|
|
|
home blogs about forum contact donate search account 
“Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
9/11 Firefighter inteview...recounts what happened inside tower 1For those of us "nutballs" who think 9/11 was an inside job, we sure do have the evidence on our side.. Firefighter John Schroeder recounts his experience of 9/11. Explosions throuhout the building, the lobby being destroyed, the elevators blowing up 5 minutes after the plane hit, the stairwells caving in before the towers had even begun to fall. My oh my. That is pretty incriminating evidence, unless you have your head up your A$$ and dont' care about what really happened that day. 
Read commentsFree bias alerts
Related StoriesMost Emailed Stories
Related Topics | |
Comments Policy
What, no degrading
August 10, 2007 - 15:06 ET by ThoughtPoliceWhat, no degrading conspiracy theory comments? No, yes but he's no explosives expert? Not even a "TP..thats what I use to wipe my a$$ with" comment?
I'm dissappointed..I'm used to factless accusations and name calling..whats going on guys!
Maybe the same rhetoric is
August 10, 2007 - 15:28 ET by AvatarMaybe the same rhetoric is getting old. Maybe you need a new conspiracy theory to get some fresh responses.
The Avatar
TP... So your trying to
August 10, 2007 - 15:33 ET by Clear thinkerTP...
So your trying to say that fire has never created an explosion? You went to a public school in San Fran right?
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Who said fire can't cause
August 10, 2007 - 16:02 ET by ThoughtPoliceWho said fire can't cause an explosion? Did you listen to the interview...wait, of course you didn't.
I have a firefighter who is telling you there were bombs in the building...care to listen?
Bombs????
August 10, 2007 - 16:07 ET by Clear thinkerWhere does he describe what they looked like?
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
So you have to see a bomb
August 10, 2007 - 16:12 ET by ThoughtPoliceSo you have to see a bomb for it to be a bomb? Please, stop trying to argue. You can't!
TP... Do you have any
August 10, 2007 - 16:23 ET by Clear thinkerTP...
Do you have any idea how this last responce of yours sounds?
In case you are blind to your own fallicies I will give you a hint..."retarded!"
Unless you just want to stay in your little fantasy world, I suggest you start using some logic. Explosions, or what seemed like explosions can easily be explained in many ways. Tell me if you can think of any.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Can you explain how the
August 10, 2007 - 19:17 ET by ThoughtPoliceCan you explain how the towers fell in under 13 seconds? Because I can't and neither can NIST, FEMA, or anyone for that matter.
Can you explain how WTC 7 fell in 6.5 seconds, almost free fall speed? Because no one I've seen or heard of can do that either.
Look, believe what you want (That we are good, terrorists are evil, and the world is black and white), but I have the evidence to prove my side, you don't. It's that simple.
No, you have unproven
August 11, 2007 - 18:14 ET by AvatarNo, you have unproven speculation. You have nothing but theories. Theories that are empty and unfounded by anything other than your hatred for the American way.
The Avatar
You're telling me I can't
August 12, 2007 - 12:42 ET by ThoughtPoliceYou're telling me I can't prove the towers fell in under 12-13 seconds? You're saying that is speculation?
If you think that is a theory, you have clearly gone overboard.
I'm telling you that unless
August 13, 2007 - 12:35 ET by AvatarI'm telling you that unless paul bunyan stepped on that building, it would have fallen at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2 THAT's what I'm telling you. That is the acceleration of gravity. Once the structural integrity was gone it fell on account of the building's was designed to support the upper floors while at rest, not while in motion. Once one floor goes, that's it, the whole building is doomed. Physics, pure physics.
An object travelling free falling at 9.8 m/s^2 for 14 seconds should travel approximately 865m. The trade center is 415m tall, therefore, if you had dropped an object little affected by wind resistance (as the towers would have been), say, a lead ball, it would have taken just between 9 and 10s to hit the ground below. Now, the building wasn't in free fall, but after the structural integrity was gone, it wasn't far off. Gravity is constant ACCELERATION, not velocity.
Stepping back it doesn't look so far off that the WTC only took 14 seconds to collapse, does it? Bomb or no, makes no difference on how quickly a building of such structure collapses, unless there would be an additional downward acceleration force on the building (like paul bunyan stepping on it).
I await your expert rebuttal.
The Avatar
Well put rebuttal
August 14, 2007 - 12:52 ET by BeowulfWell put rebuttal Avatar. And isn't it interesting that when confronted with fact and science instead of speculation and emotionalism, TP skipped right over your answer to his rant? Ya gotta luv it.
Another small point is how quickly these whackos jump all over ONE firefighter who supports their agenda. What about the literally thousands of others, including firemen, cops, EMTs, disaster responders, etc. who also responded? Why are none of them also coming forth to refute official doctrine? I guess this ONE firefighter is just the bravest of them all and is willing to stand up to the facist/nazi/corrupt/(insert slur) Bush administration at risk of his life...
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Great rebuttal, supported
August 14, 2007 - 14:31 ET by ThoughtPoliceGreat rebuttal, supported by subjective conjecture with no sources whatsoever.
Yes, that is the speed of gravity, nice job. However, what are you quoting? Surely you aren't speculating as to what didn't happen, are you?
"Once the structural integrity was gone it fell on account of the
building's was designed to support the upper floors while at rest, not
while in motion. Once one floor goes, that's it, the whole building is
doomed."
How do you know that? So your saying that two of the most well built buildings in history fell down like a house of cards? What is your proof that this is possible? You either have evidence or you don't.
9.8 m/s^2 is free fall with no wind resistance. Therefore, in the real world, each "thing" adding to the resistance would decrease the velocity, no? So, add in wind and, oh yea, 80% of the building below the top 20%, and you have one major hole in your "theory."
"Bomb or no, makes no difference on how quickly a building of such
structure collapses, unless there would be an additional downward
acceleration force on the building (like paul bunyan stepping on it)."
Again, where are your sources for making such a claim? Actually, you are quite wrong here, too. Internal explosions (i.e. Controlled Demolition) puts a building in a state of near vacuum, taking away all resistance. Of course, we can test who is right. Look at the mechanics of a controlled demolition and see how they are set up. If they place bombs at the top and let the weight of the "hammer" drop onto the rest of the building completely crushing it including the underinfrastructure (sub basements, etc), then you are correct. If they have to place explosives in the sub basements, core columns, outside columns, and all the way up, then i am right.
Yes, great rebuttal indeed...
It is laughable people still
August 14, 2007 - 14:39 ET by BinxlyIt is laughable people still think this was an inside job. If Gore had won, #1 it'd have still happened because it wasn't some convoluted conspiracy like you and the million other momma's basement dwelling, its too much work to put on pants, michael moore is my hero crowd. Plus, after it would've happened, you all would've lined up to lick the boot of Mr Gore even though he would've handled it MUCH worse than Bush did. Im no big fan of the man but that was back when I absolutely loved him. He was a strong leader back then who wasn't going to lie down and take such an attack. You prove to me that it WAS a set up and we'll buy it. We already have more than enough proved it *wasn't* a set up. However, I know you losers need stuff to gab about on your various 9-11 conspiracy message boards aside from talking about your fabricated girlfriends and which combo at Wendy's is currently the best. Keep up the good work basement dweller, and don't forget, maybe buy your mom something for her birthday this year rather than that stupid drawing of HRC as an angel you've given her the past decade. Afterall, most mother's would've kicked you out long after they realized all you were good for is smelling up the basement and draining her entire kleenex supply.
TP, The acceleration rate
August 14, 2007 - 14:55 ET by bassndudeTP, The acceleration rate (g = 9.8 m/s2) also holds for measurements on Earth. With controlled explosives, which could not have suvrived at the temps in the building you speak of, the rate of collapse would have been slower because of Newtons third law, F = m * a = m * a = F. So following the physics of the problem, your story dosent hold up. Besides, sence when did a fireman become an explosives expert?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Since we're (as
August 15, 2007 - 07:18 ET by BeowulfSince we're (as usual) getting into the nit-picking of posts, your statement "Internal explosions (i.e. Controlled Demolition) puts a building in a state of near vacuum, taking away all resistance" is blatantly wrong. Explosions create an overpressure wave, not a "near vacuum". Just one more instance where you clearly demonstrate that you don't have a clue TP.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Yeah, but can you explain
August 23, 2007 - 12:07 ET by TruthMongerYeah, but can you explain why these buildings even collapsed at all?!?!?!
CUZ NO ONE CAN BRO - except this one firefighter...
I mean can't you even admit how freaky it is to hear explosions in a burning building...?
I'm with you TP:)! High five...
The collapse has been
August 24, 2007 - 09:16 ET by BeowulfThe collapse has been explained so many times that I won't even bother here, as the response will just be more of the same conspiracy nonsense.
Have you ever been near a burning building TM? Anything in an enclosed container, such simple things as soda cans, water bottles, refrigerators (and everything in them) can explode when exposed to extreme temperatures. Could it be that what was being mistaken for demolition explosives? Neither of us was there, so I can't explain what was supposedly heard as explosions. But you weren't there either, so you can't honestly say that my explanation isn't correct.
I'm absolutely not with you TM :(! Low five (or better yet - NO five)...
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
9-11 fireman is a fraud
August 24, 2007 - 09:35 ET by LionKingThe fireman is a fraud. End of discussion.
It doesn't matter that no
August 24, 2007 - 11:49 ET by BeowulfIt doesn't matter that no evidence of this so-called firefighter can be found. What matters are the statements he made - whether he exists or not. It's the statement that's important, not the source...
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
familiar...
August 24, 2007 - 13:35 ET by LionKingYou know...that sounds Rather familiar...
You guys have no idea what
August 24, 2007 - 13:54 ET by ThoughtPoliceYou guys have no idea what you are talking about. There is/was a firefighter named "john schroeder." If that guy really isn't him, then that is outright dirty.
However, key testimony from others including 9/11 hero William Rodriguez blow the official story out of the water.
http://www.911keymas...
He was in sub basement (3 or 4) when the plane hit. Philipe David came running out screaming with his skin hanging off of his bones. However, Rodriguez recounts that there were two explosions. One from an unknown source below and THEN the plane from above.
Keep up the good "debunking" skills...
You're funny. The Avatar
August 24, 2007 - 15:48 ET by AvatarYou're funny.
The Avatar
Can you explain how the
August 11, 2007 - 18:22 ET by general companyCan you explain how the towers fell in under 13 seconds? Because I can't
And because you cant, were supposed to believe anything but our eyes? Gravity, is how they and all things fall.
So tell us again, why would Bush knock down the trade buildings?
What did you see with your
August 12, 2007 - 12:46 ET by ThoughtPoliceWhat did you see with your eyes, general?
Did you see the multitude of squibs from each tower (1,2,7)? Did you see the flash charges going off while the towers fell? Unfortunately, a building can't fall at the speed of gravity when you have another 90 stories below causing resistance.
What you saw and what you think you saw are two different things. Research the evidence, watch the videos, and learn the truth.
Here TP, try this and plug
August 12, 2007 - 12:51 ET by bassndudeHere TP, try this and plug in the numbers, F = GMm/r2
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Refer to reply above.
August 14, 2007 - 14:33 ET by ThoughtPoliceRefer to reply above.
Look Pinhead...
August 14, 2007 - 14:44 ET by MightyMouthLook Pinhead...
This is getting OLD, just like me.. OLD I say, really OLD! So please spare us this BS!!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
...well great TP just
August 23, 2007 - 12:11 ET by TruthMonger...well great TP just fracking admitted no one can explain how these buildings fell - so then he can't explain any of this either - his awesome conspiracy theory is now out the window by his own damn admission...
...and here I thought I finally found a purpose in life, me and TP, we were gonna take this thing ALL THE WAY TO THE WHITE HOUSE...
I had a dream...
Logistics again
August 16, 2007 - 04:48 ET by UnsaneSo, a firefighter saw a bomb?
Well, how did it get there?
How was it set up there, and when?
How was it transported through Manhattan to get there, raised to position, and brought INTO Manhattan to begin with?
See how thinking logistically can poke holes into many little conspiracies?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Lol Insane..Wrong about the
August 17, 2007 - 11:18 ET by ThoughtPoliceLol Insane..Wrong about the NAU, wrong about taxes, wrong about OKC, and definitely wrong about 9/11...
"Changes during construction led to a finished product that was
structurally unsound. In 1978, prompted by a question from a student,
LeMessurier discovered a potentially fatal flaw in the building's
construction: the skyscraper's bolted joints were too weak to withstand
70-mile-per-hour (113 km/h) wind gusts at specific angles.
"While
LeMessurier's original design and load calculations for the special,
uniquely-designed 'chevron' load braces used to support the building
were based on welded joints, a labor and cost-saving change altered the
joints to bolted construction after the building's plans were approved.
"For
the next three months, a construction crew welded two-inch-thick steel
plates over each of the skyscraper's 200 bolted joints during the
night, after each work day, almost unknown to the general public."
http://www.greatbuil...
Wrong on gasoline being flamable (sic)
August 17, 2007 - 11:20 ET by Free StinkerLOL Thoughtless...
Wrong on gasoline being flamable (sic) . . .
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one building.
TP, I know the building
August 17, 2007 - 11:28 ET by mandrakeTP, I know the building which you are refering to, but it was not the WTC. It was further north on the east side. Sorry, can't remember the exact address.
they blew a fourth
August 23, 2007 - 12:12 ET by TruthMongerthey blew a fourth building? no it was five! six!
and the minneapolis bridge i bet
Hey TP, just an FYI. I
August 17, 2007 - 11:36 ET by bassndudeHey TP, just an FYI. I worked as an Iron Worker/Welder for a number of years when I first got out of the Army. Worked alot of iron high rise structures. I never worked on one where the connections, irregardless of it be a moment connection or whatever, that was not:
1.) Bolted. All connections are bolted when erected.
2.) Welded. After connections are made, there are people that are called the bolt up crew. These people complete the bolt connection, i.e. any missing bolts are now put in, and all the bolts are torqued to specs. The welders now follow and weld all of the connections.
Your quotes are very misleading, and made by someone obviously ignorent of engineering practices.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bassndude, there is a famous
August 17, 2007 - 11:51 ET by mandrakebassndude, there is a famous case of skyscraper in NYC that was structurally unsound because it had a large corner cut out the base in order to preserve a historic church. After someone figured out the wind shear problem they had to go back and weld additional supports. Damn, I can't remember the name of this place...haven't been to NYC in 15 years...must be getting old!
mandrake, I remember
August 17, 2007 - 12:04 ET by bassndudemandrake, I remember hearing about that, read about it in AWS mag. Thats the welding trade rag. All they did was weld some gussit plates in, dident take much. Just a little something to help stiffen the connection.
One thing that I have told TP on several occasions is that ALL high rise buildings are designed to fail. By that I mean, when the building is designed they figure that some event at some time may cause the building to fall. They design these building to fall down. Not over. The connections in select critical areas are designed to fail first if the structure becomes unstable. The reason is safety. It limits the amount of distruction and damage to the surrounding area. If you look at the building codes you will find that all high rise structures must be designed this way. It is the law.
Static, dynamic and shear loads are figured in. What they dont figure in is some 100,000 pounds of JP4.(Thats jet fuel TP).
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
On an entertaining post
August 18, 2007 - 19:40 ET by UnsaneLOL TP...
jealous because I am 100% correct on the fantasy you call the "NAU". You are especially jealous of my superior knowledge of history and culture (because you refuse to pursue any of your own...) and geography (I-35 does not traverse Wharton County).
jealous because of my knowledge of the economy informs my sound judgment on taxes...
OKC...huh? When did that come up?
And 1000% correct on 9/11/01!
Do you need me to embarrass you yet again with your abysmal knowledge of logistics, and the logistics of this little conspiracy? Just say the word. I will make it happen.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
unsane -- you have my
August 18, 2007 - 19:43 ET by Jack Bauerunsane -- you have my undying admiration for having the limitless motivation to continue smacking that evil loser around the head.
Here's your sign...
August 13, 2007 - 00:12 ET by Sua Sponte 75For those of us "nutballs" (all 50 of you, maybe more if you include the anti-Semites you team up with) who think 9/11 was an inside job, we sure do have the evidence on our side...
Yes, tons and tons of "evidence" that amounts to nothing and even less people listening to you since it all boils down to your outright hatred of America and your Islamofacists apologetics. I suppose when you have nothing to hold on to nor look forward to, you result in grasping straws.....
Here's your ticket to Clownistan, thanks for visiting, buh bye...
"Sorry folks the park is closed, the moose out front should have told you"
What we have here is an '9/11 denier'.
August 14, 2007 - 17:33 ET by AvatarDid you check your brain at the door? Skyscrapers are not designed to withstand the pressure of collapsing floors, it's not practical or cost effective, as the structures themselves are extremely sturdy, unless outward force is applied (a plane hitting the building for example. That's physics, stupid. Why would you design a building to withstand the force of a falling floor? You can't, that's the point. If you took High School physics, you'd know that. It's so basic, it hurts. Let's start at the top, shall we?
What's the difference in force between a mass at rest and a mass in motion. If you can answer that question, then you shouldn't have made the previous comment. If you can't, then you're too stupid to be commenting. I'm tired of your blowhard remarks, but when debunked with an oh-so-simple physics calculation, you have the gall to ask me "Who says the building wasn't design to hold that kind of pressure?". That alone shows you're agenda driven, not fact driven.
Now regarding the bomb, a controlled demolition, specifically building implosion DOESN'T create a vacuum, as you've erroneously stated. The term is used because of the effect, not the actual method. It's called 'implosion' because the building collapses on itself, not because the bombs create a vacuum. The bomb's purpose in building implosion is to remove critical support beams, so that the building falls with less resistance. Implosion occurs when the difference between internal and external pressure is so great that a structure collapses on itself. THIS is what happened at WTC: The floors effected by the plane crash gave away, and then the downward pressure of the inertia of the upper floors exceeded the pressure tolerance of the rest of the building, and it fell in on itself. Physics. Pure Physics.
You wanna keep this up, or shall you admit you didn't know what you were talking about. Keep in mind, this is all simple physics, doesn't take a lot to figure out, because science is logical. How the building collapsed is perfectly logical. Your conspiracy of controlled demolition is not logical because there is no evidence or proof of such devices.
The Avatar
I'm glad you completely and
August 14, 2007 - 20:55 ET by ThoughtPoliceI'm glad you completely and utterly avoided my post at all costs. I will not post new comments here as you still have to tackle my post above. You know, things like, where you are getting your information?
