Thread: 9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

  1. #1941
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    you obviously do not have an analytical mind or the sophistication to understand things that go beyond the very basic.

    you call yourself headspin but you are really headgame or maybe even headcase.
    once more you fail to put forward any analysis because you don't have any, just speculation, and once more revert to name calling, what a baby!

  2. #1942
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by voyager View Post
    they can do some pretty amazing things with video editing software ay?
    so if the flashes are real, should we consider the possiblity they are demolition charges?

  3. #1943
    Registered Member
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    you have posted this link in practically every one of your posts.

    i just gotta ask, are you an advertiser on that site?

  4. #1944
    Registered Member
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    so if the flashes are real, should we consider the possiblity they are demolition charges?
    they don't appear in the original live sequences.

    like i told scott, watch some real controlled demolitions and compare them with WTC 1 and 2.

  5. #1945
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    866
    I have no idea what you are talking about. I cannot even decipher it.
    Doesn't a skyscraper have to support its own weight?

    Doesn't it have to withstand the lateral forces of the wind of 100+ mph?

    Don't the designers know that and therefore must figure out how much steel and concrete to put on every level? Didn't that have to be documented to construct the WTC towers?

    So for a straight down gravitational collapse to occur as a result of an airliner impact and fire doesn't the portion above the impact have to progressively crush and destroy everything beneath? So to analyze this supposed event don't we need to know the quantity of steel and concrete on every level as it had to be hit and destroyed in sequence?

    So why don't we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the building after SEVEN YEARS. This simple physics problem should have been settled in less than a year but all of the EXPERTS should have admitted that information was necessary.

    psik

  6. #1946
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by voyager View Post
    they don't appear in the original live sequences.
    The live footage was filmed from much further away. whether these flashes were viewable would depend on the viewpoint of the camera, you cannot make the assumption the flashes would be seen on all footage.

  7. #1947
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    the towers were three times higher than most big skyscrapers. they were designed like 3 skyscrapers on top of each other. watch any demolition, you will see they charges go off in seperate distinct stages.

    it is ridiculous to assert that all charges have to go off at the same instant.
    What's ridiculous is your knowledge of physics. There's no need to explode any explosives after the collapse has begun...good old inertia and gravity will do the job. You do realize how much inertia and potential energy that a 30-story chunk of building has right? Buildings are designed for static loads where F=M. You add any movement at all and you have to add the big "x A" to the formula. F=MA. Once those millions of pounds were in motion, brother, nothing was stopping them.
    A drop of one floor is approximately 10 feet. It would take .8 seconds for something to free fall that distance.. and it would be traveling at approximately 25 FPS after traveling 10 feet. Let's say the top 30 floors of the building weigh a million pounds. F=MA. Do the math. That's a shitload of force after only falling for one floor. Many, many times more than the static load the structure was designed to take, even with margins of safety added in. It would tear though the structure like it was made of a house of cards. Any insider would be smart enough to know this about physics and would know charges going off after the collapse had begun would be superfluous and completely unnecessary.
    Last edited by MacGyver1968; 11-02-08 at 12:27 PM.

  8. #1948
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    What's ridiculous is your knowledge of physics. There's no need to explode any explosives after the collapse has begun...good old inertia and gravity will do the job. You do realize how much inertia and potential energy that a 30-story chunk of building has right? Buildings are designed for static loads where F=M. You add any movement at all and you have to add the big "x A" to the formula. F=MA. Once those millions of pounds were in motion, brother, nothing was stopping them.
    Look at the video again - we see the bottom third of the core still standing. so tell me how did it collapse? you seem to believe that the top 30 floors of the building crushed everything below it. yet you disregard what you see with your own eyes. how do you do that? how do you hynoptise yourself to not see what is in front of you?
    http://www.veoh.com/videos/v16415132HnA38zEp

  9. #1949
    Registered Member
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    yet you disregard what you see with your own eyes. how do you do that?
    the same way you and scott do.

  10. #1950
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by voyager View Post
    the same way you and scott do.
    so what do you see with your eyes that crushes top down the core in the video?

  11. #1951
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,943
    I'd ask you the same question. I don't see any evidence of any explosives going off. Explosion emit high speed gases...and I just don't see it. The collapse started at the impact site, and worked its way down.

    Are you talking about the little silvery flashes? Those are obviously pieces if debree that are rotating as they fall, reflecting the sunlight. Explosions capable of doing anything to the core columns would be massive...and would be clearly visible and audible. Remember the core columns are thicker than tank armor...it's going to take a little more than a flash to do anything to them. Plus you continue to see the flashes after the collapse has passed. Just stuff floating down.

    One thing your video does show is the core columns remain standing for a bit after the collapse has passed by. If charges were used against the core columns, why do they remain standing?
    Last edited by MacGyver1968; 11-02-08 at 12:59 PM.

  12. #1952
    CIT has come up with a new video. Here's its description:
    ****************************************
    This follow-up presentation to "The First Known Accomplice?" is a surreal, intense, and disturbing personal experience with the famous taxicab driver Lloyde England who claims his cab was hit by a light pole that was allegedly hit by the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon on 9/11. The physical impossibility of Lloyde's story is exposed as we deconstruct the details and take a road trip with Lloyde to physically examine the actual cab that he still has preserved under a tarp on his property in the country. In light of the now proven north side approach we now know why Lloyde's story simply doesn't add up.
    ****************************************
    http://www.thepentacon.com/eyeofthestorm.htm


    Haven't finished watching it, but this may just be the official story's weakest link.

  13. #1953
    Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Posts
    6,943
    If you haven't watched it, how can you present it as an argument? You don't even know what it says.

  14. #1954
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    I'd ask you the same question. I don't see any evidence of any explosives going off. Explosion emit high speed gases...and I just don't see it.
    there are different types of explosives, some rely on high speed gases, but others are high temperature like thermite that would produce white flashes, which is what we observe in the video.

    The collapse started at the impact site, and worked its way down.
    Yes the destruction starting at the top and working its way down is self evident.

    Are you talking about the little silvery flashes?
    I am talking about the flashes seen at 45-50 seconds into the video, you describe them as "little", but they are not if we put the size of the building into perspective. this is what you would expect to see if the steel was being cut by charges.

    Those are obviously pieces if debree that are rotating as they fall, reflecting the sunlight.
    speculation. do you see this in other demolitions?

    Explosions capable of doing anything to the core columns would be massive
    its sounds like you think cutting this steel would be impossible.
    and would be clearly visible
    they are visible!
    and audible.
    there is no audio on the video!
    Remember the core columns are thicker than tank armor...it's going to take a little more than a flash to do anything to them. Plus you continue to see the flashes after the collapse has passed.
    no you don't! you see them where the core is standing, you do not see them after the core has collapsed. where in the video do you think these flashes occur "after the core has collapsed"?

    Just stuff floating down.
    just speculation.

  15. #1955
    Refined Reinvention lixluke's Avatar
    Posts
    9,072
    Quote Originally Posted by KennyJC View Post
    The entire scientific community, nevermind the civil engineering community or demolition community say otherwise.
    The entire? This is incorrect because only the dumb precent of these communities say otherwise. Real scientists who do not buy into all of that science fiction know that a fire definitely did not cause WTC7 to collapse.

    Furthermore, a scientists opinion are irrelevant to the actual science. Nobody with any intellect takes anybody's word for anything. The science is of the matter is the only thing that counts. Who cares what any scientists opinion is. Show me some actual scientific fact. The fact is, that building was demolished.

    Even if the whole scientific community were to say it did or didn't collapse because of fire, they still need facts to back it up. Because all the facts point to demolition, there is no reason to believe that some fairies came, and collapsed it just as much as there is no reason to believe a fire broke out to collapse it.

  16. #1956
    Refined Reinvention lixluke's Avatar
    Posts
    9,072
    NIST stateed clearly that they never checked for demolition use. Why if you are investing anything should you eliminate anything to check for? More importantly, only a moron investigating a building collapse would not check for possible use of demilitions. They are not real scientists. They are a joke.

    When REAL SCIENTISTS investigated, it was so blatant that explosives were used that they didn't need to go out of their way to check if for controlled demolition. It stood out like an elephant would if you found one sitting in your living room.

  17. #1957
    Registered Member
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    Yes the destruction starting at the top and working its way down is self evident.
    the collapse starts at the impact site and proceeds downward from there.
    if you want to convince me of a controlled demolition then provide videos of verifiable controlled demolitions that collapse in the same manner.

  18. #1958
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    If you haven't watched it, how can you present it as an argument? You don't even know what it says.
    I'd already seen enough to see that it was -very- interesting. Anyway, I've now finished watching it. You may want to take a look.

  19. #1959
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968 View Post
    One thing your video does show is the core columns remain standing for a bit after the collapse has passed by.
    so you admit that bazant's theory has a problem because a third of the core is still standing, the top 30 floors are long gone, yet one of the official theories has the top crushing the remainder of the building all the way to the ground.
    If charges were used against the core columns, why do they remain standing?
    they don't remain standing! they fall a few seconds after you see the white flashes!

  20. #1960
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by voyager View Post
    the collapse starts at the impact site and proceeds downward from there.
    if you want to convince me of a controlled demolition then provide videos of verifiable controlled demolitions that collapse in the same manner.
    I've already shown you a video of top down demolition in post 1842:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

Similar Threads

  1. By Jozen-Bo in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 08-02-08, 03:09 PM
    Replies: 81
  2. By Tnerb in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 07-16-08, 02:06 PM
    Replies: 33
  3. By Thoreau in forum Politics
    Last Post: 12-09-07, 12:19 PM
    Replies: 18
  4. By Lord Hillyer in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 11-13-07, 02:33 PM
    Replies: 11
  5. By Orleander in forum Site Feedback
    Last Post: 10-27-07, 11:45 PM
    Replies: 16

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •