Conspiracies

[Darts]

the WTC had a major design flaw

The Citicorp Center building also had a design flaw which I think (hope) they fixed. (BTW: bin Laden comes from a construction family so he probably has some knowledge of tall buildings.)

"According to LeMessurier, in 1978 an undergraduate architecture student contacted him with a bold claim about LeMessurier's building: that Citicorp Center could blow over in the wind. ... Without the tuned mass damper, LeMessurier calculated that a storm powerful enough to take out the building his New York every 16 years.Apr 17, 2014"

 

[jcpro]

9/11 wasn't just about WTO buildings. There was pentagon and Flight 93.

I remember watching it live 19 years ago and thinking "no way, buildings don't fall like that"..."what? Plane hit pentagon? Where is it?" I questioned what I saw waaay before any conspiracy versions. A lot of what I saw didn't make sense.

- Planes blew up, but terrorist's passport survived so they could ID him?
- Fire melted structure of the building, but all I saw was black smoke. Fuel burned in explosion. Did burning office furniture melt the building?
- steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers.
- Buildings fell straight down at a speed of free fall as if nothing was supporting it. Didn't fall to one side or another. Straight down. All 3 buildings.
- First 2 planes burned and melted all structural support. Why didn't Pentagon building burn? Where were plane parts like fuselage, wings, 6 ton titanium Rolls-Royce engines etc.? Nada! All vanished. Lawn was perfectly green, light poles not hit by wings...
- how many casualties in Pentagon hit? What??? Not one?
- Flight 93 fell in Pennsylvania. Just as with Pentagon site of the crash has 0 plane parts. Vanished.
- All people who said they heard explosions when building were coming down - retracted earlier statements

And there's a lot more weird stuff.

The Pentagon was built in the 40s. Different construction- reinforced concrete that ,means that the fires are easier to contain. It's also the reason for the complete disintegration of the aircraft. It actually liquified. Passport have semi hard covers, and like books, often survive fires, crashes; nothing special about that as many times before they have been used to identify plane crash victims. As for steel in the fire- it doesn't need to "melt" to lose its strength

 

[Insidious Von]

The bin Laden's latest construction project is bogged down.

 

[Tomoreno]

The Pentagon was built in the 40s. Different construction- reinforced concrete that ,means that the fires are easier to contain. It's also the reason for the complete disintegration of the aircraft. It actually liquified. Passport have semi hard covers, and like books, often survive fires, crashes; nothing special about that as many times before they have been used to identify plane crash victims. As for steel in the fire- it doesn't need to "melt" to lose its strength

Entire aircraft liquifying... wow! Genius!
Engines, entire fuselage. Wouldn't wings break off and stay outside or did they fold in? And btw, building didn't burn, not according to live footage.

Ok, fine, it liquified. And the on in Pennsylvania was swallowed by the earth.

Steel doesn't need to melt to lose integrity, that's a valid point. How many floors though? One above and below perhaps? Would it be safe to assume that all the floors below would still have integrity?

WTC1 collapsed after burning for 1hr 42 min and WTC2 after 56 minutes. Were they built from different steel?

 

[luvyeah]

Dismissing an opposite view point and simply deeming it a "a conspiracy theory" is intellectually dishonest. Questioning the reality and truth as we currently know it is the foundation of philosophy and science. When a new idea comes about that explains our world better than before we adjust our thinking.

 

[jcpro]

Entire aircraft liquifying... wow! Genius!
Engines, entire fuselage. Wouldn't wings break off and stay outside or did they fold in? And btw, building didn't burn, not according to live footage.

Ok, fine, it liquified. And the on in Pennsylvania was swallowed by the earth.

Steel doesn't need to melt to lose integrity, that's a valid point. How many floors though? One above and below perhaps? Would it be safe to assume that all the floors below would still have integrity?

WTC1 collapsed after burning for 1hr 42 min and WTC2 after 56 minutes. Were they built from different steel?

Actually aircraft is build to strength, but from very light materials. An impact with a solid surface or structure will actually cause it to completely disintegrate because all the energy has to go somewhere and it goes into the airframe. There are plenty of videos on YouTube demonstrating that with much harder objects than airframes that get "liquified" on contact due to the velocity, mass and contact surface strength. As for the towers pancaking, nothing special about that either. Each grid was built to withstand certain weight, when that was exceeded by the force of the collapse of the compromised floors they also collapsed. Those were impressive towers, but because of their height they could not be reinforced and had to be built "elastic" to counter the wind forces and the weight requirements. As for the timing. They were hit at different angles and different points with different initial damage.

 

[shack]

Nicely composed peace of xxxx.
Very little substance behind it.
You know absolutely nothing about physics, so please concentrate on pussy and fucks.
I can list a dosen of things that was wrong with any of listed so called conspiracies... doubt that you'll understand

Quack, quack, quack. What a duck of an answer.

