Tweet
My... such aggression and irritability. But then you are a new yorker, nevermind.
There are terrorists hijackings and then's this coordinated attack on the US taken from a third rate movie. NORAD had drills taking place on 9.11, based on the scenario of planes hitting the twin towers.
I know what I'm talking about with regards to the planes. I've spent time around engineers, and I've seen training videos and cases of birds colliding with noses and engines working as an aircraft storeman for a few years. A bird is all you need to destroy the nose, whole engines infact. My dad is also an aircraft engineer, I've asked him. But none of that matters. I've asked more than one aircraft engineer but all you need is to do a basic search on the internet and see for yourself.
If you had bothered you would have seen Tarpley mentioning a peer review article by one Steven Jones, physicist. This is as of 2005, there could be more but even if not this article is sufficient to take it out of the realm of "conspiracy!!!"
I'm taking a look at just one section of the PM article.
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Second expert says, the steel was only weakened and that allowed the building to pancake. I'm sorry but that "warped" and "sagging" steel could hardly have sent that building into free fall. This is going into red on the bullshit meter. And I have spoken to other engineers who had a big problem with this too. No, they were not structural engineers but I refer you back to Steve Jones.
Last guy says fuel burned ten minutes but the office material, rugs and so forth caused the steel in the building to weaken. I stand agape in amazement... molten steel, burning building that goes on for days. I better be careful about lighting a candle and setting fire to a rug in my apartment, I could cause some severe structural damage and have 5 floors pancake down on me.
Incidentally, about experts. My conversations with those people only goes to show that "experts" miss things and suspend their disbelief when they're watching things like tv. Others are in the pay of the govt or in the case of the guy behind the Popular Mechanics article, is the cousin of the secretary of homeland security and co-authored the patriot act.
Bottom line is there are a lot of idiots coming out of uni. Many of them go onto become professors.
I don't need to spell everything out for you, but every government on the face of the planet was screaming 911!!! before and after the fact.
As for the FBI, this would depend on who came out and the extent of the information they had to provide. If their knowledge of things were limited they could not be a serious threat.
Funny thing is, how the mainstreamers are convinced they have enough information to declare this an open and shut case. There is more evidence against than for the official version.
Comment