Oh Goodie! ... More on 911 (inside job) :)
- Thread starter GrowRebel
- Start date
- Status
CrackerJax
New Member
I'm just a bit more logical than you. I don't put my politics first.
K
Keenly
Guest
ok Mr logic, AE911truth
why do architects and engineers scream controlled demolition?
CrackerJax
New Member
Because it gives them exposure.... nuts come in all forms.
K
Keenly
Guest
including ones on the internet
your statement hardly contradicts the 9,000 PhD signatures
wyteboi
Well-Known Member
Well being that your dad is in the same field as me then i know he only had access to regular blueprints. Now unless he personally talked to the head architects or engineers about planes flying into the buildings , then my obvious guess would be , that he has no idea what them buildings were designed to withstand?
"
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. [SIZE=-1]3 [/SIZE]
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. [SIZE=-1] 4 "
and John Skilling was not the only one, that is just the quickest thing i could find. somewhere in this thread there is a video where one of the designers talks about it, incase you dont feel like reading.
[/SIZE]
CrackerJax
New Member
For anyone interested in a point-by-point debunking of some of the most popular conspiracy theories out there (like the fact that steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C), check out the following links:
National Institute of Standards and Technology: Fact Sheet
National Institute of Standards and Technology: Fact Sheet
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
It's already been proven that the NIST report is bogus along with the 911 report ... but leave it to a disinformation agent to use a bogus report to mislead.
And let not forget that the infra-red photos proved the fire never got hot enough to damage the steel. And if their and you information is so accurate ... why no $1000 check to prove it? More prove you and NIST are full of shit.
Mindmelted
Well-Known Member
We should turn that place into a giant crater
CrackerJax
New Member
It's already been proven that the NIST report is bogus along with the 911 report ... but leave it to a disinformation agent to use a bogus report to mislead.
yah, the most intensive investigation is wrong because it doesn't agree with you tube.
Ur a super genius....
K
Keenly
Guest
or maybe it was admitted by the people who came up with the report, from their own mouth, that there are falsifications?yah, the most intensive investigation is wrong because it doesn't agree with you tube.
Ur a super genius....
your just going to ignore that though arent you
Hayduke
Well-Known Member
Nice.oh and a 707 is 336,000 lbs. a 767= 395,000 lbs.
707=23,000 gallons of fuel , and a 767= 24,000 gallons of fuel.
cruise speed for 707= 607mph. and a 767= 530mph.
So very little difference between the two, when it comes to hitting a building.
Did he say he did?...no but he did quote the....wait for it.... head structural engineer for the World Trade Centeryet you do.
Now I know that he 'aint no Cracker Dad
This was copied to keep the Wyteboi's statements in context...Although maybe he claims to know what happened...he did not in his post...But CJ's dad knows so...case closed.
When the Head structural engineer says this, it SHOULD at least raise some questions...this is but a single point of many.
wyteboi
Well-Known Member
You ask for "proof" , i give you what i can find. You change the subject back to heat and nist. (what level is that?)
Did you even read this report from nist?
well what i learned from that whole report is that steel loses 50% of its strength under 648 degree C.
I think nist forgot the other 99% of the info needed to conduct an investigation. I mean fuck, they are guessin an shit. Didnt you see the Head nist guy that said he was the most qualified on the team to do this investigation? He was NOT a scientist , nor a arcitect, and had less education then me, and then on top of that is the issue of money. They also admit that the families (who lost loved ones that day) had to "fight to overcome under funding and to extend unreasonably short deadlines"
(Rep. Mckinnney)
and what did that get them? Why were they not givin the time nor money to even try an acceptable investigation?
If the Commision does not accept their own investigation , how do you?
I just read this and it fits!
99% of all people that really believe the official report have never read it.
(just a study , not a fact......yet)
wyteboi
Well-Known Member
well i would not even posted had i not known this much. it really is common knowledge that them buildings were designed to take a hit (and fuel) from a 707 , now that does not mean they could of actually took the hit from the 767 , im just sayin that they did think of that before starting construction.yet you do.
I do not know shit about designing buildings or what they can handle, but i do read.
Cj , if i point out all clintons fuck ups and how he links up to this mess, will you at least look at/read the evidence we present? You seem to be more interested in "how the dems are running your country" then the topic at hand? If so there are many other boards for you. try reb vs. dem in the google bar.
wyteboi
Well-Known Member
because the commission itself describes it as FAR from "intensive" or even close. They ran out of money and time , so how the fuck is that "intensive"? ...............schab at best. Its funny how you know so much more then your own government? (or the commission you stand by SO strongly)
jfgordon1
Well-Known Member
I believe at first they were going to give 3 million for an investigation, but the commission had to beg for 15 million. Still a joke. Like i've stated before, Clinton's dick sucking investigation cost morebecause the commission itself describes it as FAR from "intensive" or even close. They ran out of money and time , so how the fuck is that "intensive"? ...............schab at best. Its funny how you know so much more then your own government? (or the commission you stand by SO strongly)
CrackerJax
New Member
What the investigation concluded (correctly) was there was PLENTY enough heat to make the steel collapse, once the outer steel columns were compromised by the aircraft.
It also states correctly that the collapse started on the floors hit by the jets, not at ground level, where the "explosives" would have been.
But you keep on being delusional. You must have some circle of misguided friends. Get some better ones. You can rebuild your rep, it's possible.
- Status