Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Minusorange, Jan 4, 2019.
That's a lotta lotta water.
Do you have a tank or is it from the mains?
Mains can't supply enough. Ordinarily you'd have a tank however we have a river.
Ive not heard that detail, unfortunately there is alot of misinformation and misunderstanding that can lead people to believe in anything. Many people refused to be believe Elvis was dead, it was highly improbable but also he took drugs and its reasonable that he passed away in the way recorded but I dont blame people for thinking otherwise.
The moon landings also are highly improbable from a laymans perspective but NASA was mostly about the cold war and rocket technology development more then scientific exploration, the moon has little reason to go there. The space race is parallel to nuclear power stations imo, its a precursor to world war 3 that we hope will never happen.
I dont blame people for doubting the moon landings, it might be improbable if the military aspect were not there as obvious motivation. Theres no big jump in logic required to recognise the correlation in progress between those two branches of government
I think the 9/11 failure was incidental to the crashes and that is perhaps why we get more conspiracy theories. What is being overlooked and needs to be underlined to prevent repetition is mistakes not deliberate sabotage
The twin towers are right next to a large water source like that. The main thing misunderstood on the towers collapse is about the removal of asbestos from the steel girder structure, I've read both that fire protection was removed in more recent years but also that asbestos was removed during construction. Either way the building was not able to resist fire, it should not have been used while vulnerable and I would like to hear engineers discuss that more but I rarely see any scientific discussion in that direction.
Asbestos is a fire protection (in recent years its not used due to cancer fears) required to stop or slow the weakening of the steel under heat, hence the famous meme about jet fuel not being sufficient to cause total failure. It doesnt have to cause total failure, just partial weakening was enough and the building was not fit for use is not a conclusion I've ever heard but seems it is key to why it failed in the way it did.
The terrorists probably didnt even calculate this part, an immediate effect from collision is my estimate of their plan but I'm not sure whether they had researched or realised events would gain the most momentum after the crash. The goat herder line is ignorant, Afghanistan and many other countries, their populations are far older then how they are currently caught in civil wars. They have more then enough intelligent people in the middle east to envision, coordinate a plane hijack plan and the basic violent plot is not far past other instances but the final part with the missing fire resistance even now is understated which is unfortunate.
Theres nothing wrong with discussing the failure but always human nature and mistakes are possible even by otherwise intelligent people, that will always be what must be disproved first
tl;dr Im not an engineer but I'd like if a few of them discussed these details ad infinitum pretty much, the whole subject is continually relevant to any city population imo
I think this kind of aspect is what is fuelling a lot of the conspiracy angles like Grenfell with things not upto code, shortcuts taken, etc. but being covered up.
IIRC it was quite well known the towers were not up to scratch for thermal protection around the structure (I don't think they used asbestos but something else they sprayed on as they were built after asbestos was a known risk), a few years back I found a study that some architecture student was doing using the towers as examples of how slapdash the application of this particular fireproofing method had been and how it could affect the structure compared to what it was intended to take, from memory he chose them because they were built at the same time, generally the same construction but one was undergoing replacement/upgrading of the heat protection.
I wish I'd saved a link to it, as by the time the CT's started flooding the internet with nonsense it basically became impossible to find useful information from lesser known sources unless you could remember a lot of specific detail (such as the name or a keyword that hadn't been hijacked by the CT's and the scammers that feed them nonsense), but from memory his work (which involved masses of photos) showed.
Fireproofing was inconsistently applied - it should have been uniform throughout as any place it went under the minimum was a weak point that affected that entire section,
Fireproofing hadn't been applied in some areas, not just hard to reach spots but some easy to do ones.
Fireproofing had broken away (a sign it had been badly applied/mixed or damaged) and not replaced.
Basically it wasn't up to scratch and there were signs only areas that had actually been inspected independently had been done consistently well, but it was in the process of being fixed, hence his timing on doing the study as it was basically then or never.
It was a spray on foam protection. Its effectiveness is entirely down to skill of the operator. It wasn't applied correctly.
This thread moves more quickly than I check here, but I'm giving up on responding to Dowie who just seems to continually ask questions and not actually respond to any points.
Reading through the last couple of pages, I'd point out:
Conspiracy theory basically means "not the official story". So not only are many conspiracies true in history (i.e. the official line has turned out to be bull) more than half of Americans (according to one survey) believe in them today. That's a lot of nutcases.
Families - the "people died, have respect" brigade must be forgetting the families of victims who believe in an alternative version of the story. Of which there are many. For example Matt Taylor, whose brother Geoff died on the day. Matt has previously said:
WT7 Freefall - those saying WT7 didn't fall at freefall are wrong. NIST openly now admits (they didn't originally) that the building, for a period, fell in freefall. Look it up in the NIST filings. That means there was zero force pushing up at the building for that period. That's impossible in any natural scenario, and one reason why thousands of engineers are calling for the truth.
lol I read something similar on youtube where the poster was trying and discredit airstrikes on the taliban, do you post that drivel on youtube as well or are people with your mentality just that common? Ie: stupid.
Hey Mulder - look closer.
Don't lie, I responded to all your points in your previous post - I literally quoted each bullet point (see below), why not just provide some clarification on your position - why is it so hard for you to just engage in discussion and provide a coherent explanation. You seem to just make vague points about the building not collapsing as expected and then when questioned you deflect... I've wasted some time re-quoting the below as you've made a false assertion there. I'm simply asking you for an explanation and have done so a couple of times now yet you're seemingly unable to provide one.
Perhaps reflect a bit on why this is? If you had a solid argument then it it would be rather easy to just provide straight up responses/explanations to anyone who had straight up questions about it... It isn't like I'm asking you loaded questions here or trying to trick you etc.. I'm literally drilling down into what you're actually putting forwards here and asking "why?" or asking for clarity on what you mean by certain statements you've made. If you're unable to do that then then problem is with you and some rather disjointed thinking on your part.
I urge anyone who believes this to read the NIST report. It does not say what Mulder et alia are claiming it says. The report is publically available.
I'm reminded of the moon landing conspiracy believers who claim van Allen's report states that the eponymous belts would be fatal to humans and cite that as proof no human has ever been higher than the lower end of low earth orbit. A few words taken out of context and offered as proof of something completely different. van Allen's report does state that the eponymous belts would be fatal to humans without protection and goes on to say that's why appropriate measures had to be taken. Which they were.
Conspiracy believers don't give a rat's arse for the truth. They're calling for everyone to agree with everything they say, regardless of any and all evidence. It's an act of faith, not an investigation.
EDIT: I'll just quote myself rather than typing it out again:
Anyone got any more news, they've been banned from steem, twitter and the darknet forums kickass have been seized by the FBI on the requesy from a court in NY. They must have some interesting material.
Is it not possible to capture someone even on the darknet, I thought you could monitor nodes on the network or something, surely the NSA have some tricks up their sleeves?
They were running a con to acquire lots of money. Of course the FBI became involved.
Layer 2 got released recently.
I guess that means the 'donations' have dried up already. Not surprised. Reading through that lot is probably about as entertaining as going through random people's car insurance policy documents, with only the word of a hacking group that admits it's financially motivated to go on that there'll be anything remotely interesting in there in $2 million dollars time.
You do know that the first NIST report that was published was wrong?
Yes they admitted they got it wrong(free fall). A school teacher had to put them right!
In the final report they included free fall on WT7. But the math of the free fall that NIST has published does not add up.
The teacher even shows you have to calculate free fall.
Anti-CTs are just as bad a CTs. In fact even worse.
Some examination of the latest leak
I wouldn't necessarily draw that conclusion, they've got some stolen documents that they seem to have made a big fuss about - there doesn't seem to be much that is particularly interesting.
The fact their outright criminals who are easily identified on twitter has nothing to do with them getting banned from it I assume?
I mean I can't imagine what could possibly cause a legitimate (or likes to pretend to be one) like Twitter ban accounts linked to massive personal data breaches such as theft of medical records and credit card numbers.
I can't guess why a company might not want to give a platform to such fine, upstanding seekers of truth as that.
I mean who hasn't broken into highly personal information and sold it to the highest bidder, or dealt in credit card fraud, it was only last week I was saying to my buddy d4t4th31f69 on dorkwob about how it was a shame that it was getting harder to sell the information without those annoying legal authorities trying to barge in a spoil the fun and deny us a chance to make some dough.
Fair point. Apparently the kickass forums being seized was fake also.
Separate names with a comma.