|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 10, 2005, 08:24 AM | #401 | |
Member
Join Date: September 9, 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 51
|
Quote:
I work in Brooklyn. I went down to the East River after I heard about the planes hitting the WTC. I saw the damage to the towers. I saw the first one fall, after that it got a little too "real" and I left. I'm calling BS on the statement quoted above. From Brooklyn, you could see huge, and I mean HUGE holes in towers 1 and 2. Those holes were FILLED with orange flames. The air around the towers was filled with PAPER caught in the updraft from the fires, I assume it was sucked out of the building. It looked like confetti. I'm just thankful I was too far away to see the people falling, at least too far to recognize them as people. As for building seven, I couldn't see that one from Brooklyn, but I spent a lot of time around the WTC and can tell you it was close enough to the towers that when they came down I'd expect major structural damage to be done to it. |
|
May 10, 2005, 08:32 AM | #402 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 12, 2000
Location: Enfield, NH
Posts: 5,521
|
Quote:
As to the "mysterious" lightly damaged building that later collapsed: Anyone who thinks that you can set up a building for demolition without anyone noticing is simply divorced from reality. It takes weeks to prepare a demolition job of that magnitude...you can't just waltz into a building, slap a few charges in a few places, and hit a button. Support walls need to be knocked out, a whole lot of stuff needs to be removed, holes need to be drilled, and trusses need to be torch-cut. You basically have to do pretty severe surgery to a building before you can even place the charges where they'll actually bring the place down. Now, whoever supports the demolition theory is trying to say that thousands of people worked for weeks in that building without anyone noticing demolition crews stripping walls, torch-cutting supports, and generally making a mess of the place. Sorry, but those theories are directly contributable to a lack of education on the matter. Stop reading conspiracy sites on the web. Go to a library, and pick up a book or two on structural engineering, physics, and architecture. |
|
May 10, 2005, 08:57 AM | #403 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 9, 2005
Location: Colorado (not Denver or Boulder)
Posts: 186
|
Quote:
|
|
May 10, 2005, 11:27 AM | #404 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 30, 2001
Location: The middle of WWIII
Posts: 3,335
|
Quote:
May the good Lord take a likin' to ya, and blow ya up reeeal soon! |
|
May 10, 2005, 01:10 PM | #405 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Posts: 475
|
LAK,
Again, you're making this claim only because no one sent you the Airlines' passenger lists by registered mail. Some conspiracy website says "The 19 hijackers weren't on the passenger list!!!", and you believe it. Doesn't get much deeper than that. A poster above addressed your point about the insider trading. There are now several posts explaining why your demolition theory is ridiculous. I recommend, if you really believe all of this, that you renounce your Federal Citizenship in protest. Then, you can move to Syria, where you can find lots of people who openly accept your theories on the September 11th attack. |
May 10, 2005, 02:25 PM | #406 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 1, 2000
Location: Manassas, Virginia
Posts: 914
|
Quote:
<boom!> Boys, it's time to eat... Chris |
|
May 10, 2005, 02:32 PM | #407 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2005
Location: Red Desert
Posts: 819
|
__________________
{empty thought cloud} |
May 10, 2005, 02:49 PM | #408 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 17, 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 296
|
Quote:
And here again, this is getting lost in all this noise. And for those who still have a grasp on reality, I offer this rememberance as it still remains my moral compass. http://attacked911.tripod.com/ |
|
May 10, 2005, 03:51 PM | #409 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 15, 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 940
|
Quote:
He did get it slightly wrong though IMHO. It is the majority of support or the support relied upon by the engineers to offer some contribution. We have to know (or the engineers did) that the inner structure also participated where the elevator shafts and stairwells contribute to the integrity. Although, the shafts were not in a direct line with each other all the way down IIRC. They did however had to have holes in the floors and system of trusses that helped to keep the outside walls in place and so they have to have the walls of the shafts also act as support where they are (from what limited knowledge I have of construction). Some of the pictures on some of those websites LAK has alluded to show them building some kind of "inner structure" in the beginning phases of construction, but what they don't say is that they are most likely just for the elevators and were not the main support that they claim it is. Btw, that is a sad link but a good one. |
|
May 10, 2005, 05:32 PM | #410 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 12, 2000
