I can't answer any question about 93. Can you about why so many people heard explosions, police and firemen made so many independent reports about explosions, people felt them , have you ever seen a building brought down by demolition ? I have and those 3 building looked like they were.
GWB's brother in charge of security at WTC on 9-11
- Thread starter Spytheweb
- Start date
I can't answer any question about 93. Can you about why so many people heard explosions, police and firemen made so many independent reports about explosions, people felt them , have you ever seen a building brought down by demolition ? I have and those 3 building looked like they were.
GW did you watch this movie. Forget about who did it or why. Don't you have any questions about how these steel building came down the way they did ? Who are the goos ? why are you such an asshole ?
oh... and bin laden taking credit on a number of tapes doesn`t convince you....
you believe that,despite investigations...and all rational thought(bush being in office less than 9 months, etc),that this enormous plot was the first order of business after a razor thin election win that took months to straighten out?
well,all i can think is that since t.v.shows receive thousands of letters every week from people who think the characters are real people, it's not surprising that people buy into these half-baked conspiracy theories....
i guess if one is living a drab, meaningless life, the idea that there are conspiratorial forces out there not only provide a scapegoat for one's own failures, but also feed a fantasy life far more glamorous than reality.....
i guess it can be fun to fantasize that one is brave rebel living in an orwellian police state, or an agent mulder, bravely exposing conspiracies that are hidden from the public. ....
carry on, agent bryanz........ i thank god that you`re on the case....
....
that`s what this site`s all about....having some fun...i know that bryanz doesn`t take it personally.....
:SIB
and it was nice of you to take buddy`s back,btw........
if your life wasn't so meaningless, you wouldn't have to project your feelings on me. I don't think I have ever bought into or said that I believe in this theory. All I said is that there are two many conflicts on how those 3 buildings came down. I don't believe Bush had anything to do with it. Most of the time, you to reply to things that were never said. my only point is to many police and firemen said the same thing in the heat of the moment, they heard and felt explosions. It looked like the buildings were imploded. Many reputable scientist have said the same thing. HAVE YOU SEEN THE FLIM ??? WHY ARE YOU SUCH AN ASSHOLE ?
I am and I can tell you unequivocally that the collapse of the World Trade Center was a direct result of the fire created by the massive amount of fuel from the planes that crashed into the tower and not from the impact of the planes themselves. The following article by Tom Wilkinson of the University of Sydney provides one of the best explanations for laymen that I have seen on this subject.
Why Did It Collapse?
The structural integrity of the World Trade Center depended on the closely spaced columns around the perimeter. Lightweight steel trusses spanned between the central elevator core and the perimeter columns on each floor. These trusses supported the concrete slab of each floor and tied the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from buckling outwards.
After the initial plane impacts, it appeared to most observers that the structures had been severely damaged, but not necessarily fatally. It appears likely that the impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.
However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behavior of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fueled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces, increasing deflections.
Modern structures are designed to resist fire for a specific length of time. Safety features such as fire retarding materials and sprinkler systems help to contain fires, help extinguish flames, or prevent steel from being exposed to excessively high temperatures. This gives occupants time to escape and allow fire fighters to extinguish blazes, before the building is catastrophically damaged.
The blaze, started by jet fuel and then engulfing the contents of the offices, in a highly confined area, generated fire conditions significantly more severe than those anticipated in a typical office fire. These conditions may have overcome the building's fire defenses considerably faster than expected. It is likely that the water pipes that supplied the fire sprinklers were severed by the plane impact, and much of the fire protective material, designed to stop the steel from being heated and losing strength, was blown off by the blast at impact.
Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact.
Once one story collapsed, all floors above began to fall. The huge mass of falling structure gained momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 stories above is very much greater, and the columns at each level were almost instantly destroyed as the huge upper mass fell to the ground.
The initial impact/further weakening by fire reasoning is based on uncontestable knowledge about the behavior of structures in general, and the weakening of steel under fire conditions, plus video footage of the events and examination of the steel afterwards. The official FEMA report written by engineering experts came to this same conclusion based on the evidence.
This photograph shows the south tower just as it is collapsing. It is evident that the building is falling over to the left. The North Tower collapsed directly downwards, on top of itself. The same mechanism of failure, the combination of impact and subsequent fire damage, is the likely cause of failure of both towers. However, it is possible that a story on only one side of the South Tower initially collapsed, resulting in the "skewed" failure of the entire tower.
While the ways the two towers fell were slightly different, the basic cause is similar for both - a large number of columns were destroyed on impact, and the remaining structure was gradually weakened by the heat of the fire. Not much significance should be taken from the fact that one tower fell in 45 minutes and the other in 90 minutes.
The gigantic dynamic impact forces caused by the huge mass of the falling structure landing on the floors below is very much greater than the static load they were designed to resist.
The following points are frequently questioned in discussions about the collapse:
The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel.
There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel did not melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength. There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously was not too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter. In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area was not very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter.
The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosion.
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how were these explosives placed in the building without anyone knowing about it? Secondly, implosion requires more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.
Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.
What about World Trade Center 7?
I have not studied WTC in any great detail and cannot offer any theories on its collapse mechanism. In the chaos of the day, little attention was paid to WTC7, so there is less evidence available on the damage it sustained before it collapsed. However, some questions that you may want to ponder...
* While it did not receive any direct impact form the planes, how much debris hit at as the main towers collapsed and what damage did it cause?
* To what extent (if any) did the shock or vibrations caused by the collapse of WTC1 & 2 affect the integrity of WTC7?
* Did any unseen damage to the WTC7 foundations occur in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?
* Did any of the fire suppression systems in WTC7 function?
Here is a link to an excellent article on this subject published in JOM which is the journal of The Minerals Metals and Materials Society.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
Here is another link to answers of frequently asked question published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Who are the joos and what is your point. Why do you ask this question in the way you do ? This little question by you suggest many issues you have run from and failed to deal with. It also suggest how you view others as well as yourself. I ask again, what and who are you afraid of ? I think if you explore this ,you will find why you are such an asshole. Seriously ! You are so scared you can't post where you are from. Where you from son ?
Republican Motto---Blame anyone,anything but Bush
Republican Motto---Blame anyone,anything but Bush
Let's get Mel's opinion how all this stuff happened?
:mj07: Let's see if we can get Bill O'reilly to have MEL do a Cameo, so we can get to the bottom of this.
Why is Bush so in love with The Royal Saudis?
Republican Motto---Blame anyone,anything but Bush
Let's get Mel's opinion how all this stuff happened?
:mj07: Let's see if we can get Bill O'reilly to have MEL do a Cameo, so we can get to the bottom of this.
Why is Bush so in love with The Royal Saudis?
I am and I can tell you unequivocally that the collapse of the World Trade Center was a direct result of the fire created by the massive amount of fuel from the planes that crashed into the tower and not from the impact of the planes themselves. The following article by Tom Wilkinson of the University of Sydney provides one of the best explanations for laymen that I have seen on this subject.
Why Did It Collapse?
The structural integrity of the World Trade Center depended on the closely spaced columns around the perimeter. Lightweight steel trusses spanned between the central elevator core and the perimeter columns on each floor. These trusses supported the concrete slab of each floor and tied the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from buckling outwards.
After the initial plane impacts, it appeared to most observers that the structures had been severely damaged, but not necessarily fatally. It appears likely that the impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.
However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behavior of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fueled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces, increasing deflections.
Modern structures are designed to resist fire for a specific length of time. Safety features such as fire retarding materials and sprinkler systems help to contain fires, help extinguish flames, or prevent steel from being exposed to excessively high temperatures. This gives occupants time to escape and allow fire fighters to extinguish blazes, before the building is catastrophically damaged.
The blaze, started by jet fuel and then engulfing the contents of the offices, in a highly confined area, generated fire conditions significantly more severe than those anticipated in a typical office fire. These conditions may have overcome the building's fire defenses considerably faster than expected. It is likely that the water pipes that supplied the fire sprinklers were severed by the plane impact, and much of the fire protective material, designed to stop the steel from being heated and losing strength, was blown off by the blast at impact.
Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact.
Once one story collapsed, all floors above began to fall. The huge mass of falling structure gained momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 stories above is very much greater, and the columns at each level were almost instantly destroyed as the huge upper mass fell to the ground.
The initial impact/further weakening by fire reasoning is based on uncontestable knowledge about the behavior of structures in general, and the weakening of steel under fire conditions, plus video footage of the events and examination of the steel afterwards. The official FEMA report written by engineering experts came to this same conclusion based on the evidence.
This photograph shows the south tower just as it is collapsing. It is evident that the building is falling over to the left. The North Tower collapsed directly downwards, on top of itself. The same mechanism of failure, the combination of impact and subsequent fire damage, is the likely cause of failure of both towers. However, it is possible that a story on only one side of the South Tower initially collapsed, resulting in the "skewed" failure of the entire tower.
While the ways the two towers fell were slightly different, the basic cause is similar for both - a large number of columns were destroyed on impact, and the remaining structure was gradually weakened by the heat of the fire. Not much significance should be taken from the fact that one tower fell in 45 minutes and the other in 90 minutes.
The gigantic dynamic impact forces caused by the huge mass of the falling structure landing on the floors below is very much greater than the static load they were designed to resist.
The following points are frequently questioned in discussions about the collapse:
The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel.
There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel did not melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength. There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously was not too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter. In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area was not very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter.
The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosion.
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how were these explosives placed in the building without anyone knowing about it? Secondly, implosion requires more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.
Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.
What about World Trade Center 7?
I have not studied WTC in any great detail and cannot offer any theories on its collapse mechanism. In the chaos of the day, little attention was paid to WTC7, so there is less evidence available on the damage it sustained before it collapsed. However, some questions that you may want to ponder...
* While it did not receive any direct impact form the planes, how much debris hit at as the main towers collapsed and what damage did it cause?
* To what extent (if any) did the shock or vibrations caused by the collapse of WTC1 & 2 affect the integrity of WTC7?
* Did any unseen damage to the WTC7 foundations occur in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?
* Did any of the fire suppression systems in WTC7 function?
Here is a link to an excellent article on this subject published in JOM which is the journal of The Minerals Metals and Materials Society.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
Here is another link to answers of frequently asked question published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Did you see 911 mysteries ? What do you say to the engineers in the piece that don't agree with Wilkinson ? There are hundreds of engineers that think there had to be something other than the fuel from the plane. Have you seen the many vidios that show what looks like exposions. How do you explian the steel that has the same markings or cuts similar to steel that was detonated ? Are all the police and firemen wrong about what they heard. There is a line in your post that says many of the beams in a building that are set for implosion are cut through 90%. I don't believe thats true.
i speak from sheer logic...not from hatred of bush.......or anything regarding bush..or anybody.......from my latest count,there are about 382 variations on the 9/11 conspiracy theory...about 276 are bush driven.....the rest implicate the joos.....
lol...that`s right...agenda driven...shocker!!
use your head....i'm curious as to how many people you beauties believe were involved on 9/11..... after all given the wtc, crash/shooting down of united 93, the pentagon, the "stand down" of the interceptors etc... thousands would be involved.....yet no one approached to participate in the conspiracy had second thoughts before or after 9/11???......
i think the greatest line regarding the implausibility of conspiracy theories came from ben franklin:
"three people may keep a secret as long as two of them are dead.".....
one of the tragedies of our era is that this trash even has to be debunked....
i love the attitude that the bryanz` of the world have.....this is the same attitude that all these cocky liberals have...how is is possible that guys in a cave were able to perpetrate this crime in the most heavily defended airspace in the world?.... they believe they are so smart, that surely no one from another part of the world could outsmart them....
after hearing all this crap.....and hearing over 4 years of constant bush bashing(and i`m no bush lover...he`s done plenty i disagree with)...but,he`s not the spawn of the devil.....the libs have managed to portray bush as a serial killer, satan worshipping, high school drop out type who accidently got hired....
this brainwashing stuff the libs do works.....they just repeat the same crap over and over again in the media and people start believing it.....
it is the same attitude they take towards terrorism..... they think that it's not necessary to take the war to the terrorists because there's no way they'll bring the war over here....
the liberals are literally their own 'jim jones' cult.....they have taken the truth and twisted all into a lie so they can have power over people's lives.....
it is truly scary indeed...
the "9/11 truth" movement is akin to a cholera epidemic... only the weak succumb.....
btw...thanks for the info,judge....i`ve read that and it makes sense to me...the plane is nothing more than a shell loaded with jet fuel........
bryanz...."I think if you explore this ,you will find why you are such an asshole. Seriously ! You are so scared you can't post where you are from. Where you from son ?"
dewd....you`d make a great subject for some student's psychology thesis.....
lol
I am a practicing structural engineer with 28 years experience and throughout my career, I have been involved primarily in the design of high-rise buildings so as you can imagine, I was and remain extremely interested in the collapse of these buildings. As a result, I have read literally dozens of papers on this subject in engineering journals from all over the world and I have not seen a single credible source that has disputed the finding that the buildings collapsed due to the heat induced weakening and subsequent failure of the structural frame.
Your statement that ?there are hundreds of engineers? that disagree with this conclusion is blatantly false. Certainly there are those whose motive is to perpetuate the conspiracy theories that you have apparently fallen for and to them I have a simple question.
Why, or for that matter how, would anyone prepare these buildings for implosion to exactly coincide with the impact of two separate 787 airliners crashing into them and why would this even be necessary?
I can assure you that my training and professional experience qualifies me to state that the heat generated by the jet fuel in these crashes was more than enough to sufficiently weaken the steel frame to the point that the columns yielded and buckled, rendering them incapable of supporting the collateral load of the floors above. When bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength is reduced to roughly 10% of its room temperature value.
In my professional opinion, the following findings by the NIST are dead on:
(1) The impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors.
(2) The subsequent unusually large jet-fuel deposits ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
You of course, are free to believe what ever you choose.
I have often wondered this myself, is there any video of the plane crashing into the Pentagon. And is there any footage of radar or anything showing the planes approach into the Pentagon?
I just don't ever remember seeing any video or anything regarding that flight. If that is so, theoretically Russia could launch missiles at the Pentagon and they wouldn't be surveillanced while approaching target?
I just don't ever remember seeing any video or anything regarding that flight. If that is so, theoretically Russia could launch missiles at the Pentagon and they wouldn't be surveillanced while approaching target?
They are the first buildings in our worlds history to come down from airplanes or fires. Maybe those others thru history had electric engines.
Last edited:
O.K. smart man.
How many buildings in "our worlds history" that were constructed like the Twin Towers have been hit by an airplane that weighs 125 tons, carrying 11,500 gallons of jet fuel, and traveling at 400+ mph?
If so, what were the results of said event?
I will patiently await your answer Dr. Hawking.
I am a republican, I don't hate Bush. You never answer a question ? Who are the goos and where are you from ??? I think it's important. Why do you respond to , and quote me when you don't even come close to responding. For me this is not about Bush. I have never said I hated Bush. I voted for him the first time. I have never voted for a Dem for president. Have you seen the film ? why are so many police and firemen saying they heard and felt explosions ???? Why are there so many people of all walks that say the same thing ???? Not days later , but in the heat of the moment. Just because I question how those buildings fell, does't mean I have something against Bush ? My only problem with bush is the execution of this war. I have said that many times and you don't get it. I think by the looks of things in Iraq, time has proven me right and you wrong. I'm for going after the terrorist and protecting America, but I feel we should use our strengths. I have said it before, I'm not buying this theory but have a few questions. Maybe the terrorist planted the explosions ? I don't know. Someone did. Did I ever say who I thought it was ?
Last edited:
