His point wasn't that they caused more damage than they had tried to, his point was that more damage was caused than he would have thought if planes
hit the WTC towers. See, a little difference in context than we're led to believe, show that video to an arab who speaks the language, I found
someone and they translated the point as though Bin Laden was surprised at the damage in general, not that they had been overly successful in a
Ok im not sure what you are arguing here. You seem to be saying the same thing I said
What i said was "... Didnt you see the video of OBL prasing the work, saying that even he didnt think the towers would come down that the were hoping
for at most lots of loss of life and large fires. "
While we are on this topic you said:
Here's a link to an interview with Osama Bin Laden, in which he says he was not responsible for the attacks. And I'll tell you why I believe him,
when a terrorist commits an act of terror, they usually want you to know who did it and why they did it, so they can further advance their cause.
Sometimes multiple groups claim responsibility for the same event! So it doesn't mesh, that having such a well organized group and the ability to
hide, that bin Laden would lie about the attacks, it wouldn't help advance his cause if he did the attacks and take responsibility for it.
First, that info on that link seemed totally made up to me. It made OBL out to be a saint. I was literally laughing when i read this...
"I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam
strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people. Such a practice is forbidden ever in the course of a battle."
What about all those embassay bombings, in africa, the beheading of civilians in iraq.. need i say more? Furthermore, do you think that NO person who
speaks arabic has viewed that tape and came to the same conclusion that you have. Do you think NO arab country, or group of arabs would speak out
against the wrong US interpretation of the binladen tapes DO you think the US would be THAT STUPID to purposfully mistranslate the binladen tapes and
the broadcast them to the world!?!? I dont know if you said what you said to wrile me up or if you really beleive that link, if its the latter,
showing utmost restraint, i honestly dont know what to say... Well i do know what to say, but it would be vastly inappropriate.
Look everyone this commercial jet liner is fireing a missile on the tarmac!!!
Ok.. back to the structure and colapse of the WTC
As far as the structure of the WTC towers, they most definitely had a CORE support structure!
OK im sorry, i was tired last night, what i meant to say was that the support beams that would usually run vertically down a buildings structure all
across the floor was not present in the WTC. In order to make the most efficient use of space, the engineers developed the elevator shafts in the
middle of the WTC, along with the support beams this would create "wide open" floor space and no obtrusive load bearing beams in the middle of the
office space. To compensate the Skin of the tower, what gave it its definitive look was like a steel net that ran all the way down distributing the
load. Please see link below if you dont read the column (which i highly suggest you read) At least look at the diagram to see what im talking about,
if you still dont follow me. There is nothing madeup or covered up here this is commonly available public knowledge of how the WTC was built. Solid
Besides the ones in the middle do you see any support beams anywhere else like you would in a usual office building?
This is from a Uni in AU's civil engineering dept.
PLEASE READ THIS WHOLE THING BEFORE commenting to my post PLEASE
That says what im claming better than i ever can.
Now they even claim that what they comment on is speculation, but i trust their speculation due to their level of education, and their time spent on
OK, so now that we know that A) the secondary support beams were located in the middle near the elevator shafts B)the airplane took out a lot of the
support beams, not all all of them, thats why remained standing for some time...3) the fire did the rest??
On to the fires....it DID NOT MELT THE STEEL!
(did he just say what i think he did?? is what you are probably asking yourself)
Henry Koffman of USC
Many people believe the steel either melted or came close to melting. Henry Koffman, director of the Construction Engineering and Management Program
at the University of Southern California, make such a remark in an interview:
"The bottom line, in my opinion, is that intense heat from the jet fuel fires melted the steel infrastructure, which went past its yield strength and
led to the collapse of the buildings,..."
Professor Eagar of MIT
Thomas Eagar is a professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems. The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society published his analysis that
explains the fire could not possibly have been hot enough to melt steel. His main points were:
Steel melts at 1500°C (2700°F).
Jet fuel produces a maximum temperature of approximately 1000°C (1800°F) when mixed with air in perfect proportions,but this only causes steel to glow
a bright red. Therefore, theories that claim the steel melted violate the laws of physics.
Professor Connor of MIT
An article in October 2001 of Scientific American quotes Connor:
"In my theory, the hot fire weakened the supporting joint connection"
Wow of course the steel didnt MELT .. MELTING would mean that it turned into molten metal, a LIQUID... sorry if I used the word MELT anywhere i did
not mean to...I was hinting that the temps got high enough to warp the steel. At the temp of 1100 F the steel has HALF of the structural integrity
that it had at room temp. so that means its only a matter of time before things come crashing down....
LASTLY those "series of exposions" that you may see from various videos are the floors pancaking one another..thats why the bulding fell. all you
need is for 1 floor to give way.. the rest is history... Even more lastly, the shiny silver body of the planes looks like a AA plane to me. Niether of
the 2 planes looked even remotely military. Show me one proof of evidence that they were military. (please dont give me the pathetic pod picture