Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
Warhawk
()
Date: August 04, 2010 08:44PM
Further proof that 9-11 was an inside job!!!1@!!!111!!! (sarcasm)
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/arizona.plane.crash/index.html?hpt=T2
__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2010 08:57PM by Warhawk.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/arizona.plane.crash/index.html?hpt=T2
__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2010 08:57PM by Warhawk.
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
ITRADE
()
Date: August 04, 2010 08:46PM
Lol...Try again.
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
ThePackLeader
()
Date: August 04, 2010 08:52PM
Here's the best example of such:
A WWII, U.S. Army Air Corps B-25 Bomber crashed into the Empire State Building during extremely foggy weather, in 1945.
Alas, the buildings are completely different in terms of construction (Regarding the World Trade Center vs. the Empire State Building). Yet, notice how similar the billowing flames and smoke appear in both instances.
==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).
A WWII, U.S. Army Air Corps B-25 Bomber crashed into the Empire State Building during extremely foggy weather, in 1945.
Alas, the buildings are completely different in terms of construction (Regarding the World Trade Center vs. the Empire State Building). Yet, notice how similar the billowing flames and smoke appear in both instances.
==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: August 04, 2010 09:01PM
ThePackLeader Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's the best example of such:
>
>
> A WWII, U.S. Army Air Corps B-25 Bomber crashed
> into the Empire State Building during extremely
> foggy weather, in 1945.
>
> Alas, the buildings are completely different in
> terms of construction (Regarding the World Trade
> Center vs. the Empire State Building). Yet, notice
> how similar the billowing flames and smoke appear
> in both instances.
The WTC towers had no internal columns. All the load was on the outside of the building. When the jets ripped through the exterior wall, it shifted a disproportionate amount of the load onto the remaining exterior walls. The reason why the second building hit fell first was because the impact was lower on the building...meaning that there was even more load on the remaining walls because of the number of floors above the impact area added significantly more weight.
The Empire State building was different for several reasons. First, the building has internal supporting columns, so the weight was spread more evenly across the remaining structure. Second, the impact was much higher on the Empire State Building, compared to the WTC towers, so there was less of a load being shifted around. Third, the bomber was most likely a much lighter plane than the jetliners that hit WTC. Fourth, the bomber was moving at a much slower velocity than the jets. And finally, the bomber most likely carried gasoline, not hotter burning jet fuel.
So, they still aren't really comparable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's the best example of such:
>
>
> A WWII, U.S. Army Air Corps B-25 Bomber crashed
> into the Empire State Building during extremely
> foggy weather, in 1945.
>
> Alas, the buildings are completely different in
> terms of construction (Regarding the World Trade
> Center vs. the Empire State Building). Yet, notice
> how similar the billowing flames and smoke appear
> in both instances.
The WTC towers had no internal columns. All the load was on the outside of the building. When the jets ripped through the exterior wall, it shifted a disproportionate amount of the load onto the remaining exterior walls. The reason why the second building hit fell first was because the impact was lower on the building...meaning that there was even more load on the remaining walls because of the number of floors above the impact area added significantly more weight.
The Empire State building was different for several reasons. First, the building has internal supporting columns, so the weight was spread more evenly across the remaining structure. Second, the impact was much higher on the Empire State Building, compared to the WTC towers, so there was less of a load being shifted around. Third, the bomber was most likely a much lighter plane than the jetliners that hit WTC. Fourth, the bomber was moving at a much slower velocity than the jets. And finally, the bomber most likely carried gasoline, not hotter burning jet fuel.
So, they still aren't really comparable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
Troll@AOL
()
Date: August 04, 2010 09:55PM
WTL wrote: >The WTC towers had no internal columns.
FALSE!
BOTH WTCs had 47 internal support columns.
It would just be silly to think the ALUMINUM exterior walls could hold such wieght, being half GLASS and all.
The exterior walls did nothing but tie the floors together like strutbars on a car, for extra rigidity.
These INTERIOR columns supported not only the majority of the buildings wieght, but it also provided a skeleton to support the elevator shafts and stairways.
.
==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"
- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.
FALSE!
BOTH WTCs had 47 internal support columns.
It would just be silly to think the ALUMINUM exterior walls could hold such wieght, being half GLASS and all.
The exterior walls did nothing but tie the floors together like strutbars on a car, for extra rigidity.
These INTERIOR columns supported not only the majority of the buildings wieght, but it also provided a skeleton to support the elevator shafts and stairways.
.
==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"
- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
ITRADE
()
Date: August 04, 2010 10:17PM
Well its not accurate to say that the interior didn't have columns. It did, but it was rebar enclosed in concrete - similar to what you see around DC. The building was built with an exoskeleton of structural steel tubing that bore the vast majority of the weight. The interior was simply designed to hold the interior core (ventilation, stairs and elevator systems) in place.
Once the structural integrity of the building was compromised, the building was doomed.
Buildings like the Empire State, Chrysler Building and any skyscraper in California are built using structural H Beams and H piles which is on the exterior and interior of the building.
Once the structural integrity of the building was compromised, the building was doomed.
Buildings like the Empire State, Chrysler Building and any skyscraper in California are built using structural H Beams and H piles which is on the exterior and interior of the building.
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
Faye
()
Date: August 05, 2010 01:53AM
WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fourth, the bomber was
> moving at a much slower velocity than the jets.
> And finally, the bomber most likely carried
> gasoline, not hotter burning jet fuel.
Fifth, the Empire State Building had to support the weight of a giant gorilla, holding a screaming woman.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fourth, the bomber was
> moving at a much slower velocity than the jets.
> And finally, the bomber most likely carried
> gasoline, not hotter burning jet fuel.
Fifth, the Empire State Building had to support the weight of a giant gorilla, holding a screaming woman.
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
dika-dika
()
Date: August 05, 2010 04:51AM
Here is a picture of one of the numerous offsprings of that gorilla, that hung off the building holding a screaming white woman. They haven't changed that much since then, just gotten a little smaller
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachments:
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
Warhawk
()
Date: August 05, 2010 06:00AM
Faye Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fourth, the bomber was
> > moving at a much slower velocity than the jets.
> > And finally, the bomber most likely carried
> > gasoline, not hotter burning jet fuel.
>
> Fifth, the Empire State Building had to support
> the weight of a giant gorilla, holding a screaming
> woman.
I just spit milk all over my phone.
__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fourth, the bomber was
> > moving at a much slower velocity than the jets.
> > And finally, the bomber most likely carried
> > gasoline, not hotter burning jet fuel.
>
> Fifth, the Empire State Building had to support
> the weight of a giant gorilla, holding a screaming
> woman.
I just spit milk all over my phone.
__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: August 05, 2010 07:02AM
Thanks to Itrade for the clarification.
The WTC was built with the specific intent that you could have unobdtructed views across a floor if a tenant chose to. If you listen to accounts from witnesses from 9/11, many talk about how everyone could see the fire in the first building from the elevators. This is because there weren't many internal columns. As itrade explained, the building's exoskeleton held it up, not the internal columns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
The WTC was built with the specific intent that you could have unobdtructed views across a floor if a tenant chose to. If you listen to accounts from witnesses from 9/11, many talk about how everyone could see the fire in the first building from the elevators. This is because there weren't many internal columns. As itrade explained, the building's exoskeleton held it up, not the internal columns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
TillyGeorge
()
Date: August 05, 2010 10:12AM
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting. "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU
I'm not a truther JUST because I posted this. It is information to take into account.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting. "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU
I'm not a truther JUST because I posted this. It is information to take into account.
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
ITRADE
()
Date: August 05, 2010 10:23AM
Clearly he was wrong. He also forgot about the prolonged heat caused by the fire.
The fact of the matter is that a jetliner, with 70,000 pounds of fuel, moving at close to 540 miles an hour struck a building and pierced a larger percentage of the structural tubes that encapsulate the building. That put stress and strain on the upper floors and the surviving structure on the same floors. Lets also remember that a lot of material went THROUGH the building - compromising steel on both sides of the building.
Add to that a prolonged fire that burned at very high temperatures for an extended period of time, resulting in weakened integrity in the remaining structure, you are increasing the chances of collapse manifold.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2010 10:24AM by ITRADE.
The fact of the matter is that a jetliner, with 70,000 pounds of fuel, moving at close to 540 miles an hour struck a building and pierced a larger percentage of the structural tubes that encapsulate the building. That put stress and strain on the upper floors and the surviving structure on the same floors. Lets also remember that a lot of material went THROUGH the building - compromising steel on both sides of the building.
Add to that a prolonged fire that burned at very high temperatures for an extended period of time, resulting in weakened integrity in the remaining structure, you are increasing the chances of collapse manifold.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2010 10:24AM by ITRADE.
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: August 05, 2010 10:27AM
TillyGeorge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I'm not a truther JUST because I posted this. It
> is information to take into account.
And the Titanic was unsinkable, too.
I don't think anyone anticipated a fully fueled 767 (not 707) hitting the buildings at full speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I'm not a truther JUST because I posted this. It
> is information to take into account.
And the Titanic was unsinkable, too.
I don't think anyone anticipated a fully fueled 767 (not 707) hitting the buildings at full speed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
ITRADE
()
Date: August 05, 2010 10:30AM
Yep, and the Japanese could not launch torpedoes at Pearl Harbor.
And Dewey would beat Truman
And Dewey would beat Truman
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: August 05, 2010 10:30AM
Also, keep in mind that it would have been virtually impossible to prep a building of that size for demolition without someone noticing. Do you know how much explosive that would have taken? A demo crew would have had to rip the sheet rock out of multiple floors over several weeks (if not months) to get a building ready for demo.
Plus, do you think the CIA or DOD have that many qualified demo people just standing around? No. It would take outside contractors. And, as we have seen from the WikiLeaks, it is hard for the government to keep peoples' mouths shut. How come none of these CIA, DOD and contractor types have come forward in the past 9 years?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
Plus, do you think the CIA or DOD have that many qualified demo people just standing around? No. It would take outside contractors. And, as we have seen from the WikiLeaks, it is hard for the government to keep peoples' mouths shut. How come none of these CIA, DOD and contractor types have come forward in the past 9 years?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
ITRADE
()
Date: August 05, 2010 10:31AM
Not to mention that the deme would have been in the exact place where the airliners hit. Damned we trained the terrorist pilots well.
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: August 05, 2010 10:37AM
ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not to mention that the deme would have been in
> the exact place where the airliners hit. Damned
> we trained the terrorist pilots well.
Uh, yeah. Not to mention that you had a building loaded top to bottom with explosives that got hit dead-on by a jetliner, yet none of the explosives were triggered immediately by the shock of impact, flames or heat of the fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not to mention that the deme would have been in
> the exact place where the airliners hit. Damned
> we trained the terrorist pilots well.
Uh, yeah. Not to mention that you had a building loaded top to bottom with explosives that got hit dead-on by a jetliner, yet none of the explosives were triggered immediately by the shock of impact, flames or heat of the fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
Johnny Walker
()
Date: August 05, 2010 12:00PM
WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> And the Titanic was unsinkable, too.
>
> I don't think anyone anticipated a fully fueled
> 767 (not 707) hitting the buildings at full speed.
So you buy the iceberg story. Typical.
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> And the Titanic was unsinkable, too.
>
> I don't think anyone anticipated a fully fueled
> 767 (not 707) hitting the buildings at full speed.
So you buy the iceberg story. Typical.
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
ITRADE
()
Date: August 05, 2010 12:13PM
plot by George Bush.
Actually, there is indeed a conspiracy theory about the Titanic. Legend has it that JP Morgan was supposed to be on the Titanic, but that he canceled to go frolic with nubile girls in France. JP Morgan and Co was an owner of the White Star Line....
