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: 14721
Comments: 607
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 409.
#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...
According to the Journal of Australian Fire Investigators, kerosene ignites at around 444°F. The temperature that the fire will eventually reach depends on both the combustion rate (based on O2) and the rate at which heat can be disbursed in the given scenario. Again, any firefighter can explain from experience and training that the black, sooty smoke (like that found on 9/11 at the WTC towers) were O2 deprived. Again, please contact professionals to verify this if you wish. In an oxygen deprived environment, higher temperatures cannot be reached. You can test this yourself by comparing a match in the open vs. a match in a bottle with a very small hole. T.C. Forensic: Article 10 - PHYSICAL CONSTANTS FOR INVESTIGATORS
Another scientific report....published, that is. Interesting.
www.newworldpeace.com/coverup5a.html Professor of fire prevention engineering states the jet fuel could not have caused the collapse alone, and asks for a full investigation. We must try to find out why the twin towers fell. -------------------------------------------------------------- THE JET fuel fires in the World Trade Center towers did not bring down those two buildings. Indeed, the fuel burned up in minutes. Why, then, did the towers and their 44-story neighbor, WTC-7, which was not struck by a plane, collapse? It's a question that bears generally on fire safety, the safety of building occupants and firefighters and the vulnerability of our buildings to terror by fire. I expected the National Response Team of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms would participate in an investigation that I surely thought would follow the Sept. 11 attacks. The ATF has the authority to investigate arson involving interstate commerce. Certainly, these horrendous attacks should be construed as arson. I later learned that the ATF was told it would not be needed. I expected the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to head the investigations. It's noted for its thoroughness, objectivity and know-how with respect to large-scale disasters. But it was relegated to flight issues dealing with the two hijacked aircraft and the aircraft debris. The buildings were not to be within the scope of their investigation. There is an ad hoc investigative group, which is sponsored by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers. But it does not have the full resources that might be made available, nor does it control the site. I became increasingly concerned the more I learned about the investigative process, or lack of one. The site teams at the towers were focused on rescue, retrieval and cleanup, not investigation. The structural steel pieces, coded with chalk and stamped numbers to indicate their building location, were being sold as scrap metal. The evidence needed to identify the cause of the collapse and intensity of the fire was being lost. Had the NTSB or ATF been involved, the site would have been secured, evidence documented and protected. Remember how the pieces of TWA Flight 800 were brought up from the ocean bottom off Long Island and restored to preserve structural evidence essential to identifying the cause of the 1996 crash? WTC family survivors headed by Sally Regenhard last month urged New York City and federal authorities to launch a formal investigation into the collapse of the towers. As Ms. Regenhard said, her son did not die in a fire because of a collapsed building. High-rise buildings are required to survive the impact of a modern commercial aircraft. Why shouldn't that include survival from the fire that would erupt? Building codes require that the structural elements of high-rise building withstand a three-hour test in a furnace. Why did the buildings collapse in less time? Was this terrorist attack an isolated event that had no bearing on high-rise vulnerability or on the consequences of fire in general? The scrapping of steel debris should stop immediately, and all of it that has been sold should be impounded. The site should be controlled to conform to standard investigation practices. All records, video recordings and information about those killed and injured should be secured for analysis. We can learn a great deal from this catastrophe. Many died because they did not expect buildings to collapse. Firefighters should not be the guinea pigs for determining the structural dynamics of buildings caught in flames. The potential for a building's collapse should be known before it happens. Fire safety needs to be incorporated into the normal design process of buildings. The federal government has a role in developing the needed technology for fire safety. If there ever was a role for government that transcends political ideologies, this is one. At least let's start with a formal investigation of the WTC collapse. By James Quintiere Originally published January 3, 2002 Copyright © 2002, The Baltimore Sun James Quintiere is the John L. Bryan Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, College Park. . E-Mail Address: dgann@jhsph.edu Posted on the Independent Newswire on 4 January 2002 Ref: www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=114160 www.firescience.com/fires...ces/authors/quintere.aspx James G. Quintiere ...earned a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering in 1970. He has more than 25 years experience in fire research and its applications, is a professor in the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland. Professor Quintiere has conducted research in the study of fire growth in structures and on materials, has developed test methods for ignition and flames spread, studied smoke movement in full-scale and scale model systems, and has developed theoretical solutions and simulation models for fire behavior and material response to fire. He has more than 100 publications in the field, and is currently Chairman of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (the world organization for fire research and its applications). In addition to his research, he has helped to analyze a number of fire disasters including the Dupont Plaza fire and the more recent Branch Davidian Fire near Waco, Texas.
bumping that; for later read. Tnx
It collapsed from an out of control fire weakening one of the main support beams.
Another one onto its own footprint........amazing!!!
It actually collaped to the north and east and took out a good snick of Fitterman Hall which stands about 30 yards from me and was damaged substantially on its southern face from 7's collapse.
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. I saw it fall....it came right down.
Uh no. Your own video shows the building favoring the east side as it collapses...
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.
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://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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Sorry...I probably screwed up the tag...
Why are you wasting your time here? We know you are a government stooge. You lack basic understanding of physics plus you are spamming this board. If I were the owner your ass would have been banned by now.
I don't understand your logic here. You promote theories of conspiracies which you expect me to just accept these without question. Can you tell me how your expectations of me differ from those of what you claim I am? The fact is, I have weighed your arguments and I have weighed the arguments of others. Your arguments fail to persuade me that the counter argument is more believable. Part of your problem includes the fact that I was there that day. Another part of your problem is that I have spoken to people who were in BOTH towers. Another part of your problem is that I spoke to people who did not get out. I have also spoken to people who spoke to people who did not get out. Offices were damaged by the explosion throughout the building and not just at the point of impact. Your paradigm here assumes that I have done 0 research into what happened that day. The premise underlying that paradigm is 100% incorrect. Now, there are some elements that I can accept. I do believe that Boosh’s direct threat on the Taliban that Summer was, effectively, a "dare". I do believe that they had a good inkling that an attack was imminent but failed to act. I also believe that they used the attack as a pretext for eventually going after Iraq. Now, considering that latter statement for one moment, don't you believe that given how the post 9/11 events played out and in the context of a belief that the government ACTUALLY precipitated and executed this plot, that they would have put Iraqi's on those planes? That is the ONLY way that any of your blatherings would make a modicum of sense to me. You lack basic understanding of physics For example?
#418. To: war (#409)
I am not promoting anything. I am just not a brain dead moron. The towers being blown up is not something rational people debate about, it is too damn obvious they were blown up to debate it. If you really can't see something so obvious and/or lack basic understanding of physics which is required to know the buildings were without a doubt NOT taken down by just the planes impact, the mid-air explosion, and the fires, then I feel sorry for you. I have sympathy for your condition if you are indeed not a government stooge.
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
#212. To: war (#200)
A localized fire ...
PHYSICAL CONSTANTS FOR INVESTIGATORS. by Tony Cafe. Reproduced from "Firepiont" magazine - Journal of Australian Fire Investigators. ...
www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html - 69k -
#214. To: TwentyTwelve (#212)
According to the Journal of Australian Fire Investigators, kerosene ignites at around 444°F. .....In an oxygen deprived environment, higher temperatures cannot be reached.
#217. To: litus, War (#214)
#218. To: TwentyTwelve (#217)
Why, then, did the towers and their 44-story neighbor, WTC-7, which was not struck by a plane, collapse?
#223. To: litus (#218)
Why, then, did the towers and their 44-story neighbor, WTC-7, which was not struck by a plane, collapse?
#242. To: war (#223)
It collapsed from an out of control fire weakening one of the main support beams.
#244. To: litus (#242)
Looking west to east...
#275. To: war (#244)
It actually collaped to the north and east and took out a good snick of Fitterman Hall which stands about 30 yards from me and was damaged substantially on its southern face from 7's collapse.
#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.
#303. To: war, litus (#299)
#306. To: TwentyTwelve (#303)
#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
#315. To: TwentyTwelve (#312)
#324. To: war (#315)
In addition to supporting gravity loads, the perimeter walls stiffened the Towers against lateral loads
#327. To: FormerLurker (#324)
Do you even know what a LATERAL LOAD is?
#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...
#332. To: FormerLurker (#330)
Only a small part of the outer support was damaged
#373. To: war (#332)
B) I posted a chart above showing that the collapse took time well in excess of free fall speed.
#400. To: FormerLurker (#373)
repost the chart.
#402. To: war (#400)
(Edited)
#409. To: RickyJ (#402)
Why are you wasting your time here? We know you are a government stooge.
Replies to Comment # 409.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 409.