If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.
Hmmm....I sure do miss the Empire State Building...
Wait, you mean it got hit by a bomber causing extensive damage and a massive fireball and still stands....
I built a fire in my Barbeque Grill and it collapsed from the heat straight onto my foot. I then attempted to drive my car to the Doctor but the Gasoline burned a hole right through the Engine cylinders and my pistons fell out.
I was so stressed I went in to Boil some water for tea and the freakin stove imploded from the heat.
Posts: 8,070
Casino Cash: $450
Sportbike: too many to list
Quote:
Originally Posted by kazlab67
I built a fire in my Barbeque Grill and it collapsed from the heat straight onto my foot. I then attempted to drive my car to the Doctor but the Gasoline burned a hole right through the Engine cylinders and my pistons fell out.
I was so stressed I went in to Boil some water for tea and the freakin stove imploded from the heat.
bwahahahahhaahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
cause rascus said I had to.........
HELP ME FIX IT MOD.........PM me with any questions you have...actually PM RASCUS hahhaha
The friction which results from ignorance can be reduced only by the spread of knowledge- NIKOLA TESLA Want to learn how to work on your bike? Check the "HOW TO" subsection of HELP ME FIX IT.
Oh did I? Still going to try and tell me that aviation fuel burns in ponds? That fire really brought those buildings down? I find it comical that the same people who want to tell me that fire burning in fuel ponds (haha) was only hot enought to weaken steel, not melt it, then they turn around and try to argue with their stupid pancake theory. The WTC towers (including WTC 7 which wasn't hit by anything at all) fell at a free fall rate with absolutely no resistance. What happened to the weakened steel argument, don't you think this steel which was claimed to be strong enough to resist this so-called inferno would also be strong enough to have resisted the collapse? Of course it would. But we can't expect you, or your friend the "engineer" to make any sense of that, it conflicts your own arguments. As I recall, your "engineer" friend went ballistic when I posted data from Chevron exposing his stupidity but even that was lost on you. There's plenty of data out there for people to find out the facts on their own I hardly have to say anything.
Close your mouth and open your eyes. Go pound sand. You're wrong and all the other tin-foil-hat-wearing-sun-fearing-heliophobes need to put this to bed. You're wrong, that's it. Stop reading that mindless crap that you incessantly try to sell on this forum.
You're not an engineer. Don't pretend to know it all because you simply don't.
Close your mouth and open your eyes. Go pound sand. You're wrong and all the other tin-foil-hat-wearing-sun-fearing-heliophobes need to put this to bed. You're wrong, that's it. Stop reading that mindless crap that you incessantly try to sell on this forum..
Dude, when are you going to contribute something of substance instead of throwing dirt? If you disagree with what I say, fine, but present your own arguments, with facts if you are willing to do the research. Explain why you disagree with me with a sound argument. I'll be frank with you. I think you are emotionally weak. You don't want to learn anything about 9/11. I could post actual firefighter and eyewitness testimony, on camera and at the scene, and you would still shut your eyes and close your eyes. You are scared.
__________________
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
-Noam Chomsky
Dude, when are you going to contribute something of substance instead of throwing dirt? If you disagree with what I say, fine, but present your own arguments, with facts if you are willing to do the research. Explain why you disagree with me with a sound argument. I'll be frank with you. I think you are emotionally weak. You don't want to learn anything about 9/11. I could post actual firefighter and eyewitness testimony, on camera and at the scene, and you would still shut your eyes and close your eyes. You are scared.
I'm throwing dirt? You're the one spewing garbage on SBN. It's just this constant mud-slinging that dirties this forum. At least it's contained here and not on the other subforums. So I guess the shit that spews from your keyboard is quarantined.
I'm not going to repost anything that hasn't been said. You're argument is weak, it's filled with petty, unsubstantiated lies. All of your posts are about people losing rights, getting beat, getting raped by Bush or getting tea-bagged by corporate America. It's so fucking old. So shut the fuck up. Even your left-minded SBN pals are calling you out on this and your rampant conspiracy-ladden posts. The shit you spew is actually costing Fred precious space on the server disks and tape back-ups.
I've met two people that survived that fucking attack. They're the ones that can't sleep at night. They're the ones who had their ears litterally bleed from the sound of elevators smashing into the lobby floors. I've seen the look in their eyes, you haven't. You just read about it on some "neo-coms" blog. You think you know everything and you don't.
I don't have to know you, you advertise your fear with your posts. It's nothing personal and I am not trying jump on you about it or anything, but so far you haven't provided any arguments, just vitriol and ad hominem. It's very clear you don't want me to discuss this topic at all, only you know the reasons. I am just speculating that you are scared about this topic. Anyway I am done with you. When you are ready to present arguments, with facts that you've researched, then we can move forward on this.
__________________
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
-Noam Chomsky
I don't have to know you, you advertise your fear with your posts. It's nothing personal and I am not trying jump on you about it or anything, but so far you haven't provided any arguments, just vitriol and ad hominem. It's very clear you don't want me to discuss this topic at all, only you know the reasons. Anyway I am done with you. When you are ready to present arguments, with facts that you've researched, then we can move forward on this.
This forum has a search function, I'm sure you can find my position on this issue. It's detailed in another thread with similar content.
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.
Widespread Damage
CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."
FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.
The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."
Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.
"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."
FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."
Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."
Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
Big Plane, Small Holes
CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."
The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."
