The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoTo register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
A third tower fell on 9/11
- Thread starter cgymike
- Start date
I trust my own knowledge, experience, and common sense than any 'conspiracy theory architects and engineers you might present, and I trust experts who actually know what they're talking about.
And you keep forgetting that 'conspiracy theory' is just that - a 'theory'. There is no proof. There is only theory. If there was actual proof, it would be 'conspiracy fact'.
And please prove to us that Rareboy and I are the same person. If we are, why would I send myself a vase of flowers to my hospital room when I was in there for a month?
You are embarrassing only yourself.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Posts
- 118,101
- Reaction score
- 27,784
- Points
- 113
As was pointed out, many of the engineers are mechanical and electrical or even 'software' engineers. They would have likely had little experience with the thermal properties of structural steel.
You seem to think that 3000 'engineers' and architects around the world somehow represent a statistically significant number.
Given that there are also many, many tens of thousands of engineers and architects who do not disagree with the NIST forensic examination of the building failure, that was subsequently reported on in Popular Mechanics, (it wasn't a Popular Mechanics study by the way), the opinion of this group of professionals is the one that is in the fringes.
As we see in this thread, it isn't as though there aren't professionals who should know better, who believe in nonsense theories in the face of actual facts.
You have demonstrated repeatedly that you lack even the most basic understanding of the science and the actual facts behind this building failure. You have never read the NIST study. But still you persist in clinging to this fantasy that for some inexplicable reason, someone would have wanted to bring down Tower 7 so badly that they would have conspired to have 12 hijackers fly two planes through the North and South Towers, in order to have a huge chunk of the North Tower crash into Tower 7 to provide cover for a controlled collapse of the building.
But I think it is pretty clear that you refuse to be convinced and will continue to argue this until the day you die.
I have read the NIST study by the way. And I have read the conspiracy driven theories and the de-bunking of each and every one of them....someting you have not done.
And once again, just to clear up another fantasy in your mixed up head....Neil and I are definitely two very separate individuals. It is this kind of paranoid delusion that makes me worry about your old age.
Yes, I have, and the conspiracy evidence is nonsense. The theories have been debunked time and time again. You haven't been looking at genuine evidence and any explanations we offer fall on deaf ears. When you understand the physics of an event, you understand the event itself. The WTC conspiracy is impossible from your perspective.
Any evidence you have offered has left me shaking my head that people actually believe that stuff.
Indeed. The WTC conspiracy theorists are forgetting the most simple scientific fact that governs every building construction in the entire world: gravity. Every man-made structure built above ground level wants to fall down. Gravity demands it. It is the law. The job of architects is to find a way to make sure gravity doesn't win. But that is in normal circumstances. Every change away from the normal means that the structure is losing the battle. That's why bridges fall down. That's why planes fall out of the sky. That's why buildings crumble. That's why massive windmills fall over. That's why huge electrical pylons collapse.
Gravity.
Something changed the conditions and caused the failure. It's a scientific fact.
Have you ever played Jenga? The tower is stable and will stay up as long as you don't interfere with it. But each time you remove a block of wood weakens the structure and upsets the balance and makes gravity's job much easier.
No conspiracy. No magic. When you change or weaken structure, things fall down. It's the law of the universe.
^ You're still not reading what any of us have written. Until you study up on implosions, your posts are meaningless, because they are impossible, scientifically and physically impossible. When it takes weeks of wiring a building with explosives to take it down, please explain how anybody was able to wire and take down so many buildings in a few very short hours.
Hint: You can't explain it because It's Impossible!
Hint: You can't explain it because It's Impossible!
No, but there is a way to do it.
For what it's worth, I've never played Jenga. I've never even seen the game in real life.
And by the way, by your examples above, you are saying I'm a liar because not all buildings which catch fire fall down. I never implied that they do, but I laid out some ground rules that you insist on ignoring.
Join the conversation when you become educated.
That was the "official conclusion" of the government agency who investigated the collapse:
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/ne...tigation-finds-building-fires-caused-collapse
Here's a list of the tenants of WTC 7.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Posts
- 118,101
- Reaction score
- 27,784
- Points
- 113
Well this building defied the law of the universe and stayed put.
Most of these ones did too. Did you guess which one didn't?
Showing once again that you have researched nothing about the actual structures of each building.
Most of these ones did too. Did you guess which one didn't?
Once again, sucked in by conspiracy. There is something seriously wrong with the picture of the WTC 'fire' in the bottom right. Can you figure out what it is?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Wow. Just..wow. The three buildings of a seven building complex, and the only ones ever in history to be brought down by fire, were all owned by one man.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg
72-Jay
Daydreamer
I was thinking that too .. what is this the point when it was just starting out?gsdx said:
Or is it even fire, and instead just lights on? There's no smoke to be seen...
^ It's difficult to say, but I don't believe it's office lights. There would be more of them. Mainly, though, it's certainly not the side of the building that was caved in from the falling debris from Tower 1.
Still, we must remember that this entire conspiracy theory is hinging on only 2 words which the theorists have warped to prove that something impossible actually happened.
I blew up (pardon the pun) a portion of the photo. It looks like fire but the windows appear to be intact. Hence no smoke.
Still, we must remember that this entire conspiracy theory is hinging on only 2 words which the theorists have warped to prove that something impossible actually happened.
I blew up (pardon the pun) a portion of the photo. It looks like fire but the windows appear to be intact. Hence no smoke.
NotHardUp1
What? Me? Really?
Paranoia is just as easily spotted as conspiracy theorist's suspicious collection of "facts." The pattern is obvious.