|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 26 2018 09:54 Adreme wrote:
Okay was day at work a little too long or did this thread devolve into that deranged 9/11 conspiracy nonsense where people try to argue that 2 massive planes hitting the buildings did not bring them down all evidence to the contrary and then it descends into inside jobs and coverups and all this other equally crazy stuff.
Am I just misreading these pages or is this seriously being talked about?
it's not quite that bad; it's only adjacent to that and a tier less on the crazy scale.
|
On January 26 2018 09:54 Adreme wrote:
Okay was day at work a little too long or did this thread devolve into that deranged 9/11 conspiracy nonsense where people try to argue that 2 massive planes hitting the buildings did not bring them down all evidence to the contrary and then it descends into inside jobs and coverups and all this other equally crazy stuff.
Am I just misreading these pages or is this seriously being talked about?
The argument has shifted to the third building that was on fire for 7 hours and then fell over. Apparently some people think that it shouldn't have because 7 hour fires shouldn't have been enough to knock it over, or something.
But yes, this is standard conspiracy theory bullshit. You don't say "it was an inside job". You just imply something weird was going on. You don't argue about the existence of the holocaust, just the number of Jews that were killed being way lower.
|
On January 26 2018 09:55 Aquanim wrote:
I only have the word of you and your selection of crackpots for what "basic protocol" actually is. I can well imagine that in an instance where there is plenty of documentary evidence as to the chain of events they would skip testing for things that obviously didn't happen.
Testing for cyanide poisoning and gunpowder residue is basic protocol for a body with an axe embedded in its skull.
Agencies are like Hollywood and investigators have lots of free time.
|
On January 26 2018 09:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 09:54 Adreme wrote:
Okay was day at work a little too long or did this thread devolve into that deranged 9/11 conspiracy nonsense where people try to argue that 2 massive planes hitting the buildings did not bring them down all evidence to the contrary and then it descends into inside jobs and coverups and all this other equally crazy stuff.
Am I just misreading these pages or is this seriously being talked about? The argument has shifted to the third building that was on fire for 7 hours and then fell over. Apparently some people think that it shouldn't have because 7 hour fires shouldn't have been enough to knock it over, or something.
It literally never happened before or since despite far worse fires but don't let that interrupt your feelings of superiority.
Look, I get that you guys don't know what you don't know (like protocol [pretty sure they were cited]), or that saying "there were no accelerants used" without testing for accelerants should be a basic red flag, but I don't feel like were going to get anywhere. Aqua, you can pm if you want since your inquiries were mostly fair although based in self-admitted ignorance.
|
On January 26 2018 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 09:59 Plansix wrote:On January 26 2018 09:54 Adreme wrote:
Okay was day at work a little too long or did this thread devolve into that deranged 9/11 conspiracy nonsense where people try to argue that 2 massive planes hitting the buildings did not bring them down all evidence to the contrary and then it descends into inside jobs and coverups and all this other equally crazy stuff.
Am I just misreading these pages or is this seriously being talked about? The argument has shifted to the third building that was on fire for 7 hours and then fell over. Apparently some people think that it shouldn't have because 7 hour fires shouldn't have been enough to knock it over, or something. It literally never happened before or since despite far worse fires but don't let that interrupt your feelings of superiority.
Name the worse fires.
|
Did those other fires have two skyscrapers fall down next to them why they burned? That might factor in.
|
On January 26 2018 10:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2018 09:59 Plansix wrote:On January 26 2018 09:54 Adreme wrote:
Okay was day at work a little too long or did this thread devolve into that deranged 9/11 conspiracy nonsense where people try to argue that 2 massive planes hitting the buildings did not bring them down all evidence to the contrary and then it descends into inside jobs and coverups and all this other equally crazy stuff.
Am I just misreading these pages or is this seriously being talked about? The argument has shifted to the third building that was on fire for 7 hours and then fell over. Apparently some people think that it shouldn't have because 7 hour fires shouldn't have been enough to knock it over, or something. It literally never happened before or since despite far worse fires but don't let that interrupt your feelings of superiority. Name the worse fires.
Every fire ever worse, or is your presumption that WTC 7 was the worst building fire in recorded history and you want me to disprove that?
On January 26 2018 10:13 Sermokala wrote:
As someone whos profession is metalworking and having taken classes on metallurgy I can attest that Jet fuel can not melt steel beams.
It can however reduce steel beams to the tensile strength of wet noodles and thats why the towers and building 7 went down. extended fire burned away the fire proofing and reduced the structural integrity of the buildings to the point where the levels above them collapsed the first floor to fail causing a chain reaction that collapsed the buildings. The explosions you see are the air evacuating the building as it compresses.
You may want to look this over and you may understand the dispute better.
|
As someone whos profession is metalworking and having taken classes on metallurgy I can attest that Jet fuel can not melt steel beams.
It can however reduce steel beams to the tensile strength of wet noodles and thats why the towers and building 7 went down. extended fire burned away the fire proofing and reduced the structural integrity of the buildings to the point where the levels above them collapsed the first floor to fail causing a chain reaction that collapsed the buildings. The explosions you see are the air evacuating the building as it compresses.
|
|
|
On January 26 2018 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 09:59 Plansix wrote:On January 26 2018 09:54 Adreme wrote:
Okay was day at work a little too long or did this thread devolve into that deranged 9/11 conspiracy nonsense where people try to argue that 2 massive planes hitting the buildings did not bring them down all evidence to the contrary and then it descends into inside jobs and coverups and all this other equally crazy stuff.
Am I just misreading these pages or is this seriously being talked about? The argument has shifted to the third building that was on fire for 7 hours and then fell over. Apparently some people think that it shouldn't have because 7 hour fires shouldn't have been enough to knock it over, or something. It literally never happened before or since despite far worse fires but don't let that interrupt your feelings of superiority. Look, I get that you guys don't know what you don't know (like protocol [pretty sure they were cited]), or that saying "there were no accelerants used" without testing for accelerants should be a basic red flag, but I don't feel like were going to get anywhere. Aqua, you can pm if you want since your inquiries were mostly fair although based in self-admitted ignorance.
Oh I love the conspiracy theorists sources. You claim access to the super secret information that is somehow being buried which again is just stupid. Do you really think any real journalist would not jump at chance to become a legend in the field. They would be the modern day Woodward and Bernstein.
However, you believe that there is some massive cover-up that has kept this "secret" from being reported. That so many could be involved and no one would say a word in this modern day where everything leaks. That no serious reporter would find any evidence whatsoever. That none of the hundreds of people who would have had to be involved in the event itself plus several hundred more in the coverup not to mention basically the entire media itself would somehow be able to keep this massive secret for so long.
This belief is delusional. I cannot be kind about this. Everything you have said about this is laughable and taints everything else you say about any other topic. None of your other posts hold any credibility because you have exposed yourself as the kind of person who can believe in this sort of nonsense.
Conspiracy theories are nice. I get the appeal. They try to make sense of things that are hard to explain and make there own boogeyman and they give you this feeling of comfort that you understand the "truth" and others do not. Just because they have that appeal though does not make them based in reality. 9/11 was not an inside job. Obama was born in Hawaii. Sandy Hook was not staged. That Mexican gun operation from the Obama era was not a secret plot to inspire gun violence just to enact gun control laws. There was no grand conspiracy for the government to take control of the Afghan Opioid fields. Oh and also the moon landing did happen. All of these theories that say otherwise are nonsense. There is no kind way to put it. They are nonsensical solutions to much more complicated issues that work by presenting half-truths and false dichotomies in order to fool people into thinking they are true and believable and that the evidence is merely being surpressed
|
On January 26 2018 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 10:09 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 26 2018 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2018 09:59 Plansix wrote:On January 26 2018 09:54 Adreme wrote:
Okay was day at work a little too long or did this thread devolve into that deranged 9/11 conspiracy nonsense where people try to argue that 2 massive planes hitting the buildings did not bring them down all evidence to the contrary and then it descends into inside jobs and coverups and all this other equally crazy stuff.
Am I just misreading these pages or is this seriously being talked about? The argument has shifted to the third building that was on fire for 7 hours and then fell over. Apparently some people think that it shouldn't have because 7 hour fires shouldn't have been enough to knock it over, or something. It literally never happened before or since despite far worse fires but don't let that interrupt your feelings of superiority. Name the worse fires. Every fire ever worse, or is your presumption that WTC 7 was the worst building fire in recorded history and you want me to disprove that?
Uh, yes? WTC 7, and the WTC site in general, was one of the worst building fires in history, and the worst in terms of skyscrapers. Which would be part of the requirement for the "never happened before" of a skyscraper collapsing.
