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:
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.
Lets say I buy your whole Clay analogy and that the beams are constantly under stress, and the fire damages the integrity of the beams and other supporting structures.
I still fail to imagine the synchronous way in which this damage become widespread from top to bottom. I rewatched the first tower falling. The building collapses starting from the top and going down extremely uniformly and extremely fast.
For what you are suggesting to be true, at the precise moment when the top of the building gets damaged enough to break, the damage should "spread" downward very quickly and uniformly, to see what we observe.
But if the damage is happening the way you suggest, the actual damage spread downwards would be significantly reduced as it reaches further down. And the time to spread would be longer than just fraction of a second. The only way the damage could propagate downwards so quickly and so uniformly is if the beams melted.
Now, let me explain why the Clay analogy might be a very misleading model. In your analogy you mention pressing it from the top uniformly (like gravity). But the damage we are seeing is nothing like that. There is no uniform downward acting force of the magnitude necessary to collapse the building, thats at hand.
As for the urge to coverup - I just cannot wrap my head around the idea of covering up for cutting corners. To be able to figure out that some corners were cut by looking at the debris is impossible, even if, say 10% of the materials were cut (and I am taking an absolutely crazy number. In reality it will be more like 1 or 2%, otherwise the building would have collapsed long ago). I mean, walk me through this logic. Were they afraid that someone would weigh the steel and the concrete and say "Aha, there is 10% less than what should have been there, and thats why the building collapsed!" ?
And, the people involved in constructing the tower came quickly and pulled the strings of the government, currently deep in dealing with the crisis of epic proportions and convinced them to get rid of the evidence so this cutting corner will not be exposed? And the relevant authorities all acquiesed ?
Far more simpler explanation would be to avoid exposing obvious signs such as explosives, radiation, or whatever other signatures that would easily make it clear that this was an inside job.
But I understand your effort. If you really want to believe that something happened a certain way, you can always keep finding evidence that confirms that belief. I used to be the same was as well, and its a very left brain thinking.
I have learnt to assimilate all information and let my right brain do the thinking and provide instinctual insights. More often than not, those instincts are more spot on since our subconscious brain is able to process vast amount of input to come up with what we call "instinct", but really a very large scale computation that our conscious brain cannot perform.
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