|
FuzzySkinner posted:I've really yet to meet an engineer of any legitimate merit back any of these theories up. But.. but.. but..! What about Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (or whatever the name is)? They do say that the building was destroyed by explosives, and they clearly know what they are walking about. Some of them even hold electrical engineering degrees! And no, the remaining of the scientific community stays silent because they are afraid for the lives / careers / whatever. Almost all agree with the Architects and Engineers site!
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Just the level of idiocy there in that post is astounding. Uneducated reactionary rage is so  I get it, you're scared because you have absolutely no idea what's going on, why are you attacking people that make rational observations? FuzzySkinner posted:I've really yet to meet an engineer of any legitimate merit back any of these theories up. Why am I in this thread when lies of omission like this are the bread and butter. No, you didn't meet them in person, but you know that thousands of engineers have signed on saying that the FEMA report is unscientific nonsense. Yes, Other Poster Making Posts, that group exists but their website became a visual cacophony of XHTML salad. http://www.ae911truth.org/ http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/03/27/new_democrat_mp_faces_criticism_over_911_conspiracy_lecture.html Life imitating forums.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:"You people are so stupid and insane, who needs rational inquiry!" I thought they got that from Hogan's Heros?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
I didn't realize Post 9-11 User's name was unironic. You must really think you're surfing the mysteries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Post-911 User, what exactly is your theory here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 02:29
|
|
Tater Love 
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Uneducated reactionary rage is so Not really. I've reviewed the evidence and came to the conclusion that it what it is. A group of people, trained by a guy who came from a Saudi Billionaire, (also happened to be funded by the Reagan administration to combat the Russians in Afghanistan), hijacked 3 planes with the intent of destroying the US economy, and because of the US's support of Israel and having a large US presence in the middle east. It's not that impossible to understand that bad things like that can happen. I also believe in common sense. In order to pull off a conspiracy theory the size of 9/11 or the Moon landings? It would have to involve thousands of people keeping their mouths shut. This is something the government is TERRIBLE at doing. Watergate for example, and the Clinton impeachment would be another. But go ahead and waste your time looking over plane crash footage with no proper frame of reference and only paranoia to keep you going.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Paranoia and fear is what a populace to believe that jet fuel (nearly all of which exploded on impact) could cause skyscrapers to implode perfectly. Rational thought says that this is absolutely not the case, I have yet to read a scientifically plausible explanation for what did happen. I got nada, meng, just rational observation. But, keep believing that "conspiracy theorists" aren't the people who still believe Saddam Did 9/11 or that liquids can be splattered together in a moment to create a bomb: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/ Keep believing, I can only lead the horse to water.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Paranoia and fear is what a populace to believe that jet fuel (nearly all of which exploded on impact) could cause skyscrapers to implode perfectly.  The towers imploded now? quote:Rational thought edit: Some yospos and GBS 1.4 post history so maybe getting trolled Happy_Misanthrope fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
It's funny how he moved on from "plane crashes don't look like that" when he was disproven with 5 minutes of GIS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
It was not a perfect implosion. The reason it looks like the towers dropped straight down on camera footage is because that footage was shot from blocks--or in some cases, whole islands--away. Anyone looking at the Ground Zero aftermath can tell that the towers fell into a far larger area than their footprints. The entire WTC site was blanketed in debris, you could have fit about a dozen towers of that size into that area. Pretty much any building facing the site took major damage from falling debris--the World Financial Center shots in particular highlight just how non-perfect the collapse was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Is he still ignoring the point about the lack of sprinkler systems in Building 7? Or has he just gone into full Aussie nutter mode?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Incidentally, watching that Penn and Teller bit was a lot harder than I thought it was going to be when I clicked on that link. I was not expecting my stomach to lurch when I started watching footage of the second impact. It absolutely did. I suppose when I saw this stuff for the first time I was too young to really comprehend it. It's... kinda sickening, now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
I remember shortly after 9/11 happened hearing about the strange way the Twin Towers were built involving basically a hole in the middle. How confused am I and how common is this sort of thing in skyscrapers?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Happy_Misanthrope posted:edit: Some yospos and GBS 1.4 post history so maybe getting trolled I agree. I feel bad for replying now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
point of return posted:I remember shortly after 9/11 happened hearing about the strange way the Twin Towers were built involving basically a hole in the middle. How confused am I and how common is this sort of thing in skyscrapers? You're not. It's a very uncommon design--it might well be unique unless I'm misremembering. Have some image.  The World Trade Center main towers were effectively gigantic tubes, stood on end and embedded into concrete. With most buildings, you have support scattered evenly throughout the building in a series of small pillars running basement-to-roof--load-bearing columns. These work together with the walls to transfer the massive weight of all the walls, floors, and the poo poo on the floors into a series of particularly strong points that can run straight to the bedrock, where that weight is dispersed. In the World Trade Center, each building had a central shaft of extremely strong supports which surrounded and encased the elevator cores. These paired with supports around the exterior--these are the ribs that gave the buildings their unique exterior look. They combined to force all the weight pressure to the cores and walls of the building and result in interiors which aren't cluttered up with support pillars affecting the lines of sight and layouts. This is very important if you're selling office space, since it gives your tenants additional flexibility for modifying the space. It was a radical design which worked very well, and in retrospect proved to be an incredibly capable architectural design. There aren't a whole lot of buildings in the world which could not only withstand the impact of a full-size jetliner at high speed, but then remain standing for well over an hour (or two hours) with gaping holes blasted in their sides and roaring fires consuming huge portions of their upper levels. If the Towers had been built more conventionally with support distributed normally, the loss of effectively all the support on one side of the building for a ten-to-twenty story gap might have put them down immediately. This is also why the South Tower collapsed before the North despite being hit later--the South was hit at an angle, whereas the North was hit head-on. Thus the South lost integrity on more than just one side of the building whereas more of the North Tower's internal structure was protected by the plane hitting the strong core. Edit: I should note, I'm shaking a little just typing this up. I'm not a professional architect or even relatively trained, although architecture is a fascination of mine--this is just based on long-stored memories of the endless discussions that took place after the event of the science and physics behind the whole thing. It was on the news for like a solid year. More Edit: This is based on absolutely nothing, but have some more. The thought behind conventional architectural design is to provide a whole lot of points of support for a building, since you don't build buildings expecting something insane to happen like a jetliner striking it. You anticipate the possibility of one point on the building failing, due to rot or rust or liquefication or high stress or something along the lines of that. By providing lots of small points instead of a couple big ones, the possibility of one of them failing leaves plenty of others for the stress to transfer to while you frantically fix the one that failed, rather than having one of the four pillars holding the whole building up shatter and thus the whole shebang falls over like a Jenga tower. The WTC still had many small pillars, technically--they were just concentrated to the exterior walls and the core. Reducing distance between the strongpoints reduces the likelyhood that one going will make others go due to increased stress, which is good and makes your tower more likely to stay standing. Redeye Flight fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Paranoia and fear is what a populace to believe that jet fuel (nearly all of which exploded on impact) could cause skyscrapers to implode perfectly. Didn't you see all those sat and aerial pictures with enormous debris fields you loon? quote:Keep believing, I can only lead the horse to water. You can drink a jug of piss in front of a horse, but you can't convince him it's water.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
zakharov posted:It's funny how he moved on from "plane crashes don't look like that" when he was disproven with 5 minutes of GIS. The "logic" used to "disprove" what I said is exactly what I said. I correctly pointed out that planes do not vanish into millions of tiny lols, citing the many, many, many photos of plane crashes showing wreckage. Planes destroyed in the sky can fall to the ground in many pieces, but there will still be recognizable debris in most cases. In the case of the supposed Flight 93 crash it supposedly crashed wholly into the ground rather than breaking apart int he sky. There was a hole and some scattered scrap metal. Someone "helpfully" used my example of Flight 93 and swapped it with photos of the Pentagon crash (which also wasn't a plane crash, but whatev). That's a bait-and-switch, I forgot to call him out on it. What am I doing in the most unfunny April Fool's thread. I'm not in it anymore. *Ascends to a higher plane through my butt, but is still surrounded by Americans
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
If there's enough kinetic energy in a crash, the pieces will be pretty loving small. A few years ago a P-51 crashed in the Reno air races, it was fully intact until it hit the ground whereupon it practically atomized. I feel dirty looking it up, but: here are some photos. (Should I NMS that?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:If there's enough kinetic energy in a crash, the pieces will be pretty loving small. A few years ago a P-51 crashed in the Reno air races, it was fully intact until it hit the ground whereupon it practically atomized. You're also referring to the plane being full of jet fuel for a flight out to California, and it being re taken by passengers who had no flying experience what-so-ever. I can't recall specific examples, but I also know from experience watching specials on MSNBC about plane crashes that a plane being in-tact like in the way this raisin cake is implying is rather rare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:What am I doing in the most unfunny April Fool's thread. I'm not in it anymore. *Ascends to a higher plane through my butt, but is still surrounded by Americans Although whether Post 9-11 User is trolling or just crazy doesn't really matter. Either way he serves as an instructive example in the futility of arguing with conspiracists. The motivations of truthers and trolls are essentially identical in that neither is interested in actually being right. They are interested only in meaningless contrarianism because it feeds their egos. Being "smarter" than everyone else because they have "secret" information is the goal and whether the end point is "Heh, sheeple" or "Heh, puppets" is immaterial. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:This is the lowest effort puppet master troll ever. There seems to be a difference between someone who could subscribe to a Conspiracy theory, and someone who is a truther. Let's say...I don't know, you're watching a special with a group of friends on "The Philadelphia Experiment" on "The History Channel", and they have various people on to discuss the topic. Some of you may think it's bullshit and may side with those who don't believe in that happening. Others may not. But it generally doesn't lead to this obsession about being "right".
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:This is the lowest effort puppet master troll ever. Very low effort trolling. 3/10
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:No, you didn't meet them in person, but you know that thousands of engineers have signed on saying that the FEMA report is unscientific nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
CSM posted:Real conspiracy theorists tend to get into insane detail. I baited him but he failed to bite, so it's pretty obvious. An absurd percentage of all Americans and an even more absurd percentage of Europeans and Middle Easterners believe in 9/11 conspiracies and these people cover all personalities and means of presentation. It's not a very specific mental illness you can effectively diagnose over the internet through textual analysis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Those people don't pay $10 for a stupid gimmick account, only to then barely make an effort.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:The "logic" used to "disprove" what I said is exactly what I said. I correctly pointed out that planes do not vanish into millions of tiny lols, citing the many, many, many photos of plane crashes showing wreckage. You're pretty stupid. Planes fragment based on the kinetic enegry of the crash. A plane brought in for a controlled crash landing has less kinetic energy relative to the ground than a plane brought in at high speed for maximum damage. All of the planes involved in 9/11 deliberately crashed t high speed, including the plane crashed by hijackers when passengers (theoretically) were close to counter-hijacking the plane. Posting pictures of other crashes where the pilots were presumably trying to minimize damage proves nothing except that there is an paralell here, that you are deliberately crashing your posts into this thread - ironically or unironically, doesn't matter which. e: Which is the sadder possibility? That a person could be this bad at thinking, or that a person could be this sad sack that this is what they decide is entertainment? boner confessor fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Redeye Flight posted:You're not. It's a very uncommon design--it might well be unique unless I'm misremembering. Have some image. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:e: Which is the sadder possibility? That a person could be this bad at thinking, or that a person could be this sad sack that this is what they decide is entertainment? The saddest thing is that you're engaging him regardless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Lady Naga posted:The saddest thing is that you're engaging him regardless. Well it's largely audience effect but it's funnier when people accuse others of posting, while themselves posting. Gotta be very careful not to be a hypocrite while claiming to be above it all. Unless I struck a nerve you sad poo poo goon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:See also this famous photo: Wow, I've never actually seen that one before. This illustrates perfectly what I just took all those paragraphs to say. If a more typical office building was shot like this, you would see much less light due to how dispersed the elevators, wiring, piping, ventilation, and other opaque-things-hidden-away are. The Towers had all that concentrated into their cores.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:e: Which is the sadder possibility? That a person could be this bad at thinking, or that a person could be this sad sack that this is what they decide is entertainment?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Paranoia and fear is what a populace to believe that jet fuel (nearly all of which exploded on impact) could cause skyscrapers to implode perfectly. 1. Do a double undergraduate degree in civil engineering and material science with a minor in aeronautical engineering (which is basically civil + a bit more) 2. Jump in and do a PhD on the minimisation of catastrophic failure due to incident stress on macro scale structures or some such. It'll take you 10 years; but you'll be an expert and hey its been more than that and you're still not more clued in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Well it's largely audience effect but it's funnier when people accuse others of posting, while themselves posting. Uh, okay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Lady Naga posted:The saddest thing is that you're engaging him regardless. He's a loving dullard yanking our chains but at the same time have you considered that I have nothing else going on tonight. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:He's a loving dullard yanking our chains but at the same time have you considered that I have nothing else going on tonight. 'dont post at the certain moron/likely troll you bad poster' says the idiot I love the Something Awful Forums.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:'dont post at the certain moron/likely troll you bad poster' says the idiot Why are you so hostile?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Redeye Flight posted:Wow, I've never actually seen that one before. I liked the paragraphs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:I liked the paragraphs. Thanks man 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:In order to pull off a conspiracy theory the size of 9/11 or the Moon landings? It would have to involve thousands of people keeping their mouths shut. And Snowden would have leaked it. OMG Snowden is part of the conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:02 |
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:See also this famous photo: That picture is really neat. I always understood the structure, but until now I had no visual concept of what it really looked like
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 08:43
|
|
