Tin Foil Hat Thread on 9/11
- Thread starter Mcluhan
- Start date
Just ignore the airliners. They are put there for show. They are a stage prop.someone said:
There were explosives on every second floor.
In the case of WTC7 you could visibly see, hours before it collapsed, that the buildings structure was becoming unsound, it visibly bulges out around 2pm, and by 3:30pm it's bad enough the fire department evacuates it because they can see that the structure is failing. An hour or so later it comes down.anomandar said:
The twin towers didn't, each one leaned ove a bit in the direction of the structural failure, and fell slightly in that direction. Debris from the side that failed also hit the ground several seconds earlier than debris from the other sides of the building.
However, this had more to do with the building swaying over a bit in the direction of the failing side, it did not "topple" so much as leaned over and then came straight down.
This is consistent with increasing load on a weakened superstructure leading to the eventual failure of the superstructure on the weak side and the collapse of the whole building.
You're thinking of a different style of building, where the construction principles are based on compression and support, where the bottom part of the building holds up the top of the building, essentially one thing piled on another.
The video on this thread shows buildings of that type being demolished and shows how they come down in line with the supporting columns in the buildings; also in some cases the buildings can topple over as some supports survive but other supports fail.
The WTC buildings were not built on that principle, they use a different principle called suspension. In the WTC buildings essentially you have a great big metal frame leading up to a point at the top of the building and in a very real sense the whole building is then hung from that frame. It is more accurate to imagine that what you think of as the building--the floors and walls--is being supported from the top. There are compression style supports too, but they are not anywhere near strong enough to support the weight of the building. The load is carried by the metal frame that it's hung from.
It is not possible for this building to "topple over" since it is not supported by anything to tople from. It is hung. As a building that is essentially hanging from a frame, when the frame fails it will fall straight down, which is what it did.
This is where you and our "expert" McLuhan are wrong: There are no "center columns" in the sense that you imagine. There are columns, and they bear some load, but the ovewhelming majority of load is carried by the superstructure from which the building is hung. When the superstructure fails the path of least resistance is straight down, as it is essentially
being dropped.
The planes crashed in half way up the building dividing it into three sections: an intact section below, an intact section above, and a weakened section in the middle. The frame around the weakened section gave way and the section above, that had been hanging from that frame, fell through the weakened section landing on the section below. From then on in the weight of the whole top section falling down smashes the frame below as it falls.
If you watch in slow motion you can see that at the building comes down there's a process of the frame failing several floors below the current "falling point", which is the frame below giving way under the weight of the falling building.
In any building built along that engineering principle there is no other way for the building to come down, other than straight down the way it did. It might bend, lean or, bulge as the superstructure begins to fail--as was visible in WTC7--but when it finally fails it goes straight down from wharever it was at the moment of failure.
The facts and the science
This MIT Engineer nailed it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&feature=PlayList&p=08CB9D5154F90890&index=0&playnext=1
This just simply wrong. I'm posting this link for others lurking in case they are misguided by your misinformation. You're running your mouth off in a subject you have not studied, and apparently do not wish to. You should learn about gravity first.fuji said:
This MIT Engineer nailed it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&feature=PlayList&p=08CB9D5154F90890&index=0&playnext=1
You're an ignoramus. That video disputes the FEMA report, and was recorded before the NIST report came out. The NIST report also disputes the FEMA report.Mcluhan said:
Worse, this guy is speaking outside his area of expertise. He is not a civil engineer, he is a physicist.
You fail. Try again.
It could be that he's a physicist, and not a PEng as billed. I assume you did not watch the video, because it explains the concrete dust slurry. This feature of the collapse is in plain view and easy to identify. Yes, he mentions NIST several times.fuji said:
Jeff King, MD, SB Bio/EE
Jeff King, MD, SB Bio/EE (MIT Science Baccalaureate in Biology and Electrical Engineering) – Retired Family Practice Physician (27 years). Former Electrical Engineer (8 years).
Charter Member: Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth Association Statement:
"As medical professionals, we are trained in science and logical reasoning. We are appalled by the lack of scientific rigor and the substantial omissions and blatant distortions in the official account of 9/11 as embodied in the 9/11 Commission Report and related government documents. We join with other organizations of professionals, such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, and Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, and millions of individual citizens in demanding a thorough, impartial, open and transparent reinvestigation of the terrorist acts of 9/11."
http://www.mp911truth.org/
Jeff King, MD, SB Bio/EE (MIT Science Baccalaureate in Biology and Electrical Engineering) – Retired Family Practice Physician (27 years). Former Electrical Engineer (8 years).
Charter Member: Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth Association Statement:
"As medical professionals, we are trained in science and logical reasoning. We are appalled by the lack of scientific rigor and the substantial omissions and blatant distortions in the official account of 9/11 as embodied in the 9/11 Commission Report and related government documents. We join with other organizations of professionals, such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, and Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, and millions of individual citizens in demanding a thorough, impartial, open and transparent reinvestigation of the terrorist acts of 9/11."
http://www.mp911truth.org/
He specifically mentions that NIST is an ongoing investigation which means this was recorded before the NIST report was complete and published.Mcluhan said:
As for the dust cloud it's pretty obvious (a) that this guy is talking about something beyond his expertise, and (b) that the dust was visibly generated by the air being forced out as the floors on top came vertically down, expelling it at high velocity.
I just spent some time watching various videos and it is CLEAR in all of the videos that the collapse originates at the site of the plane crashes. The structure above, largely intact at first as it falls, falls through the damaged floors onto the building below.
Anyone who watches the videos can see that happen. You don' tneed to be a PhD to see it, it's visibly clear in a good number of the videos available on youtube.
That means whatever happened to initiate the collapse happened at the site of the crash.
Sorry to spoil your fun but there is no conspiracy here--maybe you should be masturbating in front of pictures of naked women instead of masturbating over WTC videos--the imaginary fantasies are considered more normal in the case of watching sex porn, whereas in this case it just makes you seem unstable.
Yup. In other words, he doesn't have any expertise on this subject. I would enjoy hearing his opinion of the electrical systems in the buildings--actually it sounds like his knowledge is out of date on that too after 27 years away from the field. As for dust clouds and structual integrity this guy knows jack shit about those subjects.Mcluhan said:
This is typical of the inferior material that has been posted on this thread--first we had Danmand posting links to a fake journal, now you are posting videos of a fake expert.
So if I list off my credentials which have nothing to do with chemistry, but certainly involve logical reasoning, that gives me the ability to pronounce authoritatively on the Hunsdiecker/Borodin Reaction?!Mcluhan said:
By the way, please don't waste my time by going on a huge fishing expedition. There are lots of bogus sources on the internet and I don't have time to debunk every one of them.
I have shown you how to debunk this one, in fact it's the THIRD source I've debunked on this thread--please learn from these three examples, apply that knowledge on your own, and go debunk the rest yourself. Do not innundate me with a zillion other bogus sources and expect me to have time to go through and debunk each and every one for you--I have a day job.
Show me something published in a respectable, peer reviewed journal by an expert whose area of speciality is relevant to the point he is making.
Until then--just go away.
I have shown you how to debunk this one, in fact it's the THIRD source I've debunked on this thread--please learn from these three examples, apply that knowledge on your own, and go debunk the rest yourself. Do not innundate me with a zillion other bogus sources and expect me to have time to go through and debunk each and every one for you--I have a day job.
Show me something published in a respectable, peer reviewed journal by an expert whose area of speciality is relevant to the point he is making.
Until then--just go away.
For anyone interested, here's the interview with bsmt explosion witness Phillip Morelli, he was on B4 of North Tower at the moment of the 'first' explosion in WTC1, which according to witnesses occurred just before American Airlines Flight 11 hit the North Tower. seismic data correlates with their accounts.
This explosion was the first in a series of explosions, and had a magnitude of 0.9 on the Richter scale, equivalent to about 70 lb of TNT
Richter
Approximate Magnitude Approximate TNT for
Seismic Energy Yield Joule equivalent Example
0.0 1 kg (2.2 lb) 4.2 MJ
0.5 5.6 kg (12.4 lb) 23.5 MJ Large Hand grenade
1.0 32 kg (70 lb) 134.4 MJ Construction site blast
1.5 178 kg (392 lb) 747.6 MJ WWII conventional bombs
2.0 1 metric ton 4.2 GJ Late WWII conventional bombs
2.5 5.6 metric tons 23.5 GJ WWII blockbuster bomb
3.0 32 metric tons 134.4 GJ Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb
3.5 178 metric tons 747.6 GJ Chernobyl nuclear disaster, 1986
4.0 1 kiloton 4.2 TJ Small atomic bomb
4.5 5.6 kilotons 23.5 TJ
This explosion was the first in a series of explosions, and had a magnitude of 0.9 on the Richter scale, equivalent to about 70 lb of TNT
Richter
Approximate Magnitude Approximate TNT for
Seismic Energy Yield Joule equivalent Example
0.0 1 kg (2.2 lb) 4.2 MJ
0.5 5.6 kg (12.4 lb) 23.5 MJ Large Hand grenade
1.0 32 kg (70 lb) 134.4 MJ Construction site blast
1.5 178 kg (392 lb) 747.6 MJ WWII conventional bombs
2.0 1 metric ton 4.2 GJ Late WWII conventional bombs
2.5 5.6 metric tons 23.5 GJ WWII blockbuster bomb
3.0 32 metric tons 134.4 GJ Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb
3.5 178 metric tons 747.6 GJ Chernobyl nuclear disaster, 1986
4.0 1 kiloton 4.2 TJ Small atomic bomb
4.5 5.6 kilotons 23.5 TJ
"Basement explosions" are quite clearly irrelevant to the collapse of the tower because it quite clearly collapses from the top down, quite unlike any controlled demolition.
In a controlled demolition you can visibly see that the whole building falls at the same moment--the top and bottom of bhe building begin falling together. View the "orange" video posted earlier to view this for yourself.
