they are suing on the basis that it could have and should have been prevented. now i hate bush he is low down dirty twisted sick racist redneck biggot P.O.S but i must agree when they say there is nothing they could have done. there was no way. the only thing they could have done is not piss off those crazy fvckers in the first place.golgiaparatus said:
again the details are kinda fuzzy.
here's some help with arithmetic.TheMontashu said:
That's a 'death beneft,' (Ha.) intended to go towards expenses connected with the death. Actually, I had no idea a death benefit was $9k...I thought it was a lot less. All military personnel are also eligable to have Servicemember's Group Life Insurance for a few bucks a month, which pays $250k. (Not that that's a fortune, either...)Changleen said:
Don't forget the one time death benefit of social security, worth $250. Damn government handing out money all over the place...MikeD said:
C'mon, if the INS won't deport poor Mexicans, you really think they are going to deport a bunch of Saudis? Guys that before September 11, 2001 had a special visa program called US Visa Express?nicklin said:
They could have had tighter security, the pilots could have had guns. The biggest thing that I think will stop this type of thing from happening now... the passengers. I'd like to see someone try to take over a plane with a box cutter now :angry: probably be beaten to a bloody pulp.biggins said:
Why do I get the feeling that the authors of this website walk around with tinfoil hats. Their scientific info is pretty sketchy at best. Example: Sure you can't put jet-fuel in a torch and melt steel, but throw a couple thousand gallons of burning fuel at a buildings steel frame and the super heated steel will loose much of its load bearing abilities and fail.Changleen said:
A year or so ago I posted a similar but more callous comments. A member of this board who lost a sister in 911 rightfully tore me a new one for being a jerk but agreed that the demands for $$ by families was wrong. You just made sense in you original post, if you were trolling you just weren't trying hard enough.biggins said:
No it won't. For the Kerosine in the Jet to have caused the WTC to fall, it is necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose a new form of kerosine which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy.Archslater said:
till have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building.
Changleen said:No it won't. For the Kerosine in the Jet to have caused the WTC to fall, it is necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose a new form of kerosine which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy.
You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball , vapourizing a 65 ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building.
When I was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the US Government. They claim that a few thousand gallons of kerosine is enough to
:completely vapourize a 65 ton aircraft
:have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel ( 1350 degrees Centigrade - about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel in air)
The official version of the WTC collapse claims that the raging inferno allegedly created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning kerosine melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the smoke coming from the WTC was black, which indicates an oxygen starved fire -therefore, not particularly hot, they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 C , without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.
The Government then says the failure mode of the building completely defies any kind of rational logic. They say that as the steel frames softened, they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways. Just think about that for a second in your own head - Even if you allow for the utterly improbable situation that in and around the floors on which the impact took place, all the steel somehow vapourised, and the fire then spread througout the entire building, how would the remaining structure collapse directly downwards?
Since they're already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet fuel, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and re-defined the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way?
The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that its physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors.
In fact, the WTC behaved like a building that was professionally demolished.
Hey, I'm all for conspiracy theories, just thought that one sounded a bit shady. I am an Architect with a bit of experience in structural engineering. Steel doesn't need to come anywhere near its melting point to loose much of its load bearing capability. I have read many of the structural studies, the steel didn't melt at all. It just became week as it grew hotter and twisted.Changleen said:You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball , vapourizing a 65 ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building.
:have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel ( 1350 degrees Centigrade - about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel in air)
The official version of the WTC collapse claims that the raging inferno allegedly created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning kerosine melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the smoke coming from the WTC was black, which indicates an oxygen starved fire -therefore, not particularly hot, they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 C , without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.
Then doesn't the failure mode of the building seem very unlikely? (By the way, steel needs to get to 60% of it's melting temp to enter the hot working range - melting temp is between 1370 - 1700C dependant on alloy, Jet fuel burns at upto 800 in air with an optimum mixture) For enough of the steel to become weakened (also do you really think that it would have been across more than a few floors?) to cause the building to fall, wouldn't it have been far more likely for the building to tip over one way or another? For me the colapse is just far to perfect to be accidental. Just remember, on one day, 3 buildings, WTC 1,2 and 7 ALL collapsed exactly in their own footprints. WTC 7 didn't even take any impact. Doesn't that strike you as a little bit fishy?Archslater said:
But again, throughout the entire building? The structure below the damaged area is by definition strong enough to support the rest of the tower, right? There was no fire in the lower floors, so how were they caused to collapse?
I've read a couple of site that offer pretty detailed rebutals of that those theries, I've been trying to find them again, but I can't for now. Anyway I'll keep looking, but have a look at these for now:
scary, very scary.
Those answer would be simpleMikeD said:
........
MMike in the weeks after 9/11 mentioned something I remember to this day. BTW he worked at Boeing and was a engineer working there at the time.Changleen said:
