TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 [56] 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

quote:

the governments complacency in the events leading up to 9/11 have no bearing on the failure mode of the collapse. i have never once argued for the US gov's innocence in the events. i merely argue on the technical points that crack pot CT'ers are retarded morons who know dick all about structural engineering. theorize all you want about gov conspiracy and involvement in teh attacks, just stop pretending to be forensic structural engineers.

Who's pretending to be an engineer? You seem to judge a whole group of individuals under one category and it is sad because there are millions of people which believe otherwise.

There is tons of evidence as to why the government would want to pull 9/11 off, picking your brain over the collapses accounts for maybe 1% of the reasons the official story is bogus.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Who's pretending to be an engineer? You seem to judge a whole group of individuals under one category and it is sad because there are millions of people which believe otherwise.

lots of your fellow crazies are pretending to be engineers. not the least steven jones, who isn't qualified to analyse the collapses, but your ilk keeps referencing him.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut There is tons of evidence as to why the government would want to pull 9/11 off, picking your brain over the collapses accounts for maybe 1% of the reasons the official story is bogus.

during the past couple of pages we've seen a perfect example of your supposed "research" skills, so forgive us if we dont buy the idea that there is "tons" of "evidence" to support you. im still perplexed with the supposed gains the 911 troothers believe the administration garnered from invading afghanistan with fake intelligence claiming al-qaida involvement in 911.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut There is tons of evidence as to why the government would want to pull 9/11 off,

i believe you mean motive.

what would be the motive?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i believe you mean motive. what would be the motive?

well, to pretend 3 years on that iraq had something to do with the attacks (why they blaimed al-qaida in afganistan first im still at a loss to explain) so we could invade and get all that iraqi oil obviously. its far far cheaper to start a war and steal oil than it is simply to buy it you see. and dont forget the patriot act. coz the government's (any govt) goal is to spy on their citizens. coz you know, they get their jollies doing so.

this is what bush et al were willing to risk their lives for.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Who's pretending to be an engineer? You seem to judge a whole group of individuals under one category and it is sad because there are millions of people which believe otherwise. There is tons of evidence as to why the government would want to pull 9/11 off, picking your brain over the collapses accounts for maybe 1% of the reasons the official story is bogus.

The point i was trying to make was that no amount of amateur research is going prove the FEMA report was flawed in its analysis. There isnt any firm evidence at all to support the claims. If you want to prove gov conspiracy, prove that the gov allowed the attacks to take place, cause frankly that is far more plausible than the gov imploding the buildings.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp The point i was trying to make was that no amount of amateur research is going prove the FEMA report was flawed in its analysis. There isnt any firm evidence at all to support the claims. If you want to prove gov conspiracy, prove that the gov allowed the attacks to take place, cause frankly that is far more plausible than the gov imploding the buildings.

Aliens using an invisible beam to blast the towers to dust is more plausible than a controlled demolition of a building that was occupied.

MrS

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp The point i was trying to make was that no amount of amateur research is going prove the FEMA report was flawed in its analysis. There isnt any firm evidence at all to support the claims. If you want to prove gov conspiracy, prove that the gov allowed the attacks to take place, cause frankly that is far more plausible than the gov imploding the buildings.

What really is the difference if they allowed it to happen or made it happen themselves, they still did not prevent 3000 of their own people from dying.

Same shit, same smell.

They deserve to be picked apart from every angle.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut What really is the difference if they allowed it to happen or made it happen themselves, they still did not prevent 3000 of their own people from dying. Same shit, same smell.

from an argument point of view, the difference is HUGE. if you can't show that they demolished the buildings then there's one helluva big hole in your entire belief system.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut They deserve to be picked apart from every angle.

lol. well, instead of cutting and pasting poor research you havent even bothered to vet, how bout you provide some real argument from some real researchers? oh sorry, i forgot

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel Aliens using an invisible beam to blast the towers to dust is more plausible than a controlled demolition of a building that was occupied. MrS

actually its a very real possiblitity.... as you can see from evidence shown in "superman returns for some 911 truth", a very real documentary found on youtube, aliens lazer beam eyes can shoot through 2 km's of seawater and turn bedrock into molten lava....!!!!

not only does this explain the pools of molten material in the rubble, but also the explosions in the basement as superman tried to fly under the structure to lift it off the ground and throw it into the sun!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN from an argument point of view, the difference is HUGE. if you can't show that they demolished the buildings then there's one helluva big hole in your entire belief system. lol. well, instead of cutting and pasting poor research you havent even bothered to vet, how bout you provide some real argument from some real researchers? oh sorry, i forgot

^^

Forget to look above at how the official story holds up in this poll moron?

Seems you and the others agreeing with the official BS story are not doing a quite so good job convincing everyone.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp actually its a very real possiblitity.... as you can see from evidence shown in "superman returns for some 911 truth", a very real documentary found on youtube, aliens lazer beam eyes can shoot through 2 km's of seawater and turn bedrock into molten lava....!!!! not only does this explain the pools of molten material in the rubble, but also the explosions in the basement as superman tried to fly under the structure to lift it off the ground and throw it into the sun!

And you are supposed to be taken seriously being an engineer and all?

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp The point i was trying to make was that no amount of amateur research is going prove the FEMA report was flawed in its analysis. There isnt any firm evidence at all to support the claims. If you want to prove gov conspiracy, prove that the gov allowed the attacks to take place, cause frankly that is far more plausible than the gov imploding the buildings.

Not just 9/11-wise, but when you are trying to prove something against the government, it would never be conclusive, most of the time because the government holds all the keys, and controls/funnels the information. Key evidence and videotapes were already long destroyed, bud. And who did - government agencies like FEMA. So there you go. You can stick to the government story if you wish thats full of holes. Yes, its inconclusive to say that government did it, but the government stories have been shown to have lies. You cant trust the government, politicans are most of the time just crooks. Look at Iraq, for example. Look at all the corruption scandals. And then the aftermath of 9/11. The event of such magnitude and its consequences are no coincidence.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Forget to look above at how the official story holds up in this poll moron? Seems you and the others agreeing with the official BS story are not doing a quite so good job convincing everyone.

oh, i see! the fact that a bunch of ignorant internet users are as stupid as you are should somehow have some bearing on my own opinions? or all the actual research i have done? huh. here i was thinking that something called evidence should really be what is important. my mistake!

magnetonium, i know you love to view "The Government" as its own entity, devoid of individuals and speaking with one conspiratorial voice- but in reality western governments just dont work that way. you would never be able to cover up an investigation of this scope, with the hundreds of investigators (from both the private and public spheres). it simply couldn't happen (if we're talking the bombs in the towers argument). those that work for these organisations are not really that different from yourself you know, as much as you might choose to ignore that fact.

quote:

oh, i see! the fact that a bunch of ignorant internet users are as stupid as you are should somehow have some bearing on my own opinions? or all the actual research i have done? huh. here i was thinking that something called evidence should really be what is important. my mistake!

You mean more like millions of people around the globe being the majority not believing crap like your research?

I will stop feeding you now, troll.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut You mean more like millions of people around the globe being the majority not believing crap like your research? I will stop feeding you now, troll.

oooh, lovely fallacy you have there appeal to popularity

secondly, and this is MOST important. try and grasp it will you? one must pay special attention to the wording of such questions, and understand the underlying ambiguity.

"do you believe there is a govt coverup re 9/11" is a very very different question from "do you think the govt planted explosives in the buildings and deliberately destroyed the towers".

i guarantee you if the latter question was asked you would see very different responses. not that it matters. what random idiots think is of little consequence to me.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut And you are supposed to be taken seriously being an engineer and all?

even my sarcasm has more credentials than you ................ N00b!

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp even my sarcasm has more credentials than you ................ N00b!

Not really.

The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate that the Towers should have remained standing on 9/11


The World Trade Center (WTC) Towers were the largest buildings ever conceived in 1960. This meant that there was a considerable amount of planning:

“The structural analysis carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson is the most complete and detailed of any ever made for any building structure. The preliminary calculations alone cover 1, 200 pages and involve over 100 detailed drawings… The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. The design concept is so sound that the structural engineer has been able to be ultra-conservative in his design without adversely affecting the economics of the structure.”

In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the WTC Towers to be “the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind.”

Like many modern structures and buildings, the WTC Towers were over-designed to withstand weight distribution in the event of structural damage. According to calculations made by the engineers who helped with the design of the Twin Towers, “all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.” As well, “Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.”


Complete Article,

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/20...-designers.html

quote:

Originally posted by culorut still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.

wow. if it can stand a 100 mile an hour wind why on earth would it crash to the ground being hit at 500+mph by a big fucking plane?

we've already stomped all over the arguments regarding the original design plans- colonelcrisp and i were nice enough to point out to you that it is completely irrelevant what the building designers planned for, nothing in this type of scenario is predictable.

why do you hold up the original engineers as some kind of god and in the same breath ignore what the world's engineers currently think?

simple fact is you can't engineer ANY building that is guaranteed to behave in ANY way in such an environment. colonel's already tried to explain this to you before, im not sure why youre not getting it?

i especially like how you didnt include the parts of the document where one of the original engineers says the design was never intended to be able to take the kind of collision both towers did in 2001. haha.

quote:

Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow. Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances. There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later. The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel.

quote:

To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

quote:

Potentially challenging other statements by Port Authority engineers, Dr. Sunder said it was now uncertain whether the authority fully considered the fuel and its effects when it studied the towers' safety during the design phase. "Whether the fuel was taken into account or not is an open question," Dr. Sunder said

quote:

[This] FULL DOCUMENT includes a graphic indicating the 707 impact speed was indeed estimated to be 290 km/h (around 180 mph), which compares with �flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact� for the 9/11 attacks.

oh no. not comparing apples to oranges again are we?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i especially like how you didnt include the parts of the document where one of the original engineers says the design was never intended to be able to take the kind of collision both towers did in 2001. haha. oh no. not comparing apples to oranges again are we?

HA HA HA HA HA HA if your going to selectively edit your "research" do yourself a favor and dont link to the origional document especially when it goes on to contradict what you just said.


and strucuturally speaking, rigidity is not always better. ideal connections are usually moddeled as pins, extreemly ridgid strucutures tend to fail quite catastrophicly, as ridgid connections allow for the build up of extreeme moment forces. alot of new skyscrapers are designed to move alot.... taipei 101 for example uses a 10 meter diameter steel sphere counter weight in the middle of the building, suspended by large cables to the roof girders to counter balance the large sway effect caused by the wind loads. if that counterweight system was not there, the sway amplitude would be large enough to cause motion sickness in occupants. elastic flexible structures behave much better under impacts than ridgid structures.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp HA HA HA HA HA HA if your going to selectively edit your "research" do yourself a favor and dont link to the origional document especially when it goes on to contradict what you just said.

You can take off your tin-foil hat: Purdue study supports WTC collapse findings




Purdue study supports WTC collapse findings

By Steve Herman, Associated Press
INDIANAPOLIS � A computer simulation of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks supports a federal agency's findings that the initial impact from the hijacked airplanes stripped away crucial fireproofing material and that the weakened towers collapsed under their own weight.
The two-year Purdue University study, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, was the first to use 3-D animation to provide visual context to the attacks, said Christoph Hoffmann, a professor of computer science and one of the lead researchers on the project.


ANIMATION: Purdue researchers reconstruct the World Trade Center impact
"One thing it does point out... is the absolute essential nature of fireproofing steel structures," Hoffmann told The Associated Press. "This is something that wasn't done originally in the World Trade Center when it was built. It wasn't code at that time."

Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering and a lead investigator on the simulation, said Purdue researchers hope their work leads to better structural design and building codes to prevent similar collapses.

"In the unfortunate development that we shall have to design structures to survive such events, the methods we have developed and will be developing will be of great use to designers," Sozen said.

The animation, intended in part to help engineers design safer buildings, begins with a map of lower Manhattan as it appeared on Sept. 11, 2001. The video then shows a plane slicing through several stories of the World Trade Center's north tower and follows the disintegrating plane through the interior and out the opposite side.

The report concludes that the weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, produced "a flash flood of flaming liquid" that knocked out a number of structural columns within the building and removed the fireproofing insulation from other support structures, Hoffmann said.

The simulation also found that the airplane's metal skin peeled away shortly after impact and shows how the titanium jet engine shafts flew through the building like bullets.

Ayhan Irfanoglu, a Purdue professor of civil engineering, said half of the building's weight-bearing columns were concentrated at the cores of the towers.

"When that part is wiped out, the structure comes down," Irfanoglu said. "We design structures with some extra capacity to cover some uncertainties, but we never anticipate such heavy demand coming from an aircraft impact. If the columns were distributed, maybe, the fire could not take them out so easily."

A 2005 report following a three-year investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a federal engineering agency, recommended that cities raise fire standards for skyscrapers and develop new materials that can better protect tall buildings from fire. That analysis did not blame the collapse on the steel or design of the towers, but instead focused on the damage to the fireproofing.

Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator, said he was aware of the Purdue study and called it and his own agency's study "among probably the most prominent analyses that have been conducted in the United States."

The animation is the latest project by the Purdue team to assess the structural damage from the Sept. 11 attacks. The team also studied the impact of the crash into the Pentagon.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
>>SOURCE<<

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX You can take off your tin-foil hat: Purdue study supports WTC collapse findings Purdue study supports WTC collapse findings By Steve Herman, Associated Press INDIANAPOLIS � A computer simulation of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks supports a federal agency's findings that the initial impact from the hijacked airplanes stripped away crucial fireproofing material and that the weakened towers collapsed under their own weight. The two-year Purdue University study, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, was the first to use 3-D animation to provide visual context to the attacks, said Christoph Hoffmann, a professor of computer science and one of the lead researchers on the project. ANIMATION: Purdue researchers reconstruct the World Trade Center impact "One thing it does point out... is the absolute essential nature of fireproofing steel structures," Hoffmann told The Associated Press. "This is something that wasn't done originally in the World Trade Center when it was built. It wasn't code at that time." Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering and a lead investigator on the simulation, said Purdue researchers hope their work leads to better structural design and building codes to prevent similar collapses. "In the unfortunate development that we shall have to design structures to survive such events, the methods we have developed and will be developing will be of great use to designers," Sozen said. The animation, intended in part to help engineers design safer buildings, begins with a map of lower Manhattan as it appeared on Sept. 11, 2001. The video then shows a plane slicing through several stories of the World Trade Center's north tower and follows the disintegrating plane through the interior and out the opposite side. The report concludes that the weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, produced "a flash flood of flaming liquid" that knocked out a number of structural columns within the building and removed the fireproofing insulation from other support structures, Hoffmann said. The simulation also found that the airplane's metal skin peeled away shortly after impact and shows how the titanium jet engine shafts flew through the building like bullets. Ayhan Irfanoglu, a Purdue professor of civil engineering, said half of the building's weight-bearing columns were concentrated at the cores of the towers. "When that part is wiped out, the structure comes down," Irfanoglu said. "We design structures with some extra capacity to cover some uncertainties, but we never anticipate such heavy demand coming from an aircraft impact. If the columns were distributed, maybe, the fire could not take them out so easily." A 2005 report following a three-year investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a federal engineering agency, recommended that cities raise fire standards for skyscrapers and develop new materials that can better protect tall buildings from fire. That analysis did not blame the collapse on the steel or design of the towers, but instead focused on the damage to the fireproofing. Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator, said he was aware of the Purdue study and called it and his own agency's study "among probably the most prominent analyses that have been conducted in the United States." The animation is the latest project by the Purdue team to assess the structural damage from the Sept. 11 attacks. The team also studied the impact of the crash into the Pentagon. Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. >>SOURCE<<

for the record.... i never wore tin foil hats..... i find them tacky and the alien brainwaves penetrate through even the heavy duty bar b q foil

i have moved on to more comprehensive alien brain wave protection in the form of "the alien brainwave defuncluator 2001"

^^ that will teach dem aliens

I was hoping someone posted the Purdue BS report based on FEMA's info.

quote:

Purdue researchers create 9/11 computer simulation

More than five-and-a-half years have passed since terrorists toppled the World Trade Center, and questions still remain about how the buildings came down. Researchers at Purdue University have created a computer model attempting to answer some of those questions.

The simulation found jet engine shafts from airlines flown into the World Trade Center "flew through the building like bullets," according to an Associated Press wide report.

Flaming jet fuel cascaded through the tower stripping away fireproofing material and causing the building to collapse, the AP video reports.

"The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid," according to the video.

However, the website TRUTHORLIES.ORG believes that the simulation "raises more questions then answers."

Josh Reeves and Mike Swenson write, "The following statement was used in the Purdue simulation: 'The weight of the aircraft's fuel, when ignited, acted like a flash flood of flaming liquid.' This is a direct contradiction of the FEMA report (which can be viewed HERE) which stated: 'despite the huge fireballs caused by the two planes crashing into the WTC towers each with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, the fireballs did not explode or create a shock wave that would have resulted in structural damage.'�

The site also notes that "the National Science Foundation (NSF), the agency that funded the Purdue study, is an agency whose board was appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate," and that its director, Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr. worked for employers such as General Electric Company, Battelle Northwest Laboratories, and DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), the agency responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military.


http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Purdu...ation_0620.html

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.