9/11 Bullsh!t

dankie

Well-Known Member
The buildings were built with very different construction methods.


The Empire State is steel frame construction

Steel frame

The classic concept of a skyscraper is a large steel box with many small boxes inside it. The genius of the steel frame is its simplicity. By eliminating the inefficient part of a shear wall, the central portion, and consolidating support members in a much stronger material, steel, a skyscraper could be built with both horizontal and vertical supports throughout. This method though, though simple, has drawbacks. Chief among these is that as more material must be supported (as height increases), the distance between supporting members must decrease, which actually in turn, increases the amount of material that must be supported.



The World Trade Center was tube frame constructed:



Tube frame

This short section requires expansion.
After 1965 a new structural system of framed tubes appeared. Fazlur Khan and J. Rankine defined the framed tube structure as "a three dimensional space structure composed of three, four, or possibly more frames, braced frames, or shear walls, joined at or near their edges to form a vertical tube-like structural system capable of resisting lateral forces in any direction by cantilevering from the foundation."[1] Closely spaced interconnected exterior columns form the tube. Horizontal loads, for example wind, are supported by the structure as a whole. About half the exterior surface is available for windows. Framed tubes allow fewer interior columns, and so create more usable floor space. Where larger openings like garage doors are required, the tube frame must be interrupted, with transfer girders used to maintain structural integrity.

So while tube construction is stronger when lateral (horizontal) force is applied. The world trade center was brougt down by the unsupported weight (vertical force) of the 14 floors above.

When the interior steel columns of the world trade center were severed (we know this happened because the elevator shafts and stair cases were blocked) the center core of the building had nothing supporting the upper floors. The only remaining support was given by the exterior columns.


When the B25 hit the empire state building only the boxes of steel that were severed stopped supporting, but the undamaged steel boxes were able to take the strain.

We are also dealing with exponentially larger forces when a plane that weighs 10 times more and was travelling at 7 times the speed of the smaller plane hit an object.
 

silk

Well-Known Member
I have not previously read that article, though I have heard most of the mechanical arguments. You could write a college level paper comparing expert witness/testimony. I personally don't have the expertise to know or agree with any experts. Particularly I noted that the Flight 77 "Debunk" was odd. You see a 757 is a big plane. People, such as myself and "experts" don't see enough wreckage in the site photos or video to believe a 757 hit the Pentagon.

According to the article: "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box."

The tail section of a 757 isn't something you can hold in your hand. Kilsheimer doesn't actually say it was a 757 or that it was an American Airlines flight. Popular Mechanics only offers a photo of a piece of scrap as "proof" of the plane, but yet their witness held the tail section in his hand. Where is a photo of the tail section?

I love his conspiracy theory stuff. So much fun!:mrgreen:
 

originalstrain

Well-Known Member
im not sayin theres any thing we can do i just like the conversation i want to here the other side. but so far i havent seen anything to prove the consp. theory wrong

well nothin we can do without millions of dollars to get heard but......
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Uhhuh. The "damage" is not inconsistent with a 757. But do you see the plane wreckage? Assuming the damage is consistent with a 757 hitting the Pentagon; does that mean one did?

I told ya, I love this stuff!:mrgreen:

see they are "debunking" it. all the theorist say the damage is "inconsistent". they are showing that it is not. meaning......yes, a plane hit the building.
 

gotdamunchies

Well-Known Member
ok, it was a conspiracy. now what?
exactly....a few years back I saw a video that this guy named Bill Cooper (research the name) was trying to get circulated that shows the passenger that was sitting in front of JFK put a hand gun over his shoulder and shot JFK in the face. He had lots of other info about Area 51, Majority 12, blah blah blah...a fews years later he comes clean and admits that it was all fake. People do this kind of shit for attention.

And yes I watched the film Zeitgeist and many others, all those different films have as many holes in them as do the truth.

Anyone with a theory can find someone in a scientific community to "explain" all these theories in a scientific manner to make all of us go "Hmmmm"...all of these different things, JFK, goin to the moon, aliens, area 51, 9/11 all boast great "conspiracy theories", but thats just what they are, theories. Never has one of these theories ever been proven, nor have they been completly disproven, I'll give ya that one.

If you had enough people working on it, you could probably come with a theory of your very own that would say something like "The same people that 'murdered' Princess Diana were the very same people that were responsible for 9/11"....Kevin Bacon game anyone?
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
exactly....a few years back I saw a video that this guy named Bill Cooper (research the name) was trying to get circulated that shows the passenger that was sitting in front of JFK put a hand gun over his shoulder and shot JFK in the face. He had lots of other info about Area 51, marijuana 12, blah blah blah...a fews years later he comes clean and admits that it was all fake. People do this kind of shit for attention.

And yes I watched the film Zeitgeist and many others, all those different films have as many holes in them as do the truth.

Anyone with a theory can find someone in a scientific community to "explain" all these theories in a scientific manner to make all of us go "Hmmmm"...all of these different things, JFK, goin to the moon, aliens, area 51, 9/11 all boast great "conspiracy theories", but thats just what they are, theories. Never has one of these theories ever been proven, nor have they been completly disproven, I'll give ya that one.

If you had enough people working on it, you could probably come with a theory of your very own that would say something like "The same people that 'murdered' Princess Diana were the very same people that were responsible for 9/11"....Kevin Bacon game anyone?

i think they got anna nicole also.:neutral:
 

Lacy

New Member
Yep! Pretty sad stuff. The things people do for money sickens me.
I also believe that war is made for profit. I think humans are so barbaric at times. Very sad.
i think there were very few people involved that weren't profiting out the ass and with billions of dollars and more promised people are likely not to talk! bush may not even have been involved i truly believe there are major people behind the curtain in charge of things. money rules all and war is the most profitable thing in the world. there are plenty of people who want money and kill for just a couple dollars so if there are people who have billions don't you think they would kill for trillions? i do and something that big and profitable would be controlled to where no one would slip and if they did they would be killed or called a lier. do you think America would believe it even if someone did say they were behind it and osama wasn't?
 

canabiscorpse

Active Member
okay i havent seen it...but i know for a fact that shit is so not kosher...
no offence to the patriots of america but i think bush is a knob jockey...
and now south africa has a knob jockey in power...i swear our country would be filled with such bullshit and lies and propoganda (if only our president didnt need his secretary to spell it for him...)
 

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
The Empire state building was NOT hit by a B52, it was in fact hit by a B25 which is a hell of a lot smaller than a B52 or either one of the planes that hit the WTC

This is why most people that ramble on about 9/11 conspiracy theories fall on deaf ears,

Have any of you ever read any of this???

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics
A building that is design to withstand the impact of an aircraft and fire does not fall straight down in ... okay 14 seconds instead of 9! It doesn't happen and if you believe it can ... your a fool.

Well it's obviously not falling on deaf ears ... if that were the case there wouldn't be so many people that believe the government is behind it ...

[URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14727720"]Do you believe any 9/11 conspiracy theories? [/URL]

so that blows you bullshit theory of falling on deaf ears ...

... and have you seen this ....

[URL="http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/open-letter-to-popular-mechanics-prove-your-ludicrous-911-theories-in-public/1451/"]Open letter to Popular Mechanics - Prove your ludicrous 9/11 theories in public [/URL]

Direct challenge to “Popular Mechanics” - Show us the Physics & Maths to back up your ludicrous & “physically impossible” 911 gravity collapse assertions - PHYSICAL SYSTEMS (Lancaster England)

... and this ...

[URL="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm"]Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies[/URL]
Popular Mechanics has re-entered the media circus in an attempt to continue its 9/11 debunking campaign that began in March of last year. A new book claims to expose the myths of the 9/11 truth movement, yet it is Popular Mechanics who have been exposed as promulgating falsehoods while engaging in nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics.

... and of course this ...

[URL="http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=009309"]POPULAR MECHANICS: Re: 9/11 Debunking the Debunkers —"The Charles Goyette Show", Wed Aug 2 [/URL]
Is this why Popular Mechanics canceled some appearances? Listen to this MP3 file of Popular Mechanics on the Charles Goyette show in Phoenix. Charles has him backpedaling big time. Pass this MP3 file to any one who is leaning on Popular Mechanics to support their continued belief in the official story.

So much for Popular Mechanics ...




 

GrowRebel

Well-Known Member
So throw away the theory posed by a 105 year old publication and buy into a bunch of crackpot theories....... :roll:

Okay I will .... and until you can prove the 105 year old publication is creditable on this ... you and PM can shut your piehole ... ha ha ha ha ha .... :mrgreen::neutral:
 

dankie

Well-Known Member
Well FDD don't you know they shouldn't have fallen at all. Everyone knows that buildings built in the late 60's and on have all been designed to have a 175000 pound plane fly into them and pour 10000 pounds of ignited jetfuel 1 onto the innards. Its just common sense! ;)
 
Top