National Geographic - 9/11 Science and Conspiracy Special 8/31/09, page 4

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 08:27 PM

link

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Seventh

[

weed
UA93, that crashed NEAR Shanksville (not IN Shanksville...another clever ploy by CT's to confuse facts)
MAY have been targeting the WH.

donny
The evidence does not support a crash.

weed
Being ignorant of the President's itinerary, the perps may have assumed he'd be there. (GEE...

donny
Knowing for a fact where he was, gives rise to the argument. This aircraft is not necessary to scare the crap out of the US citizens more than we have already.
So lets just shoot it down. ( we'll get enough mileage out of a phoney phone call anyway.) Or maybe just drop a 500 pounder and call it a crash.

weed
this sorta blows the whole notion of an "inside Job", now, doesn't it? IF UA93 had impacted the WH??? Certainly, the PTB, the "evil ones" behind this whole thing, would have KNOWN the Prez's schedule...right???)

donny
yes they knew

weed
BUT, far more likely, just from the standpoint of being more prominent and easier to spot, aim at, and hit, AND for similar psychological reasons, the Capital Building is a more likely target for UA93. We won't ever knw for sure....the WH has an equally, maybe MORE psychological significance, but it is relatively smaller, and perceived to be better defended (!!!).

donny
This is pure crap as you have said on previous posts with language close to this." A fifth grader could have flown a plane into the Pentagon." Balderdash!!! A second or so away at 500mph are buildings without vacant construction areas . And ducking vips.

weed
Hard to know the thinking of those jackals....thankfully, NEITHER building was attacked. EITHER would have been horrible, but the Capital would likely have had the greatest loss of life, and impact on the US Government continuity.

donny
Jackals-----Those super men who could destroy several very large buildings at a single bound .
Make a grown man talk out of his head ( your friend Rummy.) Any idea why he got canned?
Defeat the entire security system of the greatest country on the planet. Trick it's intelligent services like they were on permanent vacation.
And avoid being brought to trial by the cash thirsty American Bar.
What the crap do you take the American people for WEED.
impact Continuity oh yeah! what freakin continuity?

weedwhacker

posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 09:42 PM

link

reply to post by Donny 4 million

Make a grown man talk out of his head ( your friend Rummy.)

Out of that entire rant, this is the only bit I could even begin to understand. (and only the part in parenthesis).

I happen to think "Rummy", along with almost all of players from the Bush years, are douchebags. (Colin Powell, excepted. There are a few other good ones too, just not on the top of my head.)

And none of them are smart enough to have pulled this off, as a "planned event" at all. They're the idiots who missed the signs, because of their incredible arrogance, and total ineptitude.

GenRadek

posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:00 PM

link

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Ok, If you can relate any or all of the science you type---- giving you the benefit that it is science.
You have little or no reference, you know to any of it.
I know it is way to simple for a dude of your knowledge and intellect to trivialize over that.
But---- here is the skinny my man.
You do not relate the science to anything in particular.
You ramble this and that in conjunction to not one specific thing that is known or suspected about the collapse.
No proof that the mumbo jumbo applies to a BOXED I BEAM a sheet of dry wall or anything in the time period, from the plane hit until the demolition, Case closed . 1492er's claimed the moon was made of Swiss cheese not their feet.

As a matter of fact I have given several sources for my responses. Many times.
As usual you pay no attention to details, nor do you pay attention to the context. EVERYTHING I stated is fact as is in direct reference to what happened to the steel at Ground Zero. Now here is the obvious disconnect for you: you are still stuck on thinking that everything I posted occurred in that span of an hour. I never said that ONCE. You twisted it into making it look I did, or at least tried and failed miserably. And of course you failed to to understand a lick of what I said and you ignored every time key parts. Specifically the parts where I stated numerous times that this all was happening in the pile for weeks and months AFTER 9/11. And all that "mumbo-jumbo" as you dismiss it is what is expected in the environment at Ground Zero. Did some of that happen during the fires? Probably. I wouldnt discount it at all. Somehow I cannot fathom why this was missed by you? On purpose? Accidentally? Lack of reading comprehension?

As to what caused the collapses, its been stated before: heat from the fires and severe damage combined, weakening the connections of the steel members of the WTCs by softening the steel. Fact: Steel weakens when exposed to high temps. Steel does not need to be liquid to fail. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in an idiot or a disinfo artist.

WWu777

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 10:33 AM

link

Well they've already given examples of the kind of BS that they are going to air here:

channel.nationalgeographic.com...-conspiracy-vs-science

CONSPIRACY VS. SCIENCE

Conspiracy theories are put to the test. How well do they stand up against the visual simulations of professional engineers? See how science supports official stories and debunks the conspiracies below.

THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDINGS

Official Story: The collapse was caused by fire initially fed by the jet fuel from the planes.
Science: Using original construction blueprints, photographs, and construction data, Purdue University, along with the American Society of Civil Engineers, created a model structure of the north World Trade Center tower and a scaled 767 jetliner. To model the fuel load, Purdue launched aluminum cans filled with liquid to represent an airline wing colliding with a steel column. The final simulation showed the internal destruction of supporting columns, the disintegration of the jetliner, the atomizing of the fuel, and the resulting fires that softened the steel framework of the building and brought it down.

Conspiracy: The fire could not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel.
Science: The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) designed explosives to test the effects of burning jet fuel on steel. EMRTC used a bare steel beam because the National Institute of Standards and Technology reports that much of the any fireproofing material would have been knocked off at the moment of impact. Within two minutes of igniting the fuel, the temperature peaked just above 2,000 Fahrenheit and complete structural failure occurred in less than four minutes.

Conspiracy: The collapse was caused by controlled demolition.
Science: The film crew recorded the demolition of a college dormitory building to learn all that is involved in the process of prepping and loading. The first step was to expose the columns in order to attach explosives to them. The World Trade Center had 47 inner core columns that would have needed to be prepared. To cut the steel beams the demolition team used a shape charge, which is piece of copper apportioned to a shape-charged weapon. When an explosive is attached and ignited, the device implodes and forms a stream of liquid copper that cuts through the steel. A demolition of this scale would leave clear evidence behind, but no such traces were found at Ground Zero.

Conspiracy: Thermite, which is less traceable, was used in the controlled demolition that brought down the towers.
Science: Some truthers claimdust that some New Yorkers found after the attack shares the components of thermite. Scientists assert that even if this dust did contain thermite, it would be impossible to determine whether the thermite came from a controlled demolition or simply from the melting of the airplanes. EMRTC designed an experiment to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The thermite in the test was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center.

THE ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON

Official Story: Hijackers caused a commercial airplane to crash into the building.
Science: Purdue University created a visual simulation of the crash, which indicated the victims’ bodies would have been pushed forward in relation to one another, just as they were in the actual attack. . To further investigate, EMRTC launched a projectile into a simulated structure. They did not include wings in the projectile model because Purdue asserted they were of little consequence as the Pentagon was so heavily reinforced. The experiment created a hole in the structure the approximate size of the projectile - similar to photo evidence from the actual attack.

Conspiracy: The Pentagon was either bombed or hit by a missile.
Science: EMRTC also planted an explosive in the same model structure and compared the results to photos of the Pentagon after the crash. The explosive test demonstrated a different sort of damage. The structure blew out from the point of the explosion, causing complete destruction of floors and walls. This dispersed debris did not match the photo evidence.

Read more: channel.nationalgeographic.com...-facts#ixzz0PD1w9oFY

I don't know about you but this looks like the documentary that the History Channel put up long ago where they did the same thing, dismiss a ton of scientific evidence with a few sentences of denial. They are preying on the gullible.

dariousg

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 10:55 AM

link

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to

How did Bush see on T.V the 1st plane crash as it happened.

He didnt. He mentioned he had seen the news report of the first crash.

WRONG! God, how many times can we say this and the 'debunkers' like you guys continue to ignore us. HE SAID HE SAW IT! Plain as day. HE SAID HE SAW THE FIRST PLANE HIT AND THAT THE TV WAS OBVIOUSLY ON! BEFORE he went into the classroom. So stop trying to deny what was said.

This guy was a terrible speaker. Why? Because he would always have the Freudian slips where he would speak the truth while trying to lie his arse off. Like with the slip of saying 'explosives' were in the buildings.

Bush saying he SAW the plane hit the tower...

turbofan

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link

reply to post by dariousg

It doesn't matter what people say on video, GL's will make up their own
version and tell us what it was supposed to mean.

IE:

Pull it = remove a team of firemen from a burning building

trebor451

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link

Originally posted by WWu777
Well they've already given examples of the kind of BS that they are going to air here:

snip snip

I don't know about you but this looks like the documentary that the History Channel put up long ago where they did the same thing, dismiss a ton of scientific evidence with a few sentences of denial. They are preying on the gullible.

Looks like the abstracts you cut and pasted are a bit more than your characterizing as "a few sentences of denial".

The truth hurts, don'tcha think?

evil incarnate

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link

Originally posted by GenRadek
Fact: Steel weakens when exposed to high temps. Steel does not need to be liquid to fail. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in an idiot or a disinfo artist.

What temperature does steel begin to become soft?

What temperature were the fires burning at?

bsbray11

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link

reply to post by evil incarnate

Steel loses half its yield strength at 600 C. Which means when the steel itself is 600 C (not the flames of the fire), the steel can only take half the loading it could at room temperature before it begins to permanently deform, which is sag or creep and traditionally does not cause additional failures, especially shear failures.

Which brings us back to the holy grail question as far as NIST goes. Where did they ever demonstrate that you can break a bunch of perimeter columns loose by making trusses inside sag? They never did. They tweaked a bunch of computer simulations to conclude their hypothesis was theoretically possible, that's all. Where is any proof of it, where is the studied mechanism reproduced?

Joey Canoli

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by GenRadek
Fact: Steel weakens when exposed to high temps. Steel does not need to be liquid to fail. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in an idiot or a disinfo artist.

What temperature does steel begin to become soft?

What temperature were the fires burning at?

Irrelevant.

No where does NISt say that the columns lost 1/2 their strength. Creep is the culprit.

1 hour at 250C is enough to cause enough creep to unload the hot columns and transfer their load onto others. Then they get overloaded and the whole thing fails.

This goes for bsbray's response above also. It's not necessary for the truss's sagging to be the sole culprit of their being sucked in. Some inward pulling, combined with overloading does the trick.

bsbray11

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
1 hour at 250C is enough to cause enough creep to unload the hot columns and transfer their load onto others.

There is a professional engineer who posts here by the username Valhall, and she used to follow the party line and said only good things about NIST until she read their report, specifically the part you are talking about. Creep has NEVER been known to be something that causes dramatic deformations in an hour or two, she made this very clear in response to NIST. She said she even fired a NIST employee from one of her engineering teams because she had lost so much confidence in NIST's competence after reading that report. Pretty funny huh?

It's not necessary for the truss's sagging to be the sole culprit of their being sucked in. Some inward pulling, combined with overloading does the trick.

And the same thing goes as far as no one setting up conditions for the mechanism to be reproduced in a lab. Overloading can be recreated. Heat generators can be (and were) set up.

SPreston

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link

posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Seventh

How did Bush see on T.V the 1st plane crash as it happened.

He didnt. He mentioned he had seen the news report of the first crash.

Geeze Swampfox. What force in this universe entices you to tell a bald-faced lie in which you know you will be caught and exposed?

Is truth of such little value to you?

billybob

posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

How did Bush see on T.V the 1st plane crash as it happened.

He didnt. He mentioned he had seen the news report of the first crash.

he said he watched the plane hit the tower on television. he WATCHED THE PLANE HIT THE TOWER. and, he said it on two different occasions. you know it, too. you are being deliberately wrong.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Why was WTC7 not deemed important enough to mention at the `omission.

A sterling example of a irrelevant statement. As mentioned by another poster, the Commission wasnt created to study the engineering issues.

the 911 commission was supposed to cover ALL THINGS 911. wtc7 collapsing at freefall speed (it WAS freefall for over 2 seconds) is an obvious anomaly that should have been included in the report. however, the 'ommission decided what testimony and facts they would publish, and which they would SWEEP UNDER THE RUG!

stink.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

The C.I.A. are trained to notice adverse movement on the stock exchange that could involve terrorism, terrorists favourite weapons are vehicles used as or carrying explosives, airports and planes yield fantastic results.....

Not sure where you got this load of manure.

the stock trade is monitored for suspicious activity. i'm not sure why you would call it manure.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

This was a major crime scene, why was it not treated at as such, again a complete disregard of normal protocols.

Completely inaccurate. The debris WAS treated as a crime scene.

the evidence was not left intact/undisturbed. no police agency investigated the scene as a crime scene. it was treated as a disaster area. the evidence was not even treated like evidence. it was treated like debris, and so, once again, you're wrong.

evil incarnate

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by GenRadek
Fact: Steel weakens when exposed to high temps. Steel does not need to be liquid to fail. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in an idiot or a disinfo artist.

What temperature does steel begin to become soft?

What temperature were the fires burning at?

Irrelevant.

No where does NISt say that the columns lost 1/2 their strength. Creep is the culprit.

1 hour at 250C is enough to cause enough creep to unload the hot columns and transfer their load onto others. Then they get overloaded and the whole thing fails.

Can you explain the explain the physics behind this? Can you make it fit the real world and not any of NIST's new laws of physics?

Joey Canoli

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Can you explain the explain the physics behind this? Can you make it fit the real world and not any of NIST's new laws of physics?

Yes I can.

However, I don't think you'd understand.

So read these and learn something.

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

evil incarnate

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Yes I can.

However, I don't think you'd understand.

So read these and learn something.

Why is it that every time I ask one of you 'debunkers' a simple question, I get the reply "i could tell you but i will not because blah blah blah?" Come on now. You know very well that I asked if you could explain the physics behind it. I did not ask if you could send me links so I can read other people's explanations. I very specifically asked you and you know it. Thank you for admiting that you could not explain it yourself. Are you purposely trying to back me up all the time?

Joey Canoli

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Why is it that every time I ask one of you 'debunkers' a simple question, I get the reply "i could tell you but i will not because blah blah blah?"

Simple answer?

Cuz you're a waste of my time.

The TM is full of nobodies, that thinks because their mom's answered all their inane questions when they were growing up, that they NOW expect the same treatment.

Welcome to the real world, kid....

GenRadek

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link

reply to post by bsbray11

A little more information on just what creep is, in reference to fires and steel structures.

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

Hot finished carbon steel begins to lose strength at temperatures above 300°C and reduces in strength at steady rate up to 800°C. The small residual strength then reduces more gradually until the melting temperature at around 1500°C. This behaviour is similar for hot rolled reinforcing steels. For cold worked steels including reinforcement, there is a more rapid decrease of strength after 300°C (Lawson & Newman 1990). In addition to the reduction of material strength and stiffness, steel displays a significant creep phenomena at temperatures over 450°C. The phenomena of creep results in an increase of deformation (strain) with time, even if the temperature and applied stress remain unchanged (Twilt 1988).
High temperature creep is dependent on the stress level and heating rate. The occurrence of creep indicates that the stress and the temperature history have to be taken into account in estimating the strength and deformation behaviour of steel structures in fire. Including creep explicitly within analytical models, is complex. For simple design methods, it is widely accepted that the effect of creep is implicitly considered in the stress-strain-temperature relationships.

Temps in WTC were estimated from 900C-1000C.

In fact, the whole site has excellent information on structural steel and its behavior in fires. Covers a lot ground, including bolts, steel beams, trusses, and other important topics of steel in fires. Includes also a study on WTC as well.

I would recommend reading through the site and doing a little more research beyond what they say in conspiracy sites.

[edited to add quote from page]

[edit on 8/26/2009 by GenRadek]

Nola213

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link

Useing The Mythbusters (a pseudo science/comedy show) which many times uses flawed recreations, which are almost always biased, as a back up to your argument??

Hehe, You so silly Cameroon.

Nola213

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link

Originally posted by jprophet420

Real facts are nothing more than scientific mumbo-jumbo and smoke and mirrors, and crappy,

The bottom line to all of 911 is this:

BOTH sides have real facts and evidence. That means neither is 100% right. We need a new investigation until one side has 100% of the facts on their side. That is how science works. Denial of this is apathetic and futile. Every single person with a scientific mind understands this.

Thank you for bringing up that point good sir.

Great idea, but when one of "sides" is doing 100% of the investigation.

Things like the 9/11 commission report are produced.

We need an independant, unbiased team of investigators to look at this. If thats even possible after all these years everyone has an opinion.

Perhaps maybe go out of country to find this new investigative team?