• Connecticut GOP mailer shows Jewish Democrat candidate fervently clutching money
    60 replies, posted
Making assumptions. I've read most of Mick West's stuff on 9/11 and also seen him on podcasts of the same. Did you care to scroll down through the hotly debated comment section of that page by chance? As Dr Leroy said, he isn't done, Mick does correctly point out that those joints are not set as fixed by NIST, they simply didn't release the data of what they were. You'll see I omitted that from my post and Leroy does indeed need to make amends to that. It's also very preliminary for Mick West to claim this as Debunked when the report isn't finished yet, but as I said, it's not looking good for NIST.
Uhh fucking laser powered lizard people from Venus took it down by aligning the chakra's of the solar system's flat planet with the polyhedral dark matter flow in sub-space, using the power of their JO crystals dude. It's elementary stuff, even those scientists who couldn't explain gravity could understand 9/11. :downs:
I was just getting to that bit.
lmao I thought wtc conspiracy theorists were a joke
Yeah, thanks a lot for that. We'd have a public healthcare option as of now if it wasn't for him.
daily reminder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA
I go to school in CT and (despite going to a red school), the general political climate feels a lot more comfortable than my home state of New Jersey
Boy, this attack ad is almost as stupid and believing 9/11 was a conspiracy.
It's just the eyes that do that
Controlled demolition of a structure a third of that size requires weeks, if not months of preparation that entails tearing apart walls to get at support beams. It's not something that could ever be done surreptitiously in a busy office building. The fact of the matter is that we really don't know how a tower of that size would "normally" collapse, because it's never happened before or since.
God this is so stupid, wanna know why the building collapses at near free fall speeds. It's because when the top section collapses and hits the supporting structure, that normally holds that weight just fine, which is now weakened by high temperature fire. It's because of something called Impact Force, which means when the top section hits the supporting structure it does so at many times the force it normally holds. This becomes a compounding effect where more and more of the energy is carried over, and it collapses at near free fall speeds, and is not slowed down because the energy of the previous impact is compounded into the next. Not to mention internally many of the floors more than likely already collapsed and is what's causing the blowout or bulge effect Not a god damn demolition
For a statement like that, let me show you why what you just said doesn't make sense and how you don't know what you are talking about, not even about 9/11, but the conservation of momentum and how potential energy works. The lower section of the buildings supporting structure was only affected by the initial impact, heat did not do a damn thing to the lower structures integrity because heat rises, the conducted heat would have only gone down a floor or two and even then been hot to the touch after that. The black smoke that we see pouring out of the building indicates low temperature fires which sustained once the fuel was burned off (which took a couple of seconds). You are confusing mass with energy here and it shows quite largely you have no idea what you are speaking about. If you said the mass of the previous collapsed floors contributed then I would be behind you, because it absolutely does contribute but only as much as the laws of conservation of energy will allow, and no more. Let's for example say that we instantaneously removed 3 floors of the building in it's entirety, the top section now has 3 floors worth of gravitational potential energy on top of it's mass that will accumulate during the fall. So no, the bottom section is not suddenly subjected to many times of what it was holding, only the initial impact zones where the energy will be dissipated in equal measures of what is destroyed, both top and bottom. This is a principle used in demolitions already, gravity induced demolitions set the charges at the half way point of buildings because as the 2nd law of motion dictates, you can only destroy as much of the bottom as you can from the top + the potential energy of the initial fall. Now the thing with the mass accumulating and contributing is that the vast majority of the concrete was pulverized and dissipated across the city. What we are seeing is not smoke, it's concrete being pulverized somehow, if this was due to the floors hitting each other then we only have 15 floors to work with before there is literally nothing but a steel frame and a rather negligible amount of rubble falling on the rest of the building. Besides that point, we don't see any of the building caving in, twisting or warping to a large degree on collapse. Everything is moving outward.
Besides that point, we don't see any of the building caving in, twisting or warping to a large degree on collapse. Everything is moving outward. This is blatantly false and you can watch any footage to see that both towers buckled inward before they collapsed.
(Highlight the text of the post you want to quote and then hit reply to get it boxed) I said on collapse for a reason, the outer structural supports did bow and bend after the impact of the planes, they do this on purpose to distribute forces from above, there's a video of the architects themselves explaining this, along with explaining that they were indeed built to support plane impacts. Watching the video I posted above is just a good example as any of seeing the bottom section remaining rigid and straight before being swallowed in dust,
(why are we debating 9-11 conspiracies in a thread about GOP mailers please kill me - this is my last offtopic post here) Two things. The towers did not fall at free-fall speeds. A free-fall collapse would've taken 9.22 seconds. There's a lot of disagreement for the actual collapse time but it's generally around 12-16 seconds. That equates out to almost half free-fall acceleration. Even if you say the collapse only took 10 seconds that's an acceleration of 8.34m/s^2 which is a significant amount less than gravity free fall. What also matters is that claiming that the towers remained rigid and straight until they were pulverized is a moot point. The outer shell of the towers remained rigid and straight as it was designed to. What you're not accounting for is the basic construction of the towers which was a tube design (but you know this I'm sure) with weaker interior trusses supporting the floors. Now, this outer tube structure did a great job resisting the collapse as can be seen in several videos where the outer columns remained standing with the rest of the building gone. What didn't survive the falling of 45,000 tons of falling rubble was the interior truss work, center concrete elevator shafts, and floor structure. Once this was gone it didn't matter how rigid those outer columns were, they were coming down. See this video for a large chunk of the outer support structure which remained standing after the collapse for a short time. I'm going to refrain from replying further but I wanted to make these last two points.
is your definition of “debunked” just some dude making up arguments that seem tangential at best and unsupported at worst
I was gonna stop previously with papkee but since you felt the need so will I. That some dude is Richard Gage, a structural engineer and architect. I find your post awefuly rich when you defend a redneck heating a steel bar in a forge degrees hotter than jet fuel to glowing orange and bending it as if it means a damn thing. He's arguing against nobody with any merit, and simply throwing a meme out to make people nod in agreement when the argument has had nothing to do with steel for decades. Everytime someone uses that video it's a disgrace to metallurgists and the argument you try to make. It doesn't do you any justice. It's something that might appease biblebelt republicans but FP should have a little more self respect when showing their sources.
Remind me again how you managed to completely steer this thread into a completely unrelated clusterfuck of bullshittery? https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/132319/3ce1e10d-5b8a-49b3-851a-6b8ba5392f1c/PsRGVHm.gif
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/237427/ee4fd2df-1288-49eb-baf5-562d00258a26/image.png This cunt had to open his mouth and I'm quite happy rising to the occasion.
Normally we wouldn't step in anymore, but this thread is ridiculous. Please get back on topic, or at least argue offtopic civily because you're all going nowhere.
Imagine if GOP candidates actually debated the ideas of their political opponements instead of constantly making personnal attacks, bigoted dogwhistles and cheating the system. And then blaming the other side for being "uncivil" when theyre criticised for it.
Last few times they tried that they lost to Obama, so to them it's clearly a failing strategy.
It's almost like their actual goals are awful.
*the GOP, calmly and with some sense of humility* "Look, I understand how hard life can be, I grew up in fly-over country, but the last thing this country needs is socialized medicine-Wait, where are you going?! I'LL BET YOU'RE A MUSLIM LOVER!"
I wish you guys would more often tbh
seriously, the quality of discussions would increase 10 fold if moderators actually moderated the discussions. this 9/11 talk should have been nipped in the bud on page one.
Originally my post was more of a "You ain't the one to talk" towards his response. Wasn't expecting him to double/triple down on his stance instead of making a comedic reply.
probably a sign the laissez-faire approach isn't working too good in polidicks in general
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.