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 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.
I'm not saying any which way is true, I'm just saying that there are a lot of possible explanations besides the common ones.
As far as cutting corners, if the metallurgy of the steel is off dramatically, something like that could likely be observed in the debris of said metal by someone with experience working on that kind of steel. That is to say, the way it fractures, bends, etc., would very possibly make a flaw in the steel very evident to those with experience.
Corner cutting doesn't have to mean less materials used. It just as easily may mean inferior materials used, or inferior construction techniques used in combining said materials. Such inferiorities, as I said before, tend to leave distinct patterns. This is due to the different atomic structural makeup of those materials; it's the same reason salt is a different crystal shape than sugar, for example.
What's more, if the metallurgy is off on the steel used, it's very possible that they may have a different melting point.
One of the biggest weaknesses of the clay analogy is that it ignores interior space. Perhaps a better comparison may be collapsing a cardboard box in the same way. Technically, it can fold in, it can fold out, or it can fold a mix. Either way, the problem in question structurally isn't the tower's ability to resist the force of gravity vertically, it's about it's horizontal strength. We do have the force necessary in this instance; that force is gravity. Don't forget that it isn't just acting on one part of the building; any part above the point of critical failure will be effectively added mass upon the remaining parts that haven't failed yet. That adds up quickly, and increases as the structure collapses.
Here is some excellent footage that demonstrates what I'm saying happening. You can, through the smoke, make out at 1:44 the sides collapse, just as they would with a squished pile of clay. Because the upper part still has it's mass, it proceeds to fall, effectively splitting the rest of the structure that is already weakened and compromised by losing critical structural keystones, much like a log splits vertically. Because the structure was designed to evenly disburse the force of gravity, not to take it on single points, when the debris of the top falls, it rather easily cuts those horizontal supports, allowing the tower to rapidly collapse under its own weight, and spreading plumes of debris out in all directions (which went on to damage neighboring structures. They are, in effect, massive chunks of debris with about the velocity of a falling artillery shell, which explains the severity of the damage to neighboring structures).
Here's a good video simulating the structure with different levels of force and strength. Primarily, I'm employing it to show what I'm talking about in terms of the physics and the folding and such.
Why would such a cover-up happen? Part of that is explained in the first half, but there's more. If the building had been built and maintained with corners cut, that would be evident in inspections. That means that the government would be complicit in the corner cutting, which may potentially put massive blood on their hands. Do you really think they'd want to risk the chance of such a thing getting out? The public uproar against them would be astonishing. It would also redirect from their ability to utilize the tragedy to their benefit; by keeping the blame solely on the terrorists, they were able to exercise the full extent of their agenda.
The kind of cover-up required for outright demolition would be astonishingly higher than just covering up some cut corners. Add on to that the likelihood that the plane strike alone would very likely be enough to bring down the towers (Either in the short run, or in the long run have them damaged enough to pose a giant risk), and it just doesn't seem like a pragmatic plan from the perspective of the deep state.
Bonus model here, as well. The National Geographic fluff is annoying, but the model itself, as well as the thermal-camera testing is rather fascinating. On top of that, there should be fairly accessible and reproducible procedures to finding these conclusions yourself. Given this is from 2009, the computer power to model that is probably fairly accessible to anyone today, if you so desired to model it yourself. The other part of this video that is good, is the part where the scientist explains very succinctly what I was trying to say about the steel beams being softened, not fully melted.
I'm not saying that there were corners cut. I'm not saying there wasn't demolition, or an inside job, or more going on. I'm saying that there are alternatives, that, in my eyes, better match with the available information. From the point of view of the deep state, such a move as using explosives at the base would have been far too dangerous in terms of potential for exposure. Even loading additional explosives on the aircraft would have been significantly easier (and much easier to explain, as well) and have just as good an effect.
Thanks for really insightful alternate theories. In fact, I don't consider these alternate but rather close to main stream as far as the mechanism of building collapse, but explained in a lot more detail. Anyone who believes the main stream narrative should definitely familiarize themselves with this.
However, these main stream narrative never made sense to me for years because I can always poke large holes that can only be addressed with a lot of assumptions and explanations - thats partly why instinctually it never sat well with me.
The only con with the explosive and demolition theory is that "No one would be crazy enough to try something like this and get away with it." but, thanks to Trump and Q and opening my eyes to the ways of deep state, it becomes a pro for the theory - "Only Deep State is arrogant enough to try it, and corrupt enough to get away with it."
Also explains many other loose ends like building 7 demolition, conflicting reports by the first responders and the number of those first responders who "committed suicide" (hearing cops "commit suicide" after Capitol Hill false flag just brings back this memory, along with OKC first responder who "committed suicide" as well)
Once you get past this "no one could get away with something like that", everything else falls in place. This is very similar to many people's reasoning regarding Covid-19 (The only reason why they dont believe it was made in a lab is because they dont think anyone could do it and get away with it)