911 and the Demo Truth
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Intermediate Accounting 12th and 13th edition Kieso Weygandt
Next: JSH: Back to conic section parameterization result
From: AllYou! on 22 Sep 2009 09:04 In news:fa4338e3-dd74-4f79-9272-2a703d1c63e7(a)e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> mused: > On Sep 21, 2:55 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> Yes, it did not look for evidence of aliens from space, and so >> it was ignored. I'll grant you that one. But, unlike you, it >> didn't ignore why structural steel buildings need fireproofing. >> Why do you keep avoiding answering that question? > > http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm > www.ae911truth.org Giving the impression that your links answer a question when they most definitely do not is the same as lying. The question before you is a general one. It's consistently been your position that office fires can't cause the collapse of structural steel buildings. If that were true, then what is the point of building code provisions which require fireproofing around all structural steel members in office buildings?
From: AllYou! on 22 Sep 2009 09:11 In news:10443fff-08dd-47ea-9c76-a31046895d1d(a)e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, Daniel <sabot120mm(a)hotmail.com> mused: > On Sep 21, 5:53 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> Innews:67e45db0-9aa7-4809-acc6-cd905ceec9f3(a)d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, >> Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> mused: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Sep 21, 11:34 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >>>> Innews:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, >>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: >> >>>>>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern >>>>>> 757 and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel >>>>>> instrument approach to LGA going off course at low approach >>>>>> speed hitting the building, not fully-laden and fueled >>>>>> heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference. >> >>>>> Doesn't matter. >>>>> "Multiple jet hits." >> >>>> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. They >>>> fell due to the fires from which structural steel is supposed >>>> to be insulated. >> >>> REALLY? So you want to stand on your claim that the planes >>> crashing into the towers had NOTHING to do with their collapse? >> >> Where did I ever claim such a ridiculous thing? > > In your previous post. As the words I used in my prvious post prove, I never said any such rediculous thing. So either you're too stupid to understand plain English, or you're a liar. Your choice. >> It's no wonder >> you're so confused. You obviously can't understand simple >> English! The designer was talking about how the towers were >> designed to withstand the force of the hit, and not to whatever >> else might result from a plane crash. > > > How could the designer design the building to withstand impacts > from planes that hadn't even been designed? Designers design buildings to withstand the force of impact from planes, and this one did that, and did it well because the towers didn't collapse due to the force of the impact of the planes. They collapsed from being weakened due to the fires which resulted from the plane crashes. All these designers ever said is that the buildings were designed to withstand the force due to the impact of planes. Now, either you're more interested in playing word games than in an honest debate, or you're pretty stuuuupid. What will it be?
From: AZ Nomad on 22 Sep 2009 12:14 On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:11:39 -0400, AllYou! <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote: >In >news:10443fff-08dd-47ea-9c76-a31046895d1d(a)e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, >Daniel <sabot120mm(a)hotmail.com> mused: >> On Sep 21, 5:53 pm, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >>> Innews:67e45db0-9aa7-4809-acc6-cd905ceec9f3(a)d21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, >>> Daniel <sabot12...(a)hotmail.com> mused: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Sep 21, 11:34 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >>>>> Innews:c913816d-d4a2-4917-aeb2-2db21dca9e15(a)z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com, >>>>> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: >>> >>>>>>> By the way, the 707 was a lighter airplane than the modern >>>>>>> 757 and 767, and the design took into account a low-fuel >>>>>>> instrument approach to LGA going off course at low approach >>>>>>> speed hitting the building, not fully-laden and fueled >>>>>>> heavier jetliners slamming in at 500+ mph. BIG difference. >>> >>>>>> Doesn't matter. >>>>>> "Multiple jet hits." >>> >>>>> Right. "HITS" The WTC towers didn't fall due to the HITS. They >>>>> fell due to the fires from which structural steel is supposed >>>>> to be insulated. >>> >>>> REALLY? So you want to stand on your claim that the planes >>>> crashing into the towers had NOTHING to do with their collapse? >>> >>> Where did I ever claim such a ridiculous thing? >> >> In your previous post. >As the words I used in my prvious post prove, I never said any such >rediculous thing. So either you're too stupid to understand plain >English, or you're a liar. Your choice. >>> It's no wonder >>> you're so confused. You obviously can't understand simple >>> English! The designer was talking about how the towers were >>> designed to withstand the force of the hit, and not to whatever >>> else might result from a plane crash. >> >> >> How could the designer design the building to withstand impacts >> from planes that hadn't even been designed? >Designers design buildings to withstand the force of impact from >planes, and this one did that, and did it well because the towers >didn't collapse due to the force of the impact of the planes. They >collapsed from being weakened due to the fires which resulted from >the plane crashes. All these designers ever said is that the >buildings were designed to withstand the force due to the impact of >planes. >Now, either you're more interested in playing word games than in an >honest debate, or you're pretty stuuuupid. What will it be? They were designed to survive impact of most planes of the time but not jumbo jets.
From: Henry on 22 Sep 2009 13:40 paulthomascpa wrote: > <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote >> Why don't you read the article > I don't read comic books. FEMA is a comic book? Your magic fire/cave man cartoon conspiracy is certainly comical. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Henry on 22 Sep 2009 13:43
Daniel wrote: > There is not ONE BIT of evidence of explosives being used http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html Quotes from witnesses to the demolition: It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that. When I heard that frigging noise, that's when I saw the building coming down. Oh, when we came out of the building and we were walking across West Street when we first got out of the building, we're walking across the street and all you heard was like bombs going off above your head. You couldn't see it. It was just cloudy. And we found out later it was the military jets. That was an eerie sound. You couldn't see it and all you heard was like a "boom" and it just kept going. We couldn't see 50 feet above our head because of the dust. So we didn't know if it was bombs going off or whatever, but we didn't want to stay there. We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down. And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse. Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building. I was watching the fire, watching the people jump and hearing a noise and looking up and seeing -- it actually looked -- the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the building. The sight of the jumpers was horrible and the turning around and seeing that first tower come down was unbelieveable. The sound it made. As I said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the building. That's how loud it was, crackling explosive, a wall. That's about it. Any questions? Interview, 10/16/01, New York Times My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV. Then we heard a rumble, some twisting metal, we looked up in the air, and to be totally honest, at first, I don't know exactly -- but it looked to me just like an explosion. It didn't look like the building was coming down, it looked like just one floor had blown completely outside of it. -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.911truth.org http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html |