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: 11533
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 (1-1802) not displayed.
.
.
.

#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
#1814. To: mininggold (#1811)

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.

Well there isn't much that can be done except better fire suppression systems, since the fuel burns so hot. The steel becomes tens time as weak. So you'd basically have to build the towers to be able to hold 12 times its minimum weight.

Rhino369 posted on 2009-03-30 15:18:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1815. To: war (#1812)
You're applying 21st century standards to a building designed in the early 60's.

Well like all designs that aren't up to standard it got "pulled" by it's designers own lack of foresight and it's own obsolescence. Too bad the cowardly owners didn't have the moxy to close it and do it right, before lots of people got killed. It's not like it was NOT a previous target.

mininggold posted on 2009-03-30 15:20:38 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1816. To: mininggold (#1815)
Do me a favor...ping me when you stop grasping for straws that are the length of the pubic hairs of a gant...thanks...

war posted on 2009-03-30 15:38:09 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1817. To: war (#1800) (Edited)
Saying it twice only made it twice as stupid.

Imagine how you come across, repeating your .gov propaganda multiple times over.

litus posted on 2009-03-30 16:06:22 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1818. To: Rhino369 (#1814)
Well there isn't much that can be done except better fire suppression systems, since the fuel burns so hot.

Kerosene? BWAHAHAHAHA, who do you think you're kidding? What a load of crap, you've done jumped the shark, boy.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-30 16:08:46 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1819. To: mininggold (#1805)
So airplanes don't take off from NYC airports they only land. Oh... Okay....

And it's never a clear day there, always foggy and the planes are almost stalling out because they're going so slow. LOL!
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-30 16:10:37 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1820. To: mininggold, war (#1790)
war personally inspected every structural member of all three of the collapsed and maybe more buildings....Who knows... they might have been designed to fall into their own footprint as a cost saving feature. /s

haaaaaaaaaa!

litus posted on 2009-03-30 16:14:11 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1821. To: mininggold (#1774)
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.

Oh, you should be safe to go in them now. Apparently all the Magickal Jet Fuel™ was used up on 9/11. Several big high rises have caught fire since then and burned much longer but none of them fell. And none before 9/11 either.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-30 16:18:49 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1822. To: Rhino369 (#1814)
Well there isn't much that can be done except better fire suppression systems, since the fuel burns so hot. The steel becomes tens time as weak.

Are you just making this stuff up as you go? Check the NIST report, it states that the jet fuel burned up in the first few minutes. Kerosene doesn't burn that hot to begin with, and there was NOWHERE near enough of it to even warm the steel, never mind weaken it.
The fires that everyone saw were standard OFFICE fires, whereas the WTC had ALREADY survived one that lasted over three hours and was much more intense than those that occured on 9/11/2001.
The 1975 World Trade Center Fire
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-30 16:33:13 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1823. To: litus (#1817)
Yep...those firemen shills all...

war posted on 2009-03-30 21:34:55 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1824. To: litus (#1817)
Yep...that structural engineer...a shill

war posted on 2009-03-30 21:36:01 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1825. To: litus (#1817)
Yep...all those other engineers...shills...

war posted on 2009-03-30 21:36:24 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1826. To: litus (#1817)
Yep...all those pics...even though a lot of 'em came from Moonbate sites...FAKED...

war posted on 2009-03-30 21:36:51 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1827. To: FormerLurker (#1822)
The fires that everyone saw were standard OFFICE fires..,.

Standard office fires are started by a plane impacting and exploding inside of it?
Do you ever stop to ***think*** how stupid you sound when you post such nonsense?

OOoooo....Oooo....I KNOW I KNOW...
Apparently not...

war posted on 2009-03-30 21:39:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1828. To: litus (#1820)
< /em>
Monday, February 12, 2007

Clip from "9/11 Eyewitness"
If anyone has had the misfortune of sitting through NOVA's attempt and validating the official government myth about 9/11, here's a piece that debunks the "pancake theory" computer simulation NOVA's graphic artists came up with to make the Bush administration's 9/11 story seem plausible.
9/11 Truth: NOVA's WTC Pancake Collapse

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-30 21:49:06 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1829. To: litus (#1820)
Purdue Simulation Full of Hot Air
George Washington's Blog
Thursday June 21, 2007
The newest volley in the disinformation campaign regarding 9/11 is a simulation of the Twin Towers created by Purdue University. As summarized by Raw Story:
The simulation found jet engine shafts from airlines flown into the World Trade Center "flew through the building like bullets," according to an Associated Press vide report.
Flaming jet fuel cascaded through the tower stripping away fireproofing material and causing the building to collapse, the AP video reports.
"The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid," according to the video.
However, Kevin Ryan has already demonstrated that there was not enough energy from the airplane impacts to have knocked much of the fireproofing off. See also this article.
And very few of the core columns were severed by the planes' impact. And tests by NIST showed that temperatures in the Twin Towers never got hot enough to significantly weaken the structural steel of the 47-column inner core.
Researchers have stated that the Purdue simulation contradicts the observed facts in other ways, and in the next couple of weeks, they will publish their findings.
Moreover, the Purdue simulation still does not address the flies in the ointment which NIST also ignored:
(1) The simulation either fails to include, or inaccurately represents, the 47 core columns holding up each of the Twin Towers.
(2) Most of the jet fuel burned outside the buildings, especially in the case of the South Tower - which produced a glowing orange fireball as the building was struck at an oblique angle. So the simulation could not hold true for the South Tower.
(3) The people who designed the Twin Towers did not think that an airplane plus fire from the jet fuel could bring the buildings down. Indeed, they assumed that "all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building", and yet assumed "The building structure would still be there." Since most of the fuel (especially with the South Tower) exploded outside of the buildings, shouldn't they "still be there"?
(4) Even if the planes and fire had initiated a collapse sequence, why did the towers totally collapse, when no modern steel-framed building has ever before completely collapsed due to fire?
(5) Why did they collapse at virtually free-fall speed? And why did WTC7 -- which wasn't even hit by a plane -- totally collapse at free-fall speed later that same day?
(6) How could the buildings have fallen at near free-fall speed, indicating very little resistance, and yet produce tremendous pulverization of concrete, which indicates great resistance?
(7) No one can explain why "steel columns in building 7 were "PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Absent controlled demolition, how could such temperatures have been generated by jet fuel or diesel?
As if that's not enough, Kevin Ryan pointed out to me today by email that the Purdue simulation contradicts many aspects of NIST's findings:
"1. Were columns on the south face of WTC severed by aircraft impact? NIST says maybe one, but Purdue now suggests several. NCSTAR1, p. 22-23.
2. Was there any jet fuel in AA11's center fule tank? NIST says no, but Purdue now says yes, it was completely full. NCTSAR1-5A, p liii, lviii.
3. How did the fieproofing get "widely dislodged"? NIST suggests the aircraft debris turned into shotgun blasts to affect this. Purdue now suggests the jet fuel did it. Thanks to Purdue for invalidating NIST's work. NCSTAR1, p 119."
In other words, not only does the Purdue simulation contain many of the same errors as the NIST reports, but, as if that's not bad enough, it stretches the truth beyond even what NIST itself has done.
Moreover, as pointed out by the blog Truth Or Lies:
"The following statement was used in the Purdue simulation: 'The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid.' This is a direct contradiction of the FEMA report (which can be viewed HERE) which stated: 'despite the huge fireballs caused by the two planes crashing into the WTC towers each with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, the fireballs did not explode or create a shock wave that would have resulted in structural damage.'”
As Crockett L. Grabbe, PhD, research scientist and visiting scholar, department of physics and astronomy, university of Iowa 1980, and former researcher at Naval Research Laboratory put it:
“Many may conclude that the building structure of the World Trade Center twin towers was poorly designed with fire retardants that the heat from the airliner explosions within an hour caused catastrophic destruction of the south tower, and in less than 2 hours the north tower. However, the evidence overwhelmingly supports a different conclusion: this collapse was in fact caused by explosive devices planted well in advance."
Indeed, numerous scientists, engineers and demolition experts have said the official version of the destruction of the World Trade Centers is impossible.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-30 21:51:01 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1830. To: TwentyTwelve (#1828)
Another Moonbat lie.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

war posted on 2009-03-30 21:51:49 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1831. To: Rhino369 (#1814)
Well there isn't much that can be done except better fire suppression systems, since the fuel burns so hot. The steel becomes tens time as weak. So you'd basically have to build the towers to be able to hold 12 times its minimum weight.

What kind of drugs are you taking?
You better get off of them quick.
Jet engines burn that fuel in a closed system at much higher temperatures than can be reached in an open air fire. Guess what jet engines are made of. STEEL. Guess what the towers support was made of, STEEL. But not just any steel, it exceeded all requirements of the time and even now concerning strength and melting point for steel in sky scrappers. Your car burns gas, it's engine is made of steel, how many times has your engine fell out because it melted? What about your outdoor grill. How many times has the thing melted before the steaks were done?

Like I said, please stop taking the drugs.
God is always good!
RickyJ posted on 2009-03-30 21:52:07 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1832. To: TwentyTwelve (#1828)
This video has been removed due to terms of use violation (I believe that is what it said when I clicked on it).

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-30 21:52:09 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1833. To: TwentyTwelve (#1829)
And tests by NIST showed that temperatures in the Twin Towers never got hot enough to significantly weaken the structural steel of the 47-column inner core.

Another Moonbat lie.
Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

war posted on 2009-03-30 21:53:54 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1834. To: TwentyTwelve (#1829)
Why did they collapse at virtually free-fall speed?

Debunked.

war posted on 2009-03-30 21:54:33 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1835. To: James Deffenbach (#1832)
Try this:
9/11 Truth: NOVA's WTC Pancake Collapse

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-30 21:54:58 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1836. To: war (#1830) (Edited)
The sagging floors? It is more like your sagging brain. Do you think the mass of a floor changes even if it did sag? DO YOU? If not then how the HELL could it pull anything inward? No more force on the columns than before you DUMB ASS GOVERNMENT STOOGE!
God is always good!
RickyJ posted on 2009-03-30 21:55:37 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1837. To: war (#1833)
Indeed, numerous scientists, engineers and demolition experts have said the official version of the destruction of the World Trade Centers is impossible.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-30 21:55:46 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1838. To: TwentyTwelve (#1835)
That one worked, thanks.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-30 21:58:14 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1839. To: war, TwentyTwelve (#1834)
Debunked.

Oh, and how long DID it take each tower to collapse then?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-30 22:01:52 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1840. To: war (#1830)
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse,

Right, the evidence indicates controlled demolition.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-30 22:03:39 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1841. To: war (#1827)
Standard office fires are started by a plane impacting and exploding inside of it?

Desks, paper, carpeting, various office equipment, those are all that could burn, and that is what burned. Are you trying to state that the cement was on fire or something?
BTW, all of the fuel was burnt up in the first few minutes. Most of it burnt outside the buildings in the huge fireballs as seen in live footage of the event. A plane itself can't explode, it's the fuel that catches on fire due to sparks, and it doesn't explode unless that spark occurs in a confined space such as a fuel tank.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-30 22:07:17 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1842. To: FormerLurker (#1841)
Aren't you getting tired of beating your head over that wall? You would come closer to getting through to a stump or fence post.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
James Deffenbach posted on 2009-03-30 22:09:34 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1843. To: war (#1825)
Yep...all those other engineers...shills.. Yep...that structural engineer...a shill Yep...those firemen shills all...

"Indeed, numerous scientists, engineers and demolition experts have said the official version of the destruction of the World Trade Centers is impossible."
Indeed, I have read that a gag order was imposed on the firemen. I wouldn't doubt, as well, that .GOV has, in whatever way it wished, threatened anyone who was a witness and dare to tell the truth. They would lose their job, or be demoted, or lose their retirement, etc.

I am aware, personally, of particular individuals during my lifetime, some fairly high up in the government (or, when I was younger, their father was), who were under DIRECT ORDERS not to tell what they know or witnessed surrounding particular events. They don't want the public to know things.
Fool!

litus posted on 2009-03-30 22:11:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

.
.
.
Comments (1844 - 2261) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um