General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Frenetic
 
Frenetic's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ry_goody View Post
not as retarded as

"it looks like a controlled demolition THERE FORE ITS NOT"



this is you:


LOL HAY GUYS LOOK I THINK ITS AN APPLE


this is me


I do believe that is a bundle of bananas sir.
How can you fuck up logic this bad? It's mind-blowing. We're saying you really shouldn't eye-ball an explosion and say it's a controlled demolition. Eye-balling is like 90% of your argument here. Even your sig says "LOOKS very similar." Fuck, you think you would have learned from that geometry thread.

Last edited by Frenetic; 06-14-2009 at 10:48 PM..
Old 06-14-2009, 10:43 PM Frenetic is offline  
Reply With Quote
#136  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

ry_goody
 
ry_goody's Avatar
 
It's not just eyeballing, it's a side-by-side comparison
__________________
SOMEONE ELSE GAVE ME THIS AVATAR
Old 06-14-2009, 10:47 PM ry_goody is offline  
Reply With Quote
#137  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ry_goody View Post
That point is completely mute because the collapse wasn't unique.
I thought your argument was that it was unique.

Quote:
You seem to be implying that WTC 7 collapsed in some completely radically new way in which you can draw no correlations to anything else. But this isn't true.
Again, I thought that was what you were doing by pointing out it never happened before and I was agreeing and pointing out no other buildings have been subjected to the same stresses before.

Quote:
While, there are no correlations to buildings that collapsed of natural means.There is quite the correlation to buildings that collapsed by controlled demolition.
So you keep saying. But I keep pointing out the uniqueness of the initiating factors and the fact that a complete collapse looks like a complete collapse regardless of the initiating factors.

Quote:
Many correlaitons can be made to controlled demolitions
Indeed, except for the initiating factors. That is what you seem to not realize.

Quote:
This ONE building in the history of mankind just COINCIDENTALLY fell JUST LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. But that means its not a controlled demolition. Lets ignore our own eyes, our own observation, and instead replace that with a bunch of government mandated reports. Thats the way to truth.
Did you not see the videos of the planes hitting the towers? How do your eyes account for that but completely discount those events as possibly leading to the destruction of the towers? How many times have you seen a modern jumbo jet crash into a modern sky scraper at near cruising speed? My guess is twice. Those are the only two times that has ever happened, ever.

To claim that a simple building fire in a different building into which no plane has ever crashed is exactly the same as what happened to the towers is the height of absurdity and I have already provided you with an example of steel framing collapsing JUST FROM FIRE and no airplane so the entire argument is retarded.

What about the concrete and steel freeway overpasses that have collapsed just due to fuel fires from overturned tanker trucks? They had far more concrete covering their steel, they were far more exposed to the open air to dissipate the heat, and yet these marvels of modern engineering still failed when subjected to just a fuel fire which everyone knows is not hot enough to liquefy steel...

Quote:
you assume.
No actually physics dictates...

The north tower, the first stuck, was struck almost perfectly dead center. This led to increased damage to the core which led to people above the impact point not being able to escape but also led to it's falling second. The on center hit allowed more members to more evenly redistribute the increased loads that resulted from the impact and ensuing fires.

The South Tower was hit at a much more extreme angle and this effectively "cut the corner off" of the tower leaving a much larger area of the external structure effectively weakened. Much like if a logger had back cut a tree to make it fall in a certain direction. This is both why the top section of the south tower achieved such a lean angle and why it failed first. The resulting structure after the impact and damage had far fewer adjacent support members to continue supporting the remainder of the structure. This led to its failure after even less time from being struck.

The north tower conversely had many more remaining adjacent members to transfer ever increasing loads to and these loads were still being distributed in a fairly symmetrical fashion as compared to the south tower which effectively had an entire corner cut out of it.

The physics matches up with the video documented results exactly. The north tower did not achieve much of a lean angle upon the initiation of the cascade failure, the south tower did. The south tower core was seen lingering after the outer shell had collapsed around it.

The physics of what we saw and the "official explanation" match up. The lack of evidence for controlled demolition, from the lack of high explosive sounds on any recording, to the lack of any evidence recovered of high explosive cutting charges, and the sheer uniqueness of the initiating event leads me to believe that the demolition claims have absolutely no merit. There simply isn't any evidence for controlled demolition. All you have is a whole lot of non-expert opinion that the towers and WTC7 collapsing look like what people have seen in controlled demolitions before hand and that is not really any sort of evidence at all.
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street

Last edited by pyramid; 06-15-2009 at 01:31 AM..
Old 06-14-2009, 11:10 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#138  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ry_goody View Post
It's not just eyeballing, it's a side-by-side comparison

Of apples and oranges...

They are both roundish and reddish but they are not the same thing and they don't come from the same place.
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 06-14-2009, 11:12 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#139  

wingedbuttmonkey
 
wingedbuttmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
Of apples and oranges...

They are both roundish and reddish but they are not the same thing and they don't come from the same place.

no way man, they are both buildings. omg lol you are so stupid... it doesnt matter what you say, he is too retarded to change his mind
Old 06-14-2009, 11:21 PM wingedbuttmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#140  

Golf(e)
 
Golf(e)'s Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ry_goody View Post
It's not just eyeballing, it's a side-by-side comparison
But... that.. is... eyeballing. Thats exactly what eyeballing is. And not even. Youre eyeballing a video. You. Some 20 year old kid who knows nothing of the science behind demolition. All you can say is "based on this 5 second clip, the wtc appears to have fallen down in a manner similar to that which a controlled demolition would have made it"

Well... what the fuck do you know anyway? Nothing about any of it. So... youre speculating. You cant call it anything BUT speculation because you have no hard evidence to prove it was a controlled demolition. And your speculation doesnt mean shit, because youre just some kid. So whos going to listen to you?

And then theres the fact that its possible for buildings to fall down similarly to the way a controlled demolition would have one fall down without it actually having been a controlled demolition. This was stated in a link posted earlier in this thread.

So, to recap, we have this:
-Someone with no experience in engineering claims wtc appears to have been a controlled demolition
-buildings can fall in this manner without it necessarily having been a controlled demolition
-no explanation as to why it would have been a controlled demolition
-no profit

The idea that we were lied to regarding what happened on 911 is not prePosterous- our government makes it a habit of lying to us, it is expected that they do this. In fact i highly doubt we know everything there is to know about 911 (im sure we dont).

But all youre doing is jumping to an extremely rash and unreasonable conclusion. You have no evidence... you just have your own guesswork. This is not good enough to do anything with. Not to write a letter to the press about, not even good enough to make a thread on genmay. You wont convince anyone of anything based on guesswork. So what is your point? You just like the attention i guess.

It's weird. Your shit is neverending. You keep making threads in the pit and you argue til youre blue in the face, but you never fucking have anything real to say. It's all empty rhetoric... always. Why ry, why do you do it?
__________________
And motion soared in every direction, causing a tidal wave of thought to crash dumbly through walls, and made passageways where previously was occupied by the stillness of mathematics in its purest manifestation of white reflection on white backdrop
Old 06-15-2009, 12:19 AM Golf(e) is offline  
Reply With Quote
#141  

ry_goody
 
ry_goody's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
I thought your argument was that it was unique.


Again, I thought that was what you were doing by pointing out it never happened before and I was agreeing and pointing out no other buildings have been subjected to the same stresses before.


So you keep saying. But I keep pointing out the uniqueness of the initiating factors and the fact that a complete collapse looks like a complete collapse regardless of the initiating factors.


Indeed, except for the initiating factors. That is what you seem to not realize.


Did you not see the videos of the planes hitting the towers? How do your eyes account for that but completely discount those events as possibly leading to the destruction of the towers? How many times have you seen a modern jumbo jet crash into a modern sky scraper at near cruising speed? My guess is twice. Those are the only two times that has ever happened, ever.

To claim that a simple building fire in a different building into which no plane has ever crashed is exactly the same as what happened to the towers is the height of absurdity and I have already provided you with an example of steel framing collapsing JUST FROM FIRE and no airplane so the entire argument is retarded.

What about the concrete and steel freeway overpasses that have collapsed just due to fuel fires from overturned tanker trucks? They had far more concrete covering their steel, they were far more exposed to the open air to dissipate the heat, and yet these marvels of modern engineering still failed when subjected to just a fuel fire which everyone knows is not hot enough to liquefy steel...



No actually physics dictates...

The north tower, the first stuck, was struck almost perfectly dead center. This led to increased damage to the core which led to people above the impact point not being able to escape but also led to it's falling second. The on center hit allowed more members to more evenly redistribute the increased loads that resulted from the impact and ensuing fires.

The South Tower was hit at a much more extreme angle and this effectively "cut the corner off" of the tower leaving a much larger area of the external structure effectively weakened. Much like if a logger had back cut a tree to make it fall in a certain direction. This is both why the top section of the south tower achieved such a lean angle and why it failed first. The resulting structure after the impact and damage had far fewer adjacent support members to continue supporting the remainder of the structure. This led to its failure after even less time from being struck.

The north tower conversely had many more remaining adjacent members to transfer ever increasing loads to and these loads were still being distributed in a fairly symmetrical fashion as compared to the south tower which effectively had an entire corner cut out of it.

The physics matches up with the video documented results exactly. The north tower did not achieve much of a lean angle upon the initiation of the cascade failure, the south tower did. The south tower core was seen lingering after the outer shell had collapsed around it.

The physics of what we saw and the "official explanation" match up. The lack of evidence for controlled demolition, from the lack of high explosive sounds on any recording, to the lack of any evidence recovered of high explosive cutting charges, and the sheer uniqueness of the initiating event leads me to believe that the demolition claims have absolutely no merit. There simply isn't any evidence for controlled demolition. All you have is a whole lot of non-expert opinion that the towers and WTC7 collapsing look to them like what they have seen in controlled demolition before hand and that is not really any sort of evidence at all.


I do not wish to extrpolate WTC 7 to the main towers

The main towers have so many variables involved in them that reaching any amends to any argument over the main towers is near impossible.

However WTC 7 honestly seems completely absurd to me given the mainstream story.

I really don't believe a building would fall in that manner unless there were some explosives placed in certain ways.

And there is no definitive truth on this. The 9/11 commision report is as flaky about WTC 7 as anything else out there.

The north tower leaned towards the side of impact as it fell. However WTC 7 is blasted by debris from one side, then falls perfectly straight down? A fuel tank is ignited on one side of the building, then it falls straight down? Completely even, all at the same time? The collapse was more perfect than most controlled demolitions.

WTC 7 would be the first building to have structural damage done to one side of it, then it collapses completely perfectly even.

Honestly I have been going through youtube under 'building collapse' and I cannot find another building that has collapsed exactly like a controlled demolition, but from non-controlled means. I can't find it. Buildings collapse in many many many different ways when not under controlled means. It takes some serious planning to get a sky scraper to fall into it's own footprint. It's not something that just accidentally happens from a fire and flying side debris.

The other thing about this. WTC 7 wasn't even the closest structure to the main towers. There were like 3 other structures closer to the main towers that didn't collapse.
Old 06-15-2009, 12:23 AM ry_goody is offline  
Reply With Quote
#142  

ry_goody
 
ry_goody's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golf(e) View Post
But... that.. is... eyeballing. Thats exactly what eyeballing is. And not even. Youre eyeballing a video. You. Some 20 year old kid who knows nothing of the science behind demolition. All you can say is "based on this 5 second clip, the wtc appears to have fallen down in a manner similar to that which a controlled demolition would have made it"

Well... what the fuck do you know anyway? Nothing about any of it. So... youre speculating. You cant call it anything BUT speculation because you have no hard evidence to prove it was a controlled demolition. And your speculation doesnt mean shit, because youre just some kid. So whos going to listen to you?

And then theres the fact that its possible for buildings to fall down similarly to the way a controlled demolition would have one fall down without it actually having been a controlled demolition. This was stated in a link posted earlier in this thread.

So, to recap, we have this:
-Someone with no experience in engineering claims wtc appears to have been a controlled demolition
-buildings can fall in this manner without it necessarily having been a controlled demolition
-no explanation as to why it would have been a controlled demolition
-no profit

The idea that we were lied to regarding what happened on 911 is not prePosterous- our government makes it a habit of lying to us, it is expected that they do this. In fact i highly doubt we know everything there is to know about 911 (im sure we dont).

But all youre doing is jumping to an extremely rash and unreasonable conclusion. You have no evidence... you just have your own guesswork. This is not good enough to do anything with. Not to write a letter to the press about, not even good enough to make a thread on genmay. You wont convince anyone of anything based on guesswork. So what is your point? You just like the attention i guess.

It's weird. Your shit is neverending. You keep making threads in the pit and you argue til youre blue in the face, but you never fucking have anything real to say. It's all empty rhetoric... always. Why ry, why do you do it?

First of all. This thread is Vendettas fault. I did not make this in the pit. I made this in the main forum because I did not want to argue this. VENDETTA MOVED IT. He was probably hocked up on protein shake and in some moderation craze.

Secondly. No. No one has shown that a building will collapse like a controlled demolition from being blasted with debris or being set on fire. In fact, no one has shown that ANY building can collapse like a controlled demolition, unless it is a controlled demolition.

Honestly, I have been looking through all the building collapse videos on youtube, trying to find just one other structure that collapsed like a controlled demolition, but from non-controlled means. I can't find it. I've found videos of buildings collapsing every which way, but none of them just like a controlled demoliton.

Hell, not even controlled demolitions always collapse as well as WTC 7 did
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAdoAHsNyvE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c

and this isn't about listening to me. It's about looking for yourself.

I imagine in your head you have the visual of WTC 7 collapsing. Then along side that, this idea that is how most buildings collapse, just straight down, perfectly even, into their footprint. Thats simply not true. That is not how building just naturally fall. It is very diffucult to get a building to do that. For it to just accidentally happen from structural damage on ONE side of the building and a fire is absurd. The thing didn't even lean as it fell. It fell straight down, perfectly even. It was more perfect than even most controlled demolitions.
Old 06-15-2009, 12:35 AM ry_goody is offline  
Reply With Quote
#143  

Vendetta
That's "Doctor Vendetta" to you
 
Vendetta's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ry_goody View Post
go drink your protein shake the adults are arguing right now

What? Get your panties in a twist did we? You are a graphic artist trying to tell the engineers in this thread how things work. You are pathetic.

And quit being a little bitch, it's embarrassing.
Old 06-15-2009, 05:43 AM Vendetta is offline  
Reply With Quote
#144  

Gibonius
 
goody's argument is the equivalent of this:
+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
Old 06-15-2009, 06:51 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#145  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky View Post
Also, engineer rush and sell, Zangmonkey and I have gone into great detail already about how this can be pulled off very easily.

Since Mobi has decided to let this thread live, so will I...
However, I would like to point out some shocking new evidence for the Engineer Rush and Sell Theory that I hadn't considered before.

Clearly all of this set up required money and yet the regular audit of the White House expenditures showed not out-of-the-ordinary, multi-billion dollar withdrawls from the small budget.
I claim that a loan was taken out and then repaid using the cash from the sold building.
Now, if I can get the original purchase value of the trade towers then I can calculate the estimated cash value that the engineers could recover from the capture/sale.

It's ABC's guys.... like every other plot in America: just follow the money.
__________________
09 F9
Old 06-15-2009, 09:13 AM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#146  

nfren
 
ry_goody do you live around NYC? did you have any idea how close building 7 was to the towers? did you see what happened that day?

are you a physicist? do have any idea about materials used in building?

think about the proximity of wtc 7 to the two towers, not even 0.25 mile away, buildings more than 1 mile away shook from the impacts of the plane. my mom worked about 0.25 miles away and all roof tiles fell off in their store.

so seriously if you have any idea about what your assuming you should at least of been there that day.

as i remember the ASCE considered temperature to play a key role the collapse of the structure WTC 7, your controlled demolition videos did not have temperature effecting the entire truss, think about it, fires burned in wtc 7 for hours, the heat caused thermal deformation, which can cause buckling of the steel beams.


stop defending yourself if you cant handle the truth.
__________________
Nissan Armada
Nissan Titan
Old 06-15-2009, 11:11 AM nfren is offline  
Reply With Quote
#147  

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ry_goody View Post
I don't know the specifics.

But I do know it was found on site and thats a signifying factor of potential explosives.

And there have been many reports of explosion sounds during the collapse of the towers.

And yes a BUILDING COLLAPSES BASED ON IT'S STRUCTURAL SUPPORT.
Do you even know what the mainstream story is for the WTC7 collapse? That debris from the main tower collapse bombarded the side of WTC7. I mean think about for just a little bit. Debris bombarded the side of WTC 7 and then cause it collapse like this
http://www4.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/1...p?i=23&lores=1
All floors, completely even, all at the same times. Just like a controlled demolition.
How could debris fly through and entire buildings, weakening every structural support, COMPLETELY EVENLY, all the way through it? WTC 7 would be the FIRST TIME a non-controlled demolition looked EXACTLY like a controlled demolition.

Why don't you go on youtube and download the video of the DESIGNER OF WTC7 explaining exactly how it happened the way it did, and why he expected it to do so under the conditions it was exposed to?

Either that, or continue reading a website made up of engineering failures, it's up to you, I don't care. Personally, I'm siding with the vast majority of the community, which includes the building designers, as well as recognizing the validity of the official story based on the fact that I hold an engineering degree myself and actually understand what they talk about in these articles.
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 06-15-2009, 03:10 PM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#148  

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ry_goody View Post
What building that got burned down looked like a controlled demolition? Buildings that burn down do not collapse like controlled demolitions. WTC7 would be the first

I mean it's even more implausible to assert a burning building will look like a controlled demolition

First of all, no it's not implausible, because it depends on how the building is laid out and where the fires are located. It's completely logical that that would be one of the possible failure mechanisms.

Secondly, there were a lot of firsts on 9/11. Adding one more to the list does not make it implausible, even if it were the case that nothing like it had happened before (which I'm not sure, I havn't looked into it).
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 06-15-2009, 03:13 PM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#149  

Tom Kazansky
911 Was an Inside Job. Bush is traitor like Prescott Bush
 
Tom Kazansky's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ry_goody View Post
its not about the rate that they fall

its the fact that WTC 7 is falling completely evenly, all at the same time. Buildings do not collapse perfectly by default. It doesn't happen. WTC 7 would be THE most PERFECT non-controlled demolition EVER.

I mean the controlled demolition building in that video isn't collapsing as evenly as WTC7. I mean seriously think about that, the WTC 7 collapse is MORE perfect THAN THE ACTUAL CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Does that honestly not seem odd to you?

Can you think of any other skyscraper that has fallen completely evenly, all at the same time from a fire.... from the side of it being barraged with debris?

No, it doesn't seem odd to me. What does seem odd to me is how someone thinks a controlled demolition is a possibility when no evidence of a controlled demolition is present aside from "how it looks" based on a single video clip with no audio. That seems odd. The collapse mechanism as it was does not seem odd to me though, no.
__________________
ERTW - Engineers Rule The World
Old 06-15-2009, 03:15 PM Tom Kazansky is offline  
Reply With Quote
#150  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:03 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.