Rafick...keep up the good work!
Most boards are slow this time of year, and you are some solid entertainment.
I'd really enjoy having a few beers with someone like you--in public of course. You seem passionate about what you post, even when faced with enormous mounds of widely accepted facts to the contrary.
...pretty neat.
Perhaps you'd like to have that beer in a beer hall putsch?
OK, so I think we can all agree on the following point, because we all saw it happen: 2 planes crashed (one into tower 1 wtc, the other into tower 2 wtc). The Pentagon was attacked. a plane crashed in a field. OK we agree so far, right? secondly, these were pre-medidated, deliberate, and evil acts of terrorism. still with me? thirdly, many innocent people died in these evil acts. still agree? fact 4. there has been little official open and public investigation into these attacks by the administration and nobody has been punished from the administration that is responsible for protecting the citizens of America. still with me on this? this leaves the following three possible scenarios: 1. (best case scenario) the official version of events is true. The United States was unexpectedly attacked by Bin-laden funded and trained terrorists. this means that there was a gross breach of duty in protecting the citizens of America. and rank negligence was the cause. In which case somebody or some agency/agencies should be tried for gross negligence. some high up officials should be tried and put to death. Instead we have the security services rewarded with increased budgets and the man in charge of NORAD that morning gets a promotion????? How is it un-patriotic or treasonous to ask questions of those who so glaringly failed to protect the American public? Why should their failure to implement Standard Operational Procedure be rewarded with blind obedience and unquestioned loyalty? ------------------------------------------------ this leaves open the possibility of scenario 2 (mid-case scenario) The official version of events is half-true. The Bin-Laden terrorists attacked The United States and the American People suffered - but the administration tasked with protecting the public knew from the many warnings that they had received, (several stating time, place and type of attack), that the attacks were coming and allowed them to happen on purpose. In which case, in this scenario, the administration are the real traitors and should be executed. Again, when an attack of this nature occurs, why is it traitorous to ask how and why it happened and who is responsible? ----------------------------------------------------- If this is not the case, that could only leave scenario 3 (worst case scenario) That the United States was attacked by elements within the U.S. Government structure or the Military Industrial Complex that resides therein. The hijackers were either non existant or patsies sacrifised to provide some-one to blame. There has been a MASSIVE amount of misinfo/disinfo issued to cloud the subject and any public investigation has been prevented to protect the guilty. If this is the case then God should not bless, but should help America for it is truly in the deepest it has ever EVER been in, as is the entire global population. ----------------------------------------------------- The only possible conlusion one can draw from the events of 9/11 is that one or a combination of the above listed scenarios are true. In which case how on earth is it unpatriotic or even treasonous to ask questions? And in which case the future of civilisation is under dire threat.
I must have missed where someone said it was unpatriotic or treasonous to ask questions. Did someone here really say that? No? Well, must be you making up your own conspiracy theory now. Guess it is a slow day conspiracy-wise, huh Raf?
More like a slow life, I think.
D'artagnan wrote:More like a slow life, I think.
for that great remark, i need a beer
How about a question that's REALLY NEVER been asked on this or any other site. Go to september11victims.com and check out the tennants of the three buildings in question. F.B.I offices, Port Authority, Secret Service offices and dozens of financial institutions, gold, silver,diamond brokers over 1,000 safes were in these buildings containing all of the above, estimated $300 million in cash/precious metals and also documents that bring the downfall of Whitehouse principals in ongoing fraud investigations. Where are these safes now? They were indestructable and were carted away by the same demolition company that cleansed Oklahoma - recommended by Dubya for NY too!
What moving company was used to relocate Zim American Israeli Shipping Co from the World Trade Center a week before 9/11/2001? Was it Urban Moving Systems? The five Israeli men seen celebrating after the towers collapsed were employees of Urban Moving Systems. When their van was pulled over by the police, bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives. Later Urban Moving Systems headquarters was raided by police with bomb-sniffing dogs. The FBI later concluded at least two of these men were Mossad agents. Could the reason they were celebrating be that they had planted explosives the week before and that they were the ones that actually brought down the towers?
For those of you anxiously awaiting the next question to be posed by our friend Rafick, you could just go to
www.unansweredquestions.org if he's not cutting and pasting fast enough for you ...
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/topic.php?tid=57
http://www.unansweredquestions.net/topic.php?tid=61&vt=p
THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE
THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 767.
Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.
The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.
The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.
The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.
So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.
In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed and not at the break neck speed of some kamikaze. With this in mind, we can calculate the energy that the plane would impart to the towers in any accidental collision.
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).
From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.
In conclusion we can say that if the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.
So what can be said about the actual impacts?
The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s.
The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).
This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?
The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).
This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it is also a surprise that the 767 impact caused the South tower to fall.
Overall, it comes as a great surprise that the impact of a Boeing 767 bought down either tower. Indeed, many experts are on record as saying that the towers would survive the impact of the larger and faster Boeing 747. In this regard, see professor Astaneh-Asl's simulation of the crash of the much, much larger and heavier Boeing 747 with the World Trade Center. Professor Astaneh-Asl teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.
Although the jet fuel fires have been ruled out as the cause of the collapses, it should still be pointed out that the fuel capacities of the Boeing 707 and the Boeing 767 are essentially the same. And in any case, it has been estimated that both UA Flight 175 and AA Flight 11 were carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel when they impacted. This is well below the 23,000 gallon capacity of a Boeing 707 or 767. Thus the amount of fuel that exploded and burnt on September 11 was envisaged by those who designed the towers. Consequently, the towers were designed to survive such fires. It should also be mentioned that other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires than those of the twin towers on September 11, and did not collapse.
Rafick, or rather someone he quoted, wrote:Although the jet fuel fires have been ruled out as the cause of the collapses ....
By whom? I await your response with rapt anticipation ...
rafick's sources wrote: ... In this regard, see professor Astaneh-Asl's simulation of the crash of the much, much larger and heavier Boeing 747 with the World Trade Center. Professor Astaneh-Asl teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.
and
Quote: ... Although the jet fuel fires have been ruled out as the cause of the collapses ....
Fair enough. Astaneh-Asl is a recognized, accreditted expert in the field of structural catastrophe. Lets just see what actually was said by the expert mentioned:
Quote:Engineer: Towers collapsed from fires
By JEFFREY GOLD
The Associated Press
JERSEY CITY A structural engineer examining the twisted bones of the World Trade Center said Friday he has tentatively concluded
the towers collapsed because of intense fires fanned by jet fuel. The interior steel remained supportive after thecrash, only buckling when the fire exceeded 1,000 degrees, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl said.
"The impact did nothing," Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl said, pointing to a massive interior column from the south tower that he believes remained standing even after three-quarters of it was sliced away by a jet part.
He expects that research will examine whether a tougher skin for future skyscrapers might be useful in deterring similar assaults. A steel-concrete compositeexterior, for example, might crumple a plane and keep more fuel outside, he suggested.
"This building could not fight. It was just innocently standing there and somebody shot it," he said. Astaneh-Asl is a professor of structural engineering at University of California-Berkeley.
Pieces of one of the planes, "the largest the size of a business envelope", were found imbedded in steel facade columns of one tower on the opposite side from where they entered, Astaneh-Asl said.
"The airplane did not do much damage," he said, showing bolts and fasteners that suggest to him the towers were well designed and well constructed.
Once beams supporting the floors began to buckle in the fire, the floors pancaked and that brought the towers down, he said.
Astanah-Asl, under a grant from the National ScienceFoundation, plans to build a computer model of the towers from data gleaned in the mounds of steel at ground zero and at a massive scrap yard in New Jersey. The computer model will examine if the buckling could have been prevented and whether additional fireproofing would withstand even a fully fueled airliner, he said. The steel had protection for about three hours of an office fire, he said ...
Big difference between an ordinary office fire and an inferno fed by tens of thousands of pounds of jet fuel, just in case that not-so-minor point escaped your notice.
More:
Quote:Scholars Work to Rebuild the World Trade Center Virtually
By JEFFREY R. YOUNG
A few days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl stood at a recycling center in New Jersey, staring intently at some 10-ton steel beams that had once held up two of the world's tallest buildings. They looked like giant sticks of twisted licorice. But Mr. Astaneh-Asl, a professor of structural engineering at the University of California at Berkeley whose specialty is structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings, saw a detailed story in the bends and cracks of the buildings' charred remains ...
...
'Pancaking Collapse'
What looks like a giant bite taken out of one piece of steel, for instance, might have been caused by one of the hijacked planes' engines slamming through the column, a hollow, rectangular, steel tube three feet wide and 18 inches deep.
The fact that the piece is still partially intact suggests to Mr. Astaneh-Asl that it remained standing after impact. He says the buildings might have survived the plane crashes if the ensuing jet-fuel fires had not weakened the upper floors and started a "pancaking collapse."
To support his theory, he cites the way the steel has been bent at several connection points that once joined the floors to the vertical columns. If the internal supporting columns had collapsed upon impact, he says, the connection points would show cracks, because the damage would have been done while the steel was cold. Instead, he describes the connections as being smoothly warped: "If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted -- it's kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot -- perhaps around 2,000 degrees."
"The buildings did well under circumstances," he says, arguing that the steel "was holding the load until the floors collapsed." He points out that the World Trade Center's ability to stand for about an hour after the initial impacts probably saved the lives of more than 20,000 people who escaped during that time ...
Hmmmm ... I'd say what actually was said is damned inconvenient to the argument you're championin' here, rafick, apart from wholly discredting your sources; as they say in law, "Falsum in uno, falsum in toto" - "False in one, false in all". Not infrequently, what is said by a trial judge following having said that is something along the lines of "The witness having been discreditted, the jury hereby is instructed to disregard the testimony and the reporter shall strike it from the record".
By the way, what "
... other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires than those of the twin towers on September 11, and did not collapse"?
Ch,ch,ch,[size=7]ch[/size]...
Hating and fearing Jews is no way to go through life.
They are a superior race of people, but it's hardly their fault.
It is clear that the default position of blaming Jews for everything that goes wrong is caused by a deep jealousy. Try to ask yourself what it is they have that those who hate them so desperately want...and maybe we can get over all this Jew-blaming nonsense, and find the REAL hijackers!
Rafick - Your calcs are meaningless. Too many unknowns and assumptions. You're saying that because we can't calculate what happened, that it couldn't have happened. Silliness -- We can see a bumblebee in flight, we can hear it as it flies by, but we cannot mathematically account for its flight - mathematically, the bumblebee should never fly and yet it does.
Bumblebees can't really fly, Idaho. Look closely. Do you really think those wings are big enough to get this creature off the ground?
Quote:Thus the amount of fuel that exploded and burnt on September 11 was envisaged by those who designed the towers. Consequently, the towers were designed to survive such fires. It should also be mentioned that other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires then the twin towers on September 11, and did not collapse.
I too would like to know these buildings. Im familiar with the Cygna building fire in Philadelpia. the concern for collapse was mentioned in this one but, because the fire was not a conflagration that engulfed an entire area, and , more importantly, there was a tthick fire proofing Kaylo product on the structural members. The WTC was not so fortunate. In fact its fire retardents were agreeably substandard.
Shaped projectiles carrying significant explosive charges also affects tthe damage done. The 767 hit tthe buildings aand tthen followed tthe major explosion aand fire. We aall agree tthat the planes made it deep into each tower. Under ther F=Ma rule, if an F22 hit the building, tt would probablyhave gone right through. The chief weapon was JP not the missile body. TThe plane onluy had to impale itself into the buildings mainframe, which it did, You only have to look at that awful footage .
All subsequent post morts on the building, done section by section which wa able to be done from numbered colums, show clearly that the metal cross members showed temperature fatigue which increased the catenary on the beams, and due to theless than adequate bolt patterns, the cross members just bent and easily sheared the bolts. The design engineers and the architect have admittted thtt when presented with the overwhelming evidence. Youre working from the ass end inward. Start with the evidence in hand rafick, its on the web for anyone to see.
I explained this to you before, Rafick, about heat from fires affecting steel frames.
It's plain the impacts did not bring the buildings down, we have video film evidence for that.
Why you no rrissen?
Occom Bill, No doubt in my mind that the charming pictured bumblebee could soar to incalculable heights.
