Man furious at 9/11 truthers spreading mis-information on metallurgy - General

[QUOTE=Melnek;49346701]nah all conspiracy theories related to 9/11 are retarded by default, i'm referring to conspiracy theories in general[/QUOTE] Most really well known ones (Illuminati, Gov't hiding aliens, Reptilians, NWO etc) necessarily rely on large if not huge numbers of people maintaining absolute silence. What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that the September 11 attacks [I]were[/I] a conspiracy... perpetrated by a foreign backed group of only 19 people. Do you have any examples of actual large scale secret conspiracies? I can think of the NSA spying, but honestly that wasn't really a secret. There has been US and other nations actively starting and fueling wars and coups and rebellions all over the world, but none of those were especially well hidden.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;49344586]I'm so glad he did this video, considering the whole jet fuel argument assumes that metals only lose structure starting [I]exactly[/I] at its reported "melting point" when in actuality that point is when said metal is more or less liquefied.[/QUOTE] what argument it's a meme?

[QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;49346812] Do you have any examples of actual large scale secret conspiracies? [/QUOTE] Many of these managed to maintain silence for years. [video=youtube;58mhPaUL3Uc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58mhPaUL3Uc[/video]

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49346652]Except this is stupid. A conspiracy of the size of the 9/11 one necessitates a LARGE group being involved. There's no way to even start talking about 9/11 as being an inside job of 2 people. The only way two people keep a secret is if one of them is dead. [editline]18th December 2015[/editline] I'm not saying you're stupid btw. Merely saying that excuse in that scenario would be if it were really pulled out.[/QUOTE] I am not gonna make any specific claims, what I will say is that compartmentalization can solve this problem really easily. Lets say we have 2 people with the full picture. Those two people each have 2 unquestioning lieutenants who recieve lets say 75% of the whole picture. Those two lieutenants each have divisions underneath them, the commanders of which would only need know maybe half of the whole picure. By this point anything insiduous could only be inferred. The quality of the orders at this level already likely resemble any other orders. They have no clue how this plays into the overall plan, each individual commander only knows their specific operation which, by itself, isn't enough to piece anything together. After that point the orders are extremely mundane and only deducible as a "conspiracy" given some serious investigation into the higher ranks and other divisions. At this point the orders would sound something like "Bomb insurgents here" or "Reroute to base, there has been a change in the training plan" or something like that. The people at this level no longer could even speak up if they wanted to except to outline a seemingly unrelated detail. Compartmentalization allows the whole picture of any plan to be known to as few people as possible, and, as you go down the ranks, all that is known is a seemingly unrelated set of orders. Without context as to what all the orders are, how they come together, and how someone in particular could benefit from that state of affairs, a conspiracy can remain airtight from the outside, and solid from the inside.

[QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;49346812]Most really well known ones (Illuminati, Gov't hiding aliens, Reptilians, NWO etc) necessarily rely on large if not huge numbers of people maintaining absolute silence. What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that the September 11 attacks [I]were[/I] a conspiracy... perpetrated by a foreign backed group of only 19 people. Do you have any examples of actual large scale secret conspiracies? I can think of the NSA spying, but honestly that wasn't really a secret. There has been US and other nations actively starting and fueling wars and coups and rebellions all over the world, but none of those were especially well hidden.[/QUOTE] CIA shit, wallstreet conspiracy 1930s, Vietnam,Spanish-American war excuses,etc

The comments: "This guy clearly doesn't know the architecture of the world trade center. I mean, it sounds good, but it just isn't correct. You are targeting a specific area of the metal and super heating it over time and in a 2500 degree kiln, of course it is going to be easy to bend. But the "jet fuel" was only on the top floors of the building, so how does it bring down an entire building? I'm not buying the jet fuel cover up." "they dont use half inch steel rods in buildings..." "Couple obvious, logical questions and observations: (I uploaded a video response. Think people, think!) 1.) How long was your "structural steel" in the furnace? 2.) Why did you use only half inch steel? 3.) Why was the metal heated to 300 degrees MORE than Jet fuel can burn? 4.) Why didn't towers 1 and 2 simply BEND and fall over away from the healthy structure below as you demonstrated? 5.) Why did the part of the towers that WASN'T affected by jet fuel (the perfectly in tact HEALTHY STRUCTURE) decide to give out in perfect succession? 6.) WTC 7 was not subjected to jet fuel or an airplane, yet fell the same way the other towers fell." "This did not prove anything," "There is no way in hell that the steel beams in those buildings "melted" from jet fuel fire. Consider this fact.. a good portion of both towers were not on fire whatsoever... so when they collapsed, wouldn't it make sense that a portion of the buildings would not have collapsed. Instead, the buildings disintegrated and there was melted steel in the basement. MELTED STEEL... Did you get melted steel by conducting your little experiment on your little steel beam? No. You did not prove anything. The New York fire department doesn't lie."

[QUOTE=Paxton;49347830]youtube comments[/QUOTE] I bet if any of these guys were actually there when it happened they wouldn't be on the internet coming up with dumb conspiracies. Also the people who claim the government did it are fucking retards. 9/11 basically marked the end of an era of being the world's number one superpower. It has shown to the world the the US isn't as great as it was thought to be. Why would the government purposefully weaken their power. It doesn't make sense.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49347776]I am not gonna make any specific claims, what I will say is that compartmentalization can solve this problem really easily. Lets say we have 2 people with the full picture. Those two people each have 2 unquestioning lieutenants who recieve lets say 75% of the whole picture. Those two lieutenants each have divisions underneath them, the commanders of which would only need know maybe half of the whole picure. By this point anything insiduous could only be inferred. The quality of the orders at this level already likely resemble any other orders. They have no clue how this plays into the overall plan, each individual commander only knows their specific operation which, by itself, isn't enough to piece anything together. After that point the orders are extremely mundane and only deducible as a "conspiracy" given some serious investigation into the higher ranks and other divisions. At this point the orders would sound something like "Bomb insurgents here" or "Reroute to base, there has been a change in the training plan" or something like that. The people at this level no longer could even speak up if they wanted to except to outline a seemingly unrelated detail. Compartmentalization allows the whole picture of any plan to be known to as few people as possible, and, as you go down the ranks, all that is known is a seemingly unrelated set of orders. Without context as to what all the orders are, how they come together, and how someone in particular could benefit from that state of affairs, a conspiracy can remain airtight from the outside, and solid from the inside.[/QUOTE] you're assuming the american government is competent and willing enough to carry out a convoluted scheme for dubious gain this plan also involved blowing up a chunk of new york and killing thousands of people for shits and giggles

whats even more terrible is that people on the comment say he's wrong LOL

for some reason a lot of conspiracy theorists tend to think buildings are like this one, solid uniform mass that takes peak conditions to break properly in the scale of a commercial airliner smacking facefirst into a building, it really doesn't take that much to bring it down. the combined increasing temperatures + weight of a god damn airplane + structural integrity breakdown is more than enough it's like if you had to hold a 400 lb weight over your head. you might be able to do it for, say, a couple of seconds, but once you run out of strength to support that it'll come crashing down. there's no saving throws you can make that'll stop you from collapsing.

what could the us possibly have gained by blowing up the wtc that they couldn't have achieved with a smaller, less destructive and less convoluted plan?

[QUOTE=aznz888;49350015]for some reason a lot of conspiracy theorists tend to think buildings are like this one, solid uniform mass that takes peak conditions to break properly in the scale of a commercial airliner smacking facefirst into a building, it really doesn't take that much to bring it down. the combined increasing temperatures + weight of a god damn airplane + structural integrity breakdown is more than enough it's like if you had to hold a 400 lb weight over your head. you might be able to do it for, say, a couple of seconds, but once you run out of strength to support that it'll come crashing down. there's no saving throws you can make that'll stop you from collapsing.[/QUOTE] Not just the weight of the plane but the weight of whatever was above where the plane crashed.

how stupid does someone have to be to believe that steel will stay perfectly structurally sound up until that "Magic melting point" where it'll just instantly turn into magma and break down as if the only way to take a building down is if you intend to do it with bombs or you know you put a fucking plane in its side and that'll do it. Because building's aren't designed to be hit by giant flaming objects. [editline]19th December 2015[/editline] but no, you have to reach that MAGIC MELTING POINT or else it won't even notice

[QUOTE=Penguiin;49344972]i hope no one is serious with this argument... its just a meme at this point on youtube like the whole darude sandstorm thing[/QUOTE] I found out the bartender at the pub I usually go to is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and that was word for word one of the arguments he used to try and convince me

[QUOTE=J!NX;49351586]how stupid does someone have to be to believe that steel will stay perfectly structurally sound up until that "Magic melting point" where it'll just instantly turn into magma and break down as if the only way to take a building down is if you intend to do it with bombs or you know you put a fucking plane in its side and that'll do it. [B]Because building's aren't designed to be hit by giant flaming objects.[/B] [editline]19th December 2015[/editline] but no, you have to reach that MAGIC MELTING POINT or else it won't even notice[/QUOTE] Ummm.... [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pvEge5HPJU[/media] Yeah... that's before 9/11.. [url="http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a022793skilling"]Theres more[/url] So, basically they did plan for giant impacts. They planned for 707s and what hit the towers on 9/11 were 767s. So there's that.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49351719]Ummm.... Yeah... that's before 9/11.. [URL="http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a022793skilling"]Theres more[/URL] So, basically they did plan for giant impacts. They planned for 707s and what hit the towers on 9/11 were 767s. So there's that.[/QUOTE] in the same article you linked [QUOTE]However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), following its three-year investigation into the WTC collapses, will in 2005 state that it has been “[B]unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel[/B]."[/QUOTE] tl;dr, how the fuck do you airplane-proof a commercial skyscraper built in the 70s? answer: you don't. it's wasn't a fucking armored citadel, it was a giant 110 floor building designed for civilian use. they didn't have the engineering tech we have now, where we can simulate the effects of prolonged high temperatures on structures.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49351719] So, basically they did plan for giant impacts. They planned for 707s and what hit the towers on 9/11 were 767s. So there's that.[/QUOTE] apparently that plan didn't go over so well because they fell anyways

saying you plan for a building to be hit by a plane of a large size doesn't mean a lot to me. They designed the titanic to be unsinkable. An iceberg got that ship, a well known and possible threat they prepared for. The towers falling even if they're designed to survive that only shows me that we as people always overestimate our intelligence when we're trying to sell our new products and buildings and ships and such.

[QUOTE=Frosty_Avo;49344822]People who don't believe this also seem to forget that the fuel didn't just teleport up there, it was brought there by a huge metallic object crashing through the wall and doing lots of damage on its own too.[/QUOTE] Along with taking out a large number of supports, putting increased weight and strain on the remaining, burning ones. Which is why the second tower that got hit collapsed first, because more weight was bearing down on the remaining supports. The WTC was a Core + outside supports. It made for more floor space. It wasn't like a 3D grid like the empire state, which is why the Empire State building didn't give a fuck when a plane hit it way back As for the Pentagon, I made this in about 9 seconds years ago. It was without a doubt a 757 [img]http://i.imgur.com/hFM5hAS.jpg[/img] 757 is 44ft to the top of the tail, and the largest cruise missile we have is what, 2 feet in diameter?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49353739]saying you plan for a building to be hit by a plane of a large size doesn't mean a lot to me. They designed the titanic to be unsinkable. An iceberg got that ship, a well known and possible threat they prepared for. The towers falling even if they're designed to survive that only shows me that we as people always overestimate our intelligence when we're trying to sell our new products and buildings and ships and such.[/QUOTE] Or another disaster we [del]faced[/del] caused, the Chernobyl incident unregulated employee's and idiots running a place they had zero training in operating, ending in the worst possibly scenario imaginable. They just pretended it wouldn't happen, and then it did. Who could have guessed that would have happened.