Thought you guys would enjoy this. Unfortunately, with the deterioration of our social and eco systems, we might already be there.
Life conditions certainly show the systemic interaction between collectives in their own “dark night of the soul” and approaches that want to concentrate on tweeking ecosystem without consensus and of course without any real attempt to understand the system they are messing with.
1 Like
Yeah I know it’s just crazy to believe that fully fueled Jets flying into 2 massive skyscrapers and burning at thousands of degrees might have some kind of effect on those buildings! It’s just insane to believe the architectural models could be rendered in computer models and demonstrate or actually happened. I mean, sure we can model sophisticated chaotic patterns like climate impacts decades ahead, architectural model and computer simulation of thousands of degrees of jet fuel? That’s just crazy! It just must have been an insight job. In fact if you just watch my YouTube series and contribute a little to my patreon, I have this whole series on how Mickey Mouse and Ronald McDonald were involved…
2 Likes
I see civil discourse is not your forte. Fare thee well.
2 Likes
Well, yes and no. Fear of speaking out is for sure a hobble, although where I live, leg-irons can also be the result of throwing caution to the wind. Free speech around the world is not the same as free speech in USA.
In German-speaking countries, some “topics” are 100% forbidden to discuss or speculate. 100%. A no-go that seals the lips of most people where I live, whatever they might think privately.
And culture also runs historically deep, resulting in verbal caution. Here in Switzerland, from 1400 through to the end of the 17th century, it’s thought that over 10’000 “witches” were burned to death at the stake, many of which were accused of witchcraft by people they disagreed with. Some towns in Switzerland eventually contained almost no women at all by the end. Silence is not always a sign of weakness.
1 Like
I should probably show restraint and not join this conversation, but I’d like to know exactly which jet it was that took out building 7 many hours later?
7 Likes
Perhaps it was this one, George & Judy Jetson… oh no, can’t be … it’s being intercepted.
2 Likes
It wouldn’t be that 2 artificial mountains on either side of it came crashing down like an earthquake?
Actually no. There are other buildings in far closer proximity that didn’t “come crashing down.” Deutche Bank building was far closer, had more damage and somehow didn’t come down. And Building 7 stood perfectly well for hours so it’s not like it had the other towers crash onto it.
4 Likes
Has anyone come across Pol.is?
“Inside OpenAI’s Plan to Democratize AI
[Recognizing the limitations]of traditional democratic systems, which often fail to accurately reflect the diverse beliefs of the populace, OpenAI has partnered with Colin Megill, co-founder of Polis. Polis is an innovative open-source tech platform that uses machine learning to map out users’ values based on their voting patterns and short statements, thereby identifying clusters of people with similar beliefs. The groundbreaking aspect of Polis lies in its ability to highlight shared beliefs among groups who typically disagree, offering a potential solution to political polarization. This unique approach has already been adopted by the Taiwanese government and Twitter.”
Sorry Permiegirl - I forgot to include the magic word.
“Fire”. There you are. You’re welcome.
"WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event-the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections-which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.
The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.
Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia’s One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.
Factors contributing to WTC 7’s collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse."
https://www.nist.gov/pao/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation
Maybe you can help me.
I’ve been looking for video of another building like the twin towers or WTC 7 which fell due to uncontrolled fire and collapsed at free fall speed, directly down symmetrically onto its own footprint.
All the video I’ve seen show buildings collapse at far slower rates and asymmetrically- one support failing before another leading the structure to tilt.
The theory is what happened 9/11 suggests a controlled demolition as an uncontrolled fire would clearly not fall the way they did. So just one counter example- only one - would disprove that theory.
4 Likes
Permie - you don’t believe in fire? 
You’ve got nothing but Ad Hominems. I’m bored of debating how many angels fit on a pinhead, or is that how many tons of TNT did the government lace the buildings with? Planes like fuel laden missiles shot into the buildings at hundreds of miles an hour and burned at thousands of degrees and then flash fried every person inside as they disintegrated down like a volcanic pyroclastic flow - and Troofers say - “Look what that they’re guv-ern-myent gone and done!” It makes me wince for you. I’m bored - goodbye.
Permie - you don’t believe in fire?
I for one don’t believe in “narratives”.
Lets review. Two planes hit, but 3 buildings fell. The last one dropped in its own footprint, which “experts” say is very unusual. Has an “office fire” ever destroyed a skyscraper before? [Hint: no]. That’s because - apparently - physics says these items don’t burn hot enough to melt (or weaken) steel beams. And certainly it can’t melt all of them at the same time, so that the building drops into its own footprint.
Two planes hit, but three buildings fell - and the Patriot Act was born. And “in response” we invaded a huge number of countries in the Middle East, killing millions of Arab civilians. “Acceptable losses” - to the neocons who love war.
Two planes hit, but three buildings fell.
You may believe that an office fire destroyed a skyscraper. I don’t.
5 Likes
I repeat … building 7. Exactly which plane hit it?
There have been other fires in skyscrapers. In fact, I was working in 140 Broadway when there was a terrible fire on the 47th floor. I was working on a floor below and along with all my co-workers we walked down more than 30 flights of stairs. Surprisingly difficult to do if you’ve never had that “opportunity.” You know how you’re never supposed to take elevators during a fire? Well the elevator buttons in this building were heat activated, a bitch in winter when your fingers were too cold to call an elevator and you’d breathe on the button to get it to work, and worse when the heat of the fire signaled all the elevators to open at the floor where the fire was.
To answer @redneck-engineer there are no other instances of an uncontrolled building fire causing a building to implode on itself like 7 did that I could find either. I know lower Manhattan well. WTC was my subway stop for years. There were other buildings closer and more likely to have severe damage from 1 and 2 than 7 was. Further, a good friend (now deceased) had over a decade as a fire investigator for the NYFD. He couldn’t explain how 7 came down the way it did as the result of fire. Yes, I asked. This was his profession in NYC to investigate the cause of a fire.
1 Like
I for one don’t believe in “narratives”.
That’s an AWESOME reply. Peer-reviewed engineering out the window! You just don’t “believe” it because it is a “narrative!”
First - I always laugh when Troofers try to claim the WTC main buildings 1 and 2 were mainly ‘destroyed by fire’ and that never happens… um… what about structural integrity of the buildings being severely compromised by the high-energy impact of several hundred tons of aircraft at 500mph???
Second - WTC had less concrete than other skyscrapers around the world. It uses more steel, and used what is now believed to be a fragile method of hooking the steel floor beams into the wall sockets. (The hing and truss method? - I think that is what it was called? It’s over a decade since my deep dive into this stuff.) Anyway, modelling shows that the steel didn’t have to completely melt through for the buildings to collapse. That’s a silly myth promoted by Troofers. Instead, these wall hinges / hooks just had to bend. That’s it! Bend. Then the weight of basically the TItanic in the floors above started a vertical collapse.
This 4 minute video is the best summary of the modelling I looked at years ago - only with other studies referred to as well.
https://youtu.be/uO9wpQ6b2Yw
deleted? Deleted?
Oh, wait… don’t bother answering. I apologize for breaking out the crisps.
deleted? Deleted?
Oh, wait… don’t bother answering. I apologize for breaking out the crisps.
Umm… huh? 
That was a uniquely stupid article. All ad hominems and not a shred of data or evidence. Just assertions made histrionically. Not the sort of ‘proof’ we like to use around here.
1 Like
Maybe - I’m not that invested in disproving 9/11 conspiracy theories. People can waste their time on that stuff and sell whacky books and whatever. I’m dropping out of this thread due to lack of interest. But speaking of evidence - you wrote off my Michaux page as “too emotional”. Ok - I have fixed that. I edited my page - and have asked the 3 most urgent questions about the evidence for Michaux’s argument over on our thread from a few weeks back.