See other 9/11 Articles
Title: An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11
Source:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6013
URL Source: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6013
Published: Feb 10, 2007
Author: Sue Reid
Post Date: 2007-02-10 08:45:52 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 15925
Comments: 205
An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11 Sue Reid – The Daily Mail February 10, 2007 The official story of what happened on 9/11 never fails to shock. Four American airliners are hijacked by Osama Bin Laden's terrorists in an attack on the heart of the Western world on September 11, 2001. Two are deliberately flown into New York's famous Twin Towers, which collapse. A third rams into the United States defence headquarters at the Pentagon, in Washington D.C. The last goes down in rural Pennsylvania, 150 miles north of the capital, after a tussle between the hijackers and some of the passengers onboard, whose bravery was recently portrayed in a Hollywood film, United 93. Nearly 3,000 ordinary, decent Americans die in the attacks, provoking the U.S. President George W. Bush to mount a global war on terror, which leads to the invasion of Iraq, with Britain in tow. Or that's how the official story goes. Yet today, more than five years on, this accepted version of what happened on 9/11 is being challenged by a 90-minute internet movie made for £1,500 on a cheap laptop by three young American men. The film is so popular that up to 100 million viewers have watched what is being dubbed the first internet blockbuster. The movie was shown on television to 50 million people in 12 countries on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 last autumn. More than 100,000 DVDs have been sold and another 50,000 have been given away. In Britain, 491,000 people have clicked on to Google Video to watch it on their computers. Called Loose Change, the film is a blitz of statistics, photographs pinched from the web, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony, all set to hip-hop music. And it is dramatically changing the way people think about 9/11. A recent poll by the respected New York Times revealed that three out of four Americans now suspect the U.S. government of not telling the truth about 9/11. This proportion has shot up from a year ago, when half the population said they did not believe the official story of an Al Qaeda attack. The video claims the Bush administration was, at the very least, criminally negligent in allowing the terrorist attacks to take place. It also makes the startling claim that the U.S. government might have been directly responsible for 9/11 and is now orchestrating a cover-up. Unsurprisingly, the film's allegations have been denied, even roundly condemned, by White House sources and U.S. intelligence services. Only this week, the letters page of the Guardian newspaper was full of discourse about Loose Change, which was made by a trio of twentysomethings, including a failed film school student and a disillusioned ex-soldier. Indeed, the movie's assertions are being explored by a number of commentators in America and Britain - including the former Labour Cabinet Minister Michael Meacher - who are questioning the official account of 9/11. Mr Meacher, who last year proposed holding a screening of Loose Change at the House of Commons (he later changed his mind), has said of 9/11: "Never in modern history has an event of such cataclysmic significance been shrouded in such mystery. Some of the key facts remain unexplained on any plausible basis." These words were written in a foreword for Professor David Ray Griffin's bestselling book, The New Pearl Harbour (a pointed reference to the conspiracy theory that President Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to assault the U.S. fleet in 1941, in order to force America into World War II). Griffin, now nearing retirement, is emeritus professor at the Claremont School of Theology in California and a respected philosopher. While Loose Change is capturing the interest of internet devotees, Professor Griffin's equally contentious theories are receiving standing ovations in book clubs across the U.S. Together, the book and the movie have raised the question: could the attack be a carbon copy of Operation Northwoods, an aborted plan by President Kennedy to stage terror attacks in America and blame them on Communist Cuba as a pretext for a U.S. invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro? In other words, on a fateful September morning in 2001, did America fabricate an outrage against civilians to fool the world and provide a pretext for war on Al Qaeda and Iraq? This, and other deeply disturbing questions, are now being furiously debated on both sides of the Atlantic. Why were no military aircraft scrambled in time to head off the attacks? Was the collapse of the Twin Towers caused by a careful use of explosives? How could a rookie pilot - as one of the terrorists was - fly a Boeing 757 aircraft so precisely into the Pentagon? And who made millions of dollars by accurately betting that shares in United and American Airlines, owners of the four doomed aircraft, were going to fall on 9/11 as they duly did? An extremely high volume of bets on the price of shares dropping were placed on these two airline companies, and only these two. In the three days prior to the catastrophe, trade in their shares went up 1,200 per cent. Initially, like most people in America, Professor Griffin dismissed claims the attacks could have been an inside job. It was only a year later, when he was writing a special chapter on American imperialism and 9/11 for his latest academic tome, that the professor was sent a 'timeline' on the day's events based entirely on newspaper and television accounts. It was then that he changed his mind. And one of the most puzzling anomalies that he studied was that none of the hijacked planes was intercepted by fighter jets, even though there was plenty of time to do so and it would have been standard emergency procedure in response to a suspected terrorist attack. Indeed, it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if there is any suspicion of an air hijack. In the nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented 67 times in America. Readers of The New Pearl Harbour and viewers of Loose Change are reminded that it was 7.59am when American Airlines Flight 11 left Boston. Fifteen minutes later, at 8.14am, radio contact between the pilot and air traffic control stopped suddenly, providing the first indication that the plane might have been hijacked. Flight 11 should have been immediately intercepted by fighter pilots sent up from the nearby McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. They could have made the journey to the World Trade Centre in three minutes. But, surprisingly, F-15 fighter jets were instead ordered out of an airbase 180 miles away at Cape Cod. They appear to have flown so slowly - at 700mph, instead of their top speed of 1,850mph - that they did not arrive in time to stop the second attack, on the South Tower of the World Trade Centre. They were 11 minutes too late. And this is not the only worrying question. Incredibly, the attack on the Pentagon was not prevented either. The defence headquarters was hit by the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 at 9.38am. But fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base, just ten miles from Washington, weren't scrambled to intercept it. Instead, jets were ordered from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, 100 miles away. By the time they arrived, Flight 77 had already hit the Pentagon. So what of the fall of the Twin Towers? The official version is that the buildings collapsed because their steel columns were melted by the heat from the fuel fires of the two crashed planes. It is a mantra that has been repeated in White House briefings, official inquiries into 9/11, leaks by the American intelligence services and almost every TV documentary on the attack in the U.S. and Britain. But, according to the allegations of Loose Change (which are endorsed by Professor Griffin), the science does not stand up. Steel does not begin to melt until it reaches around 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, but open fires of jet fuel - such as those in the Twin Towers inferno - cannot rise above 1,700 degrees. Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change are convinced the Twin Towers were deliberately blown up. The film shows clip after clip of the towers coming down in one fell swoop to loud and distinct booms. Were they the sound of detonators being set off? And the Pentagon attack? The hotly disputed theory of the film and Professor Griffin is that a passenger plane never hit the building at all. The terrorist pilot, Hani Hanjour, was so slow to learn the fundamentals at flight school that his tutors reported him to the authorities for his incompetence five times. How could he have guided the huge aircraft in such a complex manoeuvre into the building? And if he did, what happened to the aircraft? The Loose Change narrator says: "The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vapourised the entire plane. Indeed, from the pictures, it seems there was no discernible trace of a fully loaded Boeing 757 at the crash scene. "But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo jet, then how could investigators identify 184 out of 189 dead people found at the defence headquarters?" Intriguingly, the narrator adds: "The only visible damage to the outer wall of the Pentagon is a single hole no more than 16ft in diameter. But a Boeing 757 is 155ft long, 44ft high, has a 124ft wingspan and weighs almost 100 tons. "Are we supposed to believe that it disappeared into this hole without leaving any wreckage on the outside? Why is there no damage from the wings or the vertical stabiliser or the engines which would have slammed into the building? "Remember how big the engines were," the film adds persuasively. "If six tons of steel and titanium banged into the Pentagon at 530mph, they would bury themselves inside the building, leaving two very distinct imprints. And yet the only damage to the outer wall is this single hole." And what of the Boeing's 40ft high tail? "Did it obligingly duck before entering the building?" asks Professor Griffin. So if a commercial aircraft did not hit the building, what did? The wildest of all the theories in Professor Griffin's writings - echoed in Loose Change - is that the Pentagon was attacked by a military missile of some kind. Certainly, several onlookers quoted in the film claim that they saw a tiny aircraft piercing the defence HQ. Another witness says it made a shrill noise, quite unlike a giant passenger plane. So if it wasn't hijacked and flown by a terrorist into the Pentagon, what happened to Flight 77, last heard of on its way to Ohio? No one knows. But one thing is sure, asserts Professor Griffin. Dick Cheney, the U.S. vice- President, and Condoleezza Rice, at the time President Bush's national security adviser, were in the White House bunker as the drama unfolded. They, and their advisers, knew a hijacked aircraft was heading towards Washington. The obvious target was the White House, not the Pentagon. Yet Cheney and Rice were never evacuated from the White House. Did someone in high places already know that they were safe and that it was the Pentagon that was going to be the target? Of course, no account of 9/11 by the conspiracy lobby is complete without a minute-by-minute observation of President Bush's behaviour. He was hundreds of miles away in Florida, about to read a book to primary school children when the worst terrorist attack of the modern age happened. The President reportedly showed little reaction when an aide told him that the first plane had crashed into the Twin Towers. Why not? He, apparently, told the school's principal: "A commercial plane has hit the World Trade Centre, but we're going ahead with the reading thing anyway." Then President Bush, who is also the commander-in-chief of the American military, settled down to recite My Pet Goat to a group of seven-year-olds. He was interrupted a few minutes later by a whispered message in his ear from an aide that a second aircraft had hit the Twin Towers. The President's face, captured by photographers at the school, remained completely passive. He showed no sign of emotion. Now it must have been obvious a terrorist maelstrom was being unleashed on his country. But three days later, back in the American capital, he was a different man. By now he was certain that Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda henchmen were to blame. Surrounded by the Christian evangelist preacher Billy Graham, a cardinal, a rabbi and an imam, the President delivered a sermon in America's national cathedral in Washington. The words he uttered are recounted by both Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change. President Bush announced: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks waged against us by stealth, deceit and murder and rid the world of evil." The scene had been swiftly set for the West's war on terror. www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=435265&in_page_id=1811 Watch Loose Change here. Printer friendly version Email this article to a friend Last updated 10/02/2007 Homepage
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Kamala (#0)
Those were the first words I remember out of Bush's mouth on 9/11 to the American public. Although years passed before I finally came around to 9/11 Truth, I remember even that day thinking how odd, grandiose and presumptuous Bush's statement was. And now, given what we know about the NSA surveillance program, etc.--indeed what we know about 9/11 itself---, it sounds like an indictment of himself and his cabal.
this is picayune, i know (altho a pet peeve of mine), but i'm noticing more and more people are misspelling defense spelling it with a c rather than an s. what's up with that? ;)
I'm hearing it unsolicited from folks with whom I haven't even broached the subject and from some I least expected to raise suspicions. It's scary.
THERE'S NOT ONE DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT WE WILL FAIL - GW Bush
Must be folks spending more time reading the Guardian and the Independent than our homegrown press on matters relating to our "defence." Wonder why.
THERE'S NOT ONE DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT WE WILL FAIL - GW Bush
If I am not mistaken, the difference in spelling is a British thing.
If a man has nothing that he is willing to die for, then he has nothing worth living for.
true to his word - he certainly has answered by stealth, deceit and murder
I absolutely believe they allowed this to happen. as far as masterminding it, that's harder to swallow. what in this administration's record would indicate that they could pull off something of the magnitude of 911, and do it without totally bungling? they could have supported it, including financially. they were certainly the ones who benefitted, as we know now that Iraq was a plan that had to be sold to the public. Bush's own 'hit a trifecta' remarks bear that out. the whole administration reaction indicates no surprise whatsoever. but they've been so inept at everything, I doubt they could have planned and carried this out themselves. I think they're evil enough, just not skillful enough.
There are so many connecting dots and old MSM news articles with info that points to some faction of our govt preparing for this event for years. Do watch the wonderful 9/11 videos, glance over the list of facts, and then tell me 15 Saudis and 4 other Arabs flew 2 planes into the WTC and caused all 3 of Lucky Larry Silverstein's buildings to collapse symmetrically at the rate of free fall, into their own footprint. Read the PNAC's report from the 90s, defining the importance of a "new Pearl Harbor" event.
Those who make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities. – Voltaire
Your just being to picky. :^p
"First I'm gonna bother everybody I meet, and then I'll probably go home and get drunk."
It's UK/Australia/Canadian spelling. Besides the antiquated colour, favour, etc., there's "Licence to Kill" (Bond movie), defence, etc. And nevermind how they MISpronounce everything. ;P
Those who make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities. – Voltaire
Then there are those people who don't realize that the 'shift key' can be used to 'capitalize' letters in the text of their message.
4UM has an extensive section on 911. There is no difference between LIHOP vs MIHOP. Both end in criminal murderous treason. 911 was prepared long before this administration. They were the puppets to carry it out. Very few knew the whole plan, the majority were compartmentalized, circles within circles. The people/paper trail is extensive and complex. The easiest way of proving 911 would be, or would have been, hard forensic science. That is why 99.7% of all steel was removed, government engineers were hired and more money was spent on the NIST cover up than the 911 Commission cover up. 911 was a war/terror drill/game that went live. It was hidden/wrapped around the 5-6 war games on that day. 911 was carried out by a small element in the miitary/intelligence complex of our government with some help from private and foreign operatives.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
It is totally bungled. I'd say that the fact that the whole world smells a rat and the only way the truth can be silenced is through intimidation and fear, well, what would it take to convince you that it's bungled?
smarty dog ;)
i'm shift key challenged now. you know what started me on this? i do a lot of instant messaging which is quick paced. doing that, i got into the habit of not taking the time to use the shift key. i've been doing it for so many years now that i have to concentrate when i want to type with capitals. just call me c c cummings. ;)
yeah, I wish those people would learn how to talk good American!
I can't find Rex Harrison singing this, but here are the lyrics: http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/w/whycanttheenglish.shtml
Those who make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities. – Voltaire
9/11 wasn't devised by Bush and Cheney sitting around one afternoon brainstorming on a way to justify a global war on terror and a massive new US military footprint in the ME. So how does something like this even get suggested among a group of powerful men in this country? Well- we have a massive secret government- a whole intelligence "Community" that we know very little about. We don't even know how much funding it recieves (guesses are between 40 and 100 billion). The psychology of such secretiveness is that the more secrets you are allowed to know- the more powerful you feel- the more superior. Such people- who are "In on" the many secrets begin to despise and look down upon the rest of us- their fellow citizens. They see themselves as an elite. As a vanguard bravely defending America- doing what has to be done that Americans don't want to know about and can't know about. Among such groups common morality is seen as something they can't afford to be bound by. Indeed- the higher one goes in such organizations- the more amoral acts they have been a party to. It becomes a badge of honor among their ranks, to be "in on" acts that would repel and horrify society at large. As infantry soldiers have respect for and give deference to combat vets among them- people who swirl around the "intelligence community" view those who have been in on the "hardcore" amoral deeds in the same way. One would mark himself as naif or a coward if he objected to a black op on moral grounds. Such considerations would not even be commented on or brought up- only tactical and strategic objections are entertained. And we have already seen this once. "Operation Northwoods" was a plan written by the Joint Chief of Staff to committ false flag terrorist acts on American civilians - and tag Cuban agents with responsiblity as a causa belli. The document was a dry, emotionless, coldly and calmy written plan by the highest ranking officer in the United States military that called for American civilians to be murdered in black ops to justify a war. Kennedy- horrified- dismissed him. And this was the early 1960's- amid an MIC/intelligence "community" less than two decades old. In only 15 years an American general felt utterly comfortable writing a document and circulating it among the higher echelons of government calling for the murder of fellow Americans. We have now had 50 plus years of this culture simmering and growing and mutating in DC- becomeing ever more diconnected and removed from ordinary Americans. 9/11 being suggested among their ranks- would have raised eyebrows for its daringness and audacity and scope- but moral objections would never even have arisen.
Funny!
You're preachin' to the choir, Reverend. Every word is true, and we can't even imagine how morally bankrupt they are. In fact we don't know and we don't want to know. We can hang them with a fraction of the evidence.
Most insightful. This member of the denigrated "reality-based community" thanks you.
Those who make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities. – Voltaire The administration itself didn't concieve of it, but they were apparently part of it's execution. The plot itself was probably hatched in some think tank, and had been a "contingency plan" for years probably. When the time was right, the puppetmasters decided how it would be carried out, by whom, and where. Those within the shadow government delegated various operational matters to highly compartmentalized teams, and those at the top of the visible government were given their marching orders on what they were to do.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell i thought it was e e cummings...lol
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - - George Orwell They did not mastermind it, and for that, you are absolutely correct. It was masterminded by the Mossad. That is where the dancing Israeli spies come in. And, the control over the US government by the Khazar Jews.
The Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."
Just another demolition. "pull it" Lucky Larry and his two separate "terror attacks" he collected billions on.
Those who make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities. – Voltaire Cousins.
it is. i replaced the e's with c's for christine. :P
Now the cold hard facts about the Loose Change video: The ScrewLooseChange video: A guide to the ScrewLooseChange video: A great blog related to the ScrewLooseChange video: A related discussion forum: More great data: The above sites are the arsenal of anyone confronting those promoting LooseChange.
