You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
Land on the moon... originally, I doubt it, but there are other things to worry about
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graeme S
Ah, but then you're saying that the bankers were playing America and Russia against each other to create the conflict? So wouldn't that mean that they are also behind 9/11, if they're in control of America? So it's not really America who's doing any of it, it's the Bankers...
...Which means it wasn't an inside job, it was a conspiracy from without.
Yes to create a conflict that disables a country, puts it in debt, and shuts down neighbouring countries... specially one which its Islamic movement could topple other puppet states out of their hands. This is why Saddam was propped up in an eight year war to take back Iran.
European banking powerhouses control whole continents and have ravaged countries and decimated unfathomable numbers of populations.
In the western world, here, they sacrifice our poor for their war cause... slowly kill us through diet and medical malpractice... but to whole slaughter 3000 people for these latest wars is somewhat new and alarming.
You only need a physics 12 education to realize that a buildings steel structure and concrete doesnt snap and turn into dust because of a raging fire.
You need even less than that to discover that 9/11 wasn't the first or last time steel structures collapsed due to fire. Steel weakens from heat and fire - there is a reason they apply fire proofing to the stuff.
The towers actually outperformed the predicted durability due to plane impacts, as evidence of them remaining standing for nearly an hour after impact. They were designed to take the impact of a slow flying 707 low on fuel, the lack of modern computer programming available in the 60's aside, the designers calculated the survivability of the buildings on the thought a plane would be struggling to make near-by airports for a landing. It must also be noted that this was not a design requirement and no standard for plane impact survivability existed at the time - it was simply a result of crunching numbers after they had designed the towers, an afterthought. They did not conceive of the idea that terrorists would hijack planes and use them to fly into buildings at 500-600mph. The larger 767, the fully-loaded fuel tanks, and the increase in speed massively increases the kinetic engergy and the towers were simply not designed for that situation.
Most buildings prior to the WTC employed a combination of concrete and steel for strength. In order to create such tall buildings while keeping the building footprint small and allowing the floors to be open, the designers came up with a primarily steel structure with an inner core supported by an outer core. The massive kinetic energy of the 767s which struck the towers with their larger wing spans, managed to cut and weaken the outer core, carry through and take out numerous inner core columns while stripping many columns and steel framing of their much needed fire proofing. Thousands of gallons of jet fuel ignited fires on several floors. Office equipment, building materials, etc were set ablaze and generated enough heat to weaken the remaining exposed columns. It was only a matter of time until collapse.
As for building 7, it did not take 9 seconds to collapse, it was closer to 15 seconds as evidence of the penthouse collapse just prior. Firefighters on the scene reported fires on nearly all floors of the building. They also were able to see the one side of the building so few people or cameras were able to witness due to smoke or the dangerous grounds next to it. Massive pieces of the towers collapsed towards building 7 and that side of the building took a big hit. Firefighters reported big portions of the building being gouged out extending for dozens of floors. The Towers were the first time planes initiated a chain of events which brought down buildings, yet building 7 was simply brought down by building debris and fire of which there are numerious similar cases having occured.
But lets live in fantasy world for a sec and say yes, building 7 was collapsed by controlled demolition. Now ask yourself what would have happened if this perfectly planned conspiracy hadn't gone exactly to plan and debris from the towers had not fallen as intended and managed to miss building 7 or left it with little damage at all. You can't look at the pattern of collapse of the towers and its falling debris and tell me you see any uniformity or intended direction of destruction. So say this debris largly misses building 7, do the conspirators go ahead with their plan and blow up building 7 when people clearly wouldn't buy it? You need the entire conspiracy, including the towers, to make a building 7 conspiracy work. Elaborate, successful conspiracies comprising thousands of people only happen in movies and books.
As for the gentle-man in the OP, I did not watch the videos yet I recall he made claims of bombs in the basement. What makes him an exposives expert? Why have these mighty conspirators not silenced him?
^ My God, you've done it! With an amazing simulation you've proved us all wrong.
Edited: added after my original post.
I'll have to dig up the software program the truthers wrote to simulate the WTC tower collapse. It's an amazing piece of engineering and optimization. They managed to condense it down to a couple pages of JavaScript code that can run on your smartphone in a matter of seconds.
Those idiots at Perdue sure could learn a thing or two from the master programmers the truthers managed to hire. They had over a million lines of code that ran for 80 hours on a supercomputer to do their simulations.
Last edited by dangonay; 02-06-2013 at 09:39 PM.
Reason: To make a fool of CiC.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Founded in 2006, the group demands that the United States Congress pursue "a truly independent investigation" into the September 11 attacks as they believe government agency investigations into the collapse of the World Trade Center have not addressed what it calls "massive evidence for explosive demolition." As of March 2012, the group's petition to Congress was signed by over 1,600 architectural and engineering professionals.
You need even less than that to discover that 9/11 wasn't the first or last time steel structures collapsed due to fire. Steel weakens from heat and fire - there is a reason they apply fire proofing to the stuff.
The towers actually outperformed the predicted durability due to plane impacts, as evidence of them remaining standing for nearly an hour after impact. They were designed to take the impact of a slow flying 707 low on fuel, the lack of modern computer programming available in the 60's aside, the designers calculated the survivability of the buildings on the thought a plane would be struggling to make near-by airports for a landing. It must also be noted that this was not a design requirement and no standard for plane impact survivability existed at the time - it was simply a result of crunching numbers after they had designed the towers, an afterthought. They did not conceive of the idea that terrorists would hijack planes and use them to fly into buildings at 500-600mph. The larger 767, the fully-loaded fuel tanks, and the increase in speed massively increases the kinetic engergy and the towers were simply not designed for that situation.
Most buildings prior to the WTC employed a combination of concrete and steel for strength. In order to create such tall buildings while keeping the building footprint small and allowing the floors to be open, the designers came up with a primarily steel structure with an inner core supported by an outer core. The massive kinetic energy of the 767s which struck the towers with their larger wing spans, managed to cut and weaken the outer core, carry through and take out numerous inner core columns while stripping many columns and steel framing of their much needed fire proofing. Thousands of gallons of jet fuel ignited fires on several floors. Office equipment, building materials, etc were set ablaze and generated enough heat to weaken the remaining exposed columns. It was only a matter of time until collapse.
As for building 7, it did not take 9 seconds to collapse, it was closer to 15 seconds as evidence of the penthouse collapse just prior. Firefighters on the scene reported fires on nearly all floors of the building. They also were able to see the one side of the building so few people or cameras were able to witness due to smoke or the dangerous grounds next to it. Massive pieces of the towers collapsed towards building 7 and that side of the building took a big hit. Firefighters reported big portions of the building being gouged out extending for dozens of floors. The Towers were the first time planes initiated a chain of events which brought down buildings, yet building 7 was simply brought down by building debris and fire of which there are numerious similar cases having occured.
But lets live in fantasy world for a sec and say yes, building 7 was collapsed by controlled demolition. Now ask yourself what would have happened if this perfectly planned conspiracy hadn't gone exactly to plan and debris from the towers had not fallen as intended and managed to miss building 7 or left it with little damage at all. You can't look at the pattern of collapse of the towers and its falling debris and tell me you see any uniformity or intended direction of destruction. So say this debris largly misses building 7, do the conspirators go ahead with their plan and blow up building 7 when people clearly wouldn't buy it? You need the entire conspiracy, including the towers, to make a building 7 conspiracy work. Elaborate, successful conspiracies comprising thousands of people only happen in movies and books.
As for the gentle-man in the OP, I did not watch the videos yet I recall he made claims of bombs in the basement. What makes him an exposives expert? Why have these mighty conspirators not silenced him?
one question i want answered then, why did a lot of witnesses die?
Even if this whole thing was set up I don't ever see the US govt. admitting to that.
