New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So what you're saying is that steel is stronger than solid concrete reinforced with steel? So why don't they build EVERYTHING out of steel then if that's true?

Um yeah, we're saying that Steel is stronger that solid concrete reinforced with steel. As to why don't we build everything out of solid steel, well I honestly don't think your thinking that through.

If we played rock paper scissors, and instead we used steel, aluminum, and concrete and you showed concrete and I showed steel, I just honestly think I should win that round, don't you? (Of course if we showed super aluminum, well that beats steel and concrete.)
If you need evidence of that, take a sledge hammer, most of which have a steel head, and smash it into a concrete block of whatever size and mass you desire as hard as you can, and see what your results are. Is the steel in the sledge hammer head still intact? Now repeat the experiment, this time using steel reinforced concrete and bash in say your steel (rebar) reinforced concrete basement wall with the steel sledge hammer, feel free to share your results with the group.

YOU ARE A COMPLETELY DEFICIENT PERSON.

One Boeing can't rase to the ground even my 5 floor tall building.



[edit on 16-6-2007 by bigbrain]

Announcement: Civility & Decorum are Expected



[edit on 17-6-2007 by UM_Gazz]

Bigbrain, I suggest you take the time to read the Terms and Conditions of ATS, as your posts are bordering on trolling of the finest nature. The mods are closely watching this thread, and others in the 9/11 conspiracy forum, so tread lightly my friend.

Now, back on topic, what are you getting at with that last post of yours? The image of the article. Do you have a point?

In my language "deficient" is not offensive. It means defective in knowledge.

That article says that Twin Towers had the central core made by reinforced concrete, an interior tower that acted like a powerful tube along all the eight of those very powerful skyscrapers.

Bombs have pulverized that tube made by reinforced concrete.

Why have Bush ordered to simulate an attack against Twin Towers?

To have the pretext to make war in Iraq to seize its oil.

But oil will finish in a short time. That is not the right way to solve the energy problem.

What a pity you have a deficient president.

Originally posted by twitchy

Um yeah, we're saying that Steel is stronger that solid concrete reinforced with steel. As to why don't we build everything out of solid steel, well I honestly don't think your thinking that through.

If we played rock paper scissors, and instead we used steel, aluminum, and concrete and you showed concrete and I showed steel, I just honestly think I should win that round, don't you? (Of course if we showed super aluminum, well that beats steel and concrete.)
If you need evidence of that, take a sledge hammer, most of which have a steel head, and smash it into a concrete block of whatever size and mass you desire as hard as you can, and see what your results are. Is the steel in the sledge hammer head still intact? Now repeat the experiment, this time using steel reinforced concrete and bash in say your steel (rebar) reinforced concrete basement wall with the steel sledge hammer, feel free to share your results with the group.

Have you tried to read bigbrain's posts? According to him somehow a B-25, 1/3rd the size of a 767, and less than HALF the weight, flying at 200mph, was able to go completely through the Empire State Building, but according to him, there's no WAY that a 767, weighing over 100,000lbs at 500mph can POSSIBLY penetrate a steel building. So please, explain to me how steel is so amazingly strong that there's no way that something with that much mass, moving at that speed could POSSIBLY penetrate steel, but could go completely through concrete.

Hey, go to:

www.tms.org...

and read carefully:

"At 9:40 a.m., as workers went about their business in the Catholic War Relief Office on the 79th floor, the B-25 crashed into that office at 322 kilometers per hour. The impact reportedly tore off the bomber’s wings, leaving a five meter by six meter hole in the building. One engine was catapulted through the Empire State Building, emerging on the opposite side and crashing through the roof of a neighboring building. The second engine and part of the bomber’s landing gear fell through an elevator shaft. When the plane hit, its fuel tanks were reported to have exploded, engulfing the 79th floor in flames".

Then that plane "was NOT able to go completely through the Empire State Building".

Only one engine did not tear against beams and could go out on the opposite side.

Don't say wrong things to be right like a child that wants to win at any cost.

Whether it was one engine, one engine and the landing gear (which it was), or the entire plane, the fact remains that it went COMPLETELY THROUGH the Empire State Building, which was a concrete and steel structure. According to your logic it shouldn't even have gone through the building AT ALL, and should have crumpled up and fallen to the street below.

[edit on 6/18/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Whether it was one engine, one engine and the landing gear (which it was), or the entire plane, the fact remains that it went COMPLETELY THROUGH the Empire State Building, which was a concrete and steel structure.

According to your logic it shouldn't even have gone through the building AT ALL, and should have crumpled up and fallen to the street below.

Dear fellow,

this is the plane we are talking about:





As wingspan is 20.50 meters, the engine is about 1.5 meters (59 inches).

That little engine had the good luck not to crash against any column.

It came in through a window and went out through another window.

As wingspan is 20.50 meters and the hole in the Emp. St. Building was 5/6 meters, wings "should have crumpled up and fallen to the street below".

Don't you think, dear fellow?

There is no argument. A b-25 went through the Empire State Building, an incredibly strong building. Remember the plane was going at a much LOWER SPEED THEN THE PLANES ON 9/11.

The speed is the deciding factor.

Just like WATER that can cut through steel in specially made machines. The Water has to travel between 900mph to mach-2.

If Water can cut through steel, and a Plane create a Hole in the Empire State Building. Then I have no problem believing that a 767 went right through STEEL on 9/11.

If Water can do it at the right speed, then a 767 can if traveling at the right speed!

BTW----The PLANE EXPLODED WITHIN THE BUILDING!

There was no explosion on entry, but within the building much like on 9/11.

history1900s.about.com...

The plane exploded within the building. There were five or six seconds - I was tottering on my feet trying to keep my balance - and three-quarters of the office was instantaneously consumed in this sheet of flame. One man was standing inside the flame. I could see him. It was a co-worker, Joe Fountain. His whole body was on fire. I kept calling to him, "Come on, Joe; come on, Joe." He walked out of it.

Another thing to remember when comparing the two, the Empire State Building had this damage done when a plane was lost in the fog and tried to avoid it at the last few seconds.

ON 9/11 the PLANE AIMED straight for the Tower, There was no hesitation and the speed was much, much greater as well as the size and load of the plane.






[edit on 18-6-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman
...

If Water can cut through steel, and a Plane create a Hole in the Empire State Building. Then I have no problem believing that a 767 went right through STEEL on 9/11.

...

Where have you studied physics? Among the Zulu?

Originally posted by bigbrain

Where have you studied physics? Among the Zulu?

What? You never seen water cutting through steel before?

Originally posted by bigbrain
Where have you studied physics? Among the Zulu?

Let me guess, this is fake too right?

www.waterjets.org...

All cut with an abrasive waterjet.

More....

In 1980, abrasive-waterjets were used for the first time to cut steel, glass, and concrete. In 1983, the world's first commercial abrasive waterjet cutting system was sold for cutting automotive glass. The first adopters of the technology were primarily in the aviation and space industries which found the waterjet a perfect tool for cutting high strength materials such as Inconel, stainless steel, and titanium as well as high strength light-weight composites such as carbon fiber composites used on military aircraft and now used on commercial airplanes. Since then, abrasive waterjets have been introduced into many other industries such as job-shop, stone, tile, glass, jet engine, construction, nuclear, and shipyard, to name a few.

www.flowcorp.com...

Dear fellows,

you do not understand even my irony.

I know water can cut steel but inquire about its velocity and its pressure.

Originally posted by twitchy
Well gee, I wonder what load bearing means? I guess the building above the two points of impact were by your logic weightless, or perhaps unsupported? Talk about 'deceptive'.

"Load bearing" defines an object or structural member that is under stress...
en.wikipedia.org...
Steel members under stress from load do not also have increased mass... in fact, the amount of stress on load bearing members may contribute their their ability to bend and/or break from sudden kinetic energy.

An accurate consideration of the ability of one object to penetrate another, is in the local mass and structural integrity of the impact zone, not the entire object.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Steel members under stress from load do not also have increased mass... in fact, the amount of stress on load bearing members may contribute their their ability to bend and/or break from sudden kinetic energy.

Yes yes... Mass, Stress, Loads... Semantics.
So if I stand a steel beam up by itself, and knock it down with a sledge hammer made of say this super aluminum even, then I take the same steel beam and put a couple thousand tons of weight pressing down on it, are you honestly going to try to tell me that the steel beam is going to come flying out of that just as easily as the freestanding one did? Even according to you it will make it easier to knock out? Come on now, I watched Mr. Wizard when I was a kid.

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Steel members under stress from load do not also have increased mass... in fact, the amount of stress on load bearing members may contribute their their ability to bend and/or break from sudden kinetic energy.

Yes yes... Mass, Stress, Loads... Semantics.
So if I stand a steel beam up by itself, and knock it down with a sledge hammer made of say this super aluminum even, then I take the same steel beam and put a couple thousand tons of weight pressing down on it, are you honestly going to try to tell me that the steel beam is going to come flying out of that just as easily as the freestanding one did? Even according to you it will make it easier to knock out? Come on now, I watched Mr. Wizard when I was a kid.

if i could add....

it WILL be easy to knock out if the weight bearing down on it brings it close to the moment(ie. the force) required to buckle it. however, if the upright steel beam is supporting the weight 'comfortably', then it will be much harder to knock it over when it is supporting a load.

that's probably why NIST assigned such a ridiculously low safety factor to the core and perimeter. they said 1.6, or 1.7 or something, when in fact, the "engineering record" published a figure of 20 !!!! for the perimeter.

that is, the perimeter could hold 2000% of it's expected load. the NIST gives it less than 200%, or a safety factor of 2.

perhaps griff could tell us typical safety factors for skyscaper design? i've heard they try and get to around 4 or 5.

i mean, WOULDN'T YOU!? if you were building some behemoth that held more people than a small city, wouldn't you want a really large guarantee that the building wouldn't fail? and, if you're a financier, money mogul type who cares nothing for human life, wouldn't you want to protect your investment?

Originally posted by billybob
that's probably why NIST assigned such a ridiculously low safety factor to the core and perimeter. they said 1.6, or 1.7 or something, when in fact, the "engineering record" published a figure of 20 !!!! for the perimeter.

I know NIST has been ambiguous with safety factors and that several different figures have been floating around attributed to various NIST papers, but a FoS rating of ~1.6 would contradict their statements that the WTC Towers were built up to all buildings codes that would have applied in NYC, despite the property itself being neither in NY or NJ but belonging to the Port Authority.

WCIP posted sections of NYC building code a while back and I'm pretty sure such a low safety rating would have been against code. High-rises were required to be able to support 2 or 2.5 times at least their intended live loads for a period of a week or so if my memory serves me. It's around here somewhere, and in the NIST report apparently.

A comment of yours (bsregistration) brought to mind a CIA bit contained in the recent S.M. Hersh article in The New York Times ( here's a link to the story: www.truthout.org... ), as you read the article, toward the last page (bottom via truthout.org) you'll find information concerning the C.I.A. and their reluctance to do things without concise directives (i.e. "A recently retired high-level C.I.A. official, who served during this period and was involved in the drafting of findings, described to me the bitter disagreements between the White House and the agency over the issue. "The problem is what constituted approval," the retired C.I.A. official said. "My people fought about this all the time. Why should we put our people on the firing line somewhere down the road? If you want me to kill Joe Smith, just tell me to kill Joe Smith. If I was the Vice-President or the President, I'd say, 'This guy Smith is a bad guy and it's in the interest of the United States for this guy to be killed.' They don't say that. Instead, George" - George Tenet, the director of the C.I.A. until mid-2004 - "goes to the White House and is told, 'You guys are professionals. You know how important it is. We know you'll get the intelligence.' George would come back and say to us, 'Do what you gotta do."

I'm bigbrain

[Mod Edit: Please respond to your U2Us. The ones for bigbrain, mind you.]

[edit on 19-6-2007 by truthlover]

[edit on 19-6-2007 by 12m8keall2c]