4um: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Resistance
See other Resistance Articles
Title: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 21, 2009
Author: m e
Post Date: 2009-03-21 08:19:06 by Itistoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 11788
Comments: 2261

Officer Jack McLamb's shows:
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030209.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030309.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030409.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030509.mp3
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-1772) not displayed.
.
.
.

#1773. To: litus (#1771)
You rely upon .gov "facts, evidence, testimony, hearings, reports, and statements"

Nope and I challenge you to point to any conclusion that I have drawn as not being supported by a record independent of NIST - which, btw, is a very independent organization in and of itself.

war posted on 2009-03-30 13:49:56 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1774. To: war (#1769)
Or maybe you don;t know what the word "anamoly" means.

I still will use my common sense and not venture into tall US buildings that appear to be able to collapse in such a total fashion. Especially when, for all the tax money I pay, the gov couldn't even take out planes being piloted by amateurs. Afterall how many others are built similiarly and as a result are ticking time bombs waiting for the right circumstances.
I guess the overseas architects must be better at designing buildings that can withstand some stress, since non appeared to have collapsed in the same manner.

mininggold posted on 2009-03-30 13:50:06 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1775. To: litus (#1771)
In summation: The fox has investigated the hen house.
The foxes have found for the foxes.
Ergo, .gov, .gov entities, .gov hearing participants, and .gov "facts", are taken as gospel by .gov, and, if you don't believe 'em, just ask 'em: they've "proven" to you "they're innocent."

Dude...stay away from logic..it's so ill served in your hands...

war posted on 2009-03-30 13:50:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1776. To: mininggold (#1774)
I guess the overseas architects must be better at designing buildings that can withstand some stress, since non appeared to have collapsed in the same manner.

I'm sorry...the part where you provided a building of like constructon to WTC was deleted. Can you repost that please?
Thanks...

war posted on 2009-03-30 13:53:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1777. To: mininggold (#1774)
I guess the overseas architects

The designer of WTC was Japanese, moron.

war posted on 2009-03-30 13:55:22 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1778. To: litus (#1757)
Captain Chris Boyle Engine 94 - 18 years
Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day. h ttp://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

war posted on 2009-03-30 13:57:08 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1779. To: litus (#1757)
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden Division 1 - 33 years
...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

war posted on 2009-03-30 13:58:58 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1780. To: litus, TwentyTwelve, mininggold, FormerLurker, Original Inttent (#1757)
The photo you Moonbats will never post:

war posted on 2009-03-30 14:05:50 ET (1 image) Reply Trace Private Reply
#1781. To: war (#1772)
That some people thought WTC7 was going to collapse? You have FDNY on the records as pulling their guys out ofthe buildiomng [sic] because they were afraid it was going collpse. [sic]

I have heard the FDNY state, on video, they heard explosions.
That was ignored by .gov.

There was no reason to make bold claims that a building was going down one hour prior to it occurring, and acting AS IF, it had already happened.
They did not do this with the WTC 1 or 2. But did with WTC 7....a building that was shielded from WTC 1 and 2 by other buildings, which did not collapse on their feet.
Pulling people out of a building, "because they were afraid it was going to collapse", does also not negate .gov's complicity with causing that very building to become structurally unsound to begin with.

litus posted on 2009-03-30 14:09:45 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1782. To: litus (#1781)
I have heard the FDNY state, on video, they heard explosions.

Thermite doesn't explode, doof.
There was no reason to make bold claims that a building was going down one hour prior to it occurring,
There is NO WAY that you have read through what I have posted regardiong 7 otherwise you would have never psted that.

war posted on 2009-03-30 14:19:03 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1783. To: litus (#1781)
They did not do this with the WTC 1 or 2.

ACtually after 1 fell, they most certainly belived that 2 was in serious danger of doing so///

war posted on 2009-03-30 14:19:48 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1784. To: litus (#1781)
does also not negate .gov's complicity with causing that very building to become structurally unsound to begin with.

Way to go Mr. Circle...

war posted on 2009-03-30 14:24:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1785. To: litus (#1781)
I have heard the FDNY state, on video, they heard explosions.

Yea so? Any clue as to what "combustible" means?

war posted on 2009-03-30 14:27:29 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1786. To: war (#1777)
e designer of WTC was Japanese, moron.

Going by US/ NewYork structural and design standards? Or those from Japan? Really...... your name calling makes you look weak. Or are you saying the Japanese finally got back at us by being able to unload on us this obviously flawed designed? LOLOL

mininggold posted on 2009-03-30 14:29:48 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1787. To: war (#1784)
By your "logic," if bank robbers, who plan their deeds well ahead of time (complete with explosive devices which they have others plant for them), set off the bombs at the appropriate timing, "announce" the building is going to collapse, the fact that they "suspected" the building was going to collapse exonerates them from being suspects themselves with either knowledge about or the planting of explosive devices in a building (which they had intent to rob).

litus posted on 2009-03-30 14:33:13 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1788. To: war (#1783) (Edited)
they most certainly belived that 2 was in serious danger of doing so///

Really. So that explains why they "called spot on" for a building to fall an hour prior to it falling....while calling for no other buildings to do so that were closer to and/or less-well shielded from WTC 1 and 2, this despite the fact that it was HQ for CIA ops, Guilliani, who had enforced it for his own protection (who, for some "strange" reason, left a few hours prior to the strike)....and no other buildings fell onto their own footprints...oh, except the other WTC 1 and 2.
Amazing!!

litus posted on 2009-03-30 14:35:42 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1789. To: war (#1786)
Or are you saying the Japanese finally got back at us by being able to unload on us this obviously flawed designed? LOLOL

The Japanese did 911 to us?
You are totally crazy!

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-30 14:36:30 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1790. To: litus, war (#1781)
Pulling people out of a building, "because they were afraid it was going to collapse", does also not negate .gov's complicity with causing that very building to become structurally unsound to begin with.

Come on, war personally inspected every structural member of all three of the collapsed and maybe more buildings. Nothing to see here. Who knows... they might have been designed to fall into their own footprint as a cost saving feature. /s

mininggold posted on 2009-03-30 14:42:12 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1791. To: mininggold (#1786)
Going by US/ NewYork structural and design standards?

Wha...huh? The "design" standards of the WTC were new and radical. Or are you ***thinking*** that you are using some sort of "official" terminology here when all you are really doing is futther underscoring your anemic knowledge base.
on us this obviously flawed designed
Where did I claim that the design was "flawed"...

war posted on 2009-03-30 14:43:05 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1792. To: litus (#1787)
Did I not tell you to stay away from logic or are you claiming that every single one of those quoted FDNY are in on the conspiracy?

war posted on 2009-03-30 14:44:45 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1793. To: litus (#1788)
So that explains why they "called spot on" for a building to fall an hour prior to it falling....

Why do keep you admitting to me that you have not read what I have posted?

war posted on 2009-03-30 14:45:33 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1794. To: war (#1791)
Where did I claim that the design was "flawed"...

Oh... Okay.... a design that doesn't perform up to it's architect's claims is not flawed... And new and radical are your words. Evidently New York, the high rise capital of the world, let these slip by. This is not looking good.

mininggold posted on 2009-03-30 14:47:19 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1795. To: litus (#1788)
who, for some "strange" reason, left a few hours prior to the strike

Wha...huh? Guiliani was right next door to where I am when the planes hit.
and no other buildings fell onto their own footprints...oh, except the other WTC 1 and 2.
Where did you expect the buildings to fall? In Jersey? This is one of those statEments that you Moonbats make that you ***think*** underscores the nefarious conspiracy, when, in fact, that is how buildings collapse because ***GASP*** that is HOW THEY ARE DESIGNED TO COLLAPSE.

war posted on 2009-03-30 14:48:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1796. To: war (#1792)
By your "logic," if bank robbers, who plan their deeds well ahead of time (complete with explosive devices which they have others plant for them), set off the bombs at the appropriate timing, "announce" the building is going to collapse, the fact that they "suspected" the building was going to collapse exonerates them from being suspects themselves with either prior knowledge of or involved with the planting of explosive devices in a building (which they had intent to rob).

litus posted on 2009-03-30 14:50:44 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1797. To: mininggold (#1794)
Okay.... a design that doesn't perform up to it's architect's claims is not flawed

It did perform as designed...it took the hit and stood. What it was not designed for was the massive explosion and subsequent fires...they also did not anticipate that the impact of the plane would damage the core...

war posted on 2009-03-30 14:53:06 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1798. To: mininggold (#1794)
And new and radical are your words.

I am paraphrasing the words of the artchitects.
But feel free to continue to display yoiur Zero KNowledge Base...
A list of the innovations incorporated into the World Trade Center would be very long. In the following pages, I describe just a few of the ideas and innovations conceived and developed by our team. Most, if not all, of this technology is now a part of the standard vocabulary of structural engineers.
The tubular framing system for the perimeter walls resisted all of the lateral forces imposed by wind and earthquake, as well as the impact loads imposed on September 11. Although we had used closely spaced columns in an earlier building, it was Minoru Yamasaki who proposed that we use narrow windows in the WTC towers to give people a sense of security as they looked down from on high. Our contribution was to make the closely spaced columns the fundamental lateral- force-resisting system for the two towers. The tubular framing system also precluded the need for the customary 30-foot column spacing in interior areas, making column-free, rentable space structurally desirable.
In support of Yamasaki’s design, during the construction, before the windows were installed, I noticed that people felt comfortable walking up to the outside wall, placing their hands on the columns to either side, and enjoying the wonderful view. If the wind was blowing toward them, they would walk right up to the outside wall; however, if they felt even a trace of pressure from a breeze from behind, they would at least hesitate before walking to within five feet of the wall . . . and many would not approach the wall at all.
Another structural innovation was the outrigger space frame, which structurally linked the outside wall to the services core. This system performed several functions. First, gravity-induced vertical deformations between the columns of the services core and the columns of the outside wall were made equal at the top of the building; at other levels, the differential deformations were ameliorated. Second, wind-induced overturning moments were resisted in part by the columns of the services core, thus providing additional lateral stiffness. Finally, the weight of, and the wind-induced overturning moment from the rooftop antenna (440 feet tall) was distributed to all columns in the building . . . adding additional redundancy and toughness to the design.
A viscoelastic damping system was invented and patented to ameliorate the wind- induced dynamic component of building motion by dissipating much of the energy of that motion . . . acting more or less like shock absorbers in an automobile. With these dampers, we could control the swaying motion without having to use large quantities of structural steel. This was the first time engineered dampers were used to resist the wind-induced swaying motion of a building.
A theory was developed for integrating the statistical strength of glass with the dynamic forces of the wind to predict the breakage rate of the glass of the exterior wall. Coupled with a testing program of actual glass samples, we were able to determine rationally the necessary thickness and grade of the glass. Another theory was developed to predict stack action and temperature-induced and wind-induced airflow within a high-rise building; an understanding of these airflows is crucial to controlling fire-generated smoke and reducing the energy consumption of the building. A theory to predict appropriate “parking floors” for elevators was developed to minimize the oscillation of elevator cables, which oscillation is stimulated by the wind-induced, swaying motion of a building. Figure 2 is a comparison of the wind-induced dynamic components of the structure response of the two towers and of the Empire State Building.
The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

--Leslie Roberston, structural engineer WTC

war posted on 2009-03-30 14:56:40 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1799. To: war (#1797)
It did perform as designed...it took the hit and stood. What it was not designed for was the massive explosion and subsequent fires...they also did not anticipate that the impact of the plane would damage the core...

All design flaws. If the pictures of these buildings collapsing were shown to the building commission or whatever you have in NYC, prior to their construction, do you think they would have been still allowed to build them without reengineering? I doubt it.

mininggold posted on 2009-03-30 14:57:25 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1800. To: litus (#1796)
Saying it twice only made it twice as stupid.

war posted on 2009-03-30 14:57:44 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1801. To: war (#1798)
I do not need a degree in structural engineering to see that those buildings did NOT perform up to expectations.

mininggold posted on 2009-03-30 14:59:38 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1802. To: mininggold (#1799)
All design flaws.

Your claim is that every building ever built had to pass the 9/11 test even though 9/11 had yet to happen?
You're in over your head...fwiw, that point was reached when you first hit "Reply"...

war posted on 2009-03-30 14:59:47 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1803. To: mininggold (#1801)
I do not need a degree in structural engineering to see that those buildings did NOT perform up to expectations.

They did not expecty an airliner to impact it with 10000 gallons of fuel @ speeds in excess of 400 and 500 MPH nor did they anticipate that the fires would NOT be contained.

war posted on 2009-03-30 15:01:19 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1804. To: war (#1802)
Your claim is that every building ever built had to pass the 9/11 test even though 9/11 had yet to happen?

You are saying they weren't engineered to take a direct hit from an airliner in a city crisscrossed by air lanes? Oh my.... the negligence is mounting.

mininggold posted on 2009-03-30 15:02:47 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1805. To: war (#1803)
They did not expecty an airliner to impact it with 10000 gallons of fuel @ speeds in excess of 400 and 500 MPH nor did they anticipate that the fires would NOT be contained.

So airplanes don't take off from NYC airports they only land. Oh... Okay....

mininggold posted on 2009-03-30 15:04:12 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1806. To: mininggold (#1805)
So airplanes don't take off from NYC airports they only land.

check! Those "smart engineers" would never have accounted for this!

litus posted on 2009-03-30 15:05:46 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1807. To: mininggold (#1804)
The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

--Leslie Roberston, structural engineer WTC
The landing speed for a 707 is ~115knots

war posted on 2009-03-30 15:07:07 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1808. To: mininggold (#1805)
So airplanes don't take off from NYC airports they only land. Oh... Okay....

Wha...huh?
Is it your claim that when planes take off in a heavy fog that they are routinely vectored directly toward a city full of skyscrapers?
That asked, the 707 scenario was based upon the fact of a B-25 crashing into the Empire State Building...

war posted on 2009-03-30 15:10:08 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1809. To: mininggold (#1804)
You are saying they weren't engineered to take a direct hit from an airliner in a city crisscrossed by air lanes?

What year was the building designed?

war posted on 2009-03-30 15:11:11 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1810. To: all (#1807)
If you guys want to make your theories believable you got to make them more realistic and less testable.
Instead of saying the US shot a cruise missile at the pentagon, and flew two airplanes into the towers and then used explosive to knock them down, then inexplicably blew up tower 7.
You should say, the Bush admin intentionally stopped the FBI from finding the terrorists, allowed them to take flying lessons, allowed them to pass through security, and purposely messed up the response to the hijackings.
That way you can use the natural incompetence of the government as false evidence of malevolence.

Rhino369 posted on 2009-03-30 15:11:32 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1811. To: war (#1807)
The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

--Leslie Roberston, structural engineer WTC

Well assuming sure made an @ss of him. Not very creative that one. Hopefully other structural designers in your areas aren't as dull. Especially since hijacking airlines is not exactly a new sport.

mininggold posted on 2009-03-30 15:13:08 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1812. To: mininggold (#1811)
You're applying 21st century standards to a building designed in the early 60's.

war posted on 2009-03-30 15:15:37 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1813. To: mininggold (#1811)
Well assuming sure made an @ss of him

Being a charter member yourself, I'lltake your word for it...

war posted on 2009-03-30 15:16:27 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

.
.
.
Comments (1814 - 2261) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um