Bitcoin Forum
May 24, 2016, 05:34:00 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.12.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ... 243 »
41  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: May 13, 2016, 09:14:44 PM
I bet Gun Broker is kicking itself now after seeing the taste they could have got of that $65 mil. As a former Gunbroker.com customer, next time I buy a gun online, it will not be there.
42  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? on: May 13, 2016, 05:28:15 PM
.. the falling section of the tower would be crushed itself along with the floors it is crushing below it, meaning that if the building was structurally equivalent (it was not, the building is build progressively stronger as you travel down the building) it would crush the top 12 floors at the same time as it collapsed the 12 floors beneath it, leaving nothing solid to act as a "pile driver" to crush the remaining floors below it.

This is not true.  When the top section moves as one piece down just one floor, it is acting as a dynamic, not a static load.  As one moving section, it's internal stresses balance each other out.

Yes the floors were progressively stronger as you go down.  But that's nothing compared to the momentum from above.  

Here is a simple example.  A bowling ball weighs 10 lb, and rolls off a table 48" high onto your foot.  Once it hits your foot it dissipates it's energy in 0.25 inches.  The force on your foot is -

F = 48/.25 * 10 = 1920 pounds.  Your foot is crushed.  

Once the pile driver effect starts it can't be stopped.  

We aren't talking about bowling balls and feet. Again we are talking about the LAWS of physics. If the force is sufficient enough to crush the progressively stronger floors below it, it is strong enough to crush the "pile driver" at minimum in the equivalent amount of time as it crushes the floors below, eventually leaving crushed debris as the only remaining downward force. As a result this means that the "pile driver" effect is dissipated with every floor it crushes below it because it does not act with a unified downward force and falls to the side or is otherwise dissipated interacting with itself. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Again you are just denying the laws of physics while providing no actual reasoning, just providing sad examples of bowling balls and feet while you play word gymnastics to try to make it sound like you have some logic behind your point. Physics trumps word gymnastics.


....
Says FUCKING PHYSICS. Gravity doesn't pull 4-ton beams 600 feet sideways, .....
Try doing the calculation for the energy required yourself: http://www.1728.org/energy.htm

Using the MINIMUM meters per second velocity assuming the beam came directly from the impact zone, 21 m/s, and the mass of the girder at 4 tons, the required force is equivalent to 2.1e-4 TONS of TNT! That is the MINIMUM VALUES. If the beam came from the middle of the building, at 30 m/s, the required force would be 4.3e-4 TONS of TNT. Tell me some more about how explosive force is not required......

That's 4.3 x 0.0001 x 2000 lb/ton = 8.6 lb of explosive (EQUAL TO 40,000 joules).  

But PE = mgh, mass gravity height,

E= 8000 lb * 32 ft/sec^2 * 1000 = 2.4 * 10^7 joules.

40,000 joules from your explosives
24,000,000 joules of  PE, potential energy

So again, isn't the PE explanation a SUFFICIENT one?
Why is the explosives explanation a NECESSARY one?

As you can see, there are trying enormous amounts of energy in a tall building's collapse.  A cartwheeling 40' section of an I beam certainly can deflect a 4 ton section of an I beam hundreds of feet sideways.  Or it slides sideways on a rubble heap.  Or a section of the perimeter columns tilts over like on a pivot (which IS SEEN in the video) and imparts energy.  


There are several problems with your logic. First of all you are taking the entire energy force of the building (I assume, you still haven't explained where you get your numbers from), and claiming all of it is available to some how fling these multi-ton objects laterally. The calculation I provided was for ONE single 4-ton girder, and you are attempting to use the entire crushing force of the building as an energy source in comparison claiming it is not very much. Multiplied thousands of times to account for the fact that this force does not just act on one single girder, your comparison dwindles. Additionally the buildings were not a perfectly engineered projectile launcher, it was an open space with giant gaps for air pressure to flow out of, meaning that this force had to be MUCH larger in order to act with such pressure against the fact that there was not an airtight seal acting only upon a single girder. Your argument reminds be a lot of gun control freaks who try to compare US and UK gun crimes stats without correcting for population and claiming this is a valid comparison.

