"Advanced 707-320B Wingspan 145 feet 9 inches (44.42 m) Length 152 feet 11 inches (46.6 m) Wing Area 3,010 square feet (280 m2) Gross Weight 336,000 pounds (152,400 kg) Cruising Speed 607 mph (977 km/h) Range 6,160 miles (9,913 km) Service Ceiling 36,000 feet (10,973 m) Power Four Pratt & Whitney JT3D turbofans of 18,000 pounds thrust each Passenger Cabin 141 passengers mixed class or a maximum of 189 all economy"
Technical Characteristics -- Boeing 767-200ER Passenger Seating Configuration
Typical 3-class 181
Typical 2-class 224
Typical 1-class up to 255 Cargo 2,925 cu ft (82.9 cu m) Engines 2 maximum thrust Pratt & Whitney PW4000 60,200 lb
GE CF6-80C262,100 lb
Maximum Fuel Capacity 23,980 U.S. gal (90,770 L) Maximum Takeoff Weight 395,000 lb (179,170 kg) Maximum Range 6,590 nautical miles (12,200 km)
Typical city pairs: New York to Beijing Typical Cruise Speed at 35,000 feet Mach 0.80 (530 mph, 851 kph) Basic Dimensions
Wing Span 156 ft 1 in (47.6 m)
Overall Length 159 ft 2 in (48.5 m)
Tail Height 52 ft (15.8 m)
Interior Cabin Width 15 ft 6 in (4.7 m)"
No "building being dropped on another building" nonsense happened.
As the picture clearly shows, the atomized debris dust preceded the collapse. The dust and debris is being blown out of the site of the initial area of collapse at a high rate of speed such as one would expect to see when explosives have been used.
"Advanced 707-320B Wingspan 145 feet 9 inches (44.42 m) Length 152 feet 11 inches (46.6 m) Wing Area 3,010 square feet (280 m2) Gross Weight 336,000 pounds (152,400 kg) Cruising Speed 607 mph (977 km/h) Range 6,160 miles (9,913 km) Service Ceiling 36,000 feet (10,973 m) Power Four Pratt & Whitney JT3D turbofans of 18,000 pounds thrust each Passenger Cabin 141 passengers mixed class or a maximum of 189 all economy"
Technical Characteristics -- Boeing 767-200ER Passenger Seating Configuration
Typical 3-class 181
Typical 2-class 224
Typical 1-class up to 255 Cargo 2,925 cu ft (82.9 cu m) Engines 2 maximum thrust Pratt & Whitney PW4000 60,200 lb
GE CF6-80C262,100 lb
Maximum Fuel Capacity 23,980 U.S. gal (90,770 L) Maximum Takeoff Weight 395,000 lb (179,170 kg) Maximum Range 6,590 nautical miles (12,200 km)
Typical city pairs: New York to Beijing Typical Cruise Speed at 35,000 feet Mach 0.80 (530 mph, 851 kph) Basic Dimensions
Wing Span 156 ft 1 in (47.6 m)
Overall Length 159 ft 2 in (48.5 m)
Tail Height 52 ft (15.8 m)
Interior Cabin Width 15 ft 6 in (4.7 m)"
No "building being dropped on another building" nonsense happened.
As the picture clearly shows, the atomized debris dust preceded the collapse. The dust and debris is being blown out of the site of the initial area of collapse at a high rate of speed such as one would expect to see when explosives have been used.
Wrong again. You keep trying to skip past a critical point.
"...once the building starts coming down..."
There was no reason for the WTC buildings to start coming down in the first place. The building was designed to withstand a direct hit by a 707 and remain standing.
As one can see in the this linked series of pictures, the creation of the atomized debris cloud began at the moment collapse began.
There was not a collapse then a big dust cloud that rose up from the ground after impact. The material was atomized at the site of the initial collapse at instant of collapse.
Another picture from the moment off collapse. The dust blown out at high rate of speed and in the lower right what looks like be ignited thermite being blown out along with the dust.
Do you think the beams were designed so they would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and THEN collapse?
Not hardly. They were designed with massive enough steel beams so that they could be hit by a Boeing 707 and keep standing afterwards.
