It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mind Explaining These Things To Me?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery


So the huge clouds of black smoke that stayed in the atmosphere above NYC for days are not the slightest hint of big fires?


No they are not, they are exactly the opposite, if you would've done some research you would know this. Thick black smoke means there is not enough oxygen to fuel the fire.

There are numerous photos of major flames exiting the exterior of the building. That is a fully developed fire. Yes there was a lot of smoke, but there was also 5 or 6 floors on fire at the same time.


And what about the people showing IN those impact holes, people who are alive. How did they get there/survive there, if those floors were so badly damaged that they were unable to support the upper floors.


The conspiracy theorists like to show the picture of the woman standing near the impact hole and claim that that is proof that the fires were not that hot. What they don’t tell you is that that photo was taken shortly after the impact, before the fires had a chance to develop. Also, they fail to reconcile the fact that there was enough oxygen for this woman to breathe with the claim that there was not enough oxygen for the fire. Some people who claim to be firefighters never tell you about the phenomena of flashover. That is if there were compartments in the building with limited oxygen, what happens when the windows finally break from the heat, or a wall fails, a floor falls, etc. They never talk about the temperatures that a post flashover fire can reach.


Not to forget that almost all the fuel from the second plane exploded outside the tower, however, this one fell first.


Not all of it. The fuel in the left wing would have fallen down the elevator shafts and core chases. (see the GIF, below).


But you know what, just for the heck of it, lets assume there were fires, even then that would not make those towers collapse because pancaking, the necessary procedure for a tower such as this to collapse straight down, is simply impossible with a building that is engineerded like the WTC.


And you know this, how? Where did you get your engineering degree? What is you structural engineers license number? Please explain how the WTC was “engineerded” so that the “colums” would not have failed?




Again you asume that they created a lot of damage.
What you see is a hole in the outer structure, not the supporting structure wich are the colums in the center. Colums wich can not be destroyed by the fires like you think.
I've already said that these towers were built for impacts like this many times over, a single impact, and especially one not touching the central support columns, should not let the building collapse. Especially not after burning mildly for less than an hour.



Maybe these can help you visualize the damage cause by the airplane as it struck the building.


As you can see, the core area would have sustained massive damage as well.




What you see is a hole in the outer structure, not the supporting structure wich are the colums in the center.


The gravity loads of the building were distributed about evenly between the core columns and the exterior columns. In other words, the exterior columns supported about half the loads, and the core columns supported the other half.

Is this a “mild” fire?





Also, perhaps you can tell me what happens to the gravity loads that these columns normally carry after they start to buckle inward like that (79th through 81st floors)





posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The conspiracy theorists like to show the picture of the woman standing near the impact hole and claim that that is proof that the fires were not that hot. What they don’t tell you is that that photo was taken shortly after the impact, before the fires had a chance to develop. Also, they fail to reconcile the fact that there was enough oxygen for this woman to breathe with the claim that there was not enough oxygen for the fire. Some people who claim to be firefighters never tell you about the phenomena of flashover.


It's funny how you twist and turn to shove the guilt on someone else then the real enemy.
It is not just ONE woman standing there, and the fact that it is straight after the impact is even more troubling, cause you know what, that would mean that the fires weren't even that big in the beginning when all the kerosine was there.

You're telling me that the concrete and all the other (mostly inflammable) office materials starting burning hotter and hotter, and that eventually made the central support collums brake ? Or the kerosine magically re-ignited when the people in the opening dissapeared, setting those floors ablaze again ?

You have no idea how crooket your story is because the fact is that THE FIRES WERE NEVER GIGANTIG, BIG, or whatever you want to call them.
Show me some pictures goddamnit, you see flames yeah, no wonder, a plane crashed into it!
Now compare this fire to other fires and tell me that this ain't mild.




Not to forget that almost all the fuel from the second plane exploded outside the tower, however, this one fell first.



Originally posted by HowardRoark
Not all of it. The fuel in the left wing would have fallen down the elevator shafts and core chases. (see the GIF, below).