In any of the WTC videos that shows the actual buildings at the time of collpase you can quite clearly see that the building falls apart from the top down--the building below is still intact, while the building above is distintegrating. Moreover for a few moments at the outset of the collpase the building ABOVE the point of collapse is visibly still somewhat intact, although that doesn't last long, it too disintegrates as it falls into the building below.
The disintigration of the buildings from the point of impact down visibly occurs at about the speed at which an object would fall. This is in line with the finding that the top of the building fell through the damaged portion onto the building below, crushing it as it fell.
Are we done yet McCluhan? Why don't you just give up at this point? You've hopelessly lost all your credibility.
In a controlled demolition you can visibly see that the whole building falls at the same moment--the top and bottom of bhe building begin falling together. View the "orange" video posted earlier to view this for yourself.
In any of the WTC videos that shows the actual buildings at the time of collpase you can quite clearly see that the building falls apart from the top down--the building below is still intact, while the building above is distintegrating. Moreover for a few moments at the outset of the collpase the building ABOVE the point of collapse is visibly still somewhat intact, although that doesn't last long, it too disintegrates as it falls into the building below.
The disintigration of the buildings from the point of impact down visibly occurs at about the speed at which an object would fall. This is in line with the finding that the top of the building fell through the damaged portion onto the building below, crushing it as it fell.
Are we done yet McCluhan? Why don't you just give up at this point? You've hopelessly lost all your credibility.
Wrong again. I never said the bsmt explosion was relevant to the tower collapse. Kindly cease with the straw-man arguments. The first bsmt explosion is important because it occurs before the impact of AA. Do i have to explain why that's important? i think not.fuji said:
Wrong again. The building does not fall apart, it is blown apart, floor by floor, starting just below the crash zone. The concrete dust slurry is the proof. There is no other explanation that matches physics, at least none so far. (Maybe physics took a hiatus for 13 earthly seconds)
The buildings were 'exploded' (not imploded as in a typical controlled demolition) from the top down. NIST dismissed controled demolition, why? Because controlled demolitions do not typically occur from the top down, but rather, from bottom up. So NIST argued, this was not a controlled demolition. Its a boneheaded argument to say the least. (Pick your own corollary.)
Wrong again, furthermore your statement above actually contradicts itself. there is NO resistance from the bottom floors as the tower mass free falls. This is the basic misconception that was pushed into the media and known as the pancake theory. Its been debunked now for years by science (read up on gravity)
That's not what I see when I look at the videos. That is not what anyone else sees either, except kooks like you.Mcluhan said:
Stop quoting your fake expert, I already debunked him, he's wrong. The dust cloud is a natural product of the air being foced out of the building at high speed as the floors are crushed together.
Sure there is, it's a suspension building. As the metal frame gets crushed it buckles a few floors below the actual freefall.
Duh.
Your knowledge of construction is plainly very limited, I am surprised you claim any expertise in the area whatsoever. Maybe you know something about drywalling and building two floor wooden houses--you obviously know fuck all about modern suspension architecture.
Great, at least we have pinned down EXACTLY what your argument is. Its the classic NIST argument, and its been debunked and flatly discredited by a wider global community of engineers, architects, scientists. Thank you for placing your self in the NIST box, where you join many of the reality impaired handicapped and for all intents, quarantined. The case of Fuji, closed.fuji said:
You mean fake engineers, fake architects, and fake scientists. I call them fake because they are all speaking outside of their expertise--for example, the physician and former electrical engineer that you put forward as an expert on dust clouds and civil engineering.Mcluhan said:
This more or less proves that you are incompetent when it comes to judging what a valid source is.
Fugi all the people presenting the science are not fake, more important, the science is not fake. You can't fake science.fuji said:
Here's a few words from a writer to help explain why many people's perception is barring them from understanding the obvious. It won't cure you of your personality disorder, but subconsciously it might anger you with the truth of why you negatively hallucinate.
" Beliefs are the hardest off all psychological mechanisms to change. They are the structures upon which we have built our lives. To challenge our belief system is to threaten our ideas of who we are. Doing so can be disastrously disorienting, which is why people have been so slow to catch on—but it can also be enormously relieving and empowering.
When a problem seems too huge to fix, you can’t begin to change it until you change your beliefs. You need to throw out your old lenses in order to be able to perceive what you formerly couldn’t see. Then you can begin to emerge from your reptilian, survival-oriented, limited brain and begin to imagine and put together the many available puzzle pieces.
Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge. We need imagination now to counter the mindsets we inherited as a result of being raised in systems that were designed to protect power. We learned to believe that those with power over us were truly protecting us, despite their nasty habits and lies. We were trained not to see who our real enemies are.
But we can stop being controlled by fear now. We can utilize our healthy outrage to expose the inconsistencies in what we have been told and leave no stone unturned. Our country’s situation is not hopeless for the simple reason that we are not children and we can expose the traitors who have used political power against the people they are supposed to serve."
From The Psychology Of Patriotic Denial
By Tova Gabrielle
