See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 UAL 175 Plane on Radar AFTER It Has 'Crashed' Into The WTC; (MSNBC)
Source:
,
URL Source: http://,
Published: Mar 16, 2009
Author: msnbc
Post Date: 2009-03-16 13:04:41 by Artisan
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 11941
Comments: 607
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 215.
#3. To: Artisan (#0)
Oh, they'll be out in force. It might take them a day or two, but for every new revelation shining light on the 911 Inside Job they have a spin very quickly. Either they will attack the film as altered or they'll have some other spin such as the Radar was incompetent. They won't hold water but for the Sheeple who don't want to look at reality they will grasp at any spin straw to avoid looking. They want the "Nightly Nooze" to tell them what they think.
if the identifying radar system is in real time as he claimed then it is pretty damning evidence of remote controlled drone planes. I don't know antyhing about such systems which is why i pinged the pilots. Anyway, we all know the truth but to what end ? There is more than enough evidence but most politicians, clergy, academics and influence peddlers won't look at or acknowledge any of this. And time has gone on and it's almost 10 8 yrs past. Anyway, it's fun to expose their lies. people do know, in general, but what comes of it? we shall watch.
I'm confused, "tracked on RADAR" 1 hr after it hit the WTC?
Only if you believe this shit are you...
The shit in the video or the Gov't shit?
The government's shit is mosty likely the closest to what happened. If anything got covered up it's how little attention the Boosh's were paying when it went down...
Thank you for proving my prediction correct.
Your prediction was akin to predicting that if you pulled your pants down and tried to blow yourself in Times Square people would look. PS: Claiming that "WE BRUNG DOWN THE TOWERS!!!!" is the same thing as self- felating in Times Square.
Explain this. See how the top of the tower is tilting on an angle? Simple physics would determine that the top of the tower should have toppled over and tumbled, as there is less resistance to the air than there would be to the steel and concrete below it, thus it would have continued it's rotational movement and toppled over. Why did it all of a sudden drop like a rock straight down through the steel and concrete rather than simply topple over as it appears ready to do in the following picture?
You mean like what happens in a controlled demolition? Well, this is different....the plane hit the building (which was specifically designed to withstand the impact of a direct hit by a plane), and the plane had fuel (no matter that the fire was limited to just a couple floors, as opposed to other towers which have also had intense fire but never collapsed)....and because of the intense flames (limited to two floors?)....the structural beams just melted.......and can't you just believe these people already?! : )
You forgot that it was Magickal Jet Fuel™ that can change properties at will and burn hotter than the sun. And they only ever made one batch of it and it was all used that day as evidenced by the fact that other skyscrapers have burned longer and fully engulfed since then, yet none of them fell. Not one. And some had burned before that day too and not one of those fell either. Steel skyscrapers just can't handle that Magickal Jet Fuel™.
All this makes me question an engineer who would design a building to take the direct impact of a jet and not take into account for that jet to be able to hit the building it had to be flying and be loaded with FUEL. At the very least that explains alot of engineering blunders.LOL.
Oh, they did take it into account. The government and its shills are just lying about it. Why would any sane person believe that KEROSENE could cause steel-framed skyscrapers to fall? Many skyscrapers have had fires as intense, and even more intense, and for a longer period of time, yet the only ones that ever fell were the ones on 9/11. None before or since.
How many of them had a 450MPH impact and catastrophic explosion prior to the fire?
This skyscraper was SPECIFICALLY designed and built, with special materials, to withstand a direct hit from a plane.... Give it up, war. The .gov lie is a joke!
And to correct a wrong point of yours...it wasnt special materials it was the design of the building. And, the architects/engineers admitted that the 767 hits were outside of the parameters of their "707 scenario".
And you can of course present evidence to support that lie? I didn't think so.
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.
No one said anything about "resisting" the impact. The buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 - which you can try to obfuscate but cannot refute. The difference is size between a 707 and a 767 is relatively small and the 707 had a larger fuel capacity due to a less efficient, earlier, design. The aircraft were not fully loaded with fuel, admitted in the FEMA report, as it is standard practice to load only enough fuel to make the scheduled flight plus 10% for a margin of safety. Thus the aircraft had about 10,000 gallons of fuel - less than their capacity. JP 8 (Kerosene) does not burn hot enough even under ideal conditions in a forced air furnace (for example a Jet Engine) to melt steel. Witness the fact that airliners don't crash because the fuel melted the engines. Paper and Wood are elements of a Class Alpha Fire and do not, even under ideal laboratory conditions, get hot enough to melt steel and there was insufficient quantities to even soften the steel as the steel girder framework acts like a heat sink dispersing the head throughout the structure and thus keeping the temperature down below the critical points. A localized fire cannot cause a uniform symmetrical simultaneous collapse. The normal failure pattern in a catastrophic structural failure is for there to be a point of greatest weakness. The failure occurs at the weak point first which results in an ASYMMETRICAL failure with the structure moving toward the point of failure. It does not occur simultaneously in 360 degrees causing a uniform symmetrical failure. The uniform symmetrical failure is itself evidence of controlled demolition. Further in true shill fashion once it was pointed out that the box column center of the building is the primary load bearing structure of the building design you simply followed the fruit loop pattern of avoiding it, denying it, and the trying to shift the debate away from that which you cannot dispute. You are a liar, are shown to be a liar, and intentionally so. You are either a Shill or an Idiot and at this point Shill is most likely given your repeated use of disinformation tactics.
too bad for you that the WTC fires were not localized...but...suspending disblief for the momenbt and stipulating that they were...they were localized to an area already catostrophically damaged and vital to the structure's support...
TAKE A LOOK AT THESE PICTURES OF THE BUILDINGS ON FIRE! Firefighters were murdered on 911. Their stories stuffed away, denounced. They heard bombs, they know it was a demolition, they know 'heat from fire' did not melt or degrade the steel columns. These reports prove there was not sufficient fire or heat to make the towers collapse with symmetrical precision.
How many of those buildings had 67% of the building's load in the exterior walls?
www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_9-11.html Babel Fish Translation SPANISH SKYSCRAPER FIRE RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT 9/11 COLLAPSES By Christopher Bollyn American Free Press The fact that a Spanish skyscraper is still standing after an intense fire consumed the steel and concrete tower for 24 hours provides real world evidence that fire alone does not cause high-rise towers to collapse. As an intense fire consumed the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid's business district, the press reports all began with the words "fear of collapse." After 24 hours, however, the tower, which was a similar construction to the twin towers of the World Trade Center, remained standing. The fact that an extremely severe fire did not cause the Spanish steel and concrete tower to collapse raises serious questions about the events of 9/11 and how they have been explained. Why did the Windsor Building remain standing when similar towers in New York City collapsed completely after being affected by much less intense fires burning for considerably shorter periods of time? The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) sponsored engineers to conduct the World Trade Center Building Performance Study (BPS) to examine how the buildings of the WTC responded to the airplane crashes and fires that allegedly caused the collapses of the twin towers and WTC 7, a 47-story office building on the next block. "Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings," the BPS says in the chapter about the mysterious collapse of WTC 7, the third tower to collapse on 9/11. WTC 7 was not hit by aircraft or large pieces of debris and had only sporadic fires. At about 5:25 p.m., WTC 7, owned by Larry Silverstein, collapsed in what appeared to be a controlled demolition. It would be more accurate to say that no steel framed high-rise, like WTC 7, has ever collapsed due to fire. The fact that the Windsor Building is still standing is proof that fire alone does not cause properly constructed steel and concrete towers to collapse. Dr. W. Gene Corley, Senior Vice President of Construction Technology Laboratories (CTL) of Skokie, Ill., was team leader of the engineers who wrote the BPS. CTL is a subsidiary of the Portland Cement Association and "provides structural and architectural engineering, testing, and materials technology services throughout the U.S. and internationally." According to its website, "CTL’s expertise extends beyond cement and concrete, encompassing virtually all structural systems and construction materials." WACO, OKLAHOMA CITY, AND WTC Corley served as expert adviser during the government's investigation of the 1993 fatal fire at the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, Texas. In 1995, Corley led a Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) investigation of the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. In September 2001, once again, Corley was selected to head the team to study building performance after the attack on New York’s World Trade Center. In the executive summary of the WTC study, Corley wrote that secondary fires caused the twin towers to collapse: "The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings," Corley wrote. "Over a period of many minutes, this heat induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously softening and weakening these frames. This additional loading and the resulting damage were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures." In the section that deals with the collapse of the twin towers, the BPS says: "Because the aircraft impacts into the two buildings are not believed to have been sufficient to cause collapse without the ensuing fires, the obvious question is whether the fires alone, without the damage from the aircraft impact, would have been sufficient to cause such a collapse…it is impossible, without extensive modeling and other analysis, to make a credible prediction of how the buildings would have responded to an extremely severe fire in a situation where there was no prior structural damage." The Windsor Building fire in Madrid provides an excellent real-world model to show how the twin towers should have responded to "an extremely severe fire" alone. The Windsor Building has central support columns in its core section, which is similar to the construction of the twin towers. This central core is what supported the gravity load of the towers. In the Windsor Building fire, the fire is thought to have started on the 21st floor late on Saturday night, Feb. 12. The upper floors were consumed by intense fire for at least 18 hours. The fire moved down the building and burned the entire structure. The fire is reported to have burned temperatures of at 800 degrees Celsius, or nearly 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit. There was a partial collapse of parts of the top 10 floors as the trusses, which went from the core columns to the outside walls, appear to have failed. It is important to note, however, that the lower floors did not collapse and the core section is still standing with a construction crane on the roof. The complete failure of the 47-central support columns in the twin towers of the WTC is one of the key outstanding questions about what caused their collapses. It would be expected that they should have remained standing even if some of the floor trusses failed. There is no explanation for what caused the huge box columns to fail. Two of the contractors who removed the rubble told AFP that they had found molten steel in the 7th basement level when they reached the bedrock where the columns were based. There is no explanation for what caused such intense residual heat to be found at the base of the twin towers, although some experts have pointed to powerful explosives. By press time, Dr. Corley had not responded to questions about the BPS findings and the questions raised by the Windsor Building fire. Corley's assistant told AFP that he had just gone to the airport and would not be returning to the office until Feb. 28. The Windsor Building was built from 1973-1979 in an area of Madrid where commercial property was developed on land owned by Rio Tinto, the international mining giant. This is thought to be the reason why the Windsor Building carries the name of the British royal family. The WTC towers were completed in the early 1970's. The Windsor Building housed the offices of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a multinational financial services company, which occupied 20 floors of the tower. The area where the Windsor Building stands is a mixed residential and commercial area known as the AZCA zone. Dubbed 'Madrid's Manhattan', AZCA contains a cluster of modern skyscrapers. The tallest one is the Torre Picasso, a 516-foot tower built in 1989. The Picasso Tower was designed by Minoru Yamasaki, who also designed the twin towers of the WTC. Unión de Explosivos Río Tinto, S.A., owns the land where the tower stands. Finis The Windsor Building (Edificio Windsor) in Madrid, Spain burned "like a torch" for more than 18 hours from Saturday night, Feb. 12. After burning in an uncontrolled inferno the tower's core columns remain standing with a huge construction crane on top of the roof. This evidence supports the fact that prior to 9/11 NO steel-framed high- rise had ever collapsed due to fire. On 9/11 the 47-story WTC 7, owned by Larry Silverstein, collapsed at 5:25 p.m. There is no explanation for why the WTC 7 collapsed except for the fact that Silverstein told PBS that the decision was made to "pull it" and "we watched it come down." See also: The Collapse of WTC 1: Madrid Exposes a Fundamental Flaw The 9/11 WTC Collapses: An Audio-Video Analysis What Really Happened
There are no replies to Comment # 215. End Trace Mode for Comment # 215.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestany debunkers?
#4. To: Original_Intent (#3)
#6. To: Artisan (#4)
#7. To: Itistoolate (#6)
I'm confused
#8. To: war (#7)
Only if you believe this shit
#11. To: Itistoolate (#8)
#14. To: war (#11)
#17. To: Original_Intent (#14)
Thank you for proving my prediction correct.
#59. To: war (#17)
#68. To: FormerLurker (#59)
Why did it all of a sudden drop like a rock straight down through the steel and concrete rather than simply topple over as it appears ready to do in the following picture?
#73. To: litus (#68)
#130. To: James Deffenbach (#73)
You forgot that it was Magickal Jet Fuel™ that can change properties at will and burn hotter than the sun. And they only ever made one batch of it and it was all used that day as evidenced by the fact that other skyscrapers have burned longer and fully engulfed since then, yet none of them fell. Not one. And some had burned before that day too and not one of those fell either. Steel skyscrapers just can't handle that Magickal Jet Fuel™.
#134. To: phantom patriot (#130)
All this makes me question an engineer who would design a building to take the direct impact of a jet and not take into account for that jet to be able to hit the building it had to be flying and be loaded with FUEL.
#136. To: James Deffenbach (#134)
Many skyscrapers have had fires as intense
#166. To: war (#136)
How many of them had a 450MPH impact and catastrophic explosion prior to the fire?
#182. To: litus (#166)
#184. To: war, litus (#182)
And, the architects/engineers admitted that the 767 hits were outside of the parameters of their "707 scenario".
#186. To: Original_Intent (#184)
#197. To: war, FormerLurker, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, tom007, litus, christine, all (#186)
#200. To: Original_Intent (#197)
A localized fire
#208. To: war, Original_Intent, Wudidiz, FormerLurker (#200)
A localized fire
#211. To: TwentyTwelve (#208)
#215. To: war (#211)
Replies to Comment # 215.