Steel girders with fireproofing on them burn? Light your couch on fire, and stick in a steel girder, see if it burns.
No, I don't think the engineers of this build gave much thought to what would happen if it was struck by an airliner. Do you have any documentaton proving that the building is somehow designed to fail in an even manner?
I don't think it's oversimplified. It has not yet begun to be investigated. They said mad muslims did it the very next day. How did they know that?
I'm sorry it's making you sick. It makes me sick, too. Shoot the messenger if you must.
Steel girders might catch fire in a blast furnace. Come on, we're talking physics here...
I AM NOT PARANOID!
-
A rope leash
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:47 pm
- Location: southern misery, USA
-
HungupStrungup
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 12:14 pm
- Location: NE USofA
Jet fuel burns very quickly, in an explosive burst. Maybe so, out in the open. But enclose it and feed in oxygen only through the hole the plane just made penetrating the building, and you will have a very hot fire of considerable duration, even without all the other flammables, like drywall, carpeting, acoustical tile and furniture. Even treated with retardants, all that stuff will ignite when doused with burning jet fuel; and once the temperature gets high enough, the metal will burn too, or more significantly for this situation, melt.
Most of the steel that supported the WTC was in the outside walls; the latticework supported all the floors, which were basically "hung" from it at the corners. Once all that metal began to weaken and melt, the several floors above and below the impact site had insufficient support and fell. They were still contained by the outer walls but no longer supported by them, so of course they fell straight down through this "tube," pancaking everything below them.
You seem to think this particular Bush connection is terribly significant, Rope, but this was hardly in "inside job." I have to wonder what the hell difference did the WTC's security firm make in what happened at the borders, in the flight schools, in the various airports and on those planes?
Most of the steel that supported the WTC was in the outside walls; the latticework supported all the floors, which were basically "hung" from it at the corners. Once all that metal began to weaken and melt, the several floors above and below the impact site had insufficient support and fell. They were still contained by the outer walls but no longer supported by them, so of course they fell straight down through this "tube," pancaking everything below them.
You seem to think this particular Bush connection is terribly significant, Rope, but this was hardly in "inside job." I have to wonder what the hell difference did the WTC's security firm make in what happened at the borders, in the flight schools, in the various airports and on those planes?
"But it's a dangerous game that comedy plays
Sometimes it tells you the truth
Sometimes it delays it"
Sometimes it tells you the truth
Sometimes it delays it"
-
selfmademug
Thank you, HS. I am so sick of this crap. Rope, if you don't think comparing an enormous building and high-temperature fire to a burning couch is over-simplifying, you're dumber than I thought.
I'm sorry, I am in a truly foul mood, but I find this shit offensive. There's no cabal; wake up and live in the real world.
I'm sorry, I am in a truly foul mood, but I find this shit offensive. There's no cabal; wake up and live in the real world.
-
A rope leash
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:47 pm
- Location: southern misery, USA
Just what you say, and that's it, then?
I know how the Towers were built, and the explanation HS offers makes a certain amount of sense. Now, explain why WTC7 fell in it's own space.
Jets fuel burns up quickly, and there was plenty of oxygen coming though the huge gash in the side. Much of it burned on impact.
Furniture and paper is not going to set a steel beam on fire. There is a cabal, read the PNAC while you still can. The people who wrote the PNAC, known in the first Bush adminstration as "The Crazies", now run the executive branch. The wealthy are giving GWB huge amounts of money to run unapposed in his own party. Why?
What I don't get, Self-Made, is your anger. It's rather like Limbaugh. The Marvin Bush thing is just real convienent, I admit. My using it is rather like Limabugh. I don't see why you have to take it personally and call me dumb, which you know full well I ain't. People never censor speech they agree with. The official word on 9-11 has yet to come out, so why attack me for speculating?
There is one thing you are very correct about. I should be spending my time on something more "constructive".
Jets fuel burns up quickly, and there was plenty of oxygen coming though the huge gash in the side. Much of it burned on impact.
Furniture and paper is not going to set a steel beam on fire. There is a cabal, read the PNAC while you still can. The people who wrote the PNAC, known in the first Bush adminstration as "The Crazies", now run the executive branch. The wealthy are giving GWB huge amounts of money to run unapposed in his own party. Why?
What I don't get, Self-Made, is your anger. It's rather like Limbaugh. The Marvin Bush thing is just real convienent, I admit. My using it is rather like Limabugh. I don't see why you have to take it personally and call me dumb, which you know full well I ain't. People never censor speech they agree with. The official word on 9-11 has yet to come out, so why attack me for speculating?
There is one thing you are very correct about. I should be spending my time on something more "constructive".
-
laughingcrow
- Posts: 2476
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 8:35 am
I agree with HS, yeah I'm a biologist but from what I know of chemistry and physics, nearly anything can burn just like paper if it it's temperature is high enough. I've seen all kinds of metals burn in the lab, using catalysts to get the temperature high enough, one of which (oxides of Aluminium and Iron) is used to repair train lines.
I don't know the burning temperatures of plane fuel, but would guess that it's pretty high, nor do I know the temperature required to burn an alloy girder, but that would be pretty high too.
I don't know the burning temperatures of plane fuel, but would guess that it's pretty high, nor do I know the temperature required to burn an alloy girder, but that would be pretty high too.
-
selfmademug
ARL, I said you had considerable smarts, but that if you thought a couch and a skyscraper burned the same way then you were dumber than I thought.
My anger comes from all the wasted energy chasing down conspiracy theories and making the world seem a more black-and-white place than it could ever be, when it could instead be used to understand the complexity and possibility that abound.
I should never have ventured into this thread; my mistake.
My anger comes from all the wasted energy chasing down conspiracy theories and making the world seem a more black-and-white place than it could ever be, when it could instead be used to understand the complexity and possibility that abound.
I should never have ventured into this thread; my mistake.
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
Rope,
I sent a few of your comments about steel, jet fuel, etc. over to a friend of mine who teaches physics (and who really hates George Bush). He laughed really hard and called you a dumbass. I don't think you're a dumbass, but that's because I've known you for a while. But on this topic, I do think you're making some fairly Bush league arguments. And that pun was intentional.
I sent a few of your comments about steel, jet fuel, etc. over to a friend of mine who teaches physics (and who really hates George Bush). He laughed really hard and called you a dumbass. I don't think you're a dumbass, but that's because I've known you for a while. But on this topic, I do think you're making some fairly Bush league arguments. And that pun was intentional.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare
--William Shakespeare
-
A rope leash
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:47 pm
- Location: southern misery, USA
Time will out
Okay, folks, in honor of this conversation I propose an experiment.
This weekend, I will burn two piles, each containing four or five good sized stumps, along with about two trees each, cut up. This will burn long into the night. I will insert in these fires a piece of 1/4 inch galvanized angle iron, just about two inches by two inches, and about two feet long.
I know from experience that this iron wil not break, and probably won't even bend. It most certainly will not burn up, and it will never reach a point where I can pull it out and say "Look everyone, burning steel!" Who wants to make a bet?
Hey, I didn't waste any time coming up with this. This is a well known "conspiracy theory" plastered all over the web. Now, what I can't seem to find on the web is any good, documented explanation as to why all those buildings fell down so neatly, and some guy "that knows physics and stuff" can laugh all he wants, but where's his proof? I have seen very little "expert" speculation on this, and I'm pretty good about looking for it.
HungStrung's explanation works for me to a point, but I just don't think that the jet fuel fire was all that deprived of oxygen, and I don't think that WTC7 was built in the same manner as the towers, so how do we explain it's collapse?
Anyways, don't sneer at me. Prove me wrong, or at least link me to a site that answers my questions... all you are saying so far is that fireproofed steel can be set afire by kerosene and wood, and I'm just not buying that.
Sorry.
This weekend, I will burn two piles, each containing four or five good sized stumps, along with about two trees each, cut up. This will burn long into the night. I will insert in these fires a piece of 1/4 inch galvanized angle iron, just about two inches by two inches, and about two feet long.
I know from experience that this iron wil not break, and probably won't even bend. It most certainly will not burn up, and it will never reach a point where I can pull it out and say "Look everyone, burning steel!" Who wants to make a bet?
Hey, I didn't waste any time coming up with this. This is a well known "conspiracy theory" plastered all over the web. Now, what I can't seem to find on the web is any good, documented explanation as to why all those buildings fell down so neatly, and some guy "that knows physics and stuff" can laugh all he wants, but where's his proof? I have seen very little "expert" speculation on this, and I'm pretty good about looking for it.
HungStrung's explanation works for me to a point, but I just don't think that the jet fuel fire was all that deprived of oxygen, and I don't think that WTC7 was built in the same manner as the towers, so how do we explain it's collapse?
Anyways, don't sneer at me. Prove me wrong, or at least link me to a site that answers my questions... all you are saying so far is that fireproofed steel can be set afire by kerosene and wood, and I'm just not buying that.
Sorry.
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
The reason that your 4 or 5 stumps of wood burning won't also burn a scrap of metal is because metal melts and burns at much higher temperatures than wood does. Didn't you read Farenheit 451?
Jet fuel, on the other hand, burns at much higher temperatures than wood. So your experiment is meaningless, unless you want to take a proportional amount of jet fuel and ignite it with a small piece of steel in it. If you did that, being sure to simulate the oxygen levels and windspeed, I think you'd find that your steel was a wee bit disfigured.
Not all fire is the same heat. And I learned that in 7th grade.
Jet fuel, on the other hand, burns at much higher temperatures than wood. So your experiment is meaningless, unless you want to take a proportional amount of jet fuel and ignite it with a small piece of steel in it. If you did that, being sure to simulate the oxygen levels and windspeed, I think you'd find that your steel was a wee bit disfigured.
Not all fire is the same heat. And I learned that in 7th grade.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare
--William Shakespeare
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
A google search turned this up in about 3 mintes. There were others.
http://www.dailyillini.com/sep01/sep20/ ... ry02.shtml
Transcript:
"Fuel to blame in World Trade Center collapse
Reggie Lualhati
The Daily Illini
Large amounts of burning fuel were the biggest factor in the World Trade Center towers' demise last Tuesday. The impact of the plane and subsequent fires caused a "pancake effect" — each floor collapsing on the next with increasing speed.
"What happened was an extraordinary chain of events," said Abbas Aminmansour, an assistant architecture professor.
He said the initial impact of the Boeing 767 only caused local damage because the building was designed to resist the impact of a Boeing 707, a smaller, older plane.
"If it weren't for the extreme fire, I believe that the towers would still be standing today," Aminmansour said, although he added the towers still would be seriously damaged and unsafe to enter, even if they were still standing.
The buildings were designed for a three-hour fire rating, which means the buildings could resist a fire up to three hours without serious structural damage. However, the ratings are associated with tests based on "ordinary" fires, not the degree involved in the Sept. 11 attack.
Herman Krier, professor in mechanical and industrial engineering, said an "ordinary" fire involves regular office furniture and materials burning and the fire-retardant material on the structures remaining intact.
Aminmansour said some of the fire-proof material on structure was either scraped or chipped off, directly exposing the steel to high temperatures and making it more vulnerable to failure.
Krier, who specializes in combustion research in aircraft and rocket propulsion, added that the fire was extraordinary because it entailed thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel. Because both planes taking off from the east coast were destined for the West Coast, they contained a lot of jet fuel. After the initial impact, jet fuel leaked into multiple floors, creating puddles of fuel.
"Time is the hunter," Krier said.
Different sources heated the standing fuel. As a result, the fire had a continuous fuel source and burned for a longer time — similar to the way a candle burns.
Krier said if a jet plane with a smaller quantity of the same jet fuel hit a tower, the fires wouldn't have lasted as long.
He added that a flame burning jet fuel and air generates an approximate temperature of 3,500 degrees Fahrenheit — "more intense than any fire code scenario."
Keith Hjelmstad, professor of civil and environmental engineering, said there was more oxygen — another element required in burning — because of the entrance hole created by the impact. He also speculated that the impact caused the fire doors to burst open, allowing an increased flow of oxygen.
The fire caused entire floors to fail, Hjelmstad said. This created a large amount of energy that was enough to destroy the floors below the initial point until the building was completely destroyed.
"It's like trying to stop a freight train ... once the mass gets moving, it's hard to stop," Hjelmstad said."
Reasonable as can be. I also found this quote on the web site of a physics professor:
"What's the melting point of steel?
That depends on the alloy of steel you are talking about. The term alloy is almost always used incorrectly these days, especially amongst bicyclists. They use the term to mean aluminum. What the term alloy really means is a mixture of metals, any kind of metals. Almost all metal used today is a mixture and therefore an alloy.
Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F)."
So, let's do a little math. Steel melts at 2500 degrees F. Jet fuel and air burns at 3500 degrees F. So (and I'll have to consult my handy dandy notebook and crayon on this one), assuming my reason is correct here...that's a heat of 1000 degrees F MORE than would be needed to melt the steel of the WTC.
The melting point of glass, according to http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/SaiLee.shtml: "Depending on it's composition, some glass will melt at temperatures as low as 500 °C (900 °F), others melt at 1650 °C (3180 °F)" So that's at least 500 degrees F above the needed temperature and maybe as much as 2600 degrees F.
Concrete, on the other hand, has a melting point of 1800 degrees C, or higher than the heat of jet fuel. So that means the steel that supported the concrete melted, and the glass all around the structure melted, but the concrete did not melt. It got very hot and almost melted, but it did not melt. Instead, several stories of concrete suddenly had no support and fell on top of one another, thereby creating too much load for the steel and concrete below to bear. And the structure collapsed on top of itself.
Three minutes on the web, looking at reputable sources (like universities and tech labs), and the conspiracy theories melt like...well..steel and glass.
But not concrete.
http://www.dailyillini.com/sep01/sep20/ ... ry02.shtml
Transcript:
"Fuel to blame in World Trade Center collapse
Reggie Lualhati
The Daily Illini
Large amounts of burning fuel were the biggest factor in the World Trade Center towers' demise last Tuesday. The impact of the plane and subsequent fires caused a "pancake effect" — each floor collapsing on the next with increasing speed.
"What happened was an extraordinary chain of events," said Abbas Aminmansour, an assistant architecture professor.
He said the initial impact of the Boeing 767 only caused local damage because the building was designed to resist the impact of a Boeing 707, a smaller, older plane.
"If it weren't for the extreme fire, I believe that the towers would still be standing today," Aminmansour said, although he added the towers still would be seriously damaged and unsafe to enter, even if they were still standing.
The buildings were designed for a three-hour fire rating, which means the buildings could resist a fire up to three hours without serious structural damage. However, the ratings are associated with tests based on "ordinary" fires, not the degree involved in the Sept. 11 attack.
Herman Krier, professor in mechanical and industrial engineering, said an "ordinary" fire involves regular office furniture and materials burning and the fire-retardant material on the structures remaining intact.
Aminmansour said some of the fire-proof material on structure was either scraped or chipped off, directly exposing the steel to high temperatures and making it more vulnerable to failure.
Krier, who specializes in combustion research in aircraft and rocket propulsion, added that the fire was extraordinary because it entailed thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel. Because both planes taking off from the east coast were destined for the West Coast, they contained a lot of jet fuel. After the initial impact, jet fuel leaked into multiple floors, creating puddles of fuel.
"Time is the hunter," Krier said.
Different sources heated the standing fuel. As a result, the fire had a continuous fuel source and burned for a longer time — similar to the way a candle burns.
Krier said if a jet plane with a smaller quantity of the same jet fuel hit a tower, the fires wouldn't have lasted as long.
He added that a flame burning jet fuel and air generates an approximate temperature of 3,500 degrees Fahrenheit — "more intense than any fire code scenario."
Keith Hjelmstad, professor of civil and environmental engineering, said there was more oxygen — another element required in burning — because of the entrance hole created by the impact. He also speculated that the impact caused the fire doors to burst open, allowing an increased flow of oxygen.
The fire caused entire floors to fail, Hjelmstad said. This created a large amount of energy that was enough to destroy the floors below the initial point until the building was completely destroyed.
"It's like trying to stop a freight train ... once the mass gets moving, it's hard to stop," Hjelmstad said."
Reasonable as can be. I also found this quote on the web site of a physics professor:
"What's the melting point of steel?
That depends on the alloy of steel you are talking about. The term alloy is almost always used incorrectly these days, especially amongst bicyclists. They use the term to mean aluminum. What the term alloy really means is a mixture of metals, any kind of metals. Almost all metal used today is a mixture and therefore an alloy.
Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F)."
So, let's do a little math. Steel melts at 2500 degrees F. Jet fuel and air burns at 3500 degrees F. So (and I'll have to consult my handy dandy notebook and crayon on this one), assuming my reason is correct here...that's a heat of 1000 degrees F MORE than would be needed to melt the steel of the WTC.
The melting point of glass, according to http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/SaiLee.shtml: "Depending on it's composition, some glass will melt at temperatures as low as 500 °C (900 °F), others melt at 1650 °C (3180 °F)" So that's at least 500 degrees F above the needed temperature and maybe as much as 2600 degrees F.
Concrete, on the other hand, has a melting point of 1800 degrees C, or higher than the heat of jet fuel. So that means the steel that supported the concrete melted, and the glass all around the structure melted, but the concrete did not melt. It got very hot and almost melted, but it did not melt. Instead, several stories of concrete suddenly had no support and fell on top of one another, thereby creating too much load for the steel and concrete below to bear. And the structure collapsed on top of itself.
Three minutes on the web, looking at reputable sources (like universities and tech labs), and the conspiracy theories melt like...well..steel and glass.
But not concrete.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare
--William Shakespeare
-
A rope leash
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:47 pm
- Location: southern misery, USA
Seen it
Yes, I've read that explanation before, maybe not that one exactly. It relies on an awful lot of fireprooofing to be "scraped away" or "blown off", and also suggest that the tons of jet fuel fell into little pools, instead of being splattered into a mist that would have burned up in a huge fireball, which is what really happened.
I know how big an airliner is. I know it holds a lot of fuel. It holds a lot of highly explosive fuel. The "pool of fuel" theory is just not making it with me.
I assume your calculations are correct. What you are saying is that we essentially had a smelter there inside the building in a rather short period of time. If that jet fuel hung around like you say, and the fireproofing didn't, then I have to say that it's possible, but only "if".
Try this: Take a can of kerosene, and set it on fire. Does it go Ka-Boom, or does it just catch fire? Last time I tried it, it blew up in a big fire ball, and then went out, because there was nothing left.
This story Noise quotes is about a college professor from Illinois who is speaking shortly after the attack. Where's the offical explanation? The closest thing I can find is a pitiful New York Times write up.
As far as I know, there is no offical investigation into why the tower fell.
But don't worry, you guys win. I give up. You are right. They hated us for our freedom, and they took over airplanes full of able people who were afraid of razor knives. Then, they expertly flew them right into two specific buildings, without any interception by our beloved Air Force.
Then, pools of jet fuel that did not burn in the initial explosion burned long and hot enough to melt steel, causing the two buildings and one next to it to pancake. The next day, the hijackers faces were all over the paper, because the FBI just happened to have photos of all them.
It's plausible, but so is my adopted theory.
"There are things that we just don't wanna know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders
I know how big an airliner is. I know it holds a lot of fuel. It holds a lot of highly explosive fuel. The "pool of fuel" theory is just not making it with me.
I assume your calculations are correct. What you are saying is that we essentially had a smelter there inside the building in a rather short period of time. If that jet fuel hung around like you say, and the fireproofing didn't, then I have to say that it's possible, but only "if".
Try this: Take a can of kerosene, and set it on fire. Does it go Ka-Boom, or does it just catch fire? Last time I tried it, it blew up in a big fire ball, and then went out, because there was nothing left.
This story Noise quotes is about a college professor from Illinois who is speaking shortly after the attack. Where's the offical explanation? The closest thing I can find is a pitiful New York Times write up.
As far as I know, there is no offical investigation into why the tower fell.
But don't worry, you guys win. I give up. You are right. They hated us for our freedom, and they took over airplanes full of able people who were afraid of razor knives. Then, they expertly flew them right into two specific buildings, without any interception by our beloved Air Force.
Then, pools of jet fuel that did not burn in the initial explosion burned long and hot enough to melt steel, causing the two buildings and one next to it to pancake. The next day, the hijackers faces were all over the paper, because the FBI just happened to have photos of all them.
It's plausible, but so is my adopted theory.
"There are things that we just don't wanna know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders
-
bambooneedle
- Posts: 4533
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:02 pm
- Location: a few thousand miles south east of Zanzibar
The steel framework wouldn't have to be exposed to such high temperartures and actually "melt", to fail. The design would just have to have its structural integrity compromised, and impacts like those and the heat from them would be enough to do it, under the extreme weight the structure bore. I saw a doco about the towers with some architects explaining how the vertical steel columns buckled (firstly due to the impact, and also because of exposure to heat causing uneven loadbearing capability), so that the floors just gave way.
Buildings are designed with economy in mind - the steel column structure design would have had a certain minimum "safety factor", regarding the amount of mass it could support, eg. 2 x what it would, plus to also withstand lateral winds forces, and not much more. This was no exception. They didn't want to spend so much on concrete columns, they wanted the cheaper steel ones. But they didn't account for what the possibility of such an impact would do to it. In the doco they said that concrete columns may have withstood it. Once there was even slight buckling in the steel columns, the structure's integrity was lost, and it had to come down like a house of cards.
Buildings are designed with economy in mind - the steel column structure design would have had a certain minimum "safety factor", regarding the amount of mass it could support, eg. 2 x what it would, plus to also withstand lateral winds forces, and not much more. This was no exception. They didn't want to spend so much on concrete columns, they wanted the cheaper steel ones. But they didn't account for what the possibility of such an impact would do to it. In the doco they said that concrete columns may have withstood it. Once there was even slight buckling in the steel columns, the structure's integrity was lost, and it had to come down like a house of cards.
-
A rope leash
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:47 pm
- Location: southern misery, USA
Not to pummel it, but
Okay, I admit that the tower could have fallen in the manner described by so many here...
But, are you telling me that some damage to one side of a 47 story building like WTC7 is going to cause it to implode on itself? Hell, half of the Federal Building in OKC was blown off, and it didn't fall!
Did you know that a group of Isrealis were detained by the FBI after they were observed video-taping the entire incident from across the river? Some reports claim that some of them worked for Isreali intelligence. The video was supposedly confiscated by the FBI, but it recently surfaced on a website supposedly run by Al Queada. This was reported by NBC news.
In my view, y'all are too trusting of our leaders, and too willing to accept what they say as truth. They lied about their reasons for invading Iraq, and they are evading the 9-11 investigations as much as they can. I don't trust them, and I say my chosen theory is just as plausable as y'alls standard line. Look at who benefits from this tragedy.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276217.shtml
I'm never wrong. Ask Josie.
But, are you telling me that some damage to one side of a 47 story building like WTC7 is going to cause it to implode on itself? Hell, half of the Federal Building in OKC was blown off, and it didn't fall!
Did you know that a group of Isrealis were detained by the FBI after they were observed video-taping the entire incident from across the river? Some reports claim that some of them worked for Isreali intelligence. The video was supposedly confiscated by the FBI, but it recently surfaced on a website supposedly run by Al Queada. This was reported by NBC news.
In my view, y'all are too trusting of our leaders, and too willing to accept what they say as truth. They lied about their reasons for invading Iraq, and they are evading the 9-11 investigations as much as they can. I don't trust them, and I say my chosen theory is just as plausable as y'alls standard line. Look at who benefits from this tragedy.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276217.shtml
I'm never wrong. Ask Josie.
-
laughingcrow
- Posts: 2476
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 8:35 am
The fireproofing would have been to prevent the movement of the support structures (through slight expansion and contraction) if there was an office fire. It is merely a preventative to absorb some heat, not anywhere as high as the temperatures the plane fuel burns at.
Why did the building collapse in on itself, and not the Murrah building? Well, it's to do with stability and pressure. The WTC buildings had a lot of pressure (from the floors above) pushing down on the areas that had been damaged, causing all the force to be directed downwards. The Murrah building was spread over a much wider area, and had less force above the area where the bomb was set off.
You can burn metals at home if you like ARL, the information required to make the reaction is readily available on dodgy areas of the web...you need a catalyst though, like a magnesium ribbon, to get the intial temperature high enough to get the metal to burn. I'd advise against it though, having spent some of my youth with friends performing 'backyard experiments' I now realise how dangerous it was.
Why did the building collapse in on itself, and not the Murrah building? Well, it's to do with stability and pressure. The WTC buildings had a lot of pressure (from the floors above) pushing down on the areas that had been damaged, causing all the force to be directed downwards. The Murrah building was spread over a much wider area, and had less force above the area where the bomb was set off.
You can burn metals at home if you like ARL, the information required to make the reaction is readily available on dodgy areas of the web...you need a catalyst though, like a magnesium ribbon, to get the intial temperature high enough to get the metal to burn. I'd advise against it though, having spent some of my youth with friends performing 'backyard experiments' I now realise how dangerous it was.
-
A rope leash
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:47 pm
- Location: southern misery, USA
Not the towers...
I've accepted burn scenario as plausble for the towers. But, what about the building next door, WTC7? Why did it pancake?
Check out the link on the third or fourth post of this thread.
Check out the link on the third or fourth post of this thread.
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
-
A rope leash
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:47 pm
- Location: southern misery, USA
Read this while you still can...
Most of the adminstration executives stopped flying commercial in July 2001, due to "security concerns". This was reported by CBS News.
San Francisco mayor Willie Brown was told not to fly that day by his "security people". The rumour is that his friend, Condi Rice, tipped them off.
It has been reported on the web that certain Pentagon personnel abruptly cancelled all air travel on 9-10. I would assume this would be verifiable if anyone wanted to investigate.
Trading in put options for airline stock was at a very unusual high just before 9-11. Most of the money made from these stock deals has not been claimed.
The initial estimates of the dead ranged anywhere from about 8000 to around 15,000 or more. This number came down dramatically as the event unfolded. There are several speculative reports surrounding emails that were sent to people in the towers the morning of the attack. An email is a document, if anyone would like to investigate. I think quite possibly that a rumour was started, but I doubt that it had any sort of "don't tell anyone but Jews" attachment.
This is not a Jewish thing. This is an Israeli government thing. Who benefits most from having a loyal attack dog right in their back yard?
It has been the common tactic of late to call anyone who doesn't support Israel an anti-Semite. It's something the neocons are doing quite rabidly, because many of them are Jewish, and anything they can to to paint their distractors black is exactly what they are going to do. Look what's happening to Mr. O'Neil.
I am not an anti-Semite. It just so happens that I work for a company that is owned by an Israeli company, and I sometimes work with Isreali Jews and Israeli Muslims and even sometimes Israeli athiests. From what I understand, the government of Israel is secular in nature. Personally, I'm not a big fan of Zionism, but apparently the Likud party that controls Israel is. I don't think Jews are any more or less corruptable than any other religious group.
Take a look at Richard Perle's new book. More war and imperialsm is what he calls for. I denounce him for that, not for being Jewish.
I'm sorry that this is making people sick. I would like to be proven wrong, but I'm hard to convince in the first place. I love my country, and as a patriot I see it as my duty to point out the possibilities.
Blue Chair: Censorship, again?
Taz: Please delete my entity, "A rope leash". I am clearly addicted to something that is a complete waste of time.
You dont have to listen to me
as I try to plot free will
there are promises to break
and dreams to kill...
Give me strength or give me mercy
Don't let me lose heart
From rage to anesthesia
20% amensia...
- Elvis Costello
San Francisco mayor Willie Brown was told not to fly that day by his "security people". The rumour is that his friend, Condi Rice, tipped them off.
It has been reported on the web that certain Pentagon personnel abruptly cancelled all air travel on 9-10. I would assume this would be verifiable if anyone wanted to investigate.
Trading in put options for airline stock was at a very unusual high just before 9-11. Most of the money made from these stock deals has not been claimed.
The initial estimates of the dead ranged anywhere from about 8000 to around 15,000 or more. This number came down dramatically as the event unfolded. There are several speculative reports surrounding emails that were sent to people in the towers the morning of the attack. An email is a document, if anyone would like to investigate. I think quite possibly that a rumour was started, but I doubt that it had any sort of "don't tell anyone but Jews" attachment.
This is not a Jewish thing. This is an Israeli government thing. Who benefits most from having a loyal attack dog right in their back yard?
It has been the common tactic of late to call anyone who doesn't support Israel an anti-Semite. It's something the neocons are doing quite rabidly, because many of them are Jewish, and anything they can to to paint their distractors black is exactly what they are going to do. Look what's happening to Mr. O'Neil.
I am not an anti-Semite. It just so happens that I work for a company that is owned by an Israeli company, and I sometimes work with Isreali Jews and Israeli Muslims and even sometimes Israeli athiests. From what I understand, the government of Israel is secular in nature. Personally, I'm not a big fan of Zionism, but apparently the Likud party that controls Israel is. I don't think Jews are any more or less corruptable than any other religious group.
Take a look at Richard Perle's new book. More war and imperialsm is what he calls for. I denounce him for that, not for being Jewish.
I'm sorry that this is making people sick. I would like to be proven wrong, but I'm hard to convince in the first place. I love my country, and as a patriot I see it as my duty to point out the possibilities.
Blue Chair: Censorship, again?
Taz: Please delete my entity, "A rope leash". I am clearly addicted to something that is a complete waste of time.
You dont have to listen to me
as I try to plot free will
there are promises to break
and dreams to kill...
Give me strength or give me mercy
Don't let me lose heart
From rage to anesthesia
20% amensia...
- Elvis Costello
Re: Read this while you still can...
Never Rope...you have to suffer like the rest of us and exercise self-control if you're spending too much time here...it doesn't work usually but we all struggle with it...A rope leash wrote: Taz: Please delete my entity, "A rope leash". I am clearly addicted to something that is a complete waste of time.
(and lay off Blue, he's not censoring anything...You're my boy BLUE!!!! <end vague crappy movie reference>)
A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. Do you think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a fuckin' cross? It's kind of like going up to Jackie Onassis with a rifle pendant on.
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
-
laughingcrow
- Posts: 2476
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 8:35 am
Watched that last night Noise...waited up just for the part where Sgt. Hulka says "someday one of these men may save your life."noiseradio wrote:Rope,
Lighten up, Francis.
And Bill Murray's reply "Then again, maybe one of us won't."
A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. Do you think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a fuckin' cross? It's kind of like going up to Jackie Onassis with a rifle pendant on.