|
Post by ishmael on Jul 26, 2007 21:41:45 GMT -4
A takeoff is usually, much safer as the pilots are climbing to altitude as soon as possible. Again, as mentioned, note the phrase, lost in fog. In a takeoff, they would be climbing above the fog as quickly as possible. another thing to consider, is that there is a speed limit of 250 knots for all planes under 10,000 feet. That would also be taken into account as it makes it much less likely for a plane to be traveling faster while trying to land. Well, what if the plane taking off is lost in the fog, can't find the airport, and takes off from Manhattan or the Bronx by mistake? The sad thing is, until I discovered this website, I would have considered the smiley on the last sentence entirely unnecessary
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 26, 2007 22:09:54 GMT -4
Actually, no ocean liner since the Titanic has struck an iceberg. Don't you find that suspicious? No. First of all, numerous vessels have hit icebergs since the Titanic. I don't know if any of them were ocean liners, but the database below is a list of ships which hit icebergs within that same area (North Atlantic)..... www.icedata.ca/icedb/ice/bergs2_01e.html#2000Second - in direct response to the Titanic disaster, the International Ice Patrol was created two years afterwards (in 1914), specifically to avoid any repeat of such an incident.... www.uscg.mil/LANTAREA/IIP/General/history.shtmlSo as I said - no, I wouldn't find it suspicious if no ocean liner since the Titanic has struck an iceberg.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 27, 2007 0:14:10 GMT -4
The gist I'm getting at is that you simplified the events of 9/11 in that post. How many buildings, built like WTC 1 and 2, have been struck by planes going about 500 knots? Surely this is a most uncommon event if I ever heard one. Now, how many buildings built like WTC 7 have endured fires that have lasted several hours? Remember, it's a tube in tube design. You still aren't getting it. The issue isn't about what caused damage to a building, nor is it about how much damage was caused to a building. It isn't about what caused a building fire, nor is it about how long or how severe a building fire was. It isn't about the type of material(s) used to construct a building, nor is it about the structural design of a building. I'm comparing WTC 1, 2 AND 7 to all other buildings - made of any material(s), with any structural design, which have suffered any damage, and/or had any fires.Other buildings have had much worse fires and greater structural damage than WTC 1, 2 and 7 did But none of them went instantly from a fully stable condition into a complete, symmetrical collapse to the ground in mere seconds. Now, more than one steel framed building in history have been collasped... Although I disagree with your claim (about something which has already been discussed in depth elsewhere on this board), the main problem is that it has nothing to do with this specific issue.I'll try repeating my argument for you one last time, in the hope that you'll finally come to an understanding of such a basic concept.... On 9/11, fires and damage supposedly caused three buildings to go...
from an intact, fully stable structural condition, Immediately into total, symmetrical collapse to the ground, within mere seconds.These were features that the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7 all shared in common. So, with those basic features applicable to three buildings on the same day (9/11), it's entirely reasonable for one to assume that these same features should be fairly common to many previous building collapses caused by fire and/or structural damage. But the reality is that such features are not only uncommon to previous building collapses in general , they are historically unprecedented. What you seem to believe is that random fires and assymetrical damage occurred - on the same, single day - to the only three buildings which have ever existed in the entire world that would (or could) ever have collapsed in this manner To wit, that these are (or quite likely are) the only three buildings ever to exist which could have gone from an intact, perfectly stable condition, into a complete, symmetrical collapse to the ground, within seconds, due to fire and/or structural damage. That is yet another variation on the "unique towers" arguments invoked in a repetitive mantra by GCT supporters. And it's just as invalid here.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 27, 2007 0:55:59 GMT -4
A takeoff is usually, much safer as the pilots are climbing to altitude as soon as possible. Again, as mentioned, note the phrase, lost in fog. In a takeoff, they would be climbing above the fog as quickly as possible. another thing to consider, is that there is a speed limit of 250 knots for all planes under 10,000 feet. That would also be taken into account as it makes it much less likely for a plane to be traveling faster while trying to land. Well, what if the plane taking off is lost in the fog, can't find the airport, and takes off from Manhattan or the Bronx by mistake? The sad thing is, until I discovered this website, I would have considered the smiley on the last sentence entirely unnecessary So lets see, you guys actually believe the WTC towers were designed to withstand an event that could only occur in the unlikely event of a big Boeing smokin around in the fog with It's gear down looking for a runway. This ignores all other probabilities including loss of power on takeoff, the towers being in the path of a descending plane in trouble, a plane being used in a black op by elements of the Zionist influenced military industrial complex or even a hijacked plane, the last is least likely due to far more attractive targets for a Kamikaze mission. It also ignores the fact that NYC is not, as far as I can gather regarded as the Fog capital. www.ral.ucar.edu/staff/tardif/Documents/NCAR_doc/Tardif_Rasmussen_FogClimoTypes_JAMCaccepted.pdfThis just goes to show the absurd mental contorsions you must maintain to believe the OCT. Here we have Robertsons bizare comment that contradicts everything stated years before 911 made in early September 2001 just before 911. In the years before 911 he was singing a different tune. Demartini can also be seen on Youtube. www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGhWkRAR1Vc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eabovetopsecret%2Ecom%2Fforum%2Fthread290184%2Fpg1I'll stick with the other, more reliable and less contradictory design Engineer and construction manager. I think they're telling the truth.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 27, 2007 5:38:16 GMT -4
Your logic as described above is a bit circular (You believe they didn’t see any signs because it was CD {rather than because reasons I have given), the fact they didn`t see signs is evidence of CD. That aside as I understand it, your reasoning is as follows: 1) FACT - The fire fighters who didn’t hear the evacuation order neither evacuated the building nor made any comments on the radio heard by anyone who survived about seeing signs of an imminent collapse. 2) Thus we can safely assume they didn’t see any signs of impending collapse. 3) Thus the buildings probably (definitely) collapsed due to CD not structural failure. OK with the caveat that since the radios were only working precariously it’s possible one of them did say something but was not heard I agree that 2) probably follows from 1). But it’s your leap from 2) to 3) that bothers me and if I’m not mistaken most of the others here. How do you explain the numerous other fires where buildings collapsed with firemen inside? I need to clarify this issue, since it's still being taken the wrong way. When I said I believe the firefighters saw no signs of imminent global collapse because it was a CD, I didn't mean that any and all buildings are CD's if firefighters died in them because they did not detect any signs of imminent collapse. All I meant was that if a building is going to be CD'ed (specifically in a covert operation a la 9/11), there will be no detectable signs of imminent collapse for firefighters (or anyone else) inside the building, before and up to the time it's demolished. Also you continue to ignore the inconvenient fact that there is no record of there being any firefighters in the areas where NIST said the collapses initiated (i.e. where the trusses sagged and perimeter columns bowed). The closest fireman was Chief Orio Palmer in a stairwell on the 78th floor of the South Tower. He was at the bottom edge of the fire/impact zone. He said he saw small fires and NIST said the fires there were small. I notice that you have stopped saying his radio call contradicts NIST, is that a tacit admission you were wrong? The entire collection of firefighters tapes and survivor accounts casts serious doubts on the veracity of many claims made by NIST. That is, none of the first-hand accounts corroborate NIST's theory that the fires within the impact zones were intense enough to initiate the collapses. As for the specific firefighter in question, consider these comments from the same tape....... "Just got a report from the director of Morgan Stanley. 78 seems to have taken the brunt of this stuff, there's a lot of bodies, they say the stairway is clear all the way up, though."
"Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay."So the Op. Tower must have received information that the 80th floor {"floor above 79") was OK to enter for fighting local floor fires / rescue, if they ordered Bat. Nine to go up there. Again, there is nothing to suggest there were any signs of imminent collapse from these comments and order. And consider the survivor accounts from the area.... Three Euro Brokers employees on the 84th floor managed to walk down through the entire impact zone and survive. In fact, at least 18 survivors from the South Tower walked down through the entire impact zone. None of them said they encountered the intensely hot fires that NIST claims were raging over vast regions within the impact zone. No comments about sagging floors, weakening or failing supports, etc. You “didn’t say that” but it seems implicit in your theory. What do think would have happened if based on what they saw they though global collapse was a possibility? As already pointed out an order to evacuate was given but not heard due to problems with the radios. No evac order was given to Palmer. The collapse occurred seconds after the comments heard on the tape, which were not about evacuating, nor was any danger mentioned by anyone on any other tapes, either.. No that`s your spin. Since load was efficiently redistributed we would not expect localized failures to cause the building to loose symmetry A localized failure does not "cause the building to lose symmetry"? Exactly what does that mean? Loads weren’t redistributed evenly trusses and columns adjacent to the failed ones took up more of the extra load than ones further away making them more likely to fail especially if they had been damaged by the impacts and/or were weakened by fire. You're saying that after localized failures, the ensuing load redistribution weakens the adjacent (localized) structural components more than the rest of the structure further away. Each additional failure put greater load on the remaining elements thus making additional failures more likely. A sort of vicious circle that finally got to the point where remaining elements were unable to resist the mass of the floors above them. But that still means a continued progression of localized failures, with subsequent adjacent localized weakening! You're actually making an argument much like my own - for asymmetrical, progressive, structural failure! It seems you just weren't aware of it. 1) You made the claim that no such collapse even happened previously it`s up to you to document that claim not for me to debunk it. 2) Most of these collapses weren’t well documented so we have no way of knowing which if any of your conditions were met. Thus you have no basis for your claim that the cases I cited were invalid. In the Brazilian cases at least none of the buildings were obviously tilting to one side before collapse and debris distribution was roughly symmetrical. 3) None of the WTC towers were “intact” your complaint breaks down there and only CT`s say they were in a “fully stable structural condition” since the bowing of perimeter columns was noted in both towers before they collapsed and the FD pulled (out of) it (7 WTC) due to it giving signs hours beforehand it was going to collapse. 4) WTC 2 didn’t exactly collapse symmetrically since it tilted; in neither case was debris dispersal completely symmetrical. 5) There are very few cases of buildings being struck by large planes and none AFAIK buildings at all resembling the Twin Towers. Point 5 is not relevant, for the reasons I explained earlier. Point 4 - The tilt stopped within the first second or so, and it then became a symmetrical collapse, all the way down. Point 3 - I find NIST's claims for inward bowing very dubious.Even if NIST was correct, at most it would mean a 2 or 3 floor section, with a few inches bowing inward along one perimeter wall, before total collapse. That's about 0.01% of the total structure that's not stable. Or 99.9% of the building in structurally stable condition. Points 1 and 2 - it should be easy to disprove my claim, if 3 collapses had those very same features all in one day. If I start citing examples that support my argument, how many would it take before you'd be convinced? 100? 1000? 10,000? These are different cases. Do you deny that a local collapse in the Towers could have triggered a global one? I do deny it, as to collapsing in the same manner that the WTC buildings collapsed
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 27, 2007 7:20:39 GMT -4
YOU are not getting it.
Were any of these buildings built like WTC 1, 2, and 7? It IS a factor, because the structure of a building determines how it responds to damage and fire. The manner of damage is also crucial.
How many other buildings share the characteristics? AFAIK, the WTCs were one of the first to use their type of design; a light weight tube-in-tube design. They are very different from, say, the Empire State building, whose steel framing is a grid, making it much stronger.
The same applies to my examples of ships. For instance, the Titanic broke in two on it's way down. However, the battleship Bismark only had it's stern cracked off. The difference with these two wrecks is due to structure and the manner of sinking. Such is the case with the WTCs and other buildings that have suffered damage. All your disagreements in the world, BTW, also won't change the FACT that steel framed buildings have collapsed from fires before.
The designs are also historically unprecedented, as I mentioned above.
When the buildings collapsed, they were not structurally sound. Again, you're simplifying matters.
It's like what's said on "Seconds From Disaster"; disasters don't just happen. There is a series of events that lead to them. Such is the case with the WTCs; a series of events led to the collapse. The buildings were not sound one moment, and crashing down the next. There was a series of events that led to the collapse.
I'd go over them with you, but you're likely to ignore what I say. Unless, of course, you show otherwise in a statement.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 27, 2007 7:43:44 GMT -4
So lets see, you guys actually believe the WTC towers were designed to withstand an event that could only occur in the unlikely event of a big Boeing smokin around in the fog with It's gear down looking for a runway. Apparently, the people that designed the buildings thought so too. Otherwise, why state it? No, it doesn't. The "lost in a fog" is simply an example. Think outside the box; what other situations is a plane traveling at similar speed when it is seeking a runway? That's the idea behind the design. If you truly believe this, then you make it clear why you think as you do. AFAIK, terrorist weren't into the habit of crashing plane into buildings in those days (the 1970s, when the towers were completed). Different times, different thinking. That doesn't mean one just can't roll in. Miami isn't a fog capital either, but we get them all the same.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jul 27, 2007 9:23:15 GMT -4
So lets see, you guys actually believe the WTC towers were designed to withstand an event that could only occur in the unlikely event of a big Boeing smokin around in the fog with It's gear down looking for a runway. This ignores all other probabilities including loss of power on takeoff, the towers being in the path of a descending plane in trouble, a plane being used in a black op by elements of the Zionist influenced military industrial complex or even a hijacked plane, the last is least likely due to far more attractive targets for a Kamikaze mission. It also ignores the fact that NYC is not, as far as I can gather regarded as the Fog capital. Is your attention span less that one paragraph? You're complaining we think the towers wouldn't have been designed to withstand an impact from a hijacked plane, and then argue that that's very unlikely anyway. Did you forget which side you're on? When the buildings were designed, do you think they tried to protect them from the most likely events, or the most unlikely event? As for Zionist influenced elements of the military industrial complex, in your world view, who built the buildings? That's the great thing about this place. If someone told me this website existed, I wouldn't have believed him. I had to see it for myself. I still can't quite convince myself the people here aren't all actors playing some kind of game.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 27, 2007 11:32:55 GMT -4
So lets see, you guys actually believe the WTC towers were designed to withstand an event that could only occur in the unlikely event of a big Boeing smokin around in the fog with It's gear down looking for a runway. This ignores all other probabilities including loss of power on takeoff, the towers being in the path of a descending plane in trouble, a plane being used in a black op by elements of the Zionist influenced military industrial complex or even a hijacked plane, the last is least likely due to far more attractive targets for a Kamikaze mission. It also ignores the fact that NYC is not, as far as I can gather regarded as the Fog capital. Is your attention span less that one paragraph? You're complaining we think the towers wouldn't have been designed to withstand an impact from a hijacked plane, and then argue that that's very unlikely anyway. Did you forget which side you're on? When the buildings were designed, do you think they tried to protect them from the most likely events, or the most unlikely event? Oh dear. Ishmael incase you haven't heard there are millions of people worldwide who don't buy the instant ace pilot, NORAD evading suicide Arab hijack scenario. My post my have contained a touch of irony that you may have missed. The irony was in putting a hijack last, just to be clear. If you're taking a swipe at David Rokefeller I'll just remind you that he has more medals than Rambo. And seems to run his own branch of government as well. PS. There may be more irony here.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 27, 2007 11:59:20 GMT -4
You really need to spring some cash on a broadband connection, the world is sailing by. My boat is aluminium with a nice Yamaha motor and only a few little dings. Your Robertson steamer on the other hand is taking on water fast.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 27, 2007 11:59:21 GMT -4
Is your attention span less that one paragraph? You're complaining we think the towers wouldn't have been designed to withstand an impact from a hijacked plane, and then argue that that's very unlikely anyway. Did you forget which side you're on? When the buildings were designed, do you think they tried to protect them from the most likely events, or the most unlikely event? Oh dear. Ishmael incase you haven't heard there are millions of people worldwide who don't buy the instant ace pilot, NORAD evading suicide Arab hijack scenario. My post my have contained a touch of irony that you may have missed. The irony was in putting a hijack last, just to be clear. Fortunately, the world population is about 6 billion, so that tiny bit of population that can't see the difference in security in the pre-9/11 world is but a minority. Given the number of nations around the world, that could also translate to a few thousand per nation that agrees with your theory. Do you not realize the difference in how the mentality of how things are run before and after 9/11? Do you not know that before 9/11, the general assumption was that terrorist only want attention, and not a lot of dead people (they were known to kill hostages, but not on a scale of death of 9/11)? And finally, before 9/11, NORAD looked from threats coming from outside the US, not from within. You're still leaking.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 27, 2007 12:01:10 GMT -4
You really need to spring some cash on a broadband connection, the world is sailing by. My boat is aluminium with a nice Yamaha motor and only a few little dings. Your Robertson steamer on the other hand is taking on water fast. I do have broadband. It's the will to watch YouTube videos. The "boat" I refer is your "SS 9/11 Truther", or any other appropiate term. I use the "SS Critical Thinking".
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jul 27, 2007 13:34:18 GMT -4
If you're taking a swipe at David Rokefeller I'll just remind you that he has more medals than Rambo. Rambo doesn't exist, guillible boy. And seems to run his own branch of government as well. Oh, well if he's from the government, I guess I'd better trust him. Are you a government spokesperson by any chance?
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jul 27, 2007 13:37:02 GMT -4
Fortunately, the world population is about 6 billion, so that tiny bit of population that can't see the difference in security in the pre-9/11 world is but a minority. Given the number of nations around the world, that could also translate to a few thousand per nation that agrees with your theory. Probably true. But it doesn't matter, reality is not determined by majority vote. I don't think we're going to get anywhere until we find out who's paying this guy.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 27, 2007 14:07:01 GMT -4
Fortunately, the world population is about 6 billion, so that tiny bit of population that can't see the difference in security in the pre-9/11 world is but a minority. Given the number of nations around the world, that could also translate to a few thousand per nation that agrees with your theory. Probably true. But it doesn't matter, reality is not determined by majority vote. Quite true. The US opinion of creationism is a good example. Rambo, maybe?
|
|