Signature created way-back-when by Goofy
oh sweet satire
but where's the mocking of the "official" story, because its even easier to make fun of that and say "look, these assholes just told us an office fire just took down a 47 story steel frame building in a perfect demolition free fall!!!! hahaha what do they take us for, frickin IDIOTS!!! ROFL!!! it 'magically' fell!!! there was a 'magic center beam' that made the entire roof fall within microseconds of itself!!! ROOOOOOFL!!!"
and that would have been every bit the comedy, too![]()
Yes but isn't basing a theory on the way a building falls down after suffering obvious structural distress, a narrow and closed minded process?
In fact, the only way to prove what happened would be to recreate the building (WT7) using the exact same materials, aging the components, recreate the points of ignition and within 1/10th of an ounce, recreate any and all debris that fell onto the building that morning.
or in plainer terms...just because a building collapses neatly, does not automatically mean that it was a controlled demolition.
nice attempt, Hal
I'll prompt you to find the egregious and blatant assumption in your comment, and rectify your statement in light of choosing a false starting point.
Ok I'll just make it easy on you. Obvious structural distress? Please define that, because building 7 had *NO* obvious structural distress. At all.
Just like the 911 commission report simply assumes the planes were the cause - welp, plane hit it, so no need to even think about what actually happened or the structural degradation being entirely inconsistent with the "facts" as presented by the fiction writers. For 1 & 2 you have to dig into how the buildings collapsed...
But like I've said many a time before, 7 precludes us from even having to go there in order to establish that the official narrative is false. That's why every 911 argument from anyone who perceives the physically correct chain of events for that day, begins with building 7 - it was an obvious, egregious demolition.
In plainer terms....Just because a building collapses perfectly and neatly into its own footprint, does indeed automatically mean it was a controlled demolition.
Are you fkn kidding me bro?You've seen demolitions before, yes? You've seen the ones where the smallest little thing goes wrong and it doesnt drop into its footprint, yes?
Why are you so emotionally invested in the convenience theory? What does it get you, by believing a completely nonphysical description of what happened?
Not aware of the fact that it is a bit of an engineering feat in and of itself, to drop a building into its own footprint? (hint, no way 1 & 2 would have if they werent wired, and even at that, one tilted to the side a bit.)
and please, enough with the "if we really want to find out we have to recreate the entire event"....because that is a hand waving dismissal, even using it is just saying "I accept the fake story and dont want to investigate it, its just too big and scary to think about"
Last edited by FBD; 04-24-2015 at 02:49 PM.
its still just absolutely laughable to me that anyone can think a building would "accidentally" fall into its own footprint. cmon guys, use your fuggin heads
see hal, that is a matter of perspective - you say just because it falls into its footprint doesnt really mean......
NO...that is the wrong way to look at it!
ask it like I just did, will a building that has dozens of supports that all need to drop either simultaneously or in a very tightly timed harmonic fashion so as to have an entire roof drop "at once"....will that happen BY ACCIDENT? fuggin HELL NO!!!!
![]()
Last edited by FBD; 04-25-2015 at 06:35 PM.
nice attempt, Hal
I'll prompt you to find the egregious and blatant assumption in your comment
and rectify your statement in light of choosing a false starting point
Ok I'll just make it easy on you
Are you fkn kidding me bro?
Why are you so emotionally invested in the convenience theory?
and please, enough with the....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above, from your post. This is why there's not much give and take when posting with you dude...I'll respond in kind.
Hey look, it's a tiny question buried in your response of flaming belittlement -
Obvious structural distress? Please define that, because building 7 had *NO* obvious structural distress. At all.
Did you watch the same footage as the rest of the world FBD? Every building in that area was hit by the debris from two of the largest buildings in the world when they dropped.
And then WTC 7 was observed to have over 15 floors on fire, out of control, for over eight consecutive hours. And you think that DOESN'T CAUSE STRUCTURAL DISTRESS ON A BUILDING? Wtf is wrong with you...
Layout of WTC buildings
And after two skyscrapers that were over 100 stories tall drop into the area below and WTC 7 falls...
As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon. The collapse also caused damage to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage included a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41.
This was WTC7 just after lunch...and it dropped over five hours later.
The multi-floor fires in WTC 7 burned from 9:30am until after 5pm, out of control. THE BUILDING HAD BEEN HIT BY DEBRIS FROM TWO 110 STORY BUILDINGS DROPPING INTO THE BLOCK BELOW. THERE WAS DEBRIS FOUND FOR OVER ONE SQUARE MILE FROM GROUND ZERO.
Of course WTC 7 suffered damage before it dropped.
If you think that an eight hour fire and DEBRIS FROM WTC 1 AND 2 dropping caused no structural distress, nothing will ever change your mind because you're not even accepting the literal, physical evidence in front of you.
And finally... "if we really want to find out we have to recreate the entire event"...Is not a hand waving dismissal.
It would be the only way of proving how the building collapsed. And it would actually be you at that point saying that you accept the fake conspiracy story and you don't want to see the hypothesis tested, because it wouldn't fit into your narrative.
Hal, sorry bro, please look up the definition of structural damage. Superficial damage is not structural. Superficial damage can look extreme and still not be structural damage. And a small note on verbiage, "burning uncontrolled" can be *very* different than "burning out of control" - the latter implies that there were attempts to control it. There was no such attempts on that day. Out of control means there's plenty of fuel. Uncontrolled can simply mean we couldnt get to the fire to even try to control it.
now before we go any further.....
no, let me just end this right here - please explain how an uncontrolled fire produced simultaneous structural collapse in every single column in building 7. and not just every single column, but every single column with in a *very* small timeframe.
you cant.
pieces hit....ok - not symmetrical
the gas tank - well NIST said it didnt contribute to the collapse....at any rate, not symmetrical...
now how did a symmetrical collapse that fell perfectly in its footprint happen??
Game, Set, Match.
You cannot explain it unless the explanation includes a controlled demolition.
I dont know how more plainly that can be stated. If one does not believe this statement, one is either ignorant or paid to not believe it. This is also why we dont need to recreate the experiment! Ask any demolitions expert what happens if one of their columns doesnt get severed at precisely the right time.
I'm sorry you and a great many other people misunderstand physics significantly enough that you accept nonphysical descriptions of an event, and believe it. your having been misled does not change the facts of the situation.
you CANNOT explain an orderly collapse into a footprint by sheer random chance. engineering feats just do not accidentally happen, brotha.
If so much as ONE of those steel columns was not severed, it would have made the building fall asymmetrically and it would have gone off to one side. It did not. DONE-ZO, right there
if I werent 110% sure this was demolitioned, then I wouldnt be so uncaring about the give and take with regard to this explanation. this is a major fuggin fraud perpetrated on the american people, and the world, and the lies are offensive and doubly so since so many people believe what the TV told them. (even if it was reported twice that 7 collapsed before it actually didwe'll just skip over that and many other facts about the day...)
Pull It!
-Larry Silverstein
Last edited by FBD; 04-25-2015 at 08:45 PM.
Column layout
watch the roof fall
If one of those steel columns doesnt get severed at the right time,
Then no way do you get this:
the streets are just about passable around the building, ffs. 47 stories of steel, straight down?
(note that the entire roof falls within ~4. seconds - and then recall that steel will bend and twist - how about it TWO of the columns didnt get severed? Three? beginning to get the picture of what would have happened if they were not subject to cutting charges? 7 would have fallen anywhere BUT straight down.)
Then, the gov gave FEMA the sole discretion to investigate the collapse, even though FEMA is not an investigative agency.
FEMA assembled a team of volunteer engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), dubbed the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT), to write the World Trade Center Building Performance Study . The engineers were not granted access to the site of the catastrophe. Rather, they were allowed to pick through some pieces of metal that arrived at the Fresh Kills landfill.
Were 7 truly accidental, they would have gone over each and every piece with a fine toothed comb like it was the NTSB after an aircraft crash to determine why it happened. They did no such thing, and the pieces rather quickly made their way to blast furnaces, traced by GPS to make sure they got there (and one of the delivery drivers was immediately fired for an extended lunch on one of the loads....so how careful were they, again?)
Last edited by FBD; 04-26-2015 at 06:32 PM.
so its not plainly obvious that columns 58-81 were cut roughly .1 to a quarter second before the perimeter columns?
watch it! look a the center, look at those columns!
the center comes down, then the entire perimeter.
Are you trying to say that 1, 15, 28, and 42 did not drop at pretty much exactly the same moment, a mere instant after the core columns went?
(if you want to look at the spire on wtc1, you can also see that the core was pulled instantaneously before the perimeter also - the spire drops before the rest of the roof. now if that doesnt register as indicative of demolition... then I assert once again that the reader who concludes this is ignorant on the physics of demolition. I'm not saying ignorant as a term of derision, I'm saying it as a factual observation of the level of understanding of one who asserts his belief in a story that rests entirely on a nonphysical description of events.)
(Larry Silverstein collected $500 million in insurance money from the "unforeseen collapse" of building 7of course he backtracked his "pull it" comment saying it was in reference to getting firefighters out, but that attempt is ignorant of the fact that there werent any firefighters in there.)
Last edited by FBD; 04-27-2015 at 03:29 PM.
So Hal, do you understand how your rebuttal was not technical in the least and doesnt even begin to scratch the surface on explaining the events?
And what I present is of a technical nature?
![]()
I guess if after having been shown technical things and people still want to put their hands over their eyes, what can I do? Do you think it REALLY would have helped if I merely "explained this more nicely"No, it wouldnt have. All that was said is that its hard to...disagree or debate someone that refuses to accept your side of the story - except for that little fact of, I used to accept your side of the story, the one that contains no technical analysis whatsoever - I subscribed to that until I actually took a deep look at the technical side of things, and then the whole matter became so plainly obvious that I had to facepalm myself for taking so long to actually go and dig at those details. So its not as if I cannot see and understand that side of things you still believe, I used to stand there years ago. Its not as if I took a look at these implicating details previously and didnt believe them, I just never looked. And once I did, there was no turning back. For some reason my attempts at distilling that information have just been met with "fbd, you crazy, the government wouldnt lie to us or deliberately sacrifice citizens"...and those eyes get shut tight as can be towards those technical details that spoke so unequivocally to me, and anyone else that's got half a mind for physics and an open mind enough to carry facts through to their logical conclusion, unimpeded by predetermined opinions.
Its honestly sad seeing folks do that. My younger brother, too - I berated him for being way smarter than that and refusing to take a look at the technical details of the matter. He's never read ae911.org or any of the sites that debunk the crap out of the official story, yet his opinions are fully formed (and informed, in his own little mind.) I know you guys are more intelligent than that. But its also instructive - people will disbelieve what they are *that* heavily invested in not believing, regardless of how much evidence is shown to them.
I feel sorry for you guys that you cant take an honest look at those events and draw a logical conclusion based on evidence, as opposed to the wildly concocted NIST report (which completely disregards building 7 and stops its analysis the instant 1 & 2 fall, because it already has its conclusion, no need to actually go support it with a full technical analysis.) In fact it was all of the inconsistencies in the nist report, stickin in my craw, that eventually led me to go read ae911. When the government *really* wants to find something out, it will turn over every last little rock. When they need to hide something, you get a dumb story fully of holes. I knew that NIST report was a dumb story full of holes within weeks of its release, but it took more evidence than the farce of that report to convince me it was an inside job.
Once the demolition aspect is revealed to have been unequivocally present - you knew that whole day was set up quite a bit ahead of time, required access to the buildings....and well, the entire "official" story falls apart as completely as those buildings did, as well as the denials of government involvement, once you see the information that was destroyed in 7 & the pentagon - the singular copies of all that information, no less.....the copies that implicated government officials in things like the Enron scandals...all of the SEC's bigtime investigations were in building 7.
I mean, how do you guys ignore stuff like that? It really, truly boggles my mind.
What is that symbol Jay Z is doing?
Hes measuring Beyonces vag
No really.
There are varying opinions on what Jay-Z's triangle hand sign means. Beyonce used the sign in her Super Bowl halftime performance, making people more curious about the meaning. Here are a few theories.
Roc-A-Fella Diamond
The most common explanation, and the one that Jay-Z himself uses, is that the hand sign promotes Roc-A-Fella records. For Jay-Z it means a diamond which is a play off of the word Rock in Roc-A-Fella records. A diamond is the hardest stone on earth as well as most precious.
A Levite symbol
Others believe the hand sign is a symbol of the Levites. The Levites were one of the original 12 tribes of Israel and were particular responsible for the religious duties of the Israelites. It's a very powerful symbol in religious circles indicating to be Gods chosen soldiers in His spiritual warfare and protect the Tabernacle, as described in the book of Numbers in the Old Testiment, and throughout the Torah. It's not a Dynasty sign, it's not a diamond sign, it's not Greek sign. I have no doubts Jay-Z knows exactly what it means. It's no joke to throw that up.
Greek letter Delta
It has several meanings in the black sorority. It's a sign for the Greek letter Delta as explained by Kanye West song "Through the Wire."
Illuminati triangle
Some believe the symbol has Illuminati ties. When Jay-Z poses with his eye behind the triangle, it leads some to think the symbol is of an "all seeing eye" similar to the one that shows on the US dollar bill. An all seeing eye or third eye is symbolic of communicating with Lucifer and is a symbol of Illumination.
Muddy (04-27-2015)
I've seen a militant black friend of mine use it before.. The guy is like 50 years old..