Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Drudge)   Drudge reporting U.S. may resume plutonium production, first time since end of Cold War   (drudgereport.com ) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

11122 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jun 2005 at 12:44 AM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



288 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2005-06-27 03:47:56 AM  
IronHorse: To the 9-11 conspiract theorists: That's rich, tell me another one.

Well, there were these 19 Magical Muslims. And they got aboard these jets (but not on the flight mannifestos), and they pulled their deadly boxcutters and overpowered the crew before said crew could get off so much as a yelp or a holler. Not on one, but on four jetliners, one of which was piloted by a Daniel Levin (google it).
Then they shut off the transponders, which is the first thing that any hijacker does, because it alerts the military to start tracking the plane, and magically guided the planes to their targets from 30,000 feet, just like in a Cessna.

Never mind, you're right. These conspiracy theories are stupid. Dunno how people could believe them.
 
2005-06-27 03:49:12 AM  
dfenstrate:
Please. Quoting jesus five lines after taking a broad swing at christians in the US doesn't do much for your credibility.

Saying there are fundamentalists in the U.S. is hardly "a broad swing at christians", pal -- look around. I clearly didn't say that to bash Christians (although I'm not surprised at your interpretation), but to refute your all-Muslims-are-teh-evil "broad swing". Your WWII/9-11 bloodlust doesn't exactly hold up to the "WWJD?" standard, y'know.

And calling me crazy doesn't really advance your point of view either.

You're right, I was totally stating the obvious there. Lazy on my part, sorry.
 
2005-06-27 03:49:28 AM  
farking get off the 9/11 conspiracy crap. It isn't helpful, unless you are one of Dubya's buttplugs, here to throw fecal matter around until it stinks so badly that everyone leaves. If you want to harp on something, harp on the things that are blantant and proveable, like Dubya's lies that led us into an illegal and immoral war.
 
2005-06-27 03:52:21 AM  
[image from gatling.ikk.sztaki.hu too old to be available] I'm just waiting for Smilin' Joe Fission to explain it to me.
 
2005-06-27 03:52:35 AM  
awww illegal and immoral war hun befuddle? i guess saddam was really a great guy.
 
2005-06-27 03:54:56 AM  
Hey, all you 9-11 conspiracy theorists!

Riddle me this: How could such a massive, evil act be commited by the administration and yet still kept secret to this day?

If it did not take place as is generally accepted, hundreds or thousands of Americans would have had to have been in on the scam, and maintained their secrecy about it- Air traffic controllers, gate attendents, ticket sellers, the families of the people who called from flight 93, the firefighters who supposedly knew about the demolition of WTC 7, mechanics who would have installed remote control devices on the planes (no westerner is going to fly a suicide mission into an american building)....

When you think about the vast conspiracy required for your allegations to be true, the allegations become all that more ridiculous.

We have kept large secrets in this country- the development of the F-117A fighter-bomber for example- but working on a fancy new jet isn't the kind of thing that's going to tickle your conscience into yapping about it.

Murdering 3000 americans would weigh heavily on the conscience of at least one of the hundreds to thousands of people who wouldv'e helped orchastrate the affair, and they would talk.

So basically, the same administration you so universally accuse of being incompetent would have had to find hundreds of people with no moral code, incredibly capable, and fiercely loyal to Bush (who had been president for all of 8 months at that point) so that they wouldn't sell their story for a few million bucks at the first chance.

Oh, and they did all this to ensure Bush a second term, an excuse to invade a country no one cares about (afgahnistan) and a reason to invade a country (Iraq) for oil that we could have bought for far less than the cost of an invasion. You all know that if the US wanted the sanctions against Iraq dropped, it would have happened in a day.

The notion that a conspiracy was successfully arranged and performed by the Bush administration is far more outlandish than the accepted version of events.
 
2005-06-27 03:59:53 AM  
"May resume"???
Do you believe it ever stopped?
 
2005-06-27 04:02:17 AM  
ADRipper: awww illegal and immoral war hun befuddle? i guess saddam was really a great guy.

