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:14338 Comments:607
WTC 7's location Building 7 occupied a city block immediately north of the World Trade Center complex. WTC 1 through WTC 6 were on the superblock bounded by West, Church, Liberty, and Vesey Streets. Building 7 was wedged between the Verizon and U.S. Post Office buildings across Vesey Street from the WTC complex. It straddled an electrical substation that filled the first two stories of about half the block.
People who have heard of Building 7 tend to assume that 'ancillary damage' from the collapses of the Twin Towers had something to do with Building 7's collapse. It is important to note that Building 7 was no closer to the towers than any of several other large buildings outside of the WTC complex. The wall of Building 7 closest to the WTC complex was more than 300 feet from the nearest wall of the North Tower. It appears that nearly all of the heavy fallout from the disintegration of the North Tower landed short of Building 7. Building 6 stood between the North Tower and Building 7.
Absent any greater and opposite force, It had no choice but to drop straight down once the center of gravity was horizontally established.
Hey moron, there was something in the way of it dropping straight down, and it was called the WORLD TRADE CENTER. Are you that fucking insane that you think the entire structure of the WTC was actually an illusion, that it was really thin air?
The top of the tower had started to topple over, indicating one corner of the supporting structure below had failed. It should have continued in that direction, ABSENT ANY OTHER FORCE (or removal of an existing opposing force).
Only a TOTAL and INSTANTANEOUS collapse of the structure below (OR the possibility that the steel core had remained intact and the top of the tower actually SLID down the core) could explain the way it dropped DOWN instead of TUMBLING over.
Being that there would have been incredible resistance to such a fall from the supporting structure below AND the central core, the core should have burst out of the upwards angled side of the upper tower and the top of the tower should have toppled, since it was already on an angle and would have had horizontal forces acting upon it EVEN as it fell downwards. Considering the core was tapered as you so unthinkingly recite, the gradually thickening core would have provided increasing resistance to the top of the tower, slowing it down to where it should have STOPPED sliding down it IF it was in fact doing so.
Only a total and absolute demolition of ANY and ALL supporting structures below AND WITHIN (including the steel core) PRIOR to impact from the falling structure would explain the manner in which the towers collapsed.
"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
As you can seee, there were elevators within the core. Furthermore, the core was reliant on the exterior support beams to relieve it of being the lone horizontal load bearing mechanism.
There was not a hurricane going on that day, so resistance to horizonal force is not a factor. It's the VERTICAL support that mattered. Regardless, the majority of the exterior support columns were intact.
"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
911 Mysteries: Demolitions is the film that did the most to wake me up to the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center on 9/11. I highly recommend that everyone watch this film. If you want to know the truth about 9/11 please watch.
This what Frank A. DeMartini, WTC construction and project manager said...
quote: "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
That's it. I've previously referenced the temperature from more authoritative sites which I can't find at the moment, but I'll cite WikiAnswers on this one.
I'm going out to the garage to do some fabrication work. Got some kerosene out there, and I think that I've got a thermometer that will go that high. I'll run a little experiment later and tell you how it turned out.
The top of the tower did topple over as you've been shown...
BTW, you contradict yourself here. Did it topple or did it drop staight down? It's easy to see the answer on various videos, but I'd like you to admit that it couldn't have done BOTH.
"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
This 110-story steel-framed office building suffered a fire on the 11th floor on February 13, 1975. The loss was estimated at over $2000000. ... www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_1975_fire.html - 9k - Cached -
The top of the tower did topple over as you've been shown...
BTW, you contradict yourself here. Did it topple or did it drop staight down? It's easy to see the answer on various videos, but I'd like you to admit that it couldn't have done BOTH.
I know what I saw in the videos....and it is a physical impossibility for it to do both.
Me: Oh and BTW, there were no "raging fires", there was a bit of a diesel fire inside but nothing close to a "raging fire".
war: You're out of your fucking mind. Do I need to post yet even more pictures showing how stupid you are?
You're busted. I just noticed you posted an image of WTC5 trying to pass it off as an image of WTC7. The image properties indicate the file name is http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/docs/wtc5_fire_floors.jpg, which shows that image depicts Building 5 not Building 7.
"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
Me: The individuals listed as the hijackers are not said to be using aliases
war: If they weren't who they said that then what else could they have been using?
Huh? Are you even an American? You don't speak the language very well...
"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
So.......were they wrong then or wrong after 9/11...."what steel frames"?????
lol!
That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9/11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows. This indicates a temperature greater than 700°C. In the 9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C.
So now you know that the WTC towers were well designed and quite capable of surviving a serious fire. I repeat that this was a very hot fire that burnt through the open-plan office area of the eleventh floor and spread up and down the central core area for many floors. This was a serious fire.
Original Scans from archived issues of The New York Times. on 9/11 the fires burned for much shorter times and were the official cause of collapse. We have also recently seen other tall steel buildings burn for hours and stay standing.
#372. To: war, Original_Intent, ALL (#194)(Edited)
Oh and BTW war, I also noticed you used screenshots from a flash presentation provided by the GOVERNMENT for its case against Zacarias Moussaoui. These are NOT flight manifests, but simply a visual aid created by the government.
As far as the FLIGHT MANIFESTS, well, go ahead and find them...
"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
B) I posted a chart above showing that the collapse took time well in excess of free fall speed.
It must not have been very large or colorful since I can't find it anywhere on this thread. Please point out which post it was, and/or repost the chart.
"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
Oh and BTW war, I also noticed you used screenshots from a flash presentation provided by the GOVERNMENT for its case against Zacarias Moussaoui. These are NOT flight managests, but simply a visual aid created by the government.
As far as the FLIGHT MANIFESTS, well, go ahead and find them...
None of the official hijackers of the Sep11th-attack appeared on the original manifest of the passenger list.
Here is the official info about these "hijackers". Many of the real identities are still alive. The FBI ignored these facts during 2001-2002 and never updated their suspect list.
Another particularly important part of this is to note that Towers one, two, and seven have all of the 10 characteristics of a controlled demolition, a building collapsing from fire and plane impact damage having one of the characteristics of controlled demolition is astronomically rare, the chances of this damage having all 10 characteristics of a controlled demolition and not being a controlled demolition is next to nil. These characteristics are.
1. Each collapse occurred at virtually free fall speed;
2. Each building collapsed straight down, for the most part onto its own footprint;
3. Virtually all the concrete was turned into very fine dust;
4. In the case of the Twin Towers, the dust was blown out horizontally for 200 feet or more;
5. The collapses were total, leaving no steel columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air;
6. Videos of the collapses reveal "demolition waves", meaning "confluent rows of small explosions";
7. Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long;
8. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings;
9. Each collapse was associated with detectable seismic vibrations (suggestive of underground explosions);
10. Each collapse produced molten steel (which would be produced by explosives), resulting in "hot spots" that remained for months.?
Oh, one other bit of info war. You know that picture you misidentified as WTC7 where it was actually an image of WTC5, well that is captioned as follows in the following link...
Figure 4-13 from the FEMA Report shows WTC5 burning, with labeled floors.
"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
What you fail to consider is that the fires did not burn hot enough to weaken the structure.
What you Fail lto consider that a) they were already weakened from the impact and explposionn and b) that the fires did get hot enough to tweak the metal...
Look at any video of the second plane hitting the building...the explosion does not initiate outside of the building...it bursts FROM the building...
I knew Eurobroker guys in WTC 1 who were impacted by a fireball and explosion at the elevator crossover @ 44.
Your problem is that I know people who were in that building...who felt the impact explosion IN THE BUILDING...they didn't "hear it" outside the building.
Until it was acted upon by a plane travellng at 400+ MPH and then further acted upon by the energy expended in supporting more weight than that for which it was designed...unless for some stupid reason you believe that the plane came to a dead stop just before hitting it...which, given your insnae blatherings here, it would NOT surprise me if you did believe that...
It is important to note that Building 7 was no closer to the towers than any of several other large buildings outside of the WTC complex.
Fitterman is still undergoing reconstruction...the DB Building is being deconstructed. 1 Liberty was damaged massively and required a half year of reconstrcution.
That said, none of those buildings burned for 7 hours...
The top of the tower had started to topple over, indicating one corner of the supporting structure below had failed. It should have continued in that direction,
When you use the word "toppling" you imply that it was already in motion and that should have been propelled away from the building.
You need to grasp a basic concept of physics as to how gravity affects a body...once it's center is established...it falls straight down...the top of the tower was a body at rest and so while it was "tilted" it was so at rest...once the support beneath it gave way it was a simple exercise of falling...the only direction in which it should have continued was down...
The top of the tower had started to topple over, indicating one corner of the supporting structure below had failed. It should have continued in that direction, ABSENT ANY OTHER FORCE
The only force acting on it was gravity. Does gravity affect a body from the side?
#389. To: FormerLurker, TwentyTwelve, litus, randge, scrapper2, James Deffenbach (#358)
There was not a hurricane going on that day, so resistance to horizonal force is not a factor.
Have you ever been in the Towers? If so then you know there is a natural sway to them...lateral forces were continually at work on them...
Secondly, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, the external support mitigated the vertical load and since the external support was compromised the energy being put upon and expended by the core was substanially more than normal.
Regardless, the majority of the exterior support columns were intact.
Feel free to wax eloquently on the WTC designer's using redundant support columns on the exterior.
Also, you want it both ways...you'll claim that it was controlled demolition that brought the towers down which is a process by which only some of the main supports are destroyed...but here you are claiming that because some of the support remained thatg it should not have collapsed.
Can any of you Moonbats explain to me, that if the government did this, why did they allow 22K people to escape with their lives and why did they go to the trouble of haing planes flyu into the buildings? The WTC had been bombed before. Why not just bomb it again?
BTW, you contradict yourself here. Did it topple or did it drop staight down?
Well...I was accepting your use of the word topple which I then disputed above...the top does move angularly for the brief moment it took to establish a center of gravity...
Secondly, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, the external support mitigated the vertical load and since the external support was compromised the energy being put upon and expended by the core was substanially more than normal.
No, the load put on the core would not have been significantly greater than normal. The vast majority of the exterior columns were undamaged so the change in load on the core would have been minimal.
In the 9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C.
Nope.
The windows were broken by impact AND explosion.
But your starement is moronic from several other angles as well not the least of which was that since the fire was already vented all it had to do was feed and accelerate......
![[Sept11Wiki]](/img/moin-inter.gif){kind=small}
