Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
I'm curious about the degree to which you believe that America was given the truth about what happened on 9/11. Has the government been honest with us about that day or not?
Hell Nah!! The truth behind 9/11 will become one of those "urban myths"... Like the Kennedy assassination and the man on the grassy knoll...

".. I heard it was actually 15 planes, the govt covered up the other 11..."

"... it was really space ships that made the buildings fall..."

"... congress and the white house are protected by a force field... that's why they did not get hit..."
I have downloaded the NIST reports on the World Trade Center. There are 54 PDF files, 11,305 pages taking up 1.03 gigabytes. The most peculiar thing I have found so far is that they do not specify the quantity of concrete in the buildings. They mention the word concrete 2,230 times but not how much. I have searched on tons, yards for cubic yards, kg and kilograms. lb and pounds, but I have not found it.

Another peculiar thing is the distribution of mass within the building. Of course the tonnage of steel and concrete is going to be greater toward the bottom of the building because it must support more weight. And they would need to know the tons of steel at the impact points of the planes. There were 34 tons of fuel on the planes plus whatever combustible material was in the buildings. But how can you compute how hot the steel got if you don't know how much steel is there? Have you ever heard any specification of the amount of steel on the floors where the planes hit?

umbra
quote:
All that stuff would of blowup when hit by falling objects.
lol


Try dropping a cellphone from a roof. See if it blows up. There were 100,000 tons of steel in each tower. Different websites give various numbers for the concrete. I have seen values of 60,000 to 250,000 tons. It makes no sense that the NIST hasn't given an "official" value. But for a airliner to knock that down in 56 minutes and blow out the basement so all of the material goes into the basement. RIDICULOUS!

umbra
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:
quote:
All that stuff would of blowup when hit by falling objects.
lol


Try dropping a cellphone from a roof. See if it blows up. There were 100,000 tons of steel in each tower. Different websites give various numbers for the concrete. I have seen values of 60,000 to 250,000 tons. It makes no sense that the NIST hasn't given an "official" value. But for a airliner to knock that down in 56 minutes and blow out the basement so all of the material goes into the basement. RIDICULOUS!

umbra


Suspicious indeed!

That's why I'd have to say that we only know 1-25% of the whole story of 9/11.
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

HELL, even the 9-11 Commission itself admits that no evidence of a plane (or the alleged people on Flight 77) was ever found:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight77.html


quote:
Whether the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon was Flight 77 is the subject of much question and controversy. Human remains of the people onboard Flight 77 were identified at Dover, but there is no public evidence that places the bodies at the Pentagon crash site.

The impact was 83 minutes after Flight 11 first went off course, and 58 minutes after the North Tower impact, and 40 minutes after the South Tower impact, yet the jet was not intercepted as it flew over the (normally) most heavily protected airspace in the United States, and in the world.


The damage caused by the "plane" that supposedly hit the Pentagon is not compatible with that of a plane (where is the wing damage?). There was never any evidence that a plane hit, nor were any bodies of the "passengers" ever found.


So let's see a BIG-ASS BOEING 757 hit a building, only caused a small hole barely bigger around than the fuselage, caused no wing damage, didn't even plow very far into the building, didn't disturb the lawn one bit, caused no smashed windows, and left no pieces of itself with no passenger bodies?

There are many conflicted accounts of what happened. Where are the families of these people who supposedly "died"? Where is the fund for them? Why did the goverment whisk off the debris so fast and not allow any inspection? Why do so many witnesses claim to have seen/heard a missle and a fighter jet? Why didn't Flight 77 leave the radar?

Most of all: WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE BODIES AND WHERE THE FUCK IS THE PLANE? Even the 9-11 Council admitted there is no proof a plane or any passengers were there. Where the fuck is the black box from the plane?

The damage done to the building is inconsistent with that of a huge-ass Boeing 757. A 200-foot wide, 150-foot long, 600,000-pound plane with 10,000+ gallons of volatile fuel only caused that little hole, didn't even disturb the lawn, and didn't even smash windows? GIMME A BREAK.

An object that big, flying 200+ mph, smack-dab into a building, even the steel-reinforced Pentagon (but 757 planes have titanium which can cut through concrete and steel), only caused that dent? With the sheer FORCE of the explosion that a 757 would cause, flying into a building, any surrounding video cameras in an 200-yard radius would have been knocked out by the impact (that's more force than an Amtrak smashing into a mountain).

Not to mention the Pentagon has no wing damage.


Here's an example of a goverment cover-up of a tradgedy:

There is the case of TWA Flight 800 from July 17, 1996. Over 30 witnesses claim to have seen an object shooting up in the air and hitting Flt 800 just before it exploded, similar to the imagery we've all seen from the first Gulf War (scud missiles flying UP).

Government agencies, including the F.B.I. and NTSB, vehemently denied any existence of a missile that could have hit the plane. However, lots of Americans, including relatives of those killed in the TWA explosion, believe some form of this theory (being accidentally hit by a Navy missile). The government's denials were made less believable after they and the media attempted to portray Pierre Salinger (once a respected member of the Kennedy Administration and correspondent for ABC News in Paris) as a raving lunatic.

Kristina Borjesson worked for CBS at the time and was assigned to the story. After "collaborating with other reporters including The Press Enterprise's David Hendrix, she collected proof of official lies. Scientific tests showed that a residue found inside the cabin had the same ingredients, in the same proportions, as rocket fuel (the National Transportation Safety Board said it was glue)."

She was so disillusioned with the government lies, and so shunned by her peers in the industry, that she left reporting altogether and edited a collection of stories (Into the Buzzsaw) that other journalists had written (very memorable news items) that had also been eaten up by the buzzsaw of government mendacity and media complicity.

Because of the many instances of the government doing wrong and then it being found out about years later, logically speaking, you have to know that this is not at all implausible.
quote:
What is of utmost importance for our society is HOW DID IT HAPPEN


I am almost starting to think that just getting people to understand that airplanes alone couldn't do what is seen on the videos is more important than who did it or why? What does this say about people's total lack of comprehension about physics in the country that put men on the moon?

And the other BIG PROBLEM is trying to understand what is going on at our engineering schools. A lot of people who are supposed to have the brains to figure this out and the credentials to be believed are at the very least being silent. WHY?

Decades ago I read about MIT students marching up and down at a science fiction convention yelling, "The Ringworld is unstable!" This was about a science fiction book.

quote:
At the 1970 World Science Fiction Convention there were MIT students in the halls chanting, "The Ringworld is unstable! The Ringworld is unstable!" (Did the best that I was able . . . hence, attitude jets.)
http://www.tor.com/niven/whatisringworld.html

So how can they make a big deal out of a flaw in a sci-fi book and not be foaming at the mouth about 9/11? I had an English teacher that complained about the TOP class at my high school. Always playing it safe.

umbra
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:
I am concentrating only on the World Trade Center.

We know planes hit 2 of the buildings and they collapsed. For some reason WTC7 also collapsed without being hit by a plane. Maybe it was out of sympathy.

umbra


An order was given to "pull it".

I remember sitting in an office full of engineers, watching live news coverage. When the buildings fell, there was a collective cry of disbelief. Not so much as "why in god's name?", but moreso "how in the hell?". And I'm still trying to figure out how you can have the most heavily fortified/defended/monitored building in the US be "hit by a plane", and only have one grainy and highly inconclusive video of the incident.
quote:
I remember sitting in an office full of engineers, watching live news coverage. When the buildings fell, there was a collective cry of disbelief. Not so much as "why in god's name?", but moreso "how in the hell?"


I was at home that day and a friend of mine called me and told me what was happening. He didn't call until after the first tower collapsed and when I turned the TV on they were showing reruns of the collapse. I almost got into an argument with him on the phone saying NO THAT CAN'T HAPPEN, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. So my brain was in gridlock for about two weeks and I finally kept asking myself, "How could that building collapse straight down?"

umbra
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:
Another peculiar thing is the distribution of mass within the building. Of course the tonnage of steel and concrete is going to be greater toward the bottom of the building because it must support more weight. And they would need to know the tons of steel at the impact points of the planes. There were 34 tons of fuel on the planes plus whatever combustible material was in the buildings. But how can you compute how hot the steel got if you don't know how much steel is there? Have you ever heard any specification of the amount of steel on the floors where the planes hit?

umbra


Umbra, it's my understanding that steel-frame construction obviates the need for more mass to exist at the bottom of a building. That was the big breakthrough that steel frame construction provided; no more mass is needed at the bottom of the structure, allowing for taller buildings to be built. That's how I understood it, anyway...

As for my answer to the ultimate question... about 40%. But my answers have been trending way downward over the years, the more I learn (and THINK).
This file specifies the different grades of steel used in the outer columns of the WTC. I have not found where it specifies what floors use what grades of steel except for that business about the impact zones.

*NIST NCSTAR 1-3A: Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3A.pdf [86 pages](ton/tons, 39) (steel, 466) (concrete, 7)

Page 25
quote:
Pacific Car and Foundry (Seattle, Washington) fabricated the perimeter box column panels (generally three columns wide by three stories tall) above the 9th floor. Although 14 grades of steel (36 to 100 ksi yield strength) were specified in the structural steel drawings, only 12 grades were supplied due to an upgrading of two of the specified steels. Most of the 12 grades of steel came from Yawata Iron and Steel (now Nippon Steel) and Kawasaki Steel, although about 10 percent of the plate was produced domestically, primarily by Bethlehem Steel. All these steels were relatively new, propreitary steels, with specifications that differed from ASTM standards of the time. In the impact zones of the towers, the perimeter columns damaged by the aircraft were primarily of three specified grades: (55, 60, and 65) ksi steels.


Page 35
quote:
Fourteen grades fo steel were specified in the design documents for the perimeter columns, with minimum yield strengths of (36, 42, 45, 46, 50, 60, 65, 70, 75,80, 85, 90, and 100) ksi. Twelve grades fo steel were specified for the spandrels, with the same strength levels as the columns but without the two highest strength steels.


umbra
same answer like kweli4real, knowing the result but nothing more.

@umbrarchist: what about the heat?
quote:
However, it wasn't the sheer force of the impact that brought the towers down. Instead, it was perhaps the only vulnerability in their design: They couldn't withstand the unthinkable heat released by the combustion of 60,000 pounds of jet fuel.

http://www.graduatingengineer.com/articles/feature/01-11-02a.html
quote:
They couldn't withstand the unthinkable heat released by the combustion of 60,000 pounds of jet fuel.


The quantity of jet fuel does not change the temperature at which jet fuel burns in the open air. Jet fuel is just a pure form of kerosene. The temperature of the fire would have been around 1200 degrees Fahrenheit. The material in the building ignited by the jet fuel may ultimately be more important because so much fuel was consumed in the initial fireball.

This is where the distribution of steel and concrete become important. I don't even know for sure if there was concrete in the core to protect the steel from fire. The building had 100,000 tons of steel. If you count the 7 sub-basements there were 117 floors. If the steel is evenly distributed that is 855 TONS of steel on each floor. Do you really think 34 tons of kerosene is going to weaken 855 tons of steel significantly? I don't think the steel can possibly be evenly distributed thru the building but if authority is trying to PROVE to us the planes did it, which shouldn't be difficult if the planes really did it, then why don't we ever here how much steel was on the impact floors. I haven't even encountered an official source mentioning uneven distribution of mass.

quote:
Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

umbra
Two problems I have with that article, not much time to explain in depth so:

1) Jet fuel would not have produced an extraordinarily hot fire; planes never have "full" tanks; most of the fuel burned up relatively quickly.

2) His description of the core/structure/supports of the WTC buildings are misleading and/or wrong on several points.

I read the common "they don't build them like they used to" rumor that is floating around the net. People do not realise what it takes to get a tall building authorised let alone built.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:

I am far from being a physicist or structural engineer; but [and this has been mentioned before] what makes me think that there is more to the story than a plane hitting a building is how the building came straight down. Eek


Plus - the building that came down that wasn't even hit!! Eek It's just ridiculous to think that in the history of skyscrapers, none have EVER fallen because of fire and on 9/11, three do what never occurred in history, ever. One even fell that wasn't even hit by anything! Eek nono
My Goodness! the building fell straight down and that is somehow a conspiracy. It fell straight down because each floor above the lower floor dropped straight down resulting in the pancaking effect that everybody saw on TV. If the first floor dropped straight down and each and every floor continued to drop straight down why would anyone expect the building to suddenly fall over sideways.

Additionally, the way the buildings were constructed contributed to their own failure. Traditional skyscrappers have the load supported throughout the center of the building, these buildings the load was support along the outside columns thus allowing the huge open flooring that the buildings had. The initial plane crash and resulting fire weaken the outside steel columns enough that they could no longer bear the load and BOOM!

As for the building that came down that wasn't even hit, it was hit by debris from the falling Tower #2 and its probably a good bet that the debris from a falling 110 story building is probably significant to knock down a 7 story building located immediately adjacent to it. Plus the building burned quite awhile before it came down.
Before 9/11 there was no heavily defended airspace over North America, unless your idea of heavily defended is a handful of fighter aircraft most of them flown by the Air National Guard. As a Air Force Officer assigned to a FIS (Fighter Interceptor Squadron) during the Cold War we did indeed at one time keep aircraft on 5 minute alert...pointed North where we expected Russian Bombers to come down over the Polar Cap in the initial phases of WWIII. The aircraft on alert status included active duty units like mine but alot of them were National Guard units out of states like Montana, Maine and other states along the Northern boundries of this country. At the end of the Cold War many of those aircraft sitting on alert were taken off alert status as were many of our nuclear equipped bombers and even some missile silos, hell at one time our squadron kept aircraft on alert status in Arizona facing south into Mexico (could never figure that one out).

With the end of the Cold War the threat that US airspace faced dwindled to the point where keeping huge numbers of aircraft on alert was no longer required or fesible. Even the 9/11 Commission noted that the few aircraft that got up were non-effective because at that time the aircraft were not prepared to do anything until well after the aircraft had crashed into the buildings and the aircraft and pilots were certainly not ready to shoot down civilian airliners carrying Americans.
quote:
My Goodness! the building fell straight down and that is somehow a conspiracy. It fell straight down because each floor above the lower floor dropped straight down resulting in the pancaking effect that everybody saw on TV.


Besides the fact that the pancaking business is a ridiculous theory which could not happen in the time that the building collapsed, it does not explain what happened to the core. Even the idiotic simulation on TV showed the core still standing.

The NIST report said the outer column were only holding 20% of their design strength. There was plenty of extra support strengh there.

The buildings that were closer to 1 and 2 were much more heavily damaged than 7 but none of them collapsed. It sounds like you haven't researched this.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

Oh yeah, and one of the things that bugs me the most is the time. One building goes down 56 minutes after the plane hits it and the other 102 minutes. How much steel can you heat up in that amount of time? And the building that was hit second collapsed first and the plane didn't smack the core dead center.