Non sequitor moran. That Saddam was an evil man is known, but if that is your standard for invasion, then why not invade all the countries in the world that have bad men running them? Every day you Dubya sycophants make up a new reason that we invaded Iraq. First it was WMD's, then we didn't find any (as they knew he had none). Then it was freedom and democracy, then the Iraq's resisted our gift of freedom. Now it's Saddam was a bad guy while the oil cartels divvy up Iraq's oil reserves.

Saddam was contained by the Clinton Administration. He kept Saddam from obtaining WMD's or threatening his neighbors without costing one American life nor billions in US taxpayer dollars.
 
2005-06-27 04:02:53 AM  
If they actually do make Pu 238, and start on nuclear reactors, I will no longer call him names and might even respect him a little bit. If it's for the space program, I may also stop insulting the great chimp, as the space program is pretty damn important.

If they end up "accidentally" making Pu239 like someone mentioned they might, then I'll be worried and more than a little pissed, cause damnit, I had things to do with my life and I don't want some redneck causing a nuclear war.

/and if it's for nukes, then I want a picture of Bush Jr. riding one
//obscure?
 
2005-06-27 04:04:59 AM  
The substance, valued as a power source, is so radioactive that a speck can cause cancer.

I was under the impression that plutonium is not very radioactive. I was also under the impression that it's deadly effects (aside from being a nuclear explosive) are related to its extreme toxicity and not to its radioactivity.

Will someone with expertise in the area tell me whether the article is correct on this point?
 
2005-06-27 04:08:10 AM  
dfenstrate:

Riddle me this: How could such a massive, evil act be commited by the administration and yet still kept secret to this day?

And Oswald killed Kennedy, huh? In spite of the fact that Kennedy's brain blew all over the back of the limo.

The Joint Chiefs weren't worried about keeping Operation Northwoods secret. If Kennedy had allowed it, it would now be common knowledge that Cuba had staged multiple attacks against us in 1962.

Did the VC attack our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, or was that something that LBJ had spun together to escalate the war?

Your argument is smoke and mirrors, and holds no water. The fingers don't have to know what the hand is doing.

Why are the NYC Firemen under a gag order?
 
2005-06-27 04:09:31 AM  
Can all of you mental midgets and short bus rejects stay the fark on target? I mean, seriously? How the fark is restarting production of a material with no possible weapons usage any more than distantly related from Hiroshima, the World Trade Center, Israel, or any of the other topics beind discussed here? I mean, come on, stay the fark on topic you farkwits.

Thank you.
 
2005-06-27 04:12:26 AM  
contained by the clinton admin HA! well how to explain iraqs shooting at US planes, the Al Samoud missles, and his financing the families of palestinian bombers. Sooner or later we would have had to put him down.
 
2005-06-27 04:12:43 AM  
Befuddled:

arking get off the 9/11 conspiracy crap. It isn't helpful, unless you are one of Dubya's buttplugs, here to throw fecal matter around until it stinks so badly that everyone leaves. If you want to harp on something, harp on the things that are blantant and proveable, like Dubya's lies that led us into an illegal and immoral war.

I'll get off it when you kool-ade sippers and shills start answering some questions.
Start with these.
 
2005-06-27 04:14:05 AM  
Update: I read in the article that Pu238 is "hundreds of times more radioactive" than its explosive brother...so, that explains it up to a point. But, I'm still left with the question of whether even Pu238 is all that dangerous from a radioactivity standpoint.

From my understanding, plutonium emits, principally, alpha radiation -- which cannot penetrate much matter. So, unless the plutonium is ingested or inhaled, it shouldn't pose too much of a problem. Right? Right??!?
 
