gone
kuhlmann
Posts: 3,326 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
..
0
Comments
This is just silly beyond belief.
stevek i just said i thought you guys would think its interesting. tie in that movie farenhite 9/11 (spelling off) makes you think?
i have no opionion either way. just some stuff seems weird to me.
stuff just gets weird... i know some websites are just full of jack. but there are a lot of sites about this
<< <i>This is just silly beyond belief.
stevek i just said i thought you guys would think its interesting. tie in that movie farenhite 9/11 (spelling off) makes you think?
i have no opionion either way. just some stuff seems weird to me. >>
Kuhlmann - please forgive the "apparent" intention of my comments. The link was silly but it was interesting. Your OT posts here are often interesting!
Actually I would prefer that you do any other posts besides Cowboys posts
<< <i>barbara olson link
stuff just gets weird... i know some websites are just full of jack. but there are a lot of sites about this >>
Is this guy a reporter for the Weekly World News tabloid newspaper? - LOL
Brent
Bo Jackson Basic(#1) and Master(#1)
Bob Feller Basic(#4)
Sam McDowell Basic(#1)
2004 Cracker Jack Master
My Ebay Store
nah youd miss my cowboys rants! especially with the upcoming season.
Is this guy a reporter for the Weekly World News tabloid newspaper? - LOL yeah i think so.. but there are a lot other on google search about this.
gotta love conspiracy thoeries.. i dont believe in any of this much.. but it does make me think about it and do more research.
P.S. HOW ABOUT THEM METS 8-1
I posted this on the open forum. Here is the thread.
My Auctions
Eyebone
The towers falling so perfectly, at temperatures far below what would be needed to damage the structures, leaves many experts in the field scratching their heads. Those towers shouldn't have fallen from fuel burning, and they shouldn't have fallen as perfectly as they did. Tower 7 shouldn't have fallen so unexpectedly so much later in the day. The first tower that fell was the second hit.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Gary
<< <i>And those who want to ignore the scientific evidence regarding the irregularities of the events of 9/11 will scream out 'conspiracy theorists!' and try to impose ludicrous comparisons with Elvis and the like.
The towers falling so perfectly, at temperatures far below what would be needed to damage the structures, leaves many experts in the field scratching their heads. Those towers shouldn't have fallen from fuel burning, and they shouldn't have fallen as perfectly as they did. Tower 7 shouldn't have fallen so unexpectedly so much later in the day. The first tower that fell was the second hit. >>
I have seen documentaries in which engineers have clearly and concisely explained how the towers fell from being hit by the planes.
Axtell...you've got to stop getting your information from the Weekly World News. And considering many of your comments about sports, I have a feeling the Weekly World News may also have a sports section
<< <i>
I have seen documentaries in which engineers have clearly and concisely explained how the towers fell from being hit by the planes.
Axtell...you've got to stop getting your information from the Weekly World News. And considering many of your comments about sports, I have a feeling the Weekly World News may also have a sports section
And I have seen engineers, the ones who know the towers inside and out, say that there is no possible way that structural damage such as the plane who hit it, could have caused the towers to fall. The fuel burns at approximately 1600 degrees, the steel used in the structure was tested to 4000 degrees. There is no way those towers fell due to the fires.
Throw in the numerous reports by police and fire officials who heard explosions while on the scene, far AFTER both planes had hit, and you have the recipe of something very very wrong afoot.
At the pentagon, if a jet crashed into the pentagon, why was there no damage to the grass on entry? Why was there no significant wreckage found on site? There's no way a jet that size would have been obliterated upon hitting a building.
There is overwhelming physical evidence that shows it wasn't a plane that did the damage to the pentagon, as there is overwhelming evidence that shows it wasn't the jets slamming into the towers that brought them down.
I guess this 'attack' is this generation's JFK assasination - lots of theories, while the truth will never be truly known.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
My telescope time lapse camera caught this image last night by the Andromeda constellation
To think that Barry Bonds was the real culprit on 9/11. No doubt about it, I have read expert opinion that says so.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>
<< <i>
I have seen documentaries in which engineers have clearly and concisely explained how the towers fell from being hit by the planes.