That picture clearly shows that pancaking creates a LITTLE dust. Only a little. Not the monsterous hundreds of feet tall cloud of atomized debris that was visible all the way up to the astronauts in the International Space Station.
Only massive amounts of explosives can create that kind of massive cloud of atomized debris.
You are severely underestimating the strength of massive steel structural beams that were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and still keep the building upright.
Here's a link to a picture of a pancake collapse. The floors remain fairly recognizable stacked one on top of another. There is rubble but there is no pulverization.
There's only one way debris of the WTC building gets atomized into the fine ash that covered Lower Manhattan on 9/11. Massive amounts of explosives being detonated.
You have to make your conclusions based on the actual facts at hand.
The facts are......no amount of jet fuel can burn down a steel framed skyscraper. It burns at too low a temperature to have any significant effect on the structural integrity of steel beams. Period.
I don't care if Manhattan Island is completely submerged in jet fuel, ignited, and the fire is allowed to burn for years...... when the fires do go out, the steel frames of the skyscrapers will emerge mostly intact.
If jet fuel could not burn down the WTC buildings, and it couldn't, then there had to be another cause. The evidence from every single sample of WTC ash tested by independent labs shows thermite residue in every one of those samples.
Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...
"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃffC...."
You have to make your conclusions based on the actual facts at hand.
The facts are......no amount of jet fuel can burn down a steel framed skyskraper. Period.
I don't care if Manhattan Island is completely submerged in jet fuel, ignited, and the fire is allowed to burn for years...... when the fires do go out, the steel frames of the skyscrapers will emerge mostly intact.
If jet fuel could not burn down the WTC buildings, and it couldn't, then there had to be another cause. The evidence from every single sample of WTC ash tested by independent laws shows thermite residue in every single sample.
Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...
"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃfC...."
Science has led to the controlled demolition hypothesis. No other hypothesis fits the data.
Better take a look at good hard look at what is in the public record regarding what Bechtel Corp. of being fully capable of accomplishing before being so dismissive.
Any type of credible criminal investigation would have them at the top of the list of potential suspects.
Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...
"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃfC...."
There were massive steel beams running through the central core of the WTC buildings.
To use the martial artist metaphor properly, there would have to be about 12 lengths of rebar running side-by-side securing each board right through the middle of the boards the guy was trying to break.
-Is the name of the website "Only Architects, and no Engineers for 9/11 Truth."
No, huh.
It's Architects AND Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
The Engineers are working in their field of expertise, the architects theirs.
Really bad attempt on your part to try to pretend engineers aren't involved in the process.
----
-And no, I don't think they are "bad engineers." In fact, I think they must be incredibly talented engineers, because the work they have done for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has withstood bad attempts to discredit it by those who promote the official conspiracy theory for years now.
You like many other critics keep claiming someone else has or will come along with evidence that dispute the scientific research being posted at websites like Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, but that scientific research never shows up in discussion like this.
Stop talking about all the evidence you claim you have that will back the official conspiracy theory. Either present that evidence or stop making such claims.
You aren't engaging of honest discussions of any evidence here. nI don't see you responding with any scientific evidence at all to dispute the findings. I see you calling people names and lobbing insults.
Your reply here does not in any way dispute the scientific research being done there. I don't see you responding with any scientific evidence at all to dispute the findings there. I see you calling people names.
http://www.laud.no/ww2/se108/index.htm...shows German spy radio transmitters were built with variable frequency transmitters. Sorry. No single local frequency to block. Jamming attempts would be very hit and miss propositions.
I'm so sorry. That's incorrect. Thanks for playing
The Germans know nothing about the Manhattan Project. Stalin had one spy infiltrate the Manhattan Project pretty thoroughly, but like many of the Soviet spy successes, Stalin refused to believe the reports the spy was sending in, so the Soviets were ordered to do nothing with the information.
And the Germans would have sat down in front of a radio transmitter and immediately tapped out whatever needed to be sent on a morse code key.
You have heard of radio transmitters? I assure you Germans spies were more than capable of getting urgent radio messages out of England instantaneously.
As far as compiling suspect lists (the type of thing you are supposed to do in criminal investigations, Bechtel Corp. would top the list.
Means: Bechtel is the largest engineering co. in the US. Bechtel is a leader in the field of demolitions technology. Bechtel manages the Lawrence Livermore Labs a particularly suspicious form of nano-thermite was researched and developed and discussed in this April, 2000 scientific journal article.
Making Nanostructured Pyrotechnics in a Beaker A.E. Gash, R.L. Simpson*, T.M. Tillotson, J.H. Satcher and L.W. Hrubesh Energetic Materials Center Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Livennore, CA 94550
Abstract
"Controlling composition at the nanometer scale is well known to alter material properties in sometimes highly desirable and dramatic ways. In the field of energetic materials component distributions, particle size, and morphology, effect both sensitivity and reactivity performance. To date nanostructured energetic materials are largely unknowns with the exception of nanometer-sized reactive powders now being produced at a number of laboratories. We have invented a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel ~hemistry.lT-~he ease of this synthetic approach along with the inexpensive, stable, and benign nature of the metal precursors and solvents permit large-scale syntheses to be carried out. This approach can be accomplished using low cost processing methods. We will describe here, for the first time, this new synthetic route for producing metaloxide- based pyrotechnics. The procedure employs the use of stable and inexpensive hydrated-metal inorganic salts and environmentally friendly solvents such as water and ethanol. The synthesis is straightforward and involves the dissolution the metal salt in a solvent followed by the addition of an epoxide, which induces gel formation in a timely manner. Experimental evidence suggests that the epoxide acts as an irreversible proton scavenger that induces the hydratedmetal species to undergo hydrolysis and condensation to form a sol that undergoes. further condensation to form a metal-oxide nanostructured gel. Both critical point and atmospheric drying have been employed to produce monolithic aerogels and xerogels, respectively. Using this method we have synthesized metal-oxide nanostructured materials using Fe3', Cr3+, A13', Ga3+, In3', Hf', Sn4+and Zr4+ inorganic salts. Using related methods we have made nanostructured oxides of Mo, Ti, V, Co, Ni, Cu, Y, Ta, W, Pb, B, Pr, Er, Nd and Si. These materials have been characterized using optical and electron microscopy, infrared spectroscopy, surface area, pore size, and pore volume analyses. The epoxide addition sol-gel technique is amenable the addition of insoluble materials (e.g., metals or polymers) to the viscous sol, just before gelation, to produce a uniformly distributed and energetic nanocomposite upon gelation. As an example energetic nanocomposites of Fe,O, and metallic aluminum are easily synthesized. The compositions are stable, safe and can be readily ignited. Production and characterization data of these novel energetic materials will be presented...."
Motive: The 9/11 destruction of WTC 7 destroyed the evidence that had been gather for the case the Departmant of Justice was building against Bechtel in "THE BIG DIG" corruption scandal.
Since 9/11, the only corporation recieving more Iraq/Afghanistan contracts than Bechtel is Halliburton.
The explosion of the 3 WTC buildings was screwed up. It was so badly screwed up millions of people that witnessed it knew it was government cover story was a LIE.
16% of the American people think explosives brought down the WTC.
It wouldn't matter if the entire south end of Manhattan Island was submerged in jet fuel, ignited, and allowed to burn for weeks. The steel structures of the high rise buildings would emerge relatively intact.
Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to damage the framework of steel frame buildings.
-------
"While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÂC.
The Invasion of Normandy proves that large conspiracies can be kept secret. England was known to be crawling with German spies in WW2, yet the Nazis never found out the correct location of the invasion target... Normandy. Matter of fact, the commander of Axis forces at the Atlantic Wall, Rommel (one of Hitlers best generals) was so sure nothing was going to happen in the near future, he left his command to visit his wife and son and was not able to be at his HQ the morning of the invasion.
Several days after the invasion, Rommel was still so sure the primary invasion was coming at Calais, he withheld his best Panzer units away from the Normandy Peninsula.
As far as conspiracies within the US, how the Manhattan Project. We blew up a freakin' nuclear weapon in New Mexico, and nobody knew about it for years! We built a whole city nobody knew about too.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Stats on the Boeing 707-320B from Boeing.com
"Advanced 707-320B Wingspan 145 feet 9 inches (44.42 m)
Length 152 feet 11 inches (46.6 m)
Wing Area 3,010 square feet (280 m2)
Gross Weight 336,000 pounds (152,400 kg)
Cruising Speed 607 mph (977 km/h)
Range 6,160 miles (9,913 km)
Service Ceiling 36,000 feet (10,973 m)
Power Four Pratt & Whitney JT3D turbofans of 18,000 pounds thrust each
Passenger Cabin 141 passengers mixed class or a maximum of 189 all economy"
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html [boeing.com]
Technical Characteristics -- Boeing 767-200ER
Passenger Seating Configuration
Typical 3-class 181
Typical 2-class 224
Typical 1-class up to 255
Cargo 2,925 cu ft (82.9 cu m)
Engines 2
maximum thrust
Pratt & Whitney PW4000 60,200 lb
GE CF6-80C262,100 lb
Maximum Fuel Capacity 23,980 U.S. gal (90,770 L)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 395,000 lb (179,170 kg)
Maximum Range 6,590 nautical miles (12,200 km)
Typical city pairs:
New York to Beijing
Typical Cruise Speed at 35,000 feet Mach 0.80 (530 mph, 851 kph)
Basic Dimensions
Wing Span 156 ft 1 in (47.6 m)
Overall Length 159 ft 2 in (48.5 m)
Tail Height 52 ft (15.8 m)
Interior Cabin Width 15 ft 6 in (4.7 m)"
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html [boeing.com]
707 and 767 is within 85-90% of each other in every key area of measurement.
If I remember right, Boeing intended the 767 to be almost a direct replacement for the 707.
Now as this picture shows...
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-3d/6-19_wtc2-collapsing.jpg [thewebfairy.com]
No "building being dropped on another building" nonsense happened.
As the picture clearly shows, the atomized debris dust preceded the collapse. The dust and debris is being blown out of the site of the initial area of collapse at a high rate of speed such as one would expect to see when explosives have been used.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Stats on the Boeing 707-320B from Boeing.com
"Advanced 707-320B Wingspan 145 feet 9 inches (44.42 m)
Length 152 feet 11 inches (46.6 m)
Wing Area 3,010 square feet (280 m2)
Gross Weight 336,000 pounds (152,400 kg)
Cruising Speed 607 mph (977 km/h)
Range 6,160 miles (9,913 km)
Service Ceiling 36,000 feet (10,973 m)
Power Four Pratt & Whitney JT3D turbofans of 18,000 pounds thrust each
Passenger Cabin 141 passengers mixed class or a maximum of 189 all economy"
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html
Technical Characteristics -- Boeing 767-200ER
Passenger Seating Configuration
Typical 3-class 181
Typical 2-class 224
Typical 1-class up to 255
Cargo 2,925 cu ft (82.9 cu m)
Engines 2
maximum thrust
Pratt & Whitney PW4000 60,200 lb
GE CF6-80C262,100 lb
Maximum Fuel Capacity 23,980 U.S. gal (90,770 L)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 395,000 lb (179,170 kg)
Maximum Range 6,590 nautical miles (12,200 km)
Typical city pairs:
New York to Beijing
Typical Cruise Speed at 35,000 feet Mach 0.80 (530 mph, 851 kph)
Basic Dimensions
Wing Span 156 ft 1 in (47.6 m)
Overall Length 159 ft 2 in (48.5 m)
Tail Height 52 ft (15.8 m)
Interior Cabin Width 15 ft 6 in (4.7 m)"
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html
Now as this picture shows...
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-3d/6-19_wtc2-collapsing.jpg
No "building being dropped on another building" nonsense happened.
As the picture clearly shows, the atomized debris dust preceded the collapse. The dust and debris is being blown out of the site of the initial area of collapse at a high rate of speed such as one would expect to see when explosives have been used.
Wrong again. You keep trying to skip past a critical point.
"...once the building starts coming down..."
There was no reason for the WTC buildings to start coming down in the first place. The building was designed to withstand a direct hit by a 707 and remain standing.
Big numbers that are thrown around to distract and confuse that have no relevance to this discussion.
Please stop talking about debris dropping 1000 feet creating dust at impact. It didn't happen.
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1103.jpg
As one can see in the this linked series of pictures, the creation of the atomized debris cloud began at the moment collapse began.
There was not a collapse then a big dust cloud that rose up from the ground after impact. The material was atomized at the site of the initial collapse at instant of collapse.
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-3d/6-19_wtc2-collapsing.jpg
Another picture from the moment off collapse. The dust blown out at high rate of speed and in the lower right what looks like be ignited thermite being blown out along with the dust.
Do you think the beams were designed so they would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and THEN collapse?
Not hardly. They were designed with massive enough steel beams so that they could be hit by a Boeing 707 and keep standing afterwards.
That picture clearly shows that pancaking creates a LITTLE dust. Only a little. Not the monsterous hundreds of feet tall cloud of atomized debris that was visible all the way up to the astronauts in the International Space Station.
Only massive amounts of explosives can create that kind of massive cloud of atomized debris.
Wrong again.
You are severely underestimating the strength of massive steel structural beams that were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 and still keep the building upright.
Here's a link to a picture of a pancake collapse. The floors remain fairly recognizable stacked one on top of another. There is rubble but there is no pulverization.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/24_pancake.jpg
There's only one way debris of the WTC building gets atomized into the fine ash that covered Lower Manhattan on 9/11. Massive amounts of explosives being detonated.
You have to make your conclusions based on the actual facts at hand.
The facts are... ...no amount of jet fuel can burn down a steel framed skyscraper. It burns at too low a temperature to have any significant effect on the structural integrity of steel beams. Period.
I don't care if Manhattan Island is completely submerged in jet fuel, ignited, and the fire is allowed to burn for years... ... when the fires do go out, the steel frames of the skyscrapers will emerge mostly intact.
If jet fuel could not burn down the WTC buildings, and it couldn't, then there had to be another cause. The evidence from every single sample of WTC ash tested by independent labs shows thermite residue in every one of those samples.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf [journalof911studies.com]
-----
Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...
"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃffC...."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm [wtc7.net]
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm
You have to make your conclusions based on the actual facts at hand.
The facts are... ...no amount of jet fuel can burn down a steel framed skyskraper. Period.
I don't care if Manhattan Island is completely submerged in jet fuel, ignited, and the fire is allowed to burn for years... ... when the fires do go out, the steel frames of the skyscrapers will emerge mostly intact.
If jet fuel could not burn down the WTC buildings, and it couldn't, then there had to be another cause. The evidence from every single sample of WTC ash tested by independent laws shows thermite residue in every single sample.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
-----
Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...
"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃfC...."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm
Every single sample of WTC ash that has been tested by independent labs has found the residue of thermite in that ash.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
Science has led to the controlled demolition hypothesis. No other hypothesis fits the data.
Better take a look at good hard look at what is in the public record regarding what Bechtel Corp. of being fully capable of accomplishing before being so dismissive.
Any type of credible criminal investigation would have them at the top of the list of potential suspects.
The seismic data disprove both NIST reports.
Huge explosions in the ground immediately before the collapses of both of the WTC buildings.
http://uscrisis.lege.net/911/
Both the old and new NIST reports have no explanation for the huge shock recorded in the seismic recordings immediately preceding the WTC collapses.
Wrongo, old chap!
Again, this is all from a UK graduate thesis that's being hosted locally at a 9/11 research site...
"...While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÃfC...."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm [wtc7.net]
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm [wtc7.net]
There were massive steel beams running through the central core of the WTC buildings.
To use the martial artist metaphor properly, there would have to be about 12 lengths of rebar running side-by-side securing each board right through the middle of the boards the guy was trying to break.
-Is the name of the website "Only Architects, and no Engineers for 9/11 Truth."
No, huh.
It's Architects AND Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
The Engineers are working in their field of expertise, the architects theirs.
Really bad attempt on your part to try to pretend engineers aren't involved in the process.
----
-And no, I don't think they are "bad engineers." In fact, I think they must be incredibly talented engineers, because the work they have done for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has withstood bad attempts to discredit it by those who promote the official conspiracy theory for years now.
You probably wouldn't know what a real communist was if Lenin rose from his tomb and bit you on your far side if your left ass cheek.
You wouldn't happen to work for SCO would you?
Wrong.
You like many other critics keep claiming someone else has or will come along with evidence that dispute the scientific research being posted at websites like Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, but that scientific research never shows up in discussion like this.
Stop talking about all the evidence you claim you have that will back the official conspiracy theory. Either present that evidence or stop making such claims.
You aren't engaging of honest discussions of any evidence here. nI don't see you responding with any scientific evidence at all to dispute the findings. I see you calling people names and lobbing insults.
That's a logical fallacy called an ad hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem [wikipedia.org]
Your reply here does not in any way dispute the scientific research being done there. I don't see you responding with any scientific evidence at all to dispute the findings there. I see you calling people names.
That's a logical fallacy called an ad hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem [wikipedia.org]
The Germans only had interest in Allied atomic research. They had no real information on allied atomic research.
Check the text of pp 347-348 in Heisenberg's War by T. Powers at google books...
http://books.google.com/books?id=4i2ghEnG6VkC&pg=PA348&lpg=PA348&dq=german+knowledge+manhattan+project&source=web&ots=80jOHCHQxO&sig=nHXDnjxwqM6dbBD-F0da8k78AuA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA347,M1
This German WW2 radios collection website...
http://www.laud.no/ww2/se108/index.htm ...shows German spy radio transmitters were built with variable frequency transmitters. Sorry. No single local frequency to block. Jamming attempts would be very hit and miss propositions.
I'm so sorry. That's incorrect. Thanks for playing
The Germans know nothing about the Manhattan Project. Stalin had one spy infiltrate the Manhattan Project pretty thoroughly, but like many of the Soviet spy successes, Stalin refused to believe the reports the spy was sending in, so the Soviets were ordered to do nothing with the information.
And the Germans would have sat down in front of a radio transmitter and immediately tapped out whatever needed to be sent on a morse code key.
You have heard of radio transmitters? I assure you Germans spies were more than capable of getting urgent radio messages out of England instantaneously.
As far as compiling suspect lists (the type of thing you are supposed to do in criminal investigations, Bechtel Corp. would top the list.
Means: Bechtel is the largest engineering co. in the US. Bechtel is a leader in the field of demolitions technology. Bechtel manages the Lawrence Livermore Labs a particularly suspicious form of nano-thermite was researched and developed and discussed in this April, 2000 scientific journal article.
Making Nanostructured Pyrotechnics in a Beaker
A.E. Gash, R.L. Simpson*, T.M. Tillotson, J.H. Satcher and L.W. Hrubesh
Energetic Materials Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livennore, CA 94550
Abstract
"Controlling composition at the nanometer scale is well known to alter
material properties in sometimes highly desirable and dramatic ways. In the field
of energetic materials component distributions, particle size, and morphology,
effect both sensitivity and reactivity performance. To date nanostructured
energetic materials are largely unknowns with the exception of nanometer-sized
reactive powders now being produced at a number of laboratories. We have
invented a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically
explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel ~hemistry.lT-~he ease of
this synthetic approach along with the inexpensive, stable, and benign nature of
the metal precursors and solvents permit large-scale syntheses to be carried out.
This approach can be accomplished using low cost processing methods. We will
describe here, for the first time, this new synthetic route for producing metaloxide-
based pyrotechnics. The procedure employs the use of stable and
inexpensive hydrated-metal inorganic salts and environmentally friendly solvents
such as water and ethanol. The synthesis is straightforward and involves the
dissolution the metal salt in a solvent followed by the addition of an epoxide,
which induces gel formation in a timely manner. Experimental evidence suggests
that the epoxide acts as an irreversible proton scavenger that induces the hydratedmetal
species to undergo hydrolysis and condensation to form a sol that undergoes.
further condensation to form a metal-oxide nanostructured gel. Both critical point
and atmospheric drying have been employed to produce monolithic aerogels and
xerogels, respectively. Using this method we have synthesized metal-oxide
nanostructured materials using Fe3', Cr3+, A13', Ga3+, In3', Hf', Sn4+and Zr4+
inorganic salts. Using related methods we have made nanostructured oxides of
Mo, Ti, V, Co, Ni, Cu, Y, Ta, W, Pb, B, Pr, Er, Nd and Si. These materials have
been characterized using optical and electron microscopy, infrared spectroscopy,
surface area, pore size, and pore volume analyses.
The epoxide addition sol-gel technique is amenable the addition of
insoluble materials (e.g., metals or polymers) to the viscous sol, just before
gelation, to produce a uniformly distributed and energetic nanocomposite upon
gelation. As an example energetic nanocomposites of Fe,O, and metallic
aluminum are easily synthesized. The compositions are stable, safe and can be
readily ignited. Production and characterization data of these novel energetic
materials will be presented...."
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/247064.pdf
There's been THERMITE RESIDUE in every single sample of WTC ash that's been tested so far by independent labs.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
Motive: The 9/11 destruction of WTC 7 destroyed the evidence that had been gather for the case the Departmant of Justice was building against Bechtel in "THE BIG DIG" corruption scandal.
Since 9/11, the only corporation recieving more Iraq/Afghanistan contracts than Bechtel is Halliburton.
The explosion of the 3 WTC buildings was screwed up. It was so badly screwed up millions of people that witnessed it knew it was government cover story was a LIE.
16% of the American people think explosives brought down the WTC.
Sounds like a pretty big screw up to me.
It wouldn't matter if the entire south end of Manhattan Island was submerged in jet fuel, ignited, and allowed to burn for weeks. The steel structures of the high rise buildings would emerge relatively intact.
Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to damage the framework of steel frame buildings.
-------
"While admitting that fire test's such as ASTM E119 are conservative, they do not emphasize that such tests are very conservative. Here is a quote from [1].
Steel beams in standard fire tests reach a state of deflections and runaway well below temperatures achieved in real fires. In a composite steel frame structure these beams are designed to support the composite deck slab. It is therefore quite understandable that they are fire protected to avoid runaway failures. The fire at Broadgate showed that this (runaway failure) didn't actually happen in a real structure. Subsequently, six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.
So beams and columns that fail when tested according to ASTM E119 or (BS 476) do not fail when they are part of a larger (composite steel frame) structure, when subjected to the same conditions. In fact, experiments done in Britain to test this exact hypothesis, experienced no runaway failure at all. Here is a quote from [2].
The Broadgate Phase 8 fire is probably the most notable. This accidental fire happened during the Construction phase when the steel frame was only partially fire protected. Despite very high temperatures during the fully developed phase of the fire and considerable deflections in the composite slab there was no collapse. This initiated construction of an 8-storey composite steel frame at Building Research Establishment's (BRE's) large scale test facility in Cardington. Six fire tests were conducted, of varying size and configuration, to observe and ultimately explain why composite steel-framed structures adopt very large deflections during a fire but do not collapse.
and a quote from [3].
The Cardington frame fire tests and subsequent numerical modelling has shown that multi-storey steel-frame structures survive compartment fires when all the steel beams are unprotected, despite temperatures in the steel of > 1000ÂC.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxA.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SLamont.htm
I don't see you responding with any scientific evidence at all to dispute the findings. I see you calling people names.
That's a logical fallacy called an ad hominem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
The Invasion of Normandy proves that large conspiracies can be kept secret. England was known to be crawling with German spies in WW2, yet the Nazis never found out the correct location of the invasion target... Normandy. Matter of fact, the commander of Axis forces at the Atlantic Wall, Rommel (one of Hitlers best generals) was so sure nothing was going to happen in the near future, he left his command to visit his wife and son and was not able to be at his HQ the morning of the invasion.
Several days after the invasion, Rommel was still so sure the primary invasion was coming at Calais, he withheld his best Panzer units away from the Normandy Peninsula.
As far as conspiracies within the US, how the Manhattan Project. We blew up a freakin' nuclear weapon in New Mexico, and nobody knew about it for years! We built a whole city nobody knew about too.