-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Main reasons you wouldn't get an EV?
911 Pentagon Video Released
- Thread starter kilo39
- Start date
Promotheus, check my post on the previous page where I refer to one of Ignacio's links and highlighting one of their conclusions about the collapse.
...Oh what the fack, I might as well make it easy for you. I'll even highlight the important parts so you don't have to read much, it's a pity Zoolander couldn't help you out man.
The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html
Anyway, why don't you consider Ignacio's major point here. If you've got such incredible Debunkz0r evidence why don't you go sell your amazing story to the Times? Maybe even the Daily Arab might be interested.
I can see it now. Prometheus on the cover of the Times. MAN OF THE CENTURY THE 1337 DEBUNKZ0R!
...Oh what the fack, I might as well make it easy for you. I'll even highlight the important parts so you don't have to read much, it's a pity Zoolander couldn't help you out man.
The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html
Anyway, why don't you consider Ignacio's major point here. If you've got such incredible Debunkz0r evidence why don't you go sell your amazing story to the Times? Maybe even the Daily Arab might be interested.
I can see it now. Prometheus on the cover of the Times. MAN OF THE CENTURY THE 1337 DEBUNKZ0R!
Last edited:
Prometheus
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Messages
- 4,252
- Reaction score
- 3
Exactly, which scientist of your even tried to explain it? Zero. They all go circles around it. "The floors collapsed onto the lower floors causing a domino effect" this assumes no toppling or swiveling which was observed and caught on tape. They don't take this into account because it's unsupportive of their explanation. So again which of YOUR kooks explained it taking into account the toppling and swiveling. A big fat zero.ignacio said:
And numerous other witnesses describing which could not possibly be a plane. A plane can be recognised. We see them every day, but we don't see missiles every day.
Fairly simple enough they saw a missile so that is what it was then.
For the sake of convenience I had to target poor old Promo.
Anyway, thanks for keeping this thread alive, this is what internet forums are for! Throwing insults around at each other, calling each other fagots. Nurturing our anger in the hopes of one day joining the dark side and wielding double-bladed sabers like the legendary Star Wars Kid.
Anyway, thanks for keeping this thread alive, this is what internet forums are for! Throwing insults around at each other, calling each other fagots. Nurturing our anger in the hopes of one day joining the dark side and wielding double-bladed sabers like the legendary Star Wars Kid.
Fair enough - will have to research to see if any do. But it must be noted that a current lack of a scientific explanation does not necessarily mean that a bomb must be the explanation. Agreed?Prometheus said:
Could you show me the eyewitness-of-other-than-plane link? I missed it... let's have an eyewitness vs. eyewitness face-off... because clearly if a plane was seen, then all discussion of the mechanics of the Pentagon collision, hole size etc are moot. Agreed?
Last edited:
"Let the idiots rule the thread with their regurgitations that don't explain the eye-witness accounts I don't give a **** any more."
Ignacio, now is our chance! Join me and together we can rule this thread as forum-poster and son(tm).
Ignacio, now is our chance! Join me and together we can rule this thread as forum-poster and son(tm).
love56k
Expert Member
lmfao @ mook
you make this thread worth reading..
you make this thread worth reading..
You have a really good attitude about all of this... I suspect that the kooks take this all very seriously, they honestly believe that propagating conspiracy theories in this forum gives their lives meaning... there are legions of kooks in every forum worldwide, keeping the conspiracy dream alive. Now if only more of the kooks were scientists or people who were otherwise not irrelevant, some of these conspiracies might actually no longer be conspiracies.... but what kind of life would that leave these die-hard conspiracy kooks? They live and die by their unproven fantasies.mooK said:
Don't be deceived by their "if I can't win, I am not going to play" attitude... we must be on our guard, they will at this moment be preparing a counter-attack, vigorously searching for kook sites, and consulting the voices in their heads. Yes, some day we will rule this thread - and I will be glad to be the Supreme Idiot - but I think we have not heard the last of the kook klux klan.mooK said:
Admittedly, it's hard not to take a discussion like this seriously once it gets so involved. You kinda get sucked into it, I suppose it's like anything, really.
But fundamentally, I can no longer take this discussion seriously anymore. The fact of the matter is, scientists want to know the truth, in 99% of the cases it's why they chose to pursue that field in the first place.
So to think that a community of laymen conspiracy theorists with a minority of wayward 'professionals' supporting them can uncover something like this while millions of scientists around the world who have probably looked at this incident with interest, were fooled, is simply beyond my imagination's capabilities.
The world is a big place, and in this information age, it's not easily fooled. Especially when the cards are on the table and everyone's eyes are on them.
This is all a product of watching too much TV, reading too much fiction and basically losing touch with reality. It's only human to want to believe the fantastical, it adds some kind of wonder to our lives. Lets face it, our lives are meaningless in the greater scheme of things, and this is a product of that kinda feeling of being removed from the happenings of THE WORLD. Which is how most conspiracy theories are born, think of the Illuminati, etc.
I mean, I must admit it is an intriguing idea, having the US behind the 9/11 attacks and if I could actually bring myself to believe such an obviously flawed leap of faith, I'd love to see the **** hit the fan just as much as Kilo39 and Prometheus would.
But I can't. Maybe next time.
But fundamentally, I can no longer take this discussion seriously anymore. The fact of the matter is, scientists want to know the truth, in 99% of the cases it's why they chose to pursue that field in the first place.
So to think that a community of laymen conspiracy theorists with a minority of wayward 'professionals' supporting them can uncover something like this while millions of scientists around the world who have probably looked at this incident with interest, were fooled, is simply beyond my imagination's capabilities.
The world is a big place, and in this information age, it's not easily fooled. Especially when the cards are on the table and everyone's eyes are on them.
This is all a product of watching too much TV, reading too much fiction and basically losing touch with reality. It's only human to want to believe the fantastical, it adds some kind of wonder to our lives. Lets face it, our lives are meaningless in the greater scheme of things, and this is a product of that kinda feeling of being removed from the happenings of THE WORLD. Which is how most conspiracy theories are born, think of the Illuminati, etc.
I mean, I must admit it is an intriguing idea, having the US behind the 9/11 attacks and if I could actually bring myself to believe such an obviously flawed leap of faith, I'd love to see the **** hit the fan just as much as Kilo39 and Prometheus would.
But I can't. Maybe next time.
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
And yet you have to back your arguments up with ad-hominems. Seems you can't argue without trying to discredit the source of the argument, instead of attacking the argument directly. Have you got something to lose by being wrong, aside from the fact that you would be wrong?ignacio said:
Your attitude is dispicable, crud like "we must be on our guard, they will at this moment be preparing a counter-attack" just shows that you're more interested in fighting "conspiracy theorists" rather than finding the truth. Your arguments are mud, until you can prove your case without trying to attack the poster's character instead of his argument.
No. The (US) government's facts are not infallible sources of truth - they have motive to lie about these facts, and so their version must be met with scrutiny. Just like Hitler's claim about communists instigating the reichstag fire should have been examined (it's now generally believes that the Nazis set the fire up). What makes ignacio's posts so vile is that he seeks to prevent this from happening, labelling anyone who opposes the official line as "kooks".mooK said:
But the cards are not all on the table like you claim. You seem to assume that mass media is always telling the 100% truth.
Btw, the american govt. admitted to planting disinformation stories with CNN in the first gulf war. Since they knew Iraq was also watching the broadcasts, they planted false stories regarding their tactics, in the hopes that the Iraqis would fall for it (which they did).
We know the US govt. are a bunch of liars. They've lied about the War in Iraq, they're corrupt bastards who are abusing their power for their own gain at the expense of everyone else. Why wouldn't they lie about something like the WTC attacks if it supported their agenda (and boy oh boy, did it ever support their agenda. Niether the invasion of afghanistan nor the illegal war with Iraq would ever have been politically possible without that little event.)
fergus
Expert Member
911 was an inside job whether your reasoning can accept it or not. Just look at the facts, the evidence is all there. At the very least top US government officials knew the attacks were coming and allowed them to happen, which is treason. However, its far more likely that they were the ones behind the attacks so they could justify all the goals they'd already documented in "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (Project for a New American Century's manifesto). You think its a coincendince that every condition necessary for achieving those goals was suddenly made possible thanks to 9/11? Cui bono? Who benefitted from 9/11? Afghanistan? Iraq? Bin Laden? No. The US all the way baby! Look at all their new bases in Southern Asia thanks to 9/11. Not to mention their oil pipelines. Catch a wakeup man.
Since when has a country had to go to such lengths to go to war? Manufacturing the biggest terrorist attack in history to the potential crash of your entire economy, stock market, airlines, etc. seems a bit much to me, come on, they coulda just sent a few more planes to the pentagon, seems like overkill to me.
Anyway, the US has never need to attack itself or even been attacked at all in order to war, this was the very first terrorist attack on US soil in her history. The US has never had to have such a good excuse before, so why go to such lengths?
