Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate, Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |  [ show all ]
Re: the only one way to settle the 9/11 Consipiracy debate is to re-build the towers and crash 2 pla [Re: Cowgold]
    #8116730 -

Cowgold said:
leftysurprise said:
even that picture does not convince me as to why the building fell in the manner it did. the damage was to one corner, and the hole was roughly 2-3 offices deep, lets just suppose for a minute that the damage shown in the picture WAS enough for the whole building to collapse, it does not explain how the building fell uniformly straight down at the same time, and into itself creating a neat pile of small pieces inside the perimeter of the building. it should have collapsed towards the damaged corner, and the whole building would not have collapsed from the damage shown. there should have been large chunks and huge connecting twisted sections of steel frame.

take a good look at the two videos i posted of the building 7 collapse and tell me you honestly think the damage shown in that picture is responsible for what you see, it is impossible considering the structural strength and design of the frame.





You're using a fucking video to determine how a building should have fallen.  Nothing you say is valid.  Then you talk about the structural strength and design of the frame. :rolleyes:  I would like to see the structural drawings that you're referencing.



no im using a fucking video, basic to mediocre knowledge of structural strength in high rise buildings and common sense. i have two friends which are engineers, one a structural and the other a civil. i conversate with them about their jobs on a pretty frequent basis, the structural engineer works for a company that builds hospitals, and i have seen pictures of every phase of contruction. sure a hospital is not 40 something stories as building 7 was, however i understand fairly well how structural frames are put together and reinforced.

i also had to do a project in HS for technology class involving building an 8'x6'x4' scale model of a modern high rise building, the project was to show stress loads and how the structural frame handled it. it was not made with steel or concrete, instead wood and metal connections, however the strength was supposed to be pretty close to scale  and we tested several stresses, including demonstrating the effect of having one bottom side blown out. we knocked out 1/3 of the buildings structural support to cause a collapse. it did not crumble from the floor up straight down. nor did it fall into a neat inward pile.

not to say this ultimately proves anything, but i am saying that if that fucking building was built to code and correctly, it should not have fallen the way it did given the damage it sustained.


i wasnt aware i needed a 10 year degree to make an opinion? ill get right on that cow. :rolleyes:

building 7, a well built steel structure crumbles because of mild damage to one corner, yet the oklahoma city building(not steel structure) has nearly 1/3 of the building blown off and stands just fine? hard to imagine.



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the only one way to settle the 9/11 Consipiracy debate is to re-build the towers and crash 2 pla [Re: LeftyBurnz]
    #8116952 -

:congrats:


--------------------
Live for the moment you are in now
Don't be bogged down by your past
Don't be afraid of what lies in your future

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the only one way to settle the 9/11 Consipiracy debate is to re-build the towers and crash 2 pla [Re: LeftyBurnz]
    #8117020 -

you think the hole was 2-3 offices deep? are you fucking blind?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the only one way to settle the 9/11 Consipiracy debate is to re-build the towers and crash 2 pla [Re: JonnyOnTheSpot]
    #8117140 -

JonnyOnTheSpot said:
you think the hole was 2-3 offices deep? are you fucking blind?



based on this photo, which is the only photo to date that i have seen of actual structural damage to building 7, no i can see just fine. looks like about 2-3 offices deep. well windows i should say, for all i know that could only be 1 office. :shrug:


there are a couple other pictures on this site of WTC7 although most are the same angles we have all seen in the past. these two however are from the supposed damaged side.

this one is kind of hard to see through the smoke, however where you can see through the smoke, i see no significant damage.




these two you can see through the smoke alot better. and correct me if i am wrong, but i see no major damage, certainly nothing to warrant a collapse.








so with all of the pictures and video available, the only evidence of structural damage is in the first picture with the small hole on the corner.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the only one way to settle the 9/11 Consipiracy debate is to re-build the towers and crash 2 pla [Re: LeftyBurnz]
    #8117211 -

:bow:


--------------------
Live for the moment you are in now
Don't be bogged down by your past
Don't be afraid of what lies in your future

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the only one way to settle the 9/11 Consipiracy debate is to re-build the towers and crash 2 pla [Re: niteowl]
    #8117231 -

Auto-Summary
Put and call options purchases in large quantities in the days before the 9/11 attacks suggest insider knowledge of the attack, allowing traders to profit from the resulting stock price declines and increases. Airlines United and American saw significant put option purchases, while reinsurance companies Munich Re and AXA, financial services firms Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley, and Raytheon (a weapons manufacturer) also experienced unusual option trading. Treasury notes also saw increased purchases. The SEC investigated these anomalies, leading to the deputization of private officials in the investigation.

