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 04-14-2010, 11:28 AM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,796 posts, read 7,000,836 times
Reputation: 5189

Advertisements

Interesting facts:

No Skyscrapers before or after 9/11 have ever collapsed due to fire.

The Towers fell at free fall speed; despite the fact that the fire was only on the upper floors and that the towers had massive steel frames.

The molten steel continued to burn for weeks after the implosion, Thermite was found in the remains.

WTC7 imploded and collapsed at freefall speed even though it was not impacted by any plane. The 9/11 commission could give no reason for the collapse.

Several witnesses including emergency response personnel heard series of explosions prior to collapses.

Some of the alleged skyjackers are still alive.

The 9/11 commission deemed the financing of the hijackers was of no importance to the investigation.

All of the suspected terrorists arrested in the weeks after 9/11 were released without charges.

9/11 was followed by the passage of the Homeland Security Act which suspends much of the Bill of Rights at the government’s discretion.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-14-2010, 01:21 PM
 
1,842 posts, read 1,652,354 times
Reputation: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by POhdNcrzy View Post
I'm not an expert but I'm pretty sure that none of the WTC towers had "massive amounts of airplane fuel" stored in them. The jet fuel came from the planes, and was a relatively tiny amount relative to the size of the towers. Also, WTC7 was not hit by a plane or jet fuel.
But it did have large quantities of fuel stored in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by POhdNcrzy View Post
My understanding is jet fuel burns at a low temperature and can not melt or pulverize steel.
Melting iron with waste oil waist oil to melt iron.

Quote:
Originally Posted by POhdNcrzy View Post
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 world trade center was built to collapse. The fire was confined to a small area and the insulation on the structural steal was removed by the mechanical force of the impact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by POhdNcrzy View Post
Okay, I am now waiting for the next Great Brain of CD-F to step up to the plate.... (hah hah)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2010, 03:10 PM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,796 posts, read 7,000,836 times
Reputation: 5189
The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate Towers should have remained standing on 9/11 | NowPublic News Coverage

Perhaps some of the amateur engineers would like to read what the experts and the people who built the towers had to say.

By the way...Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2010, 03:19 PM
 
3,153 posts, read 3,459,837 times
Reputation: 1079
Designers have no idea the condition of the spray-on fire proofing on the steel supports in the building. The impact of the plane sufficiently knocked off the fireproofing. That is why steel is fire proofed?? Otherwise why spend the money to do it?? Please/...you people need to get a life and stop wasting your time trying to spew out this garbage.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2010, 03:24 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,404,896 times
Reputation: 4169
Quote:
Originally Posted by POhdNcrzy View Post
My understanding is jet fuel burns at a low temperature and can not melt or pulverize steel.
Isn't it humorous how this fanatic refers to this as "understanding"?

Look up the modulus of elasticity of steel, the effect of temperature on same, and static instability of structures as a function of the MOE of its members.

(yawn)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2010, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Elsewhere
82,171 posts, read 75,506,488 times
Reputation: 105209
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate Towers should have remained standing on 9/11 | NowPublic News Coverage

Perhaps some of the amateur engineers would like to read what the experts and the people who built the towers had to say.

By the way...Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain.
So...let me get this straight. The words of the experts and the people who built the towers are applicable when it appears to make a case for a controlled demolition, but the words of the experts (in this case, P.E.'s who worked in and on the towers while they stood, were in the buildings that day, and worked on the recovery and participated in the collapse analysis) and the people who built the towers do not apply when they say it was not a controlled demolition? What engineers in 1971 theorized might happen is valid and what engineers subsequent to 2001 said actually happened is not?

I'm not talking about "the government".
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2010, 05:27 PM
 
1,842 posts, read 1,652,354 times
Reputation: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
So...let me get this straight. The words of the experts and the people who built the towers are applicable when it appears to make a case for a controlled demolition, but the words of the experts (in this case, P.E.'s who worked in and on the towers while they stood, were in the buildings that day, and worked on the recovery and participated in the collapse analysis) and the people who built the towers do not apply when they say it was not a controlled demolition? What engineers in 1971 theorized might happen is valid and what engineers subsequent to 2001 said actually happened is not?

I'm not talking about "the government".
Well it had to happen again. let it be.

The buildings fell. The point of falure has the point of impact. enough said.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 11:33 AM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,796 posts, read 7,000,836 times
Reputation: 5189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
So...let me get this straight. The words of the experts and the people who built the towers are applicable when it appears to make a case for a controlled demolition, but the words of the experts (in this case, P.E.'s who worked in and on the towers while they stood, were in the buildings that day, and worked on the recovery and participated in the collapse analysis) and the people who built the towers do not apply when they say it was not a controlled demolition? What engineers in 1971 theorized might happen is valid and what engineers subsequent to 2001 said actually happened is not?

I'm not talking about "the government".
I can find an "expert" to take any point. What you have to look at, is a preponderance of the evidence. The people who believe the government’s explanation of why the towers fell (even though they cannot explain WTC7) are going to stick to their point of view regardless of evidence. They are the same type of people who still believe Oswald shot Kennedy, the Gulf of Tonkin attack actually happened and that the CIA does not actively overthrow foreign governments. They just want to continue to live in their illusion that their interests are being served by government and the powers that be. They find comfort in making light of the people who have looked at both sides of controversy and found that more times than not, what is being said by mass media and government are fabrications designed to placate the masses. Even when the evidence is overwhelming as in the collusion between government and banking in the home loan debacle, people would prefer to believe that it just happened and no one was at fault. Nothing just happens. Things happen for reasons. When those reasons benefit the wealthy and powerful it is not just luck, it is planed and executed. How do you think they got wealthy and powerful? By looking out for your interests?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 11:42 AM
 
Location: Long Island
30,817 posts, read 17,718,911 times
Reputation: 8926
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
interesting facts:

No skyscrapers before or after 9/11 have ever collapsed due to fire. and no skyscraperS had been hit by fullyloaded commercial planes at full speed before

the towers fell at free fall speed; despite the fact that the fire was only on the upper floors and that the towers had massive steel frames. the towers did not fall at free speed, and were not a full steel frame

the molten steel continued to burn for weeks after the implosion, thermite was found in the remains. thermite (aka white phosferous was never found,,that's a lie from steven jones) and 'steel' can be melted by a car's battery and to electrodes


wtc7 imploded and collapsed at freefall speed even though it was not impacted by any plane. The 9/11 commission could give no reason for the collapse. and you fporget to mention the fact that wtc7 had a building fall on it (tower1) and it was built over a ConEd sub station


several witnesses including emergency response personnel heard series of explosions prior to collapses. hearing explosions doesnt mean bombs


some of the alleged skyjackers are still alive. totally false


the 9/11 commission deemed the financing of the hijackers was of no importance to the investigation.

All of the suspected terrorists arrested in the weeks after 9/11 were released without charges.

9/11 was followed by the passage of the homeland security act which suspends much of the bill of rights at the government’s discretion.
mine in bold
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2010, 11:45 AM
 
2,229 posts, read 1,597,325 times
Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by POhdNcrzy View Post
Well I waited and waited for somebody else to cover this but no one stepped up so here goes....

In early February 2009 the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Beijing was ignited by fireworks and very thoroughly burned. Casualties were nominal because the hotel was under construction and almost finished but basically vacant when the fire struck.

According to the New York Times (02/11/2009), the responsible party, the China Central Television network, apologized to the nation for "the severe damage the fire caused to the country's property". According to the Times, the hotel was "destroyed".

Interestingly enough, unlike the World Trade Towers on 9-11, although the Mandarin hotel was severely and thoroughly burned and "destroyed", it did NOT collapse and implode into a "fine white powder" in nine seconds.

HHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!

The NY Times article has an accompanying photo of the burned hotel. Although the fire clearly burned through every level of the steel-frame hotel, not a single floor of the hotel collapsed and in fact the steel frame was left completely intact, although severely blackened and charred.

I now open the floor to debate, as it were....
How hot does jet fuel burn again?
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 01:39 PM.

© 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