9/11 NORAD tapes released...
POSTED BY: Dayve
UPDATED: Friday, August 4, 2006 23:15
VIEWED: 10691
PAGE 6 of 14
Before anyone reads my post they should note that I'm not American, not an engineer and most of my knowledge of this subject comes from watching The Discovery Channel.
The steel frames used to build the trade centre were made to be assembled very quickly. They were called trust beams, or trust frames. It's well documented that when they get hot the joints have a tendancy to collapse, which causes the roof/floor (depending on your point of view) to fall. Firefighters even have a saying - "Don't trust the trust."
To prevent this from happening, the WTC buildings were coated with fire preventing insulation. This ensured that the steel frames weren't exposed to naked flames or direct heat.
The stuff that was exposed directly to the jet fuel explosion probobly wouldn't have survived the fire, but the rest of the building should have been able to handle the more "normal" fire that burned on several floors. Except the insulation hadn't been replaced fully throughout the centre - it's pretty much a full time job to do it. The wreckage showed some frames still covered in insulation, and others where it had begun to wear thin, or had even worn away completely. This is what caused so many of the frames to collapse.
As the trust beams collapsed, they landed on top of each other. Floors would fall down flat onto other floors. The weight became too much for each succeeding floor to bear. You can't see it from the tapes, but both buildings were actually collapsing inside long before they fell. As each floor collapsed they were being hollowed out, until the outside frame couldn't cope (it was still on fire after all) and sank in on itself. This is why they didn't fall to one side. Tower two was hit lower down that tower one, which is why it fell first. It took longer for this process to take effect in tower one, but once the upper floors gave way the lower ones went pretty quickly.
I think the main reason this isn't talked about much in the media is because it's very difficult for the families of those killed to hear. The situation must have been truly horrific for those on the stairs trying to escape. The truth is many of them were crushed to death quite some time before the towers fell. Those who survived until the collapse itself would have endured burning rubble raining down on them, hearing each massive crash as the floors above them gave way and probobly even seeing the floors just above them starting to bulge and fall apart. It's not the kind of death anyone wants to think about, especially for someone they love.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ARE YOU GUYS CRAZYYYYY!!!!!!! do most you realize that you are parroting that exact same story that was given within moments of the attacks(before ANY real investigating)?? youve accepted the official version that is soo full of wholes you could literally have flown the CIA planes (doing drills that same morning of crashing into the WTC buildings)through it.. i mean give me a freakin break!
my biggest problem about you neo-con propoganda mouthpieces is that YOU ARE IGNORING VOLUMES OF DATA to fit a pre-conceieved notion.
* In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?
----your telling me that this day was different. that the WTC fell AT FREE FALL SPEEDS, regardless of the lower portions of the building beings perfectly intact; nevermind that Bushs BRO headed the security company for the towers; never mind that INCENDIARY samples were recovered from the scene..never mind that building 7 wasnt even hit by a plane. (for example..the Madrid building fire burned for 17 hrs at white hot temperatures, and yet remianed standing...only we're supposed to believe that half a tank of jet fuel did it on 3 seperate occasions..all the same day)??
* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?
---how is it possible that the FBI would find a perfectly preserved Mohammed Atta passport, miraculously intact through the fireball of the plane collision?
* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?
----let me guess, the pancake theory? Demolition experts even admit that the WTC collapses were a work of art! let alone just some random collapse! let alone the pools of molten steel remaining in the basement of the complex weeks after the incident.
* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700°F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800°F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000°F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?
----nevermind that the fuel was not burning optimally, most of it exploded outside the building on 1 impact, and it was meeting resistance with carpet, office supplies etc. there were people even standing outside the impact zones..
* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?
----indeed? apparently al-qaeda is using superior Soviet cold war technology huh
* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?
---or that the initial impact of the plane was the circumference of the fuselage, with no sighting of the rest of the plane?? or any corroborating tapes for that matter. what about terrorists training at US air bases, and instructors who claimed they could barely fly cessnas
* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?
----explain that you Nazi sympathizers, or why he was given authority months prior to the attacks. read the PNAC do
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First, you need to take a chill pill and stop shouting. We are not deaf, nor are we stupid. I would venture to say that many of us have IQ in excess of 160.
Secondly, Take a LARGE BUILDING and COLLAPSE the TOP FLOORS and regardless of the structural integrity of the floors below it will collapse.
Thirdly, take another chill pill.
one of the Forsaken TM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When exactly did the BBC report that five of the alleged hijackers showed up alive and well in Saudi Arabia? I watch the BBC news all the time, and I don't ever remember seeing that. A story like that would have made headlines for weeks on end in the UK and Ireland.
I've checked their website and can't find any reference that says they're alive. Can you give me a date I should look for? When did the story break?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's MAJOR construction work. Its move everyone out of the building major construction work, not sign a few forms then everyone working there doesn't mention a damn thing construction work. People working there would be very aware of the work going on, and there are plenty of survivors, none of whom have said "You know I thought it was funny when they started removing the structural supports and planting demolition charges."
Originally posted by canttakesky:
They could have been noticed and given permission by building authorities to do "construction work"?
Quote:It's amazing how much the meaning of a sentence can change by the virtue of excluding a large portion of it. You said (or words to that effect) that you find the idea of it being a controlled demolition more believable, so why is a controlled demolition more believable than the buildings collapsing because of being hit by planes?
God, when did I ever say unbelievable?
Quote:Because the idea of it being a controlled demolitions is neither a hard hitting question nor a plausible explanation.
I said I had hard hitting questions that haven't been answered to my satisfaction. I said other plausible explanations have been summarily dismissed but not reasonably ruled out. I said it smacks of propaganda.
Quote:Well the insult aside it’s actually extremely simple:
Uh, how did you get from "gasoline fires" to "no planes"? I don't know where you learned logic, but you should get your money back.
Position:
“Fires are the wrong colour for Jet fuel fires.”
Implication:
They weren't jet fuel fires.
Meaning:
No Jet fuel was present
Reasoning:
No Jets hit the building (Since Jets tend to have jet fuel in them).
If you didn't intend to imply that there wasn't a Jet fuel fire what was the whole fire being the wrong colour thing in aid of?
Quote:I am answering your questions, and in response I get snarky comments and personal insults. No one has implied you are a nut or a conspiracy theorist, the closest I got was implying that your demolition theory was a conspiracy theory.
I have questions, and I have guesses. Until my questions are answered seriously, I can't conclude anything.
What I resent is the implication that asking these questions is wrong and ridiculous. That only conspiracy crazies ask questions. That experts can't be influenced to ignore explanations incongruent with their ideology.
Well I'm sorry if it upsets you but IT IS a conspiracy theory. You're theorising that a group of people came up with a plan, a conspiracy if you will, to bring down the two towers through controlled demolition but make it look like they'd been brought down by plane strikes.
Beyond that no one has implied you're a crazy conspiracy nut, so the implication is entirely yours, obviously you are expecting that reaction, but just because we happen to believe that the WTC collapsed because it was hit by planes doesn't mean we immediately tar anyone asking questions as crazy conspiracy nuts with our jackbooted propaganda.
Quote:So? The official explanation of how the buildings failed is similar to how you attempt to force failure in a controlled demolition. You don't see any demolition charges fire though, watch a video of a demolition, you can see some of the charges fire.
They discussed how much it looked like a demolition job. The engineer, who is a strong Bush supporter and fully endorses the official story, said, "Yeah, that does look like a demolition job, doesn't it? Well, wanna go out and get lunch?" My hub, being the social and polite fellow that he is, didn't press it.
Let me ask a few questions, since simply attempting to debunk it means I’m calling you a nut.
Why? Why did they bother? If its terrorists demolishing the buildings their task is complete by demolishing them, they don’t have to fly planes in to make it look good.
The only possible explanation is that it was the government that did it, because they’re the only entity that requires the destructi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
The demolition one. 67.587% of my family's assets.
Edited to add: Mind you, this is like saying:
If I had to buy a car right this second, I would pick this car. But I have a lot of questions about this car and other cars that haven't been answered yet. My choice might change after I get more information.
Fair enough.
For me, personally, I see a plan that involves demolition as being unneccessarily complex. It requires a level of coordination that I don't think al Qaeda could have pulled off with the resources they had available to them so far from their home base. If I had to categorize my thoughts on the lead-up I'd fall more into the LIHOP camp that SignyM mentioned.
* edited to add: Crap. It looks like I'm cribbing off Citizen's homework. Damn cross-posting.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just wanted to point out that sodium burns orange. Anything solid is well-contaminated with sodium, it's everywhere. All the flame has to do is pass over sodium (solid materials) to turn orange. (For the record, lithium turns flame a beautiful magenta.)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I would venture to say that many of us have IQs in excess of 160."
For the record, I will state I am NOT one of those people. 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by DesktopHippie:
When exactly did the BBC report that five of the alleged hijackers showed up alive and well in Saudi Arabia?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
Also see:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/27/inv.suspects/
Scroll down and look for "possible case of stolen identity."
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thank you Rue. There, another question answered to my satisfaction. 33 more to go.
Originally posted by rue:
I just wanted to point out that sodium burns orange. Anything solid is well-contaminated with sodium, it's everywhere. All the flame has to do is pass over sodium (solid materials) to turn orange. (For the record, lithium turns flame a beautiful magenta.)
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME