Author Topic: 9/11 [split topic]  (Read 5914 times)

Cuellar

  • Taxes, they'll be lower...son
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #180 on: May 18, 2020, 11:56:05 AM »
If I was designing and building two VERY tall towers in the middle of a VERY built up area of a VERY densely populated city, I would design them to collapse in such a way that they would cover the largest possible surface area when they fell, thereby causing the most amount of damage and hopefully lots of fatalities.

touchingcloth

  • Member
  • **
  • You wanna plack the rick, you ha.
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #181 on: May 18, 2020, 12:05:50 PM »
Side-by-side comparisons really make it all clear:



Makes you think.

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #182 on: May 18, 2020, 01:26:03 PM »
    Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

Quote
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks." (PM)

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #183 on: May 18, 2020, 01:28:21 PM »
As for claims that the collapse of WTC7 was symmetrical, not so:
Quote
The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

touchingcloth

  • Member
  • **
  • You wanna plack the rick, you ha.
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #184 on: May 18, 2020, 01:57:37 PM »
Is the "fire doesn't melt steel" thing really still going? Just checking that we're not dealing with a new and innovative version rather than just exactly the same old shite.

Captain Z

  • Oh yeah my cholesterol's going down
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #185 on: May 18, 2020, 02:03:41 PM »
Pretty suspicious that Bin Laden's face was seen in the smoke coming out of the towers though, wasn't it?

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #186 on: May 18, 2020, 03:54:05 PM »
Pretty suspicious that Bin Laden's face was seen in the smoke coming out of the towers though, wasn't it?
Wasnt that Ming The Merciless?

Endicott

  • I've done no research
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #187 on: May 18, 2020, 05:04:45 PM »
If I was designing and building two VERY tall towers in the middle of a VERY built up area of a VERY densely populated city, I would design them to collapse in such a way that they would cover the largest possible surface area when they fell, thereby causing the most amount of damage and hopefully lots of fatalities.

I've seen one report about this building in New York where it's claimed that had it fallen over before the design flaws were corrected, that it would have topped and caused a domino effect in surrounding buildings for half a mile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup_Center#Engineering_crisis_of_1978

This is also quite a good retelling of the story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLXys9vgWiY

Chollis

  • Master of Codes
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #188 on: May 18, 2020, 05:15:31 PM »
was probably bill gates when u think about it

Jim Bob

  • (aka Right Said Brett)
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #189 on: May 18, 2020, 06:38:55 PM »
was probably bill gates when u think about it

Gatesgate.

Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse

  • Le corpse garlique of Hercule Poirot
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #190 on: May 18, 2020, 06:58:15 PM »
Let's all enjoy a classic piece of Trutherism, Unfastened Coins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #191 on: May 18, 2020, 06:59:16 PM »
Wasn't the idea behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that they would blow out the support pillars in the basement on one side of one tower, and cause it to topple into the other? I think i read once that it could have actually worked if they hadn't fucked their positioning up.

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #192 on: May 19, 2020, 02:10:26 AM »
Like Wolf38892 I was disturbed by the unanswered questions, so I stripped off and locked myself into my garage with the tower blueprints for 48 hours.

Conclusion? The 'story' checks out. Planes, fire etc caused structural failure and collapse.

BUT these plans are like Dana Barrett's apartment block. No one ever built like that. They were designed to collapse if a plane hit them. The only conclusion is that they knew about the attacks when they built the towers

I did a bit of digging into the engineering firm that designed them. The chief engineer, and ALL the senior directors are now DEAD

I couldn't contain myself and posted on twitter: "I think I got the slags that done it"

Two minutes later someone responded to the tweet: "Keep Digging 🐾" The name was just a black rectangle and the avatar was a picture of a wolf. I clicked on it but the tweet and profile had already been deleted.

That night I couldn't sleep. I was crawling around my bed when I heard a scrabbling noise. 'It's the dog wanting to get out,' I thought. Then I realised: I don't own a dog

I went to my front door and opened it. Next to a streak of piss there was a cassette tape on the ground. I ran through my garden into the street but couldn't see anyone. Then I realised: I live in a flat. As I went back inside I heard what sounded like a wolf howl from somewhere in the darkness.

I didn't have a cassette player so I uploaded the tape to a website that converts tapes to mp3s (this website no longer exists). When I listened I heard a man reading out a series of numbers. Every now and again I would hear the muffled sounds of what sounded like an older woman shouting 'what are you doing down there?'. I ignored this and noted down the numbers.

When I put the numbers into my computer I knew that I had to leave immediately. I flounced from facebook and twitter, smashed my computer to pieces, tore up my passport and fled into the night. Now I'm alone, naked on all fours in a field, hunting for the truth.

Mr_Simnock

  • Ես ուզում անդորր
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #193 on: May 19, 2020, 12:12:29 PM »
wonder if anyone will own up to the Wolf38892 sock puppet account

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #194 on: May 19, 2020, 12:56:27 PM »
wonder if anyone will own up to the Wolf38892 sock puppet account
TROPE!!!

Jim Bob

  • (aka Right Said Brett)
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #195 on: May 19, 2020, 03:29:33 PM »
Let's all enjoy a classic piece of Trutherism, Unfastened Coins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI

Wolfy probably watched that, took it at face value and now has his head buried in a bunch of 4chan posts about the Titanic disaster.

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #196 on: May 28, 2020, 04:02:51 AM »
Can you post your credentials regarding your education on architecture, engineering, And building demolition?

Did you do the decades of work for your opinions or just skip to YouTube side by side comparisons? Because the argument that one thing looks the same as another thing therefore there is no difference is child’s play.

That truly is a strange thing to say bud. If it looks exactly like controlled demolition, is there not just possibly, an outside chance that it might be a controlled demolition? I mean if it looks like a duck right...

It really is very bizarre...

A steel framed high rise never hit by a plane. That imploded and fell straight down into its own footprint, pulverized into a pile of dust in about 6 seconds, as a result of 'normal office fires' (the building was clearly not on fire except for small random fires as the photos show) according to the official account (the 911 report of course omitted all mention of building 7) and that doesn't at least get people wondering?

One of three, of the only three steel framed high rises in recorded history to come down due to fire, all of which fell on the very same day, and amusingly, it is I who is portrayed as delusional/insane!

As the videos show WTC7 came down with mathematical synchronicity/symmetry, and precision. Fire cannot bring a steel framed high rise down in such a manner, because it is a natural force that tends towards chaos, and not order (symmetry). For fire to cause a steel framed high rise like WTC7 to fall at free fall speed, it would mean that all supporting columns below the path of the collapsing building would have rapidly been removed with improbably timed synchronicity and precision, or else would have met opposite, and equal resistance from the floors below, and would therefore have been halted.

A fire induced collapse would see a building toppling down chaotically, sideways but never falling straight down (the core steel frame would of course not just implode), at free-fall into a nice neat pile!   

But you're quite right! Don't take my word for it, as I am admittedly not an expert...

Read the report by Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks. How about for once instead of responding with the same blatantly transparent personal attacks, ad hominems, and derailment attempts that you all just take a deep breath, and read the actual report?

Hell, try to debunk it if you like, after all this is not my evidence, and I am simply passing it along...

Quote
On March 25, 2020, researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks issued the final report of a four-year computer modeling study on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

The 47-story WTC 7 was the third skyscraper to be completely destroyed on September 11, 2001, collapsing rapidly and symmetrically into its footprint at 5:20 PM. Seven years later, investigators at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded that WTC 7 was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed solely as a result of normal office fires.

Contrary to the conclusions of NIST, the UAF research team finds that the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11 was caused not by fires but by the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

Following the release of this report, AE911Truth and 10 family members of 9/11 victims submitted a formal request for correction to NIST’s report on WTC 7 based partially on the UAF findings. The request is currently pending.

https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structural-Reevaluation-of-the-Collapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf

By the way as it's a comedy forum this is a nice summation of the evidence that exemplifies the sheer ludicrousness of the official fairy tale.

Enjoy and take care...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgrunnLcG9Q
« Last Edit: May 28, 2020, 04:14:15 AM by Wolf8312 »

Poirots BigGarlickyCorpse

  • Le corpse garlique of Hercule Poirot
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #197 on: May 28, 2020, 08:22:36 AM »
Blah blah blah blah truther bullshit blah

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #198 on: May 28, 2020, 09:09:32 AM »
I love this thread! It's like being transported back to sometime around 2004.

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #199 on: May 28, 2020, 09:22:47 AM »
That truly is a strange thing to say bud. If it looks exactly like controlled demolition, is there not just possibly, an outside chance that it might be a controlled demolition? I mean if it looks like a duck right...

Demolition/structural engineering experts do not think this though. Your laymans perspective based entirely on conspiracy videos doesn't cut it.

Please try to engage with the questions people have actually asked you in the thread rather than repeating the same shit over and over.

For one :


Characteristics of destruction by fire:

Slow onset with large visible deformations
    Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
    Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel


Where did you get this from? If it only appears in conspiracy stuff don't be surprised that we don't take your claims seriously.

Secondly all the stuff about how this was done, all the people involved and how they were all kept quiet

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #200 on: May 28, 2020, 10:13:07 AM »
Wolfy probably watched that, took it at face value and now has his head buried in a bunch of 4chan posts about the Titanic disaster.
Fuck, just found out the sinking of the Titanic is linked to the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank (there were a bunch of bankers on board opposed to the bank who "were killed" by JP Morgan to ensure it was created; Morgan cancelled his booking at the last minute). The Federal Reserve, the USA's central bank, is linked to a heap of conspiracy bullshit about the Rothschilds, International Jewish Conspiracies, the Gold Standard and much much more. There goes my morning.

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #201 on: May 28, 2020, 10:23:43 AM »
The building didnt fall on its side accompanied by a descending slide whistle!!!!!

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #202 on: May 28, 2020, 12:00:42 PM »
The building didnt fall on its side accompanied by a descending slide whistle!!!!!

I'm just imagining Tower 1 poking Tower 2 in the eyes with its fingers, then WTC 7 knocks both their spires together, Three Stooges style, complete with sound effects.

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #203 on: May 28, 2020, 12:35:45 PM »
Why don't they add the year to the date? 9/11/01 or something.

JesusAndYourBush

  • Earnest silky coconut shell
    • http://www.google.com
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #204 on: May 28, 2020, 01:11:02 PM »
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks." (PM)

A few years ago a guy on youtube tried to melt a steel beam.  He couldn't get it hot enough but he got it hot enough for it to be bendy.

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #205 on: May 28, 2020, 01:16:25 PM »
Why don't they add the year to the date? 9/11/01 or something.

They should, I get all of the 9/11 attacks mixed up, same with the Battle of Hastings 1066 I get it mixed up with the other battle of Hastings that happened in 1996 that lasted 1066 seconds.

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #206 on: May 28, 2020, 01:17:34 PM »
A few years ago a guy on youtube tried to melt a steel beam.  He couldn't get it hot enough but he got it hot enough for it to be bendy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA

Cuellar

  • Taxes, they'll be lower...son
Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #207 on: May 28, 2020, 01:20:26 PM »

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #208 on: May 28, 2020, 01:28:43 PM »
jet fuel baked beans

Re: 9/11 [split topic]
« Reply #209 on: May 28, 2020, 02:09:03 PM »
That truly is a strange thing to say bud. If it looks exactly like controlled demolition, is there not just possibly, an outside chance that it might be a controlled demolition? I mean if it looks like a duck right...

It really is very bizarre...

A steel framed high rise never hit by a plane. That imploded and fell straight down into its own footprint, pulverized into a pile of dust in about 6 seconds, as a result of 'normal office fires' (the building was clearly not on fire except for small random fires as the photos show) according to the official account (the 911 report of course omitted all mention of building 7) and that doesn't at least get people wondering?

One of three, of the only three steel framed high rises in recorded history to come down due to fire, all of which fell on the very same day, and amusingly, it is I who is portrayed as delusional/insane!

As the videos show WTC7 came down with mathematical synchronicity/symmetry, and precision. Fire cannot bring a steel framed high rise down in such a manner, because it is a natural force that tends towards chaos, and not order (symmetry). For fire to cause a steel framed high rise like WTC7 to fall at free fall speed, it would mean that all supporting columns below the path of the collapsing building would have rapidly been removed with improbably timed synchronicity and precision, or else would have met opposite, and equal resistance from the floors below, and would therefore have been halted.

A fire induced collapse would see a building toppling down chaotically, sideways but never falling straight down (the core steel frame would of course not just implode), at free-fall into a nice neat pile!   

But you're quite right! Don't take my word for it, as I am admittedly not an expert...

Read the report by Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks. How about for once instead of responding with the same blatantly transparent personal attacks, ad hominems, and derailment attempts that you all just take a deep breath, and read the actual report?

Hell, try to debunk it if you like, after all this is not my evidence, and I am simply passing it along...

https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/A-Structural-Reevaluation-of-the-Collapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf

By the way as it's a comedy forum this is a nice summation of the evidence that exemplifies the sheer ludicrousness of the official fairy tale.

Enjoy and take care...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgrunnLcG9Q

‘Man paid $365k to research WTC7 collapse on 9/11 by organisation called ‘Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth‘ supports conspiracy cranks’ shocker

P.S. I read the report. Who knew AutoCAD was so versatile?  It makes massive leaps based on conjecture.  Load of bollocks, in other words. 

Tags: