Anouncing a new web site: The Science of 9/11

[CDNBear]

Wow. So you'd agree that this tragedy was taken advantage of by nearly all states on the globe?

Yep.

I've seen a lot **** come from this tragedy but i've seen some good.

Agreed.

There is always benefit from tragedy and indeed many have taken financial or social control to new heights.

Agreed.

For example because of the communist revolution, I exist.

As Canadians, we enjoy several communist benefits. We just learned to apply them in a more equal fashion.

If my grandfather didn't run from the Bolsheviks to Canada who was offering free land to E. Europeans I wouldn't exist and Western Canada would have taken another 20 years to settle and develope into the agro giant we now are.

I won't argue with that.

No matter who pulled this off or for what reason the fact remains a fact that social order has become a global priority and dammit we are all benefitting no matter how ugly the mess that tiggered it.

We've lost a lot of freedoms and that sucks but have we not gained something along the way?

Agree. That something to me was the outpouring of support to those affected, by the common citizen.

It was beautiful to see, and be a part of.

As for our loss of certain freedoms, I find that unacceptable. This is something that needs to be remedied as soon as possible.

 

[petros]

The part that pisses me off is using this for pushing imperialism as one of those benefits.

Iraq is pretty hard to deny as being part of that imperialism.

They could have easily marketed it different than using fear and could have easily gotten rid of Saddam returning Iraq into a real republic.

Democracy doesn't necessarily mean that a nation is a free republic.

 

[CDNBear]

The part that pisses me off is using this for pushing imperialism as one of those benefits.

Again, I completely agree, I would even go so far as to add the attempt to install US style democracy around the globe, as a flawed symptom of the hijacking of this event.

Iraq is pretty hard to deny as being part of that imperialism.

Which is why I have always asserted that the invasion of Iraq, is tantamount to the modern use of "Manifest Destiny".

They could have easily marketed it different than using fear and could have easily gotten rid of Saddam returning Iraq into a real republic.

There were so many options, the one they took was about profit and profit alone.

Democracy doesn't necessarily mean that a nation is a free republic.

Democracy isn't always what a country needs to survive.

 

[Kreskin]

Please explain why it couldn't withstand a fire but could support King Kong? Something is fishy.

YouTube - RARE 1970's King Kong World Trade Center Mego Toy Commercial

 

[CDNBear]

Please explain why it couldn't withstand a fire but could support King Kong? Something is fishy.

YouTube - RARE 1970's King Kong World Trade Center Mego Toy Commercial

 

[petros]

I'm a HUGE Bruce McCall fan:

 

[Kreskin]

I'm a HUGE Bruce McCall fan:

Are they sitting on building 7?

 

[Cannuck]

Democracy doesn't necessarily mean that a nation is a free republic.

Freedom and democracy are not synonyms.

 

[Cannuck]

Please explain why it couldn't withstand a fire but could support King Kong?

King Kong was from Africa before Islam took root. If I'm not mistaken Mr Kong was a Christian (a product of the missionary movement) and as such could not possibly have had a negative effect on the towers.

 

[AnnaG]

That's true. A similar model might be made from some old power transmission tower.

Build a # number of different fires at different temperatures and it will or will not collapse. The building designers say they allowed for such events, multiple hits even. The Empire State building never collapsed more than what was originally damaged in the collision.

All that dust was concrete, where was that concrete if not in the floors themselves. That could be light-wieght (several rock sizes below what is used in the core in places like the stairwell. These would have been as much rebar as they were concrete. All those itty bitty pieces you can see are steel-beamsleaving the scene a at 'fairly' high rate of speed If it was collision of multiple floors then that weight has to be reduced from the weight that is supposed to be mashing entire floors at almost free-fall speed.Dust that is moving away does not add ant crushing weight to any equation.

Ahah. We have progress. This is improvement over your earlier comment that "Kerosene fires would not weaken a structure that is 'boxed' every 12 ft ". Weaken the parts of a structure and you weaken the structure.

 

[AnnaG]

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/documents/NIST-Fireproofing.zip

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_core.jpg

You are familiar with this photo perhaps, which is the stronger part of the building, the inner core or the outer shell? Simple as that.

That would depend upon the purpose of each, wouldn't it. The "core" would be the basic structire holding the building up. The peripheral structure would be support and protection for the core.
You have a tree standing in a spot. It is alone in a field and has no other trees around it. You have another tree that has more trees around it. Along comes a severe windstorm. Which tree do you think is most likely to be uprooted by the wind?

 

[AnnaG]

The problem with ALL the 911 theories....it is back to two old foes. Science Vs. Religion.

Exactly. As I said earlier, facts don't have opinions. Theories should contain facts, not guesses.

 

[ironsides]

Iron, I watched it unfold, live on TV. I've met people who were there, first responders and civilians. No one I have met, thinks that anything other then two planes, brought the towers down.

I work with steel, have since High School. I'm Six Nations, with ties to Mohawk High Steel. The very pool from which the construction companies drew from, when they hired high steel workers to build the WTC. I presently work for the company that modernized the elevators in the WTC twin towers in the 90's. I have been doing business with them for years. And all this is irrelevant. All one has to do is learn a few simple facts, and the whole sill theory comes falling apart.

I have said it before, I'll say it again, people need to syop listening to others opinions. They need to do some of their own research. Start with the local Fire Station. Talk to a Fireman. From there, hit the library. Read about the distinct construction and archatecture of the TT's. It's as simple as that.

My Dad used to tell me stories about you guys walking out on the beams high over NYC as they built the Empire State Building. I have trouble just walking across a log. A friend of mine had just arrived to work at the WTC and was in line waiting to get on the elevator when people started running towards him, needless to say he followed them and was ok. He ended up walking uptown to the Queensboro Bridge (59th St Bridge) to get a cab to take him home on Long Island.

 

[CDNBear]

That would depend upon the purpose of each, wouldn't it. The "core" would be the basic structire holding the building up. The peripheral structure would be support and protection for the core.
You have a tree standing in a spot. It is alone in a field and has no other trees around it. You have another tree that has more trees around it. Along comes a severe windstorm. Which tree do you think is most likely to be uprooted by the wind?

Anna, the building was a completely innovative design. Maximizing floor space. Each floor was modular in the ability to change office structure and design.

The elevator shafts, played little roll in the over all rigidity of the building. They were in fact, an almost stand alone structure.

The fact that this is true, is the c/t's reason for switching theories and now addressing it's strengths.

At first, it was all one super structure. Once they realized that the elevators looked like this...

File:World Trade Center Building Design with Floor and Elevator Arrangment.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They had to switch gears.

The "core" is a misnomer. The building was exoskeleton. That was it's innovative design. It created greater square footage. But hey, what do I know, it's only a well documented fact, long before the attacks were even in the infant stages.

 

[petros]

Exactly. As I said earlier, facts don't have opinions. Theories should contain facts, not guesses.

it is all theories from all sides. The main theory is just as unproveable as any others. That is the beauty of it all.

You have a tree standing in a spot. It is alone in a field and has no other trees around it. You have another tree that has more trees around it. Along comes a severe windstorm. Which tree do you think is most likely to be uprooted by the wind?

The lone which is obviously far deeper rooted to have survived alone.

 

[CDNBear]

My Dad used to tell me stories about you guys walking out on the beams high over NYC as they built the Empire State Building. I have trouble just walking across a log. A friend of mine had just arrived to work at the WTC and was in line waiting to get on the elevator when people started running towards him, needless to say he followed them and was ok. He ended up walking uptown to the Queensboro Bridge (59th St Bridge) to get a cab to take him home on Long Island.

Not me Iron, I get a little worried climbing in my treestands, lol.

But I do know men, that both worked on the WTC TT's when they were being built, and volunteered in the aftermath, during the clean up.

I'm glad your friend was safe.

 

[petros]

Are they sitting on building 7?

I only count them sitting on 3 not 7

 

[ironsides]

Concrete floor "A" crashes down upon Concrete floor "B", Concrete floor "B" then crashes down upon "C" and so on. Floor "C" is hit by the weight if "A" & "B", supports have problems with extra weight and collapse. The dust cloud was made up of a very small part of the concrete floors, but did include plaster walls and other debris including people.

The core of the building was a concrete structure which included, elevator shafts, lavatories and stairwells, power cables etc. Sides of building were sort of hung on metal beams surrounding concrete floors. For detail as to how this was done, you can look it up.

 

[AnnaG]

Anna, the building was a completely innovative design. Maximizing floor space. Each floor was modular in the ability to change office structure and design.

The elevator shafts, played little roll in the over all rigidity of the building. They were in fact, an almost stand alone structure.

The fact that this is true, is the c/t's reason for switching theories and now addressing it's strengths.

At first, it was all one super structure. Once they realized that the elevators looked like this...

File:World Trade Center Building Design with Floor and Elevator Arrangment.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They had to switch gears.

The "core" is a misnomer. The building was exoskeleton. That was it's innovative design. It created greater square footage. But hey, what do I know, it's only a well documented fact, long before the attacks were even in the infant stages.

World Trade Center Towers Core was Concrete 9/11

9-11 Research: The Core Structures

Lynn Stuter -- Purdue University weighs in on WTC towers collapse

ad infinitum

What I gather is that the rigidity was supplied by the peripheral structures and most of the load-bearing but not all was supplied by the series of inner tubes (the "core"). Tubes are stronger than solid shafts for strength. (Dumb book doesn't explain why, though )

 

[AnnaG]

it is all theories from all sides. The main theory is just as unproveable as any others. That is the beauty of it all.

I disagree. The "conspiracists" that think it was a demo job are not using facts.

The lone which is obviously far deeper rooted to have survived alone.

Nuts. You are ASSuming that all the trees are different. I did not say they were.