No, not your 9th grade physics lesson, but everything I posted above that you can't answer. For instance, why would the designers and builders of the Twin towers account for jumbo jets hitting them, releasing thousands of gallons of fuel resulting in major fire, yet not consider (your supposed fact) that the floors can't handle the pressure? If I were them, I would have said "F it" since it would have been a waste of time anyway.
See, I have evidence while you are making stuff up off the top of your head.
Physics, pure physics. Do
August 14, 2007 - 23:29 ET by AvatarPhysics, pure physics. Do you know the difference between a mass in motion and a mass at rest? Answer that. Again, if you can answer that, then you shouldn't have asked the question, if you can't answer that, you're too stupid to comment.
I'll throw another example of physics. The Golden Gate Bridge is MOST stable with cars moving over it, and least stable when empty. Why? because it was designed to strengthen as load increased, because it's function is primarily under heavy load. The WTC is the other way around, WTC is designed to be strong when sturdy standing tall. That's it's design, talk to a structural engineer or a high-school physics student if you don't believe me. Buildings cannot simply be designed to handle the weight of each progressing floor above it (well it could, but then no one would be able to afford such a building). It was designed to withstand an aircraft impact because of their height (it was far more likely for an ACCIDENTAL collision, than using a plane as a guided bomb). And keep in mind, that the WTC was designed before such passenger jets as the 747 were designed. Therefore accounting for aircraft hitting the building would have meant accounting for Boeing 707 (and comparable aircraft) and any remaining propeller-driven passenger craft. Perspective does a body good. A Boing 707 weighs only half as much at maximum load than a 747 does at maximum load, carrying much less fuel, and much less inertia upon impact than a 747. It's all just physics, plain, simple, physics.
You look more foolish with each post, do you want to continue, or will you concede that you haven't researched the topic scientifically?
Oh, and I didn't avoid your post (do you read your own posts?). If you read your post and then mine, you'll see they correspond. I simply clicked the wrong button and ended up with a new comment.
The Avatar
Avatar, you have lost your
August 15, 2007 - 09:52 ET by ThoughtPoliceAvatar, you have lost your mind trying to argue with someone who knows more about this than your average "debunker."
Your post is filled with loose "facts" and cynicism. For that I will put you to bed once and for all. See, you made the mistake of assuming something that isn't true, and I can show it here and now. This will end all further posts from you as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. If you continue to post after this, you will be ignored as I cannot sit here and prove every one of your points wrong.
With that in mind, here we go...
property
Boeing 707-340
Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity
23,000 gallons
23,980 gallons
max takeoff weight
328,060 lbs
395,000 lbs
empty weight
137,562 lbs
179,080 lbs
wingspan
145.75 ft
156.08 ft
wing area
3010 ft^2
3050 ft^2
length
152.92 ft
159.17 ft
cruise speed
607 mph
530 mph
http://911research.w...
You claim, " Boing 707 weighs only half as much at maximum load than a 747 does at maximum load." Wow, way off!
You claim, "carrying much less fuel." Again, wrong.
You claim, "and much less inertia upon impact than a 747." Hmm really? Let me quote the source, "
Given the differences in cruise speeds,
a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767,
despite the slightly smaller size.
Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft.
The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying
about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact,
only about 40% of the capacity of a 707." Ouch, wrong on all accounts.
You have been burned on all points in this post, showing that your previous posts are bunk and limited in scope. Your ability to take simple physics and apply it to make you look right should be held in the highest regards. But, thats all it is as the application goes nowhere.
Please, when it comes to 9/11 you have no idea what you are talking about. I know you will disregard my comments above about not posting since you clearly don't know anything about the topic, but please know that I probably won't respond to pure conjecture.
Thanks and have a nice day!
Jet Specs
August 15, 2007 - 10:21 ET by Avatarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Specifications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707#Specifications
I also checked with Boeing to confirm wiki's specifications. They are correct. The 747's maximum takeoff weight is at LEAST twice that of the 707 (accounting for a full plane both passenger and luggage).
Now, you said something about not knowing enough to sink you? You're already neck deep; you're like the wizard of Oz desparate to hide your inadequacies, shouting "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!". It's laughable and sad at the same time.
The Avatar
Wow, once again your wisdom
August 15, 2007 - 11:15 ET by ThoughtPoliceWow, once again your wisdom is mind blowing!
What were the types of planes that hit both WTC towers?? Anybody ..anybody!!
The suspense is a killer!!
owwww they were 767-200's! Wow, your comparison of the 707 to the 747 is correct, unfortunately the towers WEREN'T hit by 747's.
Get your head out of your ass and do some real investigating why don't you. You COULD help this movement if only you were on the right side.
Correction: I was taking your post at face value. I assumed the "747" you were talking about was the "767" I was talking about. So, while I was wrong in quoting your post, I was right in comparing what actually hit the towers to what they were designed to take.
You are correct, the planes
August 15, 2007 - 11:58 ET by AvatarYou are correct, the planes that struck were 767s, i was wrong. So now you have proven that a larger (albeit not that terribly much more heavy) plane struck the towers. However, the 767 IS 30 feet longer and wider than the elder 707. Making a much larger area of impact than a 707 could.
Plane aside, the physics of the falling building are still sound: structural integrity is dependent on stable load, not dynamic load. See the straw tower example below.
I'm not certain why you brought the planes up to begin with, shame on me for letting you sidetrack me. You wanted to know how the WTC fell in 13 seconds, and I showed you exactly, I even helped you visualize it with the straw tower model. The physics calculations are sound. Also, you seemed to skip your erroneous remark about demolition charges creating a vacuum. I can admit when I'm wrong, but apparently you can't.
I'm also curious, but why do you seek conspiracy where none exsists? Seriously. Your facts don't match what happened, by science or engineering.
The Avatar
You do realize you are
August 15, 2007 - 12:14 ET by Jack BauerYou do realize you are attempting discourse with a certifiable lunatic who is most certainly also an evil cock*ucker.
Why bother?
Eyecare
August 15, 2007 - 12:45 ET byUm, Union Jack.... shouldn't the * have gone over the k or the c, rather than the s?
I mean, technically, you still didn't swear, but many seem touchy about it here. I mean "b-tch" is common, and I've even seen "ex--ment" today, which seems a bit over the top.
maybe it wasn't an S
August 23, 2007 - 12:16 ET by TruthMongermaybe it wasn't an S genius!
back to the outback where ya belong, Dundee - go poach a croc:)
just kidding - have a fosters on me
Because I feel sorry for
August 15, 2007 - 14:10 ET by AvatarBecause I feel sorry for him. I'm not gonna really try anymore. The plethera of facts against his speculation just makes him horney, methinks.
The Avatar
It is important because if
August 15, 2007 - 17:58 ET by ThoughtPoliceIt is important because if the buildings were designed to take such impact, they wouldn't have fallen. It's not too terribly difficult to figure out.
If I tell you my company over-designed and over-built a structure to withstand force "x", then force "x" destroys the building, something is up.
You have displayed nothing but that a body in free fall will fall within 10 seconds from that height, nice job. You haven't explained how 20% of a building crushed 80% of a building including the sub basement levels all at near free fall speed as if the 80% wasnt even there.
Keep up the good work.
I honestly can't explain it
August 15, 2007 - 18:57 ET by AvatarI honestly can't explain it to you, you're just too stupid. I've showed you the physics calculations, I've explained to you how skyscraper structure is designed, i've even made it easy for you in the 'Straw Tower' illustration. Yet you can't get it. Everyone else does, but you. Therefore my method of explaination isn't the problem, it's your ability to comprehend physics, engineering, and 8th grade science.
At this point, the Lord Jesus Christ could come to you in your mom's basement and say, "Thoughtpolice, the buildings fell because the structural integrity weakened, causing the upper floors to collapse upon the lower floors, and since skyscrapers aren't designed to carry a dynamic load, it collapsed with little effort. That's what happened thought police, as surely as I am your savior from death and the devil, that's what happened." And you'd STILL have the gall to say, "no Jesus, that's not what happened, obviously you didn't research it properly. It was done by the evil Bush administration as a controlled demolition. I also don't believe this malarky about fire melting steal, it's about as likely as someone turning water into wine."
Much like the parable of the rich man and poor lazarus, NOTHING can convince you, no matter how much proof you see. I can say nothing to convince you, because truth hurts you as sunlight to a vampire. You can believe what you want, as long as you don't mind being wrong. And with that, i'm through, because I can't make it any simpler.
The Avatar
Yes, you are correct, you
August 15, 2007 - 22:49 ET by ThoughtPoliceYes, you are correct, you have shown me elementary physics calculations, any of which I could apply to me taking a dump on your posts. The speed at which my dump hits your post is 9.8 m/s/s. See, so clearly you are wrong. (Haha what a joke.)
You have proven nothing, and in the case of the plane, you were proven completely wrong. Being proven wrong time and time again is not a good thing in an argument, especially when you hold your "truth" so dear to your naive heart.
www.ae911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911trut...
www.stj911.org
LOL, Avatar, Your most
August 15, 2007 - 22:53 ET by BlondeLOL, Avatar,
Your most fine arguments have convinced me, though.
So don't feel your time has been wasted.
Respectfully,
Blonde
LOL, good to know blonde.
August 16, 2007 - 00:07 ET by AvatarLOL, good to know blonde. I'm just sorry I only have the sciences of Physics and Engineering on my side, it's so hard to prove your point with facts these days.
If i was smart, i'd just post link after link after link after link of the same person saying the same thing using different names, without actually thinking about it on my own, that way, there's no danger i can be wrong if I can point to someone else.
The Avatar
Thoughtpolice....reposted......
August 18, 2007 - 22:11 ET by Timothy HReposted as to make it more convenient for you to feel foolish.
Note: The statistics for the 707-120B, fully loaded and fueled (so heavier that accounted for by the architects) are those listed by Boeing adjusted for the impact details of the architects, flaps down and in landing patern during fog (180mph), all of which are facts that you seem to ignore. The statistics for the 767-200E, the exact planes that flew into the WTC towers, are also Boeing's reported statistics. here are the stats:
Actually, said 707, at the listed full mass of 117,000kg (257000lbs) and the velocity of 4.84 meters/second (180mph) would, using the equation 1/2m*v squared, produce 1.37 million newtons of force in kinetic energy, while the 767 at 170000kg(374000lbs) and 12.92m/s (480mph) would produce 14.9 million newtons of force in kenetic energy, or roughly 11 times the kenetic force.
Hope that helps you understand that 11 times the force is not being destroyed by the same "x". So, are these rudimentary numbers also just going to be ignored? A little rational thought makes conspiracy nuts go bye-bye.
- Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints -
Oh.....And.....Thoughtpolice.....
August 18, 2007 - 22:36 ET by Timothy HOh, and by the way, TP. The 707-320B, for which the statistics you provided belong to, was not the common 707 of the early 60's, that would be the Boeing 707-120B, which weighed significantly less, at 257000lbs fully loaded. Also, the architectural models were for a 707 full flap at about 180mph, not the full, and unrealistc cruising speed of 600mph. Try putting statistics into contexts, rather than cherrypicking the ones you like best. Jacka**.
- Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints -
I really hate to be the one
August 16, 2007 - 08:27 ET by BeowulfI really hate to be the one to break the news to you TP, but you were the one who brought up the 747. In your earlier post you said "why would the designers and builders of the Twin towers account for jumbo jets hitting them, releasing thousands of gallons of fuel resulting in major fire, yet not consider (your supposed fact) that the floors can't handle the pressure?"
Well, the first JUMBO jet was the 747. The term didn't exist when the WTC was designed. So it was your claim that the WTC was designed to withstand such an aircraft strike.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
TP, it was really slick
August 17, 2007 - 11:34 ET by BeowulfTP, it was really slick <sarc> how you substituted a 767 to rebut Avatar's post, since the 767 is significantly smaller than a 747. Even your specs are off (and I added the 747 specs, since you didn't seem to want to show that comparison):
Max Takeoff Weight: 707 - 333,600 lb / 767 - 450,000 lb / 747 - 875,000 lb
Length: 707 - 152 ft / 767 - 201 ft / 747 - 231 ft
Wingspan: 707 - 145 ft / 767 - 170 ft / 747 - 211 ft
So, yes, the 707 and the 767 are similar in capacities, and those slight differences, such as 116,000 pounds (a mere 58 TONS) in max weight surely had no bearing on the damage each could do to a building. And let's not mention that this building was designed using 1950s technology, and many aspects of its construction were "innovative", meaning new and untried. You theorists love to detail how the building architects "designed the structural elements of the WTC towers to withstand the impact of the largest airliner then in service, the Boeing 707". This is another BS bit of "evidence", and the basis of this argument. In the mid 60's, neither the technology nor expertise was available to make this claim. The building design may have taken into account that, as the tallest buildings in the area, the possiblility that some blind pilot might crash into one of them existed, but to claim that they were specifically designed to "withstand" a passenger jetliner impact is ridiculous, and indicative of the lengths you theorists will go to attempt to make your point. The only way an architect could have made such a design claim back then would be to mathematically attempt to apply physics to such an incident. There would be absolutely no way to test such a claim, and no empirical evidence to support that the design "innovations" in the WTC would be better than traditional methods to accomplish this desired effect.
As to kinetic energy, provide a reference on the exact speed of the aircraft when they hit the towers. Quoting cruising speed is total BS, as cruising speed is the most fuel efficient speed of a particular aircraft. It is not max speed, and it has no bearing on the discussion. If you want to talk about kinetic energy, it has to be based on actual weight vs. actual speed. The speed at which the aircraft hit would also be determined by handling characteristics of the aircraft and the skill of the pilot.
So Avatar was wrong. A 707 doesn't weigh half what a 747 does at max weight. IT ONLY WEIGHS 38%. Your example with the 767 is 51%, so you would be closer to Avatar's statement (which, I'm sure, was only a general comparison on the vast difference in size of the aircraft). You mixed and matched various aircraft types throughout your "rebuttal" without regard to specifics such as what I mentioned above regarding handling characteristics and such. What about aircraft construction? What are the structural differences between the 707 and the 767? Might a 767 be stronger and able to penetrate a structure more readily than a much older design?
You obviously have your simple little mind made up, and nothing anyone posts here will change it. You have been presented facts by the score, your "evidence" has been systematically debunked, your "science" has been clearly rebutted, and your "witnesses" veracity leaves much to be desired. Your entire theory has more holes than a cheese grater, yet you persist in presenting it over and over.
You strike me as brain-dead, spoon-fed, and narrow-minded. So YOU have a nice day (if that's possible for someone as gullible as you).
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
TP ! 707 with flaps down, 180 mph VS 767 480 mph
August 18, 2007 - 20:23 ET by upcountrywaterThe wtc engineers planned on a collision with a 707 in (foggy conditions) landing mode with full flaps, 180 mph. At least they thought about it.
A 767 moving at 480 mph no plan for that.
8 times the force (about).
TP 's future plan is to fill all the floors solid with concrete.
Av fuel poured down the elevator shafts in the Empire State Building.
Entitlement over infrastructure every SINGLE time.
upcountrywater, to make your point further.....
August 18, 2007 - 21:47 ET by Timothy HActually, said 707, at the listed full mass of 117,000kg (257000lbs) and the velocity of 4.84 meters/second (180mph) would, using the equation 1/2m*v squared, produce 1.37 million newtons of force in kinetic energy, while the 767 at 170000kg(374000lbs) and 12.92m/s (480mph) would produce 14.9 million newtons of force in kenetic energy, or roughly 11 times the kenetic force.
Hope that helps.
- Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints -
Beowulf...
August 18, 2007 - 22:42 ET by Timothy HThe 707-120B, or the original 707B designate weighted only around 257000lbs. The later 707-320B weighted a heftier 333600lbs. But the 707-120B was likely the plane that was used in the calculations at the time, due to how common it was in the early 60's when the towers were designed. So Avatar may actually have been correct.
(the "B" designate is to indicate the Pratt and Whitney JT3D engines, whic were 19,000 heavier than the JT3C that was used previeously. This required greater strength in the wing and body structures, and increased the weights there as well)
- Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints -
I just thought of this, as
August 14, 2007 - 23:54 ET by AvatarI just thought of this, as a visual, that even you should understand. In grade school, did you ever have to build a straw tower? You know, build a tower out of drinking straws, held together with sewing pins, and then see who's tower held the most weight? I wasn't too good at it, but a guy in the upper grades built one 3 feet tall, and it held 50Lbs. Now, to show you the object lesson. By itself, the straw tower was not very strong, physically, but, because of how the tower was STRUCTURED, the load of 50Lbs was distributed well enough that the straw structure was able handle the load. When that same 50Lb load is dropped onto that straw structure from as little as 1/2", the structure folded under the stress. Why? Because the structure was designed to carry a load at rest, not a load in motion.
The general principal of a skyscraper is just like this. It's strong with a steady load on it, but when a load with inertia is forced upon it, it easily crumbles. This is true of most steel-superstructure skyscrapers (including WTC7).
You still won't get it, but at least i've explained so that even a child could understand it.
The Avatar
I'm in the
August 15, 2007 - 12:56 ET byI'm in the building/construction industry myself, and had always assumed it had come about by the unique situation of having a weakened section a fair bit down from the top, so that when the steel heated up, the floors above simply became a huge hammer.
Buildings like that are designed for huge loads vertically; but dead loads. The live loads they are designed for are horizontal. No one would ever have been prepared for a downward vertical force like that, after both towers ironically withstood the horizontal forces of the planes.
As for the "demolition theory", I've only recently heard about it, and I don't understand...... what would have been the point?
Thank you, eyecare! The
August 15, 2007 - 14:11 ET by AvatarThank you, eyecare!
The Avatar
Eyecare, the towers and
August 15, 2007 - 18:07 ET by ThoughtPoliceEyecare, the towers and building 7 WERE demolished by explosives. 3 buildings - 2 planes = 1 building standing...what happened to building 7!!
No steel framed skyscraper (of any size) has collapsed completely and symmetrically in the history of modern buildings, ever. Yet on one day, we are to believe that two 100 story buildings and one 47 story building fell.
The point is simple, how else do you rally a country in going to perpetual 'war on terrorism' unless something like this happened? PNAC (project for the new american century, a neo-con think tank) stated in their "Rebuilding america's defenses" document, "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings
revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"
Bingo, can anyone say, caught red handed? Of course, this would only matter if this was written before 9/11/01, in which case, it was written in 2000. They love to document what they are going to do before they do it.
www.ae911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911trut...
www.stj911.org