RunRyder RC
WATCH
 9 pages [ <<    <     2      3     ( 4 )     5      6     NEXT    >> ] 7451 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Coast to Coast am Where Did the Towers go Dr. Judy Wood 05-03-2011
05-10-2011 08:44 PM  7 years agoPost 61
DougCart

rrNovice

Port Charlotte, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

They are wearing their liberal media blinders. LOL just for once they should explore the possibilities that exsist rather than believe the first thing they see on TV.

I am suprised they arent still saying that Osama was armed and used his wife as a shield. LOL

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
05-10-2011 08:44 PM  7 years agoPost 62
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

the buildings were made to withstand an aircraft impact.
apparantly not

and no building survives a full sized jet

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
05-10-2011 08:47 PM  7 years agoPost 63
DougCart

rrNovice

Port Charlotte, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

appearantly not
appearantly? cmon!
apparantly not
apparantly? cmon!

The buildings DID NOT fall after they were hit did they?NO hardly even a visible sway.that is what should be so concerning to people.
then what happened to all the jet fuel at the pentagon? there was the same aircraft crashed there and there was office furniture still left untouched.
and no building survives a full sized jet
Apparently the Pentagon did.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
05-10-2011 08:48 PM  7 years agoPost 64
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

so you wear a double layer tinfoil hat

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
05-10-2011 08:49 PM  7 years agoPost 65
DougCart

rrNovice

Port Charlotte, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

so you wear a double layer tinfoil hat
No, but you have a banana in your ear.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
05-10-2011 08:56 PM  7 years agoPost 66
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Apparently the Pentagon did.
correct and noted.

No sky scraper withstands a full sized jet and thats what we are talking about.

the buildings were lucky to not collapse instantly, end of story

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
05-10-2011 08:59 PM  7 years agoPost 67
DougCart

rrNovice

Port Charlotte, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

the buildings were lucky to not collapse instantly, end of story
Think again Doofensmirtz
The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising
http://www.prisonplanet.com/article...lywithstood.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/article...ignedtotake.htm

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
05-10-2011 08:59 PM  7 years agoPost 68
hootowl

rrProfessor

Garnet Valley, Pa.

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Buildings that size should have created a debris mound at least a couple hundred feet high considering how tall they were.
So what are you saying? The material vaporized? There is no doubt that the buildings were there. There is no doubt that they are no longer there. I would bet they can substantiate that the debris removed over the last ten years was equal what was put up. If the pile wasn't as high as YOU think it should have been then YOU need to get some facts.

So does this conspiracy include the deaths of the people on the planes or did they not exist? Was it suicide CIA pilots impersonating Arabs?

Where does this end?

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-10-2011 09:01 PM  7 years agoPost 69
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The most consequential designs that were not included in the Twin Towers were sufficient fire-suppression systems and fireproofing. Even though the towers were built to withstand the impact of a jetliner, they were not designed to withstand and remain standing during a fire of such great magnitude. The jet-fuel fire caused by the impact was impossible to contain in the Twin Towers. The World Trade Center had not been designed to fight hydrocarbon fires of such magnitude and high temperature – up to 1500 degrees Celsius. The fire-suppression system consisted of water sprinklers that were useless because water, at this temperature, would vaporize almost instantly. Instead, these fires had to be fought with chemical foam, which the Towers lacked (Ashley 2001).

The fireproofing system in the Towers was also insufficient. First, the Towers were lightweight because of their extensive use of steel and were devoid of masonry or concrete which made them difficult to insulate from the fire. Second, a more sophisticated fireproofing system could have been incorporated during the building process. Most of the supports and trusses could have been coated with extra fire proofing material (Ashley 2001). Third, the World Trade Center incorporated a novel, yet very flammable, elevator system (Wilkinson 2002). The engineers worried that, without masonry, the conventional elevator shafts would buckle and collapse with the intense air pressure exerted by the high speed elevators. To solve this problem the engineers used a drywall/plaster system fixed to a reinforced steel core; this made the shafts more flexible though much more flammable (Wilkinson 2002).

Another design shortcoming that made the ensuing fire even more destructive was the use of weak floor trusses which spanned abnormally long distances (Ashley 2001). In the Twin Towers the steel trusses spanned nearly sixty feet without any support and were only four inches thick (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002). The extremely high-temperature fire heated the relatively thin floor rapidly, making the floor almost flexible because it lost most of its rigidity and consequently buckled. Since the floor buckled, the extra support needed to come from the remaining exterior perimeter columns, but many had been destroyed by the planes’ initial impact. But those columns also depended on the core steel columns for support, but these columns were being subjected to extremely harsh conditions of the fire and were failing themselves. The exterior columns began to buckle onto the floor which buckled on the floor beneath and started a gigantic domino effect of the plunging stories. So, in effect, the fire caused all structural supports to weaken and fail within the Twin Towers.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
05-10-2011 09:03 PM  7 years agoPost 70
DougCart

rrNovice

Port Charlotte, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

So does this conspiracy include the deaths of the people on the planes or did they not exist? Was it suicide CIA pilots impersonating Arabs?
Many possibilities exist.

You must not have seen this.....and no I didnt make the video.

Just listen to the videos and ponder what is being said.....

Watch at YouTube

Watch at YouTube

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
05-10-2011 09:04 PM  7 years agoPost 71
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

it would be great if you could post something from a site that doesnt require a tinfoil hat

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
05-10-2011 09:07 PM  7 years agoPost 72
DougCart

rrNovice

Port Charlotte, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

it would be great if you could post something from a site that doesnt require a tinfoil hat
I was gonna say the same thing about your jet fuel post.Except you have to have a banana in your ear to read the garbage you copy and paste.

......by the way it says the buildings were able to withstand a jet aircraft hitting them at 600mph.So the fact that they didnt fall immediately after being hit is not that big of a deal

Here is some more food for thought.....

Watch at YouTube

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
05-10-2011 09:22 PM  7 years agoPost 73
rcjon

rrVeteran

Macon, GA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

where did it go?
In the first month over 16,000 truckloads of debris was hauled to Fresh Kills landfill. (In all over 1,000,000 tons was removed.)
Buildings that size should have created a debris mound at least a couple hundred feet high considering how tall they were.
Who sez? The buildings were 95% air. I believe there were 4 underground levels.
And what about the "bathtub"?
Part of the underground levels of the WTC were located below the water table. To keep water out, the walls were lined with concrete. If the bath tub failed, water would flood the basement levels and that is all that would happen. Whether it did or didn't fail is totally irrelevant to the cause of the disaster.

The fact that all the CT folks ignore is that literally thousands of people would have to be involved in the conspiracy. Yet to date, bnot one of them has confessed. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Ask your doctor if your heart is healthy enough for Radio Control Helicoptering.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-10-2011 09:30 PM  7 years agoPost 74
DougCart

rrNovice

Port Charlotte, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Yet to date, bnot one of them has confessed. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
I think JFK knew something he was going to go public with back in 63.

still doesnt explain how WTC 7 fell with such little damage it sustained.There were buildings closer to the 2 towers that sustained massive damage and were left standing.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
05-10-2011 09:47 PM  7 years agoPost 75
ssmith512

rrKey Veteran

Indianapolis, IN USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

still doesnt explain how WTC 7 fell with such little damage it sustained.There were buildings closer to the 2 towers that sustained massive damage and were left standing
Good thing you dont have a Structural Engineers License.

Why a building fails is completely dependent on WHAT is damaged and WHERE the damage occurs. You can have VERY little damage and still have a complete failure of a structure. You can also have SIGNIFICANT damage and still maintain a free standing state (allthough it may not be very stable).

Steve

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-10-2011 10:11 PM  7 years agoPost 76
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

there is not one thing the OP or any other tinfoil hat wearing person can produce. its called real evidence.

they have absolutely ZERO evidence on their tinfoil side that backs the "where did they go" conspiracy

we on the other side have video and eye witnesses that show 2 full size jets impact the twin towers that dropped both towers after carving huge gaping holes in the middle of the structure that caused the upper floors to collapse.

Both times you could see the building give way to the weight of the upper floors without explosions setting the chain of events off.

I child can see the gaping holes and fire, and a child can see the structure give way due to the damage.

it is obvious the jet crashes took down the towers without ANY OTHER HELP.

tinfoil hats have to avoid the obvious because then their imagination cannot guide them

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
05-10-2011 10:15 PM  7 years agoPost 77
albatross

rrApprentice

Texas, Houston area

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Too bad everybody doesn't know. Myself included

Watch at YouTube

...my handle backwards is how I feel about current world affairs...

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
05-10-2011 11:10 PM  7 years agoPost 78
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

No we do know.

can you show me that the jets strengthened the buildings after impact???

hell no you cant.

you can clearly see the building collapse due to the jet crashes alone

this is a visible fact that crushes your tinfoil hat

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
05-11-2011 01:29 AM  7 years agoPost 79
DougCart

rrNovice

Port Charlotte, FL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Good thing you dont have a Structural Engineers License.
Ah buddy,there are structural Engineers that wonder why the buildings came down like they did on 9/11 and why the Pentagon barely suffered any damage and they did not remove any of the supposed ground at the Pentagon that would have been saturated with jet fuel since it obviously didnt burn off like it did in the two towers.
you can clearly see the building collapse due to the jet crashes alone
I didnt see them collapse until a few hours later after they ignited the charges in the building.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
05-11-2011 01:38 AM  7 years agoPost 80
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I didnt see them collapse until a few hours later after they ignited the charges in the building.
tinfoil hat people never look for themselves, they beleive all the BS their fead

there were no charges

on both buildings not just one, you see them give way with no popping until after they start to go.

this is a fact and shuts up the tinfoil crowd everytime

you act like this is the firsty time this stupid arguement has been brought up

the planes took the towers down end of story.

had their been explosives in the building the impact would have set them off in that area and sheared the beams and it all would have fell on impact.

your arguement is guessing and flawed

mine is a account is of eye witnesses and film

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 9 pages [ <<    <     2      3     ( 4 )     5      6     NEXT    >> ] 7451 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Coast to Coast am Where Did the Towers go Dr. Judy Wood 05-03-2011
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 12  Topic Subscribe

Monday, September 24 - 4:12 pm - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

The RC discussion world needs to consolidate. RR is now one choice for that. Its software is cutting edge. It hosts on-topic advertising. Help RR increase traffic buy making suggestions, posting in RR's new areas (sites) and by spreading the word.

The RunRyder Difference

• Category system to allow Rep/Vendor postings.
• Classifieds with sold (hidden) category.
• Classifieds with separate view new.
• Answer PMs offsite via email reply.
• Member gallery photos with advanced scripting.
• Gallery photo viewer integrated into postings.
• Highly refined search with advanced back end.
• Hosts its own high end fast response servers.
• Hosts thousands of HD event coverage videos.
• Rewrote entire code base with latest technology.
• No off-topic (annoying) click bait advertising.
Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online