Terror Threat raised to Severe

[Daggers]

I think he's referring to the general law of entropy (within all of the above posts)

I think he's rewriting the Zeroeth Law where a=b and x=z therefore camel = albatross

[Houdini Logic]

I think he's rewriting the Zeroeth Law where a=b and x=z therefore camel = albatross

Ahhh, the Zeroth Law where camel = albatross - I know it only too well...

[Daggers]

Here you go Empty, it's Youtoob and everything - so it has to be right. Right?

[BoneDog]

Arghhhh...

Which laws of Physics would they be?

Newton's gravity thing? The relationship between acceleration of an object and the cumulative forces acting upon it? Thermodynamics or the law of general fucking relativity?

What scientific qualifications do you hold?

I hold a BSc (Hons) in Physical Science and a C58 in Astronomy and Planetary sciences.

Nah, I got a GCSE grade C in Physics, that's it !

Here you go Empty, it's Youtoob and everything - so it has to be right. Right?

I want some of that thermite stuff to blow up me garage or a lamp-post or something.

Why do people think I get my info from Youtube? I use Youtube to listen to music, watch funny stuff, to watch documentaries that I've missed and watch people give talks around the world. I don't take notice of those crappy homemade videos that people make (unless I think they might make me laugh).

The serious videos I watch on there are not made by Youtube members, Youtube is just a place to share them. There are plenty of videos on Youtube that are from very reliable sources I think.

I admit I have watched lots and lots of videos on Youtube about all sorts of conspiracies and secret society stuff, but it is rare that I find a good one. I think that majority of them are total nonsense. I might watch thirty 10 minute videos and only find about 6 minutes of useful/reliable info.

I mainly read books and watch some documentary films which I think are reliable/interesting to try and learn.

[Fosse Boy]

"WHEN THE ZEEEEETAS FILL THE SKIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEESS, IT'S JUST OUR LEADERS IN DISGUIIIIIISSSSSE!!!!!!!!!!!!"

[Zingari]

i've got a very thin galvanised steel incinerator bin (with loads of holes in it) from the shops and i'm thinking of soaking some wood and twigs and stuff in paraffin to burn them , but i'm a bit worried now .

Will the bin collapse just like WTC 7 Or will it become an unusable distorted heap of scrap ?

this thread is very entertaining anyway thanks all

Empty , you are a real street scrapper ,gotta admire yah well done chap

[Babylon]

if you really believe that then you really haven't grasped the full concept of the JFK assasination

I'm not saying it didn't go higher... i'm just saying that it's quite feasible that another long gunman COULD have taken the shot. Your 9/11 version would take hundreds of people to be involved to pull it off.

[Zingari]

I'm not saying it didn't go higher... i'm just saying that it's quite feasible that another long gunman COULD have taken the shot. Your 9/11 version would take hundreds of people to be involved to pull it off.

and the cover up would have taken hundreds of people ,, but as i said before , their involvement would have been compartmentalised, and it's well known that many were silenced , most notably LHO himself

[Babylon]

I can't cope... when the laws of physics are getting rewritten and common sense seems to be in short supply, it's really not worth having the discussion.

[Zingari]

I can't cope... when the laws of physics are getting rewritten and common sense seems to be in short supply, it's really not worth having the discussion.

WTC7

( so no more talk of effects of aeroplanes crashing into it, please )

the day i see a practical demonstration of a steel framed building brought crashing symmetrically down to earth at close to free fall speed using low temp hydrocarbon fuel fires and no explosives ,, will be the day i believe the NIST Report

Come on experts , there must be lots of steel framed builings due for demolition , let's see it for ourselves , i'd risk a tenner , you can't do it

The bigger the lie, the more they believe it

[Guest Bilo]

This controlled demolition thing takes one hell of a leap of faith.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it's based on people near the Towers hearing explosions and the manner in which the towers fell.

People far more clued up than me on this thread have explained how the towers fell in the manner they did (breadandcheese, Babylon and Daggers I'm thinking of) but surely a bit of common sense would tell us something. The tallest building to have been demolished in a controlled demolition was the JL Hudson Department Store in Detroit, which stood at 439ft. WTC1 and WTC2 stood at 1368ft and 1362ft respectively so are we really expected to believe that a controlled demolition more than three times bigger than anything previously attempted took place not once but twice, totally secretly with hundreds of thousands of pounds of explosives placed strategically around the buildings, without employees or thousands of tourists realising what was happening? Even the average tower block demolition takes months of planning from architects and requires the building to be stripped almost to its bare bones to enable the explosive charges to be placed where they are needed. Can you imagine how much planning and work this would have taken, something five times taller than your average tower block? Furthermore, even if the CIA somehow managed to plant explosives throughout the building without the world's most inobservant staff and tourists noticing, wouldn't the airliners/remote controlled drones/lizardmen spaceships smashing into the Towers have disturbed the charges meaning the building would not have been able to be properly demolished?

After all, even schoolchildren (but apparently not eminent scientists) know the impact from the planes would not have brought the towers down. I daresay that we'd have seen and heard regular and timed explosions throughout the building too. Much like this controlled demolition of the aforementioned

Now watch

of the WTC collapsing and notice that there is no sound or sign of rhythmic explosions bringing the building down. Either it means that they used a whole new method of silent and undetectable demolition or there was no controlled demolition. It only looks like a controlled demolition because the building is falling straight down but the physics explains that and no other sign is there.

So, for the conspiracy theory to be true, the CIA would have had to have secretly planted hundreds of thousands of tons of explosives throughout the building over months if not years, probably the latter seeing as they were smashing the world record for a controlled demoltiion twice in an hour and nobody could know. This would had to be have done without any of the 50,000 or so employees and hundreds of thousands of tourists at the buildings noticing a highly invasive procedure that would have had to involve stripping walls to place explosives at the supporting steel pillars on every floor. After this, the CIA controlled planes would have had to leave these explosives completely undisturbed. The type of explosive used would have had to make a near undetectable explosion or sound too, so even those mere yards away could smell a rat or worse film the collapse so other people could do the same. And all this engineering and administrative genius from a Republican party so incompetent they hardly put a foot right in 8 years of government. It's almost a compliment to them to believe they would have had the ability to pull off a conspiracy as complex as this without a single hitch. One hell of a stretch to believe, I'm sure most on here will agree.

[Zingari]

bilo,

how many more times ?

WTC 7 was 47 storeys high and not hit by an aeroplane and collapsed symmetrically at free fall speed , with only minor damage and minor fires

watch this video , it's only 9 seconds long , does it look like it's collapsing due to "random" damage and fire ?

[Guest Bilo]

Given up on WTC1 and WTC2 then?

WTC7 suffered catastrophic damage to its South Side when WTC1 collapsed. Most of the videos and photos of WTC7 that exist that day are of the relatively undamaged North Side, that only shows small fires but the

can be found. It was the damaged metal frame of WTC7 that sealed its fate and the fires there were unfought, due to the inevitably of its collapse once the frame was irreparably damaged. As all of the surrounding buildings in WTC Plaza were also either instantly destroyed or damaged beyond repair by the collapse of the main buildings, WTC7 would have had to be extremely fortunate to escape unharmed. It wasn't and it therefore collapsed.

[Zingari]

Given up on WTC1 and WTC2 then?

WTC7 suffered catastrophic damage to its South Side when WTC1 collapsed. Most of the videos and photos of WTC7 that exist that day are of the relatively undamaged North Side, that only shows small fires but the

can be found. It was the damaged metal frame of WTC7 that sealed its fate and the fires there were unfought, due to the inevitably of its collapse once the frame was irreparably damaged. As all of the surrounding buildings in WTC Plaza were also either instantly destroyed or damaged beyond repair by the collapse of the main buildings, WTC7 would have had to be extremely fortunate to escape unharmed. It wasn't and it therefore collapsed.

i accept that WTC7 was damaged and on fire ,,

it's the symmetrical fall that is the problem , surely if one side of a building is badly damaged the fall will be "asymmetrical"and not at free fall speed ,

this is obviously not the case if you watch the collapse ,

ps, i've tried to concentrate on questions relating to WTC7 from the start .but i admit that reluctantly got sidetracked into "conspiracy theory" regarding other events of the day ,

[Guest Bilo]

i accept that WTC7 was damaged and on fire ,,

it's the symmetrical fall that is the problem , surely if one side of a building is badly damaged the fall will be "asymmetrical"and not at free fall speed ,

this is obviously not the case if you watch the collapse ,

ps, i've tried to concentrate on questions relating to WTC7 from the start .but i admit that reluctantly got sidetracked into "conspiracy theory" regarding other events of the day ,

It actually leans slightly to the damaged South Side depending on the footage you have. From a distance it appears to be straight down though, all about finding the right pictures which ain't easy because for obvious reasons, not many cameramen were shooting close to the site.

[Zingari]

It actually leans slightly to the damaged South Side depending on the footage you have. From a distance it appears to be straight down though, all about finding the right pictures which ain't easy because for obvious reasons, not many cameramen were shooting close to the site.

but in reality it should lean dramatically to the damaged side , if indeed the hidden damage is as severe as you believe.

now, just ask yourself , what does "pull it " mean ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100...feature=related

Any questions ?

[Babylon]

We live in a universe where thanks to an almost infinite number of factors falling into alignment, we are all here living and breathing typing on this forum. Had one of them not happened or had been slightly different we wouldn't be here.

Baring that in mind, it's hardly a stretch to image the right circumstances being in place to allow WT7 to fall in a straight line, without the need of controlled explosions.

[Zingari]

We live in a universe where thanks to an almost infinite number of factors falling into alignment, we are all here living and breathing typing on this forum. Had one of them not happened or had been slightly different we wouldn't be here.

Baring that in mind, it's hardly a stretch to image the right circumstances being in place to allow WT7 to fall in a straight line, without the need of controlled explosions.

you really are clutching at fookin straws now

[Babylon]

you really are clutching at fookin straws now

Personally I would say you were by thinking everything is a conspiracy. If I had the time or want to pour through the details of WT7 I know i'd most probably find enough detail to render your argument even more flimsy than it already is...even though you'd ignore it and call it government propaganda, which is the usual conspiracy theorists defence.

I'm really not that bothered though.

[Guest Bilo]

Conspiracy sites like to bring up the 'Symmetric Collapse' of building 7 and claim that the building should have fallen over to the south. They show grainy, dark photos of debris piles which were taken well after 9/11 and a debris pile with a grayish, smoky image of building 7 in the background. They deceptively show the north side which was relatively free of damage. As if the Tower should have reached over to the other side of the building and damaged that side too.

Here is what the debris pile looked like just after 9/11

The north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates that the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were "[This] did it!..".

And now comes the most important and telling fact in this photo. Note the west side (Right side in this photo) of the north face is pointing toward the east side (Left side of this photo) where the penthouse was. What caused this? It would not be unreasonable to expect the building to fall toward the path of least resistance. The path of least resistance in this case would be the hole in the back of the building and the hole left by the penthouse. Since the penthouse was on the east and the 20 story hole in the middle, that would make the east and middle the path of least resistance. The conspiracy sites agree with this theory but say it never happened. They say the fact that it didn't happen helps prove controlled demolition. It did happen though, the evidence is here.

"But the building doesn't look like it fell over, it fell "in its own foot print" you might say. That's because it is impossible for a 47 story steel building to fall over like that. It's not a small steel reinforced concrete building like the ones shown as *Examples* of buildings which fell over. Building 7 is more like the towers, made up of many pieces put together. It's not so much a solid block as those steel reinforced concrete buildings.

This evidence supports the NIST contention that the building collapse progressed from the penthouse out as columns were weakened by the fires. The slow sinking of the penthouses, indicating the internal collapse of the building behind the visible north wall, took 8.2 seconds according to a NIST preliminary report. Seismograph trace of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates that parts of the building were hitting the ground for 18 seconds. This means the collapse took at least 18 seconds, of which only the last approximately 15 seconds are visible in videos: 8 seconds for the penthouses and 7 seconds for the north wall to come down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk...player_embedded

The full 18 second collapse sequence

[Zingari]

the speed of the fall cannot be calculated from the initial "signs of the collapse" , it's irrelevant

the stopwatch has to start when the highest part of the building commences to fall and stopped when reaches the ground ,

because its not the actual time of the collapse from the "first signs of collapse" that is important ,

it is the rate of speed that the top of the building falls to the ground once the collapse begins .

if you drop a solid object from the rooftop and calculate it's rate of descent the stopwatch is clicked when the object is dropped , not when someone shouts " go "

but we all seemed to be deeply entrenched in what we believe so i'm prepared to wave the white flag and say all the best

[Guest Basildon Fox]

I am sure that the scientists of the forum could explain this but if the fires were hot enough to melt the steel on the WTC 1 & 2 would it not be reasonable to expect it would be hotter in certain areas meaning that one side of the building would be hotter than another. If this is the case why did the structure not have fallen to one side rather than straight down?

[Babylon]

I am sure that the scientists of the forum could explain this but if the fires were hot enough to melt the steel on the WTC 1 & 2 would it not be reasonable to expect it would be hotter in certain areas meaning that one side of the building would be hotter than another. If this is the case why did the structure not have fallen to one side rather than straight down?

It was virtual free fall, so there wasn't enough time for lateral movement to take effect. Also the building isn't solid, there are air pockets all over the place that would allow it to implode. Basically the 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Phew! And there was me thinking the Terror Threat had been severed.

(Should have gone to specsavers!)

[Guest Basildon Fox]

It was virtual free fall, so there wasn't enough time for lateral movement to take effect. Also the building isn't solid, there are air pockets all over the place that would allow it to implode. Basically the 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

But wouldn't the hotter side have buckled first before the rest of the structure?