overlaying my normal vision. By placing my finger on the tablet, I was able to move from location to location. It was like a super advanced Google Earth.
I saw a bunch of planes and started fooling around them thinking it was some sort of simulation. I ran my finger between them and NYC, and one headed towards DC. It switched views at the last moment showing airplanes crashing into buildings. WHOA. Great game. I wondered if I could move the buildings out of the way, but instead I brought them crashing down.
Later I heard what happened.
Mea Culpa.
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I confess I did it.
You see I found this device buried in my back yard. It was really strange looking and it had all sorts of symbols on it. It looked like a some sort of touchscreen computer. So I pushed a symbol and it powered up. Awesome! Immediately before me was a 3-D impression overlaying my normal vision. By placing my finger on the tablet, I was able to move from location to location. It was like a super advanced Google Earth.
I saw a bunch of planes and started fooling around them thinking it was some sort of simulation. I ran my finger between them and NYC, and one headed towards DC. It switched views at the last moment showing airplanes crashing into buildings. WHOA. Great game. I wondered if I could move the buildings out of the way, but instead I brought them crashing down.
Later I heard what happened.
Mea Culpa.
See! And you guys ban us when we say the Mods are the problem! :laugh:
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
I confess I did it.
You see I found this device buried in my back yard. It was really strange looking and it had all sorts of symbols on it. It looked like a some sort of touchscreen computer. So I pushed a symbol and it powered up. Awesome! Immediately before me was a 3-D impression overlaying my normal vision. By placing my finger on the tablet, I was able to move from location to location. It was like a super advanced Google Earth.
I saw a bunch of planes and started fooling around them thinking it was some sort of simulation. I ran my finger between them and NYC, and one headed towards DC. It switched views at the last moment showing airplanes crashing into buildings. WHOA. Great game. I wondered if I could move the buildings out of the way, but instead I brought them crashing down.
Later I heard what happened.
Mea Culpa.
See! And you guys ban us when we say the Mods are the problem! :laugh:
Ban for Mod Call Out. Oh wait, I already posted in this thread so I can't moderate it. DOH!!!