Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: NYT BOMBSHELL: Significantly MORE 9/11 NEGLIGENCE Than Has Been Disclosed [View all]jeff47
(26,549 posts)256. Read your own subject line.
Except that still doesn't explain buildings free-falling down into their own tracks
Gravity's pulling straight down.
For the falling building to not fall straight down, something has to provide a force to make it not fall straight down. Something would have to push it sideways.
But even without that help, i can say that no one has EVER seen a high-rise steel frame structure collapse straight down at free-fall speed into it's own footprint from a fire
Please list all the other incidents similar to 9/11.
To make such an assertion, there has to be dozens of incidents showing that this isn't the normal failure mode. There aren't. Especially because the WTC's structural design was unique - nobody built a skyscraper that way before or after it was built.
The WTC was built during the development of a central core structural system, where each floor is cantilevered out from the central core. And the engineers weren't sure it would work. So they put in another structural system on the outside of the building too. That's why there was all that steel between the windows.
The WTC proved the central core system would work, so they never built another structure with the same redundancy.
When serious fires DO happen in steel frame high rises, and there is some kind of collapse, it tends to fall sideways, or tilt, due to the resistance of the mass of materials underneath the fire.
No. It tilts because one side of the building failed first. That side collapses first, pulling the rest of the building in that direction. But that's construction where the structural members are near the outside of the building.
That wasn't the case at the WTC.
There were two structural systems: the outside curtain and the central pillar. Each was capable of holding up the building. The outside curtain was destroyed by the plane impact. That left the central core system. So why didn't the building "fall sideways"? Because all of it's structural support was in the center of the building.
Controlled demolition is fundamentally impossible. Not because the Bush administration was full of wonderful people, but because of what it would require - months of cutting massive holes in the walls, partially cutting the structure with cutting torches and placing explosives.
It doesn't matter how little you know about demolition, you will notice when work crews rip large chunks of drywall off your office walls and start using blowtorches on what's inside.
Plus, demolished buildings don't fall the way the WTC did. You can't trust that your explosives will remain in-place or in-tact when the building starts falling. So they blow all the floors at once, and the whole building falls down at once. The WTC was a progressive collapse from the top of the building.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
296 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
NYT BOMBSHELL: Significantly MORE 9/11 NEGLIGENCE Than Has Been Disclosed [View all]
Segami
Sep 2012
OP
THIS bombshell just lost the election for Romney. This is worse then what they did to the economy..
jillan
Sep 2012
#2
In fact, I do not think they read at all, They get all the info they need from Fox.
smirkymonkey
Sep 2012
#217
Fortunately for Romney, the majority of Republicans think Romney killed bin Laden.
BlueStreak
Sep 2012
#23
If only we could harness the power of stupidity, we'd have an endless source of energy.
tclambert
Sep 2012
#181
No. To the Republicans, this is ancient history. And they have never blamed Bush, & won't.nt
Honeycombe8
Sep 2012
#28
It may be a bombshell to lots of people who dared not look too closely when the experience was still
Overseas
Sep 2012
#249
Gov. Rmoney You Have Many Advisors On Your Staff That Ignored The Threats Of 9/11 Before....
global1
Sep 2012
#115
I believe that a significant factor was his administration was dominated by PNAC neo-cons.
olegramps
Sep 2012
#126
Compounded by the way he and his warmongering ghouls exploited the attack for political gain.
calimary
Sep 2012
#87
I didn't suspect fowl play on day one but over time the 'explanations' didn't
snappyturtle
Sep 2012
#131
House fires regularly get to 2000 degrees. Nothing in a house burns at 2000 degrees.
jeff47
Sep 2012
#258
"Popular science" was a paid-for LIE. Steel does not melt from airplane fuel. Period.
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#237
My point is you claim foresics were not done just after you talk about the results of forensics.
jeff47
Sep 2012
#294
In the fall of 2000 before the election dispute was settled I saw how vicious the
kestrel91316
Sep 2012
#254
Except that still doesn't explain buildings free-falling down into their own tracks, esp. WTC7.
