Until 911 - Fire has never collapsed a skyscraper

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by Valhall
That's pretty much uncalled for and not okay in this forum. If you reject the reference he provides, you are well within your rights. But you don't have the right to accuse him of that simply because he is opposed to your views.


Thank you.

My views aren't really in opposition per se. I find the apparent dearth of comparable catastrophic incidents worthy of note and it has me thinking more about the matter. I wanted to just leave it to the reader. I find the same thing a bit curious even thought I had heard of such an incident in the media just before 9-11-- almost a little too close to 9-11. It almost seemed like a preconditioning if I let suspicion be my guide.

My personal position is actually held steadfastly neutral in the matter for now.


You and me both. My main contention on this issue is that the NIST robbed the American people of large sums of money and gave us a multi-million dollar origami chia-pet in return. But I'm not a LIHOP or a MIHOP...I'm a LIHTN (let it happen through negligence) I guess (lol).




posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
But I'm not a LIHOP or a MIHOP...I'm a LIHTN (let it happen through negligence) I guess (lol).



I suppose I'm more of a "Though it might be a good idea to let it happen and thus made plans to take advantage of the situation should it occur ($$) and do a shoddy investigation just to sweep it all under the rug, shut up the people, thus make more $$ by having justification for acts that would be heavily questioned otherwise."

That makes a bad acronym though. That isn't really my neutralist position but a forced opinion. Heck, on the very day in the evening I was PO'ed enough to be a MIHOP for awhile.

[edit on 9/20/2009 by EnlightenUp]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Originally posted by Valhall
But I'm not a LIHOP or a MIHOP...I'm a LIHTN (let it happen through negligence) I guess (lol).



I suppose I'm more of a "Though it might be a good idea to let it happen and thus made plans to take advantage of the situation should it occur ($$) and do a shoddy investigation just to sweep it all under the rug, shut up the people, thus make more $$ by having justification for acts that would be heavily questioned otherwise."

That makes a bad acronym though.


LMAO! Yeah it would. I guess I'd have to add a few more letters myself because I do agree with this part


do a shoddy investigation just to sweep it all under the rug, shut up the people, thus make more $$ by having justification for acts that would be heavily questioned otherwise



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Rigel Kent
 


First of all, there are no other buildings in the world that are or have been designed and built the way the entire complex of buildings was built. Structurally they were not the strongest or best design. The were designed for spaciousness and a feeling of greater space. The outer walls were the support system. There were no steelbox girders like most buildings.

How fast were the planes traveling when they struck? Between 400 and 250 knots? Maybe faster? The floor that gave way was the one struck with the most damage, up above that were how many floors 13? So how much does each floor weight, concrete, pipes, wires, furniture, walls combined? Now add 13 + floors to the weight. If you look at the video, the top floors were leaning towards the direction of the impact right before collapse, this was reported by several helos in the area. Remember, we are talking about 10 million pounds above the damaged floor. Its not the steel beams that are the problem first off, its the bolts that hold them together.

Were those bolts the same grade as the steel beams or were they less? How many bolts would need to be compromised before the beams let loose? No one has ever mentioned the bolts, why is that?

Try dropping a 100 thousand pounds 1 inch from the ground and tell me the effects. Now try dropping that same weight 20ft onto the next 100 thousand pounds and onto the next and so on.

Why can't people believe that crazy muslims crashed planes into the twin towers? I think that idea is more truthful since they attacked the same damn buildings in 1993 and said they would be back again to finish the job.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Yea, but a skyscraper has never been hit by a plane before 9/11. Or according to the nut jobs there has never been a skyscraper that was hit by a missile, while the explosive went off, while the super thermite was melting all the supports before.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rigel Kent

Originally posted by drock905

Originally posted by Dramey
its also absolutely shocking everyone forgets the empire state building incident

thats probably never been covered in the news when speaking of 911


There is zero comparison to the two impacts. The B-25 was a tiny aircraft compared to the 737(?) that hit the towers. It was an accident at a slow speed not a deliberate act at full speed loaded with fuel.

The construction of the two buildings is also too different to draw any comparisons.


The WTC buildings were NOT hit by 737's at full speed (far from it) and they were not fully loaded with fuel either.
The B 25 is a smaller aircraft but then the ESB was a much smaller building too.