2005-06-27 04:17:08 AM  
er, with these (Fark borks the URL):

1. Why didn't jets intercept the airliners since they had numerous warnings of terrorist attacks?

2. Why did Ashcroft stop flying commercial airlines, citing an unidentified "threat" in July 2001?

3. Why did FEMA lie about their presence in New York on 9/11?

4. Why didn't the Secret Service hustle Dubya out of the classroom?

5. Why did George H.W. Bush meet bin Laden's brother on 9/11?

6. Why did passengers or crewmembers on three of the flights all use the term boxcutters?

7. Where are the flight recorders?

8. Why were the FISA warrants discontinued?

9. How did Bush see the first plane crash on live camera?

10 Why was security meeting scheduled for 9/11 cancelled by WTC management on 9/10?

11. How did they come up with the "culprits" so quickly?

12. How did they find the terrorist's cars at the airports so quickly?

13. Why did Shrub dissolve the Bin Laden Task Force?

14. Why the strange pattern of debris from Flight 93?

15. How extensive was the relationship between the Taliban, the ISI and the CIA?

16. What exactly was the role of Henry Kissinger at UNOCAL?

17. When was it decided to cancel building a pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan?

18. Why did the FBI in 1996 close the files to investigate Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington?

19. Why did .Bush stop inquiries into terrorist connections of the Bin Laden family in early 2001?

20. Who made the decision to have John O'Neill stop investigating Al-qeada accounts?

21. Who gave the decision to give him a security job at the World Trade Center?

22. Did John O'Neill meet anyone of the FEMA in the night of September 10th?

23. What about media reports that hijackers bought tickets for flights scheduled after Sept. 11?

24. Why did none of the 19 hijackers appear on the passenger lists?

25. Why would devout Muslims frequent bars, drink alcoholic beverages and leave their bibles?

26. Why would the hijackers use credit cards and allow drivers licenses with photos to be zeroxed?

27. Why did the hijackers force passengers to call relatives?

28. How did the hijackers change the flight plan without law enforcement or the military try to stop them?

29. How did a hijackers passport miraculously appear near the WTC? Who found it and what time?

30. How could the FBI distinguish between "regular" Muslims and hijacker Muslims on those flights?

31. Why was there not one "innocent" Muslim on board any of these flights?

32. Did someone go through the passenger lists looking for Muslim names and label them as hijackers?

MOHAMMED ATTA

33. Did the Florida police provide information that Atta was searched because of 1) an expired Visa, 2) driving a car without a license, 3) because of an incident at Miami Airport?

34. Why did Atta leave his bag at the airport and the employees didn't put it on board?

35. Who found his bag? How can we be sure it it was his bag?

36. Why did Atta place a video "how to fly planes", a uniform and his last will into his bag, knowing that he would commit suicide?

37. Why did Atta leave his drivers license in a rental car?

38. When did Atta train on a flight simulator?

39. Did Atta leave the US while in training and then return?

40. Why did Atta decide to study at Opa Locka, a famous hub of 6 Navy training bases and includes government partners like U.S. Coast Guard Air Station, Police (Miami-Dade) Aviation Unit?

41. Why was Atta allowed to study since he was stopped by the police for driving without a license and also for violating his visa?

THE BLACK BOXES AND CRASH VIDEO

42. Why were the Black Boxes never recovered ?

43. Why didn't the FBI release the air traffic controller's protocols?

44. Why did the FBI not release the Flight Data Recorder info?

THE HIJACKERS

45. How did the FBI receive a tip from a passenger who boarded a different plane and reached his destination safely that he had a confrontation with two ME men at the Logan airport in Boston?

46. Who tipped the FBI to storm the Westin Hotel in Boston on September 12th?

47. Where did the photos of all 19 hijackers come from?

48. How were all hijackers identified just 2 days after the attack?

49. Why did all 19 names not appear on the passenger list 2 days after the hijacker list was released?

50. Why do none of the names appear on the passenger lists UA and AA gave to CNN?

Well, there's 50. Plenty more being asked.
 
2005-06-27 04:17:54 AM  
ADRipper writes: how to explain iraqs shooting at US planes

Hostile US planes were illegally violating sovereign Iraqi airspace. Iraq, as all states, has a right to self defense.

And, no the US flights over Iraq were not sanctioned by the United Nations. Not even by UNSCR 688, the resolution the US absurdly claims gave it justification for its incursions.
 
2005-06-27 04:18:13 AM  
StereoVision:

"Secret military uses" does not mean "evil dictator uses". No matter how warped your sense of being in this world has become.


Its not my sense of being that has been warped since 9/11....
 
2005-06-27 04:20:42 AM  
Bucephalus:

Iran's desire to have nukes is not primarily motivated by US or Israeli hypocricy. Nuclear weapons confer a certain amount of power and status to their controllers.


Nah dude, Irans desire to have nukes is because Israel and the US are constantly threatening them.
 
2005-06-27 04:21:03 AM  
Chakat:
How the fark is restarting production of a material with no possible weapons usage any more than distantly related from Hiroshima, the World Trade Center, Israel, or any of the other topics beind discussed here?

Agreed, but I think the worry is:

[image from onlineethics.org too old to be available]

...not to mention them being possible terrorist targets which already have questionable security, something the Bush administration hasn't been terribly vigilant about.
 
2005-06-27 04:27:48 AM  
HowlingFrog

Awesome list of questions..... well done....

/Tips hat
 
2005-06-27 04:31:40 AM  
HowlingFrog, all you are doing is letting Dubya off the hook for the easily proveable stuff that he can be nailed to the wall for while you chase phantoms. Do you really think that you can make any headway on any of that? Don't you think it would be easier to find out the truth if we first got rid of Dubya and his evil cabal? Pick the low hanging fruit first. Then we can get the rest.

I think many spread this horseshiat for much the same reason that some spread the UFO crap, to make anyone who is asking the right questions and raising legitimate concerns sound like just one of the kooks to be ignored.
 
2005-06-27 04:32:02 AM  
consdubya: Awesome list of questions..... well done....

http://www.whatreallyhappened..com/9-11BasicQuestions.html

Correct the URL, it gets filtered. I believe a second dot is put in.

Night, all.

/Frog out
 
2005-06-27 04:36:42 AM  
Smackem Yackem
Pointing out three mile island doesn't really send shivers down my spine with respect to nuclear energy.

No one died and there was no meaningful radiation release. Moreover, the plants built since then incorporate the lessons from TMI.

The accident cost the owners a nuclear power plant and millions of dollars in cleanup. There's been plenty of industrial accidents that cost alot more in life and health that had nothing to do with radiation.

The design and construction of cherynobyl is so drastically different from US reactors that there is no comparison.
 
2005-06-27 04:37:59 AM  
Befuddled:

HowlingFrog, all you are doing is letting Dubya off the hook for the easily proveable stuff that he can be nailed to the wall for while you chase phantoms.

I'm not chasing phantoms.
The Iraq war stuff is easily provable, as you say.
Why are you so intent on letting this administration off the hook for the murder of 3,000 of our fellow countrymen?
I deal with shills every day.

G'nite.
 
2005-06-27 04:40:33 AM  
dfenstrate:

The design and construction of cherynobyl is so drastically different from US reactors that there is no comparison.


Ooooh, look like I got you all wrong! Your a hardcore environmentalist right? Because the only solution to global warming that we still have time for is nuclear energy....
 
2005-06-27 04:41:19 AM  
Monkeysay

Fireproof

so there is a such thing as Phosphous 238?

Is there something I am missing?


I think P-238 might be just a hair outside the belt of stability. P-238 would be dumping neutrons so fast it's scary supposing that it could even be produced synthetically. Also, supposing it could be made, I'd want to stay the hell away from the place making it. Now that's an uncontrolled high-flux reactor in the making. Yikes.

Yeah it was a typo type mistake but anything with that high of a neutron to proton ratio is a scary proposition.

HowlingFrog

Re: Jet Fuel not burning hot enough to melt steel.
Hot enough to melt isn't remotely necessary. It only has to be hot enough to compromise the mechanical properties of the steel. With the load required to support however many floors of a WTC tower above the point of impact, heating the type of steel used in civil construction to 800 or 1000 degrees would almost definitely do the trick. It might be cost effective and practical to build parts in a nuclear power plant or a jet engine's afterburner and turkey feathers (exhaust cone) from exciting high temp nickel alloys like Inconel that retain most of their mechanical properties at temperatures over 1000 degrees. It isn't cost effective or practical or even necessary to build a building out of that type of material for the type of conditions that would be expected in normal use. A tube to convey liquid sodium in a nuclear power plant on the other hand might regularly see high temperatures and also need to retain it's mechanical properties at those temperatures.

To put it in perspective, I'd love an Inconel 625 header on my turbo car, but 1 3/4" Inconel tubing is about $95.00 a foot. 321 Stainless is about $20.00 a foot and will do the job adequately. Mild steel isn't up to the conditions on a turbo car, but considering it's maybe $1.00 a foot or less, it definitely makes a tempting choice that won't hold up for shiat under the conditions but you see people try to be cheap and get away with using it anyway. Obviously I'd go with the 321 Stainless as it's the best compromise in that it will hold up and while it's certainly not cheap, it's a lot cheaper than Inconel 625 is. On the other hand in the exhaust on a Formula One car they routinely use Inconel 625 exhaust headers. Given their budget and the prize at stake for winning, they can afford it and it fits their needs in a few or no compromises situation. For a building, some plain old AISI mild steel is the best price/performance choice as 9/11 type events aren't terribly frequent and a fire from office materials would be taken into account in a good design and obviously wasn't considered a problem.

Honestly folks, Occam's razor is a beutiful thing. On a bit of a tangent, you could say that entropy is the true cause of 9/11. Putting all that material in such an orderly fashion, it was just begging to get back to a disorganized state and just needed something for a catalyst.

Next, someone above mentioned a 50W RTG using Pu-238 costing upwards of $1 million in a spacecraft. Considering many satellites are hundreds of millions of dollars to build, I don't think springing $1 Million for a power source is even remotely out of line. Maybe the idea is to develop more efficient RTG's and get that efficiency rating better. If you don't have the R in an RTG to test with, it's likely going to be harder to improve the design significantly.

Finally, 330 lbs of any plutonium isotope just isn't a hell of a lot of material in terms of volume at 238g/mol as the case is with Pu-238. Assuming the mass of a cubic meter of plutonium is 19,840 kg which is the generally accepted mass for Pu-244, we're talking about a cube of plutonium that's about 7 3/4" each side. Yeah it'll be a tad off since this is Pu-238, but close enough for the sake of illustration. I don't think I'm going to have a problem sleeping tonight. Heck I bet a hunk of plutonium that big would keep me nice and warm. Who needs a fireplace when you can have a big boring hunk of Pu-238 instead? (Just don't inhale any Plutonium dust, aside from being radioactive Plutonium is pretty toxic stuff).
 
2005-06-27 04:44:20 AM  
25. Why would devout Muslims frequent bars, drink alcoholic beverages and leave their bibles?

Frontline: Al Qaeda's New Front - Transcript

NARRATOR: In August, 2001, Ahmed Rabei didn't collect his monthly food parcel. Immediately after the terrorist attack on 9/11, security services came looking for him. They were too late. The man with no passport had abandoned these quarters to travel for the next three years throughout Europe. It's now believed that he had taken on the manner and methods of the Takfir, violent Salafist extremists who came out of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Takfirs are not bound by the usual religious constraints. Rabei cut off his beard. He could now blend into the crowd. Takfirs, who have significantly influenced al Qaeda, believe that any means justify the end, that even other Muslims can be killed in the cause, that this society is heathen and they are the force to destroy it.

Most of those questions you've posed have answers if you are willing to look. Some do need further investigation, but those few questions aren't any sort of smoking gun (other than pointing to the incompetence of our anti-terror efforts under Dubya).
 
2005-06-27 04:44:47 AM  
Brave of you, dfenstrate. With the Supreme's new ruling on eminent domain, I think your backyard will be an outstanding place to put a new plant.

Gonna bury the nuclear waste there, too. Maybe put Homer Simpson at the controls.

Thank you for your unflinching trust in nuclear power and for being such a good American.
 
2005-06-27 04:51:36 AM  
Brave of you, dfenstrate. With the Supreme's new ruling on eminent domain, I think your backyard will be an outstanding place to put a new plant.

I know a lot more about nuclear power plants than you do, jerky. That I can unequivically assure you.

I wouldn't want to live next to one, but I wouldn't want to live next to any other industrial facility either. A mile away or obscured by trees is fine by me.
 
2005-06-27 04:52:44 AM  
Zebra_555:

HowlingFrog

Re: Jet Fuel not burning hot enough to melt steel. Hot enough to melt isn't remotely necessary. It only has to be hot enough to compromise the mechanical properties of the steel. With the load required to support however many floors of a WTC tower above the point of impact, heating the type of steel used in civil construction to 800 or 1000 degrees would almost definitely do the trick.


A load of crap, with the inevitable "Occam's Razor" being trotted out. If you read my comment above about the melted steel (that you were apparently referring to), it was about actual liquified steel found in the basements of WTC 1, 2 and 7. What melted it?

No steel-frame highrise had ever collapsed through fire until September 11, or since then. That day, three of them did.

Again, good night. Really.
Lots to do tomorrow.
 
2005-06-27 04:59:06 AM  
actual liquified steel found in the basements of WTC 1, 2 and 7. What melted it?

What's your source? Actually, you need a source for all of your claims. Anyone can come up with batshiat crazy rumors and get them repeated.
 
2005-06-27 05:00:18 AM  
What a dumb ass.

Were worried about weapons getting in terrorists hands.... so we create more potential WMD for them to try and steal.
 
2005-06-27 05:00:53 AM  
dfenstrate:
I wouldn't want to live next to one, but I wouldn't want to live next to any other industrial facility either. A mile away or obscured by trees is fine by me.

Deal. Since you're so agreeable, we're gonna plop a new maximum security prison there, too. Your property values will go into the toilet, but think of all the fresh power and peace of mind!

Somebody's gotta live next to these things -- thanks for taking one for the team.
 
2005-06-27 05:04:21 AM  
dfenstrate:

2005-06-27 02:55:35 AM HowlingFrog

I posted a link. Now let me friggin sleep; America's been doing it for years. Good night.
 
2005-06-27 05:07:08 AM  
Overheard at the White House: Let me finish, Pooty-poot... Well listen, how do you think I feel about it? Listen, I can be just as sorry about it as you can, so don't tell me how sorry I am.
 
2005-06-27 05:09:59 AM  
I CAN NOT BELIEVE that nobody has posted this yet:

[image from completerunning.com too old to be available]
 
2005-06-27 05:11:19 AM  
Actually, smackem yackem, the property within a mile of the local nuke plant is very expensive, as is the property in the general area. The nuke plant has had no discernable effect on the local prices.

Thank you come again.

Also, like maximum security prisons, no one has to live next to them. There are plent of prisons and nuke plants built far from any town, for whatever reason was prudent at the time.

On the other hand, someone does have to live next to you, and I pity them.
 
2005-06-27 05:21:14 AM  
dfenstrate: On the other hand, someone does have to live next to you, and I pity them.

Ah, the personal attack dismount. Always a sure sign you've been pwned in an argument.

I understand, really I do -- you support all these wonderful things, but NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).

So along those same lines, I just enrolled you in the Army. You've just helped a recruiter on the way to meeting his quota, and you'll be on the front lines of the foreign policy you've probably irritated your co-workers defending.

Have fun battling the insurgency! Nobody'll accuse you of not walking the walk!
 
2005-06-27 05:35:53 AM  
I am all for more nuclear power plants. We HAVE the place to store the waste right now, Yucca Mountian. Stupid Nevadans just can't accept it.
 
2005-06-27 05:37:27 AM  
 
2005-06-27 05:37:52 AM  
Typical liberal argument tactic. Change the topic when you start to lose your grip on the last topic.

When was I talking about military affairs or foriegn policy with you? Here's a hint: I wasn't.

You're quick with a keyboard and the comebacks, but ultimately don't know dick about what prattle on about. Nuclear power, for example.
 
2005-06-27 05:47:53 AM  
HowlingFrog

Here's a great explanation.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

First of all, I'd like a credible source for reports of molten steel being found in the debris piles afterwards that was "burning hot" for weeks. Define "burning hot", hot enough to burn paper? hot enough to burn your finger? That's a sensationalising dramatic statement that attempts to evoke an emotional response rather than a quantitative statement such as the steel in the debris was found to be above 1400 C three weeks after the collapse of the towers. If we're going to persue this further then I want some hard facts from multiple credible sources not just an opinion laden statement such as that. Joe schmoe's blog isn't what I'd call credible. Photographic or mainstream sources are much more so.

For the sake of argument though, steels melt between 1371 and 1532 degrees depending on the alloy. If there was anything on the planes hot enough to heat the steel to that point, you can bet your hiney it would have also been a source of light well above the light from the fire which was mostly obscured by smoke. I have never heard of any reports as such. It is very possible that the combined factors of airliners colliding with the structure possibly bending and weakinging the central load bearing members in the middle of the structure combined with further weakinging by the elevated temperatures caused buckling to occur which combined compromised the structural integrity of the central load bearing columns. Once that happened, the central load bearing columns in effect started a chain reaction. The load of the floors above the weakened point couldn't be supported resulting in a collapse. The collapsing mass above continued to gain momentum and consequently the potential energy was converted to kinetic energy resulting in the building coming straight down on itself. Now, while I doubt the reports of huge lakes of molten steel that stayed that way for weeks, the amount of kinetic energy from a half a million ton of material collapsing on itself is considerable. The collapse of the structures would create a tremendous amount of friction within solid materials as they collapsed upon themselves. Go get a paper clip and bend it back and forth a bunch of times and the same principle is at work. You also have compression occuring from the building collapsing upon itself. That also is an excellent source of heat. If you doubt that, go grab the output line of an air compressor before it goes into the tank and let me know how your hand feels afterwards. Combined we're talking about a huge amount of energy and excess mechanical energy usually manifests itself as heat. It's a bit of a stretch but the possibility for that much energy to raise the steel beyond its melting point is a possibility which would account for molten steel being found in the wreckage. Also since steel has poor thermal conductivity, heat will tend to be localized unlike aluminum which tends to distrubute heat energy because of much better thermal conductivity (which is why you don't see many steel heatsinks or radiators but why you do see them made of aluminum and copper based materials). Once the steel was heated it would stay hot much longer than aluminum would. If it was pushed past it's melting point, given the total mass of the steel, it would probably stay hot for days. This is the reason that brake rotors on cars are made of iron, the mass of the iron absorbs the kinetic energy of the car moving by absorbing the heat from the friction of the pads on the rotor surface. A 20 lb rotor on a car will be pretty warm an hour after you use the brakes if you've used them much, imagine how long it takes tons of steel that's more or less in one big chunk to cool off, particularly when it's encased in dirt and concrete and other dust such as asbestos acting as insulators.

As for WTC, I don't know enough about that building's construction to assess the reason for it's collapse right now.

True, no steel frame highrise has collapsed through fire until 9/11 or since, but in the case of WTC 1 and 2, no other steel frame highrise has been subjected to tens of thousands of gallons of Jet-A burning in a fairly contained area after being impacted by a jetliner which could have partially compromised the structural integrity of the building or at least to the point that the addition of the fire from the fuel would create the chain reaction bringing it down on itself.

Honestly, regardless of who was ultimately behind the attack be it our own government or terrorists, I don't believe that the collapse of the buildings was intended. The simple hijacking and crash damage without the buildings collapsing would have got the point across. If it was terrorists, I have to think they might have even done a bit of an "oh shiat" afterwards in that it got our attention possibly more than expected. If it is by our own government, then it was ultimately even more effective than planned.

Now it might be argued that such information is supressed by the mainstream press. It's certainly possible, I'll concede that. Given the newsmaking capability of a conspiracy this grand combined with the general left leaning behavior of the media in this day and age, I just don't see a coverup on that scale happening without at the very least a whole bunch of leaks. I'll be the first to say I have a very healthy dose of cynicism and I certainly don't rule out the possibility of some degree of conspiracy being involved.

Now if you want to talk about the government having a better idea that the scenario might happen and not doing something about it, I think that's quite plausible and maybe even possible, the capacity for the government to be a farked up mess that's not even aware of what it's various branches are doing even to the point of contradicting itself between various agencies is absolutely staggering.

Look, there's nothing at all wrong with being cynical and skeptical in that it's almost universally good to question authority so as not to be caught under the boot heel of a tyrant. I'm just saying that I think there's a great deal of scientifically supportable evidence that WTC 1 and 2 were brought down solely by two large jet airliners full of fuel crashing into them without any additional help.
 
2005-06-27 05:56:59 AM  
Hey dfenstrate,

If it makes ya feel better, I'd build a small pebble bed reactor in my yard for my self if I:

a) Thought I could get away with it without someone from the federal government taking an interest in what I was doing.

b) Didn't think my neighbors would panic unnecessarily.

c) Could acquire the requisite fuel.

d) Had the resources to build it properly so that it was legitimately safe.

Yes I'm serious, I would.

With proper safety procedures, alpha emitters are arguably less dangerous than pesticides, but unfortunately all people can think when they hear the N word is mushroom clouds and glowing green mutant children.

And to rip off a skit from the first season of Chapelles show, all I have to say to that is: Woogity Boogity Nuclear! Woogity Boogity!
 
2005-06-27 06:00:08 AM  
Some people are like Slinkies...

Not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down flight of stairs.
 
2005-06-27 06:07:02 AM  
Zebra_555

hehe thanks. And I know a thing or two about plant operations and regulatory requirements, so I can help you out alot ;P
 
2005-06-27 06:18:45 AM  
it was about actual liquified steel found in the basements of WTC 1, 2 and 7. What melted it?

1 and 2's steel could have been melted from say, a 100+ story building falling down with all its hundreds of thousands (millions?) of pounds of material accelerating briskly torwards the street.

1 and 2 fell due to the softening of the steel used to hold up the floors above the impact zones. After one floor gives, the rest pile on, and then you have a 10+ story building falling down on top of a 100+ story building, floor by floor by floor. All the "redundant" designs in the world won't save a building from the amount of energy of just one floor failing (and making all the floors above it fall)

7 is still kooky/sketchy though, although the NIST report goes into details that I am not qualified to discredit by any means, nor has to my knowledge, any qualified engineering firm. The rest is examination of pictures and then commented in such a way to bend it torwards a particular point of view (gee those pillars of smoke sure look like a controlled explosion)

What we can say is- the Con Edison substation didn't help, nor did the unprecedented falling debris damage, nor did the fires that were just allowed to burn, nor did the failure of a large load bearing column. 9/11 was exponentially unique and at the same time, had no historical precedent.
 
2005-06-27 06:18:52 AM  
dfenstrate:

Riddle me this: How could such a massive, evil act be commited by the administration and yet still kept secret to this day?

If it did not take place as is generally accepted, hundreds or thousands of Americans would have had to have been in on the scam, and maintained their secrecy about it



Wait a minute.

You'll buy the official story about 19 highjackers with box cutters, but the american government (or anyone else that pulled it) would need hundreds or thousands to do the same when they have access to the most potent technology in the world?

Drop that number to 20-50

And why would it be so hard to keep it a secret? I don't think we have a problem keeping lots of black ops and secret branches & governments from our citizens
 
2005-06-27 06:20:57 AM  
A good friend of mine was a nuke engineer in the navy so the how part is covered, it's just the resources and my desire not to be imprisoned outweighing my dislike of sending those bastards at the power company a check once a month.

BTW, HowlingFrog,

This does not constitute a credible source.

Registrant:
whatreallyhappened..com
P.O. Box 534
Concord, NH 03302-0534
US
999-999-9999

I'm not saying that some of the questions aren't valid or worth investigation, but as the old saying about opinions and assholes goes... (the registrant, not you personally).

Worse, an anonymous asshole like the registrant of that domain is kinda like walking around in a big crowd spewing dubious opinions left and right like rancid farts after an all night binge of cheap beer and pickled eggs. Not only does it stink all the way to hell, it's downright farking inconsiderate.
 
2005-06-27 06:24:29 AM  
[image from img.fark.com too old to be available]

For the dumbfarks who couldn't read the article, it's not for weapons.

It's to assist in our abilities to gather intelligence. Something that a lot of the asshats who hate this idea are saying we need to improve in other threads. But then again, constintancy has never been a strongpoint when it comes to the wacko left.
 
Displayed 50 of 288 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report