Obviously they don't want to, but truth can't stay hidden for long now
Quote:
Originally Posted by pastarocket
If the 911 attack was an inside job by the American government, it makes the loss of lives, property damage, etc. even more tough to swallow.
That would be so messed up. A government inflicting a so called terrorist attack upon its own people. Then it spends billions of dollars and about ten years of time to catch the mastermind behind the attack, Bin Laden, and kill him. A guy that the U.S. military provided training for his organization.
you think they care about the loss of lives and property damage? lol, this was done by the bloodlines that are in control of the world's monopolies, you think they give a shit about losing a few billion to brainwash people?
and secondly, the bin laden thing is the same shit as saddam hussein
Last example, an extreme case... I have a pile of cinder blocks and from a meter high I drop a truck filled with cinder block on top of it... will the bottom pile get pulverized to dust? No.
The other things is how does rubble from another building start fires in wtc7?
No plane hit it and no plane hit the following skyscraper in China which burnt for two days! and the steel is still standing.
You need even less than that to discover that 9/11 wasn't the first or last time steel structures collapsed due to fire. Steel weakens from heat and fire - there is a reason they apply fire proofing to the stuff.
The towers actually outperformed the predicted durability due to plane impacts, as evidence of them remaining standing for nearly an hour after impact. They were designed to take the impact of a slow flying 707 low on fuel, the lack of modern computer programming available in the 60's aside, the designers calculated the survivability of the buildings on the thought a plane would be struggling to make near-by airports for a landing. It must also be noted that this was not a design requirement and no standard for plane impact survivability existed at the time - it was simply a result of crunching numbers after they had designed the towers, an afterthought. They did not conceive of the idea that terrorists would hijack planes and use them to fly into buildings at 500-600mph. The larger 767, the fully-loaded fuel tanks, and the increase in speed massively increases the kinetic engergy and the towers were simply not designed for that situation.
Most buildings prior to the WTC employed a combination of concrete and steel for strength. In order to create such tall buildings while keeping the building footprint small and allowing the floors to be open, the designers came up with a primarily steel structure with an inner core supported by an outer core. The massive kinetic energy of the 767s which struck the towers with their larger wing spans, managed to cut and weaken the outer core, carry through and take out numerous inner core columns while stripping many columns and steel framing of their much needed fire proofing. Thousands of gallons of jet fuel ignited fires on several floors. Office equipment, building materials, etc were set ablaze and generated enough heat to weaken the remaining exposed columns. It was only a matter of time until collapse.
As for building 7, it did not take 9 seconds to collapse, it was closer to 15 seconds as evidence of the penthouse collapse just prior. Firefighters on the scene reported fires on nearly all floors of the building. They also were able to see the one side of the building so few people or cameras were able to witness due to smoke or the dangerous grounds next to it. Massive pieces of the towers collapsed towards building 7 and that side of the building took a big hit. Firefighters reported big portions of the building being gouged out extending for dozens of floors. The Towers were the first time planes initiated a chain of events which brought down buildings, yet building 7 was simply brought down by building debris and fire of which there are numerious similar cases having occured.
But lets live in fantasy world for a sec and say yes, building 7 was collapsed by controlled demolition. Now ask yourself what would have happened if this perfectly planned conspiracy hadn't gone exactly to plan and debris from the towers had not fallen as intended and managed to miss building 7 or left it with little damage at all. You can't look at the pattern of collapse of the towers and its falling debris and tell me you see any uniformity or intended direction of destruction. So say this debris largly misses building 7, do the conspirators go ahead with their plan and blow up building 7 when people clearly wouldn't buy it? You need the entire conspiracy, including the towers, to make a building 7 conspiracy work. Elaborate, successful conspiracies comprising thousands of people only happen in movies and books.
As for the gentle-man in the OP, I did not watch the videos yet I recall he made claims of bombs in the basement. What makes him an exposives expert? Why have these mighty conspirators not silenced him?
The way I see it about building 7 is that it perhaps may have been a controlled demolition by the government. Why? Not to further any sort of conspiracy, but because that building held a lot of government offices (IRS, Secret Service, etc). Security wise, it was probably safer to bring the entire building down and bury/destroy all the computers and paperwork instead of making sure no looters got into the building and pilfered it.
I apologize for speaking out of hand earlier, now that I'm struck with insomnia I may as well go more in depth.
So, before we get into it, which truth are we talking about here?
Is this the 'CIA gave Bin Laden what he needed and lots of Americans died' Truth? Or is this the 'The people in the planes were taken out and hidden by the government, and the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane it was hit by a missile' truth? Or the Truth where there were no planes it was actually all remote drones and it was all the work of the Government pinning it on an Afghani-based Saudi? Or am I missing the real truth? If someone could tell me which truth I'm debating, that'd probably be helpful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesInCharge
Tell me, in your world, is this possible?
Kid drops two concrete buildings on top of one, does the bottom one get pulverized?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesInCharge
Last example, an extreme case... I have a pile of cinder blocks and from a meter high I drop a truck filled with cinder block on top of it... will the bottom pile get pulverized to dust? No.
OK, so I have to admit these piqued my amusement a fair bit when I saw you post these. Neither of what you suggested was the case when we look at the twin towers falling, and I thoguth I'd see if I could bring a little Illuminati-ation to the discussion as regards something along these lines.
The "dropping two buildings on top of another one" is kind of...well...it's just really impossible. There's way too much stuff to work out or calculate (since a building is built based on the idea that it'll never be lifted or picked up, it'd be hard to figure out the required bracing for it to be moved all over all the time) and since it's not possible to drop two of the same building onto another of exactly the same design...let's look at your second example.
Now, your hypothesis of a pile of cinderblocks and a truck are kind of misleading. A truck (especially a budget truck like that) is an empty cube--it's much more likely to squish and compress. It's not solid or reinforced, and your concrete structure is small, short, and essentially solid (especially if it's as pictured with a bunch of soil in it too). Now let's look at the cinder block itself. It's designed to be short, solid and versatile. It's not made to build large constructs because while it is sturdy, it also shatters very nicely when struck properly. How do I know? I helped to build a 6' long garden bed at my old Elementary school with them.
But this does now bring up an excellent point: structural design, structural integrity, and what happens when you remove support.
When I was a wee lad, my dad used to coach some other kids and me in Olympics of the Mind (before it was Odyssey of the Mind because the IOC were being cunts and suing anyone and everyone for using the word 'olympics'). Part of OM, for those of you who are unaware, is the construction of load-bearing balsa structures. These structures are designed by the kids using basic principles and tested by them at successive meets. As the kids' designs change and improve, they choose a final one that they'll use which is then brought to the local tournament, which is then tested against a bunch of other kids' designs.
In case you're interested in the kinds of things that go on, take a look at these videos:
First we have an example of what happens when you struturally brace a balsa wood structure. If you're curious what Balsa is, imagine styrofoam in wood form. This is the material that you use for OM. And IIRC you're only allowed to use Balsa and Hot Glue, and the weight of your structure is measured against the weight it supports.
Below, as you can see, is an example of a structure that supported 215 pounds (that's nearly 100 kilos in metric). Now, most people would say that you would never be able to support such an incredible weight with such a tiny structure made out of virtually nothing. And yet, this is the miracle of structural design.
So let's imagine that we took exactly that structure, but scaled it up a bit. We made it...let's say 6' tall and put on a proportional amount of weight to 3/4 its load bearing ability. So once it's up to 3/4 load, let's cut out a quarter of the supports on one 'floor' anywhere. I would lay very good odds that it would very quickly, and in a very similar way to the WTC, collapse. Into a pile of rubble.
The other things is how does rubble from another building start fires in wtc7?
No plane hit it and no plane hit the following skyscraper in China which burnt for two days! and the steel is still standing.
completely irrelevant.. but that looks fucking beautiful
I apologize for speaking out of hand earlier, now that I'm struck with insomnia I may as well go more in depth.
So, before we get into it, which truth are we talking about here?
Is this the 'CIA gave Bin Laden what he needed and lots of Americans died' Truth? Or is this the 'The people in the planes were taken out and hidden by the government, and the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane it was hit by a missile' truth? Or the Truth where there were no planes it was actually all remote drones and it was all the work of the Government pinning it on an Afghani-based Saudi? Or am I missing the real truth? If someone could tell me which truth I'm debating, that'd probably be helpful.
Building 7 falling into its own footprint is the biggest proof available... which couldnt have been rigged as fast as Lomac suggests or to destroy it to stop looting is illogical when one could post police men at the entrances.
When getting into other details, you'll come across lots of dis-information or wild theories which can get tiresome.
So let's imagine that we took exactly that structure, but scaled it up a bit. We made it...let's say 6' tall and put on a proportional amount of weight to 3/4 its load bearing ability. So once it's up to 3/4 load, let's cut out a quarter of the supports on one 'floor' anywhere. I would lay very good odds that it would very quickly, and in a very similar way to the WTC, collapse. Into a pile of rubble.
Your last video is what Im trying to show in my pictures. The collapsing floor at the vary top and the weight it pushes down with would not pancake the remaining structure. Comparing the wood tower to the twin towers would be as if the largest building in the world, the Dubai towers, was resting on top of the twin towers and with the top floor collapsing... the combined weight would possibly pancake the whole thing.
The jet fire heat would not have effected the lower supports to snap. At the end of the day we are just noobes speculating.
If we wanted to scientifically and physically find out that explosives didnt take out the supports, we can challenge a professionals points and go from there.
Richard Gage, Founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Press TV
I honestly don't care about the conspiracy anymore. Dlo is right, there's too many anomalies we do not have the answer to.
When I was in my teen years, I YouTubed a lot of videos on this topic.
Apparently they researched the structural integrity of the steel columns and found that the only way they would deform would be to use thermite. Thermite was the only was the only substance hot enough to deform the steel, jet fuel was not nearly as hot as thermite. This does not take into account that the plane has probably ruined the structural integrity of the steel columns after they struck the tower. Also, conspiracy of shape charges or demolition explosive were placed prior to 911. I remember they reported that a month or so before 911 occurred, there were maintenance going on in the towers
Also what made me wonder was that the debris or remains of the tower were not thoroughly inspected for explosive material or demolition wiring. If I remember correctly, most of it was not given to researches or activist to study. Most were recycled or hidden after clean up.
As for building 7. It seemed to be planned. The building fell down like a demolition ( not an expert, but seen many videos). Also, the leader ( forgot his name) of building 7 signed on a new insurance contract a week before 911 occurred. Coincidence?
Again, this is all in the past, a decade ago. I do not want to argue, this is purely my thought and research I found through my spare time back then. In the end, that man is a hero and that is what matters. He saved countless innocent lives and I am grateful. Whether or not this whole event is a conspiracy or not is totally out of our ability to figure out.
^ Seriously? The "only way" was thermite? Guess you missed the video where they suspended a steel girder over a pool of burning jet fuel and it deformed/bent in a couple minutes. In fact it bent so quickly it caught the testers off guard (they expected to be waiting for a lot longer). I'll dig it up because I know CiC will be eager to lend his expertise in materials science to show why the test is flawed.
Why do people keep thinking steel has to be heated to the melting point to deform? I guess there are no blacksmiths or welders amongst the truthers. Anyone who works with steel knows you can bend, shape and manipulate it at temperatures well below its melting point. Posted via RS Mobile
The questions regarding tower 7 and the administration having two evil fucks in Rumsfeld and Cheney make this entirely possible for me. And this happened the day before 9/11:
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
