100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
If the building simply fell, one floor on top of another floor, as the official story would have people believe, then look at that picture and tell me where is the building? It is clearly being exploded and it is clearly turning into dust. There are no floors falling on other floors. I don't know what scientists and engineers you are referring to. There seems to be many who would disagree with you. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is a non-profit corporation. We are a non-partisan association of architects, engineers and affiliates dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing truths about the “collapses” of the 3 World Trade Center high-rises on September 11, 2001. ■ Dispelling misinformation with scientific facts and forensic evidence ■ Educating and motivating thousands of architects and engineers and the public at large ■ Procuring a truly independent 9/11 investigation with subpoena power ■ Achieving 9/11 Truth mainstream media coverage http://www.ae911truth.org/ and i could show you just a many that say the opposite...you should learn your physics yourself, not what you read on some truther site. they are going to be biased, and if you learn outside of 911 material, you can see how this actually worked... Mighty Moe you should become a brain surgeon too. Don't tell me what I should learn. You have already demonstrated by referencing Popular Mechanics that you have no clue what is going on, so don't start telling me I should learn physics. I don't need to learn it. There are plenty of people who know much more than I do that totally have debunked the official story of 9-11 who have much more education than you or me. You choose who you believe and I will choose who I believe. But one thing is for sure, I can't believe the unbelievable, and that, my friend, is the official 9-11 commission report and all the other official government accounts. They have proven to me first hand that they are liars and a criminal network of massive size. So, no thanks. what would a brain surgeon have to do with 911 and the physics applied with it? You have to use Jenniebean logic to understand! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I may chime in here, the answer is not as simple as the conspiracy theorists (CT) long to make it. It's not a black and white question. There are many subtle different gray tones in a question this big. You say you want answers, but if the answer nullifies your view, then CT's move on to something else absurd. Finally they circle around points given to them and try to resume the same line of questioning a week or longer later. It's a never ending circle and has been since 9/11. Do I wholeheartedly believe the government had nothing to do with it? I don't know, and don't try to insinuate I do, unlike CT's. I can tell you for sure that it wasn't a demolition. If someone has ever heard one set off, then they wouldn't even bring that flimsy argument to the table. Especially one with enough explosives to bring down a building that massive. For those who never saw it in person, it's easy to say it was toppled with a simple explosion at the base. For those of us who have seen it in person when it was standing, know how gargantuan it was and can positively say that it couldn't be done without TONS of explosives! So that's my argument, I side with the countless thousands of engineers. Wonder how and when they brought it all in,and where they hid it! Seriously....... some of the explanations truthers come up with are hilarious! Question though truthers.... how do you break the laws of physics? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mightymoe
on
Mon 04/16/12 03:12 PM
|
|
If I may chime in here, the answer is not as simple as the conspiracy theorists (CT) long to make it. It's not a black and white question. There are many subtle different gray tones in a question this big. You say you want answers, but if the answer nullifies your view, then CT's move on to something else absurd. Finally they circle around points given to them and try to resume the same line of questioning a week or longer later. It's a never ending circle and has been since 9/11. Do I wholeheartedly believe the government had nothing to do with it? I don't know, and don't try to insinuate I do, unlike CT's. I can tell you for sure that it wasn't a demolition. If someone has ever heard one set off, then they wouldn't even bring that flimsy argument to the table. Especially one with enough explosives to bring down a building that massive. For those who never saw it in person, it's easy to say it was toppled with a simple explosion at the base. For those of us who have seen it in person when it was standing, know how gargantuan it was and can positively say that it couldn't be done without TONS of explosives! So that's my argument, I side with the countless thousands of engineers. Wonder how and when they brought it all in,and where they hid it! Seriously....... some of the explanations truthers come up with are hilarious! Question though truthers.... how do you break the laws of physics? the "company" has secret machines that explains all this, that is shown on secret websites... they are very secretive... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
InvictusV
on
Mon 04/16/12 03:21 PM
|
|
From: http://wtc7.net/pullit.html "Pulling" Building 7 A PBS documentary about the 9/11/01 attack, America Rebuilds, features an interview with the leaseholder of the destroyed WTC complex, Larry Silverstein. In it, the elderly developer makes the following statement: I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. This statement seems to suggest that the FDNY decided to demolish the building in accordance with Silverstein's suggestion, since the phrase "pull it" in this context seems to mean to demolish the building. At least that interpretation appears to be supported by a statement by a Ground Zero worker in the same documentary: ... we're getting ready to pull the building six. Building 6 was one of the badly damaged low-rise buildings in the WTC complex that had to be demolished as part of the cleanup operation. An alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it" refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull" -- at least not from inside the building. WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY. That Silverstein would admit that officials intentionally demolished Building 7 is bizarre for a number of reasons. Silverstein Properties Inc. had already won an $861 million claim for the loss of the building in a terrorist incident. FEMA's report states that the cause of the building's collapse was fires. Presumably FEMA and the insurance company would be interested in knowing if the building was instead demolished by the FDNY. Moreover, the logistics of rigging a skyscraper for demolition in the space of a few hours would be daunting to say the least, particularly given that demolition teams would have to work around fires and smoke. An Overlooked Explanation A third explanation is less obvious but makes sense of the non-sequiturs in the above explanations: perhaps Silverstein's statement was calculated to confuse the issue of what actually happened to Building 7. By suggesting that it was demolished by the FDNY as a safety measure, it provides an alternative to the only logical explanation -- that it was rigged for demolition before the attack. The absurdity of the FDNY implementing a plan to "pull" Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11/01 will escape most people, who neither grasp the technical complexity of engineering the controlled demolition of a skyscraper, nor its contradiction with FEMA's account of the collapse, nor the thorough illegality of such an operation. Thus the idea that officials decided to "pull" Building 7 after the attack serves as a distraction from the inescapable logic that the building's demolition was planned in advance of the attack, and was therefore part of an inside job to destroy the entire WTC complex. Web research supports the theory that Silverstein's remark was part of a calculated distraction. The pull-it remark is copied by hundreds of websites, many citing the remark from the Ground Zero worker about Building 6 as proof that to 'pull' means to demolish. However, searching sites specific to the demolition trade does not support this meaning of 'pull'. The following Google searches of the two best known controlled demolition sites in October of 2003 did not return any results indicating that pulling and demolition are synonymous. site:controlled-demolition.com pull site:implosionworld.com pull Searching Google with the query demolition pull and filtering out sites referring to the Silverstein pull-it remark returns only one result in about 10 pages of results that uses 'pull' to mean demolish: City staff have contacted the property owner by phone to request that he obtain a demolition permit and pull down and demolish the building A review of the numerous websites that assert that Silverstein's remark constituted an admission of demolishing WTC 7 is revealing. Few such sites note that the physical characteristics of the collapse exactly match conventional demolitions, or that fires have never before or since felled steel-framed high-rise buildings -- two facts that constitute an overwhelming case for the controlled demolition of WTC 7. Instead, the pull-it controversy seems to have created a distraction, eclipsing the case for controlled demolition. Who planted the explosives? Where did Silverstein get the authority to blow up a building in downtown Manhattan, if as you say, it shouldn't have collapsed? Why would FDNY have carried out the detonation? Who in FDNY had the authority to see the demolition carried out? Give me a list of all controlled demolitions carried out by FDNY. Did FDNY know there were explosives planted in the buildings before 9-11? If they knew why did they send their men into those buildings and let them die? Why has no one from FDNY come forward and provide evidence that they were in collusion with Silverstein on WTC-7 demolition? I am certain that one member with knowledge of FDNY and their complicity would have a conscience and come forward. Why hasn't there been any? WTC-7 had zero casualties. If you were attempting to demolish a building for some nefarious purpose why would you wait until hours after the towers collapsed making it far more noticeable? You just killed 2000 in the towers, what is another few hundred? Why not blow it when WTC-1 fell and make it look like the debris from WTC-1 caused the collapse? Why would Silverstein acknowledge giving FDNY the authorization to blow up the building in a recorded interview? If 'pull' it is such a specialized word, only meaning to demolish a structure, don't you think Silverstein would have used a different term if he were trying to hide this fact for insurance money purposes? You don't come about collecting billion dollar insurance settlements being a complete and total idiot.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I may chime in here, the answer is not as simple as the conspiracy theorists (CT) long to make it. It's not a black and white question. There are many subtle different gray tones in a question this big. You say you want answers, but if the answer nullifies your view, then CT's move on to something else absurd. Finally they circle around points given to them and try to resume the same line of questioning a week or longer later. It's a never ending circle and has been since 9/11. Do I wholeheartedly believe the government had nothing to do with it? I don't know, and don't try to insinuate I do, unlike CT's. I can tell you for sure that it wasn't a demolition. If someone has ever heard one set off, then they wouldn't even bring that flimsy argument to the table. Especially one with enough explosives to bring down a building that massive. For those who never saw it in person, it's easy to say it was toppled with a simple explosion at the base. For those of us who have seen it in person when it was standing, know how gargantuan it was and can positively say that it couldn't be done without TONS of explosives! So that's my argument, I side with the countless thousands of engineers. Wonder how and when they brought it all in,and where they hid it! Seriously....... some of the explanations truthers come up with are hilarious! Question though truthers.... how do you break the laws of physics? the "company" has secret machines that explains all this, that is shown on secret websites... they are very secretive... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I may chime in here, the answer is not as simple as the conspiracy theorists (CT) long to make it. It's not a black and white question. There are many subtle different gray tones in a question this big. You say you want answers, but if the answer nullifies your view, then CT's move on to something else absurd. Finally they circle around points given to them and try to resume the same line of questioning a week or longer later. It's a never ending circle and has been since 9/11. Do I wholeheartedly believe the government had nothing to do with it? I don't know, and don't try to insinuate I do, unlike CT's. I can tell you for sure that it wasn't a demolition. If someone has ever heard one set off, then they wouldn't even bring that flimsy argument to the table. Especially one with enough explosives to bring down a building that massive. For those who never saw it in person, it's easy to say it was toppled with a simple explosion at the base. For those of us who have seen it in person when it was standing, know how gargantuan it was and can positively say that it couldn't be done without TONS of explosives! So that's my argument, I side with the countless thousands of engineers. Wonder how and when they brought it all in,and where they hid it! Seriously....... some of the explanations truthers come up with are hilarious! Question though truthers.... how do you break the laws of physics? If the trusses holding the floors let go how did the support collums fall straight down with them? Its so damn rediculouse I have a hard time believeing the rubes still defend this absurdity! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except the structural damage was the biggest contributor to the collapse. Iso there was ni cascading explosions foe this building either. They said it was the fire. Its realy hard to discuss this topic honestly with people so willfully misinformed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I may chime in here, the answer is not as simple as the conspiracy theorists (CT) long to make it. It's not a black and white question. There are many subtle different gray tones in a question this big. You say you want answers, but if the answer nullifies your view, then CT's move on to something else absurd. Finally they circle around points given to them and try to resume the same line of questioning a week or longer later. It's a never ending circle and has been since 9/11. Do I wholeheartedly believe the government had nothing to do with it? I don't know, and don't try to insinuate I do, unlike CT's. I can tell you for sure that it wasn't a demolition. If someone has ever heard one set off, then they wouldn't even bring that flimsy argument to the table. Especially one with enough explosives to bring down a building that massive. For those who never saw it in person, it's easy to say it was toppled with a simple explosion at the base. For those of us who have seen it in person when it was standing, know how gargantuan it was and can positively say that it couldn't be done without TONS of explosives! So that's my argument, I side with the countless thousands of engineers. Wonder how and when they brought it all in,and where they hid it! Seriously....... some of the explanations truthers come up with are hilarious! Question though truthers.... how do you break the laws of physics? If the trusses holding the floors let go how did the support collums fall straight down with them? Its so damn rediculouse I have a hard time believeing the rubes still defend this absurdity! Just like people thought a sun centered universe was rediculous. You just have a lack of understanding of physics. How else would you expect the buildings to fall? If it was a demolition where were the cascading explosions? Why did the building colapse from the point of impact and not from the base? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am certian, beyond any shadow of a doubtthat the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11.
Not even close! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am certian, beyond any shadow of a doubtthat the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower stories, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close! And you have every right to be wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why are we still talking about this? No one is going to convince the other. American 587 and TWA 800 where terrorist attacks. 911 was not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why are we still talking about this? No one is going to convince the other. American 587 and TWA 800 where terrorist attacks. 911 was not. I might not be able to convince you that the sky is blue. It doesn't make it any less true. The science speaks for itself. If it didn't after 10 years there would be all the Structural and Material Science PHDs proving it wrong. Instead the Universities put out papers and experiments confirming ASCE's findings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why are we still talking about this? No one is going to convince the other. American 587 and TWA 800 where terrorist attacks. 911 was not. I might not be able to convince you that the sky is blue. It doesn't make it any less true. The science speaks for itself. If it didn't after 10 years there would be all the Structural and Material Science PHDs proving it wrong. Instead the Universities put out papers and experiments confirming ASCE's findings. It is truly amazing how the truther's can "Want questions answered" but are totally incapable of absorbing any reality when truth is offered. NOT ONE of the people pushing the truther version of the story have commented on any real information from ASCE. The websites have been posted and the articles are there for the reading... if only they knew what those words meant... Progressive Collapse Resistance of an Actual 11-Story Structure Subjected to Severe Initial Damage by Mehrdad Sasani, (corresponding author), M.ASCE, (Associate Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept., Northeastern Univ., Boston, MA 02115 E-mail: sasani@neu.edu), Ali Kazemi, (Ph.D. Student, Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept., Northeastern Univ., Boston, MA 02115.), Serkan Sagiroglu, (Ph.D. Student, Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept., Northeastern Univ., Boston, MA 02115.), and Scott Forest, M.ASCE, (Structural Engineer, AECOM, 66 Long Wharf, Boston, MA 02110; formerly, Undergraduate Student at Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept., Northeastern Univ.) Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 137, No. 9, September 2011, pp. 893-902, (doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000418) Purchase this Article/Access full text Purchase Subscription Permissions for Reuse View Issue Table of Contents Document type: Journal Paper Special Issue: Commemorating 10 Years of Research since 9/11 Abstract: Progressive collapse resistance of an actual 11-story reinforced concrete structure following severe initial damage is studied experimentally and analytically. The initial damage was caused by simultaneous explosion (removal) of four first-floor neighboring columns and two second-floor perimeter deep beam segments. The structure resisted progressive collapse with a maximum permanent vertical displacement at the top of the exploded columns of only about 56 mm (2.2 in.). The response of the structure is evaluated analytically using different modeling methods. Beam growth and, in turn, the development of the beam axial compressive force are modeled and discussed. It is demonstrated that such axial compressive force can significantly affect progressive collapse resistance of the structure. The shortcomings of nonlinear modeling with commonly used plastic hinges are quantified and discussed. It is shown that such a modeling method ignores axial and flexural interaction in beams and can underestimate the resisting element internal forces and in turn progressive collapse resistance of the structure. By using fiber hinges in an analytical model, such interaction is accounted for and the local and global experimental data are closely estimated. The progressive collapse-resisting mechanisms primarily include the axial-flexural action of the second-floor deep beams and Vierendeel action of the flat plate system in floors above. ASCE Subject Headings: Progressive collapse Structural failures Explosions Beams Load distribution Dynamic response Multi-story buildings For example |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey I got 1600 Engineers on my side. I got pilots for 911 truth with over 200,000 hours flight time. You want to call them idiots go ahead since you know everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1600 engineers? There were 1.5 million employed in the US in 2006. A simple google search will verify that. Granted those aren't all structural engineers. But then again, you simply said engineers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey I got 1600 Engineers on my side. I got pilots for 911 truth with over 200,000 hours flight time. You want to call them idiots go ahead since you know everything. Actually its 1600 engineers and architects that,want an investigation. That doesn't mean they are on your side. Ends its less than .1% of architects and engineers in the country. Wow so impressive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey I got 1600 Engineers on my side. I got pilots for 911 truth with over 200,000 hours flight time. You want to call them idiots go ahead since you know everything. I never said I knew everything but I do know exactly how the buildings fell. I am also a pilot and I know the truther story is complete hogwash. No real engineer believes that explosives were used unless he is seriously in need of medication. I have known a few engineers in my life that knew virtually nothing about engineering. They just knew how to take tests and managed to get through an engineering program. But to imply that any part of the real engineering community believes the "Truther" story of how the building fell is a complete lie. Math and physics, and material science don't lie. Andrew, do you know what the article I just posted was about? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 04/16/12 09:27 PM
|
|
If the building simply fell, one floor on top of another floor, as the official story would have people believe, then look at that picture and tell me where is the building? It is clearly being exploded and it is clearly turning into dust. There are no floors falling on other floors. I don't know what scientists and engineers you are referring to. There seems to be many who would disagree with you. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is a non-profit corporation. We are a non-partisan association of architects, engineers and affiliates dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing truths about the “collapses” of the 3 World Trade Center high-rises on September 11, 2001. ■ Dispelling misinformation with scientific facts and forensic evidence ■ Educating and motivating thousands of architects and engineers and the public at large ■ Procuring a truly independent 9/11 investigation with subpoena power ■ Achieving 9/11 Truth mainstream media coverage http://www.ae911truth.org/ and i could show you just a many that say the opposite...you should learn your physics yourself, not what you read on some truther site. they are going to be biased, and if you learn outside of 911 material, you can see how this actually worked... Mighty Moe you should become a brain surgeon too. Don't tell me what I should learn. You have already demonstrated by referencing Popular Mechanics that you have no clue what is going on, so don't start telling me I should learn physics. I don't need to learn it. There are plenty of people who know much more than I do that totally have debunked the official story of 9-11 who have much more education than you or me. You choose who you believe and I will choose who I believe. But one thing is for sure, I can't believe the unbelievable, and that, my friend, is the official 9-11 commission report and all the other official government accounts. They have proven to me first hand that they are liars and a criminal network of massive size. So, no thanks. what would a brain surgeon have to do with 911 and the physics applied with it? Well let's see... if you were a brain surgeon, then maybe you could figure out why so many people have been brain washed into believing the official 9-11 report. (but.. my point is, not all physicists agree, and if I had wanted to go into that profession or be an "engineer" or a flunky lab tech, or a scientist.... I would have. I don't need anyone telling me what I "should learn." It is not necessary for me to be a physicist when there are plenty who have come to opposite conclusion about 9-11 as is reported by our esteemed world leaders.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conspiracy Theorists are geniuses. They form the most amazing segment of Earth's population. Profound researchers all, they dive into the very fabric of reality uncovering the grim truths concealed beneath all which is held true by today's modern population.
Sadly, the number of conspiracy theorists is believed to have declined in recent years. This is widely believed to have been the work of the CIA, or possibly the dark forces of Zionism. Seriously! Open your eyes! We have pictures, and some of them look only slightly blurred! Becoming a Conspiracy Theorist Not an easy task. First, not everyone is cut from the right thread to become a conspiracy theorist. A particular mix of rapid analytical ability must combine with a phenominal talent for creative deduction. (See Creativity ). Second, an aspiring conspiracy theorist must be a vehement individualist. You have to truly know inside that your ideas are inherently more valid than everyone else's. Science, public education, religion, and your teachers telling you that you're a ****ing psycho... all this must be tossed to the side in favor of the truth you know is within you. It's easiest to start small. Begin with something already established. The Kennedy assassination is a good choice, and an entry-point for the burgeoning conspiracy theorist. Kennedy was a great president. Why would he be shot? The answer is simple. A world leader of his talent might very well have caused world peace to flood o'er the lands. If there was peace, we'd have no-one left to kill. Ah yes, we can easily see that the Kennedy Assasination was a set up. Never mind that thousands of people took tens of thousands of pictures, and captured virtually every single angle of the motorcade procession, from every conceivable point. The CIA had already guessed that NOBODY would be looking at that grassy knoll, or the book suppository. Ignore all that "factual evidence" crap. You've seen the movie 13 Days. The Joint Chiefs hated that ****ing hippie in the oval office. They set it all up. Locating Existing Conspiracy Theorists Conspiracy Theorists are EVERYWHERE! And We are being WATCHED! I tell you it's the CIA! They are watching over us because they see the threat WE present! Or, the threat they present. Yeah, 'cause I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I believe everything that the government tells me, because America is run by good and honest people who only hide important military secrets, and even then, only when absolutely necessary... Yeah... Conspiracy theorists are notoriously hard to locate. They aren't on Uncyclopedia, that's for sure. If you do a websearch on conspiracy theorists, all you'll find are historic documentation unearthed by government researchers tracking down filthy terrorists... |
|
|
|
|