Actually, there is indeed a conspiracy theory about the Titanic. Legend has it that JP Morgan was supposed to be on the Titanic, but that he canceled to go frolic with nubile girls in France. JP Morgan and Co was an owner of the White Star Line....
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
WashingTone-Locian
()
Date: August 05, 2010 01:06PM
Johnny Walker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > And the Titanic was unsinkable, too.
> >
> > I don't think anyone anticipated a fully fueled
> > 767 (not 707) hitting the buildings at full
> speed.
>
>
> So you buy the iceberg story. Typical.
Hmmm...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > And the Titanic was unsinkable, too.
> >
> > I don't think anyone anticipated a fully fueled
> > 767 (not 707) hitting the buildings at full
> speed.
>
>
> So you buy the iceberg story. Typical.
Hmmm...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
Kacist
()
Date: August 05, 2010 01:10PM
The Titanic was designed for X amount of compartments to fill with water. It exceeded the amount of compartments, therefore, it sunk.
A lot of people think that the twin towers were designed to sustain multiple jet impacts, and are suspicious because they collapsed only after 1.
That is like the Titanic sinking when only 1 or 2 compartments filled with water, when it was built to stay afloat with 4 or 5 compartments filled with water.
A lot of people think that the twin towers were designed to sustain multiple jet impacts, and are suspicious because they collapsed only after 1.
That is like the Titanic sinking when only 1 or 2 compartments filled with water, when it was built to stay afloat with 4 or 5 compartments filled with water.
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: August 05, 2010 01:17PM
WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnny Walker Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > And the Titanic was unsinkable, too.
> > >
> > > I don't think anyone anticipated a fully
> fueled
> > > 767 (not 707) hitting the buildings at full
> > speed.
> >
> >
> > So you buy the iceberg story. Typical.
>
> Hmmm...
>
>
>
Interesting graphic you have there...
The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-Warming-Blunder-Scientists/dp/1594033730/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271759263&sr=1-4
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnny Walker Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > And the Titanic was unsinkable, too.
> > >
> > > I don't think anyone anticipated a fully
> fueled
> > > 767 (not 707) hitting the buildings at full
> > speed.
> >
> >
> > So you buy the iceberg story. Typical.
>
> Hmmm...
>
>
>
Interesting graphic you have there...
The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-Warming-Blunder-Scientists/dp/1594033730/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271759263&sr=1-4
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: August 05, 2010 04:08PM
Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Johnny Walker Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > >
> > > > And the Titanic was unsinkable, too.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think anyone anticipated a fully
> > fueled
> > > > 767 (not 707) hitting the buildings at full
> > > speed.
> > >
> > >
> > > So you buy the iceberg story. Typical.
> >
> > Hmmm...
> >
> >
> >
>
> Interesting graphic you have there...
>
> The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother
> Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists
> http://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-Warming-Blunder
> -Scientists/dp/1594033730/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=boo
> ks&qid=1271759263&sr=1-4
>
>
Give it up weather boy....you and your ilk are killing humanity
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Johnny Walker Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > >
> > > > And the Titanic was unsinkable, too.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think anyone anticipated a fully
> > fueled
> > > > 767 (not 707) hitting the buildings at full
> > > speed.
> > >
> > >
> > > So you buy the iceberg story. Typical.
> >
> > Hmmm...
> >
> >
> >
>
> Interesting graphic you have there...
>
> The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother
> Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists
> http://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-Warming-Blunder
> -Scientists/dp/1594033730/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=boo
> ks&qid=1271759263&sr=1-4
>
>
Give it up weather boy....you and your ilk are killing humanity
Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.
Re: Plane crashes into building BUT IT DOESN'T COLLAPSE!!
Posted by:
Registered Voter
()
Date: August 05, 2010 04:11PM
Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Give it up weather boy....you and your ilk are
> killing humanity
The only one here that has any 'ilk' here is you (R)V.
The Sun is hot - get it?
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
-------------------------------------------------------
> Give it up weather boy....you and your ilk are
> killing humanity
The only one here that has any 'ilk' here is you (R)V.
The Sun is hot - get it?
If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University