TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 [130] 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton 1. The towers were destroyed via controlled demolition with the use of incendiaries and explosives. 2. A directed energy weapon was used to destroy the towers. 3. Mini-nukes were used to destroy the towers." |
| quote: |
First of all, you seem largely incapable of creative or novel thought. Basically all your posts here are just the unparsed regurgitation of other peoples ideas. You're like the man in Searle's Chinese Room: receiving information from one side and passing it out the other with seemingly little conscious reflection. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Zild Only a pussy puts people on ignore. There is a lot to be learned from other people's ideas, points of view, ways of thinking, etc... especially from those you are at odds with or don't agree with. It helps to grow, learn, and mature. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X I put the trolls on ignore because all they ever do is mindlessly repeat the same propagandistic bullsh*t that the Bush administration pundits in the mainstream media has been feeding us while also verbally abusing me and everyone else who speaks out against the continued covering up of true nature of the crimes that were committed on that day (which apparently continue to be perpetuated by a highly organized online informational warfare team.) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X I put the trolls on ignore because all they ever do is mindlessly repeat the same propagandistic bullsh*t that the Bush administration pundits in the mainstream media has been feeding us while also verbally abusing me and everyone else who speaks out against the continued covering up of true nature of the crimes that were committed on that day (which apparently continue to be perpetuated by a highly organized online informational warfare team.) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X I think it really says a lot that you're so quick to chime in and further put the focus on me when the topic of the thread is "Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?" The fact of the matter is that I possess more than enough intellect and common sense to distinguish between those who actually have something important or relevant to say and those who only seek to safeguard their own ignorance (while perpetuating other's) by vehemently denying the facts surrounding the many unexplained circumstances and events which happend on that fateful day. I put the trolls on ignore because all they ever do is mindlessly repeat the same propagandistic bullsh*t that the Bush administration pundits in the mainstream media has been feeding us while also verbally abusing me and everyone else who speaks out against the continued covering up of true nature of the crimes that were committed on that day (which apparently continue to be perpetuated by a highly organized online informational warfare team.) Well, it was THAT as well as the fact that they seem to have caustic personalities which seem to goad even spiritually guided people like myself to behave like assholes in response to their vituperative attacks. I'm just tired of swimming in their cesspool of ignorance, that's all. And this board is definitely a lot more pleasant when I don't have to subject myself to all of their malevolent crap. And yeah, I'm a pussy alright. A pussy that's well armed and ready to give his life while defending what's left of his country after those Fabian Socialist fvcks have long since had their way with it - which I'm sure is a lot more than I can say for your Qliphoth kissing ass. Remember, you can't extinguish light with darkness just as the truth can never be destroyed by lies (no matter HOW BIG they might be!) Thank you and have a nice day |
Yes, we all loooooooooooooooooove Bush and believe everything he says.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 the bush administration didn't tell me that a plane flew into the WTC, my grandmother, grandfather, an aunt, an uncle, and a cousin each told me they witnessed it with their own eyes from my front porch. common sense, which perhaps you lack, allows me to understand that a plane loaded with tons of jet fuel, which is lodged into the upper floors of a steel building, isn't a good thing for the structural integrity of the building. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by culorut The tons of jet fuel burned off very fast, it is refined kerosene. The fires themselves where practically out as mentioned by numerous firefighters and the buildings where made to take more than one hit from bigger planes by the engineers that built them. How exactly did the towers including building 7 explode and pulverize into practically nothing while falling at almost free fall speeds? The official story does not explain this, in fact it does not even come close to explaining any of the thousands of holes in any of the events. Has anyone bothered to actually read the explanations and omissions given in the 9/11 commission report? I can assure you it is 600 pages or so of absolute piss. Lastly just about everyone knows what they saw on 9/11, it was fucking played 76876247692332589 times over and over again, it does not mean what the shady government is telling you is the truth. |
...It's purpose to examine the who, what, when, where, and why of the terrorist attack. 
| quote: |
| Considering how much they have lied and it has been proven time and time again how far of an outreach is it really that the story they are feeding the public is full of shit like everything else they throw at you? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Zild Ok man have a nice day in your padded room. Will talk to you when they let you out of your straight jacket for computer time again. |
I'm well versed in the occult, so I knew exactly what you were referencing, so please let me tell you shhh. You're cracking up.
Saying I bow down to qlipoth when you are the one who let's other people's words on the internet influence you so much you had to put them on ignore is one of the funniest jokes I've heard in quite some time.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Zild I'm well versed in the occult, so I knew exactly what you were referencing, so please let me tell you shhh. You're cracking up. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Zild Saying I bow down to qlipoth when you are the one who let's other people's words on the internet influence you so much you had to put them on ignore is one of the funniest jokes I've heard in quite some time. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Most of the people that I know are kind and respectful so perhaps I'm just not used to dealing with all of you malevolent fvcks. Oh well. Thanks in a part to Shaolin_Z, I simply learned that it's better to stop feeding the trolls. You all say that I've never admitted to being wrong? Well - I was very wrong and extremely misguided in thinking that feeding into your negativity was going to accomplish anything except further perpetuating it. Welcome to "ignore." Please enjoy your stay. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Well - I was very wrong and extremely misguided in thinking that feeding into your negativity was going to accomplish anything except further perpetuating it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by jerZ07002 you're so full of yourself. perhaps if i was half as intelligent as you claim to be I would have skipped my formal education so i could live in my mom's basement for free like you do. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X Most of the people that I know are kind and respectful so perhaps I'm just not used to dealing with all of you malevolent fvcks. Oh well. Thanks in a part to Shaolin_Z, I simply learned that it's better to stop feeding the trolls. You all say that I've never admitted to being wrong? Well - I was very wrong and extremely misguided in thinking that feeding into your negativity was going to accomplish anything except further perpetuating it. Welcome to "ignore." Please enjoy your stay. |
It's amazing how much more pleasant life becomes when you put all the malevolent trolls on ignore.
Now I can actually focus on the thread topic itself rather than on defending myself from the constant personal attacks which seem to be aimed at derailing it altogether.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X |
| quote: |
| NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire Frank Legge (Ph D) Logical Systems Consulting Perth, Western Australia. [email protected] Abstract An argument is presented that all theories of progressive collapse of the Twin Towers fail because the initiating event could not have occurred. The NIST report appears to be unsatisfactory in that it fails to deal with certain observations. The NIST report of the tragic events of 9/11 includes a study of the factors which led to the Twin Towers being �poised for collapse�. The report did not go on to address the mechanism of the actual collapse of the towers. Readers are left with the assumption that, from that moment, collapse was inevitable. 1 The report has been rightly criticized on the grounds that NIST, in omitting reference to the collapse mechanism, failed to perform the fundamental task it had been given. 2 There has been much speculation about the mechanism of collapse and various hypotheses have emerged. There is the �pancake� theory which has been augmented by addition of the �pile driver� concept. In this theory collapse is initiated by the sudden disintegration of one storey. This allows the top of the building to fall through the gap and the resulting impact causes the storey below to collapse. The mass of this collapsed storey adds to the mass of the falling block. This then falls on the storey below, which in turn is dislodged. A chain reaction thus develops in which all lower storeys collapse and the entire building is destroyed. There is also the �global collapse� theory. 3 This appears to be no more than a name as it lacks an explanation. It requires that heat-damaged connections and columns fail, but how this could progress from one floor to the next where there has been no fire appears to be causing a problem. NIST let a contract in 2003 to a firm of consultants seeking their explanation for the global collapse of building 7. 4 No response has yet been published. The pile driver theory at least provides a superficially plausible explanation for progress by suggesting that the mass of the falling block will be sufficient to destroy the supports in the unheated region below. The pile driver theory has been elaborated to include calculations involving momentum and kinetic energy. Greening has provided a paper intended to show that the collapse, once initiated, would be sustained. 5 Ross has provided calculations in refutation of this claim. His paper shows that the impact from the falling block would be absorbed by the structures above and below the impact area and would not be sufficient to result in a progressive collapse. 6 A comprehensive paper showing the falsity of the official explanation has been given by Ryan. 7 There have been many attempts, both official and unofficial, to explain the collapses, several of which are contradictory. Wikipedia provides a convenient list. 8 The essential point to note is that all authors supporting the official view accept that the damage due to plane impact was not sufficient by itself to cause collapse and that the ultimate cause was the high temperature experienced by the steel structure due to fire, facilitated by the loss of fireproofing caused by plane impact. This brief paper takes a different approach from those which attack the assertion that the collapse could �progress� and simply refutes all such theories on the grounds that at the moment of collapse, at least for WTC 1, the building was in fact not �poised for collapse� and could not have produced the initiating event. The conclusion of the NIST report is that fire and aircraft damage caused the initiating event that brought down the towers. Within the body of their report however is the statement that no steel was found which had been heated above 600oC. 9 This arouses suspicion as such temperatures should not be sufficient to bring about collapse. 9 The NIST report provides diagrams depicting plane damage and data derived from their fire and temperature simulations. The report asserts that the simulations correspond to a satisfactory degree with the observed fires as recorded in videos and photographs. From these it appears that the initial collapse in WTC 1, if it had occurred, would have been at storey 95 or 96. That is the region where the building was most damaged by plane impact. There is little damage shown for storey 97. 10 There is at least one video showing collapse starting at storey 96. 11 Study of the NIST diagrams shows that at the time of collapse the perimeter columns were not hot enough to place the building at risk. Most significantly the diagrams also show that the core areas of all storeys listed, from 92 to 99, spanning the plane damaged region, had cooled down substantially prior to collapse. The core area was hottest at the 30 and 45 minute readings but collapse did not occur until 102 minutes had elapsed, by which time the environment of the core had dropped to be mainly in the range 100 to 600 oC. 12 Roughly half the area is shown in shades of blue, indicating temperatures no higher than 150 oC. Videos show that the core started to collapse before the perimeter. 13 Bearing in mind the substantial heat sink properties of the columns there are three possibilities to consider: the temperature of the steel columns of the core at the moment of collapse might have been (a) rising toward the environment temperature, (b) steady or (c) falling. In case (a) or (b) collapse would clearly have been impossible as half the columns would be below 150oC and nearly all the rest between 150 and 600oC. Case (c), with column temperature falling, must be examined. Regardless of the final steel temperature, the core could not now collapse as it had already survived a higher temperature without collapsing and must have gained strength on cooling. The NIST report states that sagging floors pulled the central portion of one wall inward, causing it to lose strength. Sagging of the core was said to transfer load to the weakened wall which then failed. This is not reasonable however because there were three remaining walls, including four undamaged corners, which provided a rigid structure holding the core vertical by means of the hat truss. Collapse, if it were to occur, must therefore have been vertical, involving all core columns simultaneously. We have already seen that the core could not have failed due to heat. Initiation of collapse was therefore impossible. In the absence of initiation there could be no progressive collapse. An alternative mechanism for the collapse is therefore required: the use of explosives in a controlled demolition fits all observations. 14 It appears reasonable to believe that the NIST report stops short of dealing with the mechanism of collapse precisely because their early modeling showed collapse due to fire and plane damage to be impossible. End Notes
http://journalof911studies.com/arti...TradeCenter.pdf |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lira Are you sure you don't want to set up a blog? I understand you're eager to share your views but... it's become a monologue in two separate and disorganised threads. How will people even search for the stuff you're posting? |
frank legge is a fucking chemist and knows nothing about structures hit by big planes at speed. he's just another kook like steven jones that hasn't managed to get published in a real journal. trancer just posts stuff randomly that he thinks suports his argument, but doesn't really understand what he posts, as we saw recently with his reliance on closet fascists for material re the EU.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X It's pretty telling that the gaggle of trolls has to always try to refute my every post I make here, isn't it? It's all too apparent that somebody doesn't want people to know the truth. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trancer-X I actually do take great pleasure in ignoring them mainly because of the fact that the trolls seldom do anything but engage in personal attacks.  |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.