Anouncing a new web site: The Science of 9/11
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
Have you heard the one about the airplanes of 911 being controlled by remote..Possibly from building 7, using technology that is now in the spy drone planes.The same technology now being used in various places through out the world..(enter twilight zone music here..)...
Were there any black boxes found ?....Should have been a black box found in the forth airplane ...hmmm?
Were there any black boxes found ?....Should have been a black box found in the forth airplane ...hmmm?
Yes, I did hear that one, only it was aliens using tractor beams from space that caused the planes to crash into the buildings.
There have been other occurances since ,where planes have temporarily lost autopilot control ,moved back and forth briefly before returning to normal..1 on the canada /U.S. border about 2 years ago or so.Pilots called it bizzare /strange/unusual.
See? Aliens.There have been other occurances since ,where planes have temporarily lost autopilot control ,moved back and forth briefly before returning to normal..1 on the canada /U.S. border about 2 years ago or so.Pilots called it bizzare /strange/unusual.
Why the outer perimeter was not the strongest part. You do not have any info on what damage they did to the core. The 2nd crash pretty much missed the whole core.
I will take that as a "I have no idea what JFK was working on."
This shows how serious you take the subject...bye.
This vid is from 1984, that is how long remote control has been possible.
YouTube - 707 Crash Test
There have been other occurances since ,where planes have temporarily lost autopilot control ,moved back and forth briefly before returning to normal..1 on the canada /U.S. border about 2 years ago or so.Pilots called it bizzare /strange/unusual.
Those problems are more often associated with Airbus and are explainable.
Did your post have some kind of point???
How does providing links and pictures to the structure of the two towers equate to 'everything' being overbuilt. If it was possible to overbuild a car then they would and there would never be any more deaths due to traffic accidents.
Rather than go this route, take one step back and answer what you know the American Gov has lied about and been caught and punished for.
The peripheral structure of the buildings was intended to be quite strong. It was a different kind of strength than was required internally. I guess that fact eluded you. The internal strength was mostly to keep the floors separated and the towers upright. The peripheral strength was to combat sheer force. That means supporting vertical force as opposed to horizontal force. They were built to withstand impact by aircraft. There were defects in the construction. Combined with the defects, were heat that annealed the steel and the mass of the floors overhead of the impact sites. That combination is what brought the towers down.
I found this among my archives. You may not understand what the dood says, but he's pretty non-technical in the conclusion.
- http://www.ieindia.org/pdf/86/vc5989.pdf
As far as Anna's joking goes, lighten up. There's no rules saying one has to be morbidly serious in this thread or any other.
You claimed that the towers were 'overbuilt', and therefore could not have collapsed due to being hit by jets. That was your claim, not mine. You said it, I didn't.
Everything, cars, trucks, buildings, etc, are 'overbuilt' by regulation. Therefore, by your own statements, nothing could collapse or fail.
It's your reasoning, not mine. If you can't keep your own statements straight, it's not my problem.
How can you write something like this??
"The internal strength was mostly to keep the floors separated and the towers upright. The peripheral strength was to combat sheer force. That means supporting vertical force as opposed to horizontal force."
The inner core was there to hold the tower upright, then you also say the outer shell was there to hold the tower upright. Which was the stronger of the two???
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxB.htm
As to your 'expert' the comment about bolts vrs rivets would have prevented penetration is totally in error. To have no penetration means not windows at all and wall so thick the building could not have even been built.
As to the heat of the fires it was considerably less that optimal or there would have been no black smoke. Pour the amount of fuel, that is claimed to be the source of that fire, and it would not stay in one thick puddle, it would pour through any opening it could find either inside or outside the building. Stairways and elevator shafts would spread that fuel-load out across a very wide area.
Not that it matters one way or another but there is nothing humorous about 911, so your view that people should be able to joke about it is as stupid as the joke itself was...clear enough??
The technology exists, that is what the link was for. You missed the post about JFK, who was he talking about? Did secret societies only exist back in the early 60, have they now disappeared? What legislation was JFK working on before he was murdered?
911 is not a joke, Afghanistan is not a joke, Iraq is not a joke, JFK being murdered is not a joke, even Pearl Harbor is not a joke, except on this site. Buy the line or be labeled a nut., buying a lie is becoming a sheeple, which is worse?
I can understand your confusion. The difference I see is that the "core" is to keep the building upright by opposing gravity. The periphery is to oppose wind and other agents that act on it from an angle. Is that a clear enough picture? Or do I have to get Les to explain the difference between sheering forces and gravitational forces, too?
I'll let Les take this one. Perhaps he can decypher what you mean. I can't.
Dams leak water. If they didn't leak but let water just gush out, they wouldn't be called dams. Closed doors would keep fuel from going places like down stairs or down elevator shafts with any sort of speed. Parts of airplane would keep a lot of the fuel inside the building rather than exiting back through the hole it made, too. Thick smoke? I can think of something of yours that's pretty thick, too. It doesn't take much heat to severely weaken steel. But, perhaps you've forgetten earlier parts of this thread already.
Oh, boohoo for you. Les is a firefighter. I haven't seen one yet that hasn't cracked a joke about crispies. It in NO way means they are insensitive to people's plights or how they feel about lost loved ones. Doctors crack jokes about diseases. Soldiers crack jokes about wars. Lawyers crack jokes about lawsuits. Christians crack jokes about religious matters. Get a grip and a skin.
And the pilots I guess, too. Last I heard was there are redundant overrides to autopilots and other controls in case of failures. All of them would have to be disabled for this remote control to be effective. That would mean that the pilots could not do a damned thing after the engines cranked up. It's a bloody silly idea.
Especially considering there was nothing wrong with the radios. EG, "Hey, LaGuardia, there's something wrong with the plane. We can't control anything on it".
BTW, "I designed it for a (Boeing)707 to hit it." - Lee Robertson, the WTC project's structural engineer
"It was designed around that eventuality to survive this kind of impact"
---Aaron Swirski, one of the architects of the World Trade Center
A 707 isn't a 757. Sheer forces exceeded what the buildings were built for.
If I was I doubt you could explain any points that I held questions about. That could stem from just me, when politness does not work then being more matter-of-fact
The difference I see is that the "core" is to keep the building upright by opposing gravity. [/quote]
How much deflection was built-in when the design calls for 140mph winds at broadside. A plaque at the top said impact forces had been taken into consideration. The latest link I gave would be of interest to a welder more than almost any other trade. The tested sample either met specs or they did not. That is about as black & whites as things can get. What %age of the outer structure was damaged when the entire area of the outside is considered.Take away the bolts and but in bearings the building would sway more. You could almost sell tickets on really windy days.
Les also knows timber and cats (@-40 wood can be split by the dull end of the axe)
The wise cutter of lines will go at high speed and bunt the tall tree. He will then back-off and have a coffee and a smoke. During that time if any upper-portion that was going to snap due to harmonics will come down in front of you. The impatient one will sit back fot a bit ant think it is safe and then venture forth to destroy the main tree only to be hammered (like males 1/4"+ steel ring like a bell. Not occassionally it was almost the rule, a cutter got hammered sooner or later. It's called ignoring good advice. It is a life-lesson, so what?
If an impact
Which was the greater force, a steady wind on the whole complex of a high=speed bullet like onject. Like shooting a metallic train of sorts.
Which is greater (you and Les can work together on this. A tiger torch burns very hot and very close to complete combustion. The towers would be consider a suidge-pot in mosquito territory. Lots of initial heat and then enough non-combustible material to make many volumes of smoke.
Lets not forget the compression on the other side of the bendy-straw.
....ok.....hope you tag along.. The core, were they rivits (rigid) or bolts? From my reading the floor-joists were secure by 1" bolts, that allows sway. That would make the outer shell the holder of the floors, the core transfers any stretch (bend) to be countered by compression. The core expends as much energy as the fulcrum of a teeter-totter...none. That is the protection from lateral forces. That is what was attacked, failure should have gone in that direction. The failure of the floors should have been triggered by the holes in the wall being the very first things to move towards the earth.