Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 212
  1. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    644
    My favorite Conspiracy Theory that I think is completely stupid and holds no water is, Sept 11, 2001 being carried out by the US government.

    The most recent conspiracy theory that I think has some merit to it (not 100%, but some good points) is the Sandy Hook cinspiracy. My biggest problem/issue is which weapons were used. Inital report was 1 rifle, 2 handguns on him. Then the reports said 4 handungs on person and 1 rifle in car, with apparent video evidence of police removing the rifle from the trunk. But after that first day or two, all talk has been about the Bushmaster rifle "assault weapon" that Adam Lanza used to shoot all of the victims. So was it in the car, or on his person. Did he use the rifle to shoot everyone, or were the handguns used at all?
    2012 Rockhopper 29er.

  2. #152
    Rep Power: Infinity
    Reputation: NateHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    11,711
    Quote Originally Posted by joshh View Post
    My favorite Conspiracy Theory that I think is completely stupid and holds no water is, Sept 11, 2001 being carried out by the US government.

    The most recent conspiracy theory that I think has some merit to it (not 100%, but some good points) is the Sandy Hook cinspiracy. My biggest problem/issue is which weapons were used. Inital report was 1 rifle, 2 handguns on him. Then the reports said 4 handungs on person and 1 rifle in car, with apparent video evidence of police removing the rifle from the trunk. But after that first day or two, all talk has been about the Bushmaster rifle "assault weapon" that Adam Lanza used to shoot all of the victims. So was it in the car, or on his person. Did he use the rifle to shoot everyone, or were the handguns used at all?
    not a conspiracy. shoddy reporting.

  3. #153
    Ride More, Whine Less
    Reputation: heyyall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,775
    My conspiracy is that Tone's thread is trying to be replaced

    Conspiracy Theories ?

  4. #154
    workin' it Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    8,090
    You were right already existed. So bumping it and adding to it.

    As an architect, I often get asked my opinion/told about the Sept11th towers and how they couldn't have been brought down by a airplane but it had to be explosives. A lot times they throw in the fact that the Empire States building was hit by a plane and it was hardly damaged at all.

    As an architect, I usually say that I am an architect and not a structural engineer but having read the structural engineering report on why they fell I am content in their findings and believe that it is credible.

    Still their websites are hilarious, especially the videos produced. They have gotten better over the years but still are seriously corny.
    Try this: HTFU

  5. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    644
    Shoddy reporting is only the start of the problem. There is still no official answer as to which weapons were on the suspect when he took the easy way out.
    2012 Rockhopper 29er.

  6. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,048
    Quote Originally Posted by joshh View Post
    My favorite Conspiracy Theory that I think is completely stupid and holds no water is, Sept 11, 2001 being carried out by the US government.
    oh it's waaaaaaay beyond stupid, ignorant, moronic x 10........the fact some human nutjobs actually believe it is the worst.

  7. #157
    Bro
    Bro is offline
    Where I do my thinking
    Reputation: Bro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,182
    Quote Originally Posted by joshh View Post
    Shoddy reporting is only the start of the problem. There is still no official answer as to which weapons were on the suspect when he took the easy way out.
    Or maybe police and investigators aren't releasing certain details so as to not compromise their investigation.
    I've made some bad decisions like taking the gears off my bike. So here's the warning: Do not as I say, nor as I do.

  8. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    644
    What is left to investigate? All the details they could spill got released to the mainstream media as quickly as possible. They have the investigation locked up. 20 year old Adam Lanza acted on his own in killin ghis mom, and then killing 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary with a rifle that was found in the trunk of his mom's car.

    I think the main driving factor behind this being such a believable conspiracy is that you can't trust the media to tell the truth these days. They are so quick to push info out that they either get it wrong, or straight out lie (I made a thread about this topic in OC a few weeks ago).

    Just look at all the errors from the very beginning. At first it was Ryan Lanza and at least 1 other shooter. They said Ryan was 24 years old and then 20, before finding out Adam Lanza was the shooter. Then it was 24 year old Adam. Oh wait, he's 20, so it's 20 year old Adam Lanza, and his brother may be involved. Oh nevermind, his brother was far away at work, and no there are no other accomplices. This was all within the first 3-4 hours after the shooting.
    How would you like to be Ryan? His name is forever linked to Sandy Hook. Not because of his brother's actions, but because the media was so quick to throw his name out as the shooter first.
    Adam's mother was a kindergarten teacher at that school, and he shot up her class. The school nurse said she was a wonderful teacher. Oh wait, nevermind, she never taught at that school.
    The lies and errors are so numerous, it's hard not question the "facts" as given.
    2012 Rockhopper 29er.

  9. #159
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,352
    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher View Post
    As an architect, I often get asked my opinion/told about the Sept11th towers and how they couldn't have been brought down by a airplane but it had to be explosives. A lot times they throw in the fact that the Empire States building was hit by a plane and it was hardly damaged at all.

    As an architect, I usually say that I am an architect and not a structural engineer but having read the structural engineering report on why they fell I am content in their findings and believe that it is credible.
    over 1,500 architects and engineers do not share your contentment in the official story. linky

    in contrast to the "official report" larry silverstein (lease holder of the wtc) stated on camera in a PBS documentary that a few hours after the towers fell he gave the order for building 7 (which was NOT hit by an airplane and had only small isolated fires of unknown/unexplained origin) to be "pulled" - a term for a controlled demolition. although "pulling a building" (especially a 47 story high rise) generally takes weeks to plan, prepare for, set up, and finally execute they managed to pull it off with surgical precision in less than 6 hours.

    one of the main architects who designed the towers stated in an on-camera interview that the towers were designed and built to absorb the impact of a fully loaded/fueled jumbo jet at speed, and that there is absolutely no way those impacts could have brought the towers down.

    just sayin...
    "The meaning of life is to find your gift. The purpose of life is to give it away."

  10. #160
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PerfectZero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    one of the main architects who designed the towers stated in an on-camera interview that the towers were designed and built to absorb the impact of a fully loaded/fueled jumbo jet at speed, and that there is absolutely no way those impacts could have brought the towers down.
    Yeah, and they survived the impact. It was the subsequent fire that was the unanticipated problem for the particular design of the towers.
    Last edited by PerfectZero; 01-25-2013 at 02:45 PM.
    definite malingerer

  11. #161
    workin' it Administrator
    Reputation: rockcrusher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    8,090
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    over 1,500 architects and engineers do not share your contentment in the official story. linky

    in contrast to the "official report" larry silverstein (lease holder of the wtc) stated on camera in a PBS documentary that a few hours after the towers fell he gave the order for building 7 (which was NOT hit by an airplane and had only small isolated fires of unknown/unexplained origin) to be "pulled" - a term for a controlled demolition. although "pulling a building" (especially a 47 story high rise) generally takes weeks to plan, prepare for, set up, and finally execute they managed to pull it off with surgical precision in less than 6 hours.

    one of the main architects who designed the towers stated in an on-camera interview that the towers were designed and built to absorb the impact of a fully loaded/fueled jumbo jet at speed, and that there is absolutely no way those impacts could have brought the towers down.

    just sayin...

    What perfect zero said is more the truth. They weren't taken down by the airplanes perse, the velocity of the airplane coupled with the fuel load created a situation where the initial impact blew the fireproofing off the suspended floor supporting beams which at that era consisted of blow on lightweight fireproofing. The subsequent fire created a situation where the steel, unprotected at its point of maximum moment began to sag. With construction systems like this once, you get a single failure it increases the load of the remaining structural elements. If any others fail due to the heat you get again increasing loads on the the remaining until you get systematic failure due to either asymmetrical loading on the floor plates or total failure of the remaining beams.

    the thing that gets me is if you watched the video you see he building initially fail at the point of impact. If the building was brought down by other means it means the terrorists/conspirators had to arm the building in that region and the terrorist flying the planes needed to hit that particular set of floors at over 400mph flying planes through the manhattan skyline. That is a ludicrously insane set of ifs.

    If have seen the videos, the brick on the steel cage, etc but frankly I believe the fire engineers and structural engineers a lot more than I do a bunch of people on the internet. The great thing about conspiracies is that you can always find some crazy people that will follow them and it usual spreads across the entire breadth of society, just look at Scientology. So the fact that some engineers and architects (whom on a whole are usually a pretty structurally/engineeringly deficient bunch of people) support the notion that the buildings were brought down isn't a surprise. Just because people support the notion doesn't make it true. Until I see peer approved structural calcs that show that this couldn't have happened I will believe the ones that showed it did.

    To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it".
    Try this: HTFU

  12. #162
    No Stranger to danger....
    Reputation: Tone's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    5,525
    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher View Post
    What perfect zero said is more the truth. They weren't taken down by the airplanes perse, the velocity of the airplane coupled with the fuel load created a situation where the initial impact blew the fireproofing off the suspended floor supporting beams which at that era consisted of blow on lightweight fireproofing. The subsequent fire created a situation where the steel, unprotected at its point of maximum moment began to sag. With construction systems like this once, you get a single failure it increases the load of the remaining structural elements. If any others fail due to the heat you get again increasing loads on the the remaining until you get systematic failure due to either asymmetrical loading on the floor plates or total failure of the remaining beams.

    the thing that gets me is if you watched the video you see he building initially fail at the point of impact. If the building was brought down by other means it means the terrorists/conspirators had to arm the building in that region and the terrorist flying the planes needed to hit that particular set of floors at over 400mph flying planes through the manhattan skyline. That is a ludicrously insane set of ifs.

    If have seen the videos, the brick on the steel cage, etc but frankly I believe the fire engineers and structural engineers a lot more than I do a bunch of people on the internet. The great thing about conspiracies is that you can always find some crazy people that will follow them and it usual spreads across the entire breadth of society, just look at Scientology. So the fact that some engineers and architects (whom on a whole are usually a pretty structurally/engineeringly deficient bunch of people) support the notion that the buildings were brought down isn't a surprise. Just because people support the notion doesn't make it true. Until I see peer approved structural calcs that show that this couldn't have happened I will believe the ones that showed it did.

    To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it".
    I agree with Crusher here, theres no way there is a conspiracy here, the heat of the fire bought them down, people are desperate to make a conspiracy out of anything these days, im the biggest cynic in the world, but these towers were not bought down by anything else than the intense heat, it would have taken a lot longer than it did in planning and execution to bring them down, and in the 1/1000000 chance they were it would have leaked by now, but id bet my house in an instant on there being no conspiracy here..
    Dont ever let the truth get in the way of a funny story....

  13. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation: nvphatty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,048
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    over 1,500 architects and engineers do not share your contentment in the official story. linky

    in contrast to the "official report" larry silverstein (lease holder of the wtc) stated on camera in a PBS documentary that a few hours after the towers fell he gave the order for building 7 (which was NOT hit by an airplane and had only small isolated fires of unknown/unexplained origin) to be "pulled" - a term for a controlled demolition. although "pulling a building" (especially a 47 story high rise) generally takes weeks to plan, prepare for, set up, and finally execute they managed to pull it off with surgical precision in less than 6 hours.

    one of the main architects who designed the towers stated in an on-camera interview that the towers were designed and built to absorb the impact of a fully loaded/fueled jumbo jet at speed, and that there is absolutely no way those impacts could have brought the towers down.

    just sayin...
    hogwash is my friendliest reply for any of this. pure unadulterated speculation by the main architect.

  14. #164
    Sup
    Reputation: Burnt-Orange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2,203
    the term "pulled" is something totally different in my home
    as in
    Who pulled daddies finger ?
    it is a form of controlled demolition
    just not professional
    I am slow therefore I am

  15. #165
    Prime
    Reputation: Optimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,395
    Quote Originally Posted by SlowerJoe View Post
    the term "pulled" is something totally different in my home
    as in
    Who pulled daddies finger ?
    it is a form of controlled demolition
    just not professional
    not carried out with surgical precision??

  16. #166
    Tactical Nightmare
    Reputation: Giant Chachi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    691
    This one is entertaining, and kind of trippy too:



    Kubrick faking the moon landing, and letting us know through The Shining.

