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: 14621
Comments: 607
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 393.
#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?! : )
Two Floors My Ass...
Yes. That's mightily impressive, a fire like that which can bring down a building onto its own feet. Have you see the photos of the other skyscrapers, literally in hell fire throughout, yet those buildings stand? I have.
A) The fire did not act alone. B) It did not fall into it's own feet. 1 fell into the DB Building* and 2 fell into the south facade of 7. I worked at 1 Liberty Plaza on 9/11 and did diasster recovery work that necessitated me going into the building a week or so later. You could clearly see that the towers fell over as well as down. Windows in about 20 floors of the western facade of 1 Liberty were gone... Piece of WTC 1 in DB building... YO can see parts of 2 on 7's footprint as well as the damage to 1 Liberty.
It fell straight down war, you can't deny that fact. So yes, it fell into it's own footprint, but sure there will be debris in the immediate area. What did you expect it to do, drill a whole for itself into the ground and fall into it?
Despite all the photo evidence that I just provided you to the contrary? Did the conspirators come in with a huge crain when noone was looking and put that piece of WTC 1 into the DB Building and take that huge assed scoop out of it as well?
You fool, do you see any buildings with the top section of the WTC impaled into them? The fact that debris was blown outwards is not the same as the tower falling over.
Wha...huh? I challenge you to post a pic of any controlled demolition wherein the debris field was as far outside of its paramerers as it was at WTC...hell...the collpase of WTC 2 demolished the atrium of the WFC across the street... When Pittsburgh had 3 Rivers Stadium brought down it stood yards from the new field which wasn't even scratched...
So what exactly are you trying to say here? Did it topple over or did it fall straight down into its own footprint?
It collapsed in the manner gravity and then momentum affected it...to all points...
So it fell because of gravity. Hmmm, well why didn't it fall as soon as they built it then? Those 100 or so of UNDAMAGED floors dissolved into thin air, where even butter would have offered more resistance. They must have been pretty weak huh. Good thing nobody ever jumped up and down or the whole thing would have gone down sooner, right?
Your questions are devolving further into stupidity. Engineering kept it standing...just as your legs do for you...take out your ligature around your knee and see if you don't topple over from being top heavy. IN the case of the WTC, floor trusses acted as ligature.
Do you see where I'm going with this? If the top of the tower tilted to its side then dropped straight down, the only explanation would be that the core was intact but bent and that the top of the tower slid down the core. So if the core was intact, where IS IT? It simply vanished, as if it wasn't even there. There are some videos which show a "spire" like core structure reaching up to mid level of the tower, then simply vaporizing 20 seconds or so afterwards. Hmmm. What do you make of that? Did you find any NIST data that speaks about that topic? And BTW, if the top of the tower slid down the core, how could it have fallen at virtual free fall speed where there would have been tremendous friction involved slowing down its descent? In addition to the time required to overcome the resistance to the steel core, what about the time required to smash the steel and concrete of each of the 100 floors below it? It did all that in about a second, subtracting the time it would have taken for it to fall through thin air. C'mon Mr. Wizard, give us some physics here.
Dude...you are so fucking babbling. top trying to ***think*** and start using REALITY.wtc floor construction This is what the floorstructure of the WTC looked like around the core: 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. Once that exterior had been breached and then the internal bracing compromised, there was no other outcome available but destruction.
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.
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?
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.
#395. To: RickyJ (#393)
Please list your engineering credentials that you could contradict the designers... Thanks...
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?
#77. To: litus (#68)
#79. To: war (#77)
#93. To: litus (#79)
Yes. That's mightily impressive, a fire like that which can bring down a building onto its own feet.
#98. To: war (#93)
YO can see parts of 2 on 7's footprint as well as the damage to 1 Liberty.
#101. To: FormerLurker (#98)
It fell straight down war,
#115. To: war (#101)
Despite all the photo evidence that I just provided you to the contrary?
#119. To: FormerLurker (#115)
The fact that debris was blown outwards is not the same as the tower falling over.
#122. To: war (#119)
(Edited)
#124. To: FormerLurker (#122)
So what exactly are you trying to say here? Did it topple over or did it fall straight down into its own footprint?
#126. To: war (#124)
(Edited)
It collapsed in the manner gravity and then momentum affected it...to all points...
#129. To: FormerLurker (#126)
Hmmm, well why didn't it fall as soon as they built it then?
#250. To: war (#129)
(Edited)
#290. To: FormerLurker (#250)
Do you see where I'm going with this? If the top of the tower tilted to its side then dropped straight down, the only explanation would be that the core was intact but bent and that the top of the tower slid down the core. So if the core was intact, where IS IT? It simply vanished, as if it wasn't even there.
#358. To: war (#290)
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.
#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.
#393. To: war (#389)
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.
Replies to Comment # 393. No, the load put on the core would not have been significantly greater than normal.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 393.
