Is this 9/11 nonsense going to ever go away? ZERO eveidence but still pushing on!

Originally posted by jfj123
See how problematic this really is?

yes. let's be like you and question nothing. word up shill.

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by ritualmurder911

"bin laden determined to attack within the united states". what don't you understand?

edit on 23-9-2010 by ritualmurder911 because: (no reason given)

Said who?

if you dont know do inform yourself. you have google dont you? thats all you need.
put "bin laden determined to attack within the united states" into the search field
and educated yourself.

reply to post by dereks


wow it is so tiring with you Dereks...but yet again i must provide you with info...here goes.

Towers' Design Parameters
Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's
Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.

Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center.

1960s-era Jetliners Compared to Boeing 767s
Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d79cc19c3e70.gif[/atsimg]

The above graphic from Chapter 1 of FEMA's Report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. 1 Flight 11 and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity.

property Boeing 707-320 Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons
max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs
empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs
wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft
wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2
length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft
cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph

Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

Statements by Engineers
Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.

John Skilling
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

source

but once again i am sure as your signature states...you wont add any decent info cause you dont like to be Debunked.

Originally posted by plube
In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.

And as history showed, those studies were wrong - I do not see what is so hard to understand about that, the towers did not withstand a airliner hitting them!

reply to post by dereks


IT is quite simple Dereks...i am a structural Engineer...It is what myself and many others like me state our reputations on all our lives....everytime we allow people to ocuppy our projects.

reply to post by plube


Now i also know that by how fast you replied you didn't bother to go to the source to read more as you would have also read this....

Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered
One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. 7 Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 8 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."

source

now it.is obvious that you will not bother to change any opinion of yours...and your signature says you wont type as you dont like to be debunked. So when i post replies to you it helps others to do some research.

Originally posted by plube
i am a structural Engineer...It is what myself and many others like me state our reputations on all our lives....everytime we allow people to ocuppy our projects.

Pity things like"
Tacoma Washington Bridge
Hyatt Regency Hotel Walkway Collapse
St. Francis Dam Flooding
September 11, 1916. Quebec Bridge (Canada)
December 15, 1967. Silver Bridge (USA)
June 28, 1983. Mianus River Bridge (Connecticut, USA)
October 21, 1994. Seongsu Bridge (Seoul, South Korea)
Denver Airport Baggage System Denver
Baldwin Hills Reservoir Failure Los Angeles, CA
Apollo 13

etc etc etc. The world is full of things that engineers built that failed or did not work as expected!

and your signature says you wont type as you dont like to be debunked.

Try actually reading my signature, you have a severe problem with reading comprehension!

reply to post by dereks


yet again....you show your complete and utter lack of understanding...bridge construction is a completely different type of engineering....because of the span....their loads are acting in a completely different manner...but that is ok Dereks you keep on putting your foot into your mouth...cause when building a bridge all forces acting upon that struture need to add upto....get this....it is an amazing number....0

where as in a sky scaper the loads all bear down upon the foundation...and like i have also stated...in one building on that day...possibly two....but three.....did you even look at the odds on that...1 in 1.8 trillion.

but nope you bring up completely different structures that work in a completely different fashion.

anyways...keep up the good work...as you make it clearer and clearer that things did not work in the fashion you are trying hard to prove.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Well we know that buildings can be imploded using explosives and the way buildings are imploded is to cause a global structural failure. We've all seen this happen on youtube I'm sure. So in other words, something acts on a building which causes global structural failure. So why can't other types of damage cause the same/similar global structural failure that explosives can cause?

>> Because those "other things" are not normally found in buildings and there is NO RECORD of anything close to what happened at the WTC to draw from.

There were other buildings that got far more damage than WTC 7 -- and they had to be demolished later -- but NONE collapsed.

You missed my point entirely. Please re-read the post and feel free to
ask any questions you might have.
Thanks.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
Wow -- something we can finally agree on; Let's put the Bush administration and some CIA spooks and certain people in Florida on trial.

OK sounds good to me !
And hey you never know what one of them is willing to say to save their own butts. Maybe they were involved in 9/11 ???? In any case, this would be the truthers best bet to pry info from the bush administration.

The STANDARD seems to be; "Let the Rich and Powerful and GUILTY investigate themselves and then the bloggers on the Internet need to PROVE us guilty before the Media will cover it." The same media that gets ads from the same companies that benefit from the wars I might add.

I don't disagree with this either.

Seems like it's all gravy except for the Working Class Americans, and the poor shmucks who get conned into war.

Again, don't necessarily disagree.
Maybe we're making progress !

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
I offer as evidence of MOTIVE the following excerpts:

"At current levels of defense spending, the only option is to try ineffectually to manage increasingly large risks...This leaves the next president of the United States with an enormous challenge: he must increase military spending...to maintain American military preeminence... to fight and win, as rapidly and decisively as possible, multiple, nearly simultaneous major theater wars... like Iran, Iraq and North Korea... the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

-PNAC signed by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove and many other Neo-Conservatives, Sept 2000

written by whom?
When was it written?
What document is it from?
What is the context?

Originally posted by wcitizen[/i
You take your facile assumption as fact and then use it to pour scorn on dozens of experts in whose opinion the buildings are collapsing at what is termed 'free-fall' speed.

The arrogance of people who rubbish expert opinion based on an ill informed personal assumption is beyond belief.

It's not an assumption at all but a factual observation.
The nice thing is that you don't need to believe anyone to know that this is fact but simply watch videos to know that the buildings did not fall at free fall speed.