umbra
Last edited {1}
There is nothing ridiculous about buildings imploding, demolition crews do it all the time to bring down buildings in a controlled fashion in urban areas, in fact there are several companies that specialize in just that.
Fairly simple to understand, you remove enough of the structural integrity and the building falls in on itself. As for the core, it was nothing but elevator shafts and stairwells, that in itself was the problem, older constructed buildings had solid interiors and walls to add support to the building. If you looked at the interior before office space went in all it was, was one big open space, the weight was on the exterior columns, that was one of the gee wiz factors about the building in how they changed weight distribution compared to more traditional methods of building skyscrapers. It was that method that they used that allowed them to push the building so high in the first place.
Although they were in fact designed to withstand being struck by a small airplane, the size of the aircraft and the resultant fires from the crashes weakened the infrastructure of the building, collapsing the upper floors and creating too much load for the lower floors to bear. Go to these sites.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://architecture.about.com/library/weekly/aawtc-collapse.htm
quote:
it was nothing but elevator shafts and stairwells, that in itself was the problem,


You call this nothing but stairwells and elevators?



http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

A significant part of the NIST report about ho much damage the planes did to the columns of the core.

One of the peculiarities is the NIST changing the path of the plane that hit the south tower to do more damage to the core.

http://911research.com/essays/nist/index.html#altering

umbra
The core was not meerly elevators and stairs; in skyscrapers (no matter what the design) this is never the case. This is a huge point of misinformation. In every open-floor plan building, the core acts as much of a support as do all the other elements (vertical members, trusses, etc.). They are not just void spaces.

Re: pancaking... For the buildings to collapase in near free-fall time with the witnessed momentum, that would mean that each previously unaffected structural memeber below had to buckle (I-beams), snap (trusses), and pulverise (reinforced concrete) nearly instantaneously. What I'm saying is that unless the structure was made of papier-maché, we should have seen moments in the pancaking (however brief) when momentum is stalled as each new floor is hit.

Anything is possible, but not everything is plausible.
quote:
I heard that it was merely a chain reaction accident...

The sky fell and hit the planes and knocked them off course... Forcing them into the towers and the pentagram... uh... I mean pentagon...


AG, this scenerio is clearly inadequate and incomplete ... you neglected to include the seminal event ... the wind current caused by the butterfly's flapping its left wing in Australia. Big Grin


quote:
There is nothing ridiculous about buildings imploding, demolition crews do it all the time to bring down buildings in a controlled fashion in urban areas, in fact there are several companies that specialize in just that.


There you go, JazzDog. You just explained how this event occurred. tfro Now we just have to determine the who and why.
In addition to the physical anomalies in this case (i.e. that jet fuel burns at significantly lower temperatures than steel melts, and that the Pentagon has no physical evidence of either being hit by a plane (what happened to the wings???) or any of the people in it), the combination of the fact that Mayor Willie Brown was told not to fly on 9/11 because of security concners AND the fact that airline stocks were shorted just prior to 9/11 make me believe that the truth is not as we have been told about this.
quote:
the fact that airline stocks were shorted just prior to 9/11 make me believe that the truth is not as we have been told about this.


Now that is one of the most hilarious things about this entire business. Obviously RICH people had to be involved in this entire business. But any idiot should find this shorting of the stocks just before the event suspicious. So did the people involved in this buy the stock or did they blab to their rich buddies before hand? In any event it shows lack of self control of stupidly insane greed.

umbra
Well ... Based on "Loose Change", the billions in gold stored beneath one of the towers that no one has accounted for and no one is telling about, makes 9/11 a real life "Oceans 11" with the added "benefit" providing PNAC with its Pearl Harbor like event.

We tried those [foriegn nationals] we believed were related to 9/11. What would we do to those persons in office and industry, if someone were to connect the dots? We're talking Death Penalty here.
That is from 9/11 Mysteries. I've watched it multiple times.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003

The thing is there are so many multiple phenomenon and effects of what happened to the World Trade Center I don't comprehend how anyone that has made a superficial study of it can believe those planes did all that. So I consider this silence from our engineering schools to be a bigger deal than who did it and why.

umbrarchist

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×