Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Minusorange, Jan 4, 2019.
Read your last few posts when you sober up tomorrow.
Have we had the old, no other skyscraper has collapsed after it went on fire yet?
"it's impossible for a building to fall like this in any other way"
Except for the times similar falls have happened under other conditions, just not been seen by the CT's or they've discounted them...
A bit like the "no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire" rubbish they come up with, which is immediately discredited when you look at all the other steel framed buildings that collapse due to fire (most warehouses for example are steel framed buildings these days
Ok, how exactly do expect something that weighs a couple of hundred thousand tons to fall when it's hit by something that weighs maybe a couple of hundred tons and removes structural support?
Think about it for a few moments...
Which is more likely, that it'll fall more or less straight down, as you know, that's the direction the vast majority of the forces affecting the structure are going, or is it going to topple over like a domino.
About the only time I've ever seen or heard of something like a tall building falling over is a few times where the low rise flats (solid concrete constuction maybe 6-10 storey's high) have had the ground give way under them due to insufficient foundations and being built on loose earth/clay (usually happens after an earthquake or when a few hundred thousand tons of water have hit them), or something like a botched brick chimney demolition (and even then the chimney usually ends up breaking under the force of gravity overcoming it's structural strength rather than falling over in one large lump like a tree).
Towers are built fairly strong for sideways forces to allow for wind loading, but that is nothing compared to the strength required to hold them up and even then that is under certain conditions, remove supports, replace them with weaker ones (or ones that have for example been weakened by exposure to heat...) and you have failures where the structure tends to fall in the direction of the majority of the loading (which is down, possibly with some sideways travel).
They're also not designed to cope with say all the weigh dropping several meters down, as that's a far higher momentary loading than their maximum constant load (think how a tile can be fine with a stack of bricks on it, but if you drop one of those bricks on it from any height and it'll likely crack despite the weight of the brick being within what it could take when it was carefully applied).
This is all stuff you should have learned in GSCE science, I know I did, as at least at my school (going back more years than I'm going to admit) as part of our science lessons we had to team up to build a bridge, and in another to demonstrate how heat affects materials the teacher got a steel bar put some weights on it and it was fine, then he heated it up until it was glowing red (so nowhere near melting), put the same weights back on and it bent.
There are loads of ways you can educate yourself on loading and stresses, including games like Bridge Constructor (where you can see how a perfectly stable design that can take one weight may fail at a fraction of the load with the loss of a single part), or experimenting in your garage.
Even lego and machanno teach kids about this sort of thing.
If you have an issue with anything I’ve posted, report it. Let a mod decide if I’m rude or you’re a flakey thing. I always respect their judgment.
Your sober post is, once again evidence that you have nothing. Nothing.
Isn't this the thing that Dylan Avery the maker of Loose Change now concentrates on?
Several years ago I read an interview where he said he'd got it wrong but highlighted the above.
He now doesn't say he got it wrong and just says make your own mind up.
It sure wasn't a muslim in a cave. It was a number of muslims in a couple of planes.
Or maybe it was the FreemasonIlluminatiAlienLizards using alien destructo-rays so there wouldn't be any evidence of the rather lengthy and elaborate process of a controlled demoliton using explosives. No, wait, I've got it! It was Darth Vader, using The Force!
Oh no, the TIE fighters will be homing in on my house already because I mentioned the conspiracy! Oh woe is me! Alas! Alack!
No, I didn't.
What I said wasn't a complex concept. I'm having trouble believing that you really misunderstand it so badly that what you're saying has no connection to what I said.
This one, obviously. Also every other universe, if there are any.
Every designed structure - building, bridge, road, tunnel, railway, whatever - has building collapse as a consideration of design. You always, always, consider failure. Only a blithering idiot would build (or allow to be built) a tower hundreds of meters high in a densely built up area without any consideration as to what would happen if it failed. That would be so recklessly incompetent that it could be considered insane. It could only happen in the most corrupt societies and probably not even then.
Firstly, you have to consider demolition of the building. It's not going to last forever. Do you really think it would be reasonable to just say "Ah, they can just demolish everything in an 1Km radius of the building when they want to demolish the building"? But even that doesn't make any sense, because every other building to be demolished would create another radius of required demolition. Under your plan, demolishing any building in a dense urban area would probably trigger the demolition of the entire city, or at least the shutting down and evacuation of the entire city. Oh hi, people of London! All 10 million of you must evacuate so we can demolish one building because we've no idea where it will fall and what other buildings it will wreck and what other buildings those buildings would wreck...actually, everyone in southeast England had better evacuate, just in case. It's not a problem to close half the entire country's economy for a day, is it?
Secondly, you have to consider failure due to unforeseen circumstances. For the simple reason that they happen. Flooding, fire, attack, wind, whatever. You can't know unknown circumstances and the result of not planning would be even more death and destruction, so of course you plan the building to reduce the scope of the death and destruction.
Why on earth would you not do that?
I made collapse a consideration of design when I put up a shelf! Anyone with any sense makes failure a consideration of design, but most especially when vast death and destruction and cost is involved.
Speaking of design the towers were supposedly designed to withstand multiple hits from 707's (at the time of construction the largest passenger jet) but look how that ended
They also factored in fire
What they didn't factor in was fire from a plane impact
Btw my stance on 9/11 is planes did crash and the towers did fall due to it (doesn't mean I can't ask questions), I'm just not sure how much the government was actually involved as I think there's definitely a cover up where they knew and did nothing to invigorate the weapons industry or they're covering up an "Ally" being involved also building 7 was odd in that it was on fire BEFORE the 2 towers collapsed and thus the sprinkler system should have worked as the water was only cut supposedly after the towers fell
Erm IIRC the impact of the aircraft damaged the sprinkler and water systems, and they're not designed to deal with that sort of fire that basically starts all over several floors (floors where the impact has occurred,,).
From memory Sprinkler systems aren't usually to stop a major fire, but slow it's spread down, and try to contain it whilst people evacuate and the fire fighters arrive, and I believe it's relatively rare for normal sprinklers alone to put out a major fire over several floors.
They also only output something like 5-10 percent of what a standard fire-hose can per head, and it's undirected so much of that water is not going where it would be most use.
I think they also only hold enough water in the header tanks for a certain number of the heads to be active, for a certain amount of time, as a building designer you really don't want to have huge amounts of water right at the top of your building as it means you are spending far more money and space on structure to support that weight all the way down.
I've got a feeling the WTC towers were also not originally designed with sprinklers in mind, so that would somewhat limit their effectiveness and the amount of water they had available without checking I'm going to guess they ran off the general header tanks rather than specific tanks as whilst you can retrofit sprinkler heads and pipework fairly easily, retrofitting tanks to hold potentially tens (or hundreds) of tons of water is hard*.
You then have the issue that typically it takes a lot more water to put out a fire than the normal supply can give you, hence buildings have "riser" pipes that give you more water than the normal system, but IIRC they don't necessarily work that well in very high buildings without additional pumping, and usually require manual activation (even if it's just opening valves at various points), so those header tanks for the sprinklers are likely to be emptying faster than the normal supply can fill them back up.
This ignores the fact that the fire was at least initially largely a mixed source fire, paper/furnishings which water alone can potentially put out, and aviation fuel/hydrolic oils, which usually requires either foam or powder, and when you add water to a fuel or oil fire it can make things worse (think chip pan fire).
It's basically a nightmare fire for the people who design buildings, as you've got the fire starting across large areas of multiple floors, it's started in a manner that damages the pipework for the fire suppression system, and it's liquid based at least in part so plain water is not going to kill it.
*Fire sprinklers go through water at a rate tens of litres a minute each (IIRC something like 50 litres a minute), that's around half a ton for just 10 sprinklers every minute.
Dunno much about it but that is what is on our advisory at work - sprinklers and the automatic fire shutters are designed to buy time to get people out and increase the chances the servers are successfully backed up offsite with the latest data.
WT7 (Minusorange's post) would have had little if any aviation fluids as it wasn't directly hit by the planes only debris from the impact and then from the twin towers collapsing. From what I can see of the two videos from inside WT7 one shortly before the collapse and the other around the time they were evacuating it there is no evidence that the sprinklers were even working at all.
EDIT: Apparently they didn't work at all on WT7 either before the water main was damaged by the twin towers collapse or after.
I do find it amusing when people start using RTV as a credible source for exposing government secrets
Perhaps you need to apply that logic to what you're proposing, ask yourself what's most likely.
That a government or government agency managed to either organise the long series of complex events that would've been necessary for such an operation, or that they knowingly allowed it to be carried out, and at no stage did someone say "Hey, this is bad. I'm going to leak it to the press"
Or that some 'foreign sheep herders' scraped together a few hundred dollars, took some flying lessons and hijacked some planes just like other nefarious people have done in the past.
When applying that logic perhaps it's worth bearing in mind that we're talking about a government who can't keep a lid on the extent of their mass surveillance program, who couldn't keep a lid on their POTUS receiving a 'favor' from an intern, the involvement of big oil in the Iraq war, etc, etc. And we're also talking about 'foreign sheep herders' who did what thousands of people do each year, they took some flying lessons, and then repeated something that had been happening almost since the invention of passenger flights.
I've just had a sprinkler system installed in a 50m x 30m 'shed'. To extinguish a fire within the pumps I've specified have to provide at least 7000l a minute.
The catchphrase you see many variations of is "How could goat herders in a cave with box cutters carry this out" in nearly every discussion. The answer is they didn't the attackers were Saudi and Egyptian nationals some spending extended time in Europe and then the US before the attacks. They were not backward Taliban goat herders.
Having not belived the official story myself, I do feel for people still clinging onto the conspiracy theories. I now recognise what I did when I was a believer, I would cherry pick information and then combine it to show something didn't add up. What I could never do was look at the overall picture of the sheer number of events that would need to be coordinated to actually carry out a faked attack on this scale. I could never actually explain what happened that day without a massively complex series of events. The reality is that Occam's razor actually falls at the door of terrorists hijacking poorly secured planes as the simplest explanation.
If you believe the conspiracy, I would ask you what is the biggest project you yourself have been involved in? Anyone who has worked in large projects or contracts especially involving government agencies knows how completely unfeasible it would be to coordinate 9/11 if cruise missiles, building demolitions, disappearing planes, fake drills and planted passports were involved.
Moving on from 9/11 conspiracy is about growing up and understanding how the world really operates. The world is far more mundane in some ways than the movie thriller world of 9/11 conspiracies. However it is far from being boring, I still love reading about covert operations and political intrigue but I now know what is possible and what is fantasy.
If you believe in the 9/11 conspiracy you have sheltered yourself from the depth of information that is actually out there. Particularly you should read about intelligence operations during the Clinton years leading up to the attacks. Get off YouTube and read actual deep well researched books that will educate you on the hidden geopolitics that are all around us.
This book is a great place to start:
Ghost Wars by Steve Coll
If anyone wants questions answered or help to step away from their conspiracy beliefs 9/11, faked moon landings etc) I would be really willing to help you. I was that person and I can tell you giving up conspiracy theories can be like giving up smoking or a drug. There is definitely an addictive dopamine style reward to thinking you are uncovering information that the masses doesn't know about. There is a real fear that your life will be more empty without the conspiracy world.
Send me a message if this is you and you want to transition to a just as exciting but far deeper and richer real world.
This must sound mental for those who have never believed in conspiracies but it really can take over your way of thinking and life, I do not judge people because I have been there.
Neither is particularly a simpler explanation.
In most case with hijacking they've not flown the planes themselves and/or not tried to navigate to and hit a target 150 miles away or so - which is no trivial task with a few hours on single engine and maybe a bit of time on heavies in a simulator.
Sums it up well.
This is a journey if you indulge in CT and as implied above and me it is life consuming, like an addiction and though it is at first fascinating it's mostly bad science, distortion or worse, creation of facts to fit the particular story. It is mainly people with little to no genuine insights pulling together bad sources to create the commentary. You just don't see it if you are consumed in CT you only see what you believe to be 'real' coverups.
Life WILL show you that most of the time, the vast majority of times to be clear, what we believe happened, happened and that wild tails are just that, wild tails. You will understand that one wrong move, by one person or even a few is not the covering of some massive conspiracy. It is people being human, often at the moment of a major event when minds are clouded and sometimes governments covering up data because they need to protect people, security and countries, but not because the story is, well, aliens. If you are familiar with the way CT work, you will as said above see the same lines trotted out, evidence again that sources are common, people like you. Goat lovers etc, it is laughable because it's so simplistic and again fitting a story being peddled.
The vast majority of CT will realise this, but right now some are adamant we are all stupid and they see the light because that's the culture, the way CT works, cultish even. Eventually you will see it and getting angry at those who won't listen, who laugh at you or who get angry at you is because they know this, not because they are sheep in a field. It is because they know how the world works really and how massive convoluted cover ups never work and some of the ones around 9/11 are crazy.
I keep saying this because it needs to sink in. If 4 planes were not hijacked this thread would not exist. It was those 4 planes crashing that caused the entire thing, as we saw and as we know. To hear people suggest there were explosions with bombs, no planes is embarrassing and insulting to anyone informed.
It's human behaviour, we love stories and there's a lot of gullible people out there. If every conspiracy theorist stood back and applied common sense most CTs wouldn't exist.
The more you fight stupidity the worse it gets, NASA knows this, hence why they shelved their moon landing conspiracy debunking book. I'm a little disappointed this thread is already so long, I assumed most here were reasonably intelligent.
r/iamverysmart is leaking.
We know from flight recordings and passenger calls they told passengers and flight crew there was a bomb on board and they were going to land the planes back at an airport.
If I was going to do it I would keep one of the existing pilots held at the controls, only needing to take over in the final minutes once the target was recognised.
They have a knife to your throat and tell you they want to make a political statement making a low pass over Manhatten before landing at Newark but on approach to the low pass you throat is cut and they steer the plane into the WTC.
From what I recall the evidence is the pilots didn't cooperate - the plane that went down in a field from what was reported by people on the phone one pilot was badly injured and left in the cockpit and the other knocked unconscious and removed from the cockpit. In atleast two of the planes a pilot managed to change the communications over to broadcast before being removed from the controls.
Separate names with a comma.