Axtell...you've got to stop getting your information from the Weekly World News. And considering many of your comments about sports, I have a feeling the Weekly World News may also have a sports section
And I have seen engineers, the ones who know the towers inside and out, say that there is no possible way that structural damage such as the plane who hit it, could have caused the towers to fall. The fuel burns at approximately 1600 degrees, the steel used in the structure was tested to 4000 degrees. There is no way those towers fell due to the fires.
Throw in the numerous reports by police and fire officials who heard explosions while on the scene, far AFTER both planes had hit, and you have the recipe of something very very wrong afoot.
At the pentagon, if a jet crashed into the pentagon, why was there no damage to the grass on entry? Why was there no significant wreckage found on site? There's no way a jet that size would have been obliterated upon hitting a building.
There is overwhelming physical evidence that shows it wasn't a plane that did the damage to the pentagon, as there is overwhelming evidence that shows it wasn't the jets slamming into the towers that brought them down.
I guess this 'attack' is this generation's JFK assasination - lots of theories, while the truth will never be truly known. >>
I just changed my mind, Axtell...congratulations...you are the winner of the "pathetic post of the year" award.
<< <i>
I just changed my mind, Axtell...congratulations...you are the winner of the "pathetic post of the year" award. >>
On the contrary my simple minded friend. YOU are the pathetic one.
Hey slapshot, tell me how much research have you done on what happened? Or did you do as the rest of the sheep did and follow the news Bush and Co. gave you?
I am willing to bet it's the latter.
Until you investigate it on your own, keep yer yap shut.
<< <i> And I have seen engineers, the ones who know the towers inside and out, say that there is no possible way that structural damage such as the plane who hit it, could have caused the towers to fall. The fuel burns at approximately 1600 degrees, the steel used in the structure was tested to 4000 degrees. There is no way those towers fell due to the fires. >>
Most experts agree that it didn't need to melt, but those temperatures were enough for it to lose it's integrity.
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."
However, I always thought the Pentagon plane crash was shady.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>
<< <i> And I have seen engineers, the ones who know the towers inside and out, say that there is no possible way that structural damage such as the plane who hit it, could have caused the towers to fall. The fuel burns at approximately 1600 degrees, the steel used in the structure was tested to 4000 degrees. There is no way those towers fell due to the fires. >>
Most experts agree that it didn't need to melt, but those temperatures were enough for it to lose it's integrity.
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."
However, I always thought the Pentagon plane crash was shady. >>
Well...When iamthegreatcornholio speaks...I do listen - I have the utmost respect for Brian's opinion. Look, there have been conspiracies in the past and they've included US presidents. Numerous world leaders have conjured up stories as a prelude for war. If going back to the Middle Ages, wars were fought just because a King got po'd at another King for f***ing a woman he wanted to f***. But a conspiracy theory here makes no sense whatsoever. Kill three thousand Americans and do untold damage just to go after Bin Laden and then Sadaam? Bush could have done that anyway with almost any type of excuse. We could take over the Saudi Arabian oil fields right now if we wanted to...Nixon considered doing just that...but we won't do that. Nope...these events happened just like they've been reported - case closed.
Why is it so inconceivable to think that Bush would sacrifice thousands of americans to go after what he wants? You think he honestly cares one bit about the people he was 'elected' to govern?
He has shown total disregard to human lives both here and abroad. His lack of punctuality in dealing with Katrina's aftermath, flying over from several thousand feet instead of going down there in person, etc.
He has shown a propensity in making up 'facts' in order to support his agenda; the WMD trailers were made up (and he knew it) yet still went to the people with these 'facts', the weapons inspectors repeatedly told that there were no WMD facilities, he ignored it; and finally, he insisted that Saddam and Iraq were involved in 9/11 even though there was no link before or since to prove it, and he knew it.
So to me, it's not entirely unbelievable that he would sacrifice americans in the name of getting what he wants - namely a war in Iraq and getting Saddam.
Tell me then why Osama, supposedly the key figure in the attacks, still hasn't been captured? Tell me why we would go after him only to divert our attention to Iraq without finishing Afghanistan first?
There are so many holes in the 'official' story of what's going on it's unbelievable.
Gary
<< <i>
His lack of punctuality in dealing with Katrina's aftermath, flying over from several thousand feet instead of going down there in person, etc.
>>
dumbass statement..
<< <i>And I have seen engineers, the ones who know the towers inside and out, say that there is no possible way that structural damage such as the plane who hit it, could have caused the towers to fall. The fuel burns at approximately 1600 degrees, the steel used in the structure was tested to 4000 degrees. There is no way those towers fell due to the fires. >>
OK, Axtell, let's pretend that everyone here does not already know that you are 100% full of shyte. Spreading lies like this is by far the most irresponsible thing I have ever seen you do, and everyone will be aware now.
Put up or shut up - who (names and organizations, please) are the engineers that you have seen that say it is not possible that the towers fell solely from the damage done by the impact of the planes and the heat of the fires? I'll ask you this as many times as it takes until you either produce the names or admit you lied.
Given the spiraling debt and the morass in Iraq I think it's safe to say that history will not be kind to this administration. But I don't think we can pin 9/11 on them.
first off, who's alt are you? Second, this entire thread was non-sports related, so don't start the 'you're off topic!' crapola.
pandrews-
excuse me, but how prompt was Bush in responding to the aftermath of Katrina? And did he, or did he not, visit the area (a) after 48 hours and (b) while several thousand feet up in an airplane?
dallas-
Perhaps you'd care to know that no high rise has EVER collapsed from fire, no? But then surely it was the impact of the airplanes that contributed, no? The towers were designed with that exact possibility in mind.
"Leslie Robertson, who was a member of the firm (Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson) that was responsible for the structural design of the Twin Towers, said that the Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, at that time (1966) the largest airliner. See “The Fall of the World Trade Center,” BBC 2, March 7, 2002 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml). For a comparison of the 707 and the 767, see “Boeing 707-767 Comparison,” What Really Happened (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html). Also relevant is the fact that in 1945, a B-25 bomber struck the Empire State Building at the 79th floor, creating a hole 20 feet high. But there was never the slightest indication that this accident would cause the building to collapse (see Glover, 2002)."
In addition:
"Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because “the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure”
So the impact was not a contributing factor, and therefore the fire must be the sole cause for the collapse. Again, no high rise metal building has ever collapsed from a fire, before or after 9/11...EVER.
"These claims, however, are absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800° Fahrenheit. And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as kerosene---which is what jet fuel is---can at most rise to 1700°F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel. We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their steel columns melted."
"Even Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for the NIST study, said: “The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes” (Field, 2004). The NIST Report itself says (p. 179): “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes.”"
So the theory about a long, extremely hot burning fire causing the metal to lose it's structural rigidity is false.
"Some defenders of the official story have claimed that the fires were indeed very big, turning the buildings into “towering infernos.” But all the evidence counts against this claim, especially with regard to the south tower, which collapsed first. This tower was struck between floors 78 and 84, so that region is where the fire would have been the biggest. And yet Brian Clark, a survivor, said that when he got down to the 80th floor: "You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames . . . just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall." Likewise, one of the fire chiefs who had reached the 78th floor found only “two isolated pockets of fire.”
Comparing them to other fires of similar structures further proves that fire was not the cause of the collapse:
"In 1988, a fire in the First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles raged for 3.5 hours and gutted 5 of this building’s 62 floors, but there was no significant structural damage (FEMA, 1988). In 1991, a huge fire in Philadelphia’s One Meridian Plaza lasted for 18 hours and gutted 8 of the building’s 38 floors, but, said the FEMA report, although “eams and girders sagged and twisted . . . under severe fire exposures. . . , the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage” (FEMA, 1991). In Caracas in 2004, a fire in a 50-story building raged for 17 hours, completely gutting the building’s top 20 floors, and yet it did not collapse (Nieto, 2004). And yet we are supposed to believe that a 56-minute fire caused the south tower to collapse.
Unlike the fires in the towers, moreover, the fires in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Caracas were hot enough to break windows."
"Another important comparison is afforded by a series of experiments run in Great Britain in the mid-1990s to see what kind of damage could be done to steel-frame buildings by subjecting them to extremely hot, all-consuming fires that lasted for many hours. FEMA, having reviewed those experiments, said: “Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900°C (1,500-1,700°F) in three of the tests. . . , no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments” (1988, Appendix A)."
Look, I could bring you countless loads of evidence that proves fire and the planes slamming into the towers didn't cause the collapse, but you wouldn't believe me. The quotes above are a dissertation done by someone with much more time and energy to research this as I. The link to his paper is:
Link
The article is well written, with scientific evidence backing up each and everyone one of his claims. Feel free to make your own conclusions (I already know what your responses are going to be).
<< <i>"Leslie Robertson, who was a member of the firm (Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson) that was responsible for the structural design of the Twin Towers, said that the Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, at that time (1966) the largest airliner. See “The Fall of the World Trade Center,” BBC 2, March 7, 2002 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml). For a comparison of the 707 and the 767, see “Boeing 707-767 Comparison,” What Really Happened (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html). Also relevant is the fact that in 1945, a B-25 bomber struck the Empire State Building at the 79th floor, creating a hole 20 feet high. But there was never the slightest indication that this accident would cause the building to collapse (see Glover, 2002)."
In addition:
"Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because “the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure”
>>
Go here to see Professor Eagar's thoughts on the subject. The key portion of his work, as it pertains to Axtell's idiocy, is "The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse".
And try here for an accurate account of Mr. Robertson's thoughts on the subject (it's very long). Among these thoughts:
"I think the structures were stalwart but they were not that stalwart. There was no fire suppression system that could even begin to deal with that, with that event, nothing, nothing, so I, I, I didn't know whether they would fall or not fall."
So, yes, he was fairly confident that the impact alone wold not knock them down, but he was not at all sure whether the fires would. Read the whole thing if you think Axtell is anything less than 100% BS. The original designs considered the impact of a 707, but they never considered the fuel - Mr. Robertson is quoted directly on that matter.
Axtell, you're 0 for 2 and those were presumably your best shots - too bad you couldn't be bothered to read past the parts you hoped supported your warped lies. Care to add more lies on top of the ones you posted here? Or have you not made a big enough fool of yourself yet? OK, that was a silly question, you obviously believe "the bigger, the better" when making a fool of yourself, so bring it on.
as predicted, you don't want to address the validity that possible the 'official' explanation is wrong.
The MIT professor, I quoted, simply because he (along with a multitude of others) emphatically state that the impact of the planes had no bearing on the structures failing. If you'd do a little more reading, you'd see fire simply could not have either (a) caused the steel structure to fall, and (b) could not have made it fall the way it did.
I am not going to go into it, the paper I linked does so in stunning detail, but the building was brought down with explosives in a controlled demolition. There is no way a burn brought down the building in less than 10 seconds (the time it took the tower to fall), and it surely wouldn't have done so instantly. A building on fire would have met resistance on the way down from the floors that didn't burn, so it wouldn't have fallen in a precise and consistent matter.
Dallas, I am so glad you feel confident in your stance. Just like I am confident in mine. Nothing the other says or does will get us to change our minds.
Axtell -
You're playing in my professional ballfield now.
Don't have the time this morning to explain and the thread will probably be moved or deleted by this evening.
In a phrase, you are completely wrong.
If I have the time this evening I will respond.
Keith
<< <i>dallas-
as predicted, you don't want to address the validity that possible the 'official' explanation is wrong. >>
How can I address something as stupid as that, especially when you, the purveyor of all things stupid, haven't even found a shred of evidence to support your position?
You said that that you had heard engineers say that the towers could not possibly have fallen from the effects of the planes (impact and fire); you then misquoted two engineers who never said any such thing. Since those engineers must not have been the ones you heard, which ones did you hear? Or were you lying?
true or false - no high rise metal frame building has EVER collapsed from a fire?
true or false - nothing short of a miracle would have had a building collapse structurally in exactly the same as a controlled demo, but it happened twice here?
You wanted engineers, the link I provided gives dozens of examples of flaws in the 'official' theory of what happened. I suggest opening your eyes and getting your information other than solely from fox news.
<< <i>
You said that that you had heard engineers say that the towers could not possibly have fallen from the effects of the planes (impact and fire); you then misquoted two engineers who never said any such thing. Since those engineers must not have been the ones you heard, which ones did you hear? Or were you lying? >>
Must have been the voices in his head which were mistaken for real life engineers.
