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: 12406
Comments: 607
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-259) not displayed.
.
.
.
#260. To: Dakmar (#255)
war doesn't have answers that are logical, he has his heart felt beliefs. The government and media propaganda about 9/11 worked very well on most people.
God is always good!
Ten Euros says he'll argue that AF doesn't even fly helicopters.
The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
Where do you get your drugs?
Make awkward sexual advances, not war. A lead engineer who designed the World Trade Center Towers expressed shock that the towers collapsed after being hit by passenger jets. http://www.rense.com/general17/eyewitnessreportspersist.htm Article: "Collapse Linked to Fire" "Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that kind of fire." [We KNOW just how well China makes about everything..............just check out all the Anyways........now we're back to fuel that caused it.........that MAGIKAL fuel!!
uh...looks like I may have a lot of reading to do...this weekend, lol!
China's Tallest Building Catches Fire, Does Not Collapse China's Tallest Building Catches Fire, Does Not Collapse World Financial Center in Shanghai miraculously defies physics Prison Planet | August 15, 2007 Paul Joseph Watson Shanghai's World Financial Center, the tallest building in China upon completion, defied all known physics yesterday afternoon when it caught fire but did not collapse, a 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.
LOL!!! But not the WTC towers, hehehe. a knee slapper!
www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 are the only steel-structure buildings ever to have collapsed (allegedly) as a result of fire. There are several cases of fires in other such buildings, none of which collapsed. In May 1988 a fire at the Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles destroyed four floors and damaged a fifth floor of the modern 62-story building. The fire burned for four hours. The building did not collapse. See www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/interstatebank.html In February 1991 a fire gutted eight floors of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The fire burned for 18 hours. The building did not collapse. See www.sgh.com/expertise/haz...ing/meridian/meridian.htm In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing. See www.cbsnews.com/stories/2...18/world/main649824.shtml In February 2005 there was another "towering inferno" in Taiwan. The fire burned for about an hour and a half, but the building never came close to collapsing. See www.itv.com/news/world_404914.html caracas fire Windsor Building burning Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing. See news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm See also Christopher Bollyn's 9/11 and the Windsor Tower Fire. Windsor Building still standing It is not well-known that WTC1 itself survived a serious fire in 1975. It started on the 11th floor and spread to six other floors, burning for three hours. For more details see The World Trade Center Fires (Not So Hot eh?). How come WTC1 survived a 3-hour fire in 1975 but completely collapsed as the (alleged) result of a fire lasting less than two hours on 9/11? In response to this question one reader wrote: I would submit that none of the other buildings were hit by a heavy aircraft moving at 500 miles per hour, which sheared off many beams, support structures, etc. The shock to the tower must have been tremendous! Isn't this obvious? It may be "obvious" that a heavy plane hitting a skyscraper would deliver a "tremendous" shock, but it doesn't follow that the building must therefore collapse. In 1945 the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 bomber, but it was still standing last time I saw it. "Ah yes, but it was the impact plus the fires!" Well, when the B-25 hit the Empire State Building "its fuel tanks were reported to have exploded, engulfing the 79th floor in flames", as we read at Empire State Building Withstood Airplane Impact. "Ah, but none of the buildings mentioned above were struck by a 390,000 pound aircraft traveling at 350+ m.p.h." Well, each of the Twin Towers was still standing 50 minutes after being hit, so it was not the impacts which caused them to collapse. "Ah, but the intense heat of the burning jet fuel!" Actually, according to NIST's chief WTC-investigator the jet fuel burnt itself out in less than ten minutes. Don't believe it? Read through Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11: Claim #6. Then go to the top and read it all. Then follow the links to other articles on this website showing that the official story is bogus. Then follow the links to the many other websites which demonstrate that 9/11 was an inside job. Too busy? Oh, well, then, if you don't care to know what really happened on 9/11 ... What you have heard ever since 9/11 on network TV and in the mainstream media such as the New York Times and all the other corporate-controlled newspapers is simply the official story, repeated over and over, on the assumption that if a lie is repeated often enough then people will believe it. Especially if it is a big lie. The idea that elements of the US government were responsible for planning and carrying out acts which killed about 3000 people is so outrageous that most people (most Americans, at least) reject it reflexively. But it is precisely because it is so outrageous that the perps assumed that no-one except a few fringe thinkers would ever take it seriously, and that they would get away with this act of mass murder. What they didn't count on was that thousands of websites would minutely examine the evidence available (such evidence as was left, mainly photographic, after New York Mayor Giuliani ordered every scrap of physical evidence removed from the WTC site as quickly as possible, with nothing but a token forensic examination, and shipped overseas to be melted down in blast furnaces). An examination of the evidence which remains leads inexorably to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job, perpetrated by elements within the US government (probably going back before Bush came to power in 2001) in order to justify US military aggression against any country which stands in the way of its aim of global economic, financial and political domination. Maybe you think that the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis, the bombing of any country that the US chooses to bomb, thousands of deaths and injuries among US soldiers, and the contempt of all other countries for the US, are worth it to maintain US global domination; but what about the mass murder of around 3000 people, mostly US citizens, in New York City on 9/11? A small price to pay? This website presents much of the evidence that elements within the US government carried out this atrocity, and there are also many other websites which do so. If you can read then there is now no excuse to plead ignorance. A copy of the entire Serendipity website is available on CD-ROM.
LOL!!! But not the WTC towers, hehehe. a knee slapper!
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, neglecting the fact that it had to crash through at least 80 stories of undamaged steel and concrete, and that 19 Arab hijackers that "hated us for our freedom", of whom at least 5 are still alive, commandeered four US airliners and flew precision attacks against this Nation, and evaded US air defences for over an hour?
: )
HEHEHE
agreed.
Glory to God in the highest, and Peace to His people on Earth. 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.
NIST's FAQ contains the following 14 questions: 1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage? 2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis. 3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse. 4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions? 5. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower? 6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)? 7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so? OR 7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers? 8. We know that the sprinkler systems were activated because survivors reported water in the stairwells. If the sprinklers were working, how could there be a 'raging inferno' in the WTC towers? 9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot? 10. Why were people seen in the gaps left by the plane impacts if the heat from the fires behind them was so excessive? 11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow? 12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter." 13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers? 14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?
All good questions....let's start with the first one, War. What is .gov telling you to say about this one?
Use of Magick Jet Fuel rules out even re-con flights. It's rule number 42, the oldest rule in the book.
The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
www.the7thfire.com/Politi...History/WTC7Fairytale.htm FEMA's WTC 7 Fairytale World Trade Center Seven collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m. There were no known casualties due to this collapse. The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. [On the contrary, it appears the collapse was due primarily due to a controlled demolition.] Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings. [Before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire.] [On September 11, WTC 7 collapsed totally. It is suggested by the official report that this collapse was exclusively due to fire. No significant evidence is offered to back up this suggestion (after all it is only a suggestion). It should be emphasized that WTC 7 was neither hit by an aircraft nor by significant quantities of debris from the collapse of the twin towers. It is also widely claimed that WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed mainly due to fire. I emphasize, that before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. However, on September 11, it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire.] [As you can see from the above animated-gif, the collapse of WTC 7 certainly has the appearance of a controlled demolition. But, judge for yourself, download and watch the following short video clips and a larger version of the animated-gif: A Video of the collapse of WTC 7. Another video of the collapse of WTC 7. And another video of the collapse of WTC 7. And yet another video of the collapse of WTC 7. A larger (3.3 MB) version of the above animated-gif. ] So we have been presented with the following absurd story: 1. Power to the Twin Towers was wired from the substation in WTC 7 through two separate systems. The first provided power throughout each building; the second provided power only to the emergency systems. In the event of fire, power would only be provided to the emergency systems. This was to prevent arcing electric lines igniting new fires and to reduce the risk of firefighters being electrocuted. There were also six 1,200 kW emergency power generators located in the sixth basement (B-6) level of the towers, which provided a backup power supply. These also had normal and emergency subsystems. 2. Previous to the collapse of the South Tower, the power to the towers was switched to the emergency subsystem to provide power for communications equipment, elevators, emergency lighting in corridors and stairwells, and fire pumps and safety for firefighters. At this time power was still provided by the WTC 7 substation. 3. Con Ed reported that "the feeders supplying power to WTC 7 were de-energized at 9:59 a.m.". This was due to the South Tower collapse which occurred at the same time. 4. Unfortunately, even though the main power system for the towers was switched off and WTC 7 had been evacuated, a design flaw allowed generators (designed to supply backup power for the WTC complex) to start up and resume an unnecessary and unwanted power supply. 5. Unfortunately, debris from the collapse of the north tower (the closest tower) fell across the building known as World Trade Center Six, and then across Vesey Street, and then impacted WTC 7 which is (at closest) 355 feet away from the north tower. 6. Unfortunately, some of this debris penetrated the outer wall of WTC 7, smashed half way through the building, demolishing a concrete masonry wall (in the north half of the building) and then breached a fuel oil pipe that ran across the building just to the north of the masonry wall. 7. Unfortunately, though most of the falling debris was cold, it manages to start numerous fires in WTC 7. 8. Unfortunately, even with the outbreak of numerous fires in the building, no decision was made to turn off the generators now supplying electricity to WTC 7. Fortunately, for the firefighters, someone did make the decision not to fight and contain the fires while they were still small, but to wait until the fires were large and out of control. Otherwise, many firefighters may have been electrocuted while fighting the fires. 9. Unfortunately, the safety mechanism that should have shut down the fuel oil pumps (which were powered by electricity) upon the breaching of the fuel line, failed to work and fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the Salomon Smith Barney tanks on the ground floor onto the 5th floor where it ignited. The pumps eventually emptied the tanks, pumping some 12,000 gallons in all. 10. Unfortunately, the sprinkler system of WTC 7 malfunctioned and did not extinguish the fires. 11. Unfortunately, the burning diesel heated trusses one and two to the point that they lost their structural integrity. 12. Unfortunately, this then (somehow) caused the whole building to collapse, even though before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. You must agree, it is absurd, isn't it?
Completely and utterly
War, I got to say, you're a fucking asshole. I did respect your response on various postings, but on this, you're a piece of crap. It's beneath you, but since you've gone apeshit on Obamalamadigdong, I guess I can't expect anything more. Such a shame. Oh, hey Rotara, I forgot to include you! Go fuck yourself!
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - Henry Louis Mencken
They didn't cause that much damage. The WTC towers took jet planes hitting it at their highest speed and only swayed about as much as it would on a windy day. The damage caused was mostly to the exterior. 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.
God is always good!
bookmarked; thnx
Oh, I also forgot to say "it's fantastical"
It's the only logical conclusion one could have, imho.
Yea so? You're ignoring the designers scenario. The 707 would be flying at close to landing speed which is 115-120 knots. The 767's were flying 3 times that which results in a kinetic factor 7-10 times greater. Some 707 V 767 facts: 707: Wingspan of 145ft, Length of 152ft, Height of 42ft. 767:Wingspan of 156ft, Length of 159ft, Height of 52ft. BTW, those 767's were carrying only about 10,000 gallons of fuel ONLY?!? Is it your point that 10,000 gallons of highly flammable liquid is not enough to act as a catalyst/accelerant? not 80 as you claim I did not make that claim. The guy who designed the WTC made that claim. The impact would be less than half of the design expectation Wha...huh? Velocity alone bitch slaps you hard.
Of course I do. I understand them as well. Unlike you. True or false: the thickness of the steel in the core tapered in thickness from bottom to top? Note that the steel core is considerably more massive than depicted in the image you posted. Uh no...
What the fuck are you babbling about other than you have no concept opf physics? Absent any greater and opposite force, It had no choice but to drop straight down once the center of gravity was horizontally established. And do you admit that it was impossible for the towers to have collapsed as fast as they did? I posted the graph that deteailed how quickly they collapsed which, in terms of the force of gravity acting upon a body so it is in freefall, it is much longet than you claim that they did.
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.
Do you know thatthe difference between hollow tube and steel framing is? Apparently not. Steel framed building... Look at any of the pics on here of the WTC and the difference leaps out immediately.
That's been shown to be false by me posting the words of the lead strutural enginner who said that it was built to withstand the impact of one 707 at landing speed with minimal fuel. Never before in history has a steel framed skyscraper The WTC is NOT steel framed. Rate of speed of the fall is near that of free-fall, ACtually, from a physics point of view given the effect of gravity over that height the differenc ein time is not "near" but quite distant.
FINE POWDER?!? There were huge chunks of steel and office parts strewen all over.
I've dealt with this lie enough that anyone posting this from here on out is willfully lying.
Oh....you mean like when I was confronted with "NO Arab names on the manifest" me posting the manifest WITH Arab names wasn't logical? My suggestion to you is that the next time you go to use that word is that you know what it means first.
I posted what Leslie Robertson said about the 707 scenario: The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.
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...
Comments (300 - 607) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#261. To: RickyJ (#260)
#262. To: war (#237)
The WTC was not steel framed.
Morehead City Concerts Summer 2009
#263. To: war (#182)
the architects/engineers admitted that the 767 hits were outside of the parameters of their "707 scenario".
The architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and fuel fire of a commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." 1 Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said: "I designed it for a 707 to hit it. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity comparable to the 767." 2
"This building would have stood had a plane smashed into it," said Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the trade center's construction manager. "But 24,000 gallons of [burning] aviation fuel melted the steel.
south China's Guangdong province, Friday, Jan. 16, 2009. The fire on the
26-story office building lasted for four hours. Cause of the fire accident
is under investigation. (AP Photo/Color China Photo)
recalls on the products they ship out of their country.....]Other Fires in Steel-Structure Buildings
#264. To: TwentyTwelve (#256)
#265. To: litus, war (#263)
#266. To: TwentyTwelve (#265)
Shanghai's World Financial Center, the tallest building in China upon completion, defied all known physics yesterday afternoon when it caught fire but did not collapse
#267. To: litus, war (#264)
#268. To: litus (#266)
Shanghai's World Financial Center, the tallest building in China upon completion, defied all known physics yesterday afternoon when it caught fire but did not collapse
#269. To: TwentyTwelve (#267)
Windsor Building burning Also in February 2005 the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain, caught fire and burned for two days. The building was completely engulfed in flames at one point. Several top floors collapsed onto lower ones, yet the building remained standing.
#270. To: TwentyTwelve (#268)
AMAZING!!
#271. To: war, litus (#223)
It collapsed from an out of control fire weakening one of the main support beams.
#272. To: FormerLurker (#249)
Well yeah, I meant OTHER than that one.
#273. To: TwentyTwelve (#271)
#274. To: litus (#157)
the planes were just to hide and obfuscate what really caused the towers to collapse....
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#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.
#276. To: war, litus (#223)
#277. To: TwentyTwelve, war (#276)
1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
#278. To: TwentyTwelve, war (#271)
and evaded US air defences for over an hour?
#279. To: litus, war (#277)
All good questions....let's start with the first one, War. What is .gov telling you to say about this one?
#280. To: TwentyTwelve, war (#279)
it is absurd, isn't it?
#281. To: litus (#280)
#282. To: war (#10)
(Edited)
Feel free to wax eloquently about what a moron you are...believe me...it's entertaining...
#283. To: TwentyTwelve (#276)
(Edited)
1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
#284. To: TwentyTwelve (#281)
#285. To: TwentyTwelve (#279)
#286. To: Artisan (#274)
#287. To: FormerLurker (#245)
The 707 flies faster than a 767
#288. To: FormerLurker (#247)
Do you even look at the images you post? The image indicates a reinforced steel core. Are you blind as well as being dumb?
#289. To: FormerLurker (#248)
So do you finally admit that it was impossible for the tilted top of the tower as I had shown to have dropped straight down when it was already in the process of tumbling to its side?
#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.
#291. To: RickyJ (#251)
That "hollow tube" was made out of steel you dumb ass.
#292. To: TwentyTwelve (#254)
The engineers who designed the building designed it to withstand impact by planes and fire. To be able to take multiple impacts from similarly sized aircraft as the 767--Like a window screen being poked with a pencil, it would do nothing to the integrity of the structure.
#293. To: TwentyTwelve (#254)
The fine powder into which the building was converted during the collapse is consistent with the demolition model and its associated explosives. There would have been some pulverization in the pancake model, but not to the extent seen in this case.
#294. To: TwentyTwelve (#254)
and was designed to be centrally supported.
#295. To: RickyJ (#260)
war doesn't have answers that are logical
#296. To: litus (#263)
The architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and fuel fire of a commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." 1 Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said: "I designed it for a 707 to hit it. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity comparable to the 767." 2
#297. To: TwentyTwelve (#267)
#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.
.
.
.