PEACE,
RK



Flight 11 was traveling an estimated 466 mph carrying 10,000 gallons of fuel
Flight 175 was traveling an estimated 575 mph carrying 10,000 gallons of fuel

Length: 159 ft 2 in,
Wingspan: 156 ft 1 in
Minimum operating weight: 176,650 lb
Maximum operating weight: 315,000 lb

Cruise speed: Mach 0.80 (470 kn, 530 mph, 851 km/h at 35,000 ft cruise altitude)
Max. Cruise speed: Mach 0.86 (493 kn, 568 mph, 913 km/h at 35,000 ft cruise altitude)

B-25 Mitchell

Length: 52 ft 11 in
Wingspan: 67 ft 6 in
Empty weight: 21,120 lb
Max takeoff weight: 41,800 lb

Cruising speed :230 mph
Maximum speed: 275 mph



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
B-25 Crash news footage.





posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by drock905
 


Nice job with the plane comparison, I would have done it, but alas, I am too lazy on a rainy sunday afternoon.

Another interesting fact would be the actual weight of the fuel. People just do not realize the physics we are dealing with, deny ignorance and look it up already. They found a pelvis several miles away on the 13th floor of a building, that should give an idea to the amount of force that was unleashed.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by drock905

Originally posted by Rigel Kent

Originally posted by drock905

Originally posted by Dramey
its also absolutely shocking everyone forgets the empire state building incident

thats probably never been covered in the news when speaking of 911


There is zero comparison to the two impacts. The B-25 was a tiny aircraft compared to the 737(?) that hit the towers. It was an accident at a slow speed not a deliberate act at full speed loaded with fuel.

The construction of the two buildings is also too different to draw any comparisons.


The WTC buildings were NOT hit by 737's at full speed (far from it) and they were not fully loaded with fuel either.
The B 25 is a smaller aircraft but then the ESB was a much smaller building too.

PEACE,
RK



Flight 11 was traveling an estimated 466 mph carrying 10,000 gallons of fuel
Flight 175 was traveling an estimated 575 mph carrying 10,000 gallons of fuel

Length: 159 ft 2 in,
Wingspan: 156 ft 1 in
Minimum operating weight: 176,650 lb
Maximum operating weight: 315,000 lb

Cruise speed: Mach 0.80 (470 kn, 530 mph, 851 km/h at 35,000 ft cruise altitude)
Max. Cruise speed: Mach 0.86 (493 kn, 568 mph, 913 km/h at 35,000 ft cruise altitude)

B-25 Mitchell

Length: 52 ft 11 in
Wingspan: 67 ft 6 in
Empty weight: 21,120 lb
Max takeoff weight: 41,800 lb

Cruising speed :230 mph
Maximum speed: 275 mph









Indeed!!

the B-25 was lost in the fog, low on fuel, and lumbering along at loiter speed to conserve what fuel was left. The WTC was designed in theory to withstand a similar situation in the biggest plane of the day, a 707.
It it of note that the tube in a tube design of the WTC was unique and an added vulnerability.
Comparisons to the Madrid fires are invalid as many of its columns were concrete jacketed.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
NIST did not rob anyone of any money. They are an organization that investigates disasters and then with the help of their staff that includes multiple nobel prize laureates they make recommendations so that the disasters do not happen again.

As NIST states

In response to the WTC tragedy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a 3-year building and fire safety investigation to study the factors contributing to the probable cause (or causes) of post-impact collapse of the WTC Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7; expanded its research in areas of high-priority need such as prevention of progressive collapse, fire resistance design and retrofit of structures, and fire resistive coatings for structural steel; and is reaching out to the building and fire safety communities to pave the way for timely, expedited considerations of recommendations stemming from the investigation.

This is a list of code changes that would need to be implemented

wtc.nist.gov...

It is about safety, not blame. Also, in an earlier post, I was not trying to state that shoddy construction led to the collapse but that during construction, the Port Authority did not have to adhere to NYC code. How many of you ever went into the WTC? Can anyone confirm for me how the buildings 'swayed' and we are wondering how it could have collapsed.

When I watch the videos I am glad that they were structurally sound enough to not have toppled when the aircraft slammed into it. That is what they were attempting. One from the north and one from the south to fall into one another. I am amazed that they lasted as long as they did without something toppling before the collapse.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by paranoiaFTW
Yea, but a skyscraper has never been hit by a plane before 9/11.


I think in several posts in this thread that has been proven to be an incorrect statement.



Or according to the nut jobs there has never been a skyscraper that was hit by a missile, while the explosive went off, while the super thermite was melting all the supports before.


Was there really any reason to call people who see things differently than you on this topic names? I mean seriously. You posted a post with incorrect information, in a thread that has already provided evidence that statement is incorrect, and then YOU are going to call some one else a name???



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
NIST did not rob anyone of any money. They are an organization that investigates disasters and then with the help of their staff that includes multiple nobel prize laureates they make recommendations so that the disasters do not happen again.

As NIST states

In response to the WTC tragedy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a 3-year building and fire safety investigation to study the factors contributing to the probable cause (or causes) of post-impact collapse of the WTC Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7; expanded its research in areas of high-priority need such as prevention of progressive collapse, fire resistance design and retrofit of structures, and fire resistive coatings for structural steel; and is reaching out to the building and fire safety communities to pave the way for timely, expedited considerations of recommendations stemming from the investigation.

This is a list of code changes that would need to be implemented

wtc.nist.gov...

It is about safety, not blame. Also, in an earlier post, I was not trying to state that shoddy construction led to the collapse but that during construction, the Port Authority did not have to adhere to NYC code. How many of you ever went into the WTC? Can anyone confirm for me how the buildings 'swayed' and we are wondering how it could have collapsed.

When I watch the videos I am glad that they were structurally sound enough to not have toppled when the aircraft slammed into it. That is what they were attempting. One from the north and one from the south to fall into one another. I am amazed that they lasted as long as they did without something toppling before the collapse.


No - in this case they were given a mandate from the 9/11 commission to investigate the building collapses and respond with a report on WHY the buildings collapsed.

So, nice long try, but no cigar. They robbed us.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Here are some great pictures of the construction differences of the Empire State Building and The World Trade Center. You can Clearly see that these building have very little in common


The Empire State Building


[img]http://www.building.co.uk...[/img]




The World Trade Center




[edit on 20-9-2009 by drock905]

[edit on 20-9-2009 by drock905]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by batvette
 


Since Ekinetic=m*v^2 / 2

Consider the increased energy factor (if both are fully loaded and maxed out):
(315,000/41,800)*(575/275)^2 ~= 33 times as much energy as a B-25 could give it.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by drock905
B-25 Crash news footage.








Couple amusing things.... notice they had no "bones" about showing the charred bodies of victims? Haven't seen that in US news since Vietnam when Gen Westmoreland would accompany the evening meal as he walked around kicking charred piles in the jungle boasting of the days' body count! Sweet memories! "mom, you sure these are brussell sprouts? I swear they look like Charlie!" "don't sass your mother or you're going to get the business end of my cowboy belt again!"
"sure, dad, better get mom to bring you the standard six pack warm up first!"

What the result has been is acceptance of war by the American public by insulating us from its horrors. They can't even show flag draped coffins being unloaded from a plane. I am not anti-war, still support the decision to go into Iraq, but jeez they treat us like children. Hell sometimes we just want to see an insurgent get owned on the news in revenge for cousin bobby getting his face and nuts blown off.

Also did you see at the very end when they showed the repair guys on the scaffold... no fence, no safety lines... OSHA would have a fit today. (of course that building was erected in record time by Indians who wore no safety equipment at all. At its peak construction reached 1.5 floors a week.)

Sorry if this is too off the path, tho thanks for the video!



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Back in 1991 the philidelpha fire dept had a working structure fire in a muliti story building called one Meridan Plaza. If IM not mistaken, three firefighters were killed as the fire raged from around the 8Th floor to the 17th. Only the building being sprinklered at the 17 th floor and above , was the fire brought under controll. The building burned for almost 24hrs and no collapse. I think the planes hitting WTC 1 and 2 at such speeds, assisted in the buildings comming completely down.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


The 9/11 Commission and NIST are 2 completely different entities. The commission is actually called the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. There report was release prior to NIST's final recommendations although there were earlier releases with preliminary findings. No one robbed us except the Queen Pelosi..



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I think you are on to something. The 9/11 attacks were clearly planned back in the mid 1960's. Were the mini nuclear bombs incorporated into the design, or added later?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I think you are on to something. The 9/11 attacks were clearly planned back in the mid 1960's. Were the mini nuclear bombs incorporated into the design, or added later?




I just about ruined my laptop with espresso after reading that but managed to keep my composure.

Really, I hope that's a jab in the ribs.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Valhall
 


The 9/11 Commission and NIST are 2 completely different entities. The commission is actually called the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. There report was release prior to NIST's final recommendations although there were earlier releases with preliminary findings. No one robbed us except the Queen Pelosi..


The 9/11 commission initially utilized the preliminary reports from NIST (that's why they regurgitated bad information that was later corrected).

The NIST was charged with finding out why the buildings collapsed.

wtc.nist.gov...

Read that and tell me what their number 1 objective was....so that you're seeing from them instead of me.

Then tell me what footnotes 30, 79, 156, 187, and 200 in the 911 Commission Report reference.

govinfo.library.unt.edu...

[edit on 9-20-2009 by Valhall]





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join