Anyway, this thread has closed the book on Ax. He obviously has some kind of medical condition .... mental. And it is no help that his care takers let him reead the Weekly World News every week. Sad it is.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
I hope I'm not too later here as I don't know your situation, but please don't ever reproduce.
Thank you.
<< <i>dallas-
true or false - no high rise metal frame building has EVER collapsed from a fire?
true or false - nothing short of a miracle would have had a building collapse structurally in exactly the same as a controlled demo, but it happened twice here?
You wanted engineers, the link I provided gives dozens of examples of flaws in the 'official' theory of what happened. I suggest opening your eyes and getting your information other than solely from fox news. >>
1. False - it happened twice on 9/11 that I know of, maybe it's happened before, too
2. Huh? To which controlled demo of a skyscraper collapsing from the top down are you referring?
I didn't want engineers - you said that there were engineers. Linking to a bunch of other conspiracy theorists who share your delusion is not evidence; god help us, someone somewhere may be linking to your rantings as "evidence".
Link to the engineers YOU said existed, admit you lied, or stop claiming to be an adult. There are no other choices.
<< <i>As with most conspiracy clowns, absence of proof is proof. >>
The bigger problem here is that while most of the time I am comfortable dismissing Axtell as a clown, I can't this time. "Outrageously irresponsible" is the phrase I would use to describe Axtell in this case; clowns ain't got nothing to do with it.
Whoever is responsible for the Towers' collapse is a murderer. That's true if it was the terrorists knocking it down with airplanes, or someone else knocking it down with explosives. Axtell is accusing someone of mass murder but he has offered no evidence, no motive, no means and no opportunity - he has just slung this garbage out there and pointed us to a few of his fellow psychotics to back him up.
Who is the murderer? The implication is President Bush - others have posted based on that assumption and Axtell has not corrected them - but I don't think Axtell has actually ever said. If you can interrupt your search for those links to the "engineers" for just a minute, Axtell, can you please let us know who it is exactly you are accusing of murder? Some inkling of a motive would be helpful, too. Thanks so much.
Hey dope - what high rise metal frame building ever had roughly
10,000... that's ten thousand gallons of airplane fuel explode in the building?
Here is my response based on my experience during and after Sept. 11. A little background. On Sept. 11 and until mid 2004 I worked for the American Red Cross (ARC). I led the ARC disaster response mission for a jurisdiction of 500,000 people in South Florida, a hot bed for natural disasters and where two of the Sept. 11 hijackers received pilot training. I take my work very seriously. Training and professional contacts range from all manner of natural disasters to response to terrorist incidents be they chemical, biological, nuclear or explosives. I now work for you the taxpayer as a FEMA employee. I am not a government wonk. I find ways to make the process work and do so in an efficient manner conducive to saving life and property.
The WTC tower collapses have never been simulated. The towers were not built exactly like those in the comparisons. The idea of the design being able to withstand a hit from a 707, well the wingspan is smaller and they did not account for a full fuel load and a speed of 400-500 mph. Remember these maniacs were going full throttle with these planes. Any pre Sept. 11 test was done based on an accidental strike, not an intentional one. This makes a difference. The load on the external shell of the buildings, with the height and design was not matched by any existing structure. The key was this. The trusses supporting the floors had been treated with fire resistant insulation at build out. This insulation degraded over time and basically fell off. This exposed the trusses to the intense heat, and there was intense heat. Once one went others followed and the floors pancaked.
Why did the second tower hit fall first? Again this is the building design and goes back to the trusses. The design offered much more open floor space than normal designs for the time. The external load bearing skeleton allowed for many less columns, using mainly the skeleton and the interior core of the building which housed the elevators. The second plane took out this core and speeded the collapse. This is also why this tower collapsed in what seems a straight down fashion.
The first tower hit was damaged in more of a manner offset to the center core. The building did lean before it collapsed. It was not initially damaged as seriously as the other.
Now, if you think that these towers fell straight down and you were not there, then you can believe what you like. I saw the area and believe me they did not fall straight down. Any semblance of this is a tribute to the external load bearing design.
Building 7 fell 6 hours after the tower collapse because it was damaged severely. Multiple buildings in the area were seriously damaged to the point that they have been demolished. I saw the wreckage of Building 7. It was not blown up, it collapsed.
How am I able to know all of this? Google two words together "WTC" and "Staten Island". For 24 days I worked at what had been a closed landfill on Staten Island where the debris from Ground Zero was brought to be sifted for personal effects and human remains. I got a first hand look at much of the debris. Sorry conspiracy theorists, no explosives. To bring down a building like that in a controlled demo there would be evidence of the charges on the structure in many many places. These were not buildings that could be brought down with a few carefully placed charges. Look at the first bombing in 1993. A van full of explosives blew a 60 foot deep hole in the basement and did not bring it down.
One more brutal fact that I have lived with since 2001. Before I left for NYC I served as the primary agency contact for a local man whose wife was a flight attendant on Flight 93. My work involved helping him get assistance and listening to his story. I did this for 4 weeks after and then continued when I returned home from NYC. He recounted the calls from his wife on the plane, many things that I wish I had not heard. For reasons of privacy I have been bound not to tell anyone the full story, other than a medical professional. Last week he testified in the Moussaui trial. I believe he was the last witness, they played a tape and he told of his conversation with his wife. His testimony included his wife telling him that "they have a plan to storm the ckpit." Since this part of his word is now public I can say that he told me this in Sept. 2001. So I can tell you that any conspiracy theory about Flight 93 being shot down is bunk. That plane again was going in excess of 500 mph when it struck the ground. This will disintegrate anything.
The Pentagon? This building was built as a military bunker for God's sake. It was built in the ring shape to help shield it from the exact thing that happened. Again we have a plane travelling 500+ mph that largely disintegrated. Were pieces found? Of course. Have they been made public. Heck no, for the same reason that tapes have not been released. Would we like the world to view all of the evidence so that we can allow more maniacs to figure out how to do a better job next time? The deal about the "pilot" being a bad student? That is true, they actually should have hit the building at a different angle but he screwed it up. Personally I hope he ate his own nut sack just before his brain went to mush.
I have said enough. Too many people were involved to enact the sort of widespread conspiracy that has been theorized. We were taken by a nearly perfect crime that involved the simplest of principles. Maniacs willing to take their own lives will succeed; not always but often.
To close, I am neither conservative nor liberal. In fact I am offended by the labels themselves believing that they take away from our sense of reason. If you were to ask me my opinion on many social issues my responses would go from left to right based on my own value system. I think that most Americans are willing to be more in the middle than anything. It seems that compromise is no longer a valid word.
One thing that I know. We live in the greatest country in the world and I intend to help keep it that way.
Keith
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Steve
Very interesting post Keith, and the above statement is also so true. The fact is that it is very difficult to stop someone from doing something who is intent in taking his own life doing it. The facts are that the kamikazes in WW2 were very successful...I think it was one in ten that hit their mark.
I certainly wouldn't want to diminish the valiant effort that Stauffenberg put forth to assassinate Hitler, but he could have easily shot Hitler at that meeting instead of just leaving a briefcase bomb...yes Stauffenberg would have sacrificed his life but it would have saved millions of other lives because no question that would have shortened the war. Many other German officers could have easily killed Hitler as well. This story is mentioned to show how if a person is willing to sacrifice his life, what a difference it could make, and unfortunately sometimes for evil purposes as well.
Again...whether it was kamikazes flying themselves into ships, or Islamic militants hijacking planes and flying themselves into buildings...it is difficult to stop. That is what happened...and we have to focus on trying our best to prevent any more suicide attacks rather than listening to those such as Axtell with their conspiracy theories mostly I think perpetrated because they simply don't like the curent administration headed by George Bush. If Axtell's girl Hillary Clinton would have been in charge, he'd probably never think that there was a conspiracy.
Steve
Bowman Baseball -1948-1955
Fleer Baseball-1923, 1959-2007
Al
<< <i>Keith...I tried to pm you, but did not get through. I was going to ask you if you knew a friend of mine who worked at the Red Cross ( nothing to do with this thread) >>
Funny - I received a couple of other PMs. Try it again, or e-mail me.
Warning: strong language
If you've ever listened to late night talk radio, you know that there is people who think that everything is a government conspiracy. I think that there is some truth to the fact that the government lies to us about somethings. You'd be naive to always believe them. But, some stuff is crazy.