Never Forget?

submitted by magnora7 from i.redd.it

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]zyxzevn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

There are many.

1- Money, money, money.

a. 2.3 Trillion missing (all traces were destroyed at pentagon and WTC7)
b. Missing gold in cellar of WTC-6.
c. Massive Illegal trading during fires.
d. WARS: Weapon sales, taking over of resources.
e. Insurance money (WTC).
Source: https://www.corbettreport.com/911-trillions-follow-the-money-video/

2- Starting of a new wave of wars

Greater Israel. Was already proposed by Neocons before it all happened.

3- Stop of criminal investigations.

a. People investigating a major fraud were in WTC-1.

4- Installing the security state.

a. Homeland security
b. More power to CIA / NSA
c. More secrecy for illegal actions (like drugs trade with Aghanistan)

There are probably more.

If you look at some good documentaries, they can point out which people were closely involved and were profiting.
And were also covering up their crimes and involvement.

Like this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_fp5kaVYhk

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It seems to me that everything you have listed could have been accomplished by simply taking down those structures by smashing planes into them. I still just don't see why this theory about an explosive is needed.

From my own engineering point of view, it certianly is plausible that the collapse pattern observed could have originated from overly deformed load bearing elements (due to high temperature) combined with a structural system with reduced redundancy from the impact.

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Feel free to do the calculations and tests, but your "engineering view" is very wrong.
The architects and engineers are very clear in their analysis, and science!

It is basic physics..
Just do a simple energy-analysis.
Where does the energy come from that destroys and pulverises all the concrete and (some) steel.
If the buildings falls down near gravity acceleration, there is no energy to draw from it.

In actual demolitions, this gradual collapse is sometimes used. And it shows a far slower acceleration, that falls down to zero acceleration (=constant speed). They reach some kind of terminal velocity.
In these demolitions, they need to carefully prepare the collapse and remove almost all underlying carrying structures.
Because anything off centre creates an imbalance that increases with each step. This often causes the building to fall sideways, instead of downwards. Or just get stuck half-way.

The planes are just a distraction, only capable of starting severe fires. Just like in a plane crash, we get a fireball and then a quick fire that exhausts all the fuel. According to the firemen the fires were under control, until (according to them) everything suddenly exploded. And if you look more into the planes, you will see that there has been some major mix-up with military hijacking simulations. And the remains of the planes that hit the buildings, were traced back to military versions of planes.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Feel free to do the calculations and tests, but your "engineering view" is very wrong.

I feel I have done this already and I am not sure you have backed up your claim properly. I am a licensed civil engineer with extensive experience designing and analyzing tall buildings. During my phd studies, I actually modeled impact loading and progressive collapse of tall strucutres using the finite element method combined with an averaged langragian-eulerian coordinate system approach to handle the large displacements and deformations. The analyses considered nonlinear deformation patterns, stress and temperature dependency, and a myriad of other factors. I could go on but the point is, I am not afraid to do these calculations myself and I am not ignorant on this topic.

Just do a simple energy-analysis. Where does the energy come from that destroys and pulverises all the concrete and (some) steel. If the buildings falls down near gravity acceleration, there is no energy to draw from it.

Wrong. The gravitational potential energy of the static structure is converted to kinetic energy during the collapse which is dissipated through collisions between falling elements (turbulence) and between falling elements and the ground. The total energy drawn from these collisions is equal to the height of the center of mass times the weight of the mass that is falling (i.e. PE=mgh). Even if we only consider the portion of the building above the impact zone, the energy involved is more than enough to melt steel, pulverize concrete, and even cause a shockwave in the ground that can be measured by seismometers from other states. These towers were about 210m tall and 500000t each! Any "explosion" more energetic would have been obvious for anyone to see I would think.

In actual demolitions, this gradual collapse is sometimes used. And it shows a far slower acceleration, that falls down to zero acceleration (=constant speed). They reach some kind of terminal velocity. In these demolitions, they need to carefully prepare the collapse and remove almost all underlying carrying structures. Because anything off centre creates an imbalance that increases with each step. This often causes the building to fall sideways, instead of downwards. Or just get stuck half-way.

No. I am embarrassed for you after reading this part.

The planes are just a distraction, only capable of starting severe fires. Just like in a plane crash, we get a fireball and then a quick fire that exhausts all the fuel. According to the firemen the fires were under control, until (according to them) everything suddenly exploded. And if you look more into the planes, you will see that there has been some major mix-up with military hijacking simulations. And the remains of the planes that hit the buildings, were traced back to military versions of planes.

What evidence do you have of these claims?

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You are calculating the energy of the building when it finally reaches the ground.
But during the fall, there is no energy lost. (Correction: There is no surplus energy)
All energy goes into the kinetic energy, the acceleration.
This is what you missed in your calculation. (Clarification: Where you calculate the end-state after the fall)
So when there is a free-fall, there is NO ENERGY to break anything or to push out the pieces of concrete.

Even glass plates that immediately break slow down a fall, stunt people use that principle.
In a demonstration by fake-sceptic megabunk, he shows planks falling down, but forgets two things. The sides that hold up the planks are still standing and the planks still fall down with reduced acceleration.

You need the energy of the dynamics of the fall.
The architects and engineers do know. Just check their website. The link I provided above explains it very clearly, much better than me.

More hints:
The firemen reported explosions and streams of molten steel, after the fire was under control.
The steel bars showed clear traces of extreme heat. These bars were heat-resistant with Molybdenum.
They found little pieces of firemen on top of other buildings, not even body-parts or full bodies.
The fires also kept burning for weeks UNDER WATER, which means that there components of some kind of explosives.
The relative cold dust became so corrosive that it destroyed surfaces of cars and metal parts of buildings far away.
Traces of molten Molybdenum was found on top of the buildings.
The dust contained small iron spheres that only comes from vaporized iron/steel.
Never before and never after has a steel-framed skyscraper fell down due to fire, and there were a lot.

There is a huge amount of evidence for demolitions.
And every box for evidence for demolition can be checked (as FEMA will confirm).
And each point that is brought against it, is usually based on a lack of knowledge.

Just check the Architects and Engineers website.
They explain it a lot better than me.
And if you want to go further in depth, check the scientific studies.

And I am sorry for you that you have been lied to for 19 years and may even have killed people for nothing.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You are calculating the energy of the building when it finally reaches the ground. But during the fall, there is no energy lost.

Energy is never lost ya ding dong. Unless you think conservation of energy is a hoax too that is.

All energy goes into the kinetic energy, the acceleration. This is what you missed in your calculation.

Haha, no I did not miss the kinetic energy. Re-read my last reply. It is clearly stated that all gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy during the collapse. I am not sure you have done enough reading on how kinetic energy would be dissipated is such a situation (or in general for that matter).

You need the energy of the dynamics of the fall.

You might be referring to the turbulence of the falling objects. This is typically manifested as a dissipation of rotational kinetic energy as members spin around and bang into each other. Again, I clearly did not miss this.

The architects and engineers do know. Just check their website. The link I provided above explains it very clearly, much better than me.

You did not provide a link. I am sure architects and engineers (again, I am an engineer) could describe this better than you can though.

You need to be more wary of confirmation bias. Everything else you just said is irrelevant or nonsensical.