Yeah, quite the GIF you got there, I think I can whip that up in about 10 minutes too, although it's a very skewed picture of what really happend.
The second plane doesn't even exit the tower at the right side like it clearly does on ALL the video footage. Nice try though.


But you know what, just for the heck of it, lets assume there were fires, even then that would not make those towers collapse because pancaking, the necessary procedure for a tower such as this to collapse straight down, is simply impossible with a building that is engineerded like the WTC.



Originally posted by HowardRoark
And you know this, how? Where did you get your engineering degree? What is you structural engineers license number? Please explain how the WTC was “engineerded” so that the “colums” would not have failed?


I suggest you look at the links I gave to you earlier, or maybe you can just google for 9/11 pancaking theory.



Originally posted by HowardRoark
Maybe these can help you visualize the damage cause by the airplane as it struck the building.

As you can see, the core area would have sustained massive damage as well.




No, you assume this.. why ? Because of that gif ?
This is why YOU are the conspiracy theorist. You assume it were terrorists, however there's no evidence, you also assume that a plane would mean alot of destruction. However, everyone knows that these buildings were BUILT TO WITHSTAND SUCH AN ATTACK MANY TIMES OVER.
A plane is lightweight, if it flew into 42 support columns after penetrating trough a wall, it wouldn't be able to knock many of them over because most of the penetrating force would scatter on impact.


What you see is a hole in the outer structure, not the supporting structure wich are the colums in the center.



Originally posted by HowardRoark
The gravity loads of the building were distributed about evenly between the core columns and the exterior columns. In other words, the exterior columns supported about half the loads, and the core columns supported the other half.


Where did you hear that rubbish ?



Originally posted by HowardRoark
Is this a “mild” fire?






YES THIS IS A MILD FIRE, are you blind ?

This is a inferno like you hope to portray the WTC fire :
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

and here's some more about why the fire would never alter the structural and supporting capacity of the steel :
rense.com...



Originally posted by HowardRoark
Also, perhaps you can tell me what happens to the gravity loads that these columns normally carry after they start to buckle inward like that (79th through 81st floors)



You're talking about the OUTER skeleton of the WTC this does not function to keep the building standing.
This is exactly the reason why the building could never come down like it did cause the CENTER supports it, not the outer walls.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I would like to point out that the follow graphics..



...have absolutely nothing to support them save the directions the planes hit the towers. It is not known how much damage was dealt to the North Tower's columns, and the South Tower's were nearly completely missed. Those pics are misleading to say the least, Howard, and unless you want us to start resorting to totally bs information, maybe you can do us the courtesy of not posting yours.

Also, most of those columns were not buckling, except near the impact region you could expect such damage. The aluminum was coming off of the columns.

Also, yes, that was a mild fire, as compared to skyscraper fires such as the following...



...which did not bring the building down, even after a much longer and obviously more severe burn. I know you'll downplay the Windsor Tower and call apples and oranges, but the real apples and oranges are those two fires.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery

It's funny how you twist and turn to shove the guilt on someone else then the real enemy.


Nice strawman attack



Originally posted by Shroomery
It is not just ONE woman standing there, and the fact that it is straight after the impact is even more troubling, cause you know what, that would mean that the fires weren't even that big in the beginning when all the kerosine was there.


It’s true, the fires in the building did take a little time to build up and spread. So, what? That’s what fires do.


Originally posted by Shroomery
You're telling me that the concrete and all the other (mostly inflammable) office materials starting burning hotter and hotter, and that eventually made the central support collums brake ? Or the kerosine magically re-ignited when the people in the opening dissapeared, setting those floors ablaze again ?


Wow Concrete cubicles, concrete desks, concrete computers.


(I know that wasn’t what you meant, but that is what came to mind when I read that.)

Actually modern offices are a lot more flammable than most people realize. Cubicle fire test

In addition, there was all of the interior cabin components of the airplane to consider. Plastic and foam and cloth.





Originally posted by Shroomery
You have no idea how crooket your story is because the fact is that THE FIRES WERE NEVER GIGANTIG, BIG, or whatever you want to call them.
Show me some pictures goddamnit, you see flames yeah, no wonder, a plane crashed into it!








