"Fred Garvin" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:34:48 -0400, gw wrote:

i still want to know why those two buildings came down........the planes
did not do it...........what did????? and why????


Why don't YOU tell us then genius?

Then you can shut your retarded ****ing face and get a life.

What a freakin' asshat.


Yeah, he tends to be a bit thick at times, but FWIW, he does have some
unique views that may make one think.

Once in the air, almost anyone who has a basic knowledge of the controls and
a couple gauges, can fly. I worked for a charter company as a ramp rat for a
few years, and got to grab the yoke of a King Air 100 and 200 during
post-maintenance check flights. Even in a smaller twin turboprop, keeping a
level flight isnt that hard. And by the way the planes hit the buildings
with course corrections right before impact, just shows theres a little
terrorist in all of us. And those who did the flying, had recently learned
the basics too.
The estimate was 1/3 of the fuel flashed on the outside, and the other 2/3
started the office materials burning. The impact plowed a lot of materials
out the other side, just not hardly enough to keep the fires down. Estimates
on the temps were around 1500 to 2000 degrees i believe.
As far as the "why", everyone has their own opinion on that, and i wont
waste anyones time on it.

gw wrote in message . ..

yes that is what we were all told.......but do you believe it.????

Yes

after all those buildings were built to withstand the impact of a jet
airliner.....and also the heat you describe just did not
happen......if you will notice in the films on the subject, the blast
went through the building and out the other side.......in the films i
have seen on the subject, people can be seen walking around in the
areas, where the planes went through the buildings....i ask
you,.......if it was so cotton picking hot in there how can anyone
walk around in it........????? nope....this crap does not
wash.......also i have to say.....that i think explosive charges were
strapped to the main columns in the basement to bring them
down......if you will also remember, some guys tried that before in
1991 or whenever and the only reason it didn't work was that the van
they parked in the basement was parked next to the wrong support
columns........

The buildings were not designed to withstand the impact of a jet liner full
of fuel. The fuel burned and set fire to paper, carpet, funiture, and tons
of other flamable items. If only the jet fuel had been burning, it would
have burned fast and likely the fire would have subsidee before it became
hot enough to weaken the supporting structure to the point of failure. It
was not just the jet fuel.

Do you have to work at being a moron or does it come naturally "doncha
know"?

Miles wrote in message ...


That is flat out false. The building was supported by a rigid central
core. The exoskeleton was designed to absorb wind loads and not apply
those loads to the central core. The gravitational loading of the
building was supported by the central core.

Wrong, PBS aired a special on the building of the towers and there was no
central rigid core as most skyscrapers are constructed. That is what made
the towers unique, the support was the outside steel structures, the
strength coming from the cross members holding it together.

gw wrote in message . ..


ok fine.......you don't believe that point then how about
this........the guy that supposedly taught those idiots to 'fly'
jets.........said they couldn't fly by the seat of their pants much
less fly a jumbo jet into the side of a building

What guy? Name, flight school please. Give something to back up your
statement.

...........you have to
make intricate maneuvers that would be hard even for a experienced
pilot

Would you like to qualify that statement?

...........it is like hitting a needle in a haystack.......and yet
guys who had never actually flew a plane before somehow were able to
make these planes fly into the side of a building.

They had flight training and had time in simulators. They knew to turn off
the transponders, they new how to read headings. After a few hours in a
simulator, it would be easy to get in the left seat and aim the plane for a
building.

......makes no sense
to me............

Why does that not suprise anyone?

again on point 1.......i reiterate......the blast from the planes went
out the other side of the building and that includes most of the fuel
associated with these planes..........all that was left was a
smoldering ruins......i ask you.........tell me how hot was it in
there.????? what we are talking about here is aluminum and titanium
tubes full of jet fuel......on impact, naturally it disintegrated. and
the force of the impact went out the other side of the
buildings........review your tapes........

And again, it was not the jet fuel that was the cause of the intense fire
that burned so long, it was the flamable items in the building.

you have to understand......in order for 'them' to take your rights
away, 'they' needed a catastrophic event to take place........and so
it did.....and so they are or trying to do just this. it is plain and
simple...the constitution has been trashed all for the price of
rounding up 'terrorist' among us........make no mistake about
it......this will come back to haunt the american people.....it is a
travesty and a injustice....and anyone paying attention surely will be
affected by this and troubled....they will not stop until most of your
freedoms you hold dear now are forfeited because you let them do
this..........for what you say??? for the new world
order.........that is the case, no doubt about it....the writing is on
the wall for all to see........

Again I ask, to you have to work at being a moron?

JJ wrote:
Miles wrote in message ...


That is flat out false. The building was supported by a rigid central
core. The exoskeleton was designed to absorb wind loads and not apply
those loads to the central core. The gravitational loading of the
building was supported by the central core.


Wrong, PBS aired a special on the building of the towers and there was no
central rigid core as most skyscrapers are constructed. That is what made
the towers unique, the support was the outside steel structures, the
strength coming from the cross members holding it together.



i said the same thing several days ago and was lambasted by posters
here. the response 'that is flat out false' was directed my way. i saw
the same program as you. it was what made the wtc unique.

jim wrote:

i said the same thing several days ago and was lambasted by posters
here. the response 'that is flat out false' was directed my way. i saw
the same program as you. it was what made the wtc unique.

Other people said that because your statement is flat out false. What
is unique is the fact the outer structure doesn't provide gravitational
support as is found in most other skyscrapers. The weight is born
almost entirely on the central core. Whatever show you two watched was
either in error (doubtfull) or you misunderstood their description.

http://www.skyscraper.org/tallest/t_wtc.htm

Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the
engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube"
of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extended across to a
central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum
alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers
appear from afar to have no windows at all.

Miles wrote in message ...


jim wrote:

i said the same thing several days ago and was lambasted by posters
here. the response 'that is flat out false' was directed my way. i saw
the same program as you. it was what made the wtc unique.

Other people said that because your statement is flat out false. What
is unique is the fact the outer structure doesn't provide gravitational
support as is found in most other skyscrapers. The weight is born
almost entirely on the central core. Whatever show you two watched was
either in error (doubtfull) or you misunderstood their description.

http://www.skyscraper.org/tallest/t_wtc.htm

Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the
engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube"
of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extended across to a
central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum
alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers
appear from afar to have no windows at all.


Gee, wonder why when the buildings collasped they fell inward toward the
center followed by the outer walls? Did you notice when the second building
collasped the tv antenna on top fell straight down in the center and that is
were it wound up at the bottem? If this center column was the strength of
the building, then just how did that happen? Did you notice that after the
collaspe that the only things standing were some of the outer walls, no part
of any center column? Whe? Because the center columns were NOT the main
strength of the building, that was in the outer steel structure. That was
pointed out in the documentery by both the Architect and Engineer who
designed the buildings. So this website is either in error or you
misunderstood their description.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:27:10 -0600, "JJ"
wrote:


Miles wrote in message ...


jim wrote:

i said the same thing several days ago and was lambasted by posters
here. the response 'that is flat out false' was directed my way. i saw
the same program as you. it was what made the wtc unique.

Other people said that because your statement is flat out false. What
is unique is the fact the outer structure doesn't provide gravitational
support as is found in most other skyscrapers. The weight is born
almost entirely on the central core. Whatever show you two watched was
either in error (doubtfull) or you misunderstood their description.

http://www.skyscraper.org/tallest/t_wtc.htm

Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the
engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube"
of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extended across to a
central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum
alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers
appear from afar to have no windows at all.


Gee, wonder why when the buildings collasped they fell inward toward the
center followed by the outer walls? Did you notice when the second building
collasped the tv antenna on top fell straight down in the center and that is
were it wound up at the bottem? If this center column was the strength of
the building, then just how did that happen? Did you notice that after the
collaspe that the only things standing were some of the outer walls, no part
of any center column? Whe? Because the center columns were NOT the main
strength of the building, that was in the outer steel structure. That was
pointed out in the documentery by both the Architect and Engineer who
designed the buildings. So this website is either in error or you
misunderstood their description.


The inner core supported the weight of the building, the exterior
columns were designed for wind loading.
The outer wall remained after the collapse because they weren't the
primary support for the building.


The report on the design of the building by the architects reads as
follows:

In order to make each tower capable of withstanding this wind load,
the architects selected a lightweight perimeter tube design consisting
of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm
centers (see Figure 3). This permitted windows more than one-half
meter wide. Inside this outer tube there was a 27 m × 40 m core, which
was designed to support the weight of the tower. It also housed the
elevators, the stairwells, and the mechanical risers and utilities.
Web joists 80 cm tall connected the core to the perimeter at each
story. Concrete slabs were poured over these joists to form the
floors. In essence, the building is an egg-crate construction that is
about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was
only a few stories high.

Maybe you misunderstood what the documentary stated. I also watched
it, and the mention of the outer columns was in reference to wind
loading, not support of the weight of the building.

In , Swan Radioman wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:27:10 -0600, "JJ"
wrote:


Miles wrote in message ...


jim wrote:

i said the same thing several days ago and was lambasted by posters
here. the response 'that is flat out false' was directed my way. i saw
the same program as you. it was what made the wtc unique.

Other people said that because your statement is flat out false. What
is unique is the fact the outer structure doesn't provide gravitational
support as is found in most other skyscrapers. The weight is born
almost entirely on the central core. Whatever show you two watched was
either in error (doubtfull) or you misunderstood their description.

http://www.skyscraper.org/tallest/t_wtc.htm

Faced with the difficulties of building to unprecedented heights, the
engineers employed an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube"
of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extended across to a
central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum
alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers
appear from afar to have no windows at all.


Gee, wonder why when the buildings collasped they fell inward toward the
center followed by the outer walls? Did you notice when the second building
collasped the tv antenna on top fell straight down in the center and that is
were it wound up at the bottem? If this center column was the strength of
the building, then just how did that happen? Did you notice that after the
collaspe that the only things standing were some of the outer walls, no part
of any center column? Whe? Because the center columns were NOT the main
strength of the building, that was in the outer steel structure. That was
pointed out in the documentery by both the Architect and Engineer who
designed the buildings. So this website is either in error or you
misunderstood their description.


The inner core supported the weight of the building, the exterior
columns were designed for wind loading.
The outer wall remained after the collapse because they weren't the
primary support for the building.


The report on the design of the building by the architects reads as
follows:

In order to make each tower capable of withstanding this wind load,
the architects selected a lightweight perimeter tube design consisting
of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm
centers (see Figure 3). This permitted windows more than one-half
meter wide. Inside this outer tube there was a 27 m × 40 m core, which
was designed to support the weight of the tower. It also housed the
elevators, the stairwells, and the mechanical risers and utilities.
Web joists 80 cm tall connected the core to the perimeter at each
story. Concrete slabs were poured over these joists to form the
floors. In essence, the building is an egg-crate construction that is
about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was
only a few stories high.

Maybe you misunderstood what the documentary stated. I also watched
it, and the mention of the outer columns was in reference to wind
loading, not support of the weight of the building.

The floors of the buildings were built from trusses, with one end attached to
the central core and the other end attached to the outer columns. That means the
weight of each structure was supported by BOTH the outer shell AND the inner
core.

Now how about arguing over something a little less morbid, huh?





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----