Osama Bin Laden Dead

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Taken from Wikipedia, and verified by, oh I don’t know… every law of physics.

The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called “the most infamous paradigm” of progressive collapse. In the case of both towers, the top section tilted towards the face that had buckled, behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. It fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections with a force equivalent to over thirty times its own weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns of the story immediately below it; the block then fell freely through the distance of another story. Total collapse was now unavoidable as the process repeated through the entire height of the lower sections. The force of each impact was also much greater than the horizontal momentum of the section, which kept the tilt from increasing significantly before the falling section reached the ground. It remained intact throughout the collapse, with its center of gravity within the building’s footprint. After crushing the lower section of the building, it was itself crushed when it hit the ground.

A building can be designed to withstand a minor impact from a commercial jet, but NO BUILDING IS DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND THE KIND OF STRESS THE WORLD TRADE CENTER EXPERIENCED ON 9/11.

And before it comes up, a controlled demolition is possibly the stupidest thing I have EVER heard. Anyone here who has ever been involved in bringing down a multi story building will know exactly why.[/quote]

Every law of physics? How would the top of the building be able to fall at free-fall speeds if there was material in the way providing an upwards force? It couldn’t.

So say you have 2 identical top sections of a building. One falls through air, one through the remaining 3/4 of a building.
Which one is going to fall slower? Common sense 101

[quote]pro.nub wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Taken from Wikipedia, and verified by, oh I don’t know… every law of physics.

The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called “the most infamous paradigm” of progressive collapse. In the case of both towers, the top section tilted towards the face that had buckled, behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. It fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections with a force equivalent to over thirty times its own weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns of the story immediately below it; the block then fell freely through the distance of another story. Total collapse was now unavoidable as the process repeated through the entire height of the lower sections. The force of each impact was also much greater than the horizontal momentum of the section, which kept the tilt from increasing significantly before the falling section reached the ground. It remained intact throughout the collapse, with its center of gravity within the building’s footprint. After crushing the lower section of the building, it was itself crushed when it hit the ground.

A building can be designed to withstand a minor impact from a commercial jet, but NO BUILDING IS DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND THE KIND OF STRESS THE WORLD TRADE CENTER EXPERIENCED ON 9/11.

And before it comes up, a controlled demolition is possibly the stupidest thing I have EVER heard. Anyone here who has ever been involved in bringing down a multi story building will know exactly why.[/quote]

Every law of physics? How would the top of the building be able to fall at free-fall speeds if there was material in the way providing an upwards force? It couldn’t.

So say you have 2 identical top sections of a building. One falls through air, one through the remaining 3/4 of a building.
Which one is going to fall slower? Common sense 101[/quote]

So it was so impossible that it didn’t even happen I guess.

Tell me, what’s going to happen on Dec. 21st 2012???

[quote]pro.nub wrote:
Every law of physics? How would the top of the building be able to fall at free-fall speeds if there was material in the way providing an upwards force? It couldn’t.

So say you have 2 identical top sections of a building. One falls through air, one through the remaining 3/4 of a building.
Which one is going to fall slower? Common sense 101[/quote]

First you say near free fall, then you say free fall. I’m done with this pathetic troll attempt.

Also, I find it funny if people think it was an inside job then why did Bush and his cohorts make sure the buildings fell straight down ( the same way they do during a controlled demolition)?

What? Were they willing to kill thousands of innocent people and destroy those two tall buildings…but wait! Let’s not be too messy and hurt too many nearby buildings, so please make sure they go straight down into a “neat” little pile.

Also , why go through all the trouble of remote control flying two airliners and somehow making all the passengers disappear when you could put Coke machines filled with C4 in the buildings and then say some terrorists did it?

And if Bush were that good at lying he certainly would have photoshopped some nukes in Iraq so he didn’t look like he failed to find WMDs.

[quote]azsdaha wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]azsdaha wrote:

…here in Pakistan.

[/quote]

Pakistan is in California now? Things are really moving fast!