The second gaping hole in your logic, is that all of that energy is directed DOWNWARDS by gravity, not laterally. The rubble heap was not tall enough to account for your "sliding" theory, and even if the girder was "cartwheeling", a massive force still had to act upon it to send it flying. Describing a different type of movement of the object does not explain away the amounts of energy required to send it on this path. Again, Newtons 3rd law states every action has an equal and opposite reaction, hence that free falling "cartweeling 40' section" would absorb the impact of the 4-ton girder, it does not account for some "unexplained" propelling force away from it, it is not attached to anything providing sufficient resistance or force to make it magically fly laterally. Even if by some miracle this were true, you still need to account for the massive lateral force provided by that 40" section, which would require EVEN MORE lateral force! In effect you are arguing against your own point. Again your argument has no substance, it basically just consists of deny deny deny, and hey look over here!
43  Economy / Services / Re: I'm Offering 0,06327 btc as Gift To Anyone With Useful Info's- CL Final Match on: May 13, 2016, 11:08:28 AM
If you are interested in using me as an escrow, I am willing to do so for a 1% fee. I have been trading on this forum for 5 years, have been entrusted with thousands in value, and completed hundreds of trades honoring all of my agreements. Please let me know if you would like my assistance. Thanks.
44  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Google Is Illegally Spying On People On The Internet on: May 13, 2016, 09:11:37 AM
Yes, and so does facebook. You have to block their cookies individually.
Block all cookies from:
google.com
google.de
google.es
google.fr
google.it
...
Add top domain level from every country where you travel.
Block also
googleadservices.com
facebook.com
twitter.com
And you should be quite safe. You may also use Tor.


TOR wont protect you from tracking, it will only anonymize your IP.

Isn't anonymazing your IP is the same as protecting you from tracking? I mean because they wouldn't know whom they are tracking?

Also I have a questing about what's wrong with using gmail?

It depends on what type of tracking you mean. The short answer is no, it doesn't. Your browser fingerprint can be tracked via things like the addons and extensions you use, the fonts installed on your computer, and other factors which make a fairly unique marker to track you with. Each computer processor also has a unique identification number embedded in the hardware which can be used to track your online activities. As far as what is wrong with using Gmail, it is a Google product. Using any Google product or service pretty much guarantees you have no privacy or anonymity because they go to great lengths to track you and collect personal information.
45  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Google Is Illegally Spying On People On The Internet on: May 13, 2016, 08:28:02 AM
Ghostery
AdBlock
Noscript
Click&Clean
Change IP

You're good  Smiley

That helps, but things like browser fingerprinting and other hidden tracking mechanisms for example like Verizon uses still allows them to track you. To be sure you are anonymous on the internet now days you pretty much need to buy a computer with cash from a retailer that doesn't have cameras, use it once for one single purpose use, connect to a public open wifi connection (again without being on camera) using a double VPN (in and out) paid for with Bitcoin and that does not keep records, use a proxy, and then never use it again. True anonymity is not easy (or cheap).
46  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? on: May 13, 2016, 07:08:37 AM

Anyone else here wonder if Spendus knows damn good and well that 9/11 was a false flag but is 'trolling'?

I mean, if it wasn't for the stuff he peddles, we would not be researching and/or communicating and this thread would be dead and forgotton.  Keeping it alive with all of the devistating points that the rest of us are making is probably going some distance toward informing those who've not put much time into researching things for themselves.



It doesn't matter if he denies it until his face turns blue, or why he does so. As you said this is educating third parties by demonstrating the official narrative is counter to the laws of physics as well as demonstrating his weak arguments against these facts.
47  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? on: May 13, 2016, 06:50:16 AM
Again, you just conveniently ignore the velocity of the 4 ton girders. This was not a fluke where some how just one made it that far. There were MULTIPLE 4-ton girders hundreds of feet from the towers. Additionally considering there was ZERO TILT when the buildings went down right into their footprints, your entire argument about it some how magically being moved sideways is fallacious.

Okay, here we go.

A dirt mound, say one created by dump trucks, has a side angle of slope related to the type of material.  But very broadly, a mound is about three times in diameter as it is tall.  A building collapsing would create a mound of some such proportions.

Reports of the 911 trajedy were that standing on top of the debris mound, a person was 15-20 stories up.  Also that the mounds extended out 400-500 feet.  So basically about 200 feet up and 800 feet in diameter.  There's the "conical mound of debris."  

Now, all of this debris has converted its potential energy it had when up in the sky into kinetic energy as it fell down, and sideways, and then again it became potential energy when it came to rest on the ground.  The sideways movement occurs in EVERY CASE where material is deposited on the ground under the force of gravity.

Good so far?  If not let me know.

So I conjecture that something "unusual" would be something that was far outside the natural debris mound.  For example, if our dump truck dumped a load of sand in our front yard, but one part of the offload was mysteriously thirty feet to the side.

But we don't have that here, do we?  The beams that are "hundreds of feet sideways" are within what we would expect for the debris field's size and distribution.

I can show the equations for the (theoretical) conical mound but realized that the actual physical size of the debris mound is in agreement, so no reason to.

Does that make sense?  If not why and how.  Maybe there's something I'm not getting.  But I'm not getting how a thing found 400-500 feet away is "unusual" and how it requires another explanation outside and beyond PE --> KE.

Again, you just conveniently ignore the velocity of the 4 ton girders. This was not a fluke where some how just one made it that far. There were MULTIPLE 4-ton girders hundreds of feet from the towers. Additionally considering there was ZERO TILT when the buildings went down right into their footprints, your entire argument about it some how magically being moved sideways is fallacious.
I believe my explanation covers both the velocity and the zero tilt issues.  

Except we aren't talking about "conical mounds" of dirt. One of the exceptional facts noted about the debris pile was that it WAS NOT larger. It SHOULD HAVE been several stories tall, but it wasn't because the vast majority of the concrete was pulverized. Collapses do not pulverize concrete into dust. High explosives do however. Additionally many of these ejected girders were embedded in surrounding buildings. According to your explanation, the girders toppled down a large debris pile and just rolled down it. How exactly does this happen if the girders are lodged in buildings well above the debris pile? Collapses do not propel massive debris laterally hundreds of feet, gravity pulls it downwards because there is no lateral force pushing it outwards against gravity. This is a simple trajectory calculation.

This argument...
4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.


...asserts that if X is the speed of the fall of an object in air, then a building collapse should be X - Y speed.  Where Y is resistance by the part of the building below the section falling on it.

This argument is flawed in it's premises, it's approach, and in it's conclusion.

The "free fall speed" is V = 32 ft * time^2/seconds.

Roughly in the first second, an object moves 32 feet.  In the second second, 64 feet, and so on.

I'm not seeing support for #4 either in the video of the towers collapse, the seismic records, or in the math and structural stuff.....


I am not seeing any actual substance in your argument here, just denials of basic properties of physics. IT IS A FACT that a building collapsing upon itself will fall more slowly than free fall speed. It doesn't matter how massive it is, it is not going to fall at free fall speed. The mass of the building dispersing energy crushing the floors below MUST slow the speed of the collapse. Again this is just basic laws of physics. Building 7 is the most clear cut example of this, it is undeniable. Again you aren't providing any substantive arguments, just creating more hackneyed denials without presenting any facts of your own. It is amazing how few large steel frame buildings have collapsed due to fires that have burned for many hours longer than the WTC towers did, yet it just happened to occur 3 times in one single event, and in one case without a plane even impacting the building. Additionally ALL THREE of the buildings went down directly into their own footprint. Controlled demolitions are very complicated because the supports need to be removed in carefully timed sequence to prevent the building from the default tipping effect that happens when a collapse is not controlled. It is also astounding that this just so happened to occur perfectly 3 times, in addition to the freak event of 3 steel framed buildings "collapsing" due to fire. The odds of this happening are ASTRONOMICALLY unlikely. These facts alone make the official narrative suspect, let alone the hundreds of other facts and unlikely anomalies that don't line up with this story.

For reverence, here is an ACTUAL gravity driven collapse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8

The supports on one of the floors are blown out in order to use the momentum of the building to crush the floors below. Note the deceleration of the collapse as the building impacts the floors below it. Again, note the lack of lateral ejection of debris (except for the initial blast and dust). Also pay close attention to the end of the video, starting at 3:45, where Newton's 3rd law is evoked, which states "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". In effect, the falling section of the tower would be crushed itself along with the floors it is crushing below it, meaning that if the building was structurally equivalent (it was not, the building is build progressively stronger as you travel down the building) it would crush the top 12 floors at the same time as it collapsed the 12 floors beneath it, leaving nothing solid to act as a "pile driver" to crush the remaining floors below it.

48  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? on: May 11, 2016, 06:17:11 PM
Again, you just conveniently ignore the velocity of the 4 ton girders.
No I will get to it.

Good luck with that. Happy hunting on "debunking" sites so you don't have to have any actual thoughts of your own.
49  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? on: May 11, 2016, 06:12:14 PM
Again, you just conveniently ignore the velocity of the 4 ton girders. This was not a fluke where some how just one made it that far. There were MULTIPLE 4-ton girders hundreds of feet from the towers. Additionally considering there was ZERO TILT when the buildings went down right into their footprints, your entire argument about it some how magically being moved sideways is fallacious.
50  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? on: May 11, 2016, 05:41:40 PM
As I noted, the video itself shows a row of perimeter beams falling sideways.  

Please explain what your idea of a "normal" debris field for a 1300 foot tower should be and how this is different.  At 3:17 in your video it clearly shows portions of the side with the columns falling pretty far away.  

Kinetic and potential energy are related.   Set KE=PE.   A mass stationary at 1000 feet altitude has a kinetic energy equivalent.  Basically it's HUGE.

Recheck your work with the online calculator please.

Your argument was that the beams were ejected by the plane impact. Of course the beams are moving sideways, they were ejected with explosive force. What is the point of stating the obvious? The velocity of their lateral movement can be measured and you do not get that lateral velocity with "tilting" or "falling". Recheck your brain stem please.

Huh I asked if I understood your arguments properly.  Here is how I think they work, again.

So do these summarize your position on why the airplanes-into-buildings is insufficient to explain the events which occurred?

1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to damage the structures.

2.  Fire fueled by the fuel in the planes and other material in the towers could not have softened the steel structures enough to cause structural failure.

3.  The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel 4 ton sections of steel beams hundreds of feet.

4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.

I post this just to clarify that the respective arguments are what they are.

A  TNT, etc required to move those beams.
B  TNT not required to move those beams.

Do you understand your arguments properly? So far all your arguments just consist of what if ninjas, what if roller coasters, what if the laws of physics don't apply. Do you have anything substantive here to respond with or just continual tu quoque fallacies?



1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to damage the structures.
(What are you retarded or just purposely trying to waste my time to hope I will get tired of your bullshit and go away? Of course they damaged the structure)

1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to collapse the structures.


2.  Fire fueled by the fuel in the planes and other material in the towers could not have softened the steel structures enough to cause structural failure.

2.  Fire fueled by the fuel in the planes and other material in the towers could not have softened the steel structures enough to cause complete structural failure.  

The majority of the fuel was burned off at impact (see giant fireball and burn speed of jet fuel) as the fuel is stored in the wings. Even if every drop made it inside, it would still not be enough. The other materials in the building all met strict fire codes in order to prevent making fires worse. Additionally the fires did not burn for nearly long enough or hot enough to sufficiently weaken the structure.


3.  The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel 4 ton sections of steel beams hundreds of feet.

3.  The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel multiple 4 ton steel beams hundreds of feet laterally at the readily observable velocities demonstrated.


4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.


4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings cannot coexist with a building collapse due to the resistant force created as the building impacts the lower levels of itself.

Either it was free fall speed and explosives were used to clear the resistance before impact was made, or the impacts happen and create readily visible and measurable deceleration preventing free fall speed. The plane impact has absolutely nothing to do with it.

A  TNT, etc required to move those beams.
B  TNT not required to move those beams.


TNT is not required, some type of explosive is required. TNT was only used as a measurement of force required to move a 4-ton mass at the measured velocity of 21 m/s.
51  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? on: May 11, 2016, 05:33:38 PM
As I noted, the video itself shows a row of perimeter beams falling sideways. 

Please explain what your idea of a "normal" debris field for a 1300 foot tower should be and how this is different.  At 3:17 in your video it clearly shows portions of the side with the columns falling pretty far away. 


Gravity doesn't pull 4-ton beams 600 feet sideways, I don't care how a collapse happens. Gravity is exclusively a downward force. In fact to get this lateral movement you have to fight against gravity

Kinetic and potential energy are related.   Set KE=PE.   A mass stationary at 1000 feet altitude has a kinetic energy equivalent.  Basically it's HUGE.  PE certainly can be translated into other than vertical motion.  For example, roller coasters.

Recheck your work with the online calculator please.

Your argument was that the beams were ejected by the plane impact. Of course the beams are moving sideways, they were ejected with explosive force. What is the point of stating the obvious? The velocity of their lateral movement can be measured and you do not get that lateral velocity with "tilting" or "falling". I don't see any roller coaster rails, sorry. Recheck your brain stem please.
52  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? on: May 11, 2016, 04:31:19 PM
....
3. So your argument is the plane impact made multiple 4-ton girders fly in several directions at once, some of which were not even in the direction of the plane's momentum? Of all of the hundreds of videos of the impacts, do you see even one that shows anything like a girder flying out of the impact hole?

The 4-ton girders landined hundreds of feet from their placement in the towers requiring the ejecting force of explosions for this distance of lateral movement. This is not up for debate, this is a matter of the laws of physics. They could not have been thrown this distance from the towers from a collapse. This information comes directly from the FEMA reports.
......
Requires ejecting force of explosions?

Could not have been thrown this distance from a collapse?


Sez WHO?  Some youtube video?  Bull.

I can't see anything out of the ordinary about a debris field half the height of a tower after it's collapse.  Maybe a third the height.  In either case you have "girders hundreds of feet away."  Where exactly is some "ejecting force" required?  And for WHAT?  If explosives were used to bring the tower down those were precision charges, the exact type that would never blow something far away.  

Seriously, that makes no sense.

Let me put it like this.  Suppose a beam from near the top of the tower had an initial sideways velocity of 30 feet per second.  It's going to hit the ground 300 feet away after a 10 second fall.  All it needs to do to get the 30 fps velocity is get hit by another piece of junk, and leave the collision at a sideways angle.  With the "stair stepping" collapse, that's what happened - all that stuff from above was hitting the stuff below.

Please explain where it is a NECESSARY conclusion that beams were launched out by explosives.

Please explain what your idea of a "normal" debris field for a 1300 foot tower should be and how this is different.  At 3:17 in your video it clearly shows portions of the side with the columns falling pretty far away.  When a building 1300 feet high the perimeter of which is steel columns falls, shouldn't some of those fall sideways?  If one stayed intact to the ground - example only - it's tip would be 1300 feet away.  Please explain what is unusual about debris landing "several hundred feet away."

I will handle the other points shortly, short on time right now, lol...

Says FUCKING PHYSICS. Gravity doesn't pull 4-ton beams 600 feet sideways, I don't care how a collapse happens. Gravity is exclusively a downward force. In fact to get this lateral movement you have to fight against gravity. Maybe if the whole building tilted over and fell, but it didn't, it went straight down into its own footprint, which by the way is pretty much impossible without a controlled demolition. If that were not the case, why do controlled demolitions have to be so perfectly timed in order to make them fall correctly to prevent such tilting? Additionally the velocity of the lateral ejections can clearly be measured from video of the event, PROVING that the reaching those velocities with multi-ton objects would REQUIRE explosive force.

Try doing the calculation for the energy required yourself: http://www.1728.org/energy.htm

Using the MINIMUM meters per second velocity assuming the beam came directly from the impact zone, 21 m/s, and the mass of the girder at 4 tons, the required force is equivalent to 2.1e-4 TONS of TNT! That is the MINIMUM VALUES. If the beam came from the middle of the building, at 30 m/s, the required force would be 4.3e-4 TONS of TNT. Tell me some more about how explosive force is not required.

There is no conjecturing your way out of this one. 4-ton beams don't just magically get 30fps lateral movement. The amount of energy required to move a 4-ton object 600 feet laterally at a measurable velocity is not up for debate. You are arguing against the laws of physics, not a Youtube video.

Again I am presenting you with facts of physics which can be clearly observed and measured from the video. All you have to argue with is stories about ninjas and magical self flinging 4-ton beams. Your lame attempts at refuting these physical facts are pathetic.
53  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Up Like Trump on: May 11, 2016, 04:24:13 PM



Hindu Sena asks gods to help Donald Trump win US election



I like the 3rd eye they gave him.
54  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? on: May 11, 2016, 11:10:17 AM
Try to actually refute the argument, if you can.  This process is called "Understanding."

Maybe you should follow your own advice instead of attempting to redirect the conversation away from physical evidence you can not dispute.

So do these summarize your position on why the airplanes-into-buildings is insufficient to explain the events which occurred?

1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to damage the structures.

2.  Fire fueled by the fuel in the planes and other material in the towers could not have softened the steel structures enough to cause structural failure.

3.  The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel 4 ton sections of steel beams hundreds of feet.

4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.

Is that accurate?  I omitted the "flashes" because these are not related to the question of the aircraft strike as cause.  They are more related to a search for evidence of explosives after one determines that explosives were necessary.

Oh, by the way.  Let's not consider WTC engineers as "authoritative."  Wouldn't they have a serious vested interest in it not being prove they had made big mistakes?  Lol....

1. As I previously explained, the towers were designed to withstand impacts from Boeing 707 passenger airliners traveling at 600mph.

A) NYC WTC 'designed to withstand multiple airliner impacts' Frank De Martini construction boss

B) Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

C) Towers built to withstand jet impact

D) The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 - DC 8 ) travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such a collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

E) Sullivan consults, one of the trade center's original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane. He is told there is little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.


2. Again, as previously mentioned, in order to sufficiently weaken the steel support structure of the WTC for a collapse, temperatures in excess of 2000 F would be required for several hours, well above the 56 minutes between the impact and the collapse of the first tower. The events of that day, 3 high rise steel framed buildings ALL completely "collapsing from fire" was unprecedented, and statistically improbable.

A) We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours.

B) Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling: “We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

C) Based on four standard fire resistance tests that were conducted under a range of insulation and test conditions, NIST found the fire rating of the floor system to vary between 3/4hour and 2hours; in all cases, the floors continued to support the full design load without collapse for over 2 hours.

D) National Fire Protection Association publications show that there are about 110 high rise fires in buildings over 13 stories each year.  In the last 550 of those fires not one collapsed.  

3. So your argument is the plane impact made multiple 4-ton girders fly in several directions at once, some of which were not even in the direction of the plane's momentum? Of all of the hundreds of videos of the impacts, do you see even one that shows anything like a girder flying out of the impact hole?

The 4-ton girders landined hundreds of feet from their placement in the towers requiring the ejecting force of explosions for this distance of lateral movement. This is not up for debate, this is a matter of the laws of physics. They could not have been thrown this distance from the towers from a collapse. This information comes directly from the FEMA reports.

4. Buildings CAN NOT collapse at free fall speeds. The ONLY way under the laws of physics a building can fall at free fall speed is if there is NO RESISTANCE. A collapse as described by the official narrative would include resisting force as the floors impacted the lower levels beneath it creating deceleration. Again, this is not up for debate, it is a law of physics. The only possible way for the buildings to fall at those speeds would be if the supports were BLOWN OUT before the material above it impacted it.

As far as your argument about the engineer, you are seriously claiming that you think people would blame him for this as if it was some kind of engineering failure? That is beyond asinine. If the people who designed the fucking building are not authoritative enough for you, who is? Convenient you bring in this little side narrative to discredit the statement, that's why I included statements from other experts above. Perhaps they are all lying to protect themselves? Also, if it was such a engineering failure, why have none of the building codes been modified to correct for them? Hmmm....


See above.  You are asking about the appearance of the metal if it had been subject just to gravitational collapse.   Yes they would be "twisted jagged pieces."  The reason is that this is A36 steel and it's not going to snap, it's going to bend.  Bend and bend and bend and then snap.

Actually, those beams need to be heated to high temperatures to bend like the ones pulled from the rubble, much higher than jet fuel or a fire burning for less than an hour could produce.

So far I have provided pages and pages of reputable sources. All you seem to be able to do is provide opinion and conjecture.
55  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Up Like Trump on: May 11, 2016, 10:17:09 AM
Don't you know eating Mexican food is racist?



If enforcing immigration law is racist, Mexico is racist as fuck. In Mexico, if you are there illegally, they send you to prison, they don't just deport you. Enforcing immigration law is not racist. This insane political correctness exists to brainwash you into not resisting the destruction of your way of life.
56  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Up Like Trump on: May 09, 2016, 12:34:09 AM
Well....all I'll say at this point is, for most of the primary Ted Cruz looked an awful lot like he was running for the slot of Trump's running mate. To be frank, I wonder if that really was his intention - until some of his supporters (donors?) held his own feet to the fire.

Neither Cruz, nor Kasich will be Trump's running mate. I am sure about that. They were involved in too much mudslinging, to be considered for the VP pick. Also, right now Trump needs to attract the centrist voters. Most of the conservative voters are going to vote for him anyway (they don't have much of a choice). So IMO, someone like Rand Paul would be a good option.
I must have seen Rand Paul talk thirty times and like him but will disagree.  He's in the shadow of Ron Paul, and is to a degree viewed the same way.  

But there is a truly massive number of high caliber men and women out there at this time who would work.

While we're at it, who are our favorites?

Imagine Trump and Ron Paul!

Ron Paul does not endorse Trump, additionally I think Trump could do better. Ron Paul served his purpose at the time, but is now largely irrelevant. As far as Rand Paul, the apple fell far from the tree. He is just a establishment toolbag hiding behind his father's Libertarian shadow.
57  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? on: May 09, 2016, 12:18:12 AM
I'm certain you can see the problem with this kind of "evidence."

As for your question about being doubtful as to the kinetic energy of a plane hitting the tower, we can address that.  Have you considered that the kinetic energy of a mass is a function of speed and of weight?  It does not matter if the mass is steel, fuel, water, humans, or aluminum.

As for the flash in the video (one flash repeated over and over) I'm not impressed.  Yes, it appears to be a flash in the interior of the building - it looks like a flash from the big UPS systems which were IIRC a couple floors over the area that got hit.  So, something shorted out, right?  Flash.

What I was getting to is that if thermite had been used on the exterior columns you would have seen a very distinctive series of flashes going down the line.  One random flash doesn't cut it, sorry.

Also, are we through arguing nano-thermite?  As I mentioned, there's no need to hypothesize "nano-thermite" for a conspiracy theory, in fact it makes it crazier.  Demolition crews would simply used standard materials and standard methods.  Never has that been "nano-thermite," which is something of a laboratory curiosity.  The very reason Nobel won his Nobel prize was the fact that he figured out a way that dangerous, explosive material could be handled safely.  

I'm also curious, why this focus among conspiracy nuts on "cutting the columns?"  There is no relation between cutting a column and bringing a building down.  It is only necessary to heat a steel structure until it is weakened.  Steel is like putty when it is above 500-800 F.  The temperature and strength curves are well understood.  There's plenty of energy in jet fuel to do this.  This is simply stated, why I do not think "additional theories" are required.  These theories only attempt to bring "additional destructive energies" into the equation.  But if the known energies are sufficient, these ideas are not necessary.

It's as simple as that.  The conspiracy theorist must first rule out that the impact energy and the fuel of the jets could have caused the structural failures. 

I have not seen this done.  I've seen attempts at it that were extremely easy to debunk.

Going for all the low hanging fruit as usual eh? You still haven't addressed the 4-ton girders blown hundreds of feet from their positions in the towers, or the free fall speed of the building falling. Both of these things REQUIRE explosives to happen under the laws of physics. You can't just call batshit & ninjas to wiggle out of this one, it is 100% math and science.

As far as your argument about the kinetic energy of a plane hitting the towers, it was designed to withstand a direct Boeing 707 impact, according to one of the WTC engineers. This is a mathematical breakdown of the differences in the kinetic energy showing it had a 10% margin of error between the designed for impact, and the actual impact.

Regarding the substances the plane was made out of, it DOES matter. If it did not matter, why is it that aluminum bullets are not popular? It would be much cheaper than copper. The density of the the projectile matters because it will behave differently when hitting an object of greater density than when it hits an object that is less dense than it is. As a result, a mostly aluminum framed plane would not cut thru the outer steel columns of the building, but simply deform the side of impact and spread out its kinetic energy as it was crushed and the plane ripped apart as a result of hitting a more dense object, the outer steel columns.

As for your claims of steel becoming "like putty when it is above 500-800 F", do you even bother checking these things or do you just repeat them out of pure  arrogance and faith that you are right? Look at any steel working or forging website and it will tell you that the working temperature of steel where it is soft enough to be worked is almost double the temperatures you claim.

In reference to your response about the flashes, you clearly did not view all of the videos, and are quickly moving to discredit them, because they discredit your earlier claims of no explosives like flashes being visible. additionally the metric is not how impressed you are, but that the flashes exist. The most clearly visible case of this is in building 7, where it is extremely obvious that explosive charges were used, as you can clearly see multiple flashes in repetition, along with windows blown out, and ejections from the pressure. There was also included several angles of flashes in the WTC buildings, but the most prominent was the shock waves and ejections from these charges. 1. 2. 3. Furthermore, as I explained earlier, highly visible explosive flashes could be avoided simply by placing thermite charges on the exterior supports, and using the cutter charges on the internal supports, obfuscating most of the flashes. Clearly not all of them were hidden though as the video evidence shows.

You try to make a point that the steel could just have been heated to bring the building down, but you are ignoring a very basic law of energy, induction. You are claiming that a massive highly conductive structure made from steel surrounded by heat sapping materials such as concrete was able to heat to sufficient softening or melting point in just 56 minutes in an uncontrolled kerosene fire? Must be those ninjas changing the laws of physics again.

"It's as simple as that.  The conspiracy theorist must first rule out that the impact energy and the fuel of the jets could have caused the structural failures. 

I have not seen this done.  I've seen attempts at it that were extremely easy to debunk."

As sourced above, directly from an WTC engineer's mouth, the buildings were designed to withstand such an impact.

58  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? on: May 08, 2016, 07:01:25 AM
So you think the planes the towers, they were loaded up with "nano thermite," AND there were explosives?

Wow.  That sounds like one very complicated set of stuff.

There must have been hundreds of ninjas prowling in and around those buildings for months to get all that set up.

So should I just put that down as you have no substantive rebuttal to physical evidence I presented? Maybe the "ninjas" some how changed the laws of physics to make those multiple 4-ton girders end up hundreds of feet from the tower? Maybe they also used their laws of physics changing powers to make the towers fall at free fall speed, ie no resistance which would be created by an actual collapse as explained by the "pancake" gravity driven collapse theory. There is substantively no significant difference between placing one type of explosive and two types of explosives. Everything I have posted is factual.

As far as your "ninjas" there was an opportunity to place devices as the weekend before the attacks, there was an "unprecedented" shut down of the power (including the security systems) on the top half of the south tower, as witnessed by this employee as well as others working in the WTC building providing plenty of time for this to be coordinated undetected. The company in charge of security at the WTC, Dulles International Airport, and United Airlines was called Stratsec, which had Marvin Bush, brother of George W. Bush on its board of directors. George H.W. Bush was also formerly the director of the CIA. These circumstances provided plenty of opportunity, resources, and knowledge for organizing such an act. Additionally the technology to remotely take over and pilot civilian aircraft has been in development since the 70's, and was demonstrated to be functional before 9/11.


Which IIRC I posted a rebuttal to.

But now you see part of what I was talking about?  Molten metal?   Oh, they must have used THERMITE.

SUSPICIOUS DUST?  Oh, they must have used EXPLOSIVES.

So we've got planes ramming into towers PLUS explosives previously set EXACTLY WHERE THE planes hit PLUS THERMITE exactly there to.

Man, we have a whole buffet line of crap going on at the same time from these conspiracy theorists.

LOL, these conspiracy theories are very weak theories.  They are bat shit crazy talk.

Rationally, one should ask from the evidence, what is necessary and sufficient to cause the results.  Nothing other than planes ramming buildings is required, because -

1.  There was no "molten metal."
2.  There was no flash as would have been seen from explosions.  Remember the beams supporting the towers were on the perimeter, so it would have been very, very obvious.  If you have never seen an explosion, you wouldn't understand.  It's a brilliant flash.
3.  The effect of nano-thermite and thermite are opposite.

None of this implies that a great conspiracy theory on 911 couldn't be made, just that it hasn't been seen yet.

1. Evidence of molten metal - 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

2. Flashes - 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

3. On what factual data do you base this claim? Regardless if it was thermite, thermate, or nanothermite, all three would be very capable of liquefying the iron supports sufficiently to bring the building down, especially in combination with explosives. The outer columns could have been weakened with thermite, and the inner supports destroyed with high explosives in an effort to conceal the explosive blasts from the public eye.

So the three cores of any criminal investigation-
Means: CHECK
Motive: More to come
Opportunity: CHECK

59  Economy / Goods / Re: EPREX 40.000 UI/ml on: May 07, 2016, 08:19:19 PM
   You can use this script for live prices. Click quote so see the BBCode.
60  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? on: May 07, 2016, 04:42:31 AM
Actually I'm quite familiar with analogs, similar things to the thermite processes, although I have not worked with thermite.  But it's nothing but a welding compound.  The nano-thermite nonnsense, I recall reading a number of college dissertations that were on similar processes in rocket motors.  We're not talking here about the chemistry of the processes.

We're talking about crazy talk — your talk of building explosive materials into buildings, and your insinuation that that was and is being done.  Please tell us more.

And what is the process of welding composed of? That's right, melting metals like steel in order to liquefy them so they can be bound once cooled. It is also well known to be used in the military to destroy large weapons which are resistant to penetration by classic projectiles. Something like thermite could have very well been used to weaken the internal structures of the WTC buildings. There is evidence of this on video as well as in samples collected from the iron girders, dust, and satellite thermal imagery. Also there is no debate over whether nanothermite is real, it exists. This is not a theory. Also there is evidence using simple laws of physics demonstrating that explosives MUST have been used by the distance that iron girders were propelled from the towers. You are not nearly as informed as you think you are.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ... 243 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!