Look at those pictures. You see flames shooting up on the outside of the building at least three stories high (30 feet). In addition you can see flames in almost all of the windows from one side on the building to the other, that’s just over 200 feet.

In addition, those pictures were taken well after the airplane impact.

When you consider the fact that each floor of the tower covered almost an entire acre of space, the fires were pretty big in my opinion.



Originally posted by Shroomery
Yeah, quite the GIF you got there, I think I can whip that up in about 10 minutes too, although it's a very skewed picture of what really happend.
The second plane doesn't even exit the tower at the right side like it clearly does on ALL the video footage. Nice try though.


Damn, you need a seeing eye dog. You have completely missesd the point. The building layout and the size of the airplane meant that it would have been impossible for the jet fuel load from the left wing, NOT to hit the core.




Originally posted by HowardRoark
And you know this, how? Where did you get your engineering degree? What is you structural engineers license number? Please explain how the WTC was “engineerded” so that the “colums” would not have failed?



Originally posted by Shroomery
I suggest you look at the links I gave to you earlier, or maybe you can just google for 9/11 pancaking theory.


In other words, you are not and your sources are not. :p



Originally posted by Shroomery
This is why YOU are the conspiracy theorist. You assume it were terrorists, however there's no evidence,

Where did I mention terrorists? I was talking about the collapse mechanism. No where in any of my posts on this thread have I mentioned terroists. Please do not put words into my mouth, thank you.



Originally posted by Shroomery
you also assume that a plane would mean alot of destruction. However, everyone knows that these buildings were BUILT TO WITHSTAND SUCH AN ATTACK MANY TIMES OVER.

No, that is not correct. The buildings were never “designed” to withstand an aircraft impact. After the design was completed, the engineers did some simple calculations to determine if the building would be able to withstand the loss of some of the exterior and interior columns. The conditions that they assumed were not the same conditions that occurred on 9/11, and the effects of the subsequent fire were not considered. That is not the same thing as saying that “built to withstand such an attack many times over.” It may seem like a minor point to some, but it is a critical one that you should try to appreciate.


Originally posted by Shroomery
A plane is lightweight, if it flew into 42 support columns after penetrating trough a wall, it wouldn't be able to knock many of them over because most of the penetrating force would scatter on impact.


Cool a new sig line. (I wont even bother to point out just how stupid that sentence is.)



Originally posted by Shroomery

What you see is a hole in the outer structure, not the supporting structure wich are the colums in the center.



Originally posted by HowardRoark
The gravity loads of the building were distributed about evenly between the core columns and the exterior columns. In other words, the exterior columns supported about half the loads, and the core columns supported the other half.


Where did you hear that rubbish ?




I’ll tell you what. Why don’t you find a licensed structural engineer anywhere in the world that will back you up on that. Nothing to do with the collapse or the fire, just your contention that the exterior walls of the WTC towers did not bear any of the gravity loads of the building.

You realize that it this were true, the building floors would be cantilevered out from the core. No, on second thought you don’t even know what I am talking about, do you.


Originally posted by Shroomery
YES THIS IS A MILD FIRE, are you blind ?

This is a inferno like you hope to portray the WTC fire :
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

The fact that the Windsor Tower is only a small fraction of the size of the WTC towers must have escaped your notice. In addition, there are so many significant differences in the construction of the two buildings that it makes a direct comparison pointless.


Originally posted by Shroomery
and here's some more about why the fire would never alter the structural and supporting capacity of the steel :
rense.com...


Ah, Kevin Ryan. The poor smuck that got himself fired for not understanding the ASTM standard that he was supposed to be using to test structural assemblies. Note the key words “structural assemblies.”

That is what the ASTM standard is supposed to test, not individual steel specimens, but complete assemblies (i.e. the floor truss system). Thus if the assembly becomes damaged, distorted, or looses some or all of it’s fireproofing, then the standard no longer applies, now does it.



Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Also, perhaps you can tell me what happens to the gravity loads that these columns normally carry after they start to buckle inward like that (79th through 81st floors)



You're talking about the OUTER skeleton of the WTC this does not function to keep the building standing.
This is exactly the reason why the building could never come down like it did cause the CENTER supports it, not the outer walls.