    - "The true object of all human life is play" - GK Chesterton
    - 2014 Giant Trance 27.5 1
    - http://teamdirt.org/

  17. #167
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,352
    Quote Originally Posted by joshh
    My favorite Conspiracy Theory that I think is completely stupid and holds no water is, Sept 11, 2001 being carried out by the US government.
    Quote Originally Posted by nvphatty
    oh it's waaaaaaay beyond stupid, ignorant, moronic x 10........the fact some human nutjobs actually believe it is the worst.
    yeah, cuz the gubment would never lie to us or allow citizens to be harmed just to get us into war.... right?

    false flag operations and the hegelian dialectic are two of the oldest tricks in the books and nothing new. nero used them against the christians. hitler against the jews.

    some of the greater false flag and hegelian dialectics in u.s. history:

    *gulf of tonkin - u.s. fired first on vietnamese vessels on august 2 rather than the other way around as reported. the august 4 "attack" against the u.s. never even happened. it was a complete lie. this two-fold "act of aggression" incident was used to usher us into the vietnam war.

    *pearl harbor - the u.s. had long since broken japanese codes and knew well in advance of the attack yet did not warn pearl harbor but instead let the attack occur knowing there would be incredible carnage and loss of life that would justify declaring war against japan. in fact, many ships were brought to berth in the harbor on orders by the very upper brass who knew an attack was imminent. explain that one away...

    "give 'em hell" harry merely wanted to stimulate the economy and have an excuse to drop the bomb to see what it would do.

    he got his wish.

    *first gulf war - after hussein asked permission to wage war against his enemies from the u.s. through their ambassador (to make sure he wasn't attacking an ally of ours) he was told the u.s. did not care about arab quarrels. then after hussein occupied kuwait bush sr. mobilized a coalition of nations to liberate kuwait and crush the newly formed iraqi military power base. on top of that, a media hoax was involved wherein the daughter of a u.s./kuwati ambassador played a nurse on t.v and falsely testified (i.e. perjury) to witnessing iraqi soldiers throwing babies out of incubators in kuwait. we all know how this little trap turned out for hussein...

    *operation northwoods - a plan formed by the u.s. government that was remarkably similar to the events occurring both on and subsequent to 9-11, wherein the gubment proposed sacrificing the lives of innocent u.s. citizens via bombings, false military attacks, sinking our own ships, hijackings, and phony evidence to justify military action against cuba by blaming these things on them. the stated purpose: "The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere." hmmmm... sound familiar?

    amazingly it was APPROVED by the joint chiefs of staff but nixed by jfk.

    a page from operation northwoods, pay special attention to 3(b) which states, "casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation":



    there are others, but those are some of the biggies.

    so yeah, since they've done it repeatedly in the past (and post 9-11) sacrificing countless lives and disregarding it as nothing more than collateral damage it's not inconceivable that the gubment would do something diabolical like that in order to further an agenda.

    let me be clear that i'm not saying who did or didn't do it, i'm simply saying that it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility that our gubment had a hand in it.

    curious about the culprit? simply look who had the most to benefit from it and you'll generally find the smoking gun.

    could it perhaps be that the "stupid, ignorant, moronic x10" people are those who are too blind and/or stupid to learn from the past and refuse to see and acknowledge what is right before their eyes? the ones who are good little sheeple bleating all the way to slaughter? (not implying either directly or indirectly either of you fall into this category, simply asking legitimate questions)

    "it is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." ~ benjamin franklin

    "crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. may your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." ~samuel adams
    Last edited by monogod; 01-29-2013 at 03:11 AM.
    "The meaning of life is to find your gift. The purpose of life is to give it away."

  18. #168
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,352
    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher
    To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it".
    couldn't agree more with this. the rest... not so much. why? simple. SCIENCE!

    let's compare the common theories with basic science.

    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher
    What perfect zero said is more the truth. They weren't taken down by the airplanes perse, the velocity of the airplane coupled with the fuel load created a situation where the initial impact blew the fireproofing off the suspended floor supporting beams which at that era consisted of blow on lightweight fireproofing. The subsequent fire created a situation where the steel, unprotected at its point of maximum moment began to sag.
    except that 1.) neither the initial fireball nor the subsequent fires burned anywhere near hot enough to make the steel sag/fail; and 2.) didn't burn long enough to make the steel sag/fail.

    jet fuel simply doesn't burn hot enough in an uncontrolled fire to cause weakness in the steel the towers were built with.

    the steel used to build the WTC was UL tested at 3600F and it retained its specification. so it's simply impossible that jet fuel, which burns at less than 600F in an uncontrolled/open burn (which the WTC was) for less than 50 minutes could have weakened/deformed the steel resulting in catastrophic failure/collapse.

    now THAT'S science.