 

[shack]

This is patently wrong and makes zero sense.

Friction is a resistive force, by definition it impedes motion and is a vector quantity that runs in the opposite direction of whatever motion is occurring. It, by definition impedes motion, not enables it.

TBH, I think he just didn't complete the sentence. It should be "from point A to point B without a force of friction... being generated". Of course I don't believe that that would be true in a complete vacuum like in space.

 

[Tomoreno]

Quack, quack, quack. What a duck of an answer.

Surely you meant Shack shack shack

 

[jerimander]

White genocide may be the ultimate conspiracy. Hear from the conspirators themselves.

Bitchute

Bitchute is a video service that prioritizes creators and champions users' freedoms and privacy.

www.bitchute.com

Bitchute

Bitchute is a video service that prioritizes creators and champions users' freedoms and privacy.

www.bitchute.com

 

[Mr.Know-It-All]

Year 2010: Alex Jones is a lunatic conspiracist
Year 2020: Alex Jones is a prophet

Aliens area real and the Illuminati are signing intergalactic treatise as we speak. You decry globalization but you ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[Tomoreno]

“That’s one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.” So said Neil Armstrong on that momentous occasion on July 21, 1969 when he stepped onto the surface of the moon for the very first time…supposedly. Does anyone else find it strange that decades before the internet, nanotechnology and cloning, NASA were able to build a rocket that could not only land on the moon, but live broadcast the event to 600 million people?



Oh, look, No Stars!



Ooops! Sorry, forgot to move.

 

[benstt]

Does anyone else find it strange that decades before the internet, nanotechnology and cloning, NASA were able to build a rocket that could not only land on the moon, but live broadcast the event to 600 million people?

Not at all.

You really are special eh.

 

[jcpro]

“That’s one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.” So said Neil Armstrong on that momentous occasion on July 21, 1969 when he stepped onto the surface of the moon for the very first time…supposedly. Does anyone else find it strange that decades before the internet, nanotechnology and cloning, NASA were able to build a rocket that could not only land on the moon, but live broadcast the event to 600 million people?

View attachment 27164

Oh, look, No Stars!

View attachment 27165

Ooops! Sorry, forgot to move.

Oh, look! It's daylight.
Oooops! It's my shadow.

 

[Mr.lover]

@DWhitman The guy's a fucking moron don't waste your time. Tomoreno has proven that he's been locked down far far too long. Dude you need to get out of the basement.

 

[Darts]

The bin Laden's latest construction project is bogged down.

Arab towers are built with slave or virtual slave labor.

 

[SchlongConery]

Um, but radio transmission had been invented, which explains the broadcast. Also, combustion of fuel had been invented, which explains the travel to the moon part.

Again, science does not equal common sense. Travelling to the moon isn’t that complex when you get right down to it: certainly not as complex as a lung transplant, or the PS5. What might seem complex to a layman (like you) is not always the case.

The reason that rockets can't take off is because there is no friction of the asphalt for the tires to accelerate the rocketship!

According to Tormoreno, airplanes rely on the friction of their tires against the asphalt to take off!

You might have some basic understanding of what Friction is but not how it's applied in physics.
Any surface you make a contact with has friction coefficient.
The higher the coefficient is - more friction you'll get.
Pavement will have a higher coefficient than ice. You'll be able to accelerate and stop much faster.

If there was no friction - you won't be able to take off or stop.

You wouldn't be able to pick up anything. It'll just slide out of your hands.

No friction - no motion.

 

[jcpro]

Arab towers are built with slave or virtual slave labor.

The Arabs do it very well. They get them designed by the best architects, get the best engineering for execution from Europe and America and cheap labour from India and Pakistan, etc. for construction. They spend the money where it counts.

 

[Tomoreno]

The reason that rockets can't take off is because there is no friction of the asphalt for the tires to accelerate the rocketship!

According to Tormoreno, airplanes rely on the friction of their tires against the asphalt to take off!

My original quote was "You can't go from point A to point B without a force of friction."

It implied that YOU, a person, can't walk, drive or transport yourself in any other way without forces of friction. That was my argument and the statement was true then, it is true still... unless you're sitting on a bomb and planning to detonate, then you'll get from point A to multiple points.

That's was what I meant until it was hijacked. Some turned it into a debate that not all motions require forces of friction. Not once did I imply that I disagree with it.

 

[SchlongConery]

My original quote was "You can't go from point A to point B without a force of friction."

It implied that YOU, a person, can't walk, drive or transport yourself in any other way without forces of friction. That was my argument and the statement was true then, it is true still... unless you're sitting on a bomb and planning to detonate, then you'll get from point A to multiple points.

That's was what I meant until it was hijacked. Some turned it into a debate that not all motions require forces of friction. Not once did I imply that I disagree with it.

I can jump straight up. On wet ice, barefoot.

And what about your assertion that airplanes need friction of tires on asphalt to take off?