Love your new no-spin persona. Really.
sometimes there just aren't enough belgians
I like to use the BPAT/FEMA/NIST reports to refute the governments own fairytale. The reports are full of deception and misleading conclusions. Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
*********** http://www.911myths.com/html/quote_abuse.html "Quote Abuse ... snip ... ---------------------- Then we have this quote from a David Ray Griffin essay: ---------------------- "Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower. . . . There were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down” (NYT, Carlsen, pp. 5-6)." http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html ------------------- Here's the full version, with the snipped part in bold (which is our emphasis). ------------------- "...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit. We then realized the building started to come down". http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110505.PDF ----------------- And another, from the same Griffin piece: ----------------- "Firefighter Joseph Meola said, “it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops" http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html ----------------- Again, a possible attempt to offer an alternative explanation to explosives, that the “pops” may have been the building falling, has been omitted (our emphasis): ----------------- "As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out." http://a1022.g.akamai.net/f/1022/8160/1d/www.newsday.com/includes/fdny-9-11/pdf/9110287.pdf ------------------ ... snip ... ******************* Looks like Griffin was committing quote abuse. And here's something else written by *Professor* Griffin: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-WTC-Twin-Towers26jan06.htm In it he states But why is this unexpected if a plane full of fuel hit the structure and penetrated the elevator shafts as numerous eyewitnesses testified? One would expect fuel released from the impacting aircraft would enter the freight elevator shaft and explode, sending a pressure wave and fireball down the shaft. In another section Griffins states But this is deceptive of Griffin. Mark Loizeaux is also on record stating that what happened at the WTC was NOT a demolition with explosives. And he's an expert. Griffin says Actually, there are reports of firemen hearing loud noises that sounded like explosions more than 10 minutes before the collapse. Odd sort of controlled demolition. Indeed, the structure was seen to be sagging and tilting many minutes before the collapse. Odd sort of planned demolition. And who are Griffin's sources? A proven liar. An anti-government hack ... not a *journalist*. What he wrote about the seismic data in his articles was an outright LIE and not a single seismologist in the world backs his claims up, yet the seismic data is available to any seismologist in the world. The seismologists who he quotes in his articles are on record in technical papers and other venues saying JUST THE OPPOSITE of what Bollyn claimed they said. This man doesn't believe man landed on the moon. He lies about the size of the hole in the Pentagon, the amount of debris at the Pentagon, the engine found at the Pentagon. He thinks that DU tipped missiles were used at the WTC and Pentagon. He's a software engineer. Forget the bombs ... he thinks giant super secret microwave beam projectors, installed in the basement of the towers, is what brought them down. I'll give some credit to Hoffman, though. He's right in saying the other CT'ers are wrong to claim the towers collapsed in 10 seconds and he says Bollyn promoted numerous claims that are not supported by any evidence. MIT engineer. Yeah. An electrical engineer and molecular biologist ... who has been a medical doctor for the last 25 years. Who claimed a fireman admitted 9-11 was an inside job. But the fireman says that's untrue and accuses Mr Lavello of slander. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61418 Oh yes ... the water treatment expert. ************* And here's still another article by *Professor* Griffin that makes one wonder about his honesty. ************** http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404 ... snip ... Actually fire has caused many steel frame BUILDINGS to collapse in the past. That's why there are codes now to protect steel framed building from fire. And all the portions of the Windsor Tower (a skyscraper in Madrid) that depended solely on a steel frame for support did in fact collapse in a post 9/11 fire (no impact). This is untrue. The best experts in the business using the best fire codes in existence have concluded that the fires were very hot and long lasting, and ultimately led to softening of steel members which caused the collapse. Which is why only one or two structural engineers in the world have come forward to agree with Griffin's assertion. And Griffin is also omitting the fact that where there have been fires in tall steel structures that did not collapse, the structures were built differently, the fires spread differently, the fires were actively fought by firefighters, and there were other mitigating factors. Untrue. NIST has carefully explained why one tower collapsed before the other. The building was in fact extensively damaged by falling debris from the towers and the fires were not localized or small. Plus, NIST did explain what FEMA did not. Currently, only one demolition expert in the world agrees with Griffin that Building 7 was a controlled demolition. And he based his conclusion solely on viewing material hand picked by conspiracists. Nothing more. And ironically, that same individual is on the record saying that the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 are definitely NOT controlled demolitions. But they were sticking up in the air after the collapses. This is proven by looking at the videos and photos from that day. Here, this video shows the core was still standing after the floors had pancaked: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 These images also show that core was still sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air after the floors pancaked: Silverstein did not say "pull building 7". He said pull it and a look at the context in which he said that should lead a reasonable person to conclude Silverstein was referring to the firefighting effort and the firefighters that were around the building.. Furthermore, demolition experts (at http://ImplosionWorld.com, for instance) say the "pull" terminology is not used in the way alleged by Griffin. Numerous structural engineers, FBI agents and countless others had access to the site and the steel before it was removed. Many pieces of steel were eventually saved. All the structural engineers in the world seem to think it was. Untrue. The entrance hole is large enough to accommodate everything but the wing tips and the tail of the plane. This is clear from photos to the left and right of the main impact hole: And here is a fine animation which shows how the damage to the Pentagon is completely consistent with the impact of a 757. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21568_The_Pentagon_Attack_Simulation&only The portions of the plane not containing fuel or much mass shattered with the remains strewn in front of the Pentagon as seen in photo after photo. The above animation shows images of many of these pieces. There are also photos of debris both inside and outside the Pentagon that could only come from a 757. Numerous people familiar with such jets toured the site ... including members of 757 crews. They ALL say what they saw is consistent with Flight 77 hitting the building. If Griffin thinks a missile was used, could he tell us what missile would cause damage like that seen? Remember, there was hole in the Pentagon about 90 feet wide. Columns on the right side were broken and bent towards the left. There was a winged shape hole on both sides of the central impact site. And actually, here is Rumsfeld's full quote based on what Parade magazine initially said he said: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center." But not everyone agreed. http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2006/11/rumsfelds-missile-admission.html "Problems with the audio transcription are evident or else there wouldn't be a "similar (inaudible)" involved. So I zoomed in on the second “and” that created the impression of two separate objects and tried replacing it with the similar sounding “as” and got “using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens AS the missile to damage this building.” This makes the whole statement make more sense, and is exactly what the government has always said." In fact, Parade admitted in September 2004 that "a transcription error led to the confusion, but conspiracy theorists latched onto Rumsfeld's supposed admission and spread it over the Internet." ******************* Given all the above, one wonders why the thread's article places so much faith in Griffin as an *expert* source.
Start with the fact that heat rises. Move on to the fact that while the fuel would burn rapidly, it wouldn't explode, in the classic use of the term. Add that the images of the lobby bear no witness to any appreciable amount of smoke. That's not the evidence of jet fuel. Your attempts at deceit continue to insult the reader's intelligence, BAC.
Given all the crap you spewed forth in your reply, I wonder how ignorant you really must be. Or what you have to gain from spewing DISinfo? A little common sense goes a long way - and it's something you are apparently lacking. Only a fool would believe the "official story". Damned strange how the Empire State Building was once struck by a large aircraft and managed to remain standing. And when the architects designed the Towers, they took into account the possibility of a large commercial airliner hitting them - and designed them to withstand this very thing!!!. I don't know what your line of work is or what your 'expertise' is, BUT I DO KNOW it ISN'T architecture, or construction. You apparently have no clue as to how massive the steel is in the main support columns of a building like that; NOR do you have any clue as to it's strength. Construction IS my forte, and I have seen the results of HORRIFIC fires on buildings... I have seen the massive steel used. I have been involved in the rebuilding of a VERY LARGE (75'W x 75'D x 175'H firebox measurements) boiler which exploded - and yet the boilerhouse itself (building containing the boiler) remained standing and very much intact. Building 7 collapsed as a result of 'debris damage' coupled with fire??? Then why did 3, 4, 5, and 6 remain standing??? They were ALL located closer to the big Towers than 7, AND damaged by debris and fire MORE than 7!!! j The "official story" is so full of holes it makes a screen door look like plate steel. And your touting it as truth makes you look like either a government shill, OR a complete moron - OR BOTH.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
PANCAKING! Ha, ha. You need to get some new material BAC. NIST has backed away and said the towers did not pancake. As a matter of fact, the NIST report does not explain the dynamic collapse of the towers. NIST stops at what it calls, "poised for global gravity collapse." Very strange indeed. There was only one elevator shaft that ran the entire vertical building. The elevator itself sealed the shaft. All other elevators were staggard and sealed off at each mechanical floor. The towers were 3 buildings in one. Each completely sealed and independent of the next section. Eyewitness accounts have the middle elevators having extensive damage coming from the bottom and the basement. The problem with the pressure wave/fireball theory is the lower, middle elevators only ran the bottom 27 floors. Very strange indeed. Cascading and pooling jet fuel coming from 1000 feet above, is going to destroy the lobby and multiple sub-basements, machine shops, giant lift presses, parking garages? According to NIST, there was only around 4500 gals available. A pressure wave isn't going to blow out concrete 5-7 basements down. There was only one stairwell that ran the whole height of the towers. Where was this fireball blowing out the stairwells and doors? Where was all the dark smoke from the jet fuel fireball? Very strange indeed. Why don't you ccp the account of a firefighter who was on the lower floors of the towers, checking for employees, and found about every 3 floors that the doors leading to the office areas were crumpled and damage coming from the inside. When he pried open one of the office doors, he found extensive damage, with a "white smoke event", with a covering of light dust and debris. No fire, no dark smoke. Very strange indeed. You are right, 0.3% of the steel was handpicked by FEMA/NIST, around 240 pieces and sections. These section were, according to FEMA/NIST, from the fire and impact zones. FEMA actually had some WTC 7 steel and it was tested. The steel was found to have sulphaded, eutectic formations. The structual steel was turned to swiss cheese and was completely evaporated. It takes around 5100 degress to evapoate structual steel. Very strong diesel fuel, I guess. Very strange indeed. Before 911, no structual steel skyscaper has completely collasped from fire and or damage. The Madrid fire burned 20 times longer and burned at gas temps of over 2000 degrees. No primary structual steel vertical girder has ever failed due to fire. There has been localized failure of horizontal steel girders that have resulted in localized failure and collapse. This would result in the primary girders collapsing also because of no box support. Just like in the case of Madrid. Seriously, you need to get some new material. I seen all your stuff from LP. I won't continue long with you. Just enough to give you a good beatdown.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
BAC is in trouble here. We have alot of tradesmen that are on 4UM that work in construction. He really is going to get a good licking.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
You did a pretty nice job in #36!!!
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Not strange at all. Just a matter of the energy involved, whether intense fires were started and the construction of the building. And let's get our facts straight. The Towers were NOT designed to withstand this sized plane impacting the towers at velocity they did. They were designed for a low speed impact in fog. The energy difference between the design and this impact is a function of the difference in velocity squared. See below: http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument "Reflections on the World Trade Center, Leslie E. Robertson, ... snip ... The lead structural engineer reflects on the rise and fall of the World Trade Center towers. ... snip ... 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." ... snip ... Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The physical sizes of these aircraft are compared with the size of the floor plate of one of the towers in Figure 7. These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets." http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf "It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speed. However, in the September 11 events, the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that hit both towers were considerably larger with significantly higher weight, or mass, and travelling at substantially higher speeds. The Boeing 708 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274, 000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact." http://www.rit.edu/~smo5024/papers/wtc/ "Still, it is amazing that the towers survived the initial impacts at all—even if they were designed to be hit by aircraft—considering the fact that the Boeing 767's involved in the terrorist attack were notably larger and traveling much faster than the 707 considered in the design of the World Trade Center. The 707 was assumed to be coming in for a landing when it would hit one of the skyscrapers (707's were the standard airliner at the time when the World Trade Center was built). This meant that the plane would be traveling at a low rate of speed—about 180 miles per hour—and have minimal fuel. On the other hand, the 767's were carrying enough fuel for transcontinental flights (about 10,000 gallons each) and were flying far faster. The airspeeds of the jets as they impacted the buildings were estimated at about 470 and 590 miles per hour, approximately 2.6 and 3.2 times faster than the 707 (FEMA 1.17). In addition, the 767 is about 25 percent larger than the 707, with a wingspan of 156 feet, a length of 159 feet, and a height of 53 feet (1.19). Considering the size and speed of the airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers, it is remarkable that they stood at all."
*********** http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm "Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse. 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. 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. NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that: * the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and; * the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors. Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation. In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view." ***************** ***************** http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7 by J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr. A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway. ANALYSIS Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. ... snip ... J.R. Barnett is a professor of fire protection engineering, and R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson, Jr. are professors of materials science and engineering, at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts, 01609. ************* http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese. Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal. A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes. A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity. "The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain." Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says. From a building-safety point of view, the critical question is: Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson. "To answer that, we would need to recreate those fires in the FPE labs, and burn fresh steel of known composition for the right time period, with the right environment." He hopes to have the opportunity to collaborate on thermodynamically controlled studies, and to observe the effects of adding sulfur, copper and other elements. The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity. The FEMA report calls for further metallurgic investigations, and Barnett, Biederman and Sisson hope that WPI will obtain NIST funding and access to more samples. They are continuing their microscopic studies on the samples prepared by graduate student Jeremy Bernier and Marco Fontecchio, the 2001–02 Helen E. Stoddard Materials Science and Engineering Fellow. (Next year's Stoddard Fellow, Erin Sullivan, will take up this work as part of her graduate studies.) Publication of their results may clear up some mysteries that have confounded the scientific community. -JKM ************* Before 911, no structural steel skyscraper was subjected to a high speed impact by a commercial jet loaded with fuel. I'd like to see your backup for that 2000 degree temperature claim but in any case, all portions of the Windsor (Madrid) tower that relied solely on a steel frame did in fact collapsed. Again, all portions of the Windsor (Madrid) tower that relied solely on a steel frame collapsed. The reason the Windsor tower as a whole didn't collapse is that it had a reinforced concrete core and the frame from the 17 floor on down was also reinforced concrete. "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." — Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, Division 1 - 33 years.
Not so sure youre right on this one.. Hmm and have you forgotten the Empire State Building withstood THIS? :P
...and this... :P
Hm a B52.. ? hole 18 X 20 feet.. well ya know when that structure was built I'd venture to guess that the technology wasnt as advanced as when the WTC blgs were built..
Yeah... By the time the WTC Towers were built in the '60's and '70's, folks had forgotten about all that air traffic around NY (I hardly noticed it myself growing up there...), and it didn't occur to them that someone might either purposely or by accident fly a plane into a super-tall building at top speed... So they blithely designed the Twin Towers as though that could never happen... Of course... as we now know.... that obliviousness had tragic consequences on 9/11....
Hmm I do recall though seeing a video of one of the engineers or designers of the WTC saying that they had designed the bldgs to withstand an impact from a plane.. let me see if I can locate it. ;)
You mean they thought of that possibility...?? Even before Islamo-fascism and its unprecedented threat to our nation, freedom and way of life from people who want to kill us....??? How could they have had that kind of foresight..????????????????? :P
Frank DeMartini, project manager for the construction of the World Trade Center, says the WTC towers were designed to absorb multiple jetliner impacts. This interview was filmed inside the World Trade Center in January of 2001. Frank DeMartini died inside the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001... Frank DeMartini. a project manager for the WTC said the buildings were designed to redistibute loads in the event of an airliner strike, whose effects would be like "pucturing mosquito netting with a pencil".
Hmm I do recall though seeing a video of one of the engineers or designers of the WTC saying that they had designed the bldgs to withstand an impact from a plane.. let me see if I can locate it. ;) Could you tell I was being a smartass in that last post? :P Seriously though, despite the probability that the "choosers" here will dismiss it as a "conspiracy site," here is a link to a good summary (with cross-referencing) of the design features of the WTC Towers which were indeed intended to provide the structual integrity and strength to withstand and survive just such an event as 9/11.
Uh huh :P Thanks for the link ..*
Now this is interesting from your link: "According to the calculations of engineers who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. 7 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."
Exactly. The "War on Terror" crowd wants the American public to believe that the WTC Towers were just engineering puffballs---gossamer phalli that would detumesce at the first significant traumatic insult.. :P
There ya go Zip. Great quote. I've used it before. The towers could lose around 25%-30% of its core girders or perimeter girders. In NISTs own report, the towers primary girders only saw 14% severe damage. You could lose around 60 perimeter girders and it would stand. It could see severe damage to around 15 core girders an still support the building. The steel used for the core was rated at 42,000psi and the outer girders at 100,000psi. Super strong stuff. The hat truss design at the top of the towers was the key to transfering the stresses from the inner to the outer girders. Good work.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Skilling, the main designer/architect also said the towers could withstand the impact of an airliner and the resulting fire. The engineers/designers/architects planned for the fuel dump. Also I found a real gem. Included in the NIST primary appendix is a research white paper signed by Skilling in 1964, PLANNING FOR HIGH SPEED IMPACTS OF 600 MPH. It is a smoking gun document. All the skeptics like to quote Leslie Robertson. HE has been caught lying and has lots of ties to government funded projects.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Another thing to remember is that the steel used in the WTC Towers was certified to withstand the type of temperatures generated by the jet fuel and office contents fires that supposedly weakened the WTC Towers to the point of complete, rapid collapse, and much more than that.
Of course they did. Claims that no adequate consideration was given in the design and construction of the WTC Towers for the impact of large aircraft and the resulting fuel fires and structural damage, are so despicably mendacious they would have made Goebbels blush for shame.
In the NIST report, only 14% of primary girders saw severe and extensive damage. According to the main designers and architects, the towers could lose between 25- 30% and still stand. NIST has no proof of the airliners "dislodging" all the fireproofing completely from 5 floors of the towers. At the end of the NIST report, they quickly inserted a "experiment" where they used a shotgun and fired at a firecoated piece of steel. All it did was remove a very small section, all the rest of the girder shaped piece was still completely coated. Also in the NIST report is the fact that the fireproofing in the towers and in the area of impacts, had been upgraded to an average of 2.2 inches with a much more robust type of coating. This was started in the mid 90's. There is no energy for the planes to dislodge and scrap clean ALL the fireproofing. FEMA had MIT engineers calculate what happened to the planes on impact and the airliners energy was expended upon impact, just as the towers were designed to do. NIST has no hard scientific proof of 1000c gas temp fires. The only experiment involved was a double/triple experiment where NIST increased the known amount of jet fuel, then increased and over ventilated the fed jet fuel. NIST has no proof of sagging floors pulling the outer perimeter girders. In real physical experiments done by UL for NIST, not one full scale single floor model failed. No matter how much fireproofing was removed or how great the loads were induced. These live scale models were preformed at 2000 degrees for 2 hours. Lorring Knoblach, the head of UL, resigned after this. The only way NIST was able to prove that the perimeter girders could be pulled in is in computer software. NIST greatly exaggerated all the data, then when the computer model still didn't fail, NIST disconnected the floors from the outer girders. Then the model failed. The question is, if NIST is going to claim that the floor system pulled the perimeter girders in, by disconnecting them, how do they pull? NIST has stated that the WTC office floors were fuel poor and would burn out in around 20 min. It took the fire in the WTC 1 around a hour to work its way around from the north to the south face. After the fire fuel was gone, the fire zones quickly cooled down. That is apparent when photos show employees standing in and around the impact areas. Acid rain isn't going to evaporate structural steel, either is sulpher from some drywall. The temps seen to turn steel into swiss cheese is much, much too high. No office fire or diesel fire can do this. As far as Madrid, the physical temps may have been 1400 degrees but in the construction an magnesium alloy as an aluminum hardener for welding was being used. The temps that can reach is over 2000 degrees. The fire at Madrid was a magnesium fire.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Yes, it IS strange!!! While I'm not going to pretend that a 767 is a SMALL aircraft - compared to the size of the towers, a 767 is minuscule! (Probably something on the order of a sparrow compared to a doghouse) Are you aware that jet fuel is basically kerosene? Just how damned hot do you think kerosene burns? AND what percentage of it was consumed in the large fireball upon initial impact??? Did you see the picture of the bus being used in evacuation of hurricane Rita - the one that caught fire near Dallas? It was carrying people that had breathing problems, and were on oxygen. When the bus caught fire, it not only had the diesel from the bus feeding the fire, but the seats and whatever other combustible materials PLUS PURE OXYGEN feeding it - and the shell remained intact!!! Granted, the shell was quite charred, but it remained intact. There was no glass left, everyone in it died, there was basically NOTHING left BUT the STEEL. And how thick is that steel??? Certainly nowhere near inches thick... Why doesn't your barbeque grill melt down??? OR smudgepots used in citrus groves to protect from freezes??? I have one of those smudgepots, and have had the entire chimney glowing red for hours on end (fed by diesel), and it has yet to even deform, let alone collapse!!! And this chimney is made of only 20 gauge material... " src="http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n86/innieway/fire_wideweb__430x313.jpg">These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets." WHAT????? CAN NOT AND SHOULD NOT????? What the hell are you smoking to believe that (or the ignoramus that said it)????? And the second part of that totally ignorant fucking statement is something I addressed in my reply - the fact that it has been proven that NORAD can and has responded to situations much less serious, in airspace which was practically UNRESTRICTED in much less than a half hour, YET on 9/11 somehow magically COULD NOT (or more accurately - WOULD NOT) respond within 1½ hours to 4 commercial aircraft headed towards SOME OF THE MOST RESTRICTED AIRSPACE IN THE WORLD!!! Of course, I notice you failed to comment on this. WHY??? BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT'S THE TRUTH, YOU FUCKING SHILL!!! You also did not comment on fire and damage to buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 - and specifically their failure to collapse, in spite of obviously HUGE fire and debris damage compared to 7... WHY??? Like I said, YOU have totally ZERO common sense... Not because you believe the "official story", but rather because you think you can get folks that DO HAVE intelligence AND common sense to believe it!!!
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
THANK YOU for posting this!!!!! I knew I had seen this interview before. What a shame he died in the disaster. You know if he were still alive he'd be a voice to be reckoned with in the matter... At least nobody could argue his "credentials"...
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
that is as stupid a statement as "fire turns steel into wet noodles." WHAT????? CAN NOT AND SHOULD NOT????? What the hell are you smoking to believe that (or the ignoramus that said it)????? And the second part of that totally ignorant fucking statement is something I addressed in my reply - the fact that it has been proven that NORAD can and has responded to situations much less serious, in airspace which was practically UNRESTRICTED in much less than a half hour, YET on 9/11 somehow magically COULD NOT (or more accurately - WOULD NOT) respond within 1½ hours to 4 commercial aircraft headed towards SOME OF THE MOST RESTRICTED AIRSPACE IN THE WORLD!!! well said. that alone is proof of guilt, imo.
Yes, and what seems to escape the shills like BAC is this rating is for tensile strength - a pulling measurement - rather than a compaction measurement... Like I've said before, a 200 lb man can stand on an empty beer can without crushing it. Of course the beer can can't be dented, but still - we're talking about mighty thin aluminum... Compare the strength of that can to even a tin can - (it's VERY easy to crush a beer can by hand, but try to do it to a soup can)... AND we're still talking about mighty thin material... Now compare those to the metal used in the Trade Center Buildings.... Jesus Christ - what has happened to common sense in this country??? I think it completely left this country concurrently with the gold standard...
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
It doesn't eascape him. Shills are here for one purpose...to disrupt honest discussion and derail the thread. At this he is effective.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Thank you... I had tried to post images of the bus I was talking about, but somehow they failed to work (though they looked fine in the preview)... I didn't discover they hadn't posted until I was scrolling down from replying to Zip further up the thread....SO I tried to edit it, and still no luck. I was using the Opera web browser at the time. Opera is extremely fast, but it does have it's little 'quirks' that I still haven't gotten used to... So I'll see if I can get those images posted here.... (I'm back on Firefox now) No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Really? This assertion doesn't seem to match this image: Or this one: Can you explain how the Windsor Tower in Madrid saw measured temperatures of over 1400 F without any plane crash or jet fuel? The ignoramus who said that was the chief structural engineer and project manager on the WTC towers, Leslie Robertson. You haven't proven that the damage or fire in those structures was worse than in WTC7. Numerous firemen say the damage and fires in WTC 7 were bad enough that early on they knew they'd lose the building. As to why those others didn't collapse in the same manner? Call it luck. Call it the randomness of nature. Call it differences in construction. Call it differences in the way the fires were fought. Do you know that explosions were heard in some of those other structures? Were there bombs in them too? How many firemen do you think were involved in this mass murder, innieway? Then I suppose you are also saying that all the folks we rely on to design and build all the structures we use in our society also lack common sense ... because none (or at least very, very few) of them seem to buy into your allegations.
Curious. Are you an expert in buckling phenomena too? ROTFLOL! And by the way, the proper term is compression, not compaction. Compaction is what one does to soil foundations. But can a 200 lb man drop a foot onto a empty beer can without crushing it? That's more the situation that existed at the WTC towers.
This is false. DeMartini was NOT the project manager for the construction of the World Trade Center. He was about 14 at the time. And he was NOT a structural engineer. His degree was in architecture. And in that statement he made, he completely overlooked the importance of velocity in the impact. The WTC towers were NOT "designed" for a high speed impact. PERIOD. And by the way, it wasn't a B52 that hit the Empire State building. We wouldn't want you to confuse anyone, would we? As to Peetie's source on the design, http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20I%20History.pdf "Robertson was the most influential engineer on the project and assumed the position of lead structural designer of the towers. Robertson had as much influence on the form of the building as anyone apart from Yamasaki himself." Leslie E. Robertson – " 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." (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument) Leslie E. Robertson – "The twin towers of the World Trade Center were designed to resist safely the impacting by the largest aircraft of that time...the intercontinental version of the Boeing 707. In no small measure because of the high level of competence of the men and women of LERA, each of the towers resisted the impact of an aircraft larger than the 707. Yes, fire brought down the towers, but the structural integrity created by the engineers of LERA allowed perhaps thousands of persons to evacuate the buildings prior to the fire-induced collapse." (http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/LesRobertson.html) According to Robertson, "It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark." It was designed for a 180 mph impact. Not 600 mph. Remember, the impact energy is not only a function of mass but velocity SQUARED. Robertson went on to note that the kinetic energy of the 767 impact witnessed on 9-11 was nearly seven times greater than the building's design ever anticipated. Leslie Robertson is also quoted stating that "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." And Skilling wasn't the structural engineer of record. Robertson was.
Guess I'm going to have to debunk this on multiple threads. Oh well. Skilling was NOT the main designer. The structural engineer of record was Leslie Robertson who moved to NYC where the design was done. Second, Skilling was talking about an analysis that was NOT part of the design of the towers. It was a back of the envelope "what if". And Skilling was only partially right in his white paper. The towers did indeed survive the impact ... no one denies that ... (in fact, NIST has said that had there not been a fire, the towers probably would have remained standing for a time) ... but he was wrong in concluding they would not suffer substantial damage. Eyewitnesses and MODERN computer modelling show that is untrue. We can't fault Skilling. He really had no means to determine that in the 1960s. Skilling didn't have access to the types of computer codes routinely used in building design and analysis today. Those code and the computers needed to run them weren't developed until the 70's and 80's and 90's. They couldn't do the sort of impact (or fire) analyses possible today. Such analyses show that the impacts must have shattered dozens of structural members, and both analyses and tests show that the impacts would have to have taken the fireproofing off many of the surviving structural members. And it is the loss of those fire coatings which is the key to collapse of the towers in the fires that followed. Besides the Skilling white paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. NIST stated that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.” http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument "Reflections on the World Trade Center , Leslie E. Robertson, Volume 32, Number 1 - Spring 2002, The lead structural engineer reflects on the rise and fall of the World Trade Center towers. ... snip ... 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." It was designed for a 180 mph impact. Not 600 mph. And that makes more sense then assuming commercial jets were going to crash into buildings at maximum velocity. Robertson went on to note that the kinetic energy of the 767 impact witnessed on 9-11 was nearly seven times greater than the building's design ever anticipated. You might want to read the history of what went on back then: http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The%20Height%20of%20Ambition%20Part%20Four.pdf "The Height of Ambition: Part Four September 8, 2002 By JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON ... snip ... But Robertson still had one more set of structural calculations to perform. Lawrence Wien, who was continuing his fight against the towers, had begun to remind New Yorkers publicly of a Saturday morning in July 1945, when a B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, barreled into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. Most of the 14 people who died were incinerated by a fireball created when the plane's fuel ignited, even though the fire was quickly contained. The following year,another plane crashed into the 72-story skyscraper at 40 Wall Street, and yet another one narrowly missed the Empire State Building, terrifying sightseers on the observation deck. Wien and his committee charged that the twin towers, with their broader and higher tops, would represent an even greater risk of mid air collision. They ran a nearly full-page ad in The Times with an artist's rendition of a commercial airliner about to ram one of the towers. ''Unfortunately, we rarely recognize how serious these problems are until it's too late to do anything,'' the caption said. The Port Authority was already trying to line up the thousands of tenants it would need to fill the acres of office space in the towers. Such a frightful vision could not be left unchallenged. Robertson says that he never saw the ad and was ignorant of the political battle behind it. Still, he recalls that he addressed the question of an airplane collision, if only to satisfy his engineer's curiosity. For whatever reason, Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow. Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost - he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counter attack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances. There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later."
ASSUMING that they weren't weakened by fire. And what if that 14% loss were concentrated in one region of the structure? Surely the designers and architects weren't saying the structure would stand if that occurred. Also, for the record, the designers and architects of the WTC are on the record saying that they believe impact and fire are what brought the towers down. Not bombs or microwaves. It isn't alleged that the planes dislodged "all" fireproofing on 5 floors. Nice strawman. Secondly, NIST does have evidence that an impact of the sort that occurred would dislodge fireproofing. Both test and computer modeling. http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm Again, what is your source for this claim. NIST isn't claiming that aviation fuel was the fuel in the 1000 C fires. But other things in those towers could burn. How do you think the Madrid fire saw temperatures over 1000 C? Actually, they do. They have visual proof that the floors where sagging and VERY GOOD structural models that tell them the outer perimeter girders would be pulled inward as a result. Plus, they have visual confirmation before the collapse that inward pulling was occurring. Didn't you ever see the pictures and videos? Prove this. It is untrue. NIST did not test the floors without fireproofing. They modeled the floor system with fireproofing as it would have been before impact. Plus, the trusses were physically undamaged. You are trying to paint a picture that misrepresents what NIST did. Why is that? You don't apparently understand the boundary conditions of their model. Plus, again, you aren't fairly representing what NIST actually did. This is false. And, what matters is the time it took the fire to move into the region on the opposite side from the impact. That's where the sagging floors and failure began. As you yourself note, it took about an hour for the fire to work its way around. The fact that people were seen standing in the impact hole is irrelevant since the impact hole is not where the failure began. Perhaps you should consult the experts who seem to disagree with you. Again, let's see your source for this claim. Don't you have one?
Only if the fireproofing coatings were intact. And the experts and computers models indicate they wouldn't have been after the impact.
I imagine that the wings and the tail just fell off the plane before impact. and probably got swept up innocently by a street-sweeper. wings & tails always fall off of commercial jets flying through the air. especially when they know they're going to hit the pentagon. what do you think they are? Stupid!!! that's good thinking BAC. thanks for explaining.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
The bottom line is that a cheap stopwatch attests to the freefall of the three WTC buildings - that makes the "collapse" impossible, by itself. Just follow the money, thereafter. The rest is BAC's constant and reliable bullshit. Why anyone wastes much time with BAC on this topic amazes me. Why patronize his infamous disinformation? Sheesh! "Get BAC, get BAC to the trash where he belongs."
Post a photo of what you think the entrance hole was, Red. Tell us the dimensions of that hole.
you posted a photo in #33. I don't know the dimensions of the hole, but you said the hole wasn't big enough for wings & tail to have gone through. so I'm assuming they fell off before hitting the building. Do you disagree? the pentagon is one stout building. wings & tails of attacking planes fall off before even getting there.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
hope you can continue posting over here. We could always use a world-renowned september 11 expert. your friend Badeye posts over here sometimes after five, and on weekends too. I think the both of you are extremely smart. and are a great addition to the posters here. thanks.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Ha! Ha! Your big problem with me is that I've READ large sections of the reports. I don't ccp 30 url's and 1000 word paragraphs from Popular Mechanics, Screw Loose Change and 911 Myths Debunked. I don't know if your being deceptive in your CCP, it just maybe that the sites you visit, exclude the damaging, conflicting results that are in the reports and quotes from others. Your already reduced to saying this is false, that is false, this is a lie, that is a lie. No, you just haven't READ the sections that have this information. Wait, I mean ccp. I don't ccp my information, I type it from memory because I've read the documents that contain it. You want sources? Do your own research. I'm not here to spend my time doing your work. You know what my qualifications are? I'm a concerned American citizen. I study 911 and the reports to point out all the deception, contradiction and false conclusions. The NIST report rests everything on computer modeling. NIST disgarded what real scientific evidence it had and preformed, because it didn't fit the pre determined conclusions. In almost every instance, NIST opted for the most extreme model, even though there was no proof of said conditions. NIST didn't even have enough proof on certain more realistic modeling. I have a very busy week of work and time is limited. I'll be around checking in briefly, so don't think I've gone away just yet. I have more FEMA/NIST deception for you.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
CCP ? Copy cut paste? CP Copy Paste would be sufficient, cutting is not needed.
God is always good! Even engines fall off too. It's amazing the survival instincts that are programmed into these mechanical and structural parts of an airplane. Everyone assumes the plane had to be flown by remote control, but this plane might have been so smart to know exactly where it was and what course and actions to take at certain locations. No remote control necessary.
God is always good! Actually, several. Photos showing what the structure looked like on both sides of the 16-19 foot diameter central hole. The central hole is the one the conspiracy sites and videos (like LooseChange) always point to when they make the claim that the plane couldn't possibly have entered the building through such a small hole. What they dishonestly do is ignore the large holes on both sides of that hole. Why not? That information is all over the internet (if you can get past the million conspiracy websites). The width of the hole is somewhere between 75 and 95 feet according to most accounts that actually look at all the pre-collapse pictures. I happen to think it's at least 90 feet. I did not say that. Why do you find it necessary to mischaracterize what I've said, Red? I said most of the plane penetrated the structure. I said those portions of the wings (and the tail) that lacked sufficient mass to penetrate shattered and were either burned up or found downrange of the impact location. Since most of the wings contained fuel, they had sufficient mass to penetrate. Which is why you see wide wing shaped holes on both sides of the central hole, which is presumably made by the fuselage. Furthermore, there is clear evidence of damage to the outer face of the wall in those locations where the wing would have hit but not penetrated. Here: And here's a videoclip produced using a CAD tool that in one section overlays the plane's dimensions against images of the damage done to the structure. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21568_The_Pentagon_Attack_Simulation&only
Produced by whom? Integrated Consultants Inc., a defense contractor. No bias there. Nope. None at all. lmao
Over at LP, I couldn't even get you to admit that the hole in the Pentagon was more than 20 feet across. With the pictures staring you in the face. So you are going to dismiss anything I post, regardless of source.
the evidence of flight 800's fuel tank explosion, which is nonsense, also rested upon a cia sponsored computer simulation that was so implausible it had the jet ascend after the explosion some hundred feet, then roll over. same modus operandi here. its basically like asking for evidence from someone, then accepting whatever they offer after its proven they paid a third party to manufacture it. (rather like those who claim to be gods chosen people, offering evidence they themselves supply, written by themselves, benefitting themselves, strangely enough) but no one is really that stupid. they are either insane, or just liars. all of the above is likely as well.
“All of us should treasure his (John Dillinger) Oriental wisdom and his preaching of a Zen-like detachment, as exemplified by his constant reminder to clerks, tellers, or others who grew excited by his presence in their banks: "Just lie down on the floor and keep calm."” --- Robert Anton Wilson “Intelligence is the capacity to receive, decode and transmit information efficiently. Stupidity is blockage of this process at any point. Bigotry, ideologies etc. block the ability to receive; robotic reality-tunnels block the ability to decode or integrate new signals; censorship blocks transmission.” --- Robert Anton Wilson
Using the windows as a guide, the biggest single hole appears to be around 17 feet. So what caused the collapse far to the right of the central hole? I'm estimating thermite did the job, shattering the concrete pillars. The fire was too brief and there is no suggestion that the pillars were impacted. No penetrating damage to the front = no impact damage.
If you want the low-down on TWA-800; go here -
If he's smart he will. By the way, was Jackie Onassis really flying the plane when Ron Brown was converted into a pod person?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
My uncle's cousin's girlfriend's brother says Bigfoot helped move the WMD to Syria before the war. You need to clue in NewsMax to this important fact.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Critter, BAC asserts there was a hole in the 9-11 Pentagon, broader than 20 feet. Damage certainly spread further, but as to a hole, I never saw anything to exceed 20 feet, let alone any viable suggestion of forward-moving damage. Did I miss something?
We are looking into the Elvis / WMD connection now. He's not really dead you know.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
I knew a programmer who named a unix server elvis so that when he "pinged" it, it would come back with "elvis is alive".
Those who make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities. – Voltaire Probably. Because we have been through this over and over, and you have been proven wrong over and over, so what is the use? lol
He has also posted a photo which clearly shows nothing, but he insists that it clearly shows a hole at least 90 feet wide. I want some of the dope he's smoking. hehehe
"But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo jet, then how could investigators identify 184 out of 189 dead people found at the defence headquarters?" There did seem to be a lack of bodies and debris around the Pentagon crash site. Also after many people began to question what really went on there as there was little evidence a jet with passengers slammed into the building, that letter began to circulate around the net, supposedly by an ex-military, home- schooling psychiatrist (I guess the purpose of all that information in the first paragraph was to let us know this was a very trustworthy individual) living in New Orleans, who made the claim that he had inside information that no Arab bodies were found on that plane! Right off I knew it was a red herring, to make people think indeed there were bodies when in fact there weren't any on the Pentagon grounds at all. I believe the Pentagon was hit by a missle of some kind, not by a jet full of people. If there were people on the flight, if that plane indeed took off, then the passengers were brought elsewhere and killed.
Great post. Such thugs have a street gang/mafia mentality with a little more intellect, that's about the only difference, though they are much more dangerous on a wider scale.
Actually there are probably many others, but they dare not speak out as they value their lives and those of their families. And as if you could know such a thing, like you know what every single demolition expert in the world thinks.
Why are you bothering to post?
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Good point.
This widow had a grown-up daughter; Who had hair of red; My father fell in love with her; And soon the two were wed
I have on more than one occasion in my construction experience seen the results of fire in structures. One was in the bleach plant part of a paper mill. One of the washers (made of fiberglass) caught on fire, and a line carrying 50% chlorine (also made of fiberglass) broke - making it nearly impossible to attempt to fight the fire. In fact several workers were hospitalized from being caught in the fumes of the chlorine. The decision was made to allow the fire to burn itself out. The fire spread to the other washers, and in total burned for over 3 hours. When the crew I was on went in to repair the damage, I was amazed at the damage. The horizontal beams above the fire had buckled downward probably 4 feet in the center. HOWEVER, as they buckled THEY ALSO STRETCHED. The vertical columns they were attached to barely even pulled out of plumb, and were a long way from total failure. The building DID NOT COLLAPSE, and even though the floors above the fire had apparently lost most of their horizontal support, they did not even attempt to collapse down into the lower floors... Heat rises. Fires spread upward much more readily than downward. In the case of the towers there was a great deal more building BELOW the impact/fire zone than above it. According to the laws of inertia, a body at rest tends to remain at rest. This is why in a traffic pile-up on an icy road the chain-reaction of a vehicle impacting the one in front of it driving it into the next one etc dies out. With each impact, some energy is absorbed causing each link in the chain to have less force than the one that hit it. This phenomena would have applied in a pancake collapse, as not every beam and column in every floor below the impact site was compromised. Each floor was designed to be able to carry the weight of everything above it. While a "dropping" of the weight above it may cause a failure of that floor, that floor would at least absorb some of the energy causing the next impact to have less velocity which would result in the next impact being able to absorb even more of the energy. The added weight would be much less a factor than velocity as the next floor was already designed for the weight. With the pancaking effect losing some of it's momentum every 12 feet or so, and having to travel over 800 feet, it would die out long before hitting the ground - or at the very least take more time than near free-fall speed which WAS the case of each of the 9/11 collapses. The point is that as thin and weak as aluminum is compared to steel (try tromping that soup can and see how much you collapse it), when you are talking about compression ( And by the way, the proper term is compression, not compaction - you're right, my bad) you're talking about numbers which make tensile strength numbers pale by comparison. Then when you're talking about that steel thickness being measured in inches as opposed to thousandths of inches, those numbers go up exponentially... Curious, just WHAT is your area of "expertise"????? How many structures have you designed from scratch????? How much concrete have you mixed and poured????? How many structures have you erected????? How many welds have you made????? How many fire-damaged buildings have you been involved in the repair of????? How many steel cutting devices have you used, and how much have you used them????? I work with steel everyday, and I have done each of these things enough to be competent at it..... Common sense is very uncommon. Common sense is in spite of, not as a result of education. Common sense is instinct, and enough is genius. Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he need more of it than he already has. Common sense is the knack of seeing things as they are, and doing things as they ought to be done. - Rudyard Kipling
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Just curious, Critter and SKYDRIFTER ... Do you think your assertion is helping the credibility of this forum? What's do you think the width of the hole in the outer wall of the Pentagon seen in the center of this image is? Do you know how far apart the windows were? And that is to the left of the central impact hole (the one everyone agrees is 16-19 feet in diameter). What do you think is the width of the hole to the right of the central hole as seen in this picture? What do you think the spacing of the columns was? How can you guys maintain the assertion that the hole produced by the impact was only 20 feet wide when faced with images like this? When the structure looked like this before the attack: Perhaps the best explanation is simply this: Rather than a conspiracy of ten thousand.
You'd expect bodies on the outside of the Pentagon if the fuselage penetrated the outer wall? And there was plenty of debris around the pentagon ... at least enough to account for the portions of the plane that wouldn't have fit in the hole noted above. You want to see a photo of some of that debris? What kind of missile would make a hole like the pictures indicate? Did it have extra long wings to knock down light poles spaced more than a 100 feet apart? Were the wings made of unobtainium so they could penetrate the blast hardened concrete wall? Was it painted to look like an American Airlines jet and shaped to confuse the many eyewitnesses who said they saw a large AA commercial jet? Just curious.
So the plane kind of melted into the building? Did the bodies melt into the building too do you know? In that first picture, is the main impact hole suppose the be above the white car with the "possible aircraft debris" around it, that is suppose to be the main impact hole?! I'm really curious about this.
As per your image, don't you find it a bit odd that the aircraft was just about rolling as a landed plane when it struck the Pentagon, at what, 500 mph or so? Do you believe an amature pilot with no actual experience flying a large airliner could bring a large airliner down so low at such a high speed, while keeping the pitch of the plane at 0 degrees? And don't forget, he didn't even touch the ground with the engines.
Yes, the guy in Germany who for some reason no longer wants to talk to the conspiracy crowd. And do you know he also said the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 looked NOTHING like controlled demolitions? What do you think about that? Gee, what makes forensic pathologists such brave people. In the Ron Brown case half a dozen came forward to blow the whistle on the coverup of what might have been a mass murder (30+ people) and one involving a US Secretary of Commerce. And they did it despite REAL gag orders, threats of prosecution by the Clinton administration, and threats to their jobs (which several lost as a result). Yet they came forward. What makes the tens of thousand of structural engineers, demolition experts, experts in fire and steel and impact and seismology, and experts in macro-world physicists around the world so chicken in comparison? Hmmmmmm? I know what these ones think:
That hole looks too clean, where are the wings, it seems there would be more smoke and damage to the sides of that main impact hole. I've never seen any evidence of wings, not pictures of wing wreckage unless they miraculously melted into the building (along with the passengers) without even causing smudging to either side of that clean main impact hole. And that one photo of the piece of wreckage is the only one I've ever seen, there appears to be a lack of pictures of the Pentagon wreckage scene of the grounds, just that one you show, I've never seen any others.
Also those vehicles in the first picture near the impact hole are in remarkably good shape considering a jet just slammed into the building a short distance away from them. You'd think force from the impact would have at least hurled them away.
Again, close-in pictures suggest the widest "hole" as around 17 feet - granted the facial damage is much wider; still lacking any viable suggestion of forward- moving damage. To the right of the supposed entry hole, the damage is lateral - in the wrong direction, relative to the supposed and angled "sweep" of the wings. To the left of the hole, the damage extrudes (rebar) from the building. Given the small size of the only possible "penetration" hole, there is no viable suggestion of penetrating "wing" damage, on either side of the purported entry hole. OR; if one wants to assert that the wings folded - the damage to the collapsed steel reinforced concrete columns is totally impossible. The impotence of BAC's slime attempts to survive, against all odds. That's why they call his kind "queer." "Get Back, BeOcho; go home. Whooo Goldi!"
So the plane kind of melted into the building? Did the bodies melt into the building too do you know? In that first picture, is the main impact hole suppose the be above the white car with the "possible aircraft debris" around it, that is suppose to be the main impact hole?! I'm really curious about this. Diana, If one must insist that a 757 was involved, there is no possible way for the damage to initiate below the second floor; given aerodynamic "ground effect" and the obstructions in front of the building. With the columns broken laterally at their base, the idea of a wing doing the damage is tragically laughable. As to the bodies, Slurpy's pals would have us believe that the temperature melted the airdraft, but the DNA survived. That means that wherever the actural bodies ended up, they had to be butchered, to provide the DNA. (YUK!) "Slurpy" is getting desperate.
Well that would have to make you an expert in comparison to the tens of thousands of structural engineers who have studied years on topics like fire and structures, and the thousands who every day work directly on the analysis and design of structures to resist fire. What do they know ... (sarcasm) And what do they know about impact phenomena ... (sarcasm) But I have question for you. If the mass in 20 stories (that above the first floor that failed), dropping one floor, could cause the next undamaged floor to fail ... why wouldn't the material in 21 floors (that above the first failed floor plus the material in that floor), dropping one floor (to the next unfailed floor), do the same thing? Just because some energy was absorbed in the first impact, doesn't mean the energy available for the second impact is smaller. In fact, it is now the energy of 21 floors of mass dropping a floor. Plus whatever energy was left over after collapsing the first floor. Why is this so hard to understand when you are such an expert? ROTFLOL! Not when you are talking about steel. The tensile and compressive strength of steel is generally about the same. Didn't you know this? Don't believe me? Here: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99164.htm "Steel is more or less a linear elastic material. Unlike concrete, which is much weaker in tension than in compression, steel theoretically responds the same way in either tension or compression." But materials under compression can buckle, which may prevent them from realizing their full compressive strength. Steel is particularly vulnerable to this. Steel in compression can also fail at lower loads due to shear failure. Well I think based on your responses so far, I can tell what your's isn't. And yet you still think steel in stronger in compression than tension? ROTFLOL!
The credibility of this forum is TOTALLY dependent upon positions such as mine - whether you approve, or not, BAC. You're kind supports American War Crimes, period, end of sentence. You and Goldi still have a lot in common. Your preferred eyewitnesses all lack corroborating evidence - there's the TRUTH! Deal with it!
BAC makes a better site kook than Ponchy, but do you think he is better than buckeroo?
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Not melt, Diana ... deform and then penetrate. The mass in the plane is traveling at hundreds of miles an hour. It has a LOT of kinetic energy. When it impacts, the plane and its contents begin to compress and slow down. As that happens, the energy is transfered to the body it hits. If the impact is fast enough with enough mass, the body will deform and fail. That is what happened to the outer wall of the Pentagon. And note that large sections of the wings contained a lot of fuel giving them enough mass to penetrate the outer wall. But this didn't stop all forward movement of the plane and its contents. It continued on into the building (now carrying with it the remains of the outer wall) and did the same thing to the interior structural elements (columns, walls, floors). The destruction of these additional elements gradually slowed down and stopped the combined mass. You will note that the damage done in the interior has a cone shape. This is because the mass behind a unit of wing area is not as great at the combined mass of fuselage and contents behind a unit of nose area. The more mass, the farther the penetration. Next you add in the fire that was initiated by the fuel that the plane was carrying. Much of this fuel was also carried into the build where it initiated a conflagration which also used the contents of the building and even the structures themselves (such as the plane's aluminum) as fuel. Fire damage to concrete columns in the Pentagon indicate temperatures were at over 1700 F. http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html Not a lot is going to survive that fire. Some certainly were incinerated by this fire (what would you expect) but they did find remains from many passengers. For example: ********** http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm " Pentagon searchers encounter grisly scenes By Andrea Stone, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — On Tuesday, Army Staff Sgt. Mark Williams witnessed a combat zone for the first time in his 11 years of service. He never imagined it would be inside the Pentagon. One of the first recovery personnel to enter the crippled headquarters building after a hijacked Boeing 757 smashed into it, the urban search-and-rescue specialist found a gruesome sight. "If anyone has ever burned a pot roast, they'll know what the victims looked like," Williams, 30, said Thursday after another 12-hour shift of searching for 190 bodies — those of 126 missing Pentagon personnel and the 64 aboard the doomed jetliner. The fireball occurred when the jetliner's full fuel tank exploded on impact and roared down corridors so fast that "90% didn't know what happened to them," he said. Many were sitting at their desks or behind partitions. One woman was found frozen in a sitting position, her arms posed as if reading a document. Several bodies were found huddled in groups near televisions. Pentagon workers were apparently watching the carnage taking place at the World Trade Center when the hellish scene on TV became reality for them, too. When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him. "It was the worst thing you can imagine," said Williams, whose squad from Fort Belvoir, Va., entered the building, less than four hours after the terrorist attack. "I wanted to cry from the minute I walked in. But I have soldiers under me and I had to put my feelings aside." ... snip ... ************ No. That is a winged shaped hole to the left of a more circular central impact hole. If you look above the SUV in the smoke, you will see the location of the central impact hole where the fuselage went into the building. This image has that region circled:
You'd think force from the impact would have at least hurled them away. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=134938 The story of the vehicles is interesting.The photos are in chronological order, the top photo being the earliest photographed. Below is a picture of Jeep Grand Cherokee,likely a 1999 model. This photo is from before the collapse at the Pentagon. Later, the same Grand Cherokee is photographed with the fire almost completely contained. Below is a later photograph of the same Jeep Grand Cherokee.
More images of the Jeep Grand Cherokee
I am curious as to why the firefighters allowed this Jeep to catch fire and burn and turn into this.
Nice try in ignoring the question I posted to you in post 99. Let's try this again.. As per your image, don't you find it a bit odd that the aircraft was just about rolling as a landed plane when it struck the Pentagon, at what, 500 mph or so? Do you believe an amateur pilot with no actual experience flying a large airliner could bring a large airliner down so low at such a high speed, while keeping the pitch of the plane at 0 degrees? And don't forget, he didn't even touch the ground with the engines.
when I look at the pictures of the hole it just seems like the hole is not wide enough for a Boeing 757. you must have special 'expert' glasses.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Here's a link to a high resolution photo of the Jeep Grand Cherokee prior to the collapse of the wall.It's to the left of the fire truck.
This photo is interesting.It is after the first firefighters arrived and after the collapse of the wall. Where did the firefighters and fire trucks go? The fire looks nearly out.
It wasn't rolling about, since the landing gear were up (according to eyewitnesses). And no, I don't find it odd that the plane is flying level near the ground at that point. If one were trying to hit a building like the pentagon, the best way would probably be to line up on it and try to strike it near horizontal. A steep descent would be even harder to manage and control the impact point. Plus, there are physics that actually make it difficult to set a plane down when it is flying low. Why do you think that over a hundred thousand commerical airline pilots (in the US alone) haven't expressed any concern about this? And neither have hundreds of thousands of more pilots in other categories. One would think if this maneuver were as impossible as some folks want you to believe, they could get more than 25 (and that includes a sail plane pilot, by the way) to say so. Actually, an engine does appear to have hit the fence surrounding and a vehicle in the construction yard that was in the flight path.
Plus, there are physics that actually make it difficult to set a plane down when it is flying low. If the landing gear WERE down, it WOULD have been landed, wouldn't it?
Terrorists Were Well Trained, But Not Necessarily in Flying By James Glanz Excerpt Whether the terrorists deliberately chose large jets and counted on the fire damage cannot be determined. But John Nance, an airline pilot, author and aviation analyst, said the direct hits on the two towers and on the Pentagon suggested to him that the pilots were experienced fliers. The smooth banking of the second plane to strike the towers supports this point of view, Mr. Nance said. He added that precisely controlling a large jet near the ground, necessary for the Pentagon attack, also required advanced skill. “There’s no way an amateur could have, with any degree of reliability, done what was done yesterday,” Mr. Nance said.
A) Apparently many don't know exactly how the airliner hit the Pentagon, assuming that it had made a nose dive and hit it, as per at least one of your experts that commented on the topic. B) At least a few out of those hundred thousand you mention HAVE voiced concerns over the matter.
There were no gouges in the lawn, where the engines were just several feet off the ground while the 757 swept in for the impact, correct?
I am voicing concern.Pilots I fly with are voicing concern. How many commerical airline pilots do you know?
Really? Which vehicle, and which fence? Hitting something at 500 mph or so, don't you think pieces of the engine would have come off, and the plane would have leaked fuel from that point on? Don't you think impacting an object with an engine would have thrown the airliner off course, and/or caused a dip of the wing?
CHIRP, CHIRP, CHIRP.. Those crickets are awfully easy to hear for some reason.
nice grass
Those who make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities. – Voltaire The wall didn't fail in a bending failure. It sheared as a result of a high speed impact. And the edged of that hole hardly looks clean if you look closely. And look at the hole on the other side of the central hole. You wouldn't call that clean, would you? Much of the left wing went through that hole into the building. Same is true of the hole on the other side. The portion that penetrated it is the portion of the wing that had a fuel bladder and thus lots of mass behind it. The portion of the wing that did not have enough mass, shattered and that is what led to there being metal debris all over the area in the photo I posted to you. If you examine photos like those I've supplied here and others that I've posted at LP, you will see damage to the facade where wing (with not fuel bladder) hit the structure and shattered. Why? Do you know when the photo was taken? Do you know what firefighting had already occurred? And what was there to burn that hadn't already burned by that time? Not sure what you mean by this. A 90+ foot wide hole is pretty big if you ask me. Did you expect the debris to still look like a wing after impacting a blast hardened wall at 500 miles per hour? Well I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume by "main impact hole" you now mean the roughly circular central hole plus the wing shaped holes in the wall on extending out some 30-35 feet on both sides of that hole. Beyond that, there is damage to the facade where it appears the wing tips would have hit. Here, look carefully at this photo: More than "smudging" was done to that surface. You can't be serious. Dozens of photos of debris have been posted dozens of times at LP. If you haven't seen them, then perhaps you should ask yourself why your resident *experts* on the Pentagon case have failed to post them here at FD4UM. Here, just for you ... a sampling: " src="http://www.pentagonresearch.com/images/324.jpg"> http://www.911-strike.com/engines.htm Beyond that, I can't help you any further, Diana. If you won't accept that the debris in those pictures came from commercial jet then you must think that a host of men in black suits descended on the site immediately after the impact and scattered all the debris you see in these pictures. Or the C130 dropped them, like SKYDRIFTER once suggested. It really would do you good to look at this: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21568_The_Pentagon_Attack_Simulation&only
It's the new, magic, PentaLawn.
It's the new, magic, PentaLawn. Catchy. Seriously, someone should market grass seed with that name.
Those who make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities. – Voltaire Not that short of distance. Remember, there is foreshortening in the photo which makes things farther away look closer together. Here's a better look: Cars are pretty heavy. And most of the energy of the explosion wasn't directed at the car. Note the vehicle is burning. Tell me Diana ... why is it so important that everything about 9/11 be a conspiracy? I can understand wanting answers to many questions ... particularly those surrounding how the hijackers managed to get away with it and why no one lost their job over this. But why is it necessary that the US government have launched a missile at the Pentagon and put bombs in WTC buildings as part of this event? Is there some unconscious need to make not just our leaders bad guys but thousands of ordinary Americans who clearly must be hiding this conspiracy from you if what you believe is true? I'm really curious about this.
That was all that I could bring to this beat to death thread.
Well obviously, the firemen were card carrying members of the *conspiracy*. ROTFLOL!
Red, I'm not here to convince you of anything. A guy who once claimed he graduated summa cum laude from one of the 10 top engineering schools in america needs no convincing. He just KNOWS there were 60+ pools of molten steel at the lowest level of the WTC towers and that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon.
Isn't it obvious, honway? They were out back relighting the fires. Those evil firemen.
Gee ... is that the opinion of 1 out of 100,000 commercial aviation pilots in America? Is he still a commercial aviation pilot? Otherwise it might be 1 out of 600,000 pilots. And goodness, you forgot to mention that he's also a lawyer. And he's written 17 books. Why he's almost a cottage industry unto himself: http://www.johnjnance.com/moreabout/moreabout.htm In fact, he is. It's called "John Nance Productions". But wait, this is what John Nance must think about the WOT as he posted this on his own website: http://www.johnjnance.com/aviation/dr.kern.htm Do you agree with him, honway? Tell you what folks, if you write him here: mailto:talktojohnnance@johnjnance.com, I'm sure he will be glad to tell you what he thinks about your theories. ROTFLOL!
Do we know your real name?
Finally, an interesting post on this fucked up thread. There's so much shilling going on here, Chrissy might have to change the web address to Freedom4um.gov.
The one that's burning on the right side of this image: This one:
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight77/building/pchrlongspray.jpg Above is a link to a high resolution copy of the image below
bump it pathetic, waste of bandwidth, bump
I have seen how you and your kind operate. Kevin Ryan lost his job at Underwriters Laboratories for questioning the government's conspiracy theory. Dr. Stephen Jones lost his job at BYU for questioning the government's theory. The military tried to put Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer in prison for his decision to speak up concerning Able Danger. If providing my name would move the investigation forward in a significant way,I would be happy to do it.But to give low lifes like you another way to try to silence people questioning the government's conspiracy theory would not be prudent.
Why do you think that over a hundred thousand commerical airline pilots (in the US alone) haven't expressed any concern about this? And neither have hundreds of thousands of more pilots in other categories. One would think if this maneuver were as impossible as some folks want you to believe, they could get more than 25 (and that includes a sail plane pilot, by the way) to say so. Sure makes me look good, doesn't it? Looky HERE: Notice that none of those same quantity that you cite criticize a word of what I present! "Get back, BeOcho!"
The only way - discounting the role of "ground effect" - that an engine could hit the fence would be for a wing tip to have dug into the ground. You lying piece of shit, BAC! {Don't you just miss Goldi? I think you two had a "thing." Are you her agent provocateur - pretending to be in exile? You don't say much about her.}
Must have been some pilot, with his ability to manuever a 757 into a landing approach at 500 mph with his nose straight and level, right engine smacking a fence and a vehicle, while keeping the wings from tipping and the aircraft in control, while descending further down still to an altitude where if he would have sneezed the engines would have scooped up sod from the PentaLawn. All that, PLUS being able to hit the bottom story of the Pentagon with his nose straight and level, careening through the Pentagon like a bullet. Amazing skill for ANYONE, let alone a rookie that never flew a large aircraft before, and couldn't even land a single engine propeller driven plane correctly.
Probably for the same you reason you are. If not, then why are you bothering to post? :)
God is always good! BAC must be assembling some more massive material, trying to induce sensory overload. It's not like him to go away, so abruptly. I don't buy his being banned by Goldi. She's got a mean streak, but it's purely political - BAC could never qualify. the ElPee stats are too low as it is. Without his stimulation of controversy; ElPee is pushing the history books. With total verbal license, his non-attack of me on a personal level is a function of "mission." He didn't decide to be 'nice,' out of any manner of integrity.
Amazing skill for ANYONE, let alone a rookie that never flew a large aircraft before, and couldn't even land a single engine propeller driven plane correctly. The indistructible grass for your lawn is PENTALAWN! It's catching on...
Those who make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities. – Voltaire BAC must be assembling some more massive material, trying to induce sensory overload. It's not like him to go away, so abruptly. There's certain key points that he backs away from, and this is one of them. When a impossible condition is introduced, he backs off. I don't buy his being banned by Goldi. She's got a mean streak, but it's purely political - BAC could never qualify. the ElPee stats are too low as it is. Without his stimulation of controversy; ElPee is pushing the history books. He effectively sought out his banning. He knew which buttons to push, that Goldi, or any other moderator, just couldn't overlook. But on top of that, he sought her out on a topic just about anyone knows is her pet peeve, and that is illegal immigration. With total verbal license, his non-attack of me on a personal level is a function of "mission." He didn't decide to be 'nice,' out of any manner of integrity. He's been quite a bit nicer than usual it appears, since he knows he's skating on thin ice here. It's not even as much fun smacking him around, since he's not pinging Goldi every time he gets backed into a corner. No more crying to mommy for BeAChooser, time for him to grow up..
That's why they needed to bury it in sand, because they didn't want people getting a sample and growing it themselves.. :)
BAC's up to no good. There's no doubt about that. BUT, he does liven up the 4-um; ya gotta give the limp-wristed slime bag that much. His role as a fraud continues. As an "agent," he's too transparent to be useful - thank God! So, what's on his mind, in his attempt to draw off intellectual energy? The "Israeli" lead-in clues to the Iran attack?
that's the most logical explanation. thanks.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Goldi is not rational, she doesn't think about the long-term consequences of her actions. She posts, thinks, and makes decisions based on her current mood. BAC really doesn't help the government's theory out despite his best efforts. If anything, he exposes how utterly weak the government's theory really is.
God is always good! I'm kinda curious about this picture too. I see a label on it that supposedly shows the "left wing impact area". And this marked area has 4 Pentagon windows still intact... OH, my bad.... Of course, everyone knows that bad-ass glass in the Pentagon shattered the engine mounted on that wing into microfragments......
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Funny thing... I told my wife as we watched Tower 2 get hit by the aircraft live that morning "That doesn't make sense.. Why didn't they swoop down and hit the thing lower?? They might have been able to make it come down completely if they'd have hit it lower!!! Well, sprinklers are going off, and it's gonna be tore up, but it can be rebuilt..... I gotta get to work. C Ya later" Yep. Those were some helluva pilots that hijacked them planes alright.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Because the whole thing is preposterous. It was a "conspiracy", whoever was behind it, even if it was the hijackers who were IDed so shortly after it happened, with a few of them still being alive and living in other countries outraged that their names had been slandered in such a way. A lot of it just makes no sense And it's downright ridiculous, that Osama bin Laden who was supposedly hanging out with Jihadists in Afganistan masterminded the whole thing. It was never explained HOW he masterminded it, or HOW it could have been masterminded in any detail, most probably to keep any information pertaining to that from getting out and making it easier for people to solve the puzzle. And I never said it was the US GOVT who was behind the attacks, I don't know who it was as there is no proof. However I highly doubt Osama and those guys who were IDed so quickly had anything to do with it, and then there was that whole strange tale of Mohammad Atta, including his singed passport found having miraculously floated to a nearby street of the WTC buildings, and all the other ludicrous aspects of the whole thing. But don't put words in my mouth saying I said the US government did it, I never said that, I've always maintained no one really knows except those who were involved. Find where I said the US govt put bombs in the WTC, I want evidence of my having said that as you are claming. Don't put this Bad American label on me just because I ask questions. Is it unpatriotic now to ask questions? You seem to think so.
Dr. Stephen Jones lost his job at BYU for questioning the government's theory. The military tried to put Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer in prison for his decision to speak up concerning Able Danger. Well, we used to have freedom of speech in this country, but look what happens to those who try to excercise it when it comes to 9-11. I guess that's why it's become difficult to find a whole lot of structural engineers to speak out on some questionable aspects, they don't want to lose their jobs or their lives. Now what does that tell you?
I discovered that when he refused to address the NORAD stand down...
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
THEORETICALLY... However, with enough applied force, steel and other metals will cease to behave elastically and begin to behave plastically. When a material is linearly elastic, its deformation, or strain, will be directly proportional to the applied force and it will return to its original shape when the force is removed. A plastic material, on the other hand, will permanently deform without breaking (think of taffy or perhaps the stringiness of melted mozzarella cheese on a pizza). In real life, of course, there is no such thing as a perfectly elastic or plastic material. In the case of steel, structural engineers are concerned about the tensile strength in terms of both the ultimate strength and the yield strength. When a specimen reaches its yield strength, it will begin to stretch and transition from elastic to plastic behavior. As more force is applied, the steel will reach its ultimate tensile strength and break. Structural engineers take advantage of this property in their designs. In an extreme event, such as an earthquake or major structural failure, this plastic phase is useful because it allows the structure to sag and absorb extra loads. From your link... Of course, it mentions immediately in the second paragraph 'real life' - something which theory sometimes just doesn't answer. Hey - there's tens of thousands of doctors working hard everyday to cure cancer, but so far all they have is a treatment program with a 70% failure rate. Just because someone has a label of "expert" doesn't mean they're competent. And if you don't believe that go ask any one of the 7 million in American jails how competent their lawyer was (whether they were guilty or not)... BTW, did you know that we are now the largest "imprisoner" of people in the history of the world???? Land of the free you know.... Not that it has shit to do with this thread. Well I think based on your responses so far, I can tell what your's isn't. You still haven't answered the question, nor the NORAD standdown.... At this point in the debate a personal attack just makes you look like a dumbass grasping at straws. The only responses I've given so far is what I've learned through experience, NOT what I've been told by others. EVERYTHING is stronger in compression than in tension - even air. Well that is if you're looking at fact rather than theory... I see steel everyday in my welding shop that gets pulled in two by extreme forces. Invariably, it gives first on the "pull" or tension side of the strain (which may then tear apart) as opposed to the "crush" or compression side (which may happen as a result of giving first on the tension side)... Don't believe it???? Take 2 pairs of pliers and bend a piece of wire in as sharp of a 90% angle as you possibly can. Observe the effect. Did the inside radius of the bend "compress" OR did the outside radius of the bend stretch?????? That is life experience, and knowing what happens because you've witnessed it yourself. NOT relying on heresay bullshit or what it "should do in theory". OH, and yes, even though there is added mass in the pancake collapse theory with each new floor adding it's mass to the aggregate, the resistance force of the next floor would slow it down... Bottom line, even at 15 seconds (which is a stretch) there had to be practically no resistance from the lower 2/3 of the tower when unopposed (except for air) freefall speed would have been in the 11 second range for that distance.....
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
BAC is so out numbered here at 4UM. It is like a giant pile on. He was crying about credibility at LP, now he is doing the same here. Remember in grade school if there was a large and long patch of ice, and everyone was sliding on it. Someone would fall and 30 kids would just pile on the one that fell. BAC is the one at the bottom. He is screaming and gasping for air. Its agonizing torture.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
I wanted to put this all to rest so I contacted Tim Osman (Osama Yo Mamma) and asked him how he had NORAD stand down on 9-11. He admitted that he had help from the Pope, Ariel Sharon, George Bush and Alfred E. Newman. [He then told me to make note that he wasn't able to get much help from fellow muslims and was forced to rely upon some 200 Israeli agents of the MOSSAD and a hand full of rogue arabs that had worked for George H.W. Bush and Clinton at OKC and WTC I]. Seriously, the question of finding eyewitnesses and proof of exactly how the buildings were demolished or damaged is superceded by determination of how Atta's passport survived and our "rights" have been annulled ! No one asks David Copperfield how he made the Empire State Building disappear do they ? Osama says "Amerikans should be more concerned with where their rights disappeared to, and forget about the Jewish lightening (arson) that occurred at the World Trade Center". The U.S. Government today looks like a convention of Babylonian Priests of Baal consisting of people that call themselves Jews, Masonics and Papists (MOSSAD / CIA /MI-6 / Sanhedrin and Jesuits P-2 Lodge). Tim (Osama) sends his regards and wants everyone to know that he and Tim McVeigh are enjoying the margaritas and their stay in Paraguay. Allah Akbar, (hic) !
“The First Highest Masonic Council was, as we have already said, formed on 31st May 1801 in Charleston, 33 degrees northern latitude, under the chairmanship of the Jew Isaac Long, who was made inspector general by the Jew Moses Cohen, and who had received his degree from Hyes, from Franken, and the Jew Morin.”
I'm curious about something else. A friend told me that in the OT it says it's a sin to talk of conspiracies. Do you know what that means, and what they mean by conspiracy? Okey, I just got my Webster's dictionary out to look up the proper meaning of conspiracy. 1 a planning and acting together secretly, esp for a harmful or unlawful purpose, such as murder or treason 2 the plan agreed on; plot 3 the group taking part in such a plan 4 the combining or working together Okey so here we have the definition of conspiracy. Can you enlighten us as to what the OT says about not speaking of conspiracies? I would be very interested in knowing what that is about. Is it because if you do, there is a chance bad men who are part of the conspiracy may come out of the woodwork to kill you to shut you up? I'm really curious about this.
I wonder why he does not want to address the NORAD stand down. I'd like to know about that too.
LMFAO!
"We are Americans. This is our country. He, who would take it from us, by force or by stealth, is our enemy. And it is our purpose -- nay, it is our duty, to our children and to their children and to our yet unborn posterity -- to use all feasible means to destroy him." Dr. Revilo P. Oliver
No, he lost his job for publishing his wacky conspiracy theory and outright lies on official UL stationary. Even you must know that's a big no, no, honway. No, he lost his job for spending more time on his wacky conspiracy theory than on what he was hired to do. Besides, even he says he just retired to do other things. He hasn't said he was forced out. You are alleging a mass murder of over 3000 people and that you specific expertise in this matter, honway. Surely, if you are as convinced of this as you would have us think, your conscience wouldn't let you remain silent any longer. You know as well as I that there is power in numbers. You could join those 25 (or so) pilots in that PilotsForTruth organization who have already come forward. Anything bad happen to them?
But, robin, the plane didn't hit the lawn. So you've no proof the lawn is indestructible.
Those were blast hardened windows. So why would you expect them to break when nothing hit them but blast? Or is this just another thing you didn't know?
But why the need to insist on
bombs in the towers and no Flight 77? Doing so widens the conspiracy by orders
of magnitude. Now it's not just the hijackers and top people in the US who let
their plot move forward (deliberately or through incompetence). Now you have to
assert that hundreds of firemen and rescue workers; hundreds of eyewitnesses;
thousands and thousands of structural engineers and other experts in demolition,
steel, fire, seismology and physics; scores of media people; hundreds in our
military, and hundreds in the government bureaucracy (and I've undoubtedly left
off many others from this list) knowingly participated or are knowingly covering
up the crime of the millennium. Doing so doesn't strengthen your case for
getting the reasonable questions resolved. It weakens it.
True or not, why is it essential that bombs in the towers
and no Flight 77 be part of the theory? How could it
not be if there were bombs in the towers and Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon?
How could it not be if the allegation is that government organizations like
NIST, the military, etc are knowingly covering up the crime of the millennia?
************* http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html
The story... The passport of one of the hijackers was found at
the WTC. It's clearly impossible for any personal effects to survive the impact
and explosion, therefore it must have been planted. Our take...
Our first reaction is why would they bother? What does it add to the story?
There was no need to “plant passports”. We’ve never seen anyone say “they must
have been on the planes because look, the NYPD found that passport”. It’s
completely unnecessary, and is only ever used as evidence of an “inside job”.
But could the passport have escaped destruction? Explosions are
unpredictable things, it’s surprising what can survive, and there are accounts
of personal effects being retrieved from other passengers. Here’s one from
Flight 175. ----------- Orange County, CA., Sept. 11 - Lisa Anne
Frost was 22 and had just graduated from Boston University in May 2001 with two
degrees and multiple academic and service honors. She had worked all summer in
Boston before coming home, finally, to California to start her new life. The
Rancho Santa Margarita woman was on United Flight 175 on the morning of Sept.
11, 2001, when it became the second plane to slam into the World Trade Center...
Her parents, Tom and Melanie Frost, have spent two years knowing they will
never understand why. A few days before the first anniversary of our
daughter's murder, we were notified that they had found a piece of her in the
piles and piles of gritty rubble of the World Trade Center that had been hauled
out to Staten Island. It was Lisa's way, we believe, of telling us she wasn't
lost. In February, the day of the Columbia tragedy, we got word they'd found
her United Airlines Mileage Plus card. It was found very near where they'd found
a piece of her right hip. We imagine that she used the card early on the morning
of Sept. 11 to get on the plane and just stuck it in her back pocket, probably
her right back pocket, instead of in her purse. They have found no other
personal effects. ------------------------------ It’s a card rather than paper, and wasn’t
ejected from the building, but this does demonstrate that not everything was
incinerated. And it’s not alone. There are similar reports from the other crash
scenes, including a drivers licence and luggage tag recovered from Flight 77 and
even more from Flight 93. ------------------------------ United
Airlines Flight 93 slammed into the earth Sept. 11 near Shanksville, Somerset
County, at more than 500 mph, with a ferocity that disintegrated metal, bone and
flesh. It took more than three months to identify the remains of the 40
passengers and crew, and, by process of elimination, the four hijackers...
But searchers also gathered surprisingly intact mementos of lives lost.
Those items, such as a wedding ring and other jewelry, photos, credit cards,
purses and their contents, shoes, a wallet and currency, are among seven boxes
of identified personal effects salvaged from the site.
-------------------------------- There’s some support for the idea from
other crash sites, then, but of course surviving the initial impact is only one
problem. Others ask how could one passport be recovered so quickly from the
rubble of the trade centre collapses? Fortunately the answer is a simple one. It
wasn’t. Here’s the official account of what happened.
---------------------------------- The passport was recovered by NYPD
Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years
old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from
WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly afterwards. The detective then gave the
passport to the FBI on 9/11. ----------------------------------- The suggestion here is that the
passport was found amongst the debris on the street.
----------------------------------- On the ground, they saw an odd shape.
Reiss looked closer: It was the nose gear of an airplane..." A part of the
landing gear landed five blocks south ------------------------------------ After the
first crash, the debris, plane parts and body parts were all over the
area. ------------------------------------- This photo is particularly
interesting. Flight 11
Seat Cushion Medium As you can see, there’s debris on the ground, but not piles of
it. A passport would stand out. Better still is the caption of the photo on
its
original page: “On Albany Street, two blocks south of WTC 2, Two men examine
a seat cushion from AA Flight 11. 8:52 a.m”. A cushion, from Flight 11? An
eminently flammable object that was passed through the building, still
recognisable, rather than burned to ashes? Plainly we can’t prove the caption is
correct, although it would explain why two passer-bys have stopped to look (an
ordinary cushion from the building probably isn’t going to attract the same
attention). Meanwhile another story in the New York Times said at least two
items of mail on the 9/11 planes were recovered:
---------------------------------- On Oct. 12, it arrived inside a second
envelope at Mrs. Snyder's modest white house on Main Street here, and the
instant she took it out and saw it, she says, ''chills just went over me.'' It
was singed and crumpled. A chunk was ripped out, giving the bottom of the
envelope she had sent the look of a jagged skyline. Mrs. Snyder's lyrical script
had blurred into the scorched paper. The stamp, depicting a World War II sailor
embracing a woman welcoming him home, was intact. Along with the letter was
a note: ''To whom it may concern. This was found floating around the street in
downtown New York. I am sorry if you suffered any loss in this tragedy.
Sincerely, a friend in New York!'' Since then, Mrs. Snyder, a customer
service representative at a grocery store, has discovered that she has one of
only two pieces of mail known to have been recovered from the planes that
crashed into the World Trade Center. At least one auction house has contacted
her, saying she could sell the letter for tens of thousands of dollars.
One
Letter's Odyssey Helps Mend a Wound ------------------------------- What else was on the street, and why
couldn’t a passport have made it intact? If you’re still not sure,
preferring to go with intution and say survival was impossible, then consider
this story from the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster. The craft broke up on
re-entry, 40 miles about the earth, and debris fell over a wide area. Amongst
this was one of the experiments involving tiny worms.
------------------------------- The worms and moss were in the same
nine-pound locker located in the mid-deck of the space shuttle. The worms were
placed in six canisters, each holding eight petri dishes. The worms, which
are about the size of the tip of a pencil, were part of an experiment testing a
new synthetic nutrient solution. The worms, which have a life cycle of between
seven and 10 days, were four or five generations removed from the original worms
placed on Columbia in January. ------------------------------- Remarkably, not only were the canisters
retrieved, but the worms were still alive (the above link tells you more). Who
would have believed that? Not the scientist in charge of the experiment, who
said in the same story: -------------------------------- ``It's
pretty astonishing to get the possibility of data after all that has happened,''
Sack said. ``We never expected it. We expected a molten mass.''
-------------------------------- In fact if we wanted to start a “Columbia
space shuttle crash never happened” conspiracy site then that would make great
“evidence”, because it goes against what you’d expect. And there’s a great
quote, too. But then maybe intuition doesn’t tell the whole story, and more can
survive explosions than you think. *************** That's fine. Maybe there was someone other than the US
government manipulating the hijackers or tampering with the evidence after the
crash (like the passport). But why is it so seemingly important that there be
bombs in the towers and no Flight 77? You can still argue that the hijackers
didn't do it alone or without help from *someone* without making those two
assertions. I'm trying to tell you that making those assertions is making it
more difficult to get your concern about bin Laden the mastermind listened to
with an open mind. I haven't labeled ANYONE here at FD4UM. I'm sticking to
the facts. And it is a fact that bombs in the towers and no Flight 77 are not
needed to think that someone in the US government (or someone else) helped and
let the hijackers complete their mission. That's all I'm suggesting here, Diana.
I haven't mentioned the word "unpatriotic" here, Diana.
Ping to post #162, Diana. honway is misrepresenting the facts.
BAC is a poofta; not too much one can expect of him.
Is anyone else having trouble reading this thread? I just signed in and it took a long time, and then when this thread came on the text is out of the boundries, and you have to scroll far to be able to read it, which makes it difficult to read. Since I am not a computer expert I don't know what is causing this, if it's only happening to me or if it's 4um's system. Thanks.
Does this thread look right to you or do you have to scroll like crazy in order to read it?
I never said that, I don't know about that. I can't read most of your post because this thread is not working right on my end, even taking long for my posts to go through. Hopefully it will be fixed soon.
It's okay on my machine.
Now you are going to give us a lesson in plasticity? Well tell us, oh *expert*, is there a difference in the stress at which steel yields in compression versus tension? I have an idea. Why don't you tell us all about dynamic load factors. Tell us what the impact of strain rate is on ultimate limit of steel. Tell us all about buckling and its affect during compression. We are dying to hear your words of wisdom, since you apparently consider yourself more "competent" than the thousands and thousands and thousands of professionals with actual education and experience in structural engineering, demolition, steel, fire, seismology and macro-world physics who seem comfortable with the notion that impact and fire brought down the towers. I don't intend to answer your question. I'm content to rely on the expertise of the tens of thousands of professionals around the world who have designed and built the world we live in and all its marvels. Unlike you, I'm not claiming expertise. I have made no personal attack. I've simply noted that you claimed expertise about steel but didn't seem to realize that steel has the same modulus of elasticity and yield strength in compression and tension. Curious... So *book learning* is for *incompetents*? In the case of a steel column, you are wrong. Here is a challenge for you. Take a pair of identical steel rods (say 1/2 an inch in diameter and a foot long) into your local university lab. Do a tensile test on one ... till it snaps. Plot the force/deflection curve and the deflection at which it fails. Now do a compression test on your second rod. Plot the force/deflection curve and note the deflection at which the experiment goes boom. Then come back and tell us your results. But the resistance of the next floor is no greater than the previous floor's resistance. And now an even greater mass has fallen the same distance as the previous mass fell to impact the first floor. Thus, there has to be even more kinetic energy in the aggregate mass than there was in the first impact. And that's without even adding in the residual velocity (energy) from the first impact. So you are simply wrong, innieway. Once the first floor collapsed, if the upper portion of the building wasn't completely stopped by the resistance of the next intact floor, nothing on earth was going to stop the collapse before it reached the ground. You don't know what you are talking about. Which is why you can't find ANY structural engineers who agree with you.
What is the OT? I'm really curious about this.
About the only "truth" I can discover in the 'official' account of 9-11, was that two 767s hit the WTC towers. That doesn't smack of "conspiracy?" Waddaya want, Slurpy? Then your kind pushes everything short of outright lies, all day long. ("It's not a 'dog;' it's an ANIMAL!") Trust the War Criminal, Bush? His associates? That's the stuff of fools and co- conspirators, such as yourself, BAC.
I'm not having any trouble, Diana. On my computer the test is still wrapping within the normal window. Have you tried restarting your computer?
Diana, the problem was caused by BeAChooser posting a picture too big for most people's resolution. I am using 1280X1024 and I have the problem you are talking about. The long time logging in though is a completely different matter and probably has something to do with the ISP that Freedom4um is using. Others have been having similar problems.
God is always good! Your "complexity cloudwork" isn't having much of an effect, BeOcho. "If you can't blind 'em with brilliance - baffle 'em with bullshit." You're at least good in the attempt - but this isn't your 'condidtioned' elPee crowd. A simple stopwatch attests to the only possible truth - controlled demolition; you can't change that with the absolute sum of your limp-wristed rationalizations. I hear the Iranian invasion is getting close - is that the discussion/information that you're trying to dissuade, with the best remnants of your bullshit?? Goldi still loves you, BAC. (But you know that better than anyone.) "Go home, BeOcho!"
i'm not having the scroll side to side issue. what browser are you using? i'm on IE. do you have firefox? try it and see if it's the same. the load time is due to a new server and some other issues Neil is checking on. it's been an intermittent problem.
I have a 1440 x 900 display and am having no trouble, Ricky. Would you care to point out the post you say is causing the problem? Because when I post large photos, I add the statement width=731 before the final >. And I previewed each of my posts before making them and they looked fine in the default window for my browser (no adjustment of width). And apparently, others aren't having problems either. So are you sure, your and Diana's problem is my fault?
It's in Isaiah in the Old Testament somewhere in chapter 8. I think it means don't worry about the bad deeds of men and their conspriacies and such just put your faith in God, at least that's what I get out of it. I went to other threads and they are not having the problem of this one where you have to scroll 3 feet to read it.
I have IE too, but it only does it on this thread and not on any others. It's still doing it, but since it's only this thread it's no big deal. So it's happening to RickyJ too, I figured I wouldn't be the only one. I remember this happened some time ago on another thread and I think Neil said it had to do with the browser we were using, but christine if you are using IE too then who knows.
The long time logging in though is a completely different matter and probably has something to do with the ISP that Freedom4um is using. Others have been having similar problems. That could be it! Thanks for the explanation.
I am using Firefox and have the problem. I tried IE to see if that was it, and I still have the problem. Here is what my screen looks like on IE: I also have the scrolling problem that Diana was talking about on Firefox, but not that line going down the page like on IE. The problem appears to be a huge image that BeAChooser has posted that was suppose to be a link, but wasn't and actually was the picture posted here.
God is always good! Hey, you are not perfect, no one is. I don't blame you for this. Yes, I do believe in this case that it is your fault though. It was post number 165.
God is always good! Those were blast hardened windows. So why would you expect them to break when nothing hit them but blast? Or is this just another thing you didn't know? What do you mean "nothing hit them but blast"? The 'label' clearly states "left wing impact area". You're the one that posted the pic. So if the left wing actually hit that area (which is slightly above the windows), then where did the engine on that wing impact? OR did that engine just fall off before impact? You posted a picture with labels to support your (and the official) story, and then changed what is claimed by the label on the picture. Could that be because you realize that if the left wing had actually hit the building (as per the claim of the label) the engine would have at a minimum taken out a window???
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
It's likely a problem associated with the photos. It's possible your browser is rendering it wide in spite of attempts to keep photos narrow. It would have nothing to do with the forum's ISP. Maybe you have your browser's settings set some special way to make everything look bigger. Something like that.
You can verify the comment that causes the problem by making a special change to the URL. In the following link, "SC" stands for "Start Comment" and "EC" stands for "End Comment". If you think it's comment #165, you can change them both to 165 and it will show the article with only that comment displayed. If you have the problem, it's either the article or that comment causing it. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45537&SC=165&EC=165#C165
On both FireFox 2.0.0.1 and IE 6 it is rendering it in full resolution.
God is always good! My apologies to Ricky, Diana and anyone else affected. This text http://www.911myths.com/Flight_11_Seat_Cushion_Large.jpg was part of my post 165 submittal. I didn't put it inside HTML that would make it an image. I had the auto hyperlink function checked and it simply showed up as the text above in red during preview mode and also on the thread after I posted it (at least whenever I viewed the thread on my computer). No image appeared when I looked at the thread. The text margins of the post and thread looked fine in both cases, wrapping where they were supposed to wrap. But, I just loaded the URL directly into my browser to see what it was and got a very large picture, as Ricky said. Then, when I went back to look at the thread, the image showed up and the margins of all text in the thread were messed up just like Ricky's and Diana's. So apparently because I did not have the image in cache(?) previously, I was not getting the picture during preview or on the thread. Normally, I add a width=731 command in front of the final > of the image HTML when posting a jpg that I know to be a large one. I guess from now on I will have to be very careful about the auto hyperlink function. Sorry. In the meantime, Neil or Christine, could you perhaps add a width=731 command before the final > in the image HTML in post 165 so that this thread's formatting returns to normal for everyone? Thanks in advance. PS. Curiously, even after I restarted my computer and cleared the cache in my browser (at least that's what the button says it does), the picture is still visible in the thread and the text margins are messed up. So apparently, this is stored somewhere else than the browsers cache. Perhaps Neil knows?
The problem is not in the formatting, but in allowing this tard to post ad nauseum lengthy posts whose purpose is to obfuscate rather than add to the relevance of the topic. It disrupts the discussion and makes the thread virtually unreadable, especially to the lurkers who don't sign in.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Here's the photo again ... First, it clearly looks to me like the right most window is shattered. In the next two, it is difficult to tell because of the smoke, although the bottom pane of the second window clearly looks intact. Hard to tell about the top pane. Well if you look at the dimensions of that wing shaped hole to the left of that window, you realize that the engine went into the building through that hole. This proves it: I didn't add the labels. I"m stuck with whatever was on the linked photo. But clearly something big made a big winged shaped hole in the structure. And broke at least one window. And damaged the outer facade beyond that wing shaped hole. You tell us. What made that hole and damaged the outer facade? A missile. What missile in any inventory in any country in the world could do that? No, you only prove you don't know location of the engine on Flight 77 (the outer extent of it is less than 25 feet from the fuselage. You only prove you don't grasp the width of the hole in the structure to the left of the main impact hole. It's clearly more than 25 feet wide.
One suggestion for dealing with the picture messing up the thread problem until Neil or Christine can add that width=731 command is to use the Bottom/Last button to view the thread. At least then we can continue the discussion, if you'd like.
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
I thought I should, as it was CP from the link you posted concerning properties of steel in tensile strength vs compression strength. Like I said, just because someone is labeled "professional" doesn't necessarily equate into "competence". Doctors are "professionals", yet iatrogenic 'disease' (doctors and prescription meds) are the third leading cause of death in America. I'd say that doesn't bode too well for the argument that these "professionals" are competent. See: http://www.systemsdc.com/potiatrogenic.htm All I've done is relate my personal real world experiences. I always heard experience is the best teacher. If you choose to be content with the "expertise" of "professionals", then have at it - you certainly have the right to do so. Personally, I have chosen to rely upon what I've learned through experience when it contradicts with the "expertise" of "professionals". There are many manufacturers of farm equipment. These manufacturers have engineers that design the equipment taking into consideration the various stresses involved in it's intended application. These engineers would be considered experts in their field. Yet, I have equipment brought in to my shop all the time that failed. Through years of repairing this equipment, I have learned what works best in terms of modifications which improve on the reliability of that implement. I have tried reinforcing through means which would rely upon using the tension (or pulling) property of metal, as well as reinforcement which relies upon the compression property of metal. And experience has taught me that MUCH greater success is obtained by using the compression properties. I don't care what "the book says", or "in theory", or "on paper" - and neither do my clients. They want their equipment fixed, and want it to last. I am able to do that because of my experience in that field. That is why I asked your "field of expertise". If you have no real world experience concerning the topic, then basically all you have is an opinion. And your refusal to answer the question speaks volumes. Your refusal to address the stand down of NORAD also speaks volumes. (A) I seriously doubt if the local university lab would have the necessary equipment to perform the above mentioned tensile test. No, it's YOU who is wrong - and this statement proves your lack of experience in the topic. The fact is that the next floor WILL provide greater resistance than the previous floor. This is because the further up the structure you go the lighter the materials used. ANY resistance will weaken the inertia of the movement, and as it continues downward it is meeting with ever greater resistance due to the increasingly heavier materials used. Also in this event, the further down the building you go from the impact zone, the less the likelihood of structural integrity compromise. In any case, if the "pancaking" theory were possible, it would be impossible to happen at near freefall pace.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
i'm getting a kick out of you. :P
mmmhmmmm...especially when one such claimed "expert" makes the statement that fire turns steel into wet noodles. :P
Yeah... I wouldn't want to be eating spaghetti at his house. I already have enough iron in my diet.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
I did restart my computer to see if that helped but it didn't, but now it is working fine, thanks for figuring out the problem.
Yes, but what are the odds that all of them (thousands) are wrong and only you (and a sub-atomic particle physicist, an expert in dental structures, a couple philosophers and theologians, an economist, and the like) are right? So do you do your own doctoring, too? If you choose to do your own doctoring, be my guest. I am curious, however, since you have no faith in the competence of thousands of professionals in the structural engineering arena whether you dare enter any building, structure or vehicle designed by them. Or do you just have everything delivered to your house and never go out? Such as your belief that steel structural members are stronger in compression than tension? ROTFLOL! Well if your university can't handle a 1/2" rod, try a 1/4". Although I have to warn you, the compression test may give even lower results. Like what? What factor in the real world is going to make a steel column stronger in compression than it is in tension. I am eager to hear this. ROTFLOL! But we are talking not about going down multiple floors at once ... just one floor at a time. And if you think the thickness of structural members varies FLOOR BY FLOOR in skyscrapers, making each floor have a different resistance, it is probably YOU who proves your lack of experience. The designers will step the increase so that groups of floors will have one thicknes, if for no other reason than the cost of fabrication and the cost of keeping everything sorted during construction. And in any case, the resistance wasn't going up any faster than the gravity loads. And the gravity loads go up with the mass. So each additional floor of mass added to the impacting load counterbalanced any possible gain in resistance. Meanwhile, you blithely ignore the residual velocity from the previous impact, which will increase during the next impact because it's unlikely that the resistance just happened to increase much above that of the last floor. Sorry, you simply don't understand the mechanics of an impact like this. Which is why not one structural engineer anywhere in the world seems to agree with you. It didn't happen at "near freefall" pace. In fact, had it been a near freefall pace, a tower more than twice as high could have collapsed. Here's a GREAT report on the failure of WTC towers. You should read it. http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20VI%20Materials%20&%20Structures.pdf
Oh it never really bothered me anyway. I was just curious why everyone wasn't seeing the apporx. 1700X1100 picture that me and Diana were seeing. Very strange indeed. My browser settings are default for both.
God is always good! Father Torque tried foisting that "pancake" theory on us over on TOS3 a while back. It didn't fly then, and it still doesn't fly.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
See him play his part in 911Mysteries "First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Okay, BAC, if the floors collapsed as you'd have us believe; what took out the central 47 steel columns in both buildings - add the steel structure in WTC-7? Your shit still stinks, Slurpy!
No, that's not the case with me Neil.
God is always good! So your so called experts are the ultimate authority on everything, eh? Your so called experts designed the towers to withstand the impact of a 707 and did not take into account the fuel and resulting fires, even though the entire world has known since the beginning of aviation that fires accompany crashes, and millions if not billions have been spent trying to increase survivability of crashes by decreasing the resulting fires? They don't sound very smart or particularly "expert" to me. No, scratch that, they sound like liars to me. No "expert" would design a building to withstand aircraft impact and NOT plan for the fires. Your experts are liars, just like you.
"Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward."
#2. To: Kamala (#0)
(Edited)
defence headquarters
#3. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#1)
#4. To: christine (#2)
#5. To: christine (#2)
#6. To: Kamala (#0)
President Bush announced: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks waged against us by stealth, deceit and murder
#7. To: Kamala (#0)
#8. To: kiki, Kamala (#7)
#9. To: christine (#2)
this is picayune, i know (altho a pet peeve of mine), but i'm noticing more and more people are misspelling defense spelling it with a c rather than an s. what's up with that? ;)
#10. To: christine (#2)
#11. To: christine (#2)
this is picayune, i know (altho a pet peeve of mine), but i'm noticing more and more people are misspelling defense spelling it with a c rather than an s. what's up with that? ;)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#12. To: kiki (#7)
#13. To: kiki (#7)
I absolutely believe they allowed this to happen. as far as masterminding it, that's harder to swallow. what in this administration's record would indicate that they could pull off something of the magnitude of 911, and do it without totally bungling?
#14. To: orangedog (#9)
#15. To: who knows what evil (#11)
#16. To: robin, christine, Zipporah, Diana, rowdee (#10)
#17. To: HOUNDDAWG (#16)
#18. To: HOUNDDAWG (#13)
#19. To: robin (#17)
#20. To: Burkeman1 (#18)
#21. To: Burkeman1 (#18)
The psychology of such secretiveness is that the more secrets you are allowed to know- the more powerful you feel- the more superior. Such people- who are "In on" the many secrets begin to despise and look down upon the rest of us- their fellow citizens. They see themselves as an elite. As a vanguard bravely defending America- doing what has to be done that Americans don't want to know about and can't know about. Among such groups common morality is seen as something they can't afford to be bound by. Indeed- the higher one goes in such organizations- the more amoral acts they have been a party to. It becomes a badge of honor among their ranks, to be "in on" acts that would repel and horrify society at large.
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt
#22. To: kiki (#7)
I absolutely believe they allowed this to happen. as far as masterminding it, that's harder to swallow. what in this administration's record would indicate that they could pull off something of the magnitude of 911, and do it without totally bungling?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#23. To: REDPANTHER (#0)
ping!
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#24. To: christine (#15)
just call me c c cummings. ;)
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these - - IndieTX
#25. To: kiki (#7)
as far as masterminding it, that's harder to swallow.
#26. To: robin (#8)
“Yes, but is this good for Jews?"
#27. To: Eoghan, kiki (#26)
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt
#28. To: IndieTX (#24)
i thought it was e e cummings...lol
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#29. To: IndieTX (#24)
(Edited)
#30. To: Kamala, ALL (#0)
Called Loose Change, the film is a blitz of statistics, photographs pinched from the web, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony, all set to hip-hop music. And it is dramatically changing the way people think about 9/11.
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/
http://lol.chroniclesofgaras.com/sources.html
#31. To: BeAChooser (#30)
A great blog related to the ScrewLooseChange video:
#32. To: BeAChooser (#30)
(Edited)
Honestly, while a good introduction for the average citizen, it has some sloppy of information.
#33. To: Kamala, ALL (#32)
Griffin, now nearing retirement, is emeritus professor at the Claremont School of Theology in California and a respected philosopher. While Loose Change is capturing the interest of internet devotees, Professor Griffin's equally contentious theories are receiving standing ovations in book clubs across the U.S.
To return now to testimonies about explosions: There were many reports about an explosion in the basement of the north tower. For example, janitor William Rodriguez reported that he and others felt an explosion below the first sub-level office at 9 AM, after which co-worker Felipe David, who had been in front of a nearby freight elevator, came into the office with severe burns on his face and arms yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"6
Rodriguez’s account has been corroborated by José Sanchez, who was in the workshop on the fourth sub-level. Sanchez said that he and a co-worker heard a big blast that “sounded like a bomb,” after which “a huge ball of fire went through the freight elevator.”7
Given these testimonies to explosions in the basement levels of the towers, it is interesting that Mark Loizeaux, head of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has been quoted as saying: “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.”9
Several FDNY members reported that they heard an explosion just before the south tower collapsed. ... snip ... These statements by Ober and Cruthers, indicating that there was a delay between the explosion and the beginning of the collapse,
Christopher Bollyn,
Eric Hufschmid
Jim Hoffman
Jeffrey King
Randy Lavello
Kevin Ryan
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
by Dr. David Ray Griffin
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).
18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).
19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).
22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).
#34. To: BeAChooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#33)
But why is this unexpected if a plane full of fuel hit the structure and penetrated the elevator shafts as numerous eyewitnesses testified? One would expect fuel released from the impacting aircraft would enter the freight elevator shaft and explode, sending a pressure wave and fireball down the shaft.
#35. To: BeAChooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, Inside Job, Former Lurker, Indie TX, SKYDRIFTER, All (#33)
(Edited)
Given all the above, one wonders why the thread's article places so much faith in Griffin as an *expert* source.
When Payne Stewart's charter flight went off course and started going north from the Panhandle of Florida, within 20 minutes NORAD had 2 fighters scrambled and on that situation like flies on shit. They were looking into the cockpit of the charter flight and reporting that the crew was unconscious - and stayed with that flight until it crashed. Yet for some reason, on 9/11 NORAD cannot manage to get even one fighter scrambled when 4 commercial airliners are flying off course for over an hour and a half - AND headed towards some of the most highly restricted airspace in the world????? BULLSHIT!!!!! 
Layout of Trade Center Complex 
WTC 3 
WTC 4 
WTC 5 
WTC 5 & 6
#36. To: BeAChooser (#33)
#37. To: innieway (#35)
#38. To: Kamala (#37)
BAC is in trouble here. We have alot of tradesmen that are on 4UM that work in construction. He really is going to get a good licking.
#39. To: innieway, ALL (#35)
Damned strange how the Empire State Building was once struck by a large aircraft and managed to remain standing. And when the architects designed the Towers, they took into account the possibility of a large commercial airliner hitting them - and designed them to withstand this very thing!!!.
#40. To: Kamala, ALL (#36)
NIST has backed away and said the towers did not pancake.
FEMA actually had some WTC 7 steel and it was tested. The steel was found to have sulphaded, eutectic formations. The structual steel was turned to swiss cheese and was completely evaporated. It takes around 5100 degress to evapoate structual steel.
Before 911, no structual steel skyscaper has completely collasped from fire and or damage.
The Madrid fire burned 20 times longer and burned at gas temps of over 2000 degrees.
No primary structual steel vertical girder has ever failed due to fire. There has been localized failure of horizontal steel girders that have resulted in localized failure and collapse. This would result in the primary girders collapsing also because of no box support. Just like in the case of Madrid.
"I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
#41. To: BeAChooser (#40)
And let's get our facts straight. The Towers were NOT designed to withstand this sized plane impacting the towers at velocity they did
#42. To: Zipporah (#41)
Hmm and have you forgotten the Empire State Building withstood THIS? :P
#43. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#42)
#44. To: Zipporah (#43)
Hm a B52.. ? hole 18 X 20 feet.. well ya know when that structure was built I'd venture to guess that the technology wasnt as advanced as when the WTC blgs were built..
#45. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#44)
So they blithely designed the Twin Towers as though that could never happen...
#46. To: Zipporah (#45)
Hmm I do recall though seeing a video of one of the engineers or designers of the WTC saying that they had designed the bldgs to withstand an impact from a plane.. let me see if I can locate it. ;)
#47. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#46)
#48. To: Zipporah (#45)
So they blithely designed the Twin Towers as though that could never happen...
#49. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#48)
Could you tell I was being a smartass in that last post? :P
#50. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#48)
#51. To: Zipporah (#50)
#52. To: Zipporah (#50)
#53. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#48)
#54. To: Kamala, Zipporah (#52)
#55. To: Kamala (#53)
Skilling, the main designer/architect also said the towers could withstand the impact of an airliner and the resulting fire. The engineers/designers/architects planned for the fuel dump.
#56. To: BeA Chooser, Esso, inneway, welders, *9-11* (#40)
#57. To: BeAChooser (#39)
(Edited)
Not strange at all...
="
#58. To: Zipporah (#47)
Frank DeMartini. a project manager for the WTC said the buildings were designed to redistibute loads in the event of an airliner strike, whose effects would be like "pucturing mosquito netting with a pencil".
#59. To: innieway (#57)
These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets."
#60. To: Kamala (#52)
The steel used for the core was rated at 42,000psi and the outer girders at 100,000psi. Super strong stuff.
#61. To: innieway (#60)
what seems to escape the shills like BAC
#62. To: christine, Be A Chooser, Zipporah, Peetie Wheatstraw, Kamala, ALL (#59)
(Edited)
well said.
#63. To: innieway, ALL (#57)
While I'm not going to pretend that a 767 is a SMALL aircraft - compared to the size of the towers, a 767 is minuscule! (Probably something on the order of a sparrow compared to a doghouse)
Are you aware that jet fuel is basically kerosene? Just how damned hot do you think kerosene burns? AND what percentage of it was consumed in the large fireball upon initial impact???
These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. ... snip ... What the hell are you smoking to believe that (or the ignoramus that said it)?????
You also did not comment on fire and damage to buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 - and specifically their failure to collapse, in spite of obviously HUGE fire and debris damage compared to 7... WHY???
Like I said, YOU have totally ZERO common sense... Not because you believe the "official story", but rather because you think you can get folks that DO HAVE intelligence AND common sense to believe it!!!
#64. To: innieway, ALL (#60)
Yes, and what seems to escape the shills like BAC is this rating is for tensile strength - a pulling measurement - rather than a compaction measurement...
Like I've said before, a 200 lb man can stand on an empty beer can without crushing it.
Now compare those to the metal used in the Trade Center Buildings....
#65. To: Zipporah, Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#47)
Frank DeMartini, project manager for the construction of the World Trade Center, says the WTC towers were designed to absorb multiple jetliner impacts. This interview was filmed inside the World Trade Center in January of 2001. Frank DeMartini died inside the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001
#66. To: Kamala, Zipporah, Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#52)
Skilling, the main designer/architect also said the towers could withstand the impact of an airliner and the resulting fire. The engineers/designers/architects planned for the fuel dump.
Also I found a real gem.
Included in the NIST primary appendix is a research white paper signed by Skilling in 1964, PLANNING FOR HIGH SPEED IMPACTS OF 600 MPH.
It is a smoking gun document. All the skeptics like to quote Leslie Robertson. HE has been caught lying and has lots of ties to government funded projects.
#67. To: Kamala, Zipporah, Peetie WheatStraw, ALL (#56)
In the NIST report, only 14% of primary girders saw severe and extensive damage. According to the main designers and architects, the towers could lose between 25- 30% and still stand.
NIST has no proof of the airliners "dislodging" all the fireproofing completely from 5 floors of the towers.
Also in the NIST report is the fact that the fireproofing in the towers and in the area of impacts, had been upgraded to an average of 2.2 inches with a much more robust type of coating. This was started in the mid 90's.
There is no energy for the planes to dislodge and scrap clean ALL the fireproofing. FEMA had MIT engineers calculate what happened to the planes on impact and the airliners energy was expended upon impact, just as the towers were designed to do.
NIST has no hard scientific proof of 1000c gas temp fires. The only experiment involved was a double/triple experiment where NIST increased the known amount of jet fuel, then increased and over ventilated the fed jet fuel.
NIST has no proof of sagging floors pulling the outer perimeter girders.
In real physical experiments done by UL for NIST, not one full scale single floor model failed. No matter how much fireproofing was removed or how great the loads were induced. These live scale models were preformed at 2000 degrees for 2 hours. Lorring Knoblach, the head of UL, resigned after this.
The only way NIST was able to prove that the perimeter girders could be pulled in is in computer software. NIST greatly exaggerated all the data, then when the computer model still didn't fail, NIST disconnected the floors from the outer girders. Then the model failed.
NIST has stated that the WTC office floors were fuel poor and would burn out in around 20 min.
It took the fire in the WTC 1 around a hour to work its way around from the north to the south face. After the fire fuel was gone, the fire zones quickly cooled down. That is apparent when photos show employees standing in and around the impact areas.
Acid rain isn't going to evaporate structural steel, either is sulpher from some drywall. The temps seen to turn steel into swiss cheese is much, much too high. No office fire or diesel fire can do this.
As far as Madrid, the physical temps may have been 1400 degrees but in the construction an magnesium alloy as an aluminum hardener for welding was being used. The temps that can reach is over 2000 degrees. The fire at Madrid was a magnesium fire.
#68. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#54)
Another thing to remember is that the steel used in the WTC Towers was certified to withstand the type of temperatures generated by the jet fuel and office contents fires that supposedly weakened the WTC Towers to the point of complete, rapid collapse, and much more than that.
#69. To: BeAChooser (#33)
Untrue. The entrance hole is large enough to accommodate everything but the wing tips and the tail of the plane
#70. To: Red Jones, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#69)
#71. To: Red Jones, ALL (#69)
I imagine that the wings and the tail just fell off the plane before impact
#72. To: BeAChooser (#71)
Post a photo of what you think the entrance hole was, Red. Tell us the dimensions of that hole.
#73. To: BeAChooser, Badeye After Five, Weekend Badeye (#71)
#74. To: BeAChooser, honway, formerlurker, wakeup, angle, critter, esso, skydrifter, Uncle Bill, Bill D Berger, BTP holdings, , *9-11* (#67)
#75. To: Kamala (#74)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#76. To: Red Jones (#72)
the pentagon is one stout building. wings & tails of attacking planes fall off before even getting there.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#77. To: Red Jones, ALL (#72)
you posted a photo in #33.
I don't know the dimensions of the hole,
but you said the hole wasn't big enough for wings & tail to have gone through.
#78. To: BeAChooser (#77)
And here's a videoclip produced using a CAD tool that in one section overlays the plane's dimensions against images of the damage done to the structure.
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#79. To: Critter, ALL (#78)
Integrated Consultants Inc., a defense contractor. No bias there. Nope. None at all. lmao
#80. To: Kamala (#74)
The NIST report rests everything on computer modeling. NIST disgarded what real scientific evidence it had and preformed, because it didn't fit the pre determined conclusions.
#81. To: Red Jones, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#72)
#82. To: gengis gandhi, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#80)
#83. To: BeAChooser (#79)
So you are going to dismiss anything I post, regardless of source.
#84. To: BeAChooser (#79)
(Edited)
So you are going to dismiss anything I post, regardless of source.
#85. To: Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#79)
#86. To: BeAChooser (#79)
So you are going to dismiss anything I post, regardless of source.
#87. To: Minerva (#86)
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt
#88. To: BeAChooser (#79)
So you are going to dismiss anything I post, regardless of source.
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#89. To: SKYDRIFTER, BeALooser I mean BeAChooser (#85)
BAC asserts there was a hole in the 9-11 Pentagon, broader than 20 feet.
I don't want to be a martyr, I want to win! - Me
#90. To: Kamala, BeAChooser, SKYDRIFTER (#0)
The Loose Change narrator says: "The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vapourised the entire plane. Indeed, from the pictures, it seems there was no discernible trace of a fully loaded Boeing 757 at the crash scene.
#91. To: Burkeman1 (#18)
The psychology of such secretiveness is that the more secrets you are allowed to know- the more powerful you feel- the more superior. Such people- who are "In on" the many secrets begin to despise and look down upon the rest of us- their fellow citizens. They see themselves as an elite.
#92. To: BeAChooser, Kamala (#33)
(Edited)
Currently, only one demolition expert in the world agrees with Griffin that Building 7 was a controlled demolition.
#93. To: RickyJ (#76)
#94. To: BeAChooser (#40)
Before 911, no structural steel skyscraper was subjected to a high speed impact by a commercial jet loaded with fuel.
#95. To: BeAChooser (#64)
Curious. Are you an expert in buckling phenomena too? ROTFLOL!
But can a 200 lb man drop a foot onto a empty beer can without crushing it? That's more the situation that existed at the WTC towers.
#96. To: Critter, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#89)
BAC asserts there was a hole in the 9-11 Pentagon, broader than 20 feet. Damage certainly spread further, but as to a hole, I never saw anything to exceed 20 feet, let alone any viable suggestion of forward-moving damage.
He has also posted a photo which clearly shows nothing, but he insists that it clearly shows a hole at least 90 feet wide
#97. To: Diana, Kamala, ALL (#90)
There did seem to be a lack of bodies and debris around the Pentagon crash site.
I believe the Pentagon was hit by a missle of some kind,
#98. To: BeAChooser, SKYDRIFTER, critter (#96)
#99. To: BeAChooser (#96)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#100. To: Diana, ALL (#92)
Currently, only one demolition expert in the world agrees with Griffin that Building 7 was a controlled demolition.
Actually there are probably many others, but they dare not speak out as they value their lives and those of their families.
And as if you could know such a thing, like you know what every single demolition expert in the world thinks.
#101. To: BeAChooser (#97)
What kind of missile would make a hole like the pictures indicate?
#102. To: BeAChooser (#96)
#103. To: Critter, BeAChooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#97)
#104. To: Diana, beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Kamala, All (#98)
#105. To: innieway, ALL (#95)
I have on more than one occasion in my construction experience seen the results of fire in structures. One was in the bleach plant part of a paper mill. One of the washers (made of fiberglass) caught on fire, and a line carrying 50% chlorine (also made of fiberglass) broke - making it nearly impossible to attempt to fight the fire. In fact several workers were hospitalized from being caught in the fumes of the chlorine. The decision was made to allow the fire to burn itself out. The fire spread to the other washers, and in total burned for over 3 hours.
While a "dropping" of the weight above it may cause a failure of that floor, that floor would at least absorb some of the energy causing the next impact to have less velocity which would result in the next impact being able to absorb even more of the energy. The added weight would be much less a factor than velocity as the next floor was already designed for the weight. With the pancaking effect losing some of it's momentum every 12 feet or so, and having to travel over 800 feet, it would die out long before hitting the ground - or at the very least take more time than near free-fall speed which WAS the case of each of the 9/11 collapses.
when you are talking about compression ( And by the way, the proper term is compression, not compaction - you're right, my bad) you're talking about numbers which make tensile strength numbers pale by comparison.
Curious, just WHAT is your area of "expertise"?????
I work with steel everyday, and I have done each of these things enough to be competent at it.....
#106. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#97)
#107. To: Diana (#102)
#108. To: Diana, ALL (#101)
So the plane kind of melted into the building?
Did the bodies melt into the building too do you know?
In that first picture, is the main impact hole suppose the be above the white car with the "possible aircraft debris" around it, that is suppose to be the main impact hole?
#109. To: Diana (#102)
Also those vehicles in the first picture near the impact hole are in remarkably good shape considering a jet just slammed into the building a short distance away from them.
#110. To: All (#109)
#111. To: All (#109)
#112. To: BeAChooser, aristeides, honway, Bill D Berger, Original_Intent, Burkeman1, Diana, All (#97)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#113. To: BeAChooser (#105)
#114. To: All (#111)
#115. To: All (#114)
#116. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#99)
As per your image, don't you find it a bit odd that the aircraft was just about rolling as a landed plane when it struck the Pentagon, at what, 500 mph or so?
Do you believe an amature pilot with no actual experience flying a large airliner could bring a large airliner down so low at such a high speed, while keeping the pitch of the plane at 0 degrees?
And don't forget, he didn't even touch the ground with the engines.
#117. To: BeAChooser (#116)
It wasn't rolling about, since the landing gear were up (according to eyewitnesses). ...
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#118. To: BeAChooser (#116)
Why do you think that over a hundred thousand commerical airline pilots (in the US alone) haven't expressed any concern about this?
September 13,2001
New York Times
Section A page 21
#119. To: BeAChooser (#116)
Why do you think that over a hundred thousand commerical airline pilots (in the US alone) haven't expressed any concern about this?
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#120. To: BeAChooser (#116)
Actually, an engine does appear to have hit the fence surrounding and a vehicle in the construction yard that was in the flight path.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#121. To: BeAChooser (#118)
Why do you think that over a hundred thousand commerical airline pilots (in the US alone) haven't expressed any concern about this?
#122. To: BeAChooser (#116)
Actually, an engine does appear to have hit the fence surrounding and a vehicle in the construction yard that was in the flight path.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#123. To: BeAChooser (#116)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#124. To: honway (#115)
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt
#125. To: Diana, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#101)
That hole looks too clean,
where are the wings,
it seems there would be more smoke
damage to the sides of that main impact hole.
I've never seen any evidence of wings,
not pictures of wing wreckage unless they miraculously melted into the building (along with the passengers) without even causing smudging to either side of that clean main impact hole.
And that one photo of the piece of wreckage is the only one I've ever seen,
="
#126. To: robin (#124)
nice grass
#127. To: lodwick (#126)
nice grass
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt
#128. To: Diana, all (#102)
Also those vehicles in the first picture near the impact hole are in remarkably good shape considering a jet just slammed into the building a short distance away from them.
You'd think force from the impact would have at least hurled them away.
#129. To: robin (#127)
#130. To: honway, ALL (#111)
I am curious as to why the firefighters allowed this Jeep to catch fire and burn
#131. To: Red Jones, ALL (#113)
when I look at the pictures of the hole it just seems like the hole is not wide enough for a Boeing 757.
#132. To: honway, ALL (#115)
Where did the firefighters and fire trucks go? The fire looks nearly out.
#133. To: honway, ALL (#118)
John Nance, an airline pilot, author and aviation analyst
#134. To: honway, ALL (#121)
I am voicing concern.Pilots I fly with are voicing concern.
#135. To: lodwick (#126)
It's the new, magic, PentaLawn.
NEVER FORGET!
#136. To: FormerLurker, ALL (#122)
Actually, an engine does appear to have hit the fence surrounding and a vehicle in the construction yard that was in the flight path.
Really? Which vehicle, and which fence?
#137. To: all (#136)
#138. To: Esso (#135)
There's so much shilling going on here, Chrissy might have to change the web address to Freedom4um.gov.
#139. To: BeAChooser (#134)
Do we know your real name?
#140. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#116)
#141. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#136)
#142. To: BeAChooser (#136)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#143. To: angle (#93)
Why are you bothering to post?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#144. To: FormerLurker, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#142)
#145. To: FormerLurker, lodwick, SKYDRIFTER, honway (#142)
Must have been some pilot, with his ability to manuever a 757 into a landing approach at 500 mph with his nose straight and level, right engine smacking a fence and a vehicle, while keeping the wings from tipping and the aircraft in control, while descending further down still to an altitude where if he would have sneezed the engines would have scooped up sod from the PentaLawn. All that, PLUS being able to hit the bottom story of the Pentagon with his nose straight and level, careening through the Pentagon like a bullet.
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt
#146. To: SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#144)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#147. To: robin (#145)
(Edited)
The indistructible grass for your lawn is PENTALAWN!
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#148. To: FormerLurker, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#146)
#149. To: BeAChooser (#125)
a host of men in black suits descended on the site immediately after the impact and scattered all the debris
#150. To: SKYDRIFTER (#144)
I don't buy his being banned by Goldi. She's got a mean streak, but it's purely political - BAC could never qualify.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#151. To: Diana, BeAChooser (#98)
In that first picture, is the main impact hole suppose the be above the white car with the "possible aircraft debris" around it, that is suppose to be the main impact hole?! I'm really curious about this.
#152. To: BeAChooser (#116)
And no, I don't find it odd that the plane is flying level near the ground at that point. If one were trying to hit a building like the pentagon, the best way would probably be to line up on it and try to strike it near horizontal.
#153. To: BeAChooser (#128)
Tell me Diana ... why is it so important that everything about 9/11 be a conspiracy? I can understand wanting answers to many questions ... particularly those surrounding how the hijackers managed to get away with it and why no one lost their job over this. But why is it necessary that the US government have launched a missile at the Pentagon and put bombs in WTC buildings as part of this event? Is there some unconscious need to make not just our leaders bad guys but thousands of ordinary Americans who clearly must be hiding this conspiracy from you if what you believe is true? I'm really curious about this.
#154. To: BeAChooser, honway (#139)
Kevin Ryan lost his job at Underwriters Laboratories for questioning the government's conspiracy theory.
#155. To: FormerLurker (#146)
When a impossible condition is introduced, he backs off.
#156. To: BeAChooser (#105)
"Steel is more or less a linear elastic material. Unlike concrete, which is much weaker in tension than in compression, steel theoretically responds the same way in either tension or compression."
Well that would have to make you an expert in comparison to the tens of thousands of structural engineers who have studied years on topics like fire and structures, and the thousands who every day work directly on the analysis and design of structures to resist fire. What do they know ... (sarcasm)
Curious, just WHAT is your area of "expertise"?????
And yet you still think steel in stronger in compression than tension? ROTFLOL!
#157. To: RickyJ, innieway, Honway, Formerlurker, Skydrifter, Diana, Red Jones, Critter, Angle, Robin, Christine, *9-11* (#150)
#158. To: innieway (#155)
(Edited)
#159. To: BeAChooser, Kamala, Red Jones, honway, Bible People, All (#128)
(Edited)
Is there some unconscious need to make not just our leaders bad guys but thousands of ordinary Americans who clearly must be hiding this conspiracy from you if what you believe is true? I'm really curious about this.
#160. To: innieway, FormerLurker, BeAChooser (#155)
I discovered that when he refused to address the NORAD stand down...
#161. To: noone222 (#158)
Allah Akbar, (hic) !
#162. To: honway, ALL (#139)
Kevin Ryan lost his job at Underwriters Laboratories for questioning the government's conspiracy theory.
Dr. Stephen Jones lost his job at BYU for questioning the government's theory.
The military tried to put Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer in prison for his decision to speak up concerning Able Danger.
#163. To: robin, ALL (#145)
The indistructible grass for your lawn is PENTALAWN!
#164. To: innieway, Diana, ALL (#151)
I see a label on it that supposedly shows the "left wing impact area". And this marked area has 4 Pentagon windows still intact...
#165. To: Diana, ALL (#153)
"Tell me Diana ... why is it so important that everything about
9/11 be a conspiracy? I can understand wanting answers to many questions ...
particularly those surrounding how the hijackers managed to get away with it and
why no one lost their job over this. But why is it necessary that the US
government have launched a missile at the Pentagon and put bombs in WTC
buildings as part of this event? Is there some unconscious need to make not just
our leaders bad guys but thousands of ordinary Americans who clearly must be
hiding this conspiracy from you if what you believe is true? I'm really curious
about this."
Because the whole thing is
preposterous. It was a "conspiracy", whoever was behind it, even if it was the
hijackers who were IDed so shortly after it happened, with a few of them still
being alive and living in other countries outraged that their names had been
slandered in such a way.
And it's downright ridiculous, that Osama bin Laden who was
supposedly hanging out with Jihadists in Afganistan masterminded the whole
thing. It was never explained HOW he masterminded it, or HOW it could have been
masterminded in any detail, most probably to keep any information pertaining to
that from getting out and making it easier for people to solve the puzzle.
And I never said it
was the US GOVT who was behind the attacks,
and then there was that whole strange tale of Mohammad Atta,
including his singed passport found having miraculously floated to a nearby
street of the WTC buildings,
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:tI2PQRqfJiIJ:www.msnbc.com/local/MYOC/M324557.asp
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011230flight931230p3.asp
Page 40
http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Ch2.pdf
Other accounts
certainly suggest some parts of the plane were left outside the building.
Page 20, “102 Minutes”
Jim
Dwyer and Kevin Flynn
http://zibili.com/sept11/91103.htm
(Download the full-size version by clicking
here).![]("http://www.911myths.com/Flight_11_Seat_Cushion_Large.jpg)
New York Times
December 20, 2001
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts107_worms_030501.html
But
don't put words in my mouth saying I said the US government did it, I never said
that, I've always maintained no one really knows except those who were involved.
Don't put this Bad American label on me
Is it unpatriotic now to ask questions? You seem to think
so.
#166. To: Diana, honway, ALL (#154)
honway - Kevin Ryan lost his job at Underwriters Laboratories for questioning the government's conspiracy theory.
honway - Dr. Stephen Jones lost his job at BYU for questioning the government's theory.
honway - The military tried to put Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer in prison for his decision to speak up concerning Able Danger.
Well, we used to have freedom of speech in this country, but look what happens to those who try to excercise it when it comes to 9-11.
#167. To: Kamala, Brian S, Christine, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Diana, All (#157)
#168. To: BeAChooser, christine, Neil McIver (#165)
#169. To: SKYDRIFTER (#167)
#170. To: BeAChooser (#165)
But why the need to insist on bombs in the towers and no Flight 77?
#171. To: Diana (#169)
#172. To: innieway, ALL (#156)
However, with enough applied force, steel and other metals will cease to behave elastically and begin to behave plastically. ... snip ... In real life, of course, there is no such thing as a perfectly elastic or plastic material. In the case of steel, structural engineers are concerned about the tensile strength in terms of both the ultimate strength and the yield strength. When a specimen reaches its yield strength, it will begin to stretch and transition from elastic to plastic behavior. As more force is applied, the steel will reach its ultimate tensile strength and break. Structural engineers take advantage of this property in their designs. In an extreme event, such as an earthquake or major structural failure, this plastic phase is useful because it allows the structure to sag and absorb extra loads.
You still haven't answered the question
At this point in the debate a personal attack just makes you look like a dumbass grasping at straws.
The only responses I've given so far is what I've learned through experience, NOT what I've been told by others.
EVERYTHING is stronger in compression than in tension - even air.
OH, and yes, even though there is added mass in the pancake collapse theory with each new floor adding it's mass to the aggregate, the resistance force of the next floor would slow it down.
#173. To: Diana, ALL (#159)
A friend told me that in the OT it says it's a sin to talk of conspiracies.
#174. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#165)
"Tell me Diana ... why is it so important that everything about 9/11 be a conspiracy?
#175. To: Diana (#168)
I just signed in and it took a long time, and then when this thread came on the text is out of the boundries, and you have to scroll far to be able to read it, which makes it difficult to read.
#176. To: Diana (#168)
(Edited)
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#177. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#172)
#178. To: Diana, Neil McIver (#168)
#179. To: RickyJ, Diana, ALL (#176)
Diana, the problem was caused by BeAChooser posting a picture too big for most people's resolution. I am using 1280X1024 and I have the problem you are talking about.
#180. To: BeAChooser, christine, All (#173)
What is the OT?
#181. To: christine, RickyJ, Neil McIver, BeAChooser (#178)
what browser are you using? i'm on IE.
#182. To: RickyJ (#176)
I am using 1280X1024 and I have the problem you are talking about.
#183. To: christine (#178)
(Edited)
i'm not having the scroll side to side issue. what browser are you using? i'm on IE. do you have firefox? try it and see if it's the same. the load time is due to a new server and some other issues Neil is checking on. it's been an intermittent problem.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#184. To: BeAChooser (#179)
(Edited)
So are you sure, your and Diana's problem is my fault?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#185. To: BeAChooser (#164)
I see a label on it that supposedly shows the "left wing impact area". And this marked area has 4 Pentagon windows still intact...
#186. To: christine, RickyJ, BeAChooser (#181)
#187. To: RickyJ, *4um Admin News* (#184)
It was post number 165.
#188. To: Neil McIver (#186)
It's likely a problem associated with the photos. It's possible your browser is rendering it wide in spite of attempts to keep photos narrow.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#189. To: RickyJ, Diana, Neil McIver, Christine, all (#188)
It was post number 165.
The problem appears to be a huge image that BeAChooser has posted that was suppose to be a link, but wasn't and actually was the picture posted here.
#190. To: RickyJ, Diana, Neil McIver, Christine, all (#189)
#191. To: innieway, ALL (#185)
What do you mean "nothing hit them but blast"? The 'label' clearly states "left wing impact area".
So if the left wing actually hit that area (which is slightly above the windows), then where did the engine on that wing impact?
You posted a picture with labels to support your (and the official) story, and then changed what is claimed by the label on the picture.
if the left wing had actually hit the building (as per the claim of the label) the engine would have at a minimum taken out a window???
#192. To: RickyJ, Diana, ALL (#188)
#193. To: All (#190)
#194. To: BeAChooser (#172)
(Edited)
Now you are going to give us a lesson in plasticity?
We are dying to hear your words of wisdom, since you apparently consider yourself more "competent" than the thousands and thousands and thousands of professionals with actual education and experience...
In the case of a steel column, you are wrong. Here is a challenge for you. Take a pair of identical steel rods (say 1/2 an inch in diameter and a foot long) into your local university lab. Do a tensile test on one ... till it snaps. Plot the force/deflection curve and the deflection at which it fails. Now do a compression test on your second rod. Plot the force/deflection curve and note the deflection at which the experiment goes boom. Then come back and tell us your results.
(B) Just because a lab test gives certain results doesn't mean that those results will also hold true "in the real world". Many other factors come into play. But the resistance of the next floor is no greater than the previous floor's resistance.
#195. To: angle (#193)
#196. To: innieway (#194)
All I've done is relate my personal real world experiences. I always heard experience is the best teacher. If you choose to be content with the "expertise" of "professionals", then have at it - you certainly have the right to do so. Personally, I have chosen to rely upon what I've learned through experience when it contradicts with the "expertise" of "professionals".
#197. To: christine (#196)
especially when one such claimed "expert" makes the statement that fire turns steel into wet noodles.
#198. To: BeAChooser, Ricky J (#189)
Curiously, even after I restarted my computer and cleared the cache in my browser (at least that's what the button says it does), the picture is still visible in the thread and the text margins are messed up.
#199. To: innieway, ALL (#194)
"We are dying to hear your words of wisdom, since you apparently consider yourself more "competent" than the thousands and thousands and thousands of professionals with actual education and experience..."
Like I said, just because someone is labeled "professional" doesn't necessarily equate into "competence".
Doctors are "professionals", yet iatrogenic 'disease' (doctors and prescription meds) are the third leading cause of death in America.
If you choose to be content with the "expertise" of "professionals", then have at it - you certainly have the right to do so.
Personally, I have chosen to rely upon what I've learned through experience when it contradicts with the "expertise" of "professionals".
"In the case of a steel column, you are wrong. Here is a challenge for you. Take a pair of identical steel rods (say 1/2 an inch in diameter and a foot long) into your local university lab. Do a tensile test on one ... till it snaps. Plot the force/deflection curve and the deflection at which it fails. Now do a compression test on your second rod. Plot the force/deflection curve and note the deflection at which the experiment goes boom. Then come back and tell us your results."
(A) I seriously doubt if the local university lab would have the necessary equipment to perform the above mentioned tensile test.
(B) Just because a lab test gives certain results doesn't mean that those results will also hold true "in the real world". Many other factors come into play.
"But the resistance of the next floor is no greater than the previous floor's resistance."
No, it's YOU who is wrong - and this statement proves your lack of experience in the topic. The fact is that the next floor WILL provide greater resistance than the previous floor. This is because the further up the structure you go the lighter the materials used.
ANY resistance will weaken the inertia of the movement, and as it continues downward it is meeting with ever greater resistance due to the increasingly heavier materials used.
In any case, if the "pancaking" theory were possible, it would be impossible to happen at near freefall pace.
#200. To: BeAChooser, Neil McIver (#192)
One suggestion for dealing with the picture messing up the thread problem until Neil or Christine can add that width=731 command is to use the Bottom/Last button to view the thread. At least then we can continue the discussion, if you'd like.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#201. To: innieway (#194)
In any case, if the "pancaking" theory were possible, it would be impossible to happen at near freefall pace.
#202. To: christine, innieway (#196)
What about this guy...he seems to have this all figured out just a few minutes after the towers collape. He smooth, unruffled and saying all the right things...
#203. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#199)
#204. To: Neil McIver (#186)
Maybe you have your browser's settings set some special way to make everything look bigger. Something like that.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#205. To: BeAChooser (#172)
We are dying to hear your words of wisdom, since you apparently consider yourself more "competent" than the thousands and thousands and thousands of professionals with actual education and experience in structural engineering, demolition, steel, fire, seismology and macro-world physics who seem comfortable with the notion that impact and fire brought down the towers.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest