The Political Fray - Political Forum
Go Back   Political Fray > The Political Fray > Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy Theories Conspiracy Theory Forum - Discuss conspiracies and underground dealings


Thanks Tree22Thanks
Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 14th, 2013, 05:03 PM   #41
Secretary of State
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 4,809

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordrid View Post
Please, tell me you're a goof ball who just appears as a blithering idiot.
two words



conspiracy forum
tecoyah is offline  
Old September 14th, 2013, 06:19 PM   #42
Intern
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Castro Valley CA
Posts: 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordrid View Post
Please, tell me you're a goof ball who just appears as a blithering idiot.
Meanwhile back at the subject at hand....

Why should it be considered credible,
that a 110 story building could "collapse"
in a manner that includes the pulverization
of mass quantities of building materials.
+ the ejection at high speed, of chunks of
building steel weighing in at many tons and
these ejections sent some bits at least 400 ft from the tower.
and includes complete & total destruction of said tower(s)

Planet Earth..... we have a problem here!
Mario Savio is offline  
Old September 14th, 2013, 07:06 PM   #43
President
 
Aufgeblassen's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: Central FL
Posts: 11,619

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Savio View Post
Meanwhile back at the subject at hand....

Why should it be considered credible,
that a 110 story building could "collapse"
in a manner that includes the pulverization
of mass quantities of building materials.
+ the ejection at high speed, of chunks of
building steel weighing in at many tons and
these ejections sent some bits at least 400 ft from the tower.
and includes complete & total destruction of said tower(s)

Planet Earth..... we have a problem here!
Intense heat tends to pulverize.
Aufgeblassen is offline  
Old September 14th, 2013, 07:40 PM   #44
Intern
 
Mordrid's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Michigan
Posts: 35

Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
two words



conspiracy forum
You can actually make a sentence with two words, if one is a subject and the other a verb.

If I'm supposed to read between the lines, I have to disagree that "conspiracy forum" should be license to abuse rationality and common courtesy.

Perhaps we need a "juvenile forum".
Mordrid is offline  
Old September 14th, 2013, 07:46 PM   #45
Intern
 
Mordrid's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Michigan
Posts: 35

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
Intense heat tends to pulverize.
Seriously? Pulverize? As in "To pound, crush, or grind to a powder or dust"? Heat?

Thanks from Mario Savio
Mordrid is offline  
Old September 15th, 2013, 05:47 AM   #46
President
 
Aufgeblassen's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: Central FL
Posts: 11,619

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordrid View Post
Seriously? Pulverize? As in "To pound, crush, or grind to a powder or dust"? Heat?

Yes, seriously! We got my mother's ashes the other day, and they looked very much pulverized, even though they only were exposed to extreme heat for 3 or 4 hours.
Aufgeblassen is offline  
Old September 15th, 2013, 09:44 AM   #47
Intern
 
Mordrid's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Michigan
Posts: 35

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
Yes, seriously! We got my mother's ashes the other day, and they looked very much pulverized, even though they only were exposed to extreme heat for 3 or 4 hours.
Too bad about your mother. But, "pulverize" is just not the appropriate term for the action of heat upon inorganic matter--unless you're a poet, in which case youi can do anything you want with words, since communication isn't the point.
Mordrid is offline  
Old September 15th, 2013, 10:24 AM   #48
President
 
Aufgeblassen's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: Central FL
Posts: 11,619

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordrid View Post
Too bad about your mother. But, "pulverize" is just not the appropriate term for the action of heat upon inorganic matter--unless you're a poet, in which case youi can do anything you want with words, since communication isn't the point.
I am merely telling you how it looked.
Aufgeblassen is offline  
Old September 15th, 2013, 03:20 PM   #49
Intern
 
Mordrid's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Michigan
Posts: 35

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
I am merely telling you how it looked.
Well of course you are.
Mordrid is offline  
Old September 16th, 2013, 07:42 PM   #50
Intern
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Castro Valley CA
Posts: 46

9/11/2001 = THE BIG LIE .... Hitler was right!
Mario Savio is offline  
Old September 18th, 2013, 09:10 AM   #51
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Miami
Posts: 203

NOTE: Edited since my previous writing had mixed up posters

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordrid View Post
You say you're open to new evidence, then proceed to limit the presentation of that evidence. If you're not willing to follow the investigation wherever it leads, you're not willing to know the truth.
Limiting? There's simply no evidence that anyone rigged the buildings up for a controlled demolition. Can't support a theory that you have no evidence for. You can kick and scream that several ton pieces of steel were "flinged" out 400 ft... but you don't have any corroborating evidence to support that it was caused by anything other than the collapse itself.

Did you ever look at the documentary evidence of the steel at the sites? Have you ever found a single instance where the damage was consistent with explosives? Did you ever find physical or documentary evidence to corroborate the witness testimony you will undoubtedly resort to? If the answer is "no" then you have your answer as to why the controlled demolition argument fails at it's prima fascia. If you can't get your base evidence in play, then don't have an argument... "You can't handle the truth!" is not an argument

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordrid View Post
Preconceptions will limit your perceptions. If your reasoning powers max out at "building fell down; gravity makes things fall down; therefore gravity made building fall down", then this topic may not be accessible to you.
The "reasoning" doesn't stop at "gravity makes things fall down". It looks at the cause and effect: The planes damaged the structural members. In one case, the damaged section of WTC 2 supported 30-stories above it while crippled.

Fire suppression... crippled because the plane impacts tore up the water lines.

Lack of compartmentalization inside the office spoaces, the plans were "open"

Flash ignition across several floors

Removal of fireproofing

Load distribution both before and after the collapse began.

You're overstepping you education if you're tell others they're not "ready" when you don't even think about those things yourself

Last edited by Kyuubi; September 19th, 2013 at 08:59 AM.
Kyuubi is offline  
Old September 18th, 2013, 09:47 AM   #52
Intern
 
Mordrid's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Michigan
Posts: 35

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuubi View Post
Ok... You say you can't fathom three buildings collapsing in one day? No, you're just not applying "critical thinking" and you're not considering cause and effect. They were all involved either directly or indirectly to the initial attacks on the towers because they were all within a couple blocks of each other... is that REALLY so hard for you to wrap your head around? These weren't separate events that took place with MILES between them... Not only do you seems to have trouble wrapping your head around the setup, you appear to have issues defining what measures up as coincidence.


Uh-huh... right... You jumped into a thread and called the collapse and carnage of an entire building complex an unusual "coincidence" without mentioning that they were secondary effects of an attack that started on two buildings.

Then you think that because several buildings were still "standing" the last "3" should have done the same. It's a stupid assumption.
You've confused me with someone else. I never said any of this stuff, which should be obvious from the quotes of mine that you included. You don't even know who you're ranting and raving at; and your rhetoric is logically ridiculous; so how can you possibly be credible!

Is there some kind of post count competition going on that I don't know about?
Mordrid is offline  
Old September 18th, 2013, 09:53 AM   #53
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Miami
Posts: 203

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mordrid View Post
You've confused me with someone else.
Oh dear me it seems I did confuse a little of who said what of the content... silly me.
I've adjusted my post accordingly... thankyou for pointing out the error

Last edited by Kyuubi; September 19th, 2013 at 09:00 AM.
Kyuubi is offline  
Old September 20th, 2013, 04:58 AM   #54
Intern
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Castro Valley CA
Posts: 46

There is evidence that explosives could have been planed without
any of the office workers knowing about it. Have you ever worked
in the land of Cubicles? Periodically tradespeople arrive with huge
tool-boxes and do work on the building, plumbing, air-conditioning
whatever, stuff gets worked on, nobody checked out the work to
make sure these people are not planting bombs in the building and
given that the explosives can be set off by coded radio signals,
there would not have to be runs of "det-cord" all over the building.
Note that the spaces above the office ceiling & also elevator shafts
are great places to hide explosives.

The major clue ( at least IMHO ) is the complete & total destruction of
WTC 1, 2 & 7 .... note that it is documented in the procedures for
POLICE & FIRE investigators that the complete destruction of anything
is considered VERY suspicious, and the complete & total destruction of
THREE buildings on the same day should be considered VERY, VERY Suspicious.

Think about it......
Mario Savio is offline  
Old September 20th, 2013, 05:13 AM   #55
President
 
Aufgeblassen's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2013
From: Central FL
Posts: 11,619

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Savio View Post
There is evidence that explosives could have been planed without
any of the office workers knowing about it.
So somebody disguised as a finishing carpenter brought a planer in, and made it look like he was doing some trim work, and when nobody was looking he started planing some explosives he had hidden???

What would that accomplish?

Not only would that disable the explosives, but it would dull the blade on his planer!!!
Aufgeblassen is offline  
Old September 20th, 2013, 06:12 AM   #56
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Miami
Posts: 203

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Savio View Post
There is evidence that explosives could have been planed without any of the office workers knowing about it. Have you ever worked in the land of Cubicles? Periodically tradespeople arrive with huge tool-boxes and do work on the building, plumbing, air-conditioning
whatever, stuff gets worked on, nobody checked out the work to
make sure these people are not planting bombs in the building and
given that the explosives can be set off by coded radio signals,
there would not have to be runs of "det-cord" all over the building.
Note that the spaces above the office ceiling & also elevator shafts
are great places to hide explosives.
You haven't acquired enough evidence to prove that the explosives were physically present on the site, so why is there a need to speculate this far? Find the evidence they were there and THEN people can speculate on the method of implementation if they wish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Savio View Post
The major clue ( at least IMHO ) is the complete & total destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 .... note that it is documented in the procedures for POLICE & FIRE investigators that the complete destruction of anything is considered VERY suspicious, and the complete & total destruction of THREE buildings on the same day should be considered VERY, VERY Suspicious.
The mere fact that they fell isn't enough to convince me that there had to be explosives. Things tend to be suspicious where there's not a glaring source of the fire or incident. The plane impacts stick out like a sore thumb on the ignition source and the damage done to the buildings as a contributor. I think you're confusing this way too much. The issue isn't whether the towers should have collapsed or not, it's why? And how we improve safety measures to make buildings safer when things like this happen.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Savio View Post
Meanwhile back at the subject at hand....

Why should it be considered credible,
that a 110 story building could "collapse"
in a manner that includes the pulverization
of mass quantities of building materials.
You mean that the wtc floors should have been found in a neat pile like you see of the T-Beams in those earthquake ravaged areas? Most of the concrete inside the towers was lightweight and a few inches thick, part of a composite floor system... Not 3 foot thick precast concrete beams covering an acre of floor space. It's easily explainable by the collapse and not exclusive to blast events. None of the structural steel exhibited blast damage, let alone pulverization either... so what is your response to that?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Savio View Post
+ the ejection at high speed, of chunks of
building steel weighing in at many tons and
these ejections sent some bits at least 400 ft from the tower.
Did any of these columns show signs of blast damage anywhere? no... so the only explanation is they got ejected via kinetic energy released by the collapsing buildings. Or do you find the prospect of ear shattering mini-nukes a comfortable alternative theory? Because if you're going to blame explosives for that, you better hope there's evidence of explosives THAT powerful going off in the vicinity in order to make this idea or your fly...
Thanks from David

Last edited by Kyuubi; September 20th, 2013 at 11:03 AM.
Kyuubi is offline  
Old September 20th, 2013, 08:29 AM   #57
Governor
 
Polydectes's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2013
From: just past the moons of Jupiter
Posts: 2,234

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aufgeblassen View Post
I am merely telling you how it looked.
That is a very interesting description. In the cremation process, skeletal remains are often not reduced to Ashes. Crematorium doesn't produce the necessary heat to completely incinerate skeletal remains. What is left after the cremation is put in a machine known as a cremulator, which is a device that grinds skeletal remains into powder.

cremulator - Wiktionary

My condolences for your loss.
Thanks from tecoyah
Polydectes is offline  
Old September 20th, 2013, 07:32 PM   #58
Intern
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Castro Valley CA
Posts: 46

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuubi View Post
You haven't acquired enough evidence to prove that the explosives were physically present on the site, so why is there a need to speculate this far? Find the evidence they were there and THEN people can speculate on the method of implementation if they wish.


The mere fact that they fell isn't enough to convince me that there had to be explosives. Things tend to be suspicious where there's not a glaring source of the fire or incident. The plane impacts stick out like a sore thumb on the ignition source and the damage done to the buildings as a contributor. I think you're confusing this way too much. The issue isn't whether the towers should have collapsed or not, it's why? And how we improve safety measures to make buildings safer when things like this happen.



You mean that the wtc floors should have been found in a neat pile like you see of the T-Beams in those earthquake ravaged areas? Most of the concrete inside the towers was lightweight and a few inches thick, part of a composite floor system... Not 3 foot thick precast concrete beams covering an acre of floor space. It's easily explainable by the collapse and not exclusive to blast events. None of the structural steel exhibited blast damage, let alone pulverization either... so what is your response to that?



Did any of these columns show signs of blast damage anywhere? no... so the only explanation is they got ejected via kinetic energy released by the collapsing buildings. Or do you find the prospect of ear shattering mini-nukes a comfortable alternative theory? Because if you're going to blame explosives for that, you better hope there's evidence of explosives THAT powerful going off in the vicinity in order to make this idea or your fly...
Given that the mayor of NYC had the site cleaned up starting the night of 9/11/2001, and exactly what happened to much of the remains of the WTC towers? The other fact I'd like to bring up is that the bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the security detail prior to 9/11/2001.

Note that it is NOT only the totality of the destruction but the fact that the "pile driver" is clocked at 64% of the acceleration of gravity, that is a good trick if there ever was one. where is the jolt of energy transfer?
Why did the building disintegrate? that is many tons of pulverized material, & very little in even recognizable bits, that is where is there an example of a badly damaged but recognizable copy machine, desk, chair, computer, telephone ... or? where is it? The amount of energy used to pulverize the building & its contents is not only in excess of the energy available from the falling mass, but the energy ( in order to pulverize as completely as was observed ) would have to be focused on the specific bits to be pulverized,
misdirected energy is wasted energy and stuff like launching tons of steel as much as 450 ft from the tower is also a huge use of energy, were did all that energy come from?
Mario Savio is offline  
Old September 21st, 2013, 03:56 AM   #59
Representative
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Miami
Posts: 203

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Savio View Post
Given that the mayor of NYC had the site cleaned up starting the night of 9/11/2001, and exactly what happened to much of the remains of the WTC towers? The other fact I'd like to bring up is that the bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the security detail prior to 9/11/2001.
Cleanup crews took 8 months to remove all of the debris, don't you think with that many people and that much time there was enough opportunity to photograph and document the debris for evidence?

Much of the debris that did get shipped elsewhere for other purposes, as well as what was permanently retained made a stop at Fresh Kills landfill, where further opportunity to examine it was offered and used accordingly.

I know that every photo I've seen there's nothing showing blast damage. Only stripped bolts where the columns connected which is an absolutely expected failure mechanism in this type of construction. It was even the primary failure point for the columns that experienced direct impacts from the planes. I hardly think of that as a coincidence - the joints are the weakest links.

Bomb sniffing dogs being removed? It's circumstantial, and you need far more of it if you plan to go the route without the physical or documentary evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Savio View Post
Note that it is NOT only the totality of the destruction but the fact that the "pile driver" is clocked at 64% of the acceleration of gravity, that is a good trick if there ever was one. where is the jolt of energy transfer?
What about 64% of gravity? That means the structure was resisting the collapse as you think it should have. Energy was being dissipated but not entirely because elements were overwhelmed before the loads could be transferred to the ground. They were overwhelmed because the mass exhibited a dynamic load, eccentrically in a chaotic collapse on whatever was still intact. The dynamic load increases the amount of force behind the mass, and the eccentricity of the load substantially reduces the structure's ability to resist it. How do you propose this proves the presence of explosives? Please remind me. I see plenty here that's well explained by basic engineering concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Savio View Post
Why did the building disintegrate? that is many tons of pulverized material, & very little in even recognizable bits, that is where is there an example of a badly damaged but recognizable copy machine, desk, chair, computer, telephone ... or? where is it?
The buildings did not "disintegrate." The structural steel wasn't pulverized for example, and we were able to get very good information about how those pieces failed during the collapse. Regarding the concrete I don't think you read any of the description I provided about their construction in the towers. If you're not going to read it, please just be straight up about it.

The tower's contents were in large part pulverized, but lets be realistic... Desks, computers, telephones, people, etc... these things are not made, nor are they capable of withstanding 30 floors worth of building falling on top of them. They do not have the structural strength period... I really don't know how you find this matter unusual...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario Savio View Post
misdirected energy is wasted energy and stuff like launching tons of steel as much as 450 ft from the tower is also a huge use of energy, were did all that energy come from?
From the kinetic energy released by the collapse itself... As much as you don't like that idea, that's about your only realistic source. We can speculate how powerful they would need to be, but you don't have any hard evidence to rely on, so we have to go with whats' most realistic.

Last edited by Kyuubi; September 21st, 2013 at 04:01 AM.
Kyuubi is offline  
Old September 21st, 2013, 08:53 AM   #60
Intern
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Castro Valley CA
Posts: 46

Please note that thee was a restaurant at the top of the north tower,
if the destruction of office contents is a function of having many floors collapse down on it, then what about the restaurant? There would be a LOT of chairs & tables + the restaurant fixtures & kitchen gear, NONE of that survived in even a very beat-up but recognizable form? what about the huge air-conditioning units to cool the restaurant? where is the STUFF?
also note that a wave of destruction moving downward at 64% of the acceleration of gravity, indicates clearly that it is meeting resistance that is only 36% of the mass of what is above. The "pile driver" MUST slow down in-order to deliver its energy. There is no JOLT, on the way down, just uniform motion. The fact is that POLICE investigators consider the complete destruction of anything to be very suspicious and may I add that the complete & total destruction of 3 steel framed buildings on the same day is VERY, VERY suspicious!
Mario Savio is offline  
Closed Thread

  Political Fray > The Political Fray > Conspiracy Theories

Tags
9 or 11 , disturbing , facts , indisputable , information



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[Disturbing images] Victims of uranium munitions used by the us forces in afghanistan afghan Government and Politics 33 September 20th, 2013 12:39 PM
Geithner's New York Fed told AIG to withhold information myp Current Events 3 January 7th, 2010 02:54 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2009-2013 Political Fray. All rights reserved.