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: 14454
Comments: 607
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-296) not displayed.
.
.
.
#297. To: TwentyTwelve (#267)
As has been pointed out to everyone here more than once, the WTC was not constructed as these buildings were.
As I have posted here more than once the WTC did not fall at free fall speed. HAve you read this thread and are being deliberately stupid or are you assuming?
Uh no. Your own video shows the building favoring the east side as it collapses...
How many times do I have to answer this one? Do you folks believe that if you post the same question with the same faulty premise over and over and over and over that The Premise Fairy will come and wave Moonbat Dust over it and make it true?
You are claiming that when the planes hit @ 400+ and 500+ miles anbd exploded that no internal damage occurred? Can you explain to me how the explosion went from outside io inside without causing any damage? BTW, whent he first plane hit, I was able to speak to my buddy who was a broker at Cantor in WTC 2 and he told me that he felt like his floor was "tipping over" right before his line went dead.
www.infowars.com/?p=2807 Bodies in WTC 7: Jennings Interview Demolishes Official Version Kurt Nimmo Infowars June 23, 2008 It is obvious watching the BBC’s trailer of its "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower," set to air on Sunday, 6 July, that "Auntie Beeb" will attempt to make it appear Building 7 at the WTC complex came down as a result of fire (see trailer below). In other words, it appears the BBC will push — and defend — the government explanation hastily cooked up after attention was focused on the mysterious collapse by researchers, a collapse diligently ignored by the 9/11 Commission in its final report, or that is to say its final whitewash. The Barry Jennings interview with an introduction by Jason Bermas. The clip here will appear in Bermas’ upcoming documentary, Fabled Enemies. The BBC interviewed Dylan Avery, writer and director of the documentary "Loose Change," and during the interview the BBC disputed Avery’s claim that there were dead bodies in the lobby of Building 7 as the result of an explosion prior to the collapse of either WTC buildings. In order to make his point, Dylan showed the BBC video footage of one Barry Jennings, the New York City Housing Authority worker who made the claim of dead bodies strewn in the rubble. The Jennings interview included here was to appear in Loose Change, but Mr. Jennings had reservations after receiving threatening phone calls. He was worried about losing his job and requested the interview not be included. Jennings, and Mike Hess, New York’s corporation counsel and a good buddy of then mayor Rudolph Giuliani, went to the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) on the 23rd floor of WTC 7, but when they arrived found the office evacuated, a situation at odds with the whitewash report. "After the South Tower was hit [at 9:03], OEM senior leadership decided to remain in its ‘bunker’ and continue conducting operations, even though all civilians had been evacuated from 7 WTC," the report states (Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, pp. 305). The whitewash commission’s description runs counter to a report published in The London Independent on September 13, 2001, indicating that Jennings and Hess arrived at the OEM by the time the South Tower was hit, indicating the center was evacuated earlier than officially claimed. The BBC trailer for "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 — The Third Tower." According to Hess, when they used the stairs — the elevator was inoperable — to go down to the eighth floor, “there was an explosion” and they were “trapped on the eighth floor with smoke, thick smoke, all around us, for about an hour and a half.” The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) claims the two men went down the stairs after 9:59, when the first collapse occurred, and were trapped around the time the second tower collapsed at 10:28, a claim at odds with the version published in the London Independent. "After the second plane hit they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. ‘I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell,’ Mr Jennings said." In the video here, Jennings says the lobby of WTC 7 was so destroyed he did not recognize it as such, it was "total ruins," and the fireman escorting him instructed Jennings and Hess not to look down because "we were stepping over [dead] people… and you know you can feel when you are stepping over people." Jennings’ story indicates, contrary to the official version of events, that a bomb or bombs had gone off in WTC 7, well before either WTC buildings collapsed (the south tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m. and the north tower followed at 10:28 a.m.). For the government and the corporate media, the Jennings narrative is problematic, to say the least. As the BBC’s role is to obfuscate what really happened at WTC 7 and push the official version, now increasingly under scrutiny, we can expect the world’s largest media corporation to ignore Jennings’ narrative, recorded last year by Avery and