Seriously son, if you’re one of the sane ones I feel sorry for you. Let me explain something to you:

  1. Your government has been funding the Taliban/AQ in Afghanistan and harbouring them in the NWFP for years.

  2. Your government has nuclear weapons.

  3. Your government is unstable and likely to be toppled by the ISI/Taliban/AQ faction.[/quote]

Sorry I registered on T-Nation when I was at college in Cali. Never got around to changing that, sorry for the confusion.

As for being sane. Lets not get carried away here. As for your points. I would like to offer you some other words with them not that I disagree with everything you said but you are a lil misinformed on some issues.

  1. Technically the US Government, the Saudis and the Pakistanis created the Taliban and have supplied them with cash and instructors over the last 30 odd years. Imagine their surprise when they were asked to " stop misbehaving and heel" .

  2. Yes but keep in mind we got the rockets from north korean and help on the reactors etc from China. I am a bit of a gambler and I am willing to bet if we launched everything we had, 80% wouldnt get off the ground, and the other ones would really fuck up the Pakistani landscape at best so dont panic.

  3. I dont know if you looked in to Pakistani History or not but since 1947 ( independence year ) the Pakistani Army has ruled the country for about 40 years.So they dont technically toppple a damned thing they just suit up go on air and declare marshal law. Lot less messy. Funny fact to go with it the US has managed to support each and every one of those dictators because it suited them in the great game vis a vis Afghanistan and the spread of commie Russia.

Anyhow enough boring facts where the nekkid women ?
[/quote]

Not boring and not factual.

  1. The US has NEVER had anything to do with the Taliban. The US supplied, trained and funded elements of the Afghan Mujahideen. The Taliban was one of several political factions that filled the power vacuum after the Soviet withdrawal. It wasn’t even formed until 1994 and it was the ISI that literally founded, funded and trained it.

  2. They’re not ‘rockets’ they are balistic missiles with nuclear warheads and I can assure you that they are fully functioning. Your government however is not.

  3. I am pretty familiar with the entire history of Pakistan/Afganistan from the time Alexander came down from the Kyber and bridged the Swat up until Sunday’s raid.

  4. Pakistan’s government would best be described as a military oligarchy. Since 1967 the Pakistan Peoples Party have dominated the parliament and ruled with the consent/approval of the military.

  5. If I were you I would leave soon. Your government(i.e. parliament) will be ‘toppled’ by the ISI and the lunatic faction of your military. This will result in a civil war as this faction will not support the Pakistan Peoples Party nor work through parliamentary means to achieve its ends.

There is no trolling attempt here.

Makaveli: Near enough to free-fall speed that the difference can be ignored. If there is material in the way, it will resist the falling upper levels, significantly increasing the time of collapse.

Nards: The falling straight down argument is not evidence FOR a natural collapse. How many steel building have ever collapsed due to fire in the history of steel framed buildings? 3, all on 9/11. How many buildings of significant height have naturally collapsed into their own footprint. I’d be inclined to say almost none. But the answer from you guys would be 3, all on 9/11.
Highjacked planes is a lot stronger image than an explosive backpack or pepsi machine.

There is far too much evidence to just ignore.

Nano-thermite found in the dust from 9/11
The ‘highjacked’ planes not being intercepted.
‘Highjackers’ found alive after 9/11
Molten steel seen flowing from one of the towers prior to collapse
Molten steel being found in rubble weeks after 9/11
The hole in the pentagon not being big enough for a plane impact
The plane vapourising after hitting the pentagon
FBI confiscating all footage of the ‘plane’ hitting the pentagon
The black boxes from the two planes apparently not found in the rubble
plus more…

Explain these things to me and I’ll change my mind.
This is not about being a conspiracy theorist. It’s about being sceptical and making an intelligent decision on the evidence available.

[quote]Nards wrote:

[quote]pro.nub wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Taken from Wikipedia, and verified by, oh I don’t know… every law of physics.

The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called “the most infamous paradigm” of progressive collapse. In the case of both towers, the top section tilted towards the face that had buckled, behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. It fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections with a force equivalent to over thirty times its own weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns of the story immediately below it; the block then fell freely through the distance of another story. Total collapse was now unavoidable as the process repeated through the entire height of the lower sections. The force of each impact was also much greater than the horizontal momentum of the section, which kept the tilt from increasing significantly before the falling section reached the ground. It remained intact throughout the collapse, with its center of gravity within the building’s footprint. After crushing the lower section of the building, it was itself crushed when it hit the ground.

A building can be designed to withstand a minor impact from a commercial jet, but NO BUILDING IS DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND THE KIND OF STRESS THE WORLD TRADE CENTER EXPERIENCED ON 9/11.

And before it comes up, a controlled demolition is possibly the stupidest thing I have EVER heard. Anyone here who has ever been involved in bringing down a multi story building will know exactly why.[/quote]

Every law of physics? How would the top of the building be able to fall at free-fall speeds if there was material in the way providing an upwards force? It couldn’t.

So say you have 2 identical top sections of a building. One falls through air, one through the remaining 3/4 of a building.
Which one is going to fall slower? Common sense 101[/quote]

So it was so impossible that it didn’t even happen I guess.

Tell me, what’s going to happen on Dec. 21st 2012???
[/quote]

Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t. - Mark Twain

[quote]pro.nub wrote:
There is no trolling attempt here.

Makaveli: Near enough to free-fall speed that the difference can be ignored. If there is material in the way, it will resist the falling upper levels, significantly increasing the time of collapse.

Nards: The falling straight down argument is not evidence FOR a natural collapse. How many steel building have ever collapsed due to fire in the history of steel framed buildings? 3, all on 9/11. How many buildings of significant height have naturally collapsed into their own footprint. I’d be inclined to say almost none. But the answer from you guys would be 3, all on 9/11.
Highjacked planes is a lot stronger image than an explosive backpack or pepsi machine.

There is far too much evidence to just ignore.

Nano-thermite found in the dust from 9/11
The ‘highjacked’ planes not being intercepted.
‘Highjackers’ found alive after 9/11
Molten steel seen flowing from one of the towers prior to collapse
Molten steel being found in rubble weeks after 9/11
The hole in the pentagon not being big enough for a plane impact
The plane vapourising after hitting the pentagon
FBI confiscating all footage of the ‘plane’ hitting the pentagon
The black boxes from the two planes apparently not found in the rubble
plus more…

Explain these things to me and I’ll change my mind.
This is not about being a conspiracy theorist. It’s about being sceptical and making an intelligent decision on the evidence available.[/quote]

Too much Loose Change watching. Try watching Screw Loose Change.

[quote]pro.nub wrote:
There is no trolling attempt here.

[/quote]

Hahahaahahahhahaha, you’re funny… ^Actually Dale from King of the Hill.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]azsdaha wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]azsdaha wrote:

…here in Pakistan.

[/quote]

Pakistan is in California now? Things are really moving fast!

Seriously son, if you’re one of the sane ones I feel sorry for you. Let me explain something to you:

  1. Your government has been funding the Taliban/AQ in Afghanistan and harbouring them in the NWFP for years.

  2. Your government has nuclear weapons.

  3. Your government is unstable and likely to be toppled by the ISI/Taliban/AQ faction.[/quote]

Sorry I registered on T-Nation when I was at college in Cali. Never got around to changing that, sorry for the confusion.

As for being sane. Lets not get carried away here. As for your points. I would like to offer you some other words with them not that I disagree with everything you said but you are a lil misinformed on some issues.

  1. Technically the US Government, the Saudis and the Pakistanis created the Taliban and have supplied them with cash and instructors over the last 30 odd years. Imagine their surprise when they were asked to " stop misbehaving and heel" .

  2. Yes but keep in mind we got the rockets from north korean and help on the reactors etc from China. I am a bit of a gambler and I am willing to bet if we launched everything we had, 80% wouldnt get off the ground, and the other ones would really fuck up the Pakistani landscape at best so dont panic.

  3. I dont know if you looked in to Pakistani History or not but since 1947 ( independence year ) the Pakistani Army has ruled the country for about 40 years.So they dont technically toppple a damned thing they just suit up go on air and declare marshal law. Lot less messy. Funny fact to go with it the US has managed to support each and every one of those dictators because it suited them in the great game vis a vis Afghanistan and the spread of commie Russia.

Anyhow enough boring facts where the nekkid women ?
[/quote]

Not boring and not factual.

  1. The US has NEVER had anything to do with the Taliban. The US supplied, trained and funded elements of the Afghan Mujahideen. The Taliban was one of several political factions that filled the power vacuum after the Soviet withdrawal. It wasn’t even formed until 1994 and it was the ISI that literally founded, funded and trained it.

  2. They’re not ‘rockets’ they are balistic missiles with nuclear warheads and I can assure you that they are fully functioning. Your government however is not.

  3. I am pretty familiar with the entire history of Pakistan/Afganistan from the time Alexander came down from the Kyber and bridged the Swat up until Sunday’s raid.

  4. Pakistan’s government would best be described as a military oligarchy. Since 1967 the Pakistan Peoples Party have dominated the parliament and ruled with the consent/approval of the military.

  5. If I were you I would leave soon. Your government(i.e. parliament) will be ‘toppled’ by the ISI and the lunatic faction of your military. This will result in a civil war as this faction will not support the Pakistan Peoples Party nor work through parliamentary means to achieve its ends.[/quote]

Look my friend , I do not wish to wax poetic and I have little desire to get into an internet argument. Plus it seems you do get to reading different material ( not trying to patronize you either here ) but I will disagree with your assessment for a couple reasons.

  1. Other than my 7 years in cali I have lived primarily in Pakistan for the rest of the 35 years.

  2. Reading Fareed Zakria or the writer du jour doesnt give one an accurate idea as to whats really going on here. Quick example : I lived and worked in Kabul Afghanistan from 2006 to 2008. And every time there was a bombing anywhere in Afghanistan , the wife would panic and call , I would assure her it was no where close to me. Same thing here. It isnt exactly the way its reported in the news .

  3. Since the Army Hung the founder of the PPP in 1976 I really doubt they been ruling this place with their consent. We have had Pml, ppl, all take turns here under the guidance of the army .

  4. And while I appreciate the get out while you can thing, I got two sons a wife and parents here. Every undertaking I am a part of is to make their lives better and a 35 yr old muslim male is not exactly the ideal candidate for immigration to any country in the world. Hell its hard enough getting a tourist visa to visit old friends !

Take care and let me know if you have tried the Super Hero program yet and how your shoulders are after week 2.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504784_162-20059432-10391705.html

Man Shaves Beard After Waiting 10 Years for OBL’s Capture or Death

(CBS/KXLY) After 3,454 days, a middle school teacher in Ephrata, Wash., was finally free to shave the beard he had been growing since Sept. 11, 2001.

Gary Weddle, 50, was so affected by the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that he stopped shaving.

Weddle made a vow not to shave until terrorist leader Osama bin Laden was captured or killed. He thought it would probably take six months, but bin Laden proved to be elusive.

Six months turned into a year, then two years, then five years…

“I thought I might be buried with it, that he may have eluded us, indefinitely,” Weddle said.

Finally, in the tenth year since 9/11, in the tenth year since Gary Weddle’s face had last seen a razor, it happened: U.S. forces found and killed Osama bin Laden.

When Weddle first heard the news he began to cry, but then he went to work.

With a smooth shaven face, Weddle says he has one regret.

“I should have given up watermelon.”

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504784_162-20059432-10391705.html

Man Shaves Beard After Waiting 10 Years for OBL’s Capture or Death

(CBS/KXLY) After 3,454 days, a middle school teacher in Ephrata, Wash., was finally free to shave the beard he had been growing since Sept. 11, 2001.

Gary Weddle, 50, was so affected by the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that he stopped shaving.

Weddle made a vow not to shave until terrorist leader Osama bin Laden was captured or killed. He thought it would probably take six months, but bin Laden proved to be elusive.

Six months turned into a year, then two years, then five years…

“I thought I might be buried with it, that he may have eluded us, indefinitely,” Weddle said.

Finally, in the tenth year since 9/11, in the tenth year since Gary Weddle’s face had last seen a razor, it happened: U.S. forces found and killed Osama bin Laden.

When Weddle first heard the news he began to cry, but then he went to work.

With a smooth shaven face, Weddle says he has one regret.

“I should have given up watermelon.”[/quote]

That’s racist.

^^He could have tried to give it up, but the “dark” forces wouldn’t have allowed him too :wink: I kid

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pro.nub wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pro.nub wrote:
Wow! I don’t post much hear but lurk a lot and can tell that most of you guys are intelligent people. However, it seems that the vast majority of you all believe that Osama and Al Qaeda were solely resposible for 9/11.

Seriously, do none of you question the large number of pieces of evidence pointing towards an inside job?
I understand that with mainstream media and the whole ‘Patriotic’ thing, it may be hard to question it, but surely you are intelligent to realise that it doesn’t all add up.[/quote]

Hurrah, another idiot who saw a plane collide with a building and wonders why it fell down.[/quote]

Why does a building have to fall just because it is damaged? It was designed to withstand several planes hitting it. There is no scientific reason why the building would have collapsed solely due to the plane hitting it. Not to mention it collapsed at near free-fall speed, into its own footprint, with a large amount of it ending in a fine powder spread across the city.

Or should I ask about building 7?[/quote]

No, you’re absolutely right, a building with several floors taken out, then having all floors above pancake the rest of the building, that defies physics.

Fucking twat. There IS a scientific reason for why they came down, don’t come in here with your idiotic conspiracies.[/quote]

I thought a video might help a little, Mak.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

“I should have given up watermelon.”[/quote]

That’s racist.[/quote]

I LOLed.

Not sure if it was an official annoucement, but looks like no pictures will be released.

[quote]pro.nub wrote:
How many buildings of significant height have naturally collapsed into their own footprint.[/quote]

Yep, plane hits building. Totally natural.

Besides, the guy who designed the WTC did make allowances for A plane hitting the buildings. I think it was an EMPTY 707 that he used? Not a cross-country fueled, FULL of people 737, going at an ANGLE: The structural engineers working on the World Trade Center considered the possibility that an aircraft could crash into the building. In July 1945, a B-25 bomber that was lost in the fog had crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. A year later, another airplane nearly crashed into the 40 Wall Street building, and there was another near-miss at the Empire State Building.[8] Leslie Robertson, one of the chief engineers working on the design of the World Trade Center, has since claimed to have personally considered the scenario of the impact of a jet airlinerâ??a Boeing 707â??which might be lost in the fog and flying at relatively low speeds, seeking to land at JFK Airport or Newark Airport. However, Robertson has provided no documentation for this assertion.

This also might have had something to do with the collapse: On September 11, 2001, hijackers associated with al-Qaeda took control of two early morning Los Angeles-bound flightsâ??both Boeing 767 jetlinersâ??soon after take off from Boston’s Logan International Airport. In its final moments, American Airlines Flight 11 flew south over Manhattan and crashed at roughly 440 miles per hour (710 km/h) into the northern facade of the World Trade Center’s North Tower at 8:46 a.m., impacting between the 93rd and 99th floors. Seventeen minutes later, United Airlines Flight 175 approached from the southwest, over New York Harbor, and crashed into the South Tower’s southern facade between the 77th and 85th floors at 540 miles per hour (870 km/h).[7] In addition to severing numerous load-bearing columns on the perimeter and inflicting other structural damage, the resulting explosions in each tower ignited 10,000 US gallons (38,000 L) of jet fuel along with office contents.[note 3][5] Jet fuel from the impact traveled down at least one elevator shaft and exploded on the 77th and 22nd floors of the North Tower, as well as on the west side lobby.

Also: After the planes hit the buildings, but before they collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel. As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of higher floors. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards. In the case of 2 WTC, this caused the eastern face to buckle, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. In the case of 1 WTC, the south wall later buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences

And: In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, numerous structural engineers and experts spoke to the media, describing what they thought caused the towers to collapse. Hassan Astaneh, a structural engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley, explained that the high temperatures in the fires weakened the steel beams and columns, causing them to become “soft and mushy”, and eventually they were unable to support the structure above. Astaneh also suggested that the fireproofing became dislodged during the initial aircraft impacts. He also explained that, once the initial structural failure occurred, progressive collapse of the entire structure was inevitable.[31] Cesar Pelli, who designed the Petronas Towers in Malaysia and the World Financial Center in New York, remarked, “no building is prepared for this kind of stress.”[32]

So, in conclusion: GO FUCK YOURSELF AND YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!!

[quote]azsdaha wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Not boring and not factual.

  1. The US has NEVER had anything to do with the Taliban. The US supplied, trained and funded elements of the Afghan Mujahideen. The Taliban was one of several political factions that filled the power vacuum after the Soviet withdrawal. It wasn’t even formed until 1994 and it was the ISI that literally founded, funded and trained it.

  2. They’re not ‘rockets’ they are balistic missiles with nuclear warheads and I can assure you that they are fully functioning. Your government however is not.

  3. I am pretty familiar with the entire history of Pakistan/Afganistan from the time Alexander came down from the Kyber and bridged the Swat up until Sunday’s raid.

  4. Pakistan’s government would best be described as a military oligarchy. Since 1967 the Pakistan Peoples Party have dominated the parliament and ruled with the consent/approval of the military.

  5. If I were you I would leave soon. Your government(i.e. parliament) will be ‘toppled’ by the ISI and the lunatic faction of your military. This will result in a civil war as this faction will not support the Pakistan Peoples Party nor work through parliamentary means to achieve its ends.[/quote]

Look my friend , I do not wish to wax poetic and I have little desire to get into an internet argument. Plus it seems you do get to reading different material ( not trying to patronize you either here ) but I will disagree with your assessment for a couple reasons.

  1. Other than my 7 years in cali I have lived primarily in Pakistan for the rest of the 35 years.

  2. Reading Fareed Zakria or the writer du jour doesnt give one an accurate idea as to whats really going on here. Quick example : I lived and worked in Kabul Afghanistan from 2006 to 2008. And every time there was a bombing anywhere in Afghanistan , the wife would panic and call , I would assure her it was no where close to me. Same thing here. It isnt exactly the way its reported in the news .

  3. Since the Army Hung the founder of the PPP in 1976 I really doubt they been ruling this place with their consent. We have had Pml, ppl, all take turns here under the guidance of the army.

  4. And while I appreciate the get out while you can thing, I got two sons a wife and parents here. Every undertaking I am a part of is to make their lives better and a 35 yr old muslim male is not exactly the ideal candidate for immigration to any country in the world. Hell its hard enough getting a tourist visa to visit old friends !

Take care and let me know if you have tried the Super Hero program yet and how your shoulders are after week 2.

[/quote]

Actually western democracies take immigration candidates from anywhere and everywhere unfortunately. They also flood in by the millions illegally and we reward them with citizenship and social security payments. You’ll have no problems.

Also, regardless of whether the head of state/armed forces is PPM/PPL supported, the PPP has ALWAYS(since 67) been the majority seat holder in the Senate/National Assembly, right or wrong?

My superhero program(I assume you mean 5/3/1) is progressing well thank you. No shoulder problems yet.

The mods should put a question mark at the end of this thread title.