Again, you have no understanding of even the most simple principles of how building structures work, especially the WTC design. It was the fact that the exterior walls were designed to support half the gravity loads that allowed them to build a structure with no intermediate columns between the core and the exterior.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I would like to point out that the follow graphics..



...have absolutely nothing to support them save the directions the planes hit the towers. It is not known how much damage was dealt to the North Tower's columns, and the South Tower's were nearly completely missed. Those pics are misleading to say the least,


This one is a little more accurate. Now explain how the south tower core columns were missed again? Even if the wings shredded on impact, the momentum of the debris nad the fuel would have careid the left wind squarely into the core area. In fact in the columns were missed, how come two of the three stairwells were destroyed?





Howard, and unless you want us to start resorting to totally bs information, maybe you can do us the courtesy of not posting yours.


The B.S. is coming from your side, my friend.


Also, most of those columns were not buckling, except near the impact region you could expect such damage. The aluminum was coming off of the columns.


Inward? How the heck could the aluminum be coming off by bending INWARD into the building?



...which did not bring the building down, even after a much longer and obviously more severe burn. I know you'll downplay the Windsor Tower and call apples and oranges, but the real apples and oranges are those two fires.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by bsbray11]


Well considering that the steel portions of the Windsor tower did collapse, while the concrete core did not, I don’t consider it a good comparison.


[edit on 16-8-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   

The B.S. is coming from your side, my friend.


Why, thank you for this invaluable piece of information.

Those two pics are still total bs, based on nothing but a vivid imagination and the ability to make animated gifs. And yet you still use them as evidence and expect us to take it seriously.

...

I find it hard to believe that a piece of aluminum such as thus



could make it through a grid of steel columns such as these:








Inward? How the heck could the aluminum be coming off by bending INWARD into the building?




As you can see, the aluminum managed to bend in quite a few directions, especially when it's no longer attached to the steel. The pics you've posted show nothing but bent aluminum. Seriously, man, you can at least show us the actual bent columns or something rather than expecting us to assume the steel columns were all following the contours of their aluminum facades. How unscientific can you be in your arguments?


Well considering that the steel portions of the Windsor tower did collapse, while the concrete core did not, I don’t consider it a good comparison.


Wait - so all the steel sections collapsed?






[edit on 16-8-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
.
I make no claim as to knowing who, why or how, but if you look at some of the evidence it brings into doubt the publicly presented story.

If you closely examine the video of the pentagon explosion you will see a white shape that closely resembles a global hawk. And in the next frame on the other side of the post in the image you will see some of the white shape there in the manner of a moving solid object as the pentagon forms a spherical fireball.

What you won't and can not see in the video on a brilliantly sunny day is a jumbo jet. Seems to me it should be kind of hard to hide a 757 sized jet in the video.
The plane supposedly hit at an oblique angle, so the jet fuels inertia should have caused it to slew down the building instead of forming a rather more perfectly spherical fireball.

My speculation is a missile coming in at the oblique angle causing the deep damage into the pentagon and a global hawk firing some smaller flammable rocket or missile from the perpendicular approach, causing the fireball. But i am just guessing based on the visual evidence.

There does appear to be a pod underneath the 2nd WTC plane that hits the south tower. To me the fireball that explodes outside the building also is huge compared to the video of the first WTC plane hit on the North Tower. Also if all that much fuel was spent outside the building that should have left much less fuel to burn inside the building.

Also the reports of explosions and a heavy multi-ton press being blown away in the basement of the first hit at WTC seconds before the actual impact, speaks to the point that pre-planted explosives being already there.

I find it difficult to believe that novice pilots who had never flown anything more than a piper cub and even that not very well is going to be able to do the incredible flying at the pentagon 6 to 9 feet off the ground and the 2nd WTC hit where the pilot [more likely automated piloting] is going to do that last minute swoop at hundreds of miles an hour and still make such an excellent hit on the South tower.
That just defies common sense to me.
I think even experienced pilots would have a hard time flying like that.

There is a reportedly very large anamolous purchase of Airlines Futures Shorts [expectations of profiting from Drops in Airline stocks]. But the purchasers never showed up to claim millions in profits. Any honest trader would have never walked away from millions of dollars.

The adminstration lied to get us into a war that so-far has killed 40,000 to 100,000 people, by comparison what is 3,000 people? Obviously not much to some people.
.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...


I find it very interesting that you conspiracy nuts have managed to avoid looking at this link.
This ought to clear confusion as to how the towers collapsed, and collapsed they did.

As for the alledged missle hitting the pentagon, this has already been debunked in earlier parts of the thread.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTerminator

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...


I find it very interesting that you conspiracy nuts have managed to avoid looking at this link.
This ought to clear confusion as to how the towers collapsed, and collapsed they did.


Too bad that information works within the official story and does not take into account all the things that contradict it (ie, the squibs, cooling fires, powdered concrete, the impossibility of reproducing models of the collapse, witness accounts of other explosions, Larry Silverstein comments, other official story inconsistencies across 9/11 as a whole, etc.).

When these guys explain the collapses to you, they're doing so at the cost of conveniently leaving out all of that other evidence.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaTerminator

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...


I find it very interesting that you conspiracy nuts have managed to avoid looking at this link.
This ought to clear confusion as to how the towers collapsed, and collapsed they did.

As for the alledged missle hitting the pentagon, this has already been debunked in earlier parts of the thread.



Ofcourse you'll find something like that, it's the "official" story.
Why don't you give us a copy of the 9/11 report to prove you're right ?
Besides, it was written on 9/11.
I don't have to explain how little was known at the time, although alot of people said as soon as they saw the towers come down that a plane could not've caused that.



Cool a new sig line. (I wont even bother to point out just how stupid that sentence is.)


I disagree, go ahead, lets see what you make of it.





This one is a little more accurate. Now explain how the south tower core columns were missed again? Even if the wings shredded on impact, the momentum of the debris nad the fuel would have careid the left wind squarely into the core area. In fact in the columns were missed, how come two of the three stairwells were destroyed?


Again with the paint job...
You still don't get it do you, we can all draw pictures like that, it still wont bring us closer to figuring out what damage has been done to the central columns.
Let me tell you again, you're ASSUMING they were damage because in your eyes a plane is a big freaking thing. Without taking into account the buildup of a skyscraper.
I presented you with links where it is explained how these towers should not collapse from what happend on 9/11. But here's another one:
www.rense.com...

Don't forget we're still discussing the damage on the towers, we still haven't discussed the facts that surround the crash. The dustclouds, the dissapearing concrete, the steel beams flying off, clear explosion puffs coming from the windows. The unexplainable collapse of building 7. The explosions in the basement of at least one of the towers. The fact that people were warned not to go into the towers, some were told to leave them in the morning, others were told not to fly. What about the fact that half the alledged hijackers turned up alive and well ?

In any case, you've seen too many movies if you think this is how towers collapse without planted explosions.

Here are some comparisons : www.whatreallyhappened.com...

I'll quote a part :





The photos below are of buildings which collapsed during an earthquake. They show the typical result that occurs when a single load bearing member fails, resulting in the remains of the building tipping over and down onto the initiating point.






For a building to collapse into its own footprint, as WTC 7 did, ALL the load bearing members must fail at the exact same moment. This is achieved in controlled demolitions.



[edit on 16-8-2005 by Shroomery]



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   
For a full explanation of what happened that day go here.

'Nuff said.

P.S. All you saw, original poster, was a TV show. And the media is lying. Think about it. The only evidence for the official story about 9-11 is on TV. Which makes 9-11 about as relevant and believable as Desperate Housewives.

Don't say I didn't tell you.

Did you know that Bush spent the night prior at a tennis resort in Boca Raton? Trivial, really.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   
What I don't understand in all this is why there are so many who will so rabidly defend the official version of 9-11.

The buildings were demolished. Simple enough right?

I mean, pretty much anyone can see that those two buildings were demolished.

What's all the hubbub? Demolished, plain and simple.

Or can anyone actually assert that two of the world's most massive towers simply GO INTO FREEFALL MODE because of a couple of fires?

Remember, it happened on TV. In broad daylight. It was horrific. Blah blah blah. 19 Arabs with boxcutters does not a case make.

Planes crashed into buildings. Buildings were demolished. Terrorists were blamed. War on Terror begins.

Any questions?



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   
You Americans crack me up. Someone finally manages a major attack against your precious soil, and you have your new religion. Never mind that you've been bombing the # out of and attacking everyone in sight since WWII came to a close. World police indeed. Finally your world police headquarters get a dose of their own medicine and suddenly you're all feeling the pain of the countries you've bombed indiscriminately for the last 50 years.

How dare they attack you? You're the ones who do the attacking, right. Cambodia, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Panama, Nicaragua, Serbia, Germany in WWII, 2 nukes on Japan, Columbia, Cuba, you name it. Dozens and dozens of dirty wars fought in the name of democracy and freedom. So you could instill leadership cadres more in line with your international global capitalist greed.

Payback's a bitch, eh boobus Americanus?

No wonder the whole world despises your country of hypocrites, sex fiends, idiots and TV-trained morons.

America sucks the big one. You're a nation of idiots being manipulated by your televisions. Your government is out of control. You have no control over anything but which channel to watch.You have nothing to say about foreign wars which do your country no good. You hate Muslims because you've been trained to do so. And yet you wave your stars and bars rag and talk about how free you are. How great you have it under a mountain of debt, working your life away in the vain pursuit of wealth, so you can have the house and the white picket fence. Pathetic really. May you die knowing nothing, stupid Americans. You deserve it.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Oh and BTW Howard




No, that is not correct. The buildings were never “designed” to withstand an aircraft impact. After the design was completed, the engineers did some simple calculations to determine if the building would be able to withstand the loss of some of the exterior and interior columns. The conditions that they assumed were not the same conditions that occurred on 9/11, and the effects of the subsequent fire were not considered. That is not the same thing as saying that “built to withstand such an attack many times over.” It may seem like a minor point to some, but it is a critical one that you should try to appreciate.


freepressinternational.com...



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   

America sucks the big one. You're a nation of idiots being manipulated by your televisions. Your government is out of control. You have no control over anything but which channel to watch.You have nothing to say about foreign wars which do your country no good. You hate Muslims because you've been trained to do so. And yet you wave your stars and bars rag and talk about how free you are. How great you have it under a mountain of debt, working your life away in the vain pursuit of wealth, so you can have the house and the white picket fence. Pathetic really. May you die knowing nothing, stupid Americans. You deserve it.


Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. It was a minority that wanted our first revolution. It'll be the minority that brings us all our next. Unfortunately what's going on here is also hitting other parts of the world is varying degrees as well. So like I said, don't throw the baby out. But yes, we are generally a nation of bumbling idiots.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlienAntFarm
You Americans crack me up.


I feel left out. What about us non-Americans? The ones who lost someone during 9/11? Maybe the ones who still question what happened, but don't believe every conspiracy out there? Do we crack you up to? I'd hate to feel excluded from that particular party.




How dare they attack you? You're the ones who do the attacking, right. Cambodia, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Panama, Nicaragua, Serbia, Germany in WWII, 2 nukes on Japan, Columbia, Cuba, you name it. Dozens and dozens of dirty wars fought in the name of democracy and freedom. So you could instill leadership cadres more in line with your international global capitalist greed.


Right, right. Because every one of those conflicts was the same, wasn't it? It appears your Information Comprehension button is faulty. Or just switched off. Maybe both.



Payback's a bitch, eh boobus Americanus?

No wonder the whole world despises your country of hypocrites, sex fiends, idiots and TV-trained morons.

Pot, kettle. You might want to investigate the concept of "why overgeneralising never works and usually points to a grave lack of understanding of the topic at hand".




Various misinformed rhetoric


I know you are, but what am I? Come on. Aren't you a bit older than that?



. Pathetic really. May you die knowing nothing, stupid Americans. You deserve it.


Aw and you have a fabulous day too!

So which is it? Trolling For Columbine? Basic points-garnering? Not enough caffeine? Too many M&Ms?

Take your hilariously blinkered hyperbole elsewhere. We're all out of popcorn.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   

America sucks the big one. You're a nation of idiots being manipulated by your televisions. Your government is out of control. You have no control over anything but which channel to watch.You have nothing to say about foreign wars which do your country no good. You hate Muslims because you've been trained to do so. And yet you wave your stars and bars rag and talk about how free you are. How great you have it under a mountain of debt, working your life away in the vain pursuit of wealth, so you can have the house and the white picket fence. Pathetic really. May you die knowing nothing, stupid Americans. You deserve it.


Screw you asshole. Your hate knows no bounds. So you want all of us american's do die? Where is this deep hate for america coming from? I did nothing to you, what is your problem?

And I'm still waiting for your evidence. Present it in bullet format and quit giving me links to conpiracy nut websites.

[edit on 17-8-2005 by DaTerminator]



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery



Cool a new sig line. (I wont even bother to point out just how stupid that sentence is.)


I disagree, go ahead, lets see what you make of it.




Well first of all, even a conservatively “light” weight for the 767’s would be about 350,000 lbs. That isn’t exactly what I would call “lightweight.” That equals about 158,750 kg.

By all accounts the plane was going full speed, however, lets make a conservatively estimate of 450 mph (200 meters per second or 660 feet/second).

Entering that into a kinetic energy calculator gives us an energy of 15,000,000 Joules.

This energy was almost completely absorbed by the building. (it also does not include the energy of the fuel air explosions, this is just the mechanical force of the impact). Some of the energy was dissipated by the motion of the structure. The rest was dissipated by the deformation of the building materials, (i.e. concrete and steel).

If the plane was going 660 feet per second and came (mostly) to a halt within the 200 foot wide building, the longest that that could have taken would have been 0.3 seconds. This equals 50 megawatts of energy released by the impact.

Now I’ll grant you that it is a bit hard to take that number and estimate all the possible damaged that that would have caused. But it isn’t that hard to appreciate that 50 megawatts is a lot of energy. Certainly the photographs of the exterior damage are indicative.

Don't forget the fact that a part of the airliner passed all the way through the WTC 1 core and out the other side of the building with enough force to knock a set of three columns off the building to fal a block away. How could this have ocured without the core columns being hit by debris also?


And the fact that there was no way geometric way for the plane to impact WTC 2 without hitting the core is probably too much for you to accept.

They did work up some computer models to estimate the internal structural damage at NIST, but since you not doubt think that everyone that works for the government is evil incarnate, I know that you will not accept this.

I’m sure you also won’t accept the premise that the evidence of significant damage to the stairwells and the cutting of elevator cables by the impact indicate damage to the core area.


No, we will never know the specific damage to specific columns, but what difference would that make? With modern computer technology, we can come up with best-case to worst-case estimates that are far better than the calculations done by Robinson in ’69. Even the best-case estimates indicate that the floor slabs and core columns were damaged. I don’t know why you keep trying to deny this.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   


The photos below are of buildings which collapsed during an earthquake. They show the typical result that occurs when a single load bearing member fails, resulting in the remains of the building tipping over and down onto the initiating point.


Shroomery,

Please explain how reinforced concrete structures built to different building codes and construction techniques, (in Japan) that fell in an earthquake are comparable to the WTC towers. I’m sorry, but I just don’t think that you can realistically compare the two situations.




[edit on 17-8-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shroomery
Oh and BTW Howard




No, that is not correct. The buildings were never “designed” to withstand an aircraft impact. After the design was completed, the engineers did some simple calculations to determine if the building would be able to withstand the loss of some of the exterior and interior columns. The conditions that they assumed were not the same conditions that occurred on 9/11, and the effects of the subsequent fire were not considered. That is not the same thing as saying that “built to withstand such an attack many times over.” It may seem like a minor point to some, but it is a critical one that you should try to appreciate.


freepressinternational.com...



I think that this series of articles from the New York Times is a little better researched.


Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

Part 4 in particular addresses this issue.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join