My kid (25) voted for Qidan. I respected his right to choose. Then he bought GME after following “DeepFuckingValue” on Reddit. He panicked when it dipped and sold 90 of his 100 shares and (only) doubled his investment in a month. He was bummed. He was angered when the powers that be stopped people from buying. First we talked about protecting your capital is the #1 rule. Then we talked about the forces at work and the battle for hearts and minds. He took a few red pills. I explained my red pill was 911. Who bought millions of dollars in puts on the airline stocks the week before? They made billions! Plus the free falling twin towers not to mention the 3rd building (hardened for a nuclear strike) going down several days later. I lost friends over that. They could not stomach the red pill. I asked him if he saw the irony in someone named DeepFuckingValue buying a junk company like GME. The only deep value is knowing a huge short squeeze is coming. Then, I really baked his noodle when I asked him, “who do you threw the billions at GME to force that short squeeze?” That was a killer whale taking out the apex predator sharks (hedge funds). Do the math. No way millions of little guys outgunned the hedge funds. He said wow Dad that’s a lot to think about. Then he said, do you always notice stuff like this? I said, my job is to leave the world a better place then I found it for you and all those I love. So yes, I do.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (137)
sorted by:
on the 9/11 stuff honestly I was just looking for an explanation of why the towers fell straight downward like a demolition implosion and not like they took an impact from the side and all i got was mocked... people assume you're taking a definitive stance on something just because you ask questions
We were trained to do that (ex leftist here) it’s being baked into the online and media culture.
I’ve realized my behavior and that of others emulates television to a disturbing degree.
The more I look into everything the more I realize what a dumb fucking animal I am.
I am not sure if its a coincidence but the leftists push the idea of Left Brain thinking (logic and facts), while completely suppressing Right Brain thinking (instincts)
youre not a dumb animal. youre a person who learns and evolves and changes their model of reality based on new information. all part of life my friend
The math would say that the plane wouldn't have even remotely enough force to hit the building over onto its side or something like that, if that's what your suggesting.
Demolition wouldn't be necessary. Structural integrity is a gritty game. With tall buildings like that, all of the materials are in constant and extensive tension. They're designed to maintain and strike equilibrium between the tensions, making them incredibly durable in the face of widespread forces (heavy winds, for example). A plane collision could easily have broken key nodes in the structure, destroying the equilibrium of tensions and causing the entire structure to slowly "unravel" if you will.
The whole "Jet fuel can't melt steel beams" thing is a meme for good reason. In a building like that there's a lot more going on in terms of forces than just the direct surroundings of the jet. A skyscraper has tremendous energy in it at all times, by necessity, due to the omnipresent force of gravity on a relatively localized point. In the right circumstances, energy converts to heat and extreme forces rather easily.
I think a lot of people have trouble recognizing how large structures like that behave. A lot of insight into that can be gleaned from watching the Japanese skyscrapers respond to earthquakes . They're designed to be flexible enough that said earthquakes bend them instead of shattering them.
Another example of what happens when structural tensions aren't sufficiently balanced can be seen in the footage of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse
It's for these reasons that I don't really buy the idea that there was demolition, etc. involved [at least, in the two main towers]. I do however entertain the idea that it was known about in advance and not prevented.
As far as all sorts of weird reports, I think that's just what happens when you have awful media, complete and utter chaos, and massive trauma all bundled in one. It's well documented that eye-witnesses to severely traumatic events (car accidents, for example) can all have different stories because people have trouble processing said events.
Sources: Family full of experienced engineers of all kinds.
My background is Chemical Engineering with four years practicing followed by a JD. So I’m not a statics and dynamics expert by any means but I’m also smart enough to know that a free fall requires just the right conditions and if not achieved, the building demolition will not be free fall and will likely topple to one side or the other. Not to debate 911 here - that’s not the point. The point is that what you see is not always the real reason for why things happen. Love, Dad
Agree with the last part, I'm not even trying to push a certain thing, I just like introducing other ways of looking at things.
That said, I can see what you're saying with toppling to the side, if it were more of an isolated structural failure (think removing the bottom-side Jenga block). In the instance where the tower received first structural failure from the top, if it were to collapse, it would likely be due to structure-wide complete systemic integrity failure. It may start to tip, but it wouldn't get far because it would effectively crumple under its own weight. Think sand castle, moreso.
If anything, I would argue that a more vertical collapse would LESS so imply explosives at the base, as that might not have sufficient time to damage structural integrity near the top, yielding greater room for tipping, potentially.
I really think there are just enough variables in play that you couldn't say with even remote certainty how it would or should behave without significant testing and computer modeling. My understanding is that people have done some of that and gotten mixed results. That tells me more detail and a wider spread of tests would be necessary.
Either way, I agree with the sentiment of challenging apparent answers and thinking, because in life, things tend to be overwhelmingly more complicated than people can even process.
So building 7 collapsed without a plane, rationalize that away.
Once you admit 7 was a controlled demolition, and the demolition crew was there that day to do the job, COINCIDENTALLY two other buildings beside it happened to also just implode vertically on the same day from airplanes without the demolition crew who was NEXT DOOR being involved. And this building 7 "pull it" demolition wasn't public knowledge, so they were attempting to keep it a secret. Why?
Chances that it is a coincidence 7 was demolished the same day the other two neatly implode in to perfect little insurance payout piles is what, one in infinity? One in a trillion? What if they didn't collapse and just stood there? 7 just implodes anyway?
So you believe the steel just metled because the fuel was on fire?
1.) steel doesn't need to melt to lose integrity; temperatures can alter it to make it brittle or more susceptible to weakness.
2.) The fire from the fuel ignited other things in the area, many of which could have had greater burning temperatures. Add on to that that some of this was in a relatively enclosed location; think oven.
So the question is, do you think that the instabilities due to temperature + other things burning along with the fuel would be enough to make the buildings collapse the way they did ?
I can easily understand if these instabilities started causing chunks of building to collapse and as a result they had to demolish it. But clearly (at least for the two towers) this was not the case. They organically collapsed and the steel was shipped out very quickly.
He is dead wrong, and to assume they wired 7 but not the other two? They just happened to have the "pull it" demolition team there on the same day?
Insane and impossible
Also the fact that the BBC reporters talked about 7 falling makes me think that build 7 was supposed to be demolished earlier, but they probably delayed it .. and my wild guess is that they had forgotten some important stuff there and they want to retrieve it
Go revisit every assumption you have because you are dead wrong. The concrete cores down the middle wouldn't just implode evenly at the same time, you need to revisit the construction of those buildings. Insane structural strength. The outside of it was structural steal not curtain wall. Impossible for it to be brought down by the planes AND if they wired building 7 which is obvious you think they didn't wire the other two?
I heard about them falling while I was sitting on an airplane waiting to take off (spoiler: we didn’t). I imagined them tipping over where they were compromised, like a tree getting cut down. It just seemed weird they basically evaporated. Also crazy that no other steel tower has ever collapsed, so we have no reference point.
Empire State building got hit by a big plane, look it up. Nothing serious happened to the building.
Yup, it’s almost like these massive steel and concrete buildings are designed to remain standing even after a direct hit and massive fire.
I remember asking the exact same question and my friends screaming at me "Do you even know how hot it gets when a jetliner full of fuel burns up?" and I just accepted it. It never made sense though.