Conspiracy Theories for Cynics

[jshell]

Colonial said:

Shuvi McTupya said:

Also, our recent disaster in London is a reminder of just how badly WTC7 must have been built/designed if the 'official story' is to be believed.

Your post is a reminder of just how little knowledge of different building methods there are.

The good thing is, these threads keep us reminded of who the crazy posters are!

[Hainey]

Shuvi McTupya said:

Colonial said:

Your post is a reminder of just how little knowledge of different building methods there are.

I understand that there are different building methods.

I understand that the tower in London was not a steel frame construction like WTC7 was, but steel framed towers are not ussually prone to failure, in any circumstances.

There must have been an issue with that particular design for it to collapse to the ground, no?

Once the fire that was fed from tonnes of jet fuel had weakened the support beams enough, that was it. Those beams hadn't a hope of supporting the pontoon type assembly and once you had a single collapse, the next set of beams down the chain had to support that weight as well as its on and so the reaction started, gathering momentum all the way.

All fed by the biggest engine in the universe.

Gravity.

Tragic? Yes. Woo? No.

[Shuvi McTupya]

Colonial said:

Yes. Because jet fuel and airline strikes are the most common methods pf yesting building stability.

So was it the government, Jews, the new world order or lizards?

.

If you are going to try and be cocky and act like a know it all, I feel I should educate you.

There wasn't any jet fuel in WTC7 and a plane did not hit it.

[Colonial]

Shuvi McTupya said:

Colonial said:

Yes. Because jet fuel and airline strikes are the most common methods pf yesting building stability.

So was it the government, Jews, the new world order or lizards?

.

If you are going to try and be cocky and act like a know it all, I feel I should educate you.

There wasn't any jet fuel in WTC7 and a plane did not hit it.

So Jewish lizards then?

Good to know.

[Cold]

Colonial said:

So Jewish lizards then?

Good to know.

That's lizardist.

[scherzkeks]

Shuvi McTupya said:

scherzkeks said:

The conspiracy theories are irrelevant. The evidence and science are another ball of wax.

Here is NIST being challenged on and revising their erroneous report on free-fall:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii49BaRDp_A

In this context, once one learns about and understands what is required for a free-fall collapse, it is impossible to take the report seriously in its current form. The A&E site linked at the end of the video is excellent.

Also, our recent disaster in London is a reminder of just how badly WTC7 must have been built/designed if the 'official story' is to be believed.

Indeed, in reality they were overbuilt. The WTC buildings remain anomalies, as to date they are the only steel high-rise buildings ever brought down by fire.

[Vaud]

scherzkeks said:

Indeed, in reality they were overbuilt. The WTC buildings remain anomalies, as to date they are the only steel high-rise buildings ever brought down by fire.

Indeed, and they were also the only ones that had 7000 gallons+ (?) of jet fuel added to their contents.. which was never in the design perimeter?

[scherzkeks]

Vaud said:

Indeed, and they were also the only ones that had 7000 gallons+ (?) of jet fuel added to their contents.. which was never in the design perimeter?

Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling:

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

Also, only this only applies to two of the buildings.

[4x4Tyke]

Clearly the LizTards are going to be working over time on this

https://www.indy100.com/article/queens-speech-brex...

[arfursleep]

scherzkeks said:

Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling:

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

Also, only this only applies to two of the buildings.

Scherzkeks - this is a genuine question, do you believe that the attacks on Sept 11 were perpetrated by the US govt. and what was the purpose of them?

[Shuvi McTupya]

Colonial said:

So Jewish lizards then?

Good to know.

If that's what you would like to believe!

I think you should probably mention something about the moon, and post up that funny picture of the guy and his cat wearing a tin foil hat. That normally wins the internet.

[Foliage]

scherzkeks said:

Vaud said:

Indeed, and they were also the only ones that had 7000 gallons+ (?) of jet fuel added to their contents.. which was never in the design perimeter?

Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling:

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

Also, only this only applies to two of the buildings.

Its pretty clear what he means by that quote. He clearly didn't mean an airliner or that's what he would have written.

[anonymous-user]

Foliage said:

scherzkeks said:

Vaud said:

Indeed, and they were also the only ones that had 7000 gallons+ (?) of jet fuel added to their contents.. which was never in the design perimeter?

Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling:

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

Also, only this only applies to two of the buildings.

Its pretty clear what he means by that quote. He clearly didn't mean an airliner or that's what he would have written.

Oi! stop bringing rational points to the thread. This is a conspiracy theories....

But seriously guys. What the actual fk have you "truthers" been smoking? hahahahaaha

I think part of all interview procedures should include the question..... What do you think about the planes crashing into the twin towers?

So truthers, back up your "wisdom" - what would your genuine answer be? I BET you would lie.

[shakotan]

Boring_Chris said:

Jesus. I'd shy away from anything after absinthe, let alone driving a princess over a ton through a tunnel.

That sounds like a euphamism...

[shakotan]

Taking the politics out of it, there's still a lot behind the science of 9/11 that doesn't add up.

[jmorgan]

Foliage said:

scherzkeks said:

Vaud said:

Indeed, and they were also the only ones that had 7000 gallons+ (?) of jet fuel added to their contents.. which was never in the design perimeter?

Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling:

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

Also, only this only applies to two of the buildings.

Its pretty clear what he means by that quote. He clearly didn't mean an airliner or that's what he would have written.

Yeah. What year, type of aircraft, speed and fuel load.
Did I hear 707?

[DanL]

scherzkeks said:

Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling:

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

Also, only this only applies to two of the buildings.

They didn't design for the impact of a jet airliner flown into it - they were thinking of light aircraft such as had struck several sky scrapers in the past. That's what I recall from when I learned about the way the twin towers were built back in 1995 when I started my degree in civil eningeering.

They were well built and innovative, but the towers relied on the columns around the outside for much of their strength. When I saw the images of the damage on 9/11 I expected the towers to fall.

[shakotan]

DanL said:

scherzkeks said:

Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling:

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

Also, only this only applies to two of the buildings.

They didn't design for the impact of a jet airliner flown into it - they were thinking of light aircraft such as had struck several sky scrapers in the past. That's what I recall from when I learned about the way the twin towers were built back in 1995 when I started my degree in civil eningeering.

They were well built and innovative, but the towers relied on the columns around the outside for much of their strength. When I saw the images of the damage on 9/11 I expected the towers to fall.

Not trure, consideration was made regarding a direct impact from a Boeing 707.

[Foliage]

shakotan said:

DanL said:

scherzkeks said:

Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling:

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

Also, only this only applies to two of the buildings.

They didn't design for the impact of a jet airliner flown into it - they were thinking of light aircraft such as had struck several sky scrapers in the past. That's what I recall from when I learned about the way the twin towers were built back in 1995 when I started my degree in civil eningeering.

They were well built and innovative, but the towers relied on the columns around the outside for much of their strength. When I saw the images of the damage on 9/11 I expected the towers to fall.

Not trure, consideration was made regarding a direct impact from a Boeing 707.

Link

[anonymous-user]

shakotan said:

Not trure, consideration was made regarding a direct impact from a Boeing 707.

And how exactly do you "consider" for the impact then? Drivel.