- advertisements -
About an hour after reading this thread I'm fortunate enough to catch the show on the History Channel about Popular Mechanics looking at all the assorted conspiracy theories.
Loose Change was made by a bunch of 20-somethings?? Give me a fucking break. What a bunch of dizzy punks.
It just confirms to me that, of all the dimwitted fucking douchebags I've encountered in my life, you conspiracy theorists are the absolute fucking worst. I hope there's an especially hot corner in hell for all of you.
Go ahead, flame away. Then go fuck yourselves.
keep in mind that the official narrative of the events
is nothing more than a grand conspiracy theory, so we agree
on that somewhat. we like to think, fantastically, that all
significant crimes and even lesser ones
are investigated, evidence gathered, motive established etc..
sometimes the system works like this and sometimes it doesn't.
why is that and what explains the disparity?
asking basic answerable questions does not make one a
conspiracy theorist. it makes one potentially intelligent and
well informed enough to participate in a "democratic" society.
fascists hate this questioning stuff.
"Facists" may hate your questions, but hating your questions doesn't make one a fascist...
"Post hoc ergo propter hoc"
I'm not a fascist, and the only reason I hate your questions is that they have been sufficiently (enough for the reasonable and/or sane person) answered. One of the myriad beefs I have with truthers is that they flatly refuse to answer any questions put forth to them by us "doubters." Their only responses come in the form of a link to some kook junk science website or a personal attack complete with calling us fascists, sheeple, idiots, drones, morons, dick-heads, assholes, retards...
I have put forth several legitimate, relevant questions to the truthers on this thread...questions based on my education and experience as a structural firefighter. Not a single question has been answered other than in the manner I just mentioned.
Truthers are entitled to their own opinions...they are not, however, entitled to their own facts.
pardon me. i was responding to "It just confirms to me that, of all the dimwitted fucking douchebags I've encountered in my life, you conspiracy theorists are the absolute fucking worst. I hope there's an especially hot corner in hell for all of you." @ blanco.? (sp)
who is entitled to statements of facts? delegated authorities of sovereigns
or those accredited or otherwise certified? or a witness or
a competent "jury" in a criminal case, perhaps an expert witness
to some degree. those seeking an unbiased investigation are being
attacked for their efforts by those who prefer to remain in the dark.
if the shoe fits wear it. we have no criminal case , under oath testimony
vetted evidence, etc.. the main concerns concerning the crime have
not been addressed, they have been avoided and ignored in the hope
that "reasonable" people will be coward into ignorance and satisfaction.
if that shoe fits wear it.
if you think sufficient explanation and answers have been given
regarding aspects of the destruction that took place on 9/11/2001
in new york, etc. then good for you, your curiosity and search have
been satisfied. many intelligent and thinking people disagree and will
dismiss your satisfaction as trivial, rightly so imo.
and what caused the total and instantaneous structural failure of wtc7 at
5:20 pm. on 9/11? what is the sufficient explanation? for a "reaon able" person. and how was it reported in the media before it actually
happened. is that ..(δει προτο? να συμβε?)
@ above ""Facists" may hate your questions, but hating your questions doesn't make one a fascist..."
perhaps not but it does make them unreasonable and incurious,
maybe more dangerous than fascists.
"Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection."
so building wtc7 failed out of sympathy for it's two friends wtc1 and 2.
post hoc. ?
Stop bringing intelligence to the discussion with Barry, he'll accuse you of not having your own place to live or some such other brilliant retort.
I tried to ask some legitimate questions, but was called names and junked. I'm just bringing it down to the juvenile level that prevails here. Do you care to answer some questions?
"What a bunch of dizzy punks."
i take your dizzy punks & raise you 1 Dario Fo.
Those 20 something dizzy punks had one thing in common, a clear understanding of high school physics. Thanks dizzy punks, and sorry our generation has it's head so far up it's ass.
Wow, that's fantastic research! Almost of the quality of that other dick-head!
Never mind that the data gatered is from many, MANY highly educated people, people who actually now physics.
Good fucking bye, loser!
Popular Mechanics, yeah, right! Go back to playing with your toys and leave the REAL stuff to the men!
Seer - must you speak everywhere?? It's almost as though you have an agenda.
Seer is just killing time waiting for mommy and daddy to go to bed so he can pretend that he's got his own place.
mr. pot meet ms. kettle
YES!! Thank you, thank you, thank you!
1. WTT was attacked first in 1993
2. Khobar Towers hit later
3. Bombs on two embassies in Africa
4. The USS Cole nearly sunk with a gapping hole
Terrorism in the Jihadists' weapon of choice and tomorrow is the last successful attack on the US. WE ARE INFIDELS to them, we are enemies. We are enemies of their god. We are better off dead. What is it that you all do not get?
Why aren't they attacking Switzerland? Why aren't they attacking Sweden? or so many other countries...OHHH maybe the USA's foreign policy has something to do with that....
I knew John Skilling the structural engineer for the World Trade Center buildings personally. His firm did the engineering for a 62 story building on which I was development manager. He died before the second WTC attack, but I spoke to him about the first attack in 1993 and to his partners about the collapse of the buildings after the 2nd attack. I won't go into all of the reasons the structures failed, but only a miracle could have saved them. The introduction of jet fuel causing the fires to burn fast and at extremely high temperatures overcame the fire retardants and compromised the tempering of the steel, causing it to lose strength. The design of the structure, the weight bearing capability of steel beams higher up in the building, the weight of the buildings above the floor of impact etc., all contributed to the ultimate collapse. Whether the attacks were a result of a conspiracy, I don't know, but the impact of the planes, and the resulting fires and damage brought the buildings down according to the engineers that designed the buildings.
So these guys don't see anything fishy with the fact that the tops of the buildings came down through the path of greatest resistance (meaning the buildings that were designed to support the tops and had for several years) as if they didn't exist? You would think that the remaining building structure below the plane strike area would have slowed the fall down a little. The tops came down at almost free fall speed. The most convincing evidence to me is looking at the first tower to come down. The top above the strike area actually starts to rotate off like it's going to fall over and then stops it's rotation and falls straight down. Only one thing could have stopped the rotation and that is if the support of the building below is taken away. Watch the footage carefully.
Here's an experiment for you.
1. Pick up and hold a substantial amount of weight over your head...the most weight that you can comfortably hold.
2. put the weight down
3. have somebody hit you on the side of your knee with a baseball bat
4. Have the person drop that weight on you from up on the roof.
Still think you're going to be able to hold it?
Sorry, but the pankage theory is only believed by pancake-heads. Totally refuted!
Your little experiment (can we try it on you?) does in no way provide an actual measurement. I'm sure that you can use some of that intelligence-filled pancake-head to actually locate something and provide a link?
Because, by God, "a link" is all the proof one would ever need, right? I don't need a link to understand that 1) gravity ALWAYS pushes perpendictular to the ground (translation for basement-dwellers: straight down), and 2) that a falling object ALWAYS exerts more downward force than a static object, and 3) that a structurally compromised support will ALWAYS fail faster than a structurally sound support.
Tell you what: how about YOU spending a few years on a Truck Company and learning a thing or two about structure fires. How about YOU taking some engineering courses (let's start off with Statics and then we'll go on to Dynamics, if you've got the chops).
You are telling me to believe that a 757 flown by a gov't agent was able to crash at a precise point to set off an explosion and fire that was PERFECTLY placed at the EXACT point where these explosives were...oh, and that this fire (which gave off more than 700 million BTU) didn't set off those explosives?
You can call me names all you want. Frankly, I don't give a shit. You are making a complete fool out of yourself...and I really don't give a shit about that either. But your brand of paranoia and bullshit is causing actual damage to people. And I DO give a shit about that.
Get out of mommy and daddy's basement, cut back on the Mountain Dew, and get an education from someplace besides kook websites.
I guess the best that "Seer" could come up with in response was to Junk my post...still waiting, Seer. Still waiting for another link to another kook website filled to the brim with BS and junk science. I guess Seer never had the BALLS to actually put himself at risk, so he needs to tear down those that do. I guess Seer never had the BRAINS to study anything other than the skin rags he stole out of his old man's underwear drawer.
Still waiting, Seer...still waiting for you to re-define the laws of physics. Still waiting for you to re-define thermodynamics. Still waiting for you to explain how a controlled demo will fall faster than a collapse (and, in terms of physics, what the difference is). Still waiting to hear why those explosives didn't go off in the initial explosion.
Seer is no different than the 60% of my academy class who washed out...always blaming someone else for their FAILURES. Always looking for a boogey-man in lurking in the corner who had nothing better to do than sabotage his success. Always too COWARDLY to face bad things in the face and deal with them.
no but I damn sure would be able to SLOW IT DOWN!
Too bad jet fuel burns cold - by design.
I respect the opinions of clairvoyant engineers but just because your friends understand gravity doesn't make them credible.
The truth is anyone can get the plans/calculate the loads and speculate.
Jet fuel burns cold??
Care to fill me in on what that yellow/blue flame that comes out of the ass-end of an F-15 is??
Last year, I left the fire service after many years as a structural firefighter...I've got my badge, the T-shirt, and really bad knees to prove it. I don't know who filled your head with stuff about cold-burning jet fuel, but they fed you a line of crap. Anybody who knows squat about fire can look at this and see it for what it was: Structural integrity compromised by 1) a lateral impact and 2) prolonged exposure to a petro-chemical fueled fire.
Yeah, and anyone who isn't wearing blinders could see squibs from explosions occurring way away from the impact sites.
Yes, those using the adjective "cold" error, but in relation to the temperature at which steel melts, jet fuel could be considered to burn "cold."
Softening steel, would you or would you not admit that it would take time for that steel to be compromised, and that the amount of time would be descernable over several floors? You either have to agree with this or you have to disagree. If you disagree then you're disagreeing with your own assertion (that it was weakened steel that resulted in the collapse). If you agree, then you have to explain why the buildings experienced free-fall speeds collapse.
Again, the first time in history that modern highrises have COMPLETELY failed due to fire. Not ONE building, but THREE, all the same day! Oh, and one building wasn't even hit by anything!
But, in case you've got your head out of the crack pipe, there's still the issue of why, if the steel was all weakened, the buildings didn't FALL OVER (instead of dropping straight down, as happens with every properly executed demolition).
Sorry, but the "official story" doesn't hold water. Just like past stories have also failed the test of time: Gulf of Tonkin, WMD in Iraq etc etc etc...
Perhaps if you don't believe all us you'd instead believe in the the rulers themselves laying it all out? Go read Project For A New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/).
No problem provding info. Too bad that you can't present any meaningful data to back up why you're licking the heels of your masters...
Given that they were so high, is it possible the buildings were designed so that, given enough stress, they would fail exactly in the way they failed - straight down rather than falling over to the side? Why would you think that an insurance conglomerate would allow buildings of that size to be built if they would fall over and generate huge losses for the insurance company? Occam's razor, cutting even more cleanly.
Next, do you think anybody would actually go into tall buildings such as these if they knew the buildings were designed to fail straight down, or were designed to be demolished in such a way that they would fail straight down if they were in danger of falling over/down? I can imagine a rather large group of people who would be interested in keeping such information from the public simply so that people will continue to go into high buildings. Conspiracy of silence? Yes. Sinister? Maybe? But evidence that the government itself blew up the buildings? Hardly.
