Opinions wanted
- Thread starter Tommy.Gun
- Start date
- Status
BEFORE reading the original post it is STRONGLY URGED that this site be visited for personal saftey reasons: http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html#BUILD
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
I'm thinking the guy that wrote that isn't smart enough to make an AFDB.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Opinions wanted?
Apply Occam's Razor liberally.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
Apply Occam's Razor liberally.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
Mike Irwin
Staff
I've read this page, and many others like it.
Conjecture, inuendo, liberal parsing of known facts, taking those that support his postulation, discarding those that don't.
Nothing new here. Nothing ground breaking here. Nothing remotely reliable here.
I've said this many times, and it applies here, as well. Some people simply aren't comfortable if they can't feel paranoid about something.
For all of his claims about his "facts" being checked, and checked again, and again, he's doing a piss poor job.
For example...
"Because of strong public anti-war sentiment, FDR and his Zionist allies had a hard time dragging the US into the European war. Then another "incident" came along at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Japan and Germany were bound to a mutual defense agreement, which meant that war with Japan would automatically mean war with Germany."
WRONG!
He's too too far down into his slavering anti-zionist rant to see the HUGE hole in this premise...
Japan and Germany were bound by NO such agreement, at least not as he claims it.
For example...
Germany (whose ally was Japan) and Britain had been at war since September 1939.
If a mutual defense pact truly existed between Germany and Japan, that means that Japan and Britain should have been at war since September 1939.
Yet, Japan and Britain didn't go to war until December 1941, when the Japanese launched a series of coordinated attacks against American AND British interests.
The Tripartied (sp?) Pact did have a mutual defense clause, but it would be triggered automatically ONLY if the United States or Britain (or another nation, such as France) attacked Japan FIRST.
Neither Germany nor Italy were bound by any international agreement to enter Japan's war against the United States.
Then we have this...
"Overwhelming evidence from government documents clearly shows that FDR had advance knowledge of the Japanese attack and allowed it to happen so that he could drag the US into World War II."
NO such overwhelming evidence exists at all. Only the supposition of people who take tidbits of information and construct vast webs of conspiracy around them.
We also have this...
"1. The architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and fuel fire of a commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." 96
Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said: "I designed it for a 707 to hit it. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity comparable to the 767."
True, but only SORT of true.
The Twin Towers were designed in the 1960s. At that time, the design rated fuel capacity of the vast majority of 707s then in service was significantly less than 23,000 gallons that the Intercontinental series carried. Another important factor that is ignored by this quote is that the 767. Many of the planned Intercontinentals in fact were never manufactured with the 23,000 gallon fuel capacity after the advent of the Pratt & Whitney JDT3 engine provided between IIRC 20 to 30% greater range on the same amount of fuel. At that point, a fuel load of 23,000 gallons became unnecessary except for possibly trans Asian service.
A critical point that is also conveniently ignored is the VAST difference in size and weight between the 707 and the 767. At its heaviest, the 707-320s the relatively uncommon Intercontinental class, tipped the scales at roughly 320,000 pounds. Most 707s weighed in between 160,000 and 220,000 pounds.
A fully loaded 767? Nearly 400,000 pounds.
There's also this statement: "2. The history of high-rise building fires provides no case histories of buildings collapsing due to steel beams melting from a fire."
That conveniently ignores TWO things:
First is the construction of the buildings, which were the first of their type in the United States. Virtually every steel framed building in the US has it's internal support on the INSIDE -- the framework. The exterior of the building is essentially a dress that is hung on the framework.
The WTC towers? Their structural support wasn't an interior structure, it was the EXTERIOR framework. The interior framework provided lateral strength, while the exterior framework (again, the first large buildings in the US to ever employ this type of construction) provided the support against gravity.
It's fruitless to try to compare the performance of this type of construction against that of a traditional building.
But, I suppose that the architects were zionists? Who knows.
Then, finally, we have this: "3. The collapse of both towers were both perfectly symmetrical and methodical. The straight down collapse was identical in appearance to a well engineered, controlled implosion. A demolition company could not have done it better. Now that we know that all one has to do to bring a tall building straight down is set a fuel fire in it, the well trained experts who work for demolition companies should all be out of a job by now!"
Another perfect example of someone without any comprehension at all of how the buildings were designed making sweeping assumptions.
And, you know, he's forgetting something... What could it be... what could it be...
OH! The HUGE holes punched in the STRUCTURAL fabric of the building by nearly 400,000 pounds of jetliner! Of course, though, that contributed absolutely nothing to the overall collapse scenario.
This?
"Thanks in large part to Time Magazine's "Man of the Year 2001", New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the steel beams were quickly recycled before investigators even had the chance to look at them!"
That's a flat out bald faced lie. As the steel was removed from the collapse zone and taken to the staging area, dozens, if not hundreds, of federal investigators examined virtually every piece of the structure.
What occurred was a FEDERAL investigation -- Rudy Guiliani had no authority, nor any power, to "dispose of evidence."
What's amazing is that this schmuck is saying that Rudy Guiliani was disposing of evidence when just a few lines later THIS appears... ""This is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied," said one team member who asked not to be identified. Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press. "FEMA is controlling everything," the team member said. 105"
HOLY CRAP! If FEMA was in charge, you know, the FEDERAL Emergency Management Agency, how was Guiliani magically making this stuff disappear?
The juxtapositioning of those "facts" actually made me laugh out loud, not because they're funny, but because they're so damned pathetic.
Ultimately, only on solid conclusion can be drawn from the totality of this web site -- the author is an anti-Semite of monumental proportions, and would have been good friends with Adolph Hitler.
I just can't believe that people truly believe this ****.
Conjecture, inuendo, liberal parsing of known facts, taking those that support his postulation, discarding those that don't.
Nothing new here. Nothing ground breaking here. Nothing remotely reliable here.
I've said this many times, and it applies here, as well. Some people simply aren't comfortable if they can't feel paranoid about something.
For all of his claims about his "facts" being checked, and checked again, and again, he's doing a piss poor job.
For example...
"Because of strong public anti-war sentiment, FDR and his Zionist allies had a hard time dragging the US into the European war. Then another "incident" came along at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Japan and Germany were bound to a mutual defense agreement, which meant that war with Japan would automatically mean war with Germany."
WRONG!
He's too too far down into his slavering anti-zionist rant to see the HUGE hole in this premise...
Japan and Germany were bound by NO such agreement, at least not as he claims it.
For example...
Germany (whose ally was Japan) and Britain had been at war since September 1939.
If a mutual defense pact truly existed between Germany and Japan, that means that Japan and Britain should have been at war since September 1939.
Yet, Japan and Britain didn't go to war until December 1941, when the Japanese launched a series of coordinated attacks against American AND British interests.
The Tripartied (sp?) Pact did have a mutual defense clause, but it would be triggered automatically ONLY if the United States or Britain (or another nation, such as France) attacked Japan FIRST.
Neither Germany nor Italy were bound by any international agreement to enter Japan's war against the United States.
Then we have this...
"Overwhelming evidence from government documents clearly shows that FDR had advance knowledge of the Japanese attack and allowed it to happen so that he could drag the US into World War II."
NO such overwhelming evidence exists at all. Only the supposition of people who take tidbits of information and construct vast webs of conspiracy around them.
We also have this...
"1. The architects who designed the World Trade Center designed it to withstand the direct impact and fuel fire of a commercial airline crash. Aaron Swirsky, one of the architects of the WTC described the collapse as "incredible" and "unbelievable." 96
Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer said: "I designed it for a 707 to hit it. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity comparable to the 767."
True, but only SORT of true.
The Twin Towers were designed in the 1960s. At that time, the design rated fuel capacity of the vast majority of 707s then in service was significantly less than 23,000 gallons that the Intercontinental series carried. Another important factor that is ignored by this quote is that the 767. Many of the planned Intercontinentals in fact were never manufactured with the 23,000 gallon fuel capacity after the advent of the Pratt & Whitney JDT3 engine provided between IIRC 20 to 30% greater range on the same amount of fuel. At that point, a fuel load of 23,000 gallons became unnecessary except for possibly trans Asian service.
A critical point that is also conveniently ignored is the VAST difference in size and weight between the 707 and the 767. At its heaviest, the 707-320s the relatively uncommon Intercontinental class, tipped the scales at roughly 320,000 pounds. Most 707s weighed in between 160,000 and 220,000 pounds.
A fully loaded 767? Nearly 400,000 pounds.
There's also this statement: "2. The history of high-rise building fires provides no case histories of buildings collapsing due to steel beams melting from a fire."
That conveniently ignores TWO things:
First is the construction of the buildings, which were the first of their type in the United States. Virtually every steel framed building in the US has it's internal support on the INSIDE -- the framework. The exterior of the building is essentially a dress that is hung on the framework.
The WTC towers? Their structural support wasn't an interior structure, it was the EXTERIOR framework. The interior framework provided lateral strength, while the exterior framework (again, the first large buildings in the US to ever employ this type of construction) provided the support against gravity.
It's fruitless to try to compare the performance of this type of construction against that of a traditional building.
But, I suppose that the architects were zionists? Who knows.
Then, finally, we have this: "3. The collapse of both towers were both perfectly symmetrical and methodical. The straight down collapse was identical in appearance to a well engineered, controlled implosion. A demolition company could not have done it better. Now that we know that all one has to do to bring a tall building straight down is set a fuel fire in it, the well trained experts who work for demolition companies should all be out of a job by now!"
Another perfect example of someone without any comprehension at all of how the buildings were designed making sweeping assumptions.
And, you know, he's forgetting something... What could it be... what could it be...
OH! The HUGE holes punched in the STRUCTURAL fabric of the building by nearly 400,000 pounds of jetliner! Of course, though, that contributed absolutely nothing to the overall collapse scenario.
This?
"Thanks in large part to Time Magazine's "Man of the Year 2001", New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the steel beams were quickly recycled before investigators even had the chance to look at them!"
That's a flat out bald faced lie. As the steel was removed from the collapse zone and taken to the staging area, dozens, if not hundreds, of federal investigators examined virtually every piece of the structure.
What occurred was a FEDERAL investigation -- Rudy Guiliani had no authority, nor any power, to "dispose of evidence."
What's amazing is that this schmuck is saying that Rudy Guiliani was disposing of evidence when just a few lines later THIS appears... ""This is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied," said one team member who asked not to be identified. Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press. "FEMA is controlling everything," the team member said. 105"
HOLY CRAP! If FEMA was in charge, you know, the FEDERAL Emergency Management Agency, how was Guiliani magically making this stuff disappear?
The juxtapositioning of those "facts" actually made me laugh out loud, not because they're funny, but because they're so damned pathetic.
Ultimately, only on solid conclusion can be drawn from the totality of this web site -- the author is an anti-Semite of monumental proportions, and would have been good friends with Adolph Hitler.
I just can't believe that people truly believe this ****.
Last edited:
Edward429451
Moderator
This just in...The tinfoil hat AFDB's are a conspiracy by the .gov. Their mind reading / mind control equipment really has poor reception, so they started this ADFB rumor that you can protect yourself from them by using one. In reality, they act as an antenna and increase the ,gov's reception to your brain. 
They know the tinfoil types are the ones they want to listen in on and control, so started the rumor. BEWARE!!
The new preferred method of blocking goverment interference is hats from dead soft virgin lead hats. Minimum 6" protrudance outward from all angles including up. A little heavy but you get used to it. Besides, who ever said that keeping the ,gov out of your head would be easy.
__________________
They know the tinfoil types are the ones they want to listen in on and control, so started the rumor. BEWARE!!
The new preferred method of blocking goverment interference is hats from dead soft virgin lead hats. Minimum 6" protrudance outward from all angles including up. A little heavy but you get used to it. Besides, who ever said that keeping the ,gov out of your head would be easy.
__________________
Mike Irwin
Staff
Oh, one other point about the "symmetrical collapse" of the towers...
The collapses did NOT start out as symetrical. Photos and video clearly show the top of, IIRC, the South tower rotating out before gravity took over and the rotation corrected.
That the buildings pancaked is of no surprise, elementary physics was at work, not a bunch of moles with explosive cutting charges.
The collapses did NOT start out as symetrical. Photos and video clearly show the top of, IIRC, the South tower rotating out before gravity took over and the rotation corrected.
That the buildings pancaked is of no surprise, elementary physics was at work, not a bunch of moles with explosive cutting charges.
The WTC towers? Their structural support wasn't an interior structure, it was the EXTERIOR framework. The interior framework provided lateral strength, while the exterior framework (again, the first large buildings in the US to ever employ this type of construction) provided the support against gravity.
Mike, are you sure, from this site...
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html
"The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures.
Mike, are you sure, from this site...
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html
"The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures.
WTC was "tube" construction...while it is true that it didn't rely on a stiff RC service core to resist wind loads, the exterior framework nonetheless was the primary load bearing structure. I don't read anything in the link that says otherwise, all it says is that the service core, which typically stiffens the building against wind loads, in the case of WTC it does not. The exterior lattice fulfilled both functions.
This again?
Mike Irwin
Which was faster?
Clear enough huh? They wrote it in English.
No, the central core bore the gravity load of the buildings. The outer lattice was primarily bracing for rigidity - wind bracing.
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html
That and a few other "minor details" conflict with fact, logic and reason. But the buildings themselves and the aircraft make a good starting point.
And you mentioned something concerning a "lie"; George Pinnochio Bush (and Condisleeza Rice) uttered a good one when he stated publicly that "no one" could have imagined that people would hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Among other things it was the subject of a national TV fiction in 1999 - and there were some drills going on the day of September 11, 2001 (as well as an interception of some Russian aircraft over Alaska). Representative Cynthia McKenny cornered Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers on March 11, 2005 on that subject. The transcript of that exchange is interesting.
Mike Irwin
The 707-320 was considered the benchmark at the time, and the WTC engineers would perhaps have taken the trouble to get the facts from those who would know at the time.
And the two 767s apparently had about half their maximum payload of fuel. So this is a moot point whether it applies or not.
Maximum takeoff weight of the 707-320 is 333,600 pounds. The 767-200 is 387,000 pounds.
Which was faster?
Speaking of ignoring things;
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html
Ignoring as in;
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html
Clear enough huh? They wrote it in English.
Pssssst!
No, the central core bore the gravity load of the buildings. The outer lattice was primarily bracing for rigidity - wind bracing.
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html
That and a few other "minor details" conflict with fact, logic and reason. But the buildings themselves and the aircraft make a good starting point.
And you mentioned something concerning a "lie"; George Pinnochio Bush (and Condisleeza Rice) uttered a good one when he stated publicly that "no one" could have imagined that people would hijack planes and fly them into buildings. Among other things it was the subject of a national TV fiction in 1999 - and there were some drills going on the day of September 11, 2001 (as well as an interception of some Russian aircraft over Alaska). Representative Cynthia McKenny cornered Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Myers on March 11, 2005 on that subject. The transcript of that exchange is interesting.
Attachments
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Speaking of ignoring things;
Quote:
"The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple ..."
I didn't ignore that, LAK. The IBM Building in Seattle is 20 fricking stories tall, ONE FIFTH the height of the WTC. While the basic concept is the same, the additional 90 stories on the WTC mandated significant changes in the design. You'll notice that I covered that when I said the WTC towers were the first LARGE buildings to employ this type of structure. The IMB Building? Even by the standards of the day it was not a large building.
In many ways, it's like trying to compare a WW II Fletcher Class destroyer made at Bath Iron Works with an Aegis Class destroy made at Bath. Sure, they're similar, but there are HUGE differences.
"... The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building."
Nice try, but that doesn't say what you THINK it says. Yes, I did make a mistake in saying that the interior core gives the lateral resistance -- I knew that wasn't true, but it crept in as I was typing. God forbid that ever happens to anyone else.
However, back to the above... In traditional buildings the central core does it all.
In the WTC, the exterior shell provided not only the lateral resistance, but also took approximately 60 to 80% of the total gravity load of the buildings (at least from some things I've read). The interior core would obviously have to take some of the gravity load simply because you're hollowing out large sections of the interior to provide for elevators, stairwells, and the like.
"No, the central core bore the gravity load of the buildings. The outer lattice was primarily bracing for rigidity - wind bracing."
WRONG.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm
"The 707-320 was considered the benchmark at the time, and the WTC engineers would perhaps have taken the trouble to get the facts from those who would know at the time."
No, it wouldn't have been a benchmark, the benchmark would be the most numerous type in service. The Intercontinental's fuel capacity was a deviation from the benchmark which largely became obsolete with the advent of new engines.
One could just as easily say that hey, these guys should have been a lot more forward looking and designed for the largest aircraft not at the time, but in 50 or even 100 years, but that's simply ludicrous.
More later...
Quote:
"The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple ..."
I didn't ignore that, LAK. The IBM Building in Seattle is 20 fricking stories tall, ONE FIFTH the height of the WTC. While the basic concept is the same, the additional 90 stories on the WTC mandated significant changes in the design. You'll notice that I covered that when I said the WTC towers were the first LARGE buildings to employ this type of structure. The IMB Building? Even by the standards of the day it was not a large building.
In many ways, it's like trying to compare a WW II Fletcher Class destroyer made at Bath Iron Works with an Aegis Class destroy made at Bath. Sure, they're similar, but there are HUGE differences.
"... The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building."
Nice try, but that doesn't say what you THINK it says. Yes, I did make a mistake in saying that the interior core gives the lateral resistance -- I knew that wasn't true, but it crept in as I was typing. God forbid that ever happens to anyone else.
However, back to the above... In traditional buildings the central core does it all.
In the WTC, the exterior shell provided not only the lateral resistance, but also took approximately 60 to 80% of the total gravity load of the buildings (at least from some things I've read). The interior core would obviously have to take some of the gravity load simply because you're hollowing out large sections of the interior to provide for elevators, stairwells, and the like.
"No, the central core bore the gravity load of the buildings. The outer lattice was primarily bracing for rigidity - wind bracing."
WRONG.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm
"The 707-320 was considered the benchmark at the time, and the WTC engineers would perhaps have taken the trouble to get the facts from those who would know at the time."
No, it wouldn't have been a benchmark, the benchmark would be the most numerous type in service. The Intercontinental's fuel capacity was a deviation from the benchmark which largely became obsolete with the advent of new engines.
One could just as easily say that hey, these guys should have been a lot more forward looking and designed for the largest aircraft not at the time, but in 50 or even 100 years, but that's simply ludicrous.
More later...
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
This discussion is heading nowhere.
Proof can be found here: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80340
Closed.
Proof can be found here: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80340
Closed.
- Status