9/11: The Feds did it.

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
First of, there are many kinds of engineers, i am one too, but not on this specific subject.

If you want us to believe you post a copy of your title along with whatever buildings you worked on.

BTW, for being an engineer you sure don't act like one...
Saying that people which have no knowledge of the physics involved in skyscrapers that they can make educated guesses...humm, it sounds fishy to me. There is a huge difference between having an opinion in "abortion", and giving a "technical opinion" in skyscrapers...


When Goose said this and I quote;



First of all I was not lecturing just giving my opinion, nor was I pretending to be an expert at any time, second, it does not take a civil engineer to know that when things are off balance they normally fall usually to one side or the other, but not implode as the WTC did.


It was strange to me that you did not explain to him how the physics in a skyscraper works in order to "tilt" and crumble it to one side.

[Edited on 25-4-2004 by Muaddib]


Fine. I am a Diesel Systems Engineer and I worked for NYK.

I basically was a merchant ship engine designer, but in that one needs to know the structure, design, and physics behind structures not only stationary, but in motion.

Physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, and structural design were basically all I did.




posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Punk boy, I don't call that proof, and my question still stands.

i quote from Goose once more..




I pretending to be an expert at any time, second, it does not take a civil engineer to know that when things are off balance they normally fall usually to one side or the other, but not implode as the WTC did.


and you say that people with no knowledge of the physics involved in the engineering of skyscrapers can make educated guesses?

It is not a question of the WTC "could" have fallen straight down as you so eloquently put it, but that in all cases skyscrapers "do fall straight down." There is nothing in the world, except maybe the most Earth shattering earthquake or some other major natural disaster, that could have tilted the WTC over 100 feet to one side for it to have fallen sideways, much less an aircraft crashing into it. That's first.

Let's look at some of the facts we know about the twin towers collapse.

"The spray-on fireproofing, considered unacceptable by today's standards, was state-of-the-art at the time of application and really the only choice. The Twin Towers were built during a transitional period when asbestos was being phased out and a suitable substitute was being sought."

Excerpt taken from.
www.teamtwintowers.org...

Structural steel softens at about 425 C and loses half its strength at 650 C.

The temperatures involved in the WTC collapse from the initial explotions to the fires caused by the burning of the fuel ranged about 750 C to about 1,000 C and some reports estimate it to be as high as 2,000 C.

I am not sure the temperatures would have been so high, so lets use the moderate estimates of 750 C to 900 C.

It is true that even thou the strength of the steel was half because of the fire, it would have been strong enough to maintain its integrity, but these are not the only problems which caused the towers to collapse.

BTW, you don't need a skyscraper to sway back and forth to compromise its integrity and crumble to the floor. In major fires caused in such big skyscrapers there is also the problem of distortion of the steel in the fire. In these major fires the temperature of the fire is not completly uniform.

There were parts of the WTC that were more protected than others because of the initial impact of the planes into the buildings. We know that steel has a thermal expansion when there is a difference of 150 C from one location to another produccing yield-level residual stresses, which would in place result in a buckling effect.

You also have to note that these collosal structures are made in a way that if one or a couple of structural members such as columns are lost, the integrity of the buildings will remain intact. But in the case of the WTC several of these structural members were lost, aiding in the dominoe effect of the collapse.


[Edited on 25-4-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 10:09 PM
link   
And what? What is the point of all this Sir Expert?

What point are you trying to prove?



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 11:28 PM
link   
humm....resorting to sarcastic remarks and not presenting any other information to backup your "opinions"...I see....

First, I am not the one who said that, and I quote


Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I basically was a merchant ship engine designer,
but in that one needs to know the structure, design, and physics behind structures not only stationary, but in motion.


And according to this you say that you know that there are many unanwsered questions about the way the WTC collapsed.

Now, I presented you with facts, which you forgot to mention. So, keep the sarcastic remarks out of this, because you proved, by the lack of facts you somehow seem to have "forgotten", that you don't know as much about structural design of skyscrapers as you proclaim to know.

I am not an expert either, but I know a thing or two, now if you want to see the truth come out, then check what I have said and see if you can find whether or not I was right about the "facts" I presented.

Ask if you want a civil engineer, someone that knows a bit more than you do. I am sure you should have one or two friends who are civil engineers since you worked in a related field, according to what you said.

Now since it seems you didn't understand what I said, I will put it on layman's terms.

There was no foul play in the way the twin towers collapsed, and all the wild allegations about explosives set up to make it collapse and other crap like that is just, "wild allegations with not one shred of truth."


[Edited on 26-4-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
humm....resorting to sarcastic remarks and not presenting any other information to backup your "opinions"...I see....

First, I am not the one who said that, and I quote


Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I basically was a merchant ship engine designer,
but in that one needs to know the structure, design, and physics behind structures not only stationary, but in motion.


And according to this you say that you know that there are many unanwsered questions about the way the WTC collapsed.

Now, I presented you with facts, which you forgot to mention. So, keep the sarcastic remarks out of this, because you proved, by the lack of facts you somehow seem to have "forgotten", that you don't know as much about structural design of skyscrapers as you proclaim to know.

I am not an expert either, but I know a thing or two, now if you want to see the truth come out, then check what I have said and see if you can find whether or not I was right about the "facts" I presented.

Ask if you want a civil engineer, someone that knows a bit more than you do. I am sure you should have one or two friends who are civil engineers since you worked in a related field, according to what you said.

Now since it seems you didn't understand what I said, I will put it on layman's terms.

There was no foul play in the way the twin towers collapsed, and all the wild allegations about explosives set up to make it collapse and other crap like that is just, "wild allegations with not one shred of truth."


[Edited on 26-4-2004 by Muaddib]


First off, the "unanswered questions" you mention are about government involvement, not the "way they fell".

I know that physically they could have fallen because of the planes themselves, as said in your "proof".

I could care less.

So what if some civil engineers say they fell exclusively from the planes, others say it impossible, much like Tower 7, the Oklahoma City bombing etc.

There are many opinions, and facts only lend themselves to which are presented. I'm not so pompous to thing though, that I know everything about it because of what others say.



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Okay, here goes...

1. If Flight 77 DIDN'T hit the Pentagon, pray tell, where did it go?

2. His intelligence network can't find 55,000 gallons of WMDs 2 1/2 years after the fact...but they're supposed to be Clairavoyant and know when and where how hijackers will take our planes?

3. Condoleezza Rice told a friend of hers not to fly that day...but it hasn't occured to anyone that Condi doesn't fly very much ANYWAY? She hates planes.

BTW: I have a problem with anyone who hates anything, and is proud of it.



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint


BTW: I have a problem with anyone who hates anything, and is proud of it.


I think that is something you're going to have to work out with yourself.



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Here is a good site with info on the twin towers and an summarized description of how and why they fell.

"General Information:
Height: 1,368 and 1,362 feet (417 and 415 meters)
Owners: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
(99 year leased signed in April 2001 to groups including Westfield America and Silverstein Properties)
Architect: Minoru Yamasaki, Emery Roth and Sons consulting
Engineer: John Skilling and Leslie Robertson of Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson
Ground Breaking: August 5, 1966
Opened: 1970-73; April 4, 1973 ribbon cutting
Destroyed: Terrorist attack, September 11, 2001

The Structural System:

Yamasaki and engineers John Skilling and Les Robertson worked closely, and the relationship between the towers design and structure is clear. Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extending across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all.

Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways."

Excerpts taken from.
www.civil.usyd.edu.au...





[Edited on 26-4-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 07:06 PM
link   
For Christ sake man, you have a one track mind.

Are you so sure of yourself to think that because one set of civil engineers say it would fall a certain way (which I don't even know why you are argueing it, I've agreed since the day I saw it in person) that no one else would have thought of that too?

To see if the government had a hand in this, you have to look outside the incident itself and look to history, money flow (before during and after), and motive.

Who gives a flying # why they fell.



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 08:43 PM
link   
This is so typical, you keep changing your arguments to fit your agenda.

First, what you said in the above post is not what you have said previously.


Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I however do not think that the planes could have done the job by itself. From my knowledge (if I remember correctly) the steel verticals were coated in asbestos. Even should the impact have stripped the coating away and the fire have weakened them I find it unlikely that the building would sway enough to crack the floor slab causing it to fail like it did.


Second, one of the arguments of most conspiracy theorists that the government had some involvement in 9/11 is that according to them the towers shouldn't have fallen the way they did.

I have shown that the way the towers fell was only normal under the circumstances of the event.

Third, I think I have shown that you do not know enough about the physics involved in sckyscrapers, contrary to what you have tried to imply. I am not even sure that you are an engineer. At least not one with the knowledge you are implaying to have, "maybe" you are a "Diesel Systems Engineer" and that's all.

[Edited on 26-4-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
This is so typical, you keep changing your arguments to fit your agenda.

Wrong, the way it fell was never under dispute and I have always agreed that it would fall down rather to the side. It falling straight down was what some used to push the "bombs" ideas. I'll make it real clear for you below.

First, what you said in the above post is not what you have said previously.


Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I however do not think that the planes could have done the job by itself. From my knowledge (if I remember correctly) the steel verticals were coated in asbestos. Even should the impact have stripped the coating away and the fire have weakened them I find it unlikely that the building would sway enough to crack the floor slab causing it to fail like it did.


What about this is contradictory? What do you not get. Way they fell (down) I know that it would happen that way and agreed. It's the REASON they fell that I find unlikey that they fall because of the planes alone.

Second, one of the arguments of most conspiracy theorists that the government had some involvement in 9/11 is that according to them the towers shouldn't have fallen the way they did.

Obviously, which is that aspect that is crap. They were designed to fall down and that fact has never been fought, by me at least.

I have shown that the way the towers fell was only normal under the circumstances of the event.

Third, I think I have shown that you do not know enough about the physics involved in sckyscrapers, contrary to what you have tried to imply. I am not even sure that you are an engineer. At least not one with the knowledge you are implaying to have, "maybe" you are a "Diesel Systems Engineer" and that's all.

Oh, I understand, but you are having the wrong arguement, which I guess only further confusses you.

[Edited on 26-4-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Wow KJ, mostly in other threads you seem to be sane, but your belief in this conspiracy seems like a desperate attempt to pin the government for some grievence you hold (colonel certantly holds one)

YOU;
To see if the government had a hand in this, you have to look outside the incident itself and look to history, money flow (before during and after), and motive.

You cant assume motive
i could dream up many motivies by parties other than the gov to want to "stage" 9-11

History, well ive seen an escalating scale and series of attacks against US targets...but nothing historically pointing to any government involvment

Just because a person hits someone, doesnt mean they will commit murder...
hence
just because of a cia plan op northwood existed in the past, doesnt mean it would be attempted in the future
Do you know how many contingency plans our gov has made that went nowhere?

$$$flow?
hmm where is the financial records showing a connection/irregularities? even if there were such things, is it possible the terrorists (or other no gov) did this to make a pile o $$$ from their actions?
50% of the stock markets computers are in TEXAS as a backup incase of a disaster like 9-11, surely the records exist there?

Now we're going to try and thread these 3 ideas, history, motive and $$ flow into a plot?
Ive written better fantasy adventures for RPG's than this flimsy patchwork of NO EVIDENCE!

If you could acknowledge that in all these discussions on this thread, that indeed there is no evidence that you could PROVE this theory to me,
Ill try to open my mind to this idea being remotly possible.

Dont give me an extrapolation of hearsay,
dont hit me with loaded questions that beg your answer
explain this theory to me as if im a 10yr old, with clear, understandable and tangible examples.

I await being labled Repugnant by my favorite ATSNN resident..the ever viscious, and always spiteful colonel!
Please, i feel the need to be abused....lay a good hate filled diatribe on me man...



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   
How the hell did I get involved in this seemingly private debate? I guess repugnants are deep down masochists too. I guess they need the verbal flogging to repent for their daily sins. Well, I'm a sadist and you gets none today!



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 02:55 PM
link   
I am not the one confussed KrazyJethro. I showed enough evidence to the contrary, anyways, the evidence was to prove that the towers fell due to a combination of 1 the impact, and 2 the fires, nothing more, nothing less. This is the easiest conspiracy theory regarding the WTC that can be debunked, and there have been other people with better credentials than me debunking this already, but some people just love to blame everything on the government.



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Oh my God. I can not believe how conveluded this discussion has become. All of this from a few casual comments. Oh well.

I'll clearify.

I am not saying that it is a government plot, only that it could be. Truth be told, I don't know, and neither do any of you.

I do not contest the "falling down" idea as I know why structurally it fell downward.

I do not think that the planes could have done this damage by themselves, but wierder things have happened.

Phew, all this bull# for that. Maybe some of you missed the "I am reserving judgement" thing I wrote as there is just too much speculation and hearsay running around to have time to sort through all of it.

I tend not to believe Official stories though and I of course do not trust the government has my best interest at heart.

I only first jibbed at Dune boy because he seemed so hardcore about know what happened. There obviously could be no way HE was wrong.




posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   
This is getting too old. You lost KrazyJethro, get over it and stop trying to blame others for your own mistakes.


Obviously we all can see that you can't admit to your own mistakes.

If you have any "proof to the contrary" "on the topic of the reason why the WTC fell", then prove it. Otherwise is just "wild speculation with not one shred of evidence."


[Edited on 28-4-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Son, you have my apologies that I always don't have the time to post awesome and complete ideas to every pissant like you that strolls into the Pit.

As for losing, there was nothing to lose. The biggest thing in contention was whether I was an engineer.

Don't make me laugh.



Oops, too late.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Wow, once more resorting to insults? Very informative.

BTW i don't care if you piss your pants old fart.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   
There are many questions about 9/11 that have yet to be answered, and probably never will be. I'm not sure if a government agency actually PLANNED the attack, or helped organize it, but I am quite certain that they let it happen. There is no way an attack so sophisticated, so complex and well planned could go underneath our radar...there are just too many instances in the entire thing that should have set off the "red light" long before those planes crashed into the WTC. I think the terrorists were most likely allowed into our country...and someone looked away when it came time to take action. We have never seen any believable (for me) proof of who really orchestrated and carried out these attacks. The government sure as hell is doing a good job of not talking about it though, and I don't think they will talk about it as long as they have something to hide. This has always been the case, and I doubt we will have any real facts about 9/11 until many years from now.



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 11:18 PM
link   
The U.S government let 9/11 happen just as much as the "partido popular" in Spain let 3/11 happen...

El partido popular had nothing to gain with 3/11, actually because of this the people in Spain have chosen a socialist government out of fear, and it was expected.

Most people from Spain and other European countries have lost their desire to fight back, and they cannot comprehend why are there people in the world that can kill others so easily and hate so much. These Europeans believe in peace and think that with peace they will be safe from terrorism, but they are wrong.

These terrorists have been planning these events for years, and the U.S is not the only country that was attacked unprepared. Even places in the Middle East and other areas in the world that have been dealing with terrorism for decades have been taken unprepared by the recent attacks of terrorists.





new topics
 
0
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join