If you've read my previous posts in this thread, you know that I'm not defending any particular position re. the collapse of the twin towers. It's just that the insurance thing is what sticks in my mind. Before I even discovered the world of truthers on the web and all of their claims that the buildings were intentionally brought down, I had already concluded that they were intentionally brought down in a controlled fashion - for the sake of preserving what they could of the neighborhood. But the government destroyed the towers, not the terrorists was not part of my thinking.
a distinction of terrorist, government, insurance agent, official,
friend, stranger, spouse etc.. are all distinctions of cognition and
have no fundamental existence in reality. uncertainty strikes again!
"Given that they were so high, is it possible the buildings were designed so that, given enough stress, they would fail exactly in the way they failed - straight down rather than falling over to the side?"
you bring an interesting subject dick. have to say u & i more agree than disagree on this particular subject, fwiw (not that this means more than pile of doodoo on the roadside).
ever hear of Paul Laffoley? if not check him out (will give the wiki to chew on since you love it so much):
"Following his dismissal by Kiesler, Laffoley worked for 18 months on design for the World Trade Center Tower II (floors 15 to 45) with Emery Roth & Sons under the direction of architect Minoru Yamasaki. Following his suggestion that bridges be constructed between the two towers for safety, he was summarily fired by Yamasaki and returned to Boston."
Yeah, jet fuel, it barely heats steel, let alone melt it.
Geo Wash will soon explain how that is not at all possible. What could the architects and engineers possibly know after studying the collapse? Since you made the claim, I'm sure you will soon be labeled as a CIA front and shill.
"architects and engineers"
what caused building wtc7 to collapse, implode?
ps. no need to reply. everyone knows it was
intentionally demolished using explosives. it
is obvious. why is this information ignored and
because there is no conceivable rational narrative that
includes this fact that does not cause sever problems for
the official narrative, available evidence and witness observations.
and what the hell is this?
I should set my stopwatch and see how long it takes before the truthers in here finally tip their hand and tell us all about how the ones behind all of this were those stinkin' ol' Jooooooooooooos.
Just as I suspected, anywhere truthers gather is a rich environment for finding paranoid, wild-eyed anti-Semites...as evidenced by the 5 flags I got on the above post. Apparently the rabid Jew haters get a bit testy when you call them out on their particular brand of hatred...because, after all, they're quite sure their bigotry is saving our country (how original).
Go back into the hole that you crawled out of. 11 weeks and you think you have the balls to challenge people here? ANother fucking dickhead troll.
Like I posted earlier, the revolution has already started and, I hate to break this to you, but your side lost. Too bad for you...
Thanks for playing!
As a matter of fact, I DO have the balls to challenge a dipshit like you, or anyone else who is as much of a tug-job moron as you. Where is your grand revolution? Did it start in your mommy and daddy's basement where you have been living since you dropped out of high school? Go fuck yourself you drivel-spewing, Jew hating, bigot, paranoid, uneducated piece of shit.
You talk tough, asshole, but talk is cheap...just ask your hero Obama.
There is no revolution. A few weak protests here and there perhaps. But no revolution.
you are correct amigo.
not revolution, but evolution.
and your presence is welcomed.
without the doublebubblespeak por favor.
The truth is that it is BLOWBACK from years of a horrible foreign policy.
more than blowback.
Wow...a bullshit infomercial for some retarded "free newsletter" that, I am quite sure, will open our eyes to the REAL truth about pretty much everything.
So this list of has-been hacks all say there is a cover-up. Ok, do we have anything to go on other than a list of hacks who say there is a cover-up? Oh, wait, yes we do: We have Charlie Sheen (a coke addict, wife-beater, and noted high-school drop-out) and Rosie O'Donnell. Gee GW, keeping some great company these days.
afraid of a little truth
our foul mouthed scarecrow....
This is such garbage.
Agree, if all these people would think their government would kill 3,000, why are they still here in the US and wouldn't you think the same people would be in the street overthrowing the government? Seems there is a huge disconnect in reality.
Silent revolution. Sorry bud, but you missed out. Good luck!
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertise With Us
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
How to report offensive comments
Notice on Racial Discrimination.