U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-25-2009, 09:01 AM
 
Location: Charleston, SC
5,615 posts, read 14,238,197 times
Reputation: 2555

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by OC Investor2 View Post
Thank you for your intellegent, factual post that adds to everyone's understanding of the events that awful morning.

Unfortunately I think it will be totally wasted on many here.
Exactly. This is the place for repeating stuff you hear from the hobo that yells at cars coming down the highway offramp, not for science, facts and intelligence!

Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-27-2009, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Rhode Island (Splash!)
1,150 posts, read 2,588,460 times
Reputation: 444
Okay, first off, we are here to discuss 9/11, not the War of 1812 or Hannibal crossing the Alps so please start your own thread for such matters.

The idea that prior to 9/11 the U.S. had no effective system for quickly intercepting errant aircraft is patently incorrect. I can't believe two posters tried that lame excuse. I'm not gonna waste more time on that one.

I enjoyed the WTC floorplans/schematics posted.

I did find a YouTube clip discussing the WTC design and interviews with the original designers:

YouTube - World Trade Center Tower Structural Design Explained.

Notably, the designers claim the WTC was built to easily withstand the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707 (the largest commercial airliner at the time) crashing into one of the towers.

Posters here have basically claimed that the WTC collapsed due to a faulty design. Well that's just not true, in fact the WTC was a significant advancement in steel high-rise design and safety.

Why and how did the floors "pancake" down at freefall speed (less than 10 seconds)? If steel horizontal supports had to buckle and collapse and give way as each floor dropped down, that process would take more than just a fraction of a second.

Here are two good links to a radio show hosted by British parliament member George Galloway and discussing the WTC collapse on 9/11:

http://www.wearechange.org.uk/galloway17april.mp3

http://www.wearechange.org.uk/galloway18april.mp3
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2009, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
22,012 posts, read 22,124,452 times
Reputation: 13486
Quote:
Originally Posted by POhdNcrzy View Post
SchwagEater said,
How cute.

I respect that you're not frothing at the mouth like most of the 9/11 truthers, but that doesn't give your theory any more credibility.

Sorry, but you're just loony. You even chose a username with "crzy" in it - how serious are we really supposed to take you?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2009, 11:58 PM
 
Location: Rhode Island (Splash!)
1,150 posts, read 2,588,460 times
Reputation: 444
This thread: 798 views, 52 replies


"Better not participate or post on this one...might end up in a FEMA camp getting waterboarded....."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2010, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Rhode Island (Splash!)
1,150 posts, read 2,588,460 times
Reputation: 444
Has anyone seen the new 9-11 photos? Some are saying they are further proof that the buildings were brought down with explosives.

The photos indeed show how the Twin Towers literally exploded from the inside into fine white powder, all in about 10 seconds. Hmmmmmmmmmm?

Have these photos changed anyone's opinions about 9/11?

Any brainwashed eggheads out there want to venture more foolish pet theories about acetylene torches, arc welding, and other junk that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the science of what happened to those buildings on 9/11? I could use a good laugh today, so please have at it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2010, 06:29 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,084 posts, read 11,652,927 times
Reputation: 4125
Hummm, random pieces of stray fireworks versus a 200,000 pound aircraft slamming into the side at 400 mph full of jet fuel.

You think these would not be as comparable events unless some one has no education about physics or chemistry.

Other parts are included in a detailed refuting in this article:
Was 9/11 an Inside Job? | Cracked.com

Which brings up the fact of those taking away burnt airplane bits away from the wreckage.

Bribing the 100,000 people who work in the WTC, that are so evil and maniacal to never break a trust and take the money to keep quiet for the rest of their lives. Plus the demolition crew, and every visitor to the buildings for the estimated year of prep work on both buildings, and every fire/police department officer, and every person who helped in the clean up. plus not one person said no or broke any silence. Even those who watched as coworkers and friends were pulled from the wreckage or the person who's kid was on flight 77, that crashed into the building his father worked in.

The estimations of a year of prep work and ten thousand estimated charges, tearing the buildings out from the inside to do so. The bomb sniffing dogs that were brought into the buildings for searches never found one single charge either.


Or, that a bunch of religous wackjobs took planes and flew them into the buildings. While the conspiracy nuts think that everybody but them are corrupt and evil demons, and they can feel special that they have found something that makes them some how smarter and more moral then everyone else.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2010, 07:00 PM
 
69,366 posts, read 61,817,930 times
Reputation: 9382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
True.

WTC design used a different design. I believe the outer skin was part of what held it up.
Correct.. Most office buildings are designed to be supported from the inside, primarily structural support comes near the elevator shafts.. The WTC was unique in that its support was on the outside of the building, which is what made leasing the building so difficult because the support beams tookup up the view.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2010, 07:05 PM
 
69,366 posts, read 61,817,930 times
Reputation: 9382
Quote:
Originally Posted by POhdNcrzy View Post
Notably, the designers claim the WTC was built to easily withstand the impact of a fully loaded Boeing 707 (the largest commercial airliner at the time) crashing into one of the towers.
Um.. the planes that flew into the WTC were 767's, so lets analize your posting..

Boeing 707, maximum weight 257,000 lbs..
Boeing 767, maximum weight 465,000 lbs..

So by your own admission, the WTC was only built to withstand an impact of a 707, but needed to support a 767 which weighted 1,000 tons more than the building was built to support.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2010, 08:36 PM
 
1 posts, read 999 times
Reputation: 10
Default wait a minute

ok so a 767 weighs 200,000 lbs more then a 707 so why didn't the build fall over at the point of weakness instead of straight down. try this go chop down a tree with an axe does the tree tip over the point of cutting or does the tree fall straight down into the ground.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2010, 10:39 AM
 
1 posts, read 966 times
Reputation: 11
POhdNcrzy states:

''My understanding is jet fuel burns at a low temperature and can not melt or pulverize steel.

Also, the Mandarin Oriental Hotel was burned much, much (MUCH) more severely and completely than the WTC towers and it did not collapse in the least bit. Not even a single floor collapsed! As stated earlier, neither did the Mandarin Hotel pulverize itself into crumbly white powder and collapse perfectly into its own footprint in less than 10 seconds.

Okay, I am now waiting for the next Great Brain of CD-F to step up to the plate.... (hah hah)''



Well Im Irish but I accept your challenge! Lets take this point for point:

''My understanding is jet fuel burns at a low temperature and can not melt or pulverize steel.'

Well thats good because nobody has ever contended that burning jet fuel melted or pulverised steel. Also, your contention that jet fuel burns at a low temperature is wrong. It burns at over 700c and that is more than enough to severly weaken structural steel. Also, material made from plastic (ie:computers ect...), carpet ect... can easily burn at around 700c if not even higher. This kind of heat... allthough not enough to melt the steel, can reduce its original strength to between 10 - 15%.


''Also, the Mandarin Oriental Hotel was burned much, much (MUCH) more severely and completely than the WTC towers and it did not collapse in the least bit. Not even a single floor collapsed! As stated earlier, neither did the Mandarin Hotel pulverize itself into crumbly white powder and collapse perfectly into its own footprint in less than 10 seconds.''

The Manderin Hotel was constructed post 9/11. Do you seriously think any Sky Scraper constructed post 9/11, did not have serious new design considerations to help prevent the type of catastrophic collapse witnessed on 9/11?

Also, the Mandarin was still under construction, so material such as plastic computers would have been at a minimum... so although thouroughly burned... that doesn't mean that temperatures were reached which had the potential to significantly weaken the steel in order for it to become structurally compromised.

Also, a plane; a few hundered tonnes in weight and full of highly explosive jet fuel did not slam into the Manderin at hundreds of miles per hour. How can you even attempt to compare these two completely different incidents? Fire works and High speed impact bombs are not comparible in any sense.

And who ever said the twin towers collapsed ''perfectly'' into their own foot print? That is a complete myth extolled by the truther movement. 100's if not 1000's of tonnes of concrete and steel fell far outside the perimeter of the buildings severly damaging other structures. ie:WTC 7 which collapsed later due to this initial structual damage and fires that were left to burn uncontrolled.

And as for your reference to ''crumbly white powder''. Do you know how much of the Towers floors consisted of plasterboard wall partitions? ALOT!!!! Also, when you are talking about buildings with the type of weight of the Twin Towers, the Concrete on the lower floors would easily be pulverised into small pieces and dust as the weight came crashing down on it!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:04 AM.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top