Location: Enfield, NH
Posts: 5,521
|
Quote:
Anyone with even a basic understanding of engineering knows what happens when you anchor a steel beam supported floor on two points, and then break or weaken one of those points. The floor will collapse and smash onto the floor below, which will then collapse under the impact and extra weight of the floor above it, and so on. We saw the end result on live TV, unfortunately. Quote:
Look: many people died very real and nasty deaths in those buildings. I am sick and tired of having people with third-grade educations pee on their memory by alleging in all seriousness that their own *government* saw fit to wipe out almost 3,000 terrified people, ages 2 to 89, so the evil plutocrats could sell stocks at a profit. Enough already. |
||
May 11, 2005, 12:13 AM | #411 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 15, 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 940
|
Quote:
What I was saying about the support is that although the walls probably act like one really big column, there is still "some" support garnered from other aspects of the structure. To me it would seem prudent for an engineer to utilise every aspect of the structure to contribute to support of the structure. Even the risers for the air supply should be incorporated into the support structure and contribute instead of just burdenning the structure with the risers weight. Hence the claim that you were "slightly wrong" claim I made about it being the "only" support of the towers but they really were the only support that really counts when talking about why they collapsed. It was only mentioned by me as a side note and not to dissagree with that you said. On the contrary, I agree whith what you said (just added a trivial detail ) |
|
May 11, 2005, 05:21 AM | #412 | ||||
Junior member
Join Date: May 14, 2002
Posts: 2,251
|
Novus Collectus
Quote:
Even though the inner column and steel box core supported the gravity load and the outer mesh provided a calculated rigidity under wind loading - the outer mesh was intergrated via the connecting floor structures to the inner core. A sort of steel three dimensional mesh structure, and very strong indeed. Quote:
Quote:
So going back to the side loadings; these "trusses" would have to of been able to withstand a considerable end-on force along with the 22 gauge steel and 4" light concrete flooring; since to suggest otherwise would be to say that a wind load - say a 120 mph storm wind - that flexed the outer wall inwards "would not compress" the flooring and trusses against the core. In other words the floor and whatever additional supports underneath would have to capable of bearing a hefty end-on loading without bending, or in the case of the concrete breaking up. Quote:
Figures I have seen suggest both 767-200ER jets were carrying about 10,000 lbs of fuel each - less than half full capacity. The first plane struck the tower almost center and there was a considerable fireaball ejected behind it, and what burned inside was certainly oxygen starved. The second strike was way off center and angled so that the largest portion burned outside the building in a rather spectacular fireball to one side of it. |
||||
May 11, 2005, 06:11 AM | #413 | |||||
Junior member
Join Date: May 14, 2002
Posts: 2,251
|
Novus Collectus
Quote:
But Gen. Partin provides a qualified technical explanation of why it was not so based on the information provided by the official mouthpieces. There are other facts that have been tossed down the Memory Hole in regard to the Murrah bombing. One is secondary devices; I have local news footage - different ones - from studio and on-scene that quote FBI and local police sources that definitively say two more bombs were found, the area is being cleared, people running away a second time, and a bomb disposal vehicle being vectored in to pick up the goods. Etc. Someones is not telling the whole truth - or maybe not even half of it. And years later it is institutional "historical fact". Quote:
Best evidence I have seen of the low-intensity fires after the jet fuel burned off is color footage and stills taken from the tallest neigboring buildings and helos since one can see into the actual openings. The best indicator by far is a shot of a blond or light haired lady wearing light pants standing in one of the holes looking down. She literally looked like she was waiting for a bus. It is noteworthy that one never sees these shots any more; they showed them "on the day", and for a few days here and there. Not now; all we usually see are the planes hitting the towers, and the towers falling down. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This ultimately is the problem with the official government lines; they contain many outright falsehoods and omissions, and ultimately are the most ridiculous and incredible conspiracy theories of all. |
|||||
May 11, 2005, 06:27 AM | #414 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 15, 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 940
|
First let me say that when I looked at the quote of what I said, I see that it could be taken the wrong way. So let me add that I installed 100's of trusses in other buildings and not in the trade center building since I was just 7 when it was built.
Quote:
I don't know what that picture you linked means? First of all there is something called staging in construction which basically means that you deliver the materials for the next phase (or step) as you need it, or it also means that you store the materials in a particular place on the job site. The trusses for that floor just may have not been in the picture. Try to provide some better ones (please). The fireproofing is usually a sprayed on concoction of papermache like material with a fire retardent in it. That stuff is so easy to knock off that it sometimes falls off itself when there is vibration. As far as the "blast", I was talking about both a detonating force (with the proper fuel air mix) and the fiery blast that is full of energy and dynamics. Both may have happened but the fiery blast sure as hell did. Unburning jet fuel alone surging at a few hundred miles an hour is more than enough to knock the papermache of the beams (IMO). How can someone say that "all" of the fuel acted the like a perfect model when there are so many variables that are compounded by the air vertices flowing around the varied internal structure and the differing oxygen supply with numerous sources of ignition in such a dynamic circumstance? These so called experts who have made blanket statements sound like quacks and maybe if someone checks the validity of their claims against proven science, then one would stop using them for the theory, but then the theory would start to fall apart. Then again it is part of the government's conspiracy to change all of the science books to make the conspiracy "experts" sound like quacks . |
|
May 11, 2005, 06:30 AM | #415 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 14, 2002
Posts: 2,251
|
MHDIsHere,
You mean you didn't see the people standing in the gaping holes where the "intense fires raged"? If you didn't see it there - you could have seen it on national news. Quote:
You'd think that structural damage 47 story steel building sufficient to cause a spontaneous three or four second and total collapse - from another falling building - would have left some visible signs now don't you? |
|
May 11, 2005, 06:40 AM | #416 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 14, 2002
Posts: 2,251
|
Mark Kloos,
Demolition is very complex, and can't be set up in a matter of hours. Yes, plenty of people are aware of that. But the idea that this can not be done unseen or un-noticed is naive - when you are speaking in terms of people who basically have total control over a target piece of real estate. Before you can say it could not have been done, you must be able to say with certainty what every contracting business and workman, etc was doing on the property on any one given day. So, precisely what was going on in WTC 7 during the entire 30 days before it went down? Who was in there the entire period? Which companies owned and run by whom? Which government agencies if any? If you can not answer all these questions, you can not say with any certainty what could or could not have been done in there. |
May 11, 2005, 06:48 AM | #417 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 14, 2002
Posts: 2,251
|
There are many sources referenced on this "popular" website WTC page; although it could be a conspeewassy theewee blogger in disguise.
Quote:
|
|
May 11, 2005, 07:09 AM | #418 | ||||
Junior member
Join Date: May 14, 2002
Posts: 2,251
|
Novus Collectus
Quote:
If you were to take a couple of gallons of gas, pour it into bowl and throw it against a wall that had an ignition source on it you would get for the sake of arguement a brief fireball. Take those same two gallons in a contained airspace where the air mixture is favorable and you get an explosion that has some destructive force in addition to heat. Certainly with forced air, burning fuel or anything else, burns hotter; but the flame color and smoke in the towers does not indicate this took place even briefly. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
May 11, 2005, 10:12 AM | #419 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Posts: 475
|
It's good enough to convince an MIT fellow:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html and some civil engineers who aren't American at Uni. of Sydney: http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php#why But I guess LAK knows more about structural engineering than they do, based on his "layman's knowledge" of internet photos of the WTC. |
May 11, 2005, 10:13 AM | #420 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2001
Location: at the intersection of naivete and cynicism
Posts: 1,365
|
Fellow TFL members...
I respectfully request that we leave this topic and declare LAK the winner; not because his theories are correct or his point of view spot on, far from it. His posts suggest that he experiences an alternative reality which escapes the rest of us. It has been my experience that folks who evidence similar belief systems will not be swayed by fact, logic, common sense, eyewitness accounts or the Socratic method. Folks who live in this alternative reality will continue to fling excrement at the wall and call that which sticks fact, all the while soiling the memory of those who gave their lives. Any further 'discussion' only encourages them, feeds their ego and cheapens the random, tragic sacrifice of the victims. It will not alter their skewed sense of reality nor make their minds accept what is the simple, awful truth...that Arab hijackers used boxcutters to slaughter the crew of four transcontinental airliners, that they deliberately crashed them into the World Trade Centers two towers, The Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, that the stresses caused by the forces of the explosions and fires as well as the structural damage sustained by the towers as a result the crashes caused their ultimate collapse and the deaths of 3,000 of our fellow citizens. Some folks cannot comprehend that these are the facts. We cannot give them the help they need here. Let's leave it be. Please. |
May 11, 2005, 10:40 AM | #421 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 15, 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 940
|
gburner,
Understood. I'm out. |
May 11, 2005, 10:42 AM | #422 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 15, 1999
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,558
|
Thank you, gburner.
__________________
-Dave Miller ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Personal Protection. Tick-off Obama - Join the NRA Today - Save $10 |
May 12, 2005, 02:06 AM | #423 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 14, 2002
Posts: 2,251
|
shootinstudent,
The sort of people that work at Underwriters Laboratories are as credible as Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso aren't they? Or does it depend on something else? Like the party line. |
May 12, 2005, 02:13 AM | #424 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 14, 2002
Posts: 2,251
|
Ah gburner; you ought to write columns for the the party rag. Or a stand-in for Andy Rooney perhaps.
The greatest insult to the dead and their families in this country has been the suppression, omissions and half-truths - and lies. Wallow in it while it lasts. |
May 12, 2005, 03:53 AM | #425 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Location: TX
Posts: 116
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|