Oh I missed it...........so your answer to the question is.................you don't know..............got itJimmyBotswana wrote:
I did answer his question by saying WE DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T FIND WMDs in IRAQ ALL WE KNOW IS THERE WERE EXPLOSIVES IN THE THREE TOWERS AND THAT IS ENOUGH TO REQUIRE A NEW INVESTIGATION.Miller wrote:
Hmm, explosives used on the WTC. Well, under Clinton they did attack the basements with explosives, this time they decided to use thousands of gallons of airline fuel as their weapon.lowing wrote:
you're not answering his question
Jesus christ open your fucking ears.
And Miller if jet fuel can demolish steel skyscrapers at freefall speed, turn concrete to dust and make it all land in its own footprint then why would companies pay millions of dollars to have professional demolition teams demolish their buildings?
Do you have any sources for your amazing claim that a fire from jet fuel in the open air can burn at 3000 degrees fahrenheit? What do you mean, I don't know about you but..........? Are you just pulling numbers out of your ass?Miller wrote:
Ok first, canadians are pretty smart, aside from the ocasional nut jobs (Jimmy). Second, steel used in thw WTC is able to melt, its melting point is pretty much around 2500-2750 degrees Farenhiet. I don't know about you, but it is estimated that the fire's inside the WTC were around 3000 degrees. The protective layers on the steel of the buildings were also blown off in the explosion, causing the buildings to be even more vulnerable. Sounds like this can take a building down quick. Engineers say we were lucky they stayed up for so long.golgoj4 wrote:
I know canadians are dumb but this is getting outta control. Please provide something other than your internet dective badge or shut the fuck up. Its bad enough you tinfoil hat tards makes the rest of us intelligent people looks so crazy. Seriously. Provide actual fact or shut the hell up. As it stands you dont understand the concept of fire so I really suggest that you find someone smarter to do the talking.JimmyBotswana wrote:
I did answer his question by saying WE DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T FIND WMDs in IRAQ ALL WE KNOW IS THERE WERE EXPLOSIVES IN THE THREE TOWERS AND THAT IS ENOUGH TO REQUIRE A NEW INVESTIGATION.
Jesus christ open your fucking ears.
And Miller if jet fuel can demolish steel skyscrapers at freefall speed, turn concrete to dust and make it all land in its own footprint then why would companies pay millions of dollars to have professional demolition teams demolish their buildings?
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel : Open air burning temperatures: 260-315 °C
Steel does not need the fire protectant to protect it from collapse. The fire retardant was to protect the people and things inside the building and not the building itself.
Underwriters laboratories certified that the steel used in the construction of the Twin towers would withstand 2000 degree heat for six hours. Yet you claim that a fire that burned at under 1200 degrees for less than two hours turned the towers into dust.
That's another thing, no one seems to want to explain how the concrete was pulverized into a fine dust. The dust blanketed half of Manhatten and went as far as New Jersey. If the towers had collapsed as you describe the concrete would have fallen in massive chunks. Anyone care to explain that or will you conveniently ignore that fact?
What engineers said this. Sources? Again, are you just pulling this out of your ass? Did you see it on Discovery channel?
Exactly no one known all the facts if we did we wouldn't need another investigation. Is it wrong to admit you don't have all the answers?lowing wrote:
Oh I missed it...........so your answer to the question is.................you don't know..............got itJimmyBotswana wrote:
I did answer his question by saying WE DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T FIND WMDs in IRAQ ALL WE KNOW IS THERE WERE EXPLOSIVES IN THE THREE TOWERS AND THAT IS ENOUGH TO REQUIRE A NEW INVESTIGATION.Miller wrote:
Hmm, explosives used on the WTC. Well, under Clinton they did attack the basements with explosives, this time they decided to use thousands of gallons of airline fuel as their weapon.
Jesus christ open your fucking ears.
And Miller if jet fuel can demolish steel skyscrapers at freefall speed, turn concrete to dust and make it all land in its own footprint then why would companies pay millions of dollars to have professional demolition teams demolish their buildings?
No, he didn't murder them. There's a difference between "not caring about their lives" and "deliberately sending them into battle hoping they will die". I really doubt any president would go out of their way to make sure that US soldiers get killed. The reasons we went to Iraq IMO were wrong, but proposing Bush went out of his way to send troops half-way around the world for the sole purpose of killing American lives is dumb.golgoj4 wrote:
So he didnt murder those soldiers airmen and marines that gave their lives for a false pretense in Iraq? Im sorry but I still fail to see how anyone can support this president when he is clearly the worst example this country has ever had. And that includes the guy that died soonafter his inagural speech.Spearhead wrote:
Good point.
I'm a liberal and I know that practically 99 percent of conspiracy theorists are liberals too, but personally I think they're insane. Just pure trash meant to make Bush look like a murderer of his own people. Not to say I think he's a good president, but still........
Just to be clear about my complaints
5 years later, no Osamas head on a wall. How many people here lost someone on 9/11? Dont you want the person responsible brought to justice? Bush gave up.
Katrina - Need I say anything?
Domestic wiretapping, the 'modified' torture agreement when there was already a clause for methods and intensity for time critical situations, the use of gays to divide America because they are so scary(?), the outsourcing of jobs, the backwards stance on science & technology, and the most offensive of all; the attempt to tell me or any other American that we are the ones who are 'morally confused' among other condescending statements from a man who was absent in wartime when he was called to serve.
Maybe if Bush was a more credible man, then I wouldnt think that 9/11 was so suspicious. But consider this...all those dangerous carryons that were banned are suddenly ok again...and torture levels in Iraq are higher than when Saddam was in power. Trust him? Hardly
I know its not an answer to the original post but consider how this can add to ones distrust og the govt.
As for everything else you said, I agree
Someday, it could turn out that the 9/11 conspiracy theories were right. Anything is possible. It could turn out that aliens control the politicians and we're all under the influence of them, too.
I'm so sick of people who just use the old steel melting temperature as proof!!! Guess what it takes a lot more than just STEEL to hold a building up, many other things were compromised. Also it does not take 3000 degrees F to COMPROMISE the integrity of the steel, it only needs to bend or be shifted to bring a building down. Stop drinking the kool aid.JimmyBotswana wrote:
Do you have any sources for your amazing claim that a fire from jet fuel in the open air can burn at 3000 degrees fahrenheit? What do you mean, I don't know about you but..........? Are you just pulling numbers out of your ass?
That doesn't make any sense.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
I'm so sick of people who just use the old steel melting temperature as proof!!! Guess what it takes a lot more than just STEEL to hold a building up, many other things were compromised. Also it does not take 3000 degrees F to COMPROMISE the integrity of the steel, it only needs to bend or be shifted to bring a building down. Stop drinking the kool aid.JimmyBotswana wrote:
Do you have any sources for your amazing claim that a fire from jet fuel in the open air can burn at 3000 degrees fahrenheit? What do you mean, I don't know about you but..........? Are you just pulling numbers out of your ass?
Mmm kool aid... Wait, that is only in my head, you never saw that. Steel, and concrete is used. People that actually survived from inside said they literally felt the building shift about 6 inches when the plane hit. That tweaked steel, broke concrete, made supports collapse. It also sent I fireball down the elevator shafts near the explosion. Ever seen the video the firefighters had inside, the man filming said they went inside and there were people running out of the elevator on fire. He didn't film it because he thought it would be too much to look back on. People didn't think a plane could take down a building either, only after investigating did they find that out. Buildings weren't made for jumbo jets to crash into. Explosives inside or not, planes can take down buildings. And buildings collapsing with as much kinetic energy as the Trade centers will crush everything in its path.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
I'm so sick of people who just use the old steel melting temperature as proof!!! Guess what it takes a lot more than just STEEL to hold a building up, many other things were compromised. Also it does not take 3000 degrees F to COMPROMISE the integrity of the steel, it only needs to bend or be shifted to bring a building down. Stop drinking the kool aid.JimmyBotswana wrote:
Do you have any sources for your amazing claim that a fire from jet fuel in the open air can burn at 3000 degrees fahrenheit? What do you mean, I don't know about you but..........? Are you just pulling numbers out of your ass?
Nope, no explosions going on here. Nosiree bob I do not see any explosive activity going on here whatsoever./sarcasm
Thats all you can come up with, thats it? Your opinion that it doesn't make sense to you without ANY explanation....ok, run along now.JimmyBotswana wrote:
That doesn't make any sense.
EXACTLY, so you nutjobs who just quote the melting temp of steel alone as proof are just that, nutjobs.Miller wrote:
Mmm kool aid... Wait, that is only in my head, you never saw that. Steel, and concrete is used. People that actually survived from inside said they literally felt the building shift about 6 inches when the plane hit. That tweaked steel, broke concrete, made supports collapse. It also sent I fireball down the elevator shafts near the explosion. Ever seen the video the firefighters had inside, the man filming said they went inside and there were people running out of the elevator on fire. He didn't film it because he thought it would be too much to look back on. People didn't think a plane could take down a building either, only after investigating did they find that out. Buildings weren't made for jumbo jets to crash into. Explosives inside or not, planes can take down buildings. And buildings collapsing with as much kinetic energy as the Trade centers will crush everything in its path.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
I'm so sick of people who just use the old steel melting temperature as proof!!! Guess what it takes a lot more than just STEEL to hold a building up, many other things were compromised. Also it does not take 3000 degrees F to COMPROMISE the integrity of the steel, it only needs to bend or be shifted to bring a building down. Stop drinking the kool aid.JimmyBotswana wrote:
Do you have any sources for your amazing claim that a fire from jet fuel in the open air can burn at 3000 degrees fahrenheit? What do you mean, I don't know about you but..........? Are you just pulling numbers out of your ass?
Thats not conclusive, just because it looks like explosive doesn't mean it is, you can't say 100% without a doubt that that is the result of explosives rather than a chain reaction with fire that was already spreading through the entire building. You're a nut, you really are. I'm not trying to be rude, but you're not providing much evidence here thats INCONCLUSIVE.JimmyBotswana wrote:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc … exp1_s.jpg
Nope, no explosions going on here. Nosiree bob I do not see any explosive activity going on here whatsoever./sarcasm
This can be explained, ever heard a building fall without explosives? Well it sounds something like gun fire and explosives. Why? Steel crunches, concrete breaks into tiny pieces, and glass shatters. And let me ask you, why would a government kill its own people? Well, for fascism, there is power, for communism, there's power, for everything but democracy, there is a motive of power..|microphage wrote:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3249714675910247150&q=9%2F11+duration%3Along
maybe this might help
Nope it isn't......but you are side stepping the original question. The question isn't about another 911 conspiracy theory. It is about the notion that you if the govt. could pull off a 911 why could they NOT pull off faking a WMD find in the middle of a desert??JimmyBotswana wrote:
Exactly no one known all the facts if we did we wouldn't need another investigation. Is it wrong to admit you don't have all the answers?lowing wrote:
Oh I missed it...........so your answer to the question is.................you don't know..............got itJimmyBotswana wrote:
I did answer his question by saying WE DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T FIND WMDs in IRAQ ALL WE KNOW IS THERE WERE EXPLOSIVES IN THE THREE TOWERS AND THAT IS ENOUGH TO REQUIRE A NEW INVESTIGATION.
Jesus christ open your fucking ears.
And Miller if jet fuel can demolish steel skyscrapers at freefall speed, turn concrete to dust and make it all land in its own footprint then why would companies pay millions of dollars to have professional demolition teams demolish their buildings?
WHich is a great question.
The answer is obvious Miller, to set a reason to invade Iraq for oil that hasn't showed up and no one can even say that any was ever stolen as someone libs love to say, oh and Bush lied people died, [insert more talking points]. Makes sense doesn't it.Miller wrote:
This can be explained, ever heard a building fall without explosives? Well it sounds something like gun fire and explosives. Why? Steel crunches, concrete breaks into tiny pieces, and glass shatters. And let me ask you, why would a government kill its own people? Well, for fascism, there is power, for communism, there's power, for everything but democracy, there is a motive of power..|microphage wrote:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3249714675910247150&q=9%2F11+duration%3Along
maybe this might help
Yep it is a great question. But wait, that is all part of the conspiracy isn't it!?!lowing wrote:
Nope it isn't......but you are side stepping the original question. The question isn't about another 911 conspiracy theory. It is about the notion that you if the govt. could pull off a 911 why could they NOT pull off faking a WMD find in the middle of a desert??JimmyBotswana wrote:
Exactly no one known all the facts if we did we wouldn't need another investigation. Is it wrong to admit you don't have all the answers?lowing wrote:
Oh I missed it...........so your answer to the question is.................you don't know..............got it
WHich is a great question.
Cause its all a great big ploy by the vast right wing conspiracy, Rove, Cheney, Bush, Armitage, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc........Because they wanted us to ask this very question because it wouldn't make any sense, and if we think it doesn't make sense than we have no reason to believe they actually did it. You know what, I've said this before and I will say it again,lowing wrote:
Nope it isn't......but you are side stepping the original question. The question isn't about another 911 conspiracy theory. It is about the notion that you if the govt. could pull off a 911 why could they NOT pull off faking a WMD find in the middle of a desert??JimmyBotswana wrote:
Exactly no one known all the facts if we did we wouldn't need another investigation. Is it wrong to admit you don't have all the answers?lowing wrote:
Oh I missed it...........so your answer to the question is.................you don't know..............got it
WHich is a great question.
IF THE GOVERNMENT DID IT, I would condemn them to the depths of hell, democrat, republican, I don't care, but you conspiracy libs don't have a shred of REAL, CONCLUSIVE evidence so you are just wacking off on your emotions and delusions of grandeur. By all means search for the truth, but don't fucking blame Bush, conservatives, etc until you have fucking evidence.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-25 20:58:21)
Keep in mind that not all conspiracy theorists say the government was involved, some simply believe that the whole story hasn't been told.
It sounds pretty complete to me, terrorists board a plane, hijack it, fly into buildings, buildings burn then collapse, people run and cry, blame bush, government involved... yada yada.Bubbalo wrote:
Keep in mind that not all conspiracy theorists say the government was involved, some simply believe that the whole story hasn't been told.
Bubbalo when I saw your name pop up I was scared, but you redeemed yourself, Yeah I agree, if someone thinks there is more, than search for the truth, but like I said, don't blame a GOD DAMNED person until you have evidence, thats what libs do, they automatically blame Bush and the Government when they don't even know what THE FUCK they are talking about. (sorry anger not directed at you Bubbalo).Bubbalo wrote:
Keep in mind that not all conspiracy theorists say the government was involved, some simply believe that the whole story hasn't been told.
ZOMG LMAO there is just so much that is incorrect here I don't know where to begin.Miller wrote:
Mmm kool aid... Wait, that is only in my head, you never saw that. Steel, and concrete is used. People that actually survived from inside said they literally felt the building shift about 6 inches when the plane hit. That tweaked steel, broke concrete, made supports collapse. It also sent I fireball down the elevator shafts near the explosion. Ever seen the video the firefighters had inside, the man filming said they went inside and there were people running out of the elevator on fire. He didn't film it because he thought it would be too much to look back on. People didn't think a plane could take down a building either, only after investigating did they find that out. Buildings weren't made for jumbo jets to crash into. Explosives inside or not, planes can take down buildings. And buildings collapsing with as much kinetic energy as the Trade centers will crush everything in its path.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
I'm so sick of people who just use the old steel melting temperature as proof!!! Guess what it takes a lot more than just STEEL to hold a building up, many other things were compromised. Also it does not take 3000 degrees F to COMPROMISE the integrity of the steel, it only needs to bend or be shifted to bring a building down. Stop drinking the kool aid.JimmyBotswana wrote:
Do you have any sources for your amazing claim that a fire from jet fuel in the open air can burn at 3000 degrees fahrenheit? What do you mean, I don't know about you but..........? Are you just pulling numbers out of your ass?
1. No that shift you describe is normal. The buildings were obviously designed to sway to compensate for wind loads, which in Manhatten is very strong. The wind load on a typical day in Manhattan is 10,000,000 pounds of pressure, far more than was caused from the impacts from the planes. If what you say is true why didn't the wind knock over the towers every day?
2. There never was a fireball in the elevator shaft because the elevator shafts were specifically desgined to prevent that type of chimney effect if there ever was a catastrophic fire in the towers. The fire on the ground floor was caused by explosives in the basement. Lookup William Rodriguez or Mike Pecoraro, two maintenance workers who have testified that explosives went off in the basement of the twin towers.
3. The towers were specifically designed to withstand multiple hits from jetliners.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
An excerpt:
Statements by Engineers
Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation.
4. Photographic Evidence of Dust Clouds From the Twin Towers' Destruction
The dust clouds that issued from the Towers' explosive collapses were unlike anything seen in the history of man-made structures. Even conventional explosive demolitions of large buildings produced far less dust. Their appearance and rate of travel resembled the pyroclastic flows of volcanoes.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc … /dust.html
Bring it on you right wing nutjobs I can go all night.
Last edited by JimmyBotswana (2006-09-25 21:08:51)
No, no building can with stand a jet hitting it. I think you may have changed some things around in there. It may have been built to take little prop aircraft, but jets, are not what that building is designed for. And when I said the shift, I meant they all felt it, everywhere, and it was noticable, it wasn't a little wind. It was a place flying at around 500 MPH hitting it and making the whole thing move.JimmyBotswana wrote:
ZOMG LMAO there is just so much that is incorrect here I don't know where to being.Miller wrote:
Mmm kool aid... Wait, that is only in my head, you never saw that. Steel, and concrete is used. People that actually survived from inside said they literally felt the building shift about 6 inches when the plane hit. That tweaked steel, broke concrete, made supports collapse. It also sent I fireball down the elevator shafts near the explosion. Ever seen the video the firefighters had inside, the man filming said they went inside and there were people running out of the elevator on fire. He didn't film it because he thought it would be too much to look back on. People didn't think a plane could take down a building either, only after investigating did they find that out. Buildings weren't made for jumbo jets to crash into. Explosives inside or not, planes can take down buildings. And buildings collapsing with as much kinetic energy as the Trade centers will crush everything in its path.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
I'm so sick of people who just use the old steel melting temperature as proof!!! Guess what it takes a lot more than just STEEL to hold a building up, many other things were compromised. Also it does not take 3000 degrees F to COMPROMISE the integrity of the steel, it only needs to bend or be shifted to bring a building down. Stop drinking the kool aid.
1. No that shift you describe is normal. The buildings were obviously designed to sway to compensate for wind loads, which in Manhatten is very strong. The wind load on a typical day in Manhattan is 10,000,000 pounds of pressure, far more than was caused from the impacts from the planes. If what you say is true why didn't the wind knock over the towers every day?
2. There never was a fireball in the elevator shaft because the elevator shafts were specifically desgined to prevent that type of chimney effect if there ever was a catastrophic fire in the towers. The fire on the ground floor was caused by explosives in the basement. Lookup William Rodriguez or Mike Pecoraro, two maintenance workers who have testified that explosives went off in the basement of the twin towers.
3. The towers were specifically designed to withstand multiple hits from jetliners.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
An excerpt:
Statements by Engineers
Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation.
4. Photographic Evidence of Dust Clouds From the Twin Towers' Destruction
The dust clouds that issued from the Towers' explosive collapses were unlike anything seen in the history of man-made structures. Even conventional explosive demolitions of large buildings produced far less dust. Their appearance and rate of travel resembled the pyroclastic flows of volcanoes.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc … /dust.html
LMAO there is just so much that is incorrect here I don't know where to BEGINJimmyBotswana wrote:
1. No that shift you describe is normal. The buildings were obviously designed to sway to compensate for wind loads, which in Manhatten is very strong. The wind load on a typical day in Manhattan is 10,000,000 pounds of pressure, far more than was caused from the impacts from the planes. If what you say is true why didn't the wind knock over the towers every day?
2. There never was a fireball in the elevator shaft because the elevator shafts were specifically desgined to prevent that type of chimney effect if there ever was a catastrophic fire in the towers. The fire on the ground floor was caused by explosives in the basement. Lookup William Rodriguez or Mike Pecoraro, two maintenance workers who have testified that explosives went off in the basement of the twin towers.
3. The towers were specifically designed to withstand multiple hits from jetliners.
4. Photographic Evidence of Dust Clouds From the Twin Towers' Destruction
The dust clouds that issued from the Towers' explosive collapses were unlike anything seen in the history of man-made structures. Even conventional explosive demolitions of large buildings produced far less dust. Their appearance and rate of travel resembled the pyroclastic flows of volcanoes.
1) Idiot wind doesn't produce concussive explosive forces like an airplane.
2) Speculation, not confirmed, many eyewitness are unreliable.
3) Uhhh yeah, and cars are designed to save lives, but people still die, your point is moot, it doesn't matter if they were built to withstand hits from planes when they were built, they didn't account for increased weight of LARGER planes.
4) This means absoultely NOTHING as buildings of THIS size have never fallen so there is no precedent as to WHAT THE REMAINS SHOULD LOOK LIKE. And you think this is evidence. You've got to be kidding me dude, keep drinking.
Did you read it? THE GUY WHO DESIGNED THE BUILDING SAID IT, NOT ME. Man you right wingers really are thick. Is that the best you've got? If you had read it you would have seen that the towers swayed more on an average windy day in Manhattan than when the planes hit them.Miller wrote:
No, no building can with stand a jet hitting it. I think you may have changed some things around in there. It may have been built to take little prop aircraft, but jets, are not what that building is designed for. And when I said the shift, I meant they all felt it, everywhere, and it was noticable, it wasn't a little wind. It was a place flying at around 500 MPH hitting it and making the whole thing move.JimmyBotswana wrote:
ZOMG LMAO there is just so much that is incorrect here I don't know where to being.Miller wrote:
Mmm kool aid... Wait, that is only in my head, you never saw that. Steel, and concrete is used. People that actually survived from inside said they literally felt the building shift about 6 inches when the plane hit. That tweaked steel, broke concrete, made supports collapse. It also sent I fireball down the elevator shafts near the explosion. Ever seen the video the firefighters had inside, the man filming said they went inside and there were people running out of the elevator on fire. He didn't film it because he thought it would be too much to look back on. People didn't think a plane could take down a building either, only after investigating did they find that out. Buildings weren't made for jumbo jets to crash into. Explosives inside or not, planes can take down buildings. And buildings collapsing with as much kinetic energy as the Trade centers will crush everything in its path.
1. No that shift you describe is normal. The buildings were obviously designed to sway to compensate for wind loads, which in Manhatten is very strong. The wind load on a typical day in Manhattan is 10,000,000 pounds of pressure, far more than was caused from the impacts from the planes. If what you say is true why didn't the wind knock over the towers every day?
2. There never was a fireball in the elevator shaft because the elevator shafts were specifically desgined to prevent that type of chimney effect if there ever was a catastrophic fire in the towers. The fire on the ground floor was caused by explosives in the basement. Lookup William Rodriguez or Mike Pecoraro, two maintenance workers who have testified that explosives went off in the basement of the twin towers.
3. The towers were specifically designed to withstand multiple hits from jetliners.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
An excerpt:
Statements by Engineers
Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation.
4. Photographic Evidence of Dust Clouds From the Twin Towers' Destruction
The dust clouds that issued from the Towers' explosive collapses were unlike anything seen in the history of man-made structures. Even conventional explosive demolitions of large buildings produced far less dust. Their appearance and rate of travel resembled the pyroclastic flows of volcanoes.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc … /dust.html
The 707 and the 767 are virtually identical planes, in terms of weight, wingspan, fuel load. You really are a right winger you don't do any reasearch and just pull "facts" out of your ass. There will never be anything that will convince you because you don't want to believe it and have a closed mind.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
LMAO there is just so much that is incorrect here I don't know where to BEGINJimmyBotswana wrote:
1. No that shift you describe is normal. The buildings were obviously designed to sway to compensate for wind loads, which in Manhatten is very strong. The wind load on a typical day in Manhattan is 10,000,000 pounds of pressure, far more than was caused from the impacts from the planes. If what you say is true why didn't the wind knock over the towers every day?
2. There never was a fireball in the elevator shaft because the elevator shafts were specifically desgined to prevent that type of chimney effect if there ever was a catastrophic fire in the towers. The fire on the ground floor was caused by explosives in the basement. Lookup William Rodriguez or Mike Pecoraro, two maintenance workers who have testified that explosives went off in the basement of the twin towers.
3. The towers were specifically designed to withstand multiple hits from jetliners.
4. Photographic Evidence of Dust Clouds From the Twin Towers' Destruction
The dust clouds that issued from the Towers' explosive collapses were unlike anything seen in the history of man-made structures. Even conventional explosive demolitions of large buildings produced far less dust. Their appearance and rate of travel resembled the pyroclastic flows of volcanoes.
1) Idiot wind doesn't produce concussive explosive forces like an airplane.
2) Speculation, not confirmed, many eyewitness are unreliable.
3) Uhhh yeah, and cars are designed to save lives, but people still die, your point is moot, it doesn't matter if they were built to withstand hits from planes when they were built, they didn't account for increased weight of LARGER planes.
4) This means absoultely NOTHING as buildings of THIS size have never fallen so there is no precedent as to WHAT THE REMAINS SHOULD LOOK LIKE. And you think this is evidence. You've got to be kidding me dude, keep drinking.