No, this will not happen in 6, 60, or even 600 years. The art of statecraft is an ancient thing, and it has been iteratively refined. The masses will remain the masses. They were born into it. Their parents will teach it, their schools and thier peers will reinforce it. The dumbing down process was completed long ago, and the new world order is a fait accompli. These plans have been in the works for generations. Congrats for seeing it, but you are too little, and it is too late. Best Regards Oddi
And it doesn't matter which picture of flight 175 you look at, there's always that inexplicable bulgy thing: http://letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=14
Steel never regains it's strength past a certain point of heating. Only quenching techniques can make it harder, not necessarily stronger. You'll lose some of the elasticity properties gained after hardening. Highrise iron are built to withstand temperatures only long enough to allow evacuation of a building. This is done by spraying all structural members with "Monokote" fire retardant. If the monokote is "scraped" off or compromised in any way, the rest of the structural member now has a weak point. If the iron is twisted, bent or distorted in anyway either from impact or heat, all bets are off. Bar joists were used for the floor supports. Why? Because these members have an extremely high strength to weight ratio. They are very susceptible to heat because they are made with light grade steel relative to the structural headers and field beams. In fact when erecting, care has to be taken to install "bridging", which spans from joist to joist, before placement of any loads. Individually, they're a wet noodle. Bar joists typically only have 1 1/2" of bearing on each edge resting on either field beams, headers or embeds. Obviously, it doesn't take a whole hell of a lot to compromise this fact without even adding heat to the mix. Once one floor goes, the pancake effect is on. Floors are only engineered to carry their rated load, plus a bit more. There's no way in hell it would support another coming down on it from 5 feet much less 10 or 12 feet. To "pull" a building means let it go and get out.
come on ppl... that bulgy thing is the secret compartment where they kept the hijackers passports.... how else would they survive when the blackboxes melted. geezzzzzzz
"follow the money"... who benefits? recent polls show that 90% of our armed forces serving in iraq believe they are over there in response to 9/11.
Saddam's kids (Oday and that other one) knew the truth about 9/11, so they had to be silenced. The only way to get to them was to invade the country, so we did it. So now you know the secret posted here. The 9/11 Conspirators invaded a whole country to get to two people who knew it, what do you think they'll do to get to you? Be afraid.
So where are the white hot flames, shattered windows and incinerated bodies that prove such an incredibly hot fire took place? Overlooking the fact the WTC was built with steel - not iron - the structural steel used was rated at 2000F for several hours. Yet the building failed in less than half that time under avg. temperatures that weren't even 50% that. According the NIST report. And? According to the NIST report, the fire never burned hot or long enough to fatally weaken the structural perimeter, core of trusses: "At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500C or below.â (NIST, 2005, p. 127,) Further, the NIST test of WTC trusses exposed to 500C temps showed a 0% failure rate: "All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.â hmmmmm.......... Even stranger, actual samples collected by the NIST confirmed neither the perimeter walls or columns in the effected floors experienced temperatures exceeding 250C. Boy, those fires were a real raging inferno!! Perhaps the most interesting part of the NIST report: they junked realistic collapse models based on empirical data because they concluded the WTC would have WITHSTOOD the impact and resulting fires: " The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events." (NIST, 2005, p. 142 Thankfully, the NIST concocted a more 'severe' model based on *tweaked* parameters that ignored eyewitness and photographic accounts, which ultimately yielded in full collapse of the building. I think we can all breath a big sigh of relief knowing our good scientists will curve fit data to support a forgone conclusion. Talk about circular logic. Not according to the engineers who actually designed and built the towers to withstand such a calamity. But I guess your opinion is far more valid when it comes to the ultimate resilience of the Towers, than opinions of those who actually built it. LOL. And the max temp was 500C at any given area, post-collision --- not even within the ballpark to fatally collapse an entire floor even if one floor was totally engulfed in flames (which never happened. NOt even close). Thats a great theory. Considering the fires were relatively tame, isolated and temps didn't exceed 500C post collision. Too bad even IF that happened, you'd be left with the Towers wide, cross-braced steel core jutting a few hundred meters into the air. Or, should we assume those weak-ass truss connectors that were apparently to blame for the collapsing floors, showed incredible strength on the opposite side by tearing down and SHREDDING the huge, cross-braced inner core - at the speed of gravity no less. Sure. Sure. To 'pull' also means to pull my pud or yank my wanker. In this context, 'pull' means to demo a building. http://vestigialconscience.com/PullIt.mp3 Look at what Silverstien said: we made the decision to pull and then watched 7 come down. Given the temporal proximity of Silverstiens order to 'pull' and the perfectly symmetrical, free fall collapse of 7, its obvious WTC7 was a controlled demo. Of course, the NIST report doesn't even TOUCH why WTC7 fell at the speed of gravity. Or why both Towers fell at the near speed of gravity. Doesn't happen. Ever.