99th_Monkey
Sep 2012
#60
Got an example or two of something he's said that's been disproven?
freedom fighter jh
Sep 2012
#229
That would be possible in an instant collapse. But the buildings didn't collapse immediately. (nt)
jeff47
Sep 2012
#257
The neocons really thought that bin Laden was trying to protect Saddam Hussein?
TwilightGardener
Sep 2012
#7
Bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein. And I'm sure they knew that. They counted on the ignorance
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#34
They struggled mightily to make a connection between OBL and Hussein in the aftermath.
TwilightGardener
Sep 2012
#41
Well, I think Rumsfeld and Cheney certainly knew. They knew Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#54
Don't be so sure - Bush did not know the difference between Sunni and Shia - while he was CiC while
jillan
Sep 2012
#48
"Neocons in the Pentagon" refers to a disinformation group, OSP, who also fabricated Iraq & Iran WMD
leveymg
Sep 2012
#104
Its still makes me f--king mad.....they thought they were so superior to everyone.
Historic NY
Sep 2012
#9
If Bush had 'found' Bin Ladin then it would have been all over the media for months
Rosa Luxemburg
Sep 2012
#232
And STILL there are idiots out there claiming Bush will be vindicated by future doc releases
Sheepshank
Sep 2012
#18
Repeated warnings-not investigated, not publicized, but ignored. No heightened alert. No chance
TwilightGardener
Sep 2012
#32
President Gore would have read his Briefings. And he would have thwarted Cheney's plans.
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#242
I don't think he has the balls to do this - and he should. THIS should be the end of the Republican
jillan
Sep 2012
#36
The real question here is what is going to be done about this? Are we just going to turn away?
jillan
Sep 2012
#33
Naivete. Did you happen to read of the REVELATIONS about what the US did re: Katyn Forest?
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#241
I've always wondered why they felt it important to tell the Saudi ambassador it was a go
polly7
Sep 2012
#255
The most expensive national security system in the world breaking down is not that simple.
Overseas
Sep 2012
#253
Thank you. This is what I believe also. Like I said up thread.....it was just
snappyturtle
Sep 2012
#182
This is what happens when rethugs cheat, elect an incompetent, focus on their own fat
mfcorey1
Sep 2012
#94
You are exactly right. CTC head Cofer Black (later at Blackwater) set up and ran the torture and
leveymg
Sep 2012
#112
Now if they would only admit it was Bush/Cheney behind the Anthrax attacks. n/t
Ganja Ninja
Sep 2012
#116
I assume this is why there had to be story about Obama not attending briefings much of
Blue Meany
Sep 2012
#117
Some of the "uniforms" on the JCS staff did. Mr. Licky Comb is a Bush political appointee,
leveymg
Sep 2012
#127
BTW, History can also thank John Kerry. He kept taking GHWBush to court to get PDBs released
blm
Sep 2012
#124
So DUer "truthers" are no longer being smeared as "conspiracy theorists" consigned to the dungeon?
riderinthestorm
Sep 2012
#136
Why didn't the Congressional "investigation" pursue the questions more fully? link:
patrice
Sep 2012
#156
So Bush ignored the message "Bin Laden determined to attack", Does it really matter??
RepublicansRZombies
Sep 2012
#157
Thought about this last night before reading the article. There was NO way that this was a surprise.
progressivebydesign
Sep 2012
#163
Could they have ignored it ON PURPOSE because Neocons WANTED an attack to occur?
Kablooie
Sep 2012
#188
Old News that regretably misses the mark. Bush, Condi, et al were warned in specific terms
Ford_Prefect
Sep 2012
#204
I'm shocked. SHOCKED! (How many people suggesting this for a decade were accused of "tin-foil"?)
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#235
I watched. He was very very good and reduced Fleischer to a bumbling idiot. n/t
lamp_shade
Sep 2012
#261