Pre-9/11 Put Options on Companies Hurt by Attack Indicates Foreknowledge

Financial transactions in the days before the attack suggest that certain individuals used foreknowledge of the attack to reap huge profits. 1 The evidence of insider trading includes:

* Huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines
* Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group
* Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America
* Huge surge in purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack -- Raytheon
* Huge surges in purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes

In each case, the anomalous purchases translated into large profits as soon as the stock market opened a week after the attack: put options were used on stocks that would be hurt by the attack, and call options were used on stocks that would benefit.

Put and call options are contracts that allow their holders to sell and buy assets, respectively, at specified prices by a certain date. Put options allow their holders to profit from declines in stock values because they allow stocks to be bought at market price and sold for the higher option price. The ratio of the volume of put option contracts to call option contracts is called the put/call ratio. The ratio is usually less than one, with a value of around 0.8 considered normal. 2
Losers

American Airlines and United Airlines, and several insurance companies and banks posted huge loses in stock values when the markets opened on September 17. Put options -- financial instruments which allow investors to profit from the decline in value of stocks -- were purchased on the stocks of these companies in great volume in the week before the attack.
United Airlines and American Airlines

Two of the corporations most damaged by the attack were American Airlines (AMR), the operator of Flight 11 and Flight 77, and United Airlines (UAL), the operator of Flight 175 and Flight 93. According to CBS News, in the week before the attack, the put/call ratio for American Airlines was four. 3 The put/call ratio for United Airlines was 25 times above normal on September 6. 4



The spikes in put options occurred on days that were uneventful for the airlines and their stock prices.
On Sept. 6-7, when there was no significant news or stock price movement involving United, the Chicago exchange handled 4,744 put options for UAL stock, compared with just 396 call options -- essentially bets that the price will rise. On Sept. 10, an uneventful day for American, the volume was 748 calls and 4,516 puts, based on a check of option trading records. 5

The Bloomberg News reported that put options on the airlines surged to the phenomenal high of 285 times their average.
Over three days before terrorists flattened the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, there was more than 25 times the previous daily average trading in a Morgan Stanley "put" option that makes money when shares fall below $45. Trading in similar AMR and UAL put options, which make money when their stocks fall below $30 apiece, surged to as much as 285 times the average trading up to that time. 6

When the market reopened after the attack, United Airlines stock fell 42 percent from $30.82 to $17.50 per share, and American Airlines stock fell 39 percent, from $29.70 to $18.00 per share. 7
Reinsurance Companies

Several companies in the reinsurance business were expected to suffer huge losses from the attack: Munich Re of Germany and Swiss Re of Switzerland -- the world's two biggest reinsurers, and the AXA Group of France. In September, 2001, the San Francisco Chronicle estimated liabilities of $1.5 billion for Munich Re and $0.55 bilion for the AXA Group and telegraph.co.uk estimated liabilities of £1.2 billion for Munich Re and £0.83 billion for Swiss Re. 8 9

Trading in shares of Munich Re was almost double its normal level on September 6, and 7, and trading in shares of Swiss Re was more than double its normal level on September 7. 10
Financial Services Companies

Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. and Merrill Lynch & Co. were both headquartered in lower Manhattan at the time of the attack. Morgan Stanley occupied 22 floors of the North Tower and Merrill Lynch had headquarters near the Twin Towers. Morgan Stanley, which saw an average of 27 put options on its stock bought per day before September 6, saw 2,157 put options bought in the three trading days before the attack. Merrill Lynch, which saw an average of 252 put options on its stock bought per day before September 5, saw 12,215 put options bought in the four trading days before the attack. Morgan Stanley's stock dropped 13% and Merrill Lynch's stock dropped 11.5% when the market reopened. 11

Bank of America showed a fivefold increase in put option trading on the Thursday and Friday before the attack.
A Bank of America option that would profit if the No. 3 U.S. bank's stock fell below $60 a share had more than 5,900 contracts traded on the Thursday and Friday before the Sept. 11 assaults, almost five times the previous average trading, according to Bloomberg data. The bank's shares fell 11.5 percent to $51 in the first week after trading resumed on Sept. 17. 12
Winners

While most companies would see their stock valuations decline in the wake of the attack, those in the business of supplying the military would see dramatic increases, reflecting the new business they were poised to receive.
Raytheon

Raytheon, maker of Patriot and Tomahawk missiles, saw its stock soar immediately after the attack. Purchases of call options on Raytheon stock increased sixfold on the day before the attack.
A Raytheon option that makes money if shares are more than $25 each had 232 options contracts traded on the day before the attacks, almost six times the total number of trades that had occurred before that day. A contract represents options on 100 shares. Raytheon shares soared almost 37 percent to $34.04 during the first week of post-attack U.S. trading. 13

Raytheon has been fined millions of dollars inflating the costs of equipment it sells the US military. Raytheon has a secretive subsidiary, E-Systems, whose clients have included the CIA and NSA. 14
US Treasury Notes

Five-year US Treasury notes were purchased in abnormally high volumes before the attack, and their buyers were rewarded with sharp increases in their value following the attack.
The Wall Street Journal reported on October 2 that the ongoing investigation by the SEC into suspicious stock trades had been joined by a Secret Service probe into an unusually high volume of five-year US Treasury note purchases prior to the attacks. The Treasury note transactions included a single $5 billion trade. As the Journal explained: "Five-year Treasury notes are among the best investments in the event of a world crisis, especially one that hits the US. The notes are prized for their safety and their backing by the US government, and usually rally when investors flee riskier investments, such as stocks." The value of these notes, the Journal pointed out, has risen sharply since the events of September 11. 15
The SEC's Investigation

Shortly after the attack the SEC circulated a list of stocks to securities firms around the world seeking information. 16 A widely circulated article states that the stocks flagged by the SEC included those of the following corporations: American Airlines, United Airlines, Continental Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, US Airways airlines, Martin, Boeing, Lockheed Martin Corp., AIG, American Express Corp, American International Group, AMR Corporation, AXA SA, Bank of America Corp, Bank of New York Corp, Bank One Corp, Cigna Group, CNA Financial, Carnival Corp, Chubb Group, John Hancock Financial Services, Hercules Inc., L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc., LTV Corporation, Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc., MetLife, Progressive Corp., General Motors, Raytheon, W.R. Grace, Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Lone Star Technologies, American Express, the Citigroup Inc., Royal & Sun Alliance, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Vornado Reality Trust, Morgan Stanley, Dean Witter & Co., XL Capital Ltd., and Bear Stearns.

An October 19 article in the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the SEC, after a period of silence, had undertaken the unprecedented action of deputizing hundreds of private officials in its investigation:
The proposed system, which would go into effect immediately, effectively deputizes hundreds, if not thousands, of key players in the private sector.
...
In a two-page statement issued to "all securities-related entities" nationwide, the SEC asked companies to designate senior personnel who appreciate "the sensitive nature" of the case and can be relied upon to "exercise appropriate discretion" as "point" people linking government investigators and the industry. 17

Michael Ruppert, a former LAPD officer, explains the consequences of this action:
What happens when you deputize someone in a national security or criminal investigation is that you make it illegal for them to disclose publicly what they know. Smart move. In effect, they become government agents and are controlled by government regulations rather than their own conscience. In fact, they can be thrown in jail without a hearing if they talk publicly. I have seen this implied threat time and again with federal investigations, intelligence agents, and even members of the United States Congress who are bound so tightly by secrecy oaths and agreements that they are not even able to disclose criminal activities inside the government for fear of incarceration. 18
Interpreting and Reinterpreting the Data

An analysis of the press reports on the subject of apparent insider trading related to the attack shows a trend, with early reports highlighting the anomalies, and later reports excusing them. In his book Crossing the Rubicon Michael C. Ruppert illustrates this point by first excerpting a number of reports published shortly after the attack:

* A jump in UAL (United Airlines) put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.
-- CBS News, September 26
* A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks.
-- CBS News, September 26
* No similar trading occurred on any other airlines
-- Bloomberg Business Report, the Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), Herzliyya, Israel [citing data from the CBOE] 3
* Morgan Stanley saw, between September 7 and September 10, an increase of 27 times (not 27 percent) in the purchase of put options on its shares. 4
* Merrill-Lynch saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put options in the four trading days before the attacks. 5

[Excerpted ENDNOTES]

3. "Mechanics of Possible Bin Laden Insider Trading Scam," Herzlyya International Policy Institute for Counter Terrorism (ICT), September 22, 2001. Michael C. Ruppert, "The Case for Bush Administration Advance Knowledge of 9-11 Attacks," From the Wilderness April 22, 2002. Posted at Centre for Research and Globalization <www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP203A.html>;.

4. ICT, op. cit, citing data from the Chicago Board of Options Exchange (CBOE). [...] "Terrorists trained at CBPE." Chicago Sun-Times, September 20, 2001, <www.suntimes.com/terror/stories/cst-nws-trade20.html>;. "Probe of options trading link to attacks confirmed," [...] Chicago Sun-Times, September 21, 2001, <www.suntimes.com/terror/stories/cst-fin-trade21.html>;.

5. ICT, op. cit.
19

Ruppert then illustrates an apparent attempt to bury the story by explaining it away as nothing unusual. A September 30 New York Times article claims that "benign explanations are turning up" in the SEC's investigation. 20 The article blames the activity in put options, which it doesn't quantify, on "market pessimism," but fails to explain why the price of the stocks in the airlines doesn't reflect the same market pessimism.

The fact that $2.5 million of the put options remained unclaimed is not explained at all by market pessimism, and is evidence that the put option purchasers were part of a criminal conspiracy.


---


Evidence of people knowing about 9/11 before hand is everywhere. You only believe what you want to believe, and the Federal Government has their ways of explaining what happened by using their 'Federal Scientists', but you connect enough links and its obvious. The evidence above is just one peice of the puzzle out of many.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the only one way to settle the 9/11 Consipiracy debate is to re-build the towers and crash 2 pla [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #8117317 -

Madtowntripper said:
I feel the same way. After arguing about it for years, I just don't understand how anyone can believe in a vast conspiracy involving thousands of people.





It involves fear or losing your job and using alot of lies to trick people so that people involved in the government didn't realize what was going on. You might want to ask yourself how many insiders came foward when Hitler burned his own Parliamentary Building keeping in mind he blamed it on 'terrorists' taking an open free society into facism. Here is a list of 9/11 Whistleblowers who had the balls and courage to stand up against what they know is wrong

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/230904_whistleblowers.html

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the only one way to settle the 9/11 Consipiracy debate is to re-build the towers and crash 2 pla [Re: LeftyBurnz]
    #8117366 -

leftysurprise said:
Cowgold said:
leftysurprise said:
building 7, a well built steel structure crumbles because of mild damage to one corner, yet the oklahoma city building(not steel structure) has nearly 1/3 of the building blown off and stands just fine? hard to imagine.




Dude, you're not supposed to bring up historical references, it makes the shills job's harder, which means they get more taxpayers money to lie and deny.

Whilst we're on the subject of historical examples of false flag attacks, again, the reischstag fire is still relevant today

http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi?Gw=reischstag+fire+and+enabling+act


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the only one way to settle the 9/11 Consipiracy debate is to re-build the towers and crash 2 pla [Re: Visionary Tools]
    #8117376 -

wow, you messed that quote all up :lol:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the only one way to settle the 9/11 Consipiracy debate is to re-build the towers and crash 2 pla [Re: LeftyBurnz]
    #8117453 -

I have been drinking beer. It gives me special dispensations.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the only one way to settle the 9/11 Consipiracy debate is to re-build the towers and crash 2 pla [Re: LeftyBurnz]
    #8118508 -

Quote:
i also had to do a project in HS for technology class involving building an 8'x6'x4' scale model of a modern high rise building, the project was to show stress loads and how the structural frame handled it. it was not made with steel or concrete, instead wood and metal connections, however the strength was supposed to be pretty close to scale and we tested several stresses, including demonstrating the effect of having one bottom side blown out. we knocked out 1/3 of the buildings structural support to cause a collapse. it did not crumble from the floor up straight down. nor did it fall into a neat inward pile.



:rolleyes:

If you have any intellectual honesty whatsoever you know this is completely meaningless.  You can't begin to compare a few feet lengths of wood and metal stuck together to the dynamics of a 60 story functional skyscraper. 

A better comparison is your own body.  If one of your legs collapses under you and you are using that leg to bear the load of your body, you are going to crumble straight to the floor, unless you have some sort of forward momentum which, believe it or not, buildings don't have.  It's not a great analogy, I'm just trying to get you to think.  This is how gravity works, it pulls things straight toward the center of the Earth.  There isn't some mysterious component to gravity where things get pushed to one lateral direction or another.  Shit falls straight down.  You can see WTC7 'kink' for a split second, which is all it takes for the foundation to be rendered useless then gravity quickly pulls all that mass straight down.  Why would you expect it to fall over to the side?  I don't think you are appreciating what happens when gravity gets the best of tremendous mass.

Further, consider the profile of WTC7, a very tall building with a very narrow foundation.  If anything were to compromise said foundation, say a hole 20 stories tall and who knows how deep, it wouldn't be very good for the structual integrity of the building.  All the firefighters and structural engineers on site knew this which is why no one went in. Stare at photos all you want.  In the photo I provided, you can only see the top 9 stories worth of damage and have no perspective on the greater south face.  Even if you could it wouldn't mean shit because you know nothing about structural integrity of WTC7 and even if you did you couldn't anticipate reality.  Quit acting like what you think a photo might mean is actually evidence of something.

Quote:
not to say this ultimately proves anything, but i am saying that if that fucking building was built to code and correctly, it should not have fallen the way it did given the damage it sustained.



Doesn't mean shit.  'Truthers' are always asking how could the towers have fallen when they were designed to withstand plane impacts?  So what if they were designed to withstand the impacts, even the impacts of large commercial airliners fully loaded with fuel, that doesn't make a guarantee on reality that the things won't fall.  I could list hundreds of things that are designed to work a certain way but don't and so could you.

Quote:
building 7, a well built steel structure crumbles because of mild damage to one corner, yet the oklahoma city building(not steel structure) has nearly 1/3 of the building blown off and stands just fine? hard to imagine.



Did you really think this one through?  With the Oklahoma City building you have an explosion that carves half the building away all at once.  The rest of the building that's left has foundation beneath it and it's an eight story building with no fires burning inside.  WTC7 is a 60 story building with a lot more mass and it has a significant portion of it's foundation torn away while the remaining intact building perches above it for hours while fires rage inside.  It's also a very tall building with a relatively narrow footing so the mass/foundation ratio isn't so hot to begin with. Bit of a different scenario, wouldn't you say?


Let's pretend for a second that WTC7 was taken down with controlled demolition.  Give me one idea on how this could benefit whoever did it...

Edited by Viveka (03/08/08 03:27 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the only one way to settle the 9/11 Consipiracy debate is to re-build the towers and crash 2 pla [Re: Viveka]
    #8118512 -

WORLD WAR 2 WAS A CONSPIRACY


--------------------
     

                                                                  thats right cubes in december bitches

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the only one way to settle the 9/11 Consipiracy debate is to re-build the towers and crash 2 pla [Re: CubensisCutter]
    #8118672 -

So was Eli Manning's game winning drive in the Super Bowl.

Believe that!! Asante Samuel dropped that INT on purpose KNOWING he was going to leave NE.


--------------------
A society whose whole idea is to eliminate suffering and bring it's members the greatest amount of comfort and pleasure is doomed to be destroyed -Thomas Merton

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the only one way to settle the 9/11 Consipiracy debate is to re-build the towers and crash 2 pla [Re: AndhesEcuador]
    #8118706 -

AndhesEcuador said:
We can't be 100% certain of anything...

BUT

I wouldn't put it past the government. Look at our involvement around the world covert ops shit, rigging elections, assassinations etc

Land of the free! :rofl:



smartest, most accurate thing in this thread!


--------------------
:gc:
Madtowntripper said:Or just give her a cloroform soaked rag and tell her it's ether!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the only one way to settle the 9/11 Consipiracy debate is to re-build the towers and crash 2 pla [Re: whattheheck]
    #8118735 -

Auto-Summary
The post discusses the structural analysis of WTC7, a 60-story building, after it was partially damaged in the September 11 attacks. Critics argue that a working scale model of a building, designed to mimic real-world conditions, is necessary to determine structural integrity. They point to the analogy of a person using a collapsed leg to bear weight, emphasizing that gravity pulls objects straight down, making a lateral collapse unlikely. The post also addresses the damage to WTC7's foundation, comparing it to the Oklahoma City bombing and the Windsor high rise collapse, asserting that the damage to WTC7 was not significant enough to cause a sudden, complete collapse. The author expresses frustration with the arguments presented and calls for more credible evidence and respectful discourse.

:rolleyes:

Quote:
If you have any intellectual honesty whatsoever you know this is completely meaningless. You can't begin to compare a few feet lengths of wood and metal stuck together to the dynamics of a 60 story functional skyscraper.



its not called a working scale model for nothing. it was built to closely mimic the structure and bearing loads of an actual building of proportionate dimensions. in case you werent aware, this is how engineers figure out whether or not a design has flaws or not. WORKING scale model.

Quote:
A better comparison is your own body. If one of your legs collapses under you and you are using that leg to bear the load of your body, you are going to crumble straight to the floor, unless you have some sort of forward momentum which, believe it or not, buildings don't have. It's not a great analogy, I'm just trying to get you to think. This is how gravity works, it pulls things straight toward the center of the Earth. There isn't some mysterious component to gravity where things get pushed to one lateral direction or another. Shit falls straight down. You can see WTC7 'kink' for a split second, which is all it takes for the foundation to be rendered useless then gravity quickly pulls all that mass straight down. Why would you expect it to fall over to the side? I don't think you are appreciating what happens when gravity gets the best of tremendous mass.




hmm. if you fall straight to the floor, then you go out of your way to make the fall less efficient and go against the laws of physics.

i dont know about you, but any time i have had one leg go out on me, i fall towards the direction of the leg that gave out. that is the way your body's center of gravity falls when your support is taken out. i have NEVER seen someone fall into indian style position when a leg goes out. :shrug:

and to be frank, theres no need to talk to me like a retard. i know what gravity is and i know what forward motion is, to be honest, im not sure you understand how gravity and a steel structure operate. because the explanation you just tried to give makes absolutely no sense. take a GOOD look at those pictures and you tell me that there is a good enough size hole to collapse the whole building. maybe they do things differently now, but last time i checked, they did not design high rises to crumble like a house of cards when the structurability is compromised. lets just suppose that one THIRD of the buildings bottom weight bearing steel beams were blown out, can YOU HONESTLY tell me that it would cause the whole structure, connecting steel frame, interpoured concrete floors and walls would all come tumbling down at the same time, in a matter of 7 seconds? if so, you truly do not understand how steel framework functions. engineers design these things to salvage any and all parts of the building that can be in the event of traumatic damage.


Quote:
Further, consider the profile of WTC7, a very tall building with a very narrow foundation. If anything were to compromise said foundation, say a hole 20 stories tall and who knows how deep, it wouldn't be very good for the structual integrity of the building. All the firefighters and structural engineers on site knew this which is why no one went in. Stare at photos all you want. In the photo I provided, you can only see the top 9 stories worth of damage and have no perspective on the greater south face. Even if you could it wouldn't mean shit because you know nothing about structural integrity of WTC7 and even if you did you couldn't anticipate reality. Quit acting like what you think a photo might mean is actually evidence of something.




whatever you say boss. the pictures are right there and you can get a pretty damn good idea of the extent of the damage. if photos mean nothing as far as evidence to you, then you might as well just stop arguing right now, because nothing will satisfy a counter argument for you.

and what are your credentials? what degrees do you have? how about you get off your high horse and bring something to this table besides mockery and insult. i have been very civil in this discussion, yet it never fails, someone like you always comes along and tries to irritate people.


Quote:
Doesn't mean shit. 'Truthers' are always asking how could the towers have fallen when they were designed to withstand plane impacts? So what if they were designed to withstand the impacts, even the impacts of large commercial airliners fully loaded with fuel, that doesn't make a guarantee on reality that the things won't fall. I could list hundreds of things that are designed to work a certain way but don't and so could you.



im not arguing the trade towers, im arguing building 7, which was not seriously impacted, and has no jet fuel to burn at high temps to compromise steel integrity.


Quote:
Did you really think this one through? With the Oklahoma City building you have an explosion that carves half the building away all at once. The rest of the building that's left has foundation beneath it and it's an eight story building with no fires burning inside. WTC7 is a 60 story building with a lot more mass and it has a significant portion of it's foundation torn away while the remaining intact building perches above it for hours while fires rage inside. It's also a very tall building with a relatively narrow footing so the mass/foundation ratio isn't so hot to begin with. Bit of a different scenario, wouldn't you say?



did you think this response through? in proportion to the size difference between the two buildings, the oklahoma building had a far larger chunk blown off, my best guess is around 1/3 of the structure, or close to it. wtc7 didnt even come CLOSE to that amount of damage. i dont see how you consider the amount of damage seen as significant, i would call it damage, not significant damage. i dont see how you come to the conclusion that a significant amount of the foundation is missing, when it is clearly evident in the photos that it isnt. if you choose not to use credible photos as evidence, then i cant even try to convince you any more than that. in the photo taken by the new york POLICE DEPARTMENT, you can clearly see that there are 14 sets of windows on the small side of the building, the damage only reaches over 3 sets of windows max. thats over 80 % of that side of the wall left intact.

lets also not neglect the fact that the oklahoma building has NO large steel structural beams, it is a concrete building, not a steel building. fires or not a weaker building managed to hold up much better?? those fires were not burning nearly hot enough to do any structural damage, that is clearly evident from the BLACK smoke, which signifies an oxygen starved fire.

the windsor high rise in spain burned for roughly 24 hours, there was nothing left but the frame, it was roughly the same size as building 7. it collapsed a little bit on the top floors, but was still standing when the fire burned itself out. explain how one building can completely burn from the ground up and still stand while another has a few small WEAK fires  and completely crumbles.


Quote:
Let's pretend for a second that WTC7 was taken down with controlled demolition. Give me one idea on how this could benefit whoever did it...




ive already said before, i dont know who or why and im not going to speculate, because it would only be a guess to me. someone benefits from everything in life viveka, whether it be famine, war, plague or attacks.


you know, if you choose not to believe it, thats fine with me, i know not everyone will, and that is your choice, but if youre going to come up in here and start thrrowing insults and talking down to people, you can leave your conversation at the door. its unnecessary.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the only one way to settle the 9/11 Conspiracy debate is to re-build the towers and crash 2 pla [Re: LeftyBurnz]
    #8118781 -

One things for sure,

this topic certainly stirs up debate!

Shit or is that a conspiracy too?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the only one way to settle the 9/11 Conspiracy debate is to re-build the towers and crash 2 pla [Re: Humble lurker]
    #8118800 -

this and abortion are guaranteed to start a heated argument in any room.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the only one way to settle the 9/11 Conspiracy debate is to re-build the towers and crash 2 pla [Re: LeftyBurnz]
    #8118836 -

There should definately be a dedicated WTC conspiracy forum.

:duckie:  :chickenhead:  :duckie:  :chickenhead:  :duckie:  :chickenhead:  :duckie:  :chickenhead:


--------------------
:duckie: :chickenhead: :duckie: :chickenhead: :duckie: :chickenhead: :duckie: :chickenhead: :duckie: :chickenhead: :duckie: :chickenhead: :duckie: :chickenhead: :duckie: :chickenhead:

i'm a spy huntin rap dinosaur from the future

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the only one way to settle the 9/11 Consipiracy debate is to re-build the towers and crash 2 pla [Re: Shroomism]
    #8119131 -

Shroomism said:
Forget 9/11.

The only question is, when the government is gonna get the balls to go through with their real plan - which is to reduce the human population of Earth by 80%. And when they start trying to vaporize biological weapons over american cities and take people to "prison camps" under declaration of martial law.... I bet the same people are gonna be saying it was planes crashing into buildings that caused it to happen. Or maybe not.

Mass murder by our leaders is hard to accept by most people who want to believe the lies they are force fed from birth.



Do you have any evidence to support this? I'm sorry but it just doesn't make sense. Most power hungry people on our planet want to control the world that already exists, not kill everybody and then control the select few. It's actually difficult to argue against this because it's so crazy.


--------------------
check out my music!
drowse in prison and your waking will be but loss

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: the only one way to settle the 9/11 Consipiracy debate is to re-build the towers and crash 2 pla [Re: LeftyBurnz]
    #8119708 -

Auto-Summary
The author, frustrated by the prevalence of conspiracy theories and misinformation surrounding the 9/11 attacks, argues that the World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) was not brought down by controlled demolition. They emphasize the importance of critical thinking and research, noting that even a working scale model built to mimic a real building's structure is not a perfect indicator of its behavior in a real-life scenario. The author also questions the size of the hole in WTC7 and the efficiency of its collapse, as well as the structural integrity design of high-rise buildings. They dismiss other examples used by conspiracy theorists, such as the Oklahoma City bombing and the Windsor Tower fire, as not comparable due to differences in damage and foundation. The author concludes by urging a more open-minded and evidence-based approach to discussing the topic.

Look, the reason I get a bit unforgiving on this topic is because I've spent countless hours looking at this issue and going over the material.  At one point, after seeing a certain amount of conspiracy shit on the web, I believed some of the conspiracy theories.  But then I did a lot of research and looked at it with a critical eye and realized I was wrong in my belief.  I'm not saying I know exactly what happened and how the whole thing went down from the start of the cold war to the end of the day on 9/11, but I do contend that the towers were not brought down by controlled demolition.

Quote:
ts not called a working scale model for nothing. it was built to closely mimic the structure and bearing loads of an actual building of proportionate dimensions. in case you werent aware, this is how engineers figure out whether or not a design has flaws or not. WORKING scale model.



So fucking what?  You were a high school student making a model out of sticks and metal.  Even if you were a pro engineer making a scale replica of WTC7 with the same exact materials and specs, it still wouldn't be a flawless indication of anything.  That's the thing about reality, you can never really predict or recreate any one moment of it.

Quote:
hmm. if you fall straight to the floor, then you go out of your way to make the fall less efficient and go against the laws of physics.




The thing is, buildings aren't intelligent and thus can't make any effort to fall one way or another.  What do you mean by more efficient?

Quote:
take a GOOD look at those pictures and you tell me that there is a good enough size hole to collapse the whole building.



Unlike you, I don't profess to know whether the hole was a "good enough size" or not.  You place way too much faith in your ability to determine these things.  Truth is, you really don't know.  Of course, all the firefighters and other structural experts on site determned that there was a very high probability WTC7 ould collapse so they kept people out of it all day long until it finally did.  Do you think they were all in on the plan to take down the all-important WTC7?

Quote:
maybe they do things differently now, but last time i checked, they did not design high rises to crumble like a house of cards when the structurability is compromised.



Well I'm glad you "checked".  How do they design them then, to fall over to the side so that they cause plenty of damage to surrounding structures and people?

Quote:
lets just suppose that one THIRD of the buildings bottom weight bearing steel beams were blown out, can YOU HONESTLY tell me that it would cause the whole structure, connecting steel frame, interpoured concrete floors and walls would all come tumbling down at the same time, in a matter of 7 seconds?



I don't know buddy and neither do you.  Again, everyone there on 9/11 qualified to make judgements on such things  thought it was a pretty bad thing for the building, and they were right.  What's your gripe with the speed of the fall?  Did you expect it to fall in slow motion?

Quote:
if so, you truly do not understand how steel framework functions. engineers design these things to salvage any and all parts of the building that can be in the event of traumatic damage.



Your point?

Quote:
whatever you say boss. the pictures are right there and you can get a pretty damn good idea of the extent of the damage.



Even if you could get a "pretty damn good idea" of the damage, that doesn't mean you can say with any degree of certainty that it was impossible for the building to fall the way it did.

Quote:
and what are your credentials? what degrees do you have? how about you get off your high horse and bring something to this table besides mockery and insult. i have been very civil in this discussion, yet it never fails, someone like you always comes along and tries to irritate people.



Who gives a fuck about my "credentials"?  Some of the most credentialed people in the world lack the ability to think critically.  Stephen Jones, the guy who put forth the WTC thermate theory has a Ph.D. in physics as well as plenty of other "valuable" credentials.  He also wrote a scholarly paper entitled "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America":nut:

I've brought plenty to the table, in this thread and many others.  How about instead of the ad hominems and other anecdotes, you show me what your evidence is and I will thoroughly debunk it, as has been done time and time again.

Quote:
did you think this response through? in proportion to the size difference between the two buildings, the oklahoma building had a far larger chunk blown off, my best guess is around 1/3 of the structure, or close to it. wtc7 didnt even come CLOSE to that amount of damage. i dont see how you consider the amount of damage seen as significant, i would call it damage, not significant damage.



Oklahama city bldg wasn't left with a reduced foundation supporting a completely intact upper buidling 60 stories high.  I've already explained how this is a bad example.

Quote:
the windsor high rise in spain burned for roughly 24 hours, there was nothing left but the frame, it was roughly the same size as building 7. it collapsed a little bit on the top floors, but was still standing when the fire burned itself out. explain how one building can completely burn from the ground up and still stand while another has a few small WEAK fires and completely crumbles.



Another bad example what a surprise!  (Also, it wasn't just a few small WEAK fires in WTC7, do some fucking research, and are we neglecting the 20 stories worth of foundation damage again?) There are plenty of reasons why the Windsor Tower is a bad example, here's one: It had no structural damage, just fires.

Quote:
    Quote:
    Let's pretend for a second that WTC7 was taken down with controlled demolition. Give me one idea on how this could benefit whoever did it...



ive already said before, i dont know who or why and im not going to speculate, because it would only be a guess to me. someone benefits from everything in life viveka, whether it be famine, war, plague or attacks.




Oh come on, you and lots of other conspiracy lovers have guessed and speculated about all sorts of shit, controlled demolition is one such speculation.  Why not humor me and give me one single idea about how bringing down WTC7 with controlled demolition worked to the benefit of whoever did it?

Quote:
you know, if you choose not to believe it, thats fine with me, i know not everyone will, and that is your choice, but if youre going to come up in here and start thrrowing insults and talking down to people, you can leave your conversation at the door. its unnecessary.



As long as it's pretty obvious to me that you haven't really done your own research or considered the big picture with an unbiased view, I will talk down to your arguments as a matter of principle, laregely because this shit has been driven into the ground(no pun intended) over and over and voer but you somehow missed it.  The reason you probably missed it is because you are the one talking about beliefs.  Critical thinking on this topic leaves no room for your beliefs.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate, Cultivation Supplies   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 11 per cent of the British believed Hitler did not exist
( 1 2 all )
Annom 5,841 34 04/04/22 09:14 PM
by Amanita86
* 9-11 stories
( 1 2 all )
BrAiN 3,648 28 01/21/05 01:18 AM
by Boom
* Inside 9/11
( 1 2 all )
TYL3R 996 27 08/27/05 01:01 AM
by Twister
* Sim Tower DNKYD 1,249 12 04/25/05 10:27 PM
by notapillow
* franklins tower video game notapillow 1,394 11 10/22/03 11:12 PM
by notapillow
* 9/11 Coverup? Want some input - Yes I'm sure many of you have seen it. freddurgan 598 3 12/02/04 06:02 PM
by Gr8fulJ420
* The Dark Tower
( 1 2 3 all )
Supernova 2,862 49 09/02/09 12:04 PM
by electrics
* Franklin's Tower Ripple 912 7 10/18/03 12:27 PM
by Ripple

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
16,452 topic views. 4 members, 42 guests and 210 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.039 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 18 queries.