Anyway, it's an impossible thing to orchestrate, it could've backfired in so many ways that it only would've been possible with a some kinda future seer magiciain ala Merlin to help Bush plan things out.
But maybe you do have a point. Maybe Robert Mugabe's a genius and this is all part of his plan. When Zuma becomes president of SA, he'll invade Zimbabwe and with the help of his buddy Mugabe he'll merge Zimbabwe and SA together and garner international acclaim for turning the whole situation around. Then they'll go fack each other in the shower.
Wow, I can make up this **** too.
Anyway, the US has never need to attack itself or even been attacked at all in order to war, this was the very first terrorist attack on US soil in her history. The US has never had to have such a good excuse before, so why go to such lengths?
Anyway, it's an impossible thing to orchestrate, it could've backfired in so many ways that it only would've been possible with a some kinda future seer magiciain ala Merlin to help Bush plan things out.
But maybe you do have a point. Maybe Robert Mugabe's a genius and this is all part of his plan. When Zuma becomes president of SA, he'll invade Zimbabwe and with the help of his buddy Mugabe he'll merge Zimbabwe and SA together and garner international acclaim for turning the whole situation around. Then they'll go fack each other in the shower.
Wow, I can make up this **** too.
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
Since when has any country had such an open license to wage wars of agression with the tolerance of the international community? It's never happened before, to my knoweledge, at least not this openly. It's always been assisted coups and the like.
On the other hand, this terrorist threat has been monumental in getting the US public to accept any wars the govt wants to wage, AND it has convinced the populace to indefinately suspend many of their civil liberties.
I won't deny that it's possible that they had some kind of hand in it, but I wouldn't go so far as to believe it outright.
So I suppose you could say I'm skeptical, but I do admit it's possible. I've seen V for Vendetta!
Anyway, my major gripe is that the whole thing turned out so beautifully that I think it was impossible to plan, I just don't have enough regard for them to pull off something like it.
But if they did, RESPEK YO! Those cats are smart!
But they didn't fly the 747's with remote controls or have explosives under the Towers.
So I suppose you could say I'm skeptical, but I do admit it's possible. I've seen V for Vendetta!
Anyway, my major gripe is that the whole thing turned out so beautifully that I think it was impossible to plan, I just don't have enough regard for them to pull off something like it.
But if they did, RESPEK YO! Those cats are smart!
But they didn't fly the 747's with remote controls or have explosives under the Towers.
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
Personally, I don't expect you to. I don't believe everything I read, either. But I can't stand it when people start calling the other side "kooks" and then claim that they can't be believed simply because they're kooks.
Well, I think that's pretty much another topic in and of itself. But personally, I think that mass media did a helluva lot of speculation before anything actually came out. It's possible, though perhaps improbable, that the US govt just let the media create their story for them. For the record, bin Laden's name was first mentioned something like 12 minutes after the second tower was hit. There's no way a surprise attack could yield a solid suspicion in 12 minutes, and that's not even subtracting the time between when the govt named him as a suspect, and the time it took to reach the TV. I'm suspicious of the fact that no one ever mentioned another name.
Yah - so the irony of you launching into an ad hominem against me is lost on you... as was the joke about being on guard. So there you have it: kooks are delusional and humourless... how sad. Yes, descrediting the source is a valid approach if we are talking authors of scientific papers - because - and I am sure you and the fellow kooks are well-versed in this - any old kook can make **** up and post it on the internet(s) today.Xarog said:
Oooh - so very vile indeed! When you unbunch your panties, show me the place we I tried to "prevent" you kooks from doing what you do best - spreading misinformation, pseudo-science, and untested hypotheses? Rather, I am doing the kooks a favour: unlike the other forumites who just laugh them off as hopeless, I am giving them an opportunity to present their arguments in a convincing manner - if they get all upset by my skepticism and refuse to play any more, that is entirely their loss. The US government is only one scource of information in this case - the rest are scientists or researchers or eyewitnesses... but in your delusional little mind, they are all liars and part of the conspiracy, because you have pre-judged it to be a true conspiracy, so anything contrary must be false: they are all little Hitlers lying about the reichstag.
Yawn - proving what? Does it even remotely follow that disinformation to confuse an enemy means you would therefore nuke buildings in NYC?
Again, more evidence of your "US govt sucks and are yucky, and I will make sure to make up or understand the facts to prove this". Appears that your whole drive is one big ad hominem against the US.
Last edited: