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
ry_goody
 
ry_goody's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky View Post
Buildings will collapsed based on how their structures are laid out and where the damage was located. Based on how those buildings were constructed and where the damage was located, their collapse does not raise any red flags ACCORDING TO THE INDIVIDUALS WHO DESIGNED THE BUILDINGS. Of course, you know better than they do though, my bad.

With regard to thermite, that has been throughly discussed and disproven. Trace amounts of thermite is hardly proof of explosives. Also, please point out to me who manufactures completely silent building explosives, as I'm not familiar with those and apparantly, if this was a controlled demolition, these would have been used here because there was no audible noise indicating explosives were used.

Do you even know what thermite is? Half the people who mentioned it don't even know what it is, I'm just curious if you do.

There is nothing suspicious about how the buildings collapsed anyways. Bottom line.

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.
__________________
SOMEONE ELSE GAVE ME THIS AVATAR
Old 06-14-2009, 07:33 PM ry_goody is offline  
Reply With Quote
#121  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

ry_goody
 
ry_goody's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky View Post
I also want to point out Rosie O'Donnel thinks it was a controlled demolition. That alone is proof that it wasn't.

This is the best counter-argument so far.
__________________
SOMEONE ELSE GAVE ME THIS AVATAR
Old 06-14-2009, 07:34 PM ry_goody is offline  
Reply With Quote
#122  

ry_goody
 
ry_goody's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky View Post
Lol, you're asking him that question when apparantly you don't know the official story either. Yes, they did mention there was significant structural damage from the debris, but you also left out the huge fire burning from the ignited diesel storage tank located inside the building.

Inform yourself before informing others.

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
__________________
SOMEONE ELSE GAVE ME THIS AVATAR
Old 06-14-2009, 07:36 PM ry_goody is offline  
Reply With Quote
#123  

Frenetic
 
Frenetic's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ry_goody View Post
In Vendettas fantasy world, all buildings collapse completely evenly, all floors at the same time and neatly into their own footprint.


you don't need intellectual capacity for this one, as I've said before, an autistic child could cover the specifics of this argument. WHICH BTW, is all contained in my sig now. So if you could just take a gander down a couple lines.
The link is abridged so it doesn't work in people's address bars. And my bad with the time lapse comment. I meant the first picture you posted in the thread that had the building falling straight down over about 6 seconds.

Of course, I did see that 11-second video in that slide show you keep linking, and the controlled demolition video actually has the controlled demo building leaning more and falling apart more unevenly than the WTC. Of course, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with those videos, as they only show both buildings losing their structural integrity and succumbing to gravity. Last time I checked all things fall at the same rate, so I'm not too spooked to see similarities in the video. The video also doesn't show the time the WTC was burning and the different structures of the the buildings. It just doesn't work for me as evidence.
Old 06-14-2009, 07:43 PM Frenetic is offline  
Reply With Quote
#124  

ry_goody
 
ry_goody's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenetic View Post
The link is abridged so it doesn't work in people's address bars. And my bad with the time lapse comment. I meant the first picture you posted in the thread that had the building falling straight down over about 6 seconds.

Of course, I did see that 11-second video in that slide show you keep linking, and the controlled demolition video actually has the controlled demo building leaning more and falling apart more unevenly than the WTC. Of course, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with those videos, as they only show both buildings losing their structural integrity and succumbing to gravity. Last time I checked all things fall at the same rate, so I'm not too spooked to see similarities in the video. The video also doesn't show the time the WTC was burning and the different structures of the the buildings. It just doesn't work for me as evidence.

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?
__________________
SOMEONE ELSE GAVE ME THIS AVATAR
Old 06-14-2009, 07:58 PM ry_goody is offline  
Reply With Quote
#125  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ry_goody View Post
that never shows a video of the building collapsing

and even if it did. In the picture you present, theres two chunks of it that didn't even collapse.

It collapsed for completely different reasons. My initial point was that you are trying to compare a unique collapse event to those which have come before and there is nothing even close to the events of 9/11 in recorded history making any comparison of preceeding events almost meaningless. Still I was able to find two instances of building collapse and the aftermath does look like a demolition because fallen and destroyed buildings look like fallen and destroyed buildings...

The Sampoong Store collapse would be an example of controlled demo gone wrong if it had been a controlled demo.

Quote:
That is quite a bit different than an entire building, considerably larger than that one collapsing COMPLETELY EVENLY ALL THE WAY ACROSS ALL AT ONCE
One was a five story mall that collapsed due to shoddy construction and building practices and the other was a modern 110 story steel framed building that collapsed from being hit by an airliner and the resulting damage and fire. Again the point here is that there are no comparable events to 9/11 to draw conclusive arguments from about what buildings do or don't do when suffering unprecedented catastrophic failures from unprecedented initiating factors.

Quote:
Do you know what the official WTC7 story is for the collapse?
Yes, I have read all the NIST/ASCE/ETC reports on the matter.

Quote:
That debris from the main tower collapse shot through WTC7 weakening its structual supports. I mean don't you think debris bombarding one side of a building should make that side of the building a little more prone to some sort of collapse, or collapse first. Rather than the entire thing collapse completely evenly into it's own footprint all at the same time.
The same thing that happened in the south tower collapse happened here. You don't need to weaken or even destroy all of a buildings support structure to have it fail like WTC7 did. When one part of a building of that size starts to fail it creates a cascade of failure as adjacent members to the ones that failed are overcome with the increased force from the loss of support from the failing members.

Have you ever formed a human pyramid? When one person on the bottom gives way due to the stress of the weight of the people above the increased strain of trying to hold the load coupled with the failing sections of the structure causes pretty much everyone else to fail/fall as well.

Quote:
I mean does it honestly seem plausible to you that concrete and glass can shoot through an entire building, weakening it's structural support, all the way through, completely evenly?
See my picture of the south tower and its lean angle upon failure. That is, as I explained, indicative of a progressive cascading failure. One section lost integrity and as the rest of the building attempted to compensate, eventually the forces were too much and there was nothing else that could possibly happen but total and complete failure of the structure once that process was initiated. Buildings are not built with the idea in mind that some day part of the structure might have to arrest the catastrophic failure of the rest of the building above that point. And it is questionable whether skyscrapers, who's purpose is to maximize floor space in the smallest amount of base square footage, could even be built in such a way to make this possible.

Also, If the building had been explosively demolished with precise timing to cause a simultaneous failure across its entire square footage then there would have been no lean angle at all. The top would have moved straight downward into the floors below initiating the catastrophic failure of the remainder of the building. Of course you can time explosives to create lean angles but then we are back to the fact that there is no sound of high explosive cutting charges on any recording of any building failure from that day. This would seem to rule out the use of explosives completely.

And really this argument is somewhat silly because it hinges on the idea that if you smash a building into the ground floor through controlled demolition that you will get a substantially different result than if a building comes down through a progressive cascading failure. The acceleration due to gravity is exactly the same regardless of the initiating factor. Smashed concrete, glass and steel all look pretty much the same after the fact. The only difference in result between a controlled demo and the aftermath of a catastrophic cascading failure is the spread of the debris pile. In a controlled demo the building breaks up upon impact with the ground floor and any debris piled up there already. In the WTC towers the failure occurred further up and the upper floors of the building were smashed against the remaining, undamaged structure below starting above the midpoint of the buildings resulting in a much more chaotic event and a much more dispersed debris pile.

Quote:
and I know I've posted it many times and I don't mean to make it ridiculous. But honestly, just watch this video over a few times. Really pay attention and think about what exactly would have to happen for a building to collapse just like a controlled demolition, but not be a controlled demolition.
http://www4.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/1...p?i=23&lores=1
I mean think about how many different ways buildings can collapse, how many different ways a building could have collapsed if the cause was being blasted by debris from one side, then look at how it actually did collapse. Not one floor before another, not one chunk and then another. All floors, all areas of the buildings, all at once, completely evenly.
The physics of trying to arrest the weight of a section of 30 stories or so of building with 70 stories or so of building made of the exact same strength dictate that this is so. Once a collapse has been initiated, the initial reason for the collapse is somewhat of a moot point. You still get a collapse...

Quote:
And pyramid, I know you of all people posting in here are quite aware that the government makes shit up for the convenience of their agenda.
Correct, I understand this fact even better than many but in this instance I still do not think the government is actively complicit in the destruction of the towers. If they had any foreknowledge or involvement of any kind I believe it is far more plausible that they merely allowed the attacks to be carried out as they were planned without interceding as they should have or with the full force they could have.
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street

Last edited by pyramid; 06-14-2009 at 09:20 PM..
Old 06-14-2009, 08:57 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#126  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kazansky View Post
I also want to point out Rosie O'Donnel thinks it was a controlled demolition. That alone is proof that it wasn't.



It's a shame too because her little rant against the right wing blond was totally on the mark IIRC, right up until she started up with the 9/11 was an inside job crap.

I remember seeing a clip of that and saying something like "You go girl... aw jeez, not this shit again."
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 06-14-2009, 09:06 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#127  

Vendetta
That's "Doctor Vendetta" to you
 
Vendetta's Avatar
 
ry_goody: unable to get the concepts of correlation and causation. He's like an infant.
Old 06-14-2009, 09:08 PM Vendetta is offline  
Reply With Quote
#128  

ry_goody
 
ry_goody's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendetta View Post
ry_goody: unable to get the concepts of correlation and causation. He's like an infant.

go drink your protein shake the adults are arguing right now
__________________
SOMEONE ELSE GAVE ME THIS AVATAR
Old 06-14-2009, 09:39 PM ry_goody is offline  
Reply With Quote
#129  

Gibonius
 
This thread is pretty much a direct extension of the "I don't actually have any numbers, but it sure looks like 19.49 from a visual inspection to me" argument.
Old 06-14-2009, 09:47 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#130  

wingedbuttmonkey
 
wingedbuttmonkey's Avatar
 
"It looks like a controlled demolition, therefore it was."

This is the most retarded logic you could possibly come up with.
Even your crazy ass hexagon was closer to the truth than this.
Old 06-14-2009, 09:59 PM wingedbuttmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#131  

wingedbuttmonkey
 
wingedbuttmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
This thread is pretty much a direct extension of the "I don't actually have any numbers, but it sure looks like 19.49 from a visual inspection to me" argument.

Maybe if he tried drawing a red X next to the tower in MS Paint we would understand better.
Old 06-14-2009, 09:59 PM wingedbuttmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#132  

ry_goody
 
ry_goody's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
It collapsed for completely different reasons. My initial point was that you are trying to compare a unique collapse event to those which have come before and there is nothing even close to the events of 9/11 in recorded history making any comparison of preceeding events almost meaningless. Still I was able to find two instances of building collapse and the aftermath does look like a demolition because fallen and destroyed buildings look like fallen and destroyed buildings...

The Sampoong Store collapse would be an example of controlled demo gone wrong if it had been a controlled demo.

One was a five story mall that collapsed due to shoddy construction and building practices and the other was a modern 110 story steel framed building that collapsed from being hit by an airliner and the resulting damage and fire. Again the point here is that there are no comparable events to 9/11 to draw conclusive arguments from about what buildings do or don't do when suffering unprecedented catastrophic failures from unprecedented initiating factors.


That point is completely mute because the collapse wasn't unique.

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.

While, there are no correlations to buildings that collapsed of natural means.

There is quite the correlation to buildings that collapsed by controlled demolition.

Many correlaitons can be made to controlled demolitions
NOT MANY CAN BE MADE TO NON-CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS
THIS IS NOT A COINCIDENCE

I am not gonna just cover up the single most obvious observation of this entire thing with WHOOPS COINCIDENCE

WHOOPS THIS ONE BUILDING COLLAPSED OVER HERE JUST like controlled demolition BUT ITS COINIDENCE

ALL COINCIDENCE

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.

And it's just so convienent that this one concidence nicely reinforces and goes directly with the agenda of the american government. WHAT A NICE CONVIENENT COINCIDENCE FOR THEM, ITS SO CONVIENENT NOT EVEN GOD COULD OF ARRANGE A BETTER COINCIDENCE.

And no your sampoong store does not count. Because

a) there is no video of the collapse, how do you know it didn't collapse in some sequential manner?
and b) http://www.pyramid-tech.net/images/g...g_Collapse.jpg THE ENTIRE THING DIDN"T COLLAPSE
Your sampoong demonstrates exactly the point I'm making that buildings don't completely evenly collapse, all the way across, all at once, just like a controlled demolition, UNLESS ITS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

and I don't want to touch the main towers argument.
I know your tactic is to attempt introduce so many elements and variables and whatnot to cloud and confuse the thing to the point where you just gotta say 'i dunno I'll believe whatever" and then in swoops the most prestigious sounding, politically correct report to swoon all the followers. But I'm not walking into that. My point remains simple.

Your assertion would make WTC 7 the only building to collapse exactly like a controlled demolition, but not be a controlled demolition.

hurr coincidence


Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
Yes, I have read all the NIST/ASCE/ETC reports on the matter.

The same thing that happened in the south tower collapse happened here. You don't need to weaken or even destroy all of a buildings support structure to have it fail like WTC7 did. When one part of a building of that size starts to fail it creates a cascade of failure as adjacent members to the ones that failed are overcome with the increased force from the loss of support from the failing members.

Have you ever formed a human pyramid? When one person on the bottom gives way due to the stress of the weight of the people above the increased strain of trying to hold the load coupled with the failing sections of the structure causes pretty much everyone else to fail/fall as well.

you assume.

this video demonstrates right here that it is a very possible for a building to tip over
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1X8j...eature=related

I mean were dealing with steel collumns here, not ice collumns. The collumns aren't just gonna snap at a certain bend point. They'll be able to uphold some structural integrity causing some tipping to occur.

Now I'm not saying I'm expecting WTC 7 to tip over. I'm just saying, I'm expecting it to not look just like a controlled demolition.


Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
See my picture of the south tower and its lean angle upon failure. That is, as I explained, indicative of a progressive cascading failure. One section lost integrity and as the rest of the building attempted to compensate, eventually the forces were too much and there was nothing else that could possibly happen but total and complete failure of the structure once that process was initiated. Buildings are not built with the idea in mind that some day part of the structure might have to arrest the catastrophic failure of the rest of the building above that point. And it is questionable whether skyscrapers, who's purpose is to maximize floor space in the smallest amount of base square footage, could even be built in such a way to make this possible.

Also, If the building had been explosively demolished with precise timing to cause a simultaneous failure across its entire square footage then there would have been no lean angle at all. The top would have moved straight downward into the floors below initiating the catastrophic failure of the remainder of the building. Of course you can time explosives to create lean angles but then we are back to the fact that there is no sound of high explosive cutting charges on any recording of any building failure from that day. This would seem to rule out the use of explosives completely.

there is lean apparant in controlled demolitions, while the explosives could be in perfect timing, there is still some additional resistance that might cause one side to fall quicker than another.

I mean it's apparant in the controlled demolition of the video I keep posting
http://www4.ae911truth.org/ppt_web/1...p?i=23&lores=1
The second building it shows collapse starts leaning on it's fall.

And notice WTC 7 is actually collapsing more perfectly than the second controlled demolition?


Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
And really this argument is somewhat silly because it hinges on the idea that if you smash a building into the ground floor through controlled demolition that you will get a substantially different result than if a building comes down through a progressive cascading failure. The acceleration due to gravity is exactly the same regardless of the initiating factor. Smashed concrete, glass and steel all look pretty much the same after the fact. The only difference in result between a controlled demo and the aftermath of a catastrophic cascading failure is the spread of the debris pile. In a controlled demo the building breaks up upon impact with the ground floor and any debris piled up there already. In the WTC towers the failure occurred further up and the upper floors of the building were smashed against the remaining, undamaged structure below starting above the midpoint of the buildings resulting in a much more chaotic event and a much more dispersed debris pile.


The physics of trying to arrest the weight of a section of 30 stories or so of building with 70 stories or so of building made of the exact same strength dictate that this is so. Once a collapse has been initiated, the initial reason for the collapse is somewhat of a moot point. You still get a collapse...

the main towers are completely a different subject in themselves and one I honestly don't care to get into

all I want is WTC 7


Quote:
Originally Posted by pyramid View Post
Correct, I understand this fact even better than many but in this instance I still do not think the government is actively complicit in the destruction of the towers. If they had any foreknowledge or involvement of any kind I believe it is far more plausible that they merely allowed the attacks to be carried out as they were planned without interceding as they should have or with the full force they could have.

well the exact specifics of any conspiracy i really don't know

I mean it could be possible that absolutely no government agency knew of anything and it was completely done by private parties

Like I've said before, I don't want to get into conspiracy theory, I don't even know the slightest bit of details about any of it. I havent even watched farenheit 911 or any of those other 911 documentaries through. I don't know anything about any of the conspiracy theory. All I'm saying...the similarity is striking and I don't like coincidence.
__________________
SOMEONE ELSE GAVE ME THIS AVATAR
Old 06-14-2009, 10:14 PM ry_goody is offline  
Reply With Quote
#133  

ry_goody
 
ry_goody's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
This thread is pretty much a direct extension of the "I don't actually have any numbers, but it sure looks like 19.49 from a visual inspection to me" argument.

i have a video
__________________
SOMEONE ELSE GAVE ME THIS AVATAR
Old 06-14-2009, 10:17 PM ry_goody is offline  
Reply With Quote
#134  

ry_goody
 
ry_goody's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wingedbuttmonkey View Post
"It looks like a controlled demolition, therefore it was."

This is the most retarded logic you could possibly come up with.
Even your crazy ass hexagon was closer to the truth than this.

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.
__________________
SOMEONE ELSE GAVE ME THIS AVATAR
Old 06-14-2009, 10:18 PM ry_goody is offline  
Reply With Quote
#135  

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 11:13 AM.



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