911
See other 911 Articles
Title: To all the morons who believe the governments story of 911. Post your links here that prove government is telling the truth. If you can find any lol
Source:
libertysflame.com
URL Source: http://www.libertysflame.com
Published: Jun 11, 2006
Author: A K A Stone
Post Date: 2006-06-11 13:17:21 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 20811
Comments: 36
Just to show we are fair. Here is a place to post video evidence or other evidence that proves the governments story. Good luck because the governments story is a bunch of bullshit for stupid people to believe.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 32.
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
The firemen who were there said there were bombs going off. The video below is a controlled demolition. Compare that to the collapse of the WTC. Buildings don't just collapse straight down and fall in their own footprint without bombs going off. Here is the video http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/kingdome.mpg After you watch the video feel free to post something making the governments case. So far all you did was make the case for an inside job.
The firemen who were there said there were bombs going off. ... and handclaps can sound like gunfire ... So what is your point with that response? Noises, made by the floor trusses failing under excess tension or compression with their embedded concrete floor slabs would explain all that. Why did they collapse? by Eduardo Kausel Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering, MIT From an engineering point of view, there were three causes to the massive structural damage that led to ultimate failure. These are the impact of the aircraft, the subsequent fireball, and most importantly, the raging fire caused by the vast amounts of jet fuel carried by the planes. Burning fuel must have also cascaded down floor openings to the levels below. It has been reported that the towers were designed for the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft then flying the skies. Considering that one of the towers survived for at nearly an hour, and the other almost two hours before collapsing, this demonstrated crash resistance provides compelling validation to this claim. It has also been opined by some that the towers did ultimately fail because the 767 is a far bigger jet carrying much more fuel than the design 707 aircraft. This view is largely incorrect. The takeoff weight of a fully loaded Boeing 707-320 is 151 tons (336,000 lbs.), and it carries a fuel load of 87,000 liters (23,000 gallons) of jet fuel. By contrast, the maximum takeoff weight of a Boeing 767-200 is some 178 tons (395,000 lbs.), and carries a fuel load of 91,000 liters (24,000 gallons). Assuming that jet fuel weighs like kerosene, this represents some 74 tons (164, 000 lbs.) of fuel, or about half the weight of a fully loaded aircraft. Thus, while the 767 is indeed a somewhat larger aircraft, it is not significantly so, while its amount of fuel load is nearly the same as in the 707. In addition, both ill-fated planes were only lightly loaded with passengers, and their fuel tanks at the moment of impact have been estimated to be no more than 50% full. Therefore, these planes did not carry their full takeoff load, but weighed instead no more than some 136 tons each. Thus, the buildings may indeed have been designed for the impact load caused by a commercial airliner the size of a Boeing 767, lost in fog in its approach to Kennedy Airport at landing speeds and with a modest fuel load remaining in its tanks. However, the designers never imagined a terrorist act during which high speed planes carrying large amounts of fuel would be deliberately crashed onto the towers, causing massive initial damage and triggering uncontrollable infernos. From information publicly available, it is known that the weight of each building was carried by an inner core of columns surrounding elevator shafts and stairways, and by a dense lattice of external columns spaced 99cm (39 inches) on center forming an outer tube intended principally to prevent the building from overturning when subjected to strong lateral forces, such as those elicited by hurricane winds. The floors where supported by a grid of truss beams that carried the weight of the floors to the columns, while the floors in turn provided lateral support that prevented buckling of the columns. The North Tower was hit at 8:46 above the 96th floor by a Boeing 767-200 flying at 691 km/hr (429 mph), and remained erect until 10:28, that is, nearly two hours after initial impact. By contrast, the South Tower was hit at 9:03 above the 80th floor by another 767-200 flying at 810 km/hr (503 mph) and collapsed less than an hour later at 9:59. The damage to the latter was more severe, perhaps because the second plane traversed the building at an angle and blew off external columns on two adjacent faces. This asymmetry, combined with the greater weight of the 31 stories above the crash elevation led to some tilting of the upper portion down the damaged corner, causing large overturning forces in the remaining members of the floor. The initial impact of the aircraft caused massive structural damage to the external columns, to the floors in the proximity of the impact, and to the inner core. The ensuing fireball must have exacerbated significantly this damage, possibly collapsing locally several floors, and setting the buildings ablaze in a virtually uncontrollable, fierce fire. Still, both buildings survived this initial assault, and did not give way for a remarkably long period of time after the crash. This extraordinary capability allowed many lives to be saved, and is a major credit to the designers. Ultimately, however, the intense fire heated the structural steel elements well beyond the thermal limit of some 400°C (750°F), which caused the steel to lose both its stiffness and resistance, and as supporting members gave way, the final failure of the building was initiated. Various mechanisms may have been at play in this failure. Witnesses who escaped the buildings in time reported seeing large cracks develop on the (non-structural) walls of the staircases. This suggests a steady redistribution of vertical forces and propagation of structural failure down the building. However, the immediate failure mechanism was almost certainly initiated locally at the elevation of the crash. Truss beams heated by the fire were probably more vulnerable than columns, and may have been the first to go. As parts of the floors then collapsed and rained down onto the floors below, the weight of the accumulating debris steadily increased beyond the support capacity of those floors, and they collapsed in turn. At the same time, local collapse of the floors caused the heat-weakened columns to loose their lateral support, which under the intense weight of the floors above the level of the fire caused them to buckle, break and roll out like matchsticks. At that point, the upper floors began to fall wholesale onto the structure below, and as they gained momentum, their crushing descent became unstoppable. Indeed, with two fairly simple dynamic models I developed in the hours following the collapse, I determined that the fall of the upper building portion down the height of a single floor must have caused dynamic forces exceeding the design loads by at least an order of magnitude (i.e. more than 10 times the weight of the upper floors). Thus, there was no way in the world that the columns below could have taken this large overload, and as these gave way, an avalanche down the building ensued causing the 110 story towers to collapse in about 12 seconds in what was practically a free fall. As reported by witnesses, the crushing of one floor onto one another caused a ratchet-like noise, whose frequency can be estimated to have been around 9 Hz (=110/12).
Lots of catching up to do now. I will get back to this later. Thanks for the response. Give me til end of week.
There are no replies to Comment # 32. End Trace Mode for Comment # 32.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: All (#1)
#3. To: All (#2)
#8. To: TLBSHOW (#3)
Ok you have a picture of a lady with dust on her.
#31. To: A K A Stone (#8)
#32. To: _Jim (#31)
Replies to Comment # 32.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]