I'm not a nutty truther but I do believe that certain parts of the attack plan were picked up by the intel services and buried by 'liberal laws' like the Gorlick wall that prevented putting the pieces of the puzzle togather. And today we have the author of the Gorlick wall who knew both sides of the intel running for president. Just call her Madam Shrillary, x co-president.
I believe in aliens, but I think the government is just as much in the dark as anyone else - 90% of politicians are too inept to keep that kind of secret for six minutes, let alone six decades.
Anyway, these 9/11 conspiracy theorists are hilarious to me. So eager to hold on to their belief that terrorists are cute, cuddly scapegoats for our evil democratic government. It takes a special kind of psychosis to buy into that.
That first picture, at the top of your article, is from a video that is fake. A plane is made of aluminium; the wall of a WTC building, steel. The plane would have smashed to bits against that wall and fallen straight down the building (only the engines, which are made of steel, would have had a chance of going through). What do we see instead? The entire plane, including wings and tail upright, going through the wall like Superman used to do in the movies (in fact, in that video, the wall closes up over the right wing once it's in). The media showed this video as an authentic recording of the plane hitting the south tower. Utterly absurd! As a special effects professional called it: "A bad special effects movie."
I repeat, if you throw a beer can at a steel wall, it will never go through that wall. Not even if you fire that beer can at the wall with a canon.
Robert Hoogenboom
Sydney, Australia
The walls of such buildings are glass with concrete type reinforcements, not steel. This ain't a military fortress after all. They don't build the outer surface in order for them to withstand impact and rpgs, let alone planes.
People might actually know how buildings are blown up if they were part of revolutionary movements with their demolitions specialists and plans, but the Truthers aren't part of such organizations. They don't have the skill to know how to do what they were proposing.
So how are they going to know that it was done at all?
As a special effects professional called it: "A bad special effects movie."
Unfortunately, physics doesn't really go for glamour and big explosions just on a whim.
I'm sure a FX specialist would have done his best to make it more explosive and "special".
"The walls of such buildings are glass with concrete type reinforcements, not steel."
Those outer walls were steel. Just look at any video showing the building of those towers on YouTube. In any case, aluminum planes smash to bits also against concrete. Planes don't just meld, intact, into building walls. Again, just search videos of plane crashes on YouTube.
Sydney, Australia
I repeat, if you throw a beer can at a steel wall, it will never go through that wall. Not even if you fire that beer can at the wall with a canon.
The walls of the World Trade Center were made with tubular construction, using columns of steel in addition to various types of internal reinforcement.
A quick check about how they designed the WTC solves that problem. Its height precluded other skyscraper design philosophies of such buildings.
After 1965 a new structural system of framed tubes appeared. Fazlur Khan and J. Rankine defined the framed tube structure as "a three dimensional space structure composed of three, four, or possibly more frames, braced frames, or shear walls, joined at or near their edges to form a vertical tube-like structural system capable of resisting lateral forces in any direction by cantilevering from the foundation."[1] Closely spaced interconnected exterior columns form the tube. Horizontal loads, for example wind, are supported by the structure as a whole. About half the exterior surface is available for windows. Framed tubes allow fewer interior columns, and so create more usable floor space. Where larger openings like garage doors are required, the tube frame must be interrupted, with transfer girders used to maintain structural integrity.
So it is categorically not a steel "wall" because four steel walls would bring down a skyscraper of that height.
A shear wall, in its simplest definition is a wall where the entire material of the wall is employed in the resistance of both horizontal and vertical loads. A typical example is a brick wall, or a cinderblock wall. Since the wall material is used to hold the weight, as the wall expands in size, it must hold considerably more weight. Due to the features of a shear wall, it is perfectly fine, and even ideal for small constructions such as suburban housing or a typical urban brownstone, because it requires low cost of material, low maintenance, and provides high reliability for small designs. In this way, shear walls typically in the form of either plywood and framing, brick, or cinderblock, is used for these structures. For skyscrapers though, as the size of the structure increases, so does the size of the supporting wall. Previous large structures such as castles and cathedrals could ignore these issues due to a large wall being advantageous (castles), or ingeniously designed around (cathedrals). Since skyscrapers seek to maximize the floor-space by consolidating structural support, shear walls tend to be used only in conjunction with other support systems.
I just checked and the pictures do match the tubular construction philosophy for skyscrapers. However, it is reported that the steel support is rated for less lateral force the higher the building goes. Regardless of those engineering details, I can assure you that a 747 flying at the velocity and mass that they did, is more than sufficient to break steel beams designed to r
resist wind.
To use your beer example, the beer can can certainly go through the gap between the vertical steel lines. And it did not hit at the bottom, where you can expect stronger support and stresses on the outer reinforcements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Sky...nd_construction
As a reference.
the real video demonstrates clearly that the building was essentially decapitated by planes that were almost as wide as the skyscraper.
With the weakening of the outer reinforcements, damage to the floors inside, and the extreme heat which would weaken steel supports and frames, the building could no longer sustain the weight at the top.
A 747 traveling at that speed is no beer can except for those that haven't done their force equations.
Why? It's the Illuminati. They have a multigenenerational plan to take over the world. It started at our founding.
Now, I haven't quite worked out why, when they were responsible for our founding, they didn't just design the totalitarian dictatorship they wanted back then. I don't know why they created a free nation first...
Or maybe I shouldn't try to make a coherent story out of all the conspiracy theories I have read.
High School Physics evidently isn't taught in Australia
I realize I'm a little late to this party, but what the heck. I've been stewing on this whole 9/11 "truth" thing today and needed some outlet with which to ventilate my frustration.
What completely evades my understanding is the following:
(1.) How "truthers" think that the government--which has proven time and time again that it cannot handle anything with any level of competence--was able to so elegantly and flawlessly construct and execute a plan involving multiple sites, countless people involved, and a cover-up heretofore unseen and unprecedented, spanning across all political parties, and fooling nearly everyone. I mean, come on! These are the people that can't even get my mail to me properly!
(2.) How the truthers think that the doubtless thousands, if not millions, involved have managed to keep silent about it. No deathbed confessions, no attacks of conscience...nothing.
(3.) How the truthers summarily discard EVERYTHING they hear from the news, et al, as "propaganda" and bogus info, and yet believe every single iota of any dodgy website, published by some mouth-breather in his parents' basement, or uttered by anybody with any dubious title or education, with some modicum of "evidence" and swallow it up as complete and total gospel without question.
(4.) How they think that if there was a massive global conspiracy that is being suppressed from the top level of government that it would come to be that people as pedestrian and low on the food chain as THEY are would be able to obtain this information.
(5.) How they then proceed to think that having this information would not endanger their very lives.
(6.) How they truly think that if such a conspiracy existed that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE would not have already been investigating it.
Sigh...the list goes on, but since nobody but me is reading this at this point, I'll hush.
Commenting by HaloScan