And the reason it was the worst is because of all of the surrounding circumstances that allowed it to be an uncontrolled fire for 7 hours, compared to basically every other skyscraper fire where hundreds of fire crews focused on continuously for hours.
|
What the fuck is going on in the House of Representatives? This is some bush league McCarthy shit. Shadow organization? Where the fuck is the speaker of the house?
|
On January 26 2018 10:21 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2018 09:59 Plansix wrote:On January 26 2018 09:54 Adreme wrote:
Okay was day at work a little too long or did this thread devolve into that deranged 9/11 conspiracy nonsense where people try to argue that 2 massive planes hitting the buildings did not bring them down all evidence to the contrary and then it descends into inside jobs and coverups and all this other equally crazy stuff.
Am I just misreading these pages or is this seriously being talked about? The argument has shifted to the third building that was on fire for 7 hours and then fell over. Apparently some people think that it shouldn't have because 7 hour fires shouldn't have been enough to knock it over, or something. It literally never happened before or since despite far worse fires but don't let that interrupt your feelings of superiority. Look, I get that you guys don't know what you don't know (like protocol [pretty sure they were cited]), or that saying "there were no accelerants used" without testing for accelerants should be a basic red flag, but I don't feel like were going to get anywhere. Aqua, you can pm if you want since your inquiries were mostly fair although based in self-admitted ignorance. Oh I love the conspiracy theorists sources. You claim access to the super secret information that is somehow being buried which again is just stupid. Do you really think any real journalist would not jump at chance to become a legend in the field. They would be the modern day Woodward and Bernstein. However, you believe that there is some massive cover-up that has kept this "secret" from being reported. That so many could be involved and no one would say a word in this modern day where everything leaks. That no serious reporter would find any evidence whatsoever. That none of the hundreds of people who would have had to be involved in the event itself plus several hundred more in the coverup not to mention basically the entire media itself would somehow be able to keep this massive secret for so long. This belief is delusional. I cannot be kind about this. Everything you have said about this is laughable and taints everything else you say about any other topic. None of your other posts hold any credibility because you have exposed yourself as the kind of person who can believe in this sort of nonsense. Conspiracy theories are nice. I get the appeal. They try to make sense of things that are hard to explain and make there own boogeyman and they give you this feeling of comfort that you understand the "truth" and others do not. Just because they have that appeal though does not make them based in reality. 9/11 was not an inside job. Obama was born in Hawaii. Sandy Hook was not staged. That Mexican gun operation from the Obama era was not a secret plot to inspire gun violence just to enact gun control laws. There was no grand conspiracy for the government to take control of the Afghan Opioid fields. Oh and also the moon landing did happen. All of these theories that say otherwise are nonsense. There is no kind way to put it. They are nonsensical solutions to much more complicated issues that work by presenting half-truths and false dichotomies in order to fool people into thinking they are true and believable and that the evidence is merely being surpressed
It's nothing super secret, it's that no matter how you present it you get this reaction.
The people I'm citing aren't a bunch of random crackpots that want to bring down the US government and the Global Cabal, I'm sure there's plenty of them mixed in because it's not easy taking all this "you're crazy!' shit, but a lot of them some I've spoken to personally, are just in the industry and despite making it a shit ton harder to get jobs (if their public skepticism is passed on to employers) they're the type of meticulous nerds that just need to have a satisfactory scientific answer for their understandings of the physical forces and stressors operating on the structures.
|
Can we get an obstruction charge already Mueller #HighCrimesAndMisdemeanors
|
On January 26 2018 10:26 Plansix wrote:What the fuck is going on in the House of Representatives? This is some bush league McCarthy shit. Shadow organization? Where the fuck is the speaker of the house?
crazy folk electin crazies, that's what's going on.
the speaker is hiding, cuz he doesn't want to deal with any of this.
|
Maggie Haberman fucking legit and wouldn't print this unless she was sure. Trump is fucked.
|
On January 26 2018 10:26 Plansix wrote:What the fuck is going on in the House of Representatives? This is some bush league McCarthy shit. Shadow organization? Where the fuck is the speaker of the house?
Probably looking forward to handing the gavel over to Nancy Pelosi.
|
On January 26 2018 10:32 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 10:26 Plansix wrote:What the fuck is going on in the House of Representatives? This is some bush league McCarthy shit. Shadow organization? Where the fuck is the speaker of the house? Probably looking forward to handing the gavel over to Nancy Pelosi.
I will only accept her as a speaker if she removes that Hastert rule and returns to the real role as speaker. Otherwise, please god no.
|
On January 26 2018 10:13 Sermokala wrote:
As someone whos profession is metalworking and having taken classes on metallurgy I can attest that Jet fuel can not melt steel beams.
It can however reduce steel beams to the tensile strength of wet noodles and thats why the towers and building 7 went down. extended fire burned away the fire proofing and reduced the structural integrity of the buildings to the point where the levels above them collapsed the first floor to fail causing a chain reaction that collapsed the buildings. The explosions you see are the air evacuating the building as it compresses.
The NIST found Building 7 went down for another reason: thermal expansion of the metals from fires that were never put out. NIST. They held their tensile strength ... the fires there didn't burn hot enough anyways.
|
On January 26 2018 10:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2018 10:21 Adreme wrote:On January 26 2018 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2018 09:59 Plansix wrote:On January 26 2018 09:54 Adreme wrote:
Okay was day at work a little too long or did this thread devolve into that deranged 9/11 conspiracy nonsense where people try to argue that 2 massive planes hitting the buildings did not bring them down all evidence to the contrary and then it descends into inside jobs and coverups and all this other equally crazy stuff.
Am I just misreading these pages or is this seriously being talked about? The argument has shifted to the third building that was on fire for 7 hours and then fell over. Apparently some people think that it shouldn't have because 7 hour fires shouldn't have been enough to knock it over, or something. It literally never happened before or since despite far worse fires but don't let that interrupt your feelings of superiority. Look, I get that you guys don't know what you don't know (like protocol [pretty sure they were cited]), or that saying "there were no accelerants used" without testing for accelerants should be a basic red flag, but I don't feel like were going to get anywhere. Aqua, you can pm if you want since your inquiries were mostly fair although based in self-admitted ignorance. Oh I love the conspiracy theorists sources. You claim access to the super secret information that is somehow being buried which again is just stupid. Do you really think any real journalist would not jump at chance to become a legend in the field. They would be the modern day Woodward and Bernstein. However, you believe that there is some massive cover-up that has kept this "secret" from being reported. That so many could be involved and no one would say a word in this modern day where everything leaks. That no serious reporter would find any evidence whatsoever. That none of the hundreds of people who would have had to be involved in the event itself plus several hundred more in the coverup not to mention basically the entire media itself would somehow be able to keep this massive secret for so long. This belief is delusional. I cannot be kind about this. Everything you have said about this is laughable and taints everything else you say about any other topic. None of your other posts hold any credibility because you have exposed yourself as the kind of person who can believe in this sort of nonsense. Conspiracy theories are nice. I get the appeal. They try to make sense of things that are hard to explain and make there own boogeyman and they give you this feeling of comfort that you understand the "truth" and others do not. Just because they have that appeal though does not make them based in reality. 9/11 was not an inside job. Obama was born in Hawaii. Sandy Hook was not staged. That Mexican gun operation from the Obama era was not a secret plot to inspire gun violence just to enact gun control laws. There was no grand conspiracy for the government to take control of the Afghan Opioid fields. Oh and also the moon landing did happen. All of these theories that say otherwise are nonsense. There is no kind way to put it. They are nonsensical solutions to much more complicated issues that work by presenting half-truths and false dichotomies in order to fool people into thinking they are true and believable and that the evidence is merely being surpressed It's nothing super secret, it's that no matter how you present it you get this reaction. The people I'm citing aren't a bunch of random crackpots that want to bring down the US government and the Global Cabal, I'm sure there's plenty of them mixed in because it's not easy taking all this "you're crazy!' shit, but a lot of them some I've spoken to personally, are just in the industry and despite making it a shit ton harder to get jobs (if their public skepticism is passed on to employers) they're the type of meticulous nerds that just need to have a satisfactory scientific answer for their understandings of the physical forces and stressors operating on the structures.
The reason you get this reaction is that not a single credible news outlet is willing to put there name to this nonsense. The best you get is Alex Jones. Every other serious news outlet I guarantee investigated it, saw what a 7 hour uncontrolled fire could do to a building and said "yes the fire could do the damage needed to bring a building down" even though buildings of that size do not have 7 hour uncontrolled fires which is why it is so unprecedented. However unusual does not mean impossible.
Hypothetically both that building and both world trade centers COULD have possibly stayed up if the fires had burned differently or gotten under control faster or the planes had hit at a slightly different angle. However just because something CAN happen does not make it the most likely outcome.
You see things like this in academic fields as well where something that is hypothetically possible but unlikely is posed as the solution and most often times its because the researcher is using facts to back up there theory instead of making the theory fit the facts. That at its core is how a conspiracy starts. They have a theory and they dig thru and try to find facts that make it possible.
Again you have people who say it could have been done this way, but not a single person involved and no chain of evidence that makes this anything other than the same of level of deranged conspiracy as all of the other ones I listed. By the way when you share an opinion with Alex Jones that should give you pause to check your opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
