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:
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?
The debris coming out of the other two towers would be significant in many instances - large steel chunks with concrete - and be propelled with significant force. It would be like a giant artillery slug hitting the buildings nearby with each chunk. Add onto that flaming debris (and incendiary materials) hitting them, igniting them as well, causing similar kinds of structural damages to them.
Excellent computer simulation demonstrating what I've been talking about across multiple posts in regards to horizontal and vertical tensions and forces in the structures. At risk of redundancy, go ahead and check those out as well.
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.
A building doesn't really collapse in chunks like that. One of the biggest problems if I remember right was rapid fire spread. The other reason it could very well happen like that gets back to what I was talkin' about before; a large, and in particular, tall, structure like that is under massive tension, by necessity.
You have steel beams acting as cross-sections which are holding the structure together by tension especially; beams in the floors are pulling horizontally due to the nature of the forces upon them. The tower would constantly have forces that, if not sufficiently counterbalanced, would tear it apart at the seams.
Do a little experiment, if you want. take some clay or putty or something, and make a tower out of it. then, gently push down on the top uniformly with your hand (like gravity). See how it bulges to the sides. A tower like that is constantly under forces to compel it to flatten/bulge, meaning not only does the structure have to be strong vertically, but it also must be strong horizontally.
Now, take out or severely damage the materials in that horizontal and vertical cross section. Fires will damage the integrity of the beams, and that isn't even to mention the materials like the concrete around those beams (which are actually in many ways just as crucial as the beams; they support each other because different materials have different kinds of strength (see here). With that kind of damage rapidly becoming widespread throughout each tower, top to bottom, it makes sense that it might literally collapse in on itself.
Also consider the possibility that some of the urge to cover parts up (hauling out steel rapidly) may be due to something entirely different; covering up corners that were cut in construction or maintenance. If it became known that the towers fell so rapidly and extremely due to corners cut in original construction (with the implication that they may not have fallen remotely as rapidly if they had been constructed up to spec), imagine the public outrage. Perhaps the steel was lower grade than it was supposed to be?
I think people need to get more creative and think outside the box when questioning common narratives. Sure, the mainstream one might be bullshit, but there are likely a thousand and one probable alternatives to the one that some people chose to believe. I tend to think that the inside job stuff jumps to far too many conclusions whilst ignoring much simpler and possibly more likely answers, especially when the justification really isn't there. Surely the towers didn't need to be taken down in order to impose the Patriot act and go to war? I think a lot less would have been more than sufficient, and I also think that risking exposure by performing such a visible and extreme false flag would be a really impractical move. I do of course think that it was taken advantage of, hence why I stated before that it's possible they knew about it in advance and just didn't stop it.
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?