Loose Change co-creator, Jason Bermas. "This is vital information because it is in direct conflict with the official claim that no one was killed inside building 7. The 9/11 Commission report did not even mention building, yet here we have a key witness who told them he saw dead people inside the building after explosions had gutted the lower level," wrote Steve Watson on June 19, 2007. What makes all this information even more explosive is the fact that this individual [now revealed to be Barry Jennings] was interviewed by the 9/11 Commission as they conducted their so called investigation. The fact that the building was not even mentioned in the report in light of this information thus becomes chilling and indicates that officials have lied in stating that they have not come into contact with evidence of explosive devices within the buildings. Avery and Bermas successfully contacted the individual after discovering a TV interview he did on 9/11 while they were trawling through news footage from the day in research for the Final Cut. As this video documents, there were bombs in the buildings, a fact scrubbed from the official whitewash narrative, essentially a fairy tale. Jennings’ description of dead bodies in the bombed out lobby of WTC 7 underscores multiple accounts of bombs in the buildings, from firefighters, law enforcement officers, and other extremely credible witnesses, including the New York Fire Department Chief of Safety, the Assistant Fire Commissioner, and an FBI agent quoted by USA Today (see video at left). For a comprehensive review of these accounts and many others, see Firefighters and law enforcement officers believe that bombs inside the WTC brought down the buildings on the Global Research site. It will be interesting to see how the BBC handles this aspect of the WTC 7 collapse. More than likely, they will ignore Avery’s evidence and push the ludicrous fairy tale that fire so weakened the building it had to be "pulled," as Larry Silverstein so infamously claimed in the PBS’ propaganda piece, "America Rebuilds." As should be obvious to all who pay attention, the textbook demolition of WTC 7 undermines the entire official fairy tale of what happened on the morning of September 11, 2001, and that is why it was not included in the whitewash commission’s report, although NIST has since lamely attempted to blame the collapse on the improbable failure of a single column that supposedly lead to the subsequent failure of the building’s 27 core columns, precipitating a total collapse. Fairy tales aside, it should be obvious what happened to WTC 7 — it was fitted with a bomb or bombs and was intended to collapse at approximately the same time as the other buildings. This plan failed miserably and the September 11 conspirators had no choice but to bring the building down late in the afternoon — to "pull it," as Silverstein explained — and hurriedly cobble together a fantastic and unbelievable explanation that fire had weakened the steel frame structure and precipitated its collapse. Mr. Jennings story demolishes the official fairy tale version and it will be interesting to see how the BBC and the corporate media deal with his story. More than likely, they will continue to ignore the facts — the WTC buildings were brought down through demolition, not as a result of fire, and Mr. Jennings’ story serves as a capstone in the ongoing effort to bring out the truth and ultimately bring to justice the perpetrators.
http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/99-americas/3945-questions-which-are-unan swered-on-911-.html Questions which are Unanswered on 911 Sunday, 25 May 2008 15:11 Pakistan Daily Historically, the only way a modern office building has ever been made to collapse vertically in free-fall, as observed in WTC Building 7, is through the use of shaped cutter charges detonated in a timed sequence. The collapse of New York's World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 is arguably one of the most well documented events in human history. Less well documented is the controversy over why the buildings fell as they did. At the time of writing, 357 architectural and engineering professionals have signed a petition which directly challenges the National Institute of Standards & Training's official finding that the destruction of these massive buildings was caused solely by structural damage from the impact of jet airliners and the resulting fires. The petition, demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation, states, in part: "...the 9/11 investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7." This alarming statement is based on evidence from many sources, including observations of the structural behaviour of the towers as they collapsed, the known characteristics of steel framed buildings, eyewitness testimony of explosions, and research into the chemical composition of dust recovered from the collapse zone. Current research indicates that an incendiary (thermite) may have been used to sever the massive box columns of the towers, causing the buildings to plummet to the ground at close to free-fall speed. Chemical analysis has been conducted by a multi-disciplinary team led by Professor Steven E. Jones and the results published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The membership of Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth is worldwide, and qualified Australians have made contributions. Dr. Frank Legge, a chemist, has co-authored a peer reviewed paper, and Dr. David Leifer of the Faculty of Architecture at the University of Sydney is a registered member of the group. A major focus of research is the mysterious collapse of the 47 storey WTC 7 (Salomon Brothers) Building, which was not hit by any plane, yet suddenly collapsed into its own footprint late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001. Building 7 came down in six and a half seconds, generating a massive dust-cloud similar to the one that had enveloped Manhattan when the Twin Towers collapsed earlier the same day. Researchers contend that only explosives could have provided enough energy to cause the pulverisation of thousands of tons of concrete into dust, and they highlight the symmetrical, free-fall collapse of the building through the path of greatest resistance, indicating that the supporting columns offered no resistance to the falling mass above. Historically, the only way a modern office building has ever been made to collapse vertically in free-fall, as observed in WTC Building 7, is through the use of shaped cutter charges detonated in a timed sequence. This procedure is known as controlled demolition, and requires a precise placement of explosives which are designed to cut through supports successively, usually from the bottom up, pulling buildings down under their own weight. The collapse of Building 7 is visually identical to a controlled demolition, as illustrated in a side by side comparison on Youtube. Demolition expert Danny Jowenko has gone on record confirming this observation. "A team of experts did this", he said. The essence of why we need a new investigation into the World Trade Center collapses is summed up in a recent paper by Dr. Frank Legge: "As no reports have come to light of any steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire, and as all steel framed buildings which had collapsed had done so due to explosive demolition, the logical way to have started the investigation of this surprising event would have been to question whether explosives had been used. This apparently did not occur. The organisations carrying out the investigations clearly selectively collected data and contrived arguments to support the fire theory and ignored contradictory evidence. This is in defiance of the scientific method and flouts the ethical standard of behaviour which the public is entitled to receive from their paid servants." The hypothesis of controlled demolition finds further support in many eyewitness accounts, including live TV coverage, which described massive explosions in the lower levels of the World Trade Center prior to the collapse. William Rodriguez, an acknowledged hero of 9/11 who single-handedly rescued fifteen people from the North Tower, described a massive explosion in the basement which occurred before the first plane struck, pushing him upwards out of the seat of his chair. The New York Fire Department's oral histories project contains 118 witness statements which are strongly consistent with explosive demolition. Incredibly, none of this shocking testimony was included or acknowledged in any official investigation, including the 9/11 Commission. There is a groundswell of public pressure from family members of victims and ordinary people the world over, to re-open the investigation of 9/11. As seen in the groundbreaking film 9/11: Press For Truth, it was due to the pressure of a group of victim family members, known as the Jersey Girls, that the 9/11 Commission was created, and yet that same commission failed to answer the majority of questions raised by these courageous women. Films such as Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries have been viewed by millions on the internet, and opinion polls have consistently shown that a large proportion of the public does not accept the official narrative of 9/11. Many believe there has been a major cover-up, while others believe that September 11 was an "inside job". As an Australian, I believe there is an urgent need for a new investigation for several reasons. First, there is the war in Afghanistan, which has already claimed thousands of lives, and appears to have no end in sight. If the 9/11 official narrative proves to be false, then the attack on Afghanistan may be a war crime. Second, there is the continued erosion of civil liberties in the form of anti-terror legislation, and increases in police powers of surveillance and detention, which relies largely on 9/11 as the primary justification. Finally, there are core values of truth, decency and justice at stake, which I wish to uphold and which I ask all Australians to join me in upholding as I say to our elected leaders, with all due respect, we need a new investigation.
I don't debate spam. It's time for you to start dealing with the contradictions to your bullshit that I have pointed out.
The two major biullhits that you are promoting is the 707 scenario and the fact that the WTC was NOT a steel framed building.
Geez...trying to do two thigs at once... The two major biulshits that you are promoting are the 707 scenario and ignoring the fact that the WTC was NOT a steel framed building.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/190807Building.htm Ground Zero Building Catches Fire, Doesn't Collapse Prisonplanet.com Sunday Aug 19, 2007 The 40 story Deutsche Bank building next to the ground zero site in New York, where the world trade center once stood, caught fire yesterday and burned intensely for seven hours without collapsing. This represents another modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours. This building had even suffered structural damage on 9/11 and had been partially dismantled. The raging fire, which killed two firefighters, was finally declared under control late saturday afternoon, a full seven hours after it had begun to burn. On 9/11 the south tower of the WTC burned for just 56 minutes before collapsing, while the north tower lasted around an hour and 45 minutes. According to the official transcripts of the firefighter tapes, fires in both towers were almost out immediately before the collapses. The saving grace that could have prevented Deutsche Bank from imploding may have been the fact that it was not hit by a plane, as the twin towers were on 9/11. However, the absence of a jet strike wasn't enough to prevent WTC 7 from crumbling into its own footprint within 7 seconds later that fateful afternoon. Hundreds of buildings worldwide suffered major fires that gutted the entire facade of their structure before 9/11 and did not collapse, but since the twin towers behaved differently, rather than consider an alternative explanation for the collapse of the towers, experts simply decided to reverse the fundamental precepts of all known physics to make it easier for everyone to understand. Since that time, it has been commonly accepted that limited fires in tall buildings are 99% certain to cause an almost instantaneous collapse. More pictures and an AP report on the latest blaze follow.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/may2005/040505potentialfraud.htm Major WTC Insurance Company Questions Building 7 Collapse As Potential Fraud PR Web | May 4 2005 RELATED: WTC 7 Imploded by Silverstein, FDNY and Others A proposal by a small shareholder to withhold approval from the Board of Directors for failure to investigate signs of insurance fraud on 9/11 has been published on the website of the Allianz Group, one of the world’s largest insurers, in preparation for its May 4th annual meeting. (PRWEB) May 2, 2005 -- Allianz Group published a shareholder proposal on April 20th faulting management for ignoring signs of insurance fraud on 9/11/2001. Allianz carried a significant portion of the insurance coverage on the WTC, and stands to pay a corresponding portion of the $3.5 billion payout currently being litigated in New York. In his proposal, shareholder John Leonard, a California native and a publisher of books on 9/11, pointed to reports that building WTC 7 apparently collapsed by demolition, and for no plausible reason related to the 9/11 attacks. Management replied that it relied on official US government reports which made no mention of such evidence. The Allianz Group is incorporated in Germany and has approximately 570,000 shareholders. Under German Stock Companies law, publicly held companies are required to publish shareholder proposals that meet certain criteria. The text of the shareholder proposal, which may also be viewed at the Allianz website, http://www.allianzgroup.com/azgrp/dp/cda/0,,100646-49,00.html, is reproduced below.
BE SURE AND CLICK ON CONTENTS AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: The Collapse of WTC ... An investigation of WTC 7's collapse, evidence of controlled demolition. Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed. Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?
------------------------------------------------------------------ http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html The Core Structures The Structural System of the Twin Towers Each tower was supported by a structural core extending from its bedrock foundation to its roof. The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet. The core structures housed the elevators, stairs, and other services. The cores had their own flooring systems, which were structurally independent of the floor diaphragms that spanned the space between the cores and the perimeter walls. The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed. Reports on the number of core columns vary from 44 to 47. The exact arrangement of the columns is not known due to the secrecy of detailed engineering drawings of the towers. It is clear from photographs, such as the one on the right, that the core columns were abundantly cross-braced. Establishing the true nature of the core structures is of great importance given that the most widely read document on the World Trade Center attack -- the 9/11 Commission Report -- denies their very existence, claiming the towers' cores were "hollow steel shaft[s]:" For the dimensions, see FEMA report, "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart. These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004. 1 column base The top illustration indicates what may have been typical dimensions and thickness of the smaller core columns, about half-way up the tower. The outermost rows of core columns were apparently considerably larger, measuring 54 inches wide. Columns The core columns were steel box-columns that were continuous for their entire height, going from their bedrock anchors in the sub-basements to near the towers' tops, where they transitioned to H-beams. Apparently the box columns, more than 1000 feet long, were built as the towers rose by welding together sections several stories tall. The sections were fabricated by mills in Japan that were uniquely equipped to produce the large pieces. 2 Some of the core columns apparently had outside dimensions of 36 inches by 16 inches. Others had larger dimensions, measuring 52 inches by 22 inches. 3 The core columns were oriented so that their longer dimensions were perpendicular to the core structures' longer, 133-foot-wide sides. Construction photographs found at the Skyscraper Museum in New York City indicate that the outermost rows of core columns on the cores' longer sides were of the larger dimensions. Both the FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study and the NIST's Draft Report on the Twin Towers fail to disclose the dimensions of the core columns, and the NIST Report implies that only the four core columns on each core's corners had larger dimensions. Like the perimeter columns -- and like steel columns in all tall buildings -- the thickness of the steel in the core columns tapered from bottom to top. Near the bottoms of the towers the steel was four inches thick, whereas near the tops it may have been as little as 1/4th inch thick. The top figure in the illustration to the right is a cross-section of one of the smaller core columns from about half-way up a tower, where the steel was about two inches thick. The bottom figure shows the base of one of the larger core columns, where the steel was five inches thick. The bases of the columns also had slabs of steel running through their centers, making them almost solid. Column Arrangement The exact arrangement of the columns and how they were cross-braced is not apparent from public documents such as FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study. The arrangement of box columns depicted in Figure 2-10 of Chapter 2 (pictured to the right) seems plausible, even though it contradicts other illustrations in the report showing a more random arrangement. It depicts the top floors of a tower and does not indicate the widths of the columns on a typical floor. Cross-Bracing Construction photographs show that the core columns were connected to each other at each floor by large square girders and I-beams about two feet deep. The debris photograph below shows what appears to be one of the smaller core columns surrounded by perpendicular I-beams approximately three feet deep. In addition, the tops of core structures were further connected by the sloping beams of the hat truss structures. This photograph from Ground Zero is apparently of one of the smaller core columns connected to a set of I-beams. This image from the documentary Up From Zero shows the base of a core column, whose dimensions, minus the four flanges, are apparently 52 by 22 inches, with walls at least 5 inches thick. References 1. 9-11 Commission Report; NOTES; Chapter 9 Heroism and Horror; Note 1, 9-11Commission.gov, 2. APPENDIX B: Structural Steel and Steel Connections, FEMA.gov, 2002 3. World's Tallest Towers Begin to Show Themselves on New York City Skyline, Engineering News Record, 1/1/1970
It's time for you to start dealing with the contradictions to your bullshit that I have pointed out.
The Core Structures The Structural System of the Twin Towers You call this spam? Deal with it.
Deal with it. I have which goes to show that you ARE spamming and not reading.
I don't agree with the conclusions...nevertheless....I see the word "steel" throughout when speaking of the design of this building. The towers were designed and built in the mid-1960s through the early 1970s. They represented a new approach to skyscrapers in that they were to be very lightweight and involved modular construction methods in order to accelerate the schedule and to reduce the costs. To a structural engineer, a skyscraper is modeled as a large cantilever vertical column. Each tower was 64 m square, standing 411 m above street level and 21 m below grade. This produces a height-to-width ratio of 6.8. The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t, but wind load, rather than the gravity load, dominated the design. The building is a huge sail that must resist a 225 km/h hurricane. It was designed to resist a wind load of 2 kPa—a total of lateral load of 5,000 t. In order to make each tower capable of withstanding this wind load, the architects selected a lightweight “perimeter tube” design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers ... The clean-up of the World Trade Center will take many months. After all, 1,000,000 t of rubble will require 20,000 to 30,000 truckloads to haul away the material. The asbestos fire insulation makes the task hazardous for those working nearby. Interestingly, the approximately 300,000 t of steel is fully recyclable and represents only one day’s production of the U.S. steel industry. Separation of the stone and concrete is a common matter for modern steel shredders. The land-filling of 700,000 t of concrete and stone rubble is more problematic. However, the volume is equivalent to six football fields, 6–9 m deep, so it is manageable.
Fron YOUR link, Moonie: The Perimeter Walls The Structural System of the Twin Towers The towers' perimeter walls comprised dense grids of vertical steel columns and horizontal spandrel plates. These, along with the core structures, supported the towers. In addition to supporting gravity loads, the perimeter walls stiffened the Towers against lateral loads, particularly those due to winds. The fact that these structures were on the exterior of the Towers made them particularly efficient at carrying lateral loads. Richard Roth, speaking on behlf of the architectural firm that designed the Towers, described each of the perimeter walls as essentially "a steel beam 209' deep." 1 Regardless, it is clear that the core structures were designed to support several times the weight of each tower by themselves. ~snip~ When the perimeter SUPPORT walls were compromised and further, lesser load bearing support systems became compromised over time, there was only one ossible outcome.
A steel framed building is one in which the ENTIRE structure is effectively laticed I-Beams fashioned into rectangles and/or squares and walls and floors are then constructed using them as support. I posted a picture of one above... The WTC was constructed as a hollow tube external wall support structure that would bear both horizontal and lateral loads while an inner core would have some horizontal support function as well as provide for a hanger for the floors instead of the usual system of columns: The tubular framing system for the perimeter walls resisted all of the lateral forces imposed by wind and earthquake, as well as the impact loads imposed on September 11. Although we had used closely spaced columns in an earlier building, it was Minoru Yamasaki who proposed that we use narrow windows in the WTC towers to give people a sense of security as they looked down from on high. Our contribution was to make the closely spaced columns the fundamental lateral- force-resisting system for the two towers. The tubular framing system also precluded the need for the customary 30-foot column spacing in interior areas, making column-free, rentable space structurally desirable.
Why 'Debunkers' Help The 911 Truth Movement
There are two kinds of Moonbats who exist... Troofers and Birfers...
Troofers and Birfers... Debunkers are either: 1. Government shills or 2. just plain stupid
You didn't have anything better than "I'm rubber and you're glue..."?
Well, of course it didn't. No Magickal Jet Fuel™. If a drop of that had hit it, it would have been doomed.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. You diagnosed their problem. Either they are paid disinformationists OR too stupid to be allowed to run loose.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Troofers and Birfers... You sound like a member of the knuckledragger crew over at FreeRepublic. As I said earlier, I really don't want to waste my time trying to have an exchange of ideas with a person who is either extremely stupid and will NEVER accept anything that contradicts his fairytale illusion of what is real, or one who is PURPOSELY ACTING stupid in order to perform his duties as assigned by his superiors. I might toss out some relevent info from time to time, but you are either not intelligent enough to comprehend it or you deliberately ignoring the simple truths that I present. I've often delt with disinformation specialists over the many years I've been posting on FR and later LP. I had gone back and forth for days, weeks, and sometimes even months and years with the best (or worst) of them. You don't rate that sort of attention. Here on 4um people don't buy the bullshit you sort of people are selling, so I don't need to be as active in exposing you and your lies, people already know what the situation is...
Do you even know what a LATERAL LOAD is? It's the load placed upon the walls of the building exerted by the wind. So what's your point?
Dude...seriously...nothing you've presented has withstood scrutiny. Nothing. You folks act as if it was a fly that hit the towers that day...I was there...I have never heard anything as loud as those two planes hitting those towers... You've seen the destruction that plane crashes cause when they hit earth...what makes you believe that what was inside the Towers would NOT have been destroyed? You keep comparing the WTC to "steel framed buildings". I have shown you several times over that the buildings were NOT steel framed. I ahve provided you with the words of the Structural Engineer who has explained the hollow tube construction method that was used. Yet, still, you insist on comparing the WTC to steel framed buildings. I have given you the words of the structural engineer who said that the 707 scenario was NOT the same scenario as what occurred on 9/11. Yet, still, you insist on ignoring that and creating yoru own bizarre 707 scenario as if it were fact. Doouschenbag keeps trying to promote ther idea/belief that the govenment findfings were that jet fuel btrought the towers down. I posted the exact statement from the NIST Report which states SPECIFICALLY that jet fule did not cause the collapse. TwentyTwelve has spammed this trhead in the obvious hopes that he can befuddle me with bullshit. I went through his mess and refuted several points and sourced them. His response was to continue to post spam that repeated the same bullshit that I had refuted...
Unbelievable! How stupid can you be?
God is always good!
Yep...it's the horizontal load...gravity load is verticall load...the outer support had to be strong enough to serve a dual purpose. THAT is what you are grnoring...when the outer support was breached, the buildings weight bearing mechinism was compromised both vertical and lateral...when the core was damaged by the impact and explosion it was furher breached...when the trusses holding the platform gave way, the WHOLE Building was at the mercy of gravity.
Obviously exponentiallly less than you. The "framing" of the WTC was a core inside of a hollow tube with platforms on trusses. I've posted the structural enigneer tellign you exactly that. Why do you ignore it?
I believe you can figure that out for yourself. How smart can a government-loving Obamabot actually be?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Only a small part of the outer support was damaged, and the central core was relatively unscathed. The "horizontal load" is just a red herring as it has no bearing on the building's ability to support the weight of the building itself. The fires did not burn long enough to heat the structure to a point it would weaken the steel, as the building acted as a huge heatsink and dissipated the heat from the office fires. Even IF a few floors had collapsed at the height of the actual damage, there would not have been enough energy to cause a total collapse of the building. And you STILL haven't answered the following questions; A) Given that the time it would have taken for an object to fall from the top of the building was only several seconds less than the time it took for the buildings to totally collapse, the fact is, it only took several seconds for 100 or so floors built of steel and concrete to be pulverized and destroyed. How do you explain that? B) What happened to the core? If the floors had pancaked as claimed, they should have slid down the core and the core should have remained standing. C) The spire (remnant of the core) was seen for about 20 seconds after the collapse, then it apparently vaporized into dust. How do you explain that? D) The towers were designed to withstand an impact of a heavier and faster aircraft than those which impacted it. How do you explain the fact they failed when they were designed to withstand that event?
Dude, you ignored my questions and answered them with something resembling a wild eyed sermon. You can not answer the questions because the only answers (honest answers at least) would be something contrary to your religious devotion to the government tale.
Ther3e you go again...you posted that above and were shown to be incorrect: The fires did not burn long enough to heat the structure to a point it would weaken the steel, as the building acted as a huge heatsink and dissipated the heat from the office fires. Once again you posted that above and were refuted: Given that the time it would have taken for an object to fall from the top of the building was only several seconds less than the time it took for the buildings to totally collapse, the fact is, it only took several seconds for 100 or so floors built of steel and concrete to be pulverized and destroyed. A) The steel was not pulverized...they only things that were pulverized were oobjets that could be pulverized. Microscopic analysis of WTC dust by Nicholas Petraco, BS, MS, DABC, FAAFS, FNYMS at The New York Microscopic Society lecture held at AMNH 28 May 2003: 45.1% Fiberglass, rock wool (insulation, fireproofing) 31.8% Plaster (gypsum), concrete products (calcium sulfate, selenite, muscodite) 7.1% Charred wood and debris 2.1% Paper fibers 2.1% Mica flakes 2.0% Ceiling tiles (fiberglass component) 2.0% Synthetic fibers 1.4% Glass fragments 1.4% Natural fibers 1.3% Human remains Trace asbestos (it became illegal to use during the construction of the WTC) Other trace elements: aluminum, paint pigments, blood, hair, glass wool with resin, and prescription drugs were found. Oddly missing is...wait for it...STEEL... B) I posted a chart above showing that the collapse took time well in excess of free fall speed. What happened to the core? INertia and gravity destroyed it, The towers were designed to withstand an impact of a heavier and faster aircraft than those which impacted it. How do you explain the fact they failed when they were designed to withstand that event? And there you go yet again...I POST THE WORDS OF THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WHO STATED THAT IS BULLSHIT...I POSTED THE SPECS OF THE 707 V 767 THAT SHOWED YOU THAT STETMENT OF CONTRAST IS BULLSHIT.
The exchanges between you and I on this whole thread, most recently the one above, speaks otehrwise...
O_I posted this farther upthread and this is just a short excerpt. I thought it was great. For this, its necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose Kerosene which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball , vapourising a sixty-five ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000 degrees centigrade for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building. When I was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the conspiracy theorist. Gleefully, they claim that a few thousand gallons of Kerosene is enough to: - Completely vapourise a sixty-five ton aircraft - Have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel - melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel - Still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building This Kerosene really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those Kerosene heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been vapourised. And never again will I take Kerosene lamps out camping. One moment you're there innocently holding the lamp - the next - kapow! Vapourised into nothing along with with the rest of the camp site, and still leaving enough of the deadly stuff to start a massive forest fire. These whackos are actually claiming that the raging inferno allegedly created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning Kerosene melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the black smoke coming from the WTC indicates an oxygen starved fire - therefore not particularly hot - they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 degrees centigrade, without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics. Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel frames softened, they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways. Since they're already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet fuel, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and redefined the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way? The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that its physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. But according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of September 11th. It appears that the evil psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knew no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the tower at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures originally designed to resist many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the impact of a Boeing passenger jet straying off course.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. What, is he saying that the WTC was NOT designed to withstand the impact of a 707? The 767 was carrying less than half its fuel capacity, and its fuel capacity was about the same as a 707. A 707 cruises at 607 mph, and a 767 cruises at 530 mph. So what part of that don't you understand?
Too bad for you that entire scenario was conjured up in the mind of a moonbat. Did the fact that there is not one citation in that piece of fiction escape you?
Yep, yet people like war can't understand any of that...
Comments (338 - 607) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#298. To: TwentyTwelve (#271)
You believe that a 110 story building can fall to the earth at the same rate as it would if it fell through thin air,
#299. To: litus (#275)
It all but fell right into its footprint...you are talking about fractions rather than yards of difference between what "should have" happened as opposed to what actually happened.
#300. To: TwentyTwelve, litus (#276)
If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707
#301. To: RickyJ (#283)
The central core columns would have sustained very little to no damage due to the exterior columns absorbing most of the blow and significantly slowing down any remaining debris of the plane.
#302. To: war, litus (#299)
#303. To: war, litus (#299)
#304. To: TwentyTwelve (#302)
#305. To: TwentyTwelve (#303)
#306. To: TwentyTwelve (#303)
#307. To: war, RickyJ, Litus (#301)
#308. To: war, Litus (#304)
#309. To: war, Litus (#304)
An investigation of WTC 7's collapse, evidence of controlled demolition.
www.wtc7.net/ - 7k -
#310. To: war, litus (#306)
9-11 Research: The Core Structures
structural cores of the World Trade Center Twin Towers,core columns.
911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html - 23k -
#311. To: TwentyTwelve (#310)
I don't debate spam.
#312. To: war (#311)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
#313. To: TwentyTwelve (#312)
You call this spam?
#314. To: war, TwentyTwelve (#305)
the WTC was NOT a steel framed building.
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation [http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html]
#315. To: TwentyTwelve (#312)
#316. To: litus (#314)
#317. To: war (#313)
Two kinds of 9-11 truth deniers (debunkers) exist today: Those who deny our government has the expertise to carry out the 9-11 attack, and those who deny ...
www.rense.com/general73/whyd.htm - 29k -
#318. To: TwentyTwelve (#317)
#319. To: war (#318)
There are two kinds of Moonbats who exist...
#320. To: TwentyTwelve (#319)
#321. To: TwentyTwelve (#307)
The 40 story Deutsche Bank building next to the ground zero site in New York, where the world trade center once stood, caught fire yesterday and burned intensely for seven hours without collapsing.
Lord Acton
#322. To: TwentyTwelve (#319)
Lord Acton
#323. To: war (#318)
There are two kinds of Moonbats who exist...
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#324. To: war (#315)
In addition to supporting gravity loads, the perimeter walls stiffened the Towers against lateral loads
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#325. To: FormerLurker, TwentyTwelve, itus, James Deffenbach (#323)
I might toss out some relevent info from time to time, but you are either not intelligent enough to comprehend it or you deliberately ignoring the simple truths that I present.
#326. To: war (#325)
I have shown you several times over that the buildings were NOT steel framed.
#327. To: FormerLurker (#324)
Do you even know what a LATERAL LOAD is?
#328. To: RickyJ (#326)
How stupid can you be?
#329. To: RickyJ (#326)
Unbelievable! How stupid can you be?
Lord Acton
#330. To: war (#327)
THAT is what you are grnoring...when the outer support was breached, the buildings weight bearing mechinism was compromised both vertical and lateral...
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#331. To: war (#325)
Dude...seriously...nothing you've presented has withstood scrutiny. Nothing.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#332. To: FormerLurker (#330)
Only a small part of the outer support was damaged
#333. To: FormerLurker (#331)
you ignored my questions
#334. To: FormerLurker, Original_Intent (#330)
Lord Acton
#335. To: war (#332)
And there you go yet again...I POST THE WORDS OF THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WHO STATED THAT IS BULLSHIT...I POSTED THE SPECS OF THE 707 V 767 THAT SHOWED YOU THAT STETMENT OF CONTRAST IS BULLSHIT.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#336. To: James Deffenbach (#334)
#337. To: James Deffenbach (#334)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
.
.
.