    "jet A" is the same fuel that conventional steel wall heaters burn, yet the steel wall heaters don't melt. all liquid hydrocarbon fuels burn at significantly lower temperatures in an uncontrolled (a.k.a. "open burn" or "dirty burn") than they do in a controlled (a.k.a. "clean burn") burn. jet engines and steel wall heaters utilize a controlled or "clean burn" thereby creating much higher temperatures than an "open" or "dirty" burn such as was the case in the WTC fires. despite this, the jet engines and steel wall heaters don't melt.

    why? are they made of some kind of magical metal? no. "jet A" is simply incapable of burning hot enough to melt or cause deformity to said metals the engines/heaters are constructed of.

    jet fuel will reach a maximum temp of about 1800F in a "controlled" or "clean" burn where it can be regulated with oxygen for an optimal mix (like jet engines and wall heaters). however, this is STILL nowhere near the temperature required to weaken the girders (UL tested to 3600 with no loss of specification) to the point of failure in less than an hour.

    conversely, in a open/dirty/uncontrolled burn such as the WTC office fires after impact hydrocarbons such as kerosene will burn at around 600F, far below the temperature point at which deformation or weakening of the structural steel used in the tower would occur after such a brief burning time.

    one of the few accuracies of the FEMA 911 report was that the jet fuel burned off rapidly in only a few minutes after impact. it went on to say that the fires from the office furniture and carpets were about 560F, and these burned less than an hour.

    so perhaps you can explain to us how a 600F fire can cause steel that retained its specification at SIX TIMES that temperature to fail in less than an hour?

    perhaps you can explain the pools of molten metal in the basement long after the collapse?

    with all due respect i would submit that the claim that a 600F fire burning for less than an hour could cause weakness/deformation to failure in steel rated at 3600 with no spec loss in a building built to hold 5 times its load is simply preposterous and has no basic or fact whatsoever in science.

    other steel framed buildings have burned far hotter and far longer than the towers did without failure. the windsor tower in madrid burned hot and long until only the steel skeleton was left. other steel buildings have burned for days without failure. in fact, to my knowledge WTC 1&2 are the only steel buildings of their type to every to have failed due to fire.

    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher
    With construction systems like this once, you get a single failure it increases the load of the remaining structural elements. If any others fail due to the heat you get again increasing loads on the the remaining until you get systematic failure due to either asymmetrical loading on the floor plates or total failure of the remaining beams.
    the problem with this theory is many fold.

    first of all we have the steel issue discussed above.

    next is the fact that the towers were built to support 5 times their load, a redundant safety feature.

    so this theory might be true IF the fire burned hot enough to weaken/deform the steel -- which it didn't.

    it might be true IF the building support structures weren't redundantly designed taking into account both localized and generalized failure SPECIFICALLY from the impact of a fully loaded and fueled jumbo jet liner at full speed.

    it might be true IF the towers weren't designed to hold FIVE TIMES their structural load, meaning it was well equipped to support any load transferred due to failure in other areas.

    it might be true IF an airplane hitting the building at the 80th floor somehow weakened all the structure beneath it, which it did not do.

    it might be true IF catastrophic girder failure would cause not one but BOTH buildings to fall into themselves at freefall speed directly into the path of most resistance.

    wow... that's a lot of "ludicrously insane ifs".

    however, the towers WERE designed with redundant support to transfer load in the event of localized or even catastrophic failure.

    and the towers WERE designed and built to support five times its load.

    and the steel used was UL rated to 3600 with no loss of spec so a 50 minute fire at 600F wouldn't have begun to have weakened/deformed it.

    nothing personal bro, but simple science debunks your theory.

    additionally, the plane that hit tower 2 did so on the edge of the building. if anything, failure at this impact point would have caused the top of the tower to topple off and fall to the side, similar to cutting a tree. that's simple physics.

    the strength of the tower was in its core along with the exoskeleton. because the fires were clearly not hot enough to cause weakening, sagging, deformity, or failure the only way to bring it down was to completely obliterate the core as well.

    but even if the entire exoskeleton was destroyed, as opposed to relatively small holes in it, it would only cause the destruction of the floors ABOVE this point and would have no bearing or affect on the floors/structure beneath it. it certainly wouldn't be enough damage to cause the entire tower to collapse in upon itself at freefall speed directly into the path of most resistance.

    that's simply impossible and nonsensical to even suggest.

    and even IF the floors began to pancake and fall they would slow as they were falling into the path of most resistance. take out the exoskeleton/core on floor 80 and the top would topple off at an angle and perhaps pancake to a certain extent but it certainly wouldn't cause the tower to simply disintegrate into dust and small pieces and fall in upon itself at freefall speed. when falling into the path of most resistance, as the towers did, there wold be dramatic slowing. again, that's simple physics.

    it's not as though the buildings got substantially heavier when the planes hit. it's not as though all structure below the impact floor suddenly became incapable of supporting its own weight.

    again, simple physics dictate that the tops should have fallen off to the side.

    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher
    the thing that gets me is if you watched the video you see he building initially fail at the point of impact.
    at which point you can see the entire building beneath it mysteriously disintegrating and falling in upon itself into the path of most resistance at freefall speed.

    there's a word for that.... "impossible".

    you can also see "squibs" in the lower floors precipitating the global disintegration of the building. something routine in controlled demolitions.

    additionally eyewitness accounts of both civilians and NYFD combined with video footage that can be viewed over and over record multiple explosions as the buildings were coming down. one of the fire fighters described it as "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom - just like a controlled demolition".

    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher
    If the building was brought down by other means it means the terrorists/conspirators had to arm the building in that region and the terrorist flying the planes needed to hit that particular set of floors at over 400mph flying planes through the manhattan skyline. That is a ludicrously insane set of ifs.
    no, it means the entire building could have been set up with the implication that it DIDN'T MATTER where the planes hit.

    the planes could hit anywhere as long as they hit as were simply an excuse to hit the button of a building already set to blow, not the cause.

    look at WTC 2... the plane barely grazed the edge of the building yet it caused the entire building to fall in upon its own footprint along the path of most resistance at freefall speed? you're an architect and you don't find that questionable? really?

    no one, and i mean no one, can explain why both towers fell at freefall speed into their own footprint along the path of most resistance. there is only one rational explanation, like it or not. basic physics and science exclude and debunk any other explanation.

    and it's not so hard to believe that they were already set to blow since WTC 7 also fell into itself via controlled demolition despite having small, sparse fires and not bearing the brunt of a plane hit or anything else that would have cause it to, like both towers, fall into its own footprint at freefall speed into the path of most resistance.

    even less hard to believe when larry silverstein himself stated point blank that he gave the order to pull the tower. pulling a building requires weeks of planning and preparation and cannot be pulled off in less than 8 hours like WTC 7 was.



    so we're to believe that something that generally takes weeks of planning and preparation was pulled off in only a couple of hours? really?

    tragically there are people gullible enough to believe it.

    in the light of the obvious along with larry's blatant statement you seriously think this is not a controlled demolition?



    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher
    If have seen the videos, the brick on the steel cage, etc but frankly I believe the fire engineers and structural engineers a lot more than I do a bunch of people on the internet.
    even if it means the buildings did things that defy all known laws of physics/science?

    wow... that's kinda scary bro.

    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher
    So the fact that some engineers and architects (whom on a whole are usually a pretty structurally/engineeringly deficient bunch of people) support the notion that the buildings were brought down isn't a surprise.
    wait... engineers and architects ona whole are "pretty structurally deficient"??? that places you, as an architect, in a poor position to be arguing this.

    just sayin...

    and you're also suggesting that the guy who designed and built the towers is structurally/engineeringly deficient? you're saying that when the guy who built the building disagrees and disputes the "official theory" that he's just another wild-eyed, tin foil hat wearing moran on the interwebs with more time on his hands than sense in his head who's fallen for a specious conspiracy theory?

    really???

    Quote Originally Posted by rockcrusher
    Just because people support the notion doesn't make it true.
    that goes likewise for your notions as well. perhaps more so since they defy basic laws of physics and science.

    so in reality it doesn't take a tin foil hat to refuse to swallow the pablum of the "official report". just takes simple high school science. and like we both agree... the nice thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not.
    Last edited by monogod; 01-29-2013 at 10:49 AM.
    "The meaning of life is to find your gift. The purpose of life is to give it away."

  19. #169
    Trouser Malfunction
    Reputation: Haint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,411

    Architecture vs. Engineering.

    Find another structure which uses the Japanese 'exo-skeleton' put to use for the Trade Center, and how using such the structual exterior would compliment the framing of each Tower.

    Each concrete floor had to have been pre-stressed, the fire would have eroded the terminal-ends which are both rubber and steel.


    WTC 7, rationally had some type of FEMA Order implemented after an attempt to destroy the Trade Center in 1993. There being charges inside the building in order to control damage like what happened is a form of Loss Prevention, it may have become routine Inspection and Insurance.

    Those other observations are interesting, they don't truly influence History though. WWII was fought on many fronts and Theatres, Japan flew above and beyond Radar when approaching Naval Station Pearl Harbor. A very small technicality which upsets a balance within the equation.
    I like Sand -- I don't like Witches.

  20. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    644
    operation northwoods - a plan formed by the u.s. government that was remarkably similar to the events occurring both on and subsequent to 9-11, wherein the gubment proposed sacrificing the lives of innocent u.s. citizens via bombings, false military attacks, sinking our own ships, hijackings, and phony evidence to justify military action against cuba by blaming these things on them. the stated purpose: "The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere." hmmmm... sound familiar?
    It does sound familiar. Sounds like Sandy Hook and the attempt to ban firearms.
    2012 Rockhopper 29er.

  21. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,415
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod View Post

    just sayin...
    Wow, I might just agree with you on this one on some levels.

    While I believe in coincidence, don't think cheney's personal for profit military complex being perfectly poised for action was one. Maybe it was coincidence that the only buildings of that type to ever collapse both happened within minutes of each other, but building 7? Just can't wrap my mind around that one.
    As an American I can't believe that our government was behind it, but looked the other way?

    Too many things don't add up. Too many things that had never in history happened, happened more than once on the same day. We know with certainty how hot and fast jet fuel burns. It doesn't, and hasn't any other time, collapsed not one but 3 buildings, and vaporized 2 commercial sized passenger jets.

    Sorry, not drinking that cool aid.
    Check out Loose Change, and then Zeitgeist,and Zeitgeist the addendum. While something's in all these free Internet movies are hard to believe, not impossible and surely raises some questions.
    Round and round we go

  22. #172
    thread crapper
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    778
    The 9/11 stuff is garbage. I don't trust any gov't official any further than I can throw them, but I've worked for the gov't in many capacities over the years and those half wits couldn't poor piss out of a boot without instructions on the heel. There is no way in hell they could possibly have pulled off something of that kind of magnitude. I have many pilot buddies and all of them have told me the same thing. Those dummies were lucky to even hit the buildings. My uncle that retired from United in the late 90s has said more than once that he probably could not have hit any specific place on the building and he'd have to have very good conditions just to hit the building period. "There's a reason we put those damn things into autopilot shortly after takeoff" he'd say.

  23. #173
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    112
    The Chasm by the Edward Griffin is a quite interesting read as well.

    back OT.

    The Lusitania was set up to be sunk to get the US into WW1.

  24. #174
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    153
    Sandy Hook

    UVioO

  25. #175
    Trouser Malfunction
    Reputation: Haint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,411
    Who here remembers 'the Naked Gun' w/ OJ Simpson's (supposed) Home Phone, and did anyone ever call the number? Me, I did 4 Years after the Film in 1994.
    For those not old enough -- the Theater Movie end-credits had "OJ Simpson's Home Telephone - ### ### ####" inserted somewhere. 'Naked Gun 2 1/2' Film and DVD has George Foreman's Record in the Boxxing Ring; George Foreman however did not have a longtime and traveled friend in Robert Kardashian. An Attorney then, they sued the film's production company, even fighting for the second-film role in his contract.
    We learned OJ had a Drug Habit (Cocaine) from that Brentwood Double-Murder Trail. It'd explain possible motivation for what became a boneheaded contribution to the Film as he did and then flipping out on the Production Team. The question is - why? and what for??

    Hollywood Conspiracy, upper-tier. Definitely twisted.
    I like Sand -- I don't like Witches.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •