View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
View Blog Entries
View Articles
What do you think? Please, I know how as a community we tend to run with things, please keep this civil and back up your arguments.
What do you think? Please, I know how as a community we tend to run with things, please keep this civil and back up your arguments.
no, not inside job. ill try to keep it civil, but uhhh, definitly not inside job.
Care to elaborate at all?Originally Posted by b-diddy
Bubbles would enjoy this thread.
Holy fucking shit, YOU ARE TIM!!!!
As for the "pancake theory"
It's not scientific. If pancake theory were reality, sky skyscrapers would not exist.
You can test this pretty easy. Build a crude replication out of legos, or erector set, jenga , or whatever you want. And push your hand down on the top as hard as you can.
the mass on the top has to push through the mass below it.
The floor below each floor provides resistance in mass.
It's why we build sky scrapers. We are pretty confident that even if multiple floors failed due to fire, or explosions, the floors below would still hold load. It's why even with worse fires than the twin towers, steel framed sky scrappers have not totally collapsed. Top down uniform free fall into footprint collapses do not happen because they can't without many catalysts, ones that either existed on 9-11 or didn't.
With the twin towers, this was done at or near free fall speed.
That's not possible without a catalyst removing the mass before the top levels move.
Also, on videos, you can see load bearing shifts at the top of the collapse, these shifts should have acted a fulcrum and tipped the top over and down, but as this was happening, all the floors totally failed below it sucking it down into the footprint. That is impossible without mass being removed.
Keep in mind, the building fell in a uniform total collapse into it's own footprint.
For that to work, the load at all points has to fail simultaneously on each floor as each floor falls into the next.
Each floor contains different mass, even different construction at points. These variations would cause a tip. On 9-11, where there was a tip, it was corrected by mass being removed underneath it by explosions. Many floors below the so called "pancake" That isn't a theory, that is clearly visible on video.
keep this in mind, all proponents of the pancake theory have been unable to simulate a collapse scenario in any computer generation without first removing all mass of the floors, all load bearing weights on all floors, and the exterior walls which were a main weight baring support. And even in this models, the internal core still stands.
Pancake Theory is just that, a theory, it is a theory that is not supported by FEMA or the NSTB. The official purveyors of the official fable.
And there isn't even a conclusion for Building 7
To say you "believe" pancake theory, is in fact, belief.
.It is a theory that has been created by a group of people that conspired to give you an explanation that you otherwise might ask questions about.
If your answer to a conspiracy is a theory, then what exactly have you accomplished by placating your own cognitive dissonance?
Hype?
not really. even though im religious, ill compare 9/11 truthers to creationists.
the official 9/11 take has some cracks, but is more or less a pretty good explanation of what happens.
truthers see a minuscule of falseness in the report and think it means the whole thing is flawed. then they offer some way out of leftfield alternative theory that wouldnt stand 1/10000000 the scrutiny of the official report.
the evolution / creationism comparison is the same way. our theories of evolution arent right, but they are much more right than wrong. everytime evolution's theory is adjusted to make it more precise, creationists say "see, we knew it wasnt right".
the arguments for the original 9/11 conspiracy, the stuff that probably got you interested, have all pretty much been explained. its turned into x-files, 'i want to believe' type shit.
Inside job by who Eray? The owners of the building for insurance? The Port Authority? Bush?
People not named Osama Bin Laden. I am still a little ignorant on the subject, that's why I'm trying to get a variety of perspectives. Bush, CIA, Federal Reserve, etc, I don't know. It's scientifically impossible for a plane to incinerate upon impact because of jet fuel (the Pentagon). The CIA confiscated the video that had whatever it was that hit the Pentagon hitting the Pentagon. That's just one of the many things that baffles me.
That's not such an easy question to answer. It requires a theory because we don't have a real investigation. People accept the Osama theory (yes, theory) because it is what we are told to believe. And how was that determined? Not by an investigation, but on day of speculation.
We had an invasion ready to go into Afghanistan prior to 9-11, that sure is odd isn't it?
Why not ask that question.
Or why don't you ask who paid the hijackers.
The 9-11 commission wasn't interested in such meaningless details.
Because if you actually follow money , you find the truth.
Hype?
I do believe Paris Hilton has something to hide.
Hence, the mask.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks