On 20/09/18 12:06, z9wahqvh wrote:

posit a mechanism for building collapse that [..] has never been seen before or since, despite the fact that planes do crash into buildings and fires do happen in buildings pretty frequently.

Planes. A B-25 crashed into the Empire State building in the 1940's, but that was about 10 tons flying at about 150 mph, versus 150 tons at 500 mph. A cargo 747 crashed into a 10 story apartment building in Amsterdam in 1992 [1]. It was flying straight down when it hit. IIrc 40-odd people were killed. The building was made of reinforced concrete, and the part which was hit was demolished down to the ground by the impact, but the fire was put out quickly and most of the rest of the building was OK. An Air France Concord crashed into the ground then hit a three-story hotel, killing 4 on the ground and all on the plane. Then there was the Pentagon, and there are are some cases of large aircraft hitting houses and light aircraft crashing into various buildings. But apart from WTC there have been no incidents where a large aircraft has crashed into a high-rise, skyscraper or large steel framed building, either before or since. [1] I was in Amsterdam and heard the crash - we were warned on short-wave radio to stay inside because there might have been nerve gas in the plane. The ordinary radio said all was well. Didn't know whether to be scared or not. Fires. WTC1+2 were built of sprayed fire resistant material coated steel (SFRM/S) structure to a lightweight-framed-tube design. Very few buildings like them were ever built, the lightweight-framed-tube design went out of fashion in the late 70's/ 80's. SFRM/S is still used sometimes though, if you want cheap - although if eg the chance of war damage is high then it would be excluded. That's partly why the Burj Khalifa is built of reinforced concrete. In most cases of fires in high-rise buildings, the building is made of reinforced concrete, not SFRM/S. The concrete protects the steel much better against heat than SFRM. In general SFRM/S buildings do not collapse in actual fires, though if the fire lasts for a long time in one place they can be badly damaged, come close to collapse, or even collapse. Most fires are progressive, and in high-rises very often spread is upward by external means, the flames outside the building setting the downwind parts of higher stories aflame rather then whole floors being on fire. Most fires are fought by firemen, who tend to start at the bottom and work up - so while a fire may last several hours, an individual part of the building is unlikely to be on fire the whole of that time. Also, WTC had no sprinklers. Modern buildings have them as standard, and many are refitted with them. Even when they fail to control the spread of a fire, they lower the temperature. Apart from WTC: There are no other cases of large fires in high rises where the fire spread so quickly. There are no other cases of fires in SFRM/S buildings which lasted for more than four hours in one place. There are few other cases of fires in SFRM/S high-rises in which an entire floor was on fire. Most often only one side of the building burns, the fire spreading up the outside of the windward side. Of these few cases, One Meridian Plaza springs to mind - the SFRM there was rated for four hours, not the usual three. The fire lasted for 11 hours, though not at full intensity in any one place - it covered nine floors, and was least fought by firefighters. Even so, the building came very close to collapsing, and later had to be demolished (by disassembly, not explosives). I know of no other cases where there was a large fire in a SFRM/S high-rise and no firemen to fight it. I know of no other cases of large fires in high rises which were preceded by such extensive mechanical damage. I expect there are examples of the last two, in war situations or the like. If anyone knows of any could they let me know please. WTC1+2. WTC1+2 collapsed because they were built of unusual materials (sprayed fire resistant material/steel), and to an unusual design (lightweight framed-tube). One might expect the method of collapse to be unusual. If they had been made of reinforced concrete, to a traditional design, they wouldn't have collapsed. They wouldn't have been so tall though, and they would have been more expensive to build. If they had been made to a traditional steel-framed design, even with SFRM/S, it is unlikely that they would have collapsed, and certainly not in that way. But then they would have used twice as much steel, and been twice as expensive. WTC7. WTC7 fell because there were no firemen to put the blaze out. The mechanical damage might have provided a point of first failure, but it wasn't really significant, the building would have collapsed anyway. There probably weren't enough firemen in Manhattan to fight the initial five major fires in WTC7, even if they hadn't been busy with WTC1+2 - and then there weren't enough firemen as they were either dead or busy rescuing people elsewhere. The rescue firemen stayed until 2:30 or so, but there never was any significant attempt to actually fight the fires in WTC7. They were too big, there weren't enough firemen, plus the water mains had been destroyed by the collapse of WTC1+2. There wasn't anything the fire department could do to fight the fires. So the fires went unfought and merged into a single blaze - and guess what, a building which was rated for 3 hours structural fire resistance lasted on fire for 7 hours hours before collapsing. - Peter Fairbrother

On Fri, 21 Sep 2018 01:09:37 -0400 grarpamp wrote:

On 9/20/18, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

...

...

Anyway, 9/11 was done by governments fuckery around the world.

9/11 was done by terrorists with boxcutters.

And as you well know, that was caused by the fuckery of governments around the world. Thus the first above is true.

So that's YET another thing. If 'terrist attacks' were actual retaliation for the crimes comitted by anglo-anmerican scum, accomplices and associates, then there should be a LOT MORE 'terrorism'. And yet, there isn't. There's only 'terrorism' when "america's defenses" need to be "rebuilt" for the next "american century", in which case a "new pear harbour" would come really handy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Posters said:

There's only 'terrorism' when [something needs to happen] for the [next century]...

The details are complicated, but the basic story is simple:

Some say there were triggers... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cbZxWcurGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt-ldMj9y9w ...whatever, then sure, physics rules whatever situation. Whether demolition planted wherever in the complex or not, boxcutting terrists or autopilots, and whatever other subcomponent or higher level theories and facts, the bottom line is that... 911 as a whole was ultimately caused by the fuckery of governments around the world [1]. Does anyone actually dispute that? Besides the govenments, and their licensed thus controlled media? Lol. [1] after you "voted" them in thus ceding power to them to do whatever they want, in your name and from your wallet. History says you'll need a fuckton of luck to change that peacefully... qapla!

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018 21:22:31 +1000 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:

On 2018-09-23 21:00, grarpamp wrote:

...

911 as a whole was ultimately caused by the fuckery of governments around the world [1].

Does anyone actually dispute that?

9/11 was caused by Islam.

no doubt tazer and the other goverment agent fairbrother agree with that as well.

9/11 was caused by Islam.

Yes... you may add the Fuckery of Religions around the world, as an ultimate cause, along with the formerly noted one of the Fuckery of Governments around the world. As you can see in the quote below... both worldly fakes, Government and Religion, discovered a way to partner up their respective scams for more profit, control, slavery, warfare, torture, murder, theft... "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" For even more ridiculous hilarity, realize the quote was in answer to a Jew asking if he had to pay his shekels as taxes, and to who. Ignoring fact of questioners following Religion / Rulers themselves... they would all have been better off to kill both Caesar and Jesus thus never again having to pay any tax or to follow anyone elses arbitrary law of force over them. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar https://duckduckgo.com/?q=render+unto+caesar+islam https://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2011/03/caesar-god-and-allah.html https://www.islamweb.net/en/article/111867/ https://www.islamweb.net/ehajj/printarticle.php?id=150960&lang=E http://worldmeets.us/sotaliraq000027.shtml https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJPbfLzW-0E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcvLJ3esGgc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xtp6Jvu87I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Qf24gDwbfo "In summary, Caesar, God and Allah all are contenders for your life, wealth, and happiness. Men who value their lives, however, should ask the question: By whose leave?"