Quote :

"This is wrong the WTC did have a central core about 30*40 meters that supported the building with the exterior steel."

Right... I guess the elevator shafts and all of the steel in there?

Still... steel has it's yielding point. "100%" was an overstatement, but the core around the elevators isn't enough to hold up the building. (I've never been in the WTC's, but I assume you're talking about the reinforcement/concrete/steel around the elevator shafts? If not, I wasn't aware of any columns in there that were intentionally designed to hold up the building/floors itself.)

I think the major problem with the WTC collapse was the heat. You heat steel up to 2,000 degrees (Not even columns, just the floor beams...which is probably what failed first and got the ball rolling) and they can carry less than half of what they're supposed to. If it was a collapse caused by the hole in the side, the tower would have tilted sideways when it fell. It went straight down... which indicates 1) The floor beams and girders reached their yield point 2) It was blown up

All it takes is one floor beam/bolt/weld to fail and it could cause a chain reaction... once that top gives and gravity takes over, there's no amount of steel that could stop it



[Edited on March 23, 2006 at 10:40 PM. Reason : ]

3/23/2006 10:28:24 PM

Yea the core was built to house the highspeed elevators but it was also designed to cary some of the vertical loads on the building. Though the exterior tubular structure was still the main support for the WTC.

Quote :

"If it was a collapse caused by the hole in the side, the tower would have tilted sideways when it fell. It went straight down..."

the top did tilt slightly when it first started going down, but then it straightend out for some reason


[Edited on March 23, 2006 at 10:44 PM. Reason : pic]

3/23/2006 10:39:07 PM

Charlie Sheen has some big ballZ

3/23/2006 10:41:35 PM

^^ Nice photo.


Another thing I noticed during the collapse was the exterior concrete columns literally exploding. You can watch each floor one by one giving way... which was obviously done by sheer weight and not controlled explosions.

[Edited on March 23, 2006 at 10:46 PM. Reason : ]

3/23/2006 10:45:56 PM

you all are retarded, stop arguing about it
we all know the government flew a plane into the towers
no point arguing

3/23/2006 11:44:20 PM

Quote :

"Buildings of that size always come down the same way, "

6


and just how many fuckin 1000ft tall towers do they knock down each year, ya know, to test that theory?

3/24/2006 12:40:58 AM

^ Well, they do knock them down now and again.

Quote :

"why would they only assume that planes landing near there had a chance of hitting the building? "

Because the airplanes that take off from La Guardia just need to fly straight ahead to miss all buildings. And an airplane that couldn't, for some reason, would be expected to climb out of danger. The only time people fly aircraft low to the ground for a long time is when they are trying to find something on the ground, such as an airport. The only other times that aircraft have flown into sky-scrapers were while trying to find an airport to land (such as the Empire State Building in 1944). Until 2001, that was.

Quote :

"Really? Please tell me the last time that a fire caused a skyscraper to collapse. "

Well, a quick google search:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html
The top floors of the sky-scraper collapsed after an intense fire. This was without any other structural damage to the building. Not to mention, this tower was concrete re-inforced and fire-protected.

In most tall buildings, especiall old ones, the steel columns are encased in concrete for good measure. Concrete is a relatively poor heat conductor, separating the steel from a fire. The twin towers, even tower 7, were not concrete fire-protected, but instead had chemical fire-retardant sprayed on the beams and then enclosed in dry-wall (yes, the stuff in your apartment, try punching it). It wasn't even the good fire-retardant (asphestos), but a cheap knock off which has been frequently compared to doing nothing.

Had asphestos been used, it has been said, the towers would have stood for a couple more hours. Had concrete been used to build the inner core instead of dry-wall, some have suggested the north tower "should" have survived (the tower hit near the roof) long enough for the fire to be put out, and the south tower "could" have survived long enough, but less likely. Of course, building a concrete core would have made the building far heavier and more able to withstand the impact to begin with.

If you watch the videos of the collapses, it was the inner cores which started falling first, pulling the outer wall down with it. At one stage of the collapse, you could see the outer wall poking out of the top of the debris clowd for a few moments. As it has been said here, the outer wall, while not fire protected at all, was exposed to the outside air and only heated on one side. The inner core, however, was responsible for carying half the load of the building (more since the outer wall was breached) and was entirely engulfed in fire after having all its fire-proofing simply blown away.

Ahh, you might ask, but why didn't the fire in spain bring down the entire building? Again, it is because of the design of the buildings. When the upper floors in spain fell, they fell flat on top of verticle beams which ran all the way to the ground and were concrete re-enforced. The structure could not stop a floor collapse, but by allowing the concrete and steel to crumple under the impact, it could be slowed down to a stop. The WTC, however, even tower 7, as a floor fell, it didn't land on verticle beams: it landed on another floor, which had to relay the energy sideways (to the outter wall or the inner core) in order to reach the ground. Once the falling debris had enough energy to over-power the connection between the floor and the verticle beams, it would instead start speeding up, pancaking on the way down. The inner core, which was only protected by dry-wall, too probably fell at this point. This process probably left the outer wall intact, for awhile. But you see, this process removed all the floors, which were the only structural element keeping the out wall standing up straight. Minus the floors, the outer wall was free to buckly sideways and fall down.

[Edited on March 24, 2006 at 2:07 AM. Reason : argh... late... can't stop typing...]

3/24/2006 1:55:31 AM

Had the floors been concrete and steel beams, as in the Madrid fire, instead of naked steel trusses, the the falling debris should have eventually been arrested before triggering a complete collapse

Ultimately, with all these possible modifications (concrete core, concrete-steel beams reinforcing the the floor-trusses) what we should have been reasonable assured of seeing:
The North Tower saved entirely, as the fire was put out before structural collapse, mostly thanks to sprinkler systems which kept working because the water pipes were protected from the impact of the aircraft by the inner concrete core. In both instances, everyone was able to escape the buildings that didn't die in the innitial explosion because the inner stairwells were kept intact and clear of debris thanks to the stronger concrete core. The South Tower, regretfully, mostly collapsed. The front half collapsed down to the 20th floor, the back half still standing up to the 40th floor. What is left was kept upright by the strong floor beams which were solid enough for (most) falling debris to simply go around or bounce off. Nearly all the debris settled in the basement and in front of the building. Tower 7, of course, caught fire anyway and burned all day. That night, the upper floors collapsed, leaving the bottom steel structure standing, just with nothing left to hold up.

3/24/2006 2:29:08 AM

100% proven fact

3/24/2006 2:43:38 AM

speculation and conjecture, mostly.

3/24/2006 10:05:24 AM

we all know the government plane took down the wtc

but building 7 was a demolition, you cant argue against that

3/24/2006 10:34:31 AM

107% proven fact

3/24/2006 11:52:42 AM

no i think thats 190% alcohol

3/24/2006 11:53:28 AM

I have a cute 9/11 debunking video.

http://nekkid.homeip.net/DEBUNKED.avi

3/24/2006 12:35:02 PM

i have a cute 9/11 resource too

http://www.cbs.com
http://www.nbc.com
http://www.abc.com
http://www.bbc.com
http://www.cnn.com
http://www.msnbc.com
hell even
http://www.foxnews.com

3/24/2006 12:41:15 PM

I think mines cuterer than yours.

3/24/2006 12:42:39 PM

In my opinion all the building's were demolished..... but not by bush.... by terrorist. In a well planned out scheme they had the buildings wired for demolition over a period time. They used the planes to help weaken specific areas as well as draw attention before the final show. There are many reasons I could give you to justifiy that the towers did not fall from the planes but it would take all day so I will just name a few.

1. The steel used was rated to upwards of 3500 degrees and the scientist who ordered it and knew that stated that the 2400 degree flames were enough to melt the beams ( not possible).

2. Even if the heat was hot enough to weaken the beams it would not fall at the pace that the building did. The building fell in around 6 seconds which is close to the fall of the materials in free space as if there was no resistance. Watch any planned demolition and that is how it falls because of explosives at the exact right areas.

3. If you are still someone that believes that the planes are the reason they fell then I ask. Why did the second building that was just grazed by the aircraft ( it hit on the right corner) fall before the building that was his squarely and made much more damage? Also, what caused the other building to fall.


My overall feeling is that all of it was bombings including the bomb in the pentegon. And that Bush lied about all of this becuase he did not want americans to feel so scared and vulnerable as to think that they managed to not only hijack plans but to have planned demolitions of our buildings with out people inside them.

[Edited on March 24, 2006 at 7:33 PM. Reason : )]

3/24/2006 7:33:11 PM

you're just doing what im doing, right?

3/24/2006 8:03:06 PM

gotta love the freedom to talk out 1's ass

3/24/2006 8:05:40 PM

thats why its the first amendment

3/24/2006 9:27:44 PM

the first amendment was written by jews, its only to protect them

3/31/2006 12:34:28 PM

Quote :

"So... celebrities are credible by default? Here I was thinking a credible person in this instance would be some kind of architect or something. "

3/31/2006 12:58:40 PM

im sure he's played an architect on tv
so yes

3/31/2006 12:59:48 PM

i know he's played a garbageman, stock broker, crazy priest who lives on corn farm, convicted felon baseball pitcher...cant recall an architect role

3/31/2006 1:25:57 PM

im just giving him the benefit of the doubt
as a celebrity, he deserves that

3/31/2006 1:26:55 PM

oh definitely



you're a jerk. you're a jerk.

3/31/2006 1:30:40 PM

Google Caught Censoring Charlie Sheen 9/11 Story

Quote :

"Google Caught Censoring Charlie Sheen 9/11 Story Quickly re-indexes pages during live radio discussion Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | Updated March 24 2006 Update: Google has today started carrying Prison Planet.com as a news affiliate. Was their apparant censorship just a spidering error and are they are trying to make up for it? No one promotes Google more than us as they are clearly the best search engine company but their actions still call for us to be watchdogs. Note: Before you e-mail please understand that we are aware of the fact that Google now carries links to Sheen 9/11 articles, that is not our point as you will read below. The censorship issue began before Google reversed their policy this afternoon. Google is again embroiled in a censorship scandal after being caught blocking information about Charlie Sheen's 9/11 comments, despite the fact that every other major search engine had indexed the pages. For days, major search engines like Yahoo and others contained tens of thousands of web pages relating to Sheen's comments first broadcast on the Alex Jones Show on Monday afternoon. Last night CNN aired a piece on the issue and by early this morning both the New York Post and the Boston Herald ran articles. We first noticed that there were no search results related to the story on Google the day after we broke the Sheen story. At first we decided to be fair and wait another day for Google to index an article which was by now linked on thousands of other websites and blogs. By Thursday afternoon, and with the story receiving more traffic, Google still had not indexed any material relating to the Sheen interview, from Prison Planet.com or any other websites. This despite the fact that the Drudge Report had briefly directly linked to our article, sending it millions of visitors. During a live radio discussion of this issue between Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson on Alex Jones' broadcast Thursday afternoon, Google, as if they had people listening to the show, immediately re-indexed the pages and a search for 'Charlie Sheen 9/11' now returns 111,000 results at time of writing. Pictured below are screenshots we managed to cache shortly before Google re-indexed the pages with the search terms 'Charlie Sheen 9/11' and the entire headline "Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story". As you can see, the Boston Herald story is linked from Google News (Google do not censor their affiliates) but the main search engine below returned no results. To stress again, this is three days after we broke this massive story. The usual index time for a story of this size is 12-24 hours and at the same time that Google returned no results whatsoever, tens of thousands were being carried by other major search engines like Yahoo. To make it crystal clear, Google's web spidering process is automated and we have received high Google rankings in the past for nothing stories that get little traffic. The Sheen story was linked everywhere and to eliminate it from Google's search results would have required technicians to physically access the spidering control panel and exclude an enormous amount of varied search terms. Google has a history of censoring websites it dislikes within the US. Google Inc. banned and removed a mainstream news website from all its worldwide search engines, seemingly due to the website's reports on China's geopolitical affairs and military technology. Google has banned its users inside the US and the rest of the world from accessing the Space War website from its search engine. Space War speculated at the time that this was at the behest of the "boys from Beijing." Space War is a reasonably tame mainstream website that focuses on geopolitical affairs and satellite and military technology advancements. It is based in Australia and carries articles from AFP and United Press International. After a complaints campaign supported by this website, Google agreed to re-index the website. Did our defense of Space War cause Google to impose a blackballing campaign on our major articles or is this just a response to the sheer magnitude and influence of the Charlie Sheen story? To emphasize, Google is now carrying search results related to Charlie Sheen's 9/11 comments, but only after it was exposed live on nationally syndicated radio that they had stonewalled this issue for three clear days even as it raged around the rest of the Internet as a viral story and broke into the mainstream yesterday and early this morning. The floodgates on the Sheen story have opened, with CNN airing a balanced piece on the controversy. Meanwhile mainstream publications like Human Events, the New York Post, CBS and the Boston Herald used Sheen's comments to attack him and demonize anybody who questions the official line on 9/11. A round-up article of today's reaction to Charlie Sheen's comments will follow later tonight."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/230306googlecensoring.htm

http://prisonplanet.com/Pictures/mar06/230306google.jpg
http://prisonplanet.com/Pictures/mar06/230306google3.jpg

3/31/2006 1:41:14 PM

link to video here: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002598.htm

3/31/2006 1:42:31 PM

Charlie sheen has extensive engineering experience.

3/31/2006 2:07:02 PM

he was in vietnam

i saw it on TV

(btw, that's a great movie)

3/31/2006 2:08:01 PM

our French Friends at Bonjour America weighs in on the CHarlie Sheen business -
http://www.bonjour-america.com/archives/014.html

a little long and tedious, but funny overall

4/2/2006 3:48:10 AM