Boeing 767 vs. tower wall (simple analysis)

[tabea_blumenschein]

The question I'd like to consider in this thread is, "how much should a 767 travelling at 500 mph be decelerated while punching through the outer wall of a twin tower?"

I've posted a simple analysis of the plane's kinetic energy at least twice previously, but I didn't get much of a response from our resident no-planers either time. This time, I'll give the subject its own thread, and also elaborate on my own calculations a bit.

Where necessary, I'll use specs from this WikiPedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767) for data. The planes that hit the towers were both 767-200's, I believe, so I'll be taking my information from the left-hand column of the Boeing 767 Specifications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Specifications) section.

The empty weight of the plane is about 80,000 kilograms. The planes were both carrying about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel at the time of impact. If we take one gallon of jet fuel to be about 3 kilograms, this brings the total weight of the plane to 110,000 kilograms. There would also be some additional weight due to passengers, baggage, etc., but we'll neglect that.

We'll take the velocity of the plane to be 220 meters per second (492 mph). With this data, we can calculate the plane's kinetic energy at the moment of impact:

KE = 1/2 * m * v^2

KE = 1/2 * 110,000 * (220)^2 joules

KE = 2,662,000,000 joules of energy

With huge figures like that, it's usually helpful to have a "yardstick" figure to compare it to. A good yardstick for large amounts of energy is TNT, which equals 4,184,000 joules per kilogram. Dividing these figures, we find that the kinetic energy of the plane at the moment of impact is:

KE = equivalent of 636 kilograms of TNT (1400 pounds worth).

For any sane person, this by itself would be enough to prove that the plane is going to cause some serious devastation when it hits the tower. But I'm not dealing with sane people; I'm dealing with no-planers. So I'll have to soldier on ...

~

Okay, let's figure out how many perimeter columns the plane will actually hit (at most), and then pick a reasonable figure (in terms of pounds of TNT) it might take to actually destroy each perimeter column.

The towers were 206 x 206 feet, for a total perimeter of 824 feet. There were 236 perimeter columns in total, so that puts the perimeter columns about 3.5 feet apart.

The wingspan of a Boeing 767-200 is 156 feet. Dividing 156 feet by 3.5 feet per column, we find that the plane will hit as many as 45 perimeter columns.

Also, the width of the fuselage is 16.5 feet. That means the front of the plane impacts 5 columns, and the wings will impact 20 columns each.

~

Let's budget the energy equivalent to 5 pounds (2.27 kg) of TNT to destroy each perimeter column. What we're going to do is subtract the energy necessary to destroy the columns impacted by the plane from our original figure for KE above, and use that to recalculate the planes new, slower velocity. To do that, just solve the kinetic energy equation for v. You get:

v = square root[(2 * KE)/m]

The front, nose section of the plane hits 5 columns. If the energy dissipated is equal to 2.27 kg of TNT per column, that's a total energy of:

E = 5 * 2.27 * 4,184,000 joules

E = 47,545,455 joules

Subtracting that from our original kinetic energy figure gives:

KE = 2,662,000,000 - 47,545,455 joules

KE = 2,614,454,500 joules

Remembering that the mass of the plane is m=110,000 kg, we find that the velocity of the plane after impacting those 5 columns is:

v = square root[(2 * 2,614,454,500)/110,000] m/s

v = 218 meters per second. (487 mph)

The nose of the plane impacting and destroying the first 5 columns barely slows it down at all.

Now for the wing impacts. They hit a total of 40 columns. Budgeting energy equivalent to 2.27 kg of TNT for each column, we get a total energy of:

E = 40 * 2.27 * 4,184,000 joules

E = 380,363,640 joules

Subtracting that much from our most recent value for KE:

KE = 2,614,454,500 - 380,363,640 joules

KE = 2,234,090,900 joules

Solving for velocity after the wing impacts:

v = [(2 * 2,234,090,900)/110,000] m/s

v = 201 meters per second. (449 mph)

So as we can see, the impact with, and destruction of, 45 perimeter columns has slowed the plane down by less than 10% of its original velocity.

In the interest of completeness, let's also consider the energy required to destroy the outer aluminum cladding. Let's budget energy equivalent to another 200 pounds of TNT (90.1 kg) for that. Doing the usual calculations:

E = 90.1 * 4,184,000 joules

E = 380,363,640,000 joules

KE = 2,234,090,900 - 380,363,640 joules

KE = 1,853,727,300 joules

v = square root[(2 * 1,853,727,300)/110,000] m/s

v = 184 meters per second (410 mph)

The plane still has over 83% of its original velocity after destroying 45 columns and all that aluminum cladding. And I'm being very generous to the no-planers with my energy deductions.

~

Our no-planers will now probably argue that maybe the body of the plane can penetrate the wall, but the wings are "too flimsy" and should not have been able to slice through the perimeter columns like that.

We should begin by reminding ourselves that those wings are neither flimsy nor light. Most of the fuel is stored in the wings, so we're looking at 20 tons (or more) of mass stored in each wing when the plane is fully fueled. The engines weigh about 4 tons each, I'm guessing the landing gear could weigh a ton or more, and the wings themselves weigh a few tons. So each wing could easily represent 30 tons or more of weight.

Also, remember that the lift force holding the plane in the air (the lift force equals the plane's weight when flying level), as well as force of the tons of thrust generated by the engines, are also being exerted on the wings. Needless to say, those wings aren't the tinfoil and balsa wood constructions that no-planers like to pretend they are.

Let's try this. If we consider the kinetic energy of a wing, by itself, and ignore the fact that it's connected to the fuselage of the plane, we find that its kinetic energy is (using v=220 m/s):

KE = 1/2 * m * v^2

Case 1: mass of wing = 20,000 kg

KE = 484,800,000 joules

KE = equivalent of 116 kg of TNT (254 pounds worth).

Case 2: mass of wing = 25,000 kg

KE = 605,000,000 joules

KE = equivalent of 145 kg of TNT (318 pounds worth).

Case 3: mass of wing = 30,000 kg

KE = 726,000,000 joules

KE = equivalent of 174 kg of TNT (382 pounds worth).

BUT the energy we figure will destroy the 20 perimeter columns the wing hits is:

E = 20 * 2.27 * 4,184,000 joules

E = 190,181,820 joules

E = equivalent of 45 kg of TNT (100 pounds worth)

So forget it. Compare the numbers and you'll see that the wing by itself has waaaaay more than enough kinetic energy to do the job.

~

Finally, the "aluminum vs. steel" question. High speed impacts aren't a question of "rocks paper scissors", even though the no-planers in their ignorance believe they are.

The reason the plane didn't show much damage from hitting the perimeter columns is simple. The columns did cause some damage to the nose of the plane and the leading edges of the wing, but the columns also failed very quickly. And once the perimeter columns are sliced through or knocked out of the way, the plane is free to proceed into the building.

(Yes, the plane was thoroughly trashed as a result of the collision. Nobody says it wasn't. The outer columns the plane first hit weren't responsible for much of the damage, that's all.)

Maybe a numerical example will help.

I recently had an opportunity to see season one of Mythbusters on home video. One of the episodes featured, as an experiment, a crash test dummy being dropped into the water from a height of about 180 feet. The dummy hit the water at speeds of about 60 to 65 mph, and the peak g forces that occured when the dummy hit the water were recorded with an accelerometer. They averaged out to about 260 g's.

If we consider a case where the plane decelerates at 260 g's over the distance of one meter, here's how much it will slow down:

v = square root(u^2 - 2as)

Where v is the final velocity, u is the initial velocity, a is the acceleration, and s is the distance travelled. The acceleration is 260 g's, and one g is 9.8 meters per second squared. That's 2548 meters per second squared. We'll take the initial velocity u to be 220 m/s as usual, and the distance s = 1 meter.

v = square root[(220)^2 - 2*2548*1] m/s

v = 208.1 meters per second

The plane's kinetic energy is now:

KE = 1/2 * m * v^2

KE = 2,381,720,000 joules

KE = equivalent to 569 kg of TNT.

But the kinetic energy was originally equivalent to 636 kg of TNT, as we calculated above. So decelerating the plane at 260 g's over a distance of 1 meter brings the energy equivalent to 67 kg of TNT into play. That's almost 150 pounds.

There's no way around it. The perimeter columns are bound to fail in a hurry, just like we observe in the videos.

~

Not that this will do much good either, but I hope you would find the time to visit this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137438) (yes, the JREF forums), and watch the video linked to in the OP, and hopefully click on the link to view the accompanying charts as well.

~

Postscript:

Some no-planers might say that they won't believe a Boeing 767 can penetrate the outer wall of a skyscraper unless they see it with their own eyes. They reject any sort of model or mathematical analysis of the event.

If we were considering something extremely doubtful, then yes, I'd say a real life reproduction of the event might be useful. Maybe even necessary. But a large commercial jet hitting the wall of a skyscraper at well over 700 feet per second isn't a doubtful case. Imagine that you are called in to investigate a collision involving two cars. If you can establish, after considering the evidence, that each car was going 100 mph when the collision occured, would you really need to re-enact the event to prove to yourself or others that both cars should be totalled?

~

To be honest, I'm not expecting much from the no-planers in terms of a response. Probably all I'll get are arguments from incredulity, still-photos as supposed "proof", and verbal abuse of Mythbusters, the JREF Forum, Mr. Weick, and Mr. Mackey.

It would be so nice to be pleasantly surprised for once ...

[secondsun]

I've posted a simple analysis of the plane's kinetic energy at least twice previously, but I didn't get much of a response from our resident no-planers either time.

...sometimes,... the things people don't say...say more about them than the things they do say!

...No Planers say in a Plane `v Steel Building scenario... Steel building wins!... but they never say what they think should have happened to the plane!

...probably because they are too embarrassed to possibly suggest!?...

http://i41.tinypic.com/35k90df.jpg

...;)

[tabea_blumenschein]

There's one more thing I should probably discuss briefly. Sometimes I see where no-planers talk about Newton's third law, equal and opposite forces and all that.

Here's a classic question you might see on a physics exam:

A horse pulls on a stationary cart with a certain amount of force. By Newton's third law, the cart pulls back on the horse with a force that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. Since the horse and cart are pulling on one another with an equal force, and always will according to Newton, how do either horse or cart ever begin to move?

The answer to this question is that you have to consider the forces acting on the cart in isolation, or the forces acting on the horse in isolation. In other words, the action and reaction forces described by Newton's third law don't simply cancel one another. So as long as the force exerted by the horse on the cart is greater than any frictional or other forces holding the cart stationary, the cart will begin to accelerate forward, period. We would analyze the forces on the horse the same way.

In the case under consideration here, the outer wall exerts a force on the plane, causing it to decelerate. But the plane exerts an equal and opposite force on the wall (or the individual components that make up the wall, if you like). If we want to understand whether the plane goes through the wall or not, we don't look at what the force on the plane does to the plane. We look at what the reaction force on the wall does to the wall.

Take a few moments to think about that. That's the crucial point that no-planers never consider, or don't understand.

If a rigid barrier is to stop an impacting object, then that sets a definite limit to how far any bit of mass making up the object can travel - i.e. less than the length of that object. That also sets a minimum amount of force required to actually bring the impacting object to a halt. Furthermore, the force required to stop an object over some predetermined distance scales with the square of the velocity. Twice the velocity requires four times the force, three times the velocity requires nine times the force, four times the velocity requires sixteen times the force, etc. If I can increase the velocity as much as I like, then there is no theoretical limit to the reaction force (or pressure, since pressure equals force divided by area) the impacting object can exert on the barrier.

That's why you can't just look at the material strength of the two objects. It's why a tomato will squish against a window at a slow speed, but will shatter most windows if thrown at 100 mph. It's why the same tomato can break through bulletproof glass if it can be accelerated to the speed of sound. It's why the same tomato will punch through a steel plate if the speeds involved are a number of times the speed of sound - say the tomato is in orbit at 17,000 mph and hits the steel plate going the opposite way at a similar speed.

Of course, the tomato also comes out decidedly the worse for wear, but again, the material strength of tomato vs. steel isn't the determining factor as far as what happens to the steel plate. The steel plate is indifferent as to what is actually exerting a force (or pressure) on its surface. A sufficiently large force on the plate is going to punch a hole right through it, whether that force is exerted by a bullet at a few hundred meters per second or a tomato at fifteen thousand meters per second.

[bryan]

...sometimes,... the things people don't say...say more about them than the things they do say!


I seem to remember that you didn't have a lot to say when tabea blumenschein was trying to debunk the controlled demolition theory, whereas I taught myself physics, read papers by Bazant and Greening, and put time and effort into trying to disprove the pancake collapse theory.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48528


Since you're so impressed by tabea blumenschein's equations, can we take it you support the government's story that the towers fell at near freefall speed due to the damage caused by the plane crashes?

[bryan]

KE = equivalent of 636 kilograms of TNT (1400 pounds worth).

For any sane person, this by itself would be enough to prove that the plane is going to cause some serious devastation when it hits the tower. But I'm not dealing with sane people; I'm dealing with no-planers. So I'll have to soldier on ...


It's one thing to cause 'serious devastation'. It's another thing for an entire passenger plane to glide through the wall of a steel-framed building with no crumpling of the fuselage and no parts breaking off.



The front, nose section of the plane hits 5 columns. If the energy dissipated is equal to 2.27 kg of TNT per column, that's a total energy of: . . .

The nose of the plane impacting and destroying the first 5 columns barely slows it down at all.


When Ryan Mackey calculates the impulse required for the fuel to fracture a column, he only considers the mass that's acting directly on the column. The columns are 14" wide and the gaps are 26" wide, which means that only about a third of the plane comes into contact with a column. If you think that including the plane's structure alters the way the mass applies force to the columns, could you tell us which one of Ryan Mackey's four cases of Effect of Hardness and Strength is the most appropriate, and if that effect applies to all parts of the aircraft that come into contact with the wall?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ryanmackey



Our no-planers will now probably argue that maybe the body of the plane can penetrate the wall, but the wings are "too flimsy" and should not have been able to slice through the perimeter columns like that.


You've got it the wrong way round. The experts who write papers tend to focus their attention on the large mass of the wings, fuel tanks and engines. It's assumed that the nose, cockpit and front section of fuselage will behave in the same way, although no calculations are ever done to back up that assumption.



Let's try this. If we consider the kinetic energy of a wing, by itself, and ignore the fact that it's connected to the fuselage of the plane, we find that its kinetic energy is (using v=220 m/s):


By ignoring the fact that the wing is connected to the fuselage, you neatly avoid dealing with the possibility that when the wing comes under stress from the column, it might become detached from the fuselage. If you've never seen images showing how easily that happens to a plane, I'll post some for you.



The columns did cause some damage to the nose of the plane and the leading edges of the wing, but the columns also failed very quickly.

We're back to the same old problem. What materials in the nose, cockpit and front section of fuselage are rigid enough to exert enough force onto the columns to fracture the steel?



And once the perimeter columns are sliced through or knocked out of the way, the plane is free to proceed into the building.


We can see from the angle of the entry hole that the plane's tail has to force its way through at least 3 columns and one concrete floor. Unlike the nose, the tail is not pushed into the building but dragged along. So why doesn't it break off?



They reject any sort of model or mathematical analysis of the event.


They reject models that ignore the steel spandrel plates, the floor trusses and the concrete floor pans in the buildings, and models that don't acknowledge that different parts of the aircraft have different properties.



Not that this will do much good either, but I hope you would find the time to visit this thread (yes, the JREF forums), and watch the video linked to in the OP, and hopefully click on the link to view the accompanying charts as well.


The poster called 'heiwa' seems to have more knowledge and experience of Newton's laws as applied to crash physics than anyone else in the thread, yet he's ridiculed and bullied by the OCT supporters. His argument that gravity alone couldn't cause the upper block to crush the remaining part of the structure sounds very reasonable, and it's obvious that the other posters haven't been able to answer him using physics. In desperation, they're suggesting he's not entitled to an opinion because his expertise is in ship collisions, not in building collapses. Part Three of Ryan Mackey's presentation should be interesting.


Are you the JREF poster who lives in an ivory tower, by any chance?

[verndewd]

another issue is the angle of tilt for the span of the wings which also creates more resistance from the building. I do believe planes hit But there is so much wrong with the official story its easy to question that.

Not mentioned here is the construction of the fabricated steel skin which was optimized as a load bearing structure, meaning that in a structure like the towers , this is some heavy thick steel. i could see penetration by plane as reasonable, but not as if that steel didnt exist at all. A few well placed charges of thermate and that issue is solved.

[stannrodd]

Bryan doesn't understand basic physics.

Unlike the nose, the tail is not pushed into the building but dragged along. So why doesn't it break off?

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/rofll.gif

It would seem to me that you think that the nose is pushed along and the tail is dragged along when in normal flight.

This is why you can't understand the dynamics of this collision.

The engines push the entire airframe, and the entire airframe has drag as a result of it's ongoing collision with the air.

All parts of the aircraft have their own definable quantities of kinetic energy. This includes the tail, section .. it is not being dragged along by the front as you so simplistically put it. It has it's own forward momentum when in normal flight and this is maintained even after the front of the aircraft is demolished in a collision. That's why it continues along into the tower. Basic stuff bryan even without the convoluted math description, which simply proves what I have said.

When an aircraft accelerates down the runway, all parts of the aircraft experience the same G forces. There isn't any difference between the front and the back seats matee. Other than the service on good carriers.

When you make statements like the one I quoted above, all you do is demonstrate your total ignorance of collision dynamics.

Stann

[bryan]

It would seem to me that you think that the nose is pushed along and the tail is dragged along when in normal flight.

When you make statements like the one I quoted above, all you do is demonstrate your total ignorance of collision dynamics.


The nose of the plane might be flattened by the impact against the wall, but being mounted at the front, it could be pushed into the building by the rest of the aircraft and in theory we might never know whether it was destroyed or whether it went through intact. On the other hand, the tail might break away from the fuselage after hitting some remaining steel columns, but being mounted at the rear of the plane, it would only have its own momentum to carry it forward, which may or may not take it into the building, depending on how it bounces. Whatever the result, we'd know for sure from the videos whether the tail broke off or not.

In the case of the 9/11 impact videos, we can't see whether the nose was flattened or not, but we do know that the tail didn't break off.

That's not even basic physics. It's just good old common sense. The trouble is, because the answers are simple and your aim is to stop people from finding out the truth, you're only option is to make things seem more complicated than they are, .

[stannrodd]

That's not even basic physics. It's just good old common sense.

Which part isn't basic physics?

The trouble is, because the answers are simple and your aim is to stop people from finding out the truth, you're only option is to make things seem more complicated than they are, .

My aim is not this .. my aim is to find the truth. You needn't go the "baseless accusation" route bryan .. it doesn't work for me... never has !:)

The dynamics is obvious in this collision IMO .. and for most people with a rational thinking mind .. perhaps not you yet.

So you concede that the tail has it's own momentum .. that's a good start.

Don't forget that the whole plane .. And all of it's various pieces which were flying in formation within the aluminium skin .. ALL had their own momentum. The total momentum is .. that contained inside .. and including the aluminium skin.

Think of the aircraft as a whole bunch of components, rather than a singular fragile object as is often used in the NPT argument. More like shotgun pellets rather than a singular "beer can" bullet. The concentration of momentum is centrally located in a shotgun blast.

In the aircraft scenario the concentration is also centrally located, with two satellite concentrations where the engines are. The wings we dealt with by force vector analysis. The rudder ( the upright fin of the tail) can also be dealt with similarly, and the damage caused by it is also consistent with that.

All these things make sense to me, add up mathematically and physics wise, and are supported by the forensic evidence at the impact site.

If by doing this I/we are somehow stopping people from finding the Truth, then you might as well give up .. because in comparison your logic looks like it is simply orchestrated to allow the NPT to exist.

You might as well say that the impact gashes in the towers were CGI plants as well. .. :eek:

Stann

[tabea_blumenschein]

Just to clarify something in my opening post. I didn't mean for it to sound like the Mythbusters crash test dummy experiment data actually applies to the case of a Boeing 767 hitting a building. My intention was to show that rapid decelerations involve huge g-forces and dissipation of large amounts of kinetic energy. I used the "260 g's" figure from the experiment because I thought actual readings from an accelerometer would be less likely to be questioned by a no-planer.

When Ryan Mackey calculates the impulse required for the fuel to fracture a column, he only considers the mass that's acting directly on the column. The columns are 14" wide and the gaps are 26" wide, which means that only about a third of the plane comes into contact with a column. If you think that including the plane's structure alters the way the mass applies force to the columns, could you tell us which one of Ryan Mackey's four cases of Effect of Hardness and Strength is the most appropriate, and if that effect applies to all parts of the aircraft that come into contact with the wall?

Mackey's calculations show that the impact of a slug of jet fuel by itself at 500+ mph would be enough to fail a perimeter column. That sort of renders all your questions moot, doesn't it?

We're back to the same old problem. What materials in the nose, cockpit and front section of fuselage are rigid enough to exert enough force onto the columns to fracture the steel?

The "same old problem" is your "same old misunderstanding." A lack of material strength or rigidity does NOT limit the force an impacting object can exert on a barrier. The single deciding factor is velocity. This is easily shown by making a few substitutions to the "impulse/momentum" equation and arriving at:

P = pv^2

Where P is pressure exerted, p is density, and v^2 is velocity squared. Large values for v will give you large values for P, up to any amount you like. How much simpler does it have to be?

By ignoring the fact that the wing is connected to the fuselage, you neatly avoid dealing with the possibility that when the wing comes under stress from the column, it might become detached from the fuselage. If you've never seen images showing how easily that happens to a plane, I'll post some for you.

No, I showed that even if the wing does become detached from the plane it will have more than enough kinetic energy to destroy the perimeter columns in front of it.

Are you the JREF poster who lives in an ivory tower, by any chance?

I don't know who "the JREF poster who lives in an ivory tower" is, but it isn't me.

The poster called 'heiwa' seems to have more knowledge and experience of Newton's laws as applied to crash physics than anyone else in the thread, yet he's ridiculed and bullied by the OCT supporters. His argument that gravity alone couldn't cause the upper block to crush the remaining part of the structure sounds very reasonable, and it's obvious that the other posters haven't been able to answer him using physics. In desperation, they're suggesting he's not entitled to an opinion because his expertise is in ship collisions, not in building collapses. Part Three of Ryan Mackey's presentation should be interesting.

Bryan, here are some examples of Heiwa at his "best":

Heiwa's pizza box experiment. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125881)

Heiwa's lemon experiment. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/HeiwaLemon.jpg)

Heiwa's cheese experiment. ( http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3828724#post3828724)

Heiwa's bathroom scale experiment. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127318)

Heiwa's matchbox experiment. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4211688#post4211688)

Heiwa's sushi analogy. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4495024&postcount=192)

Heiwa's "rubber ball" hypothesis. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4135919#post4135919)

Heiwa claims WTC7 was pulled down by a vacuum created inside the building. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4280881&postcount=94)

After reading through all that, do you still think this guy knows what he's talking about?

Yes, the other posters have answered Heiwa's claims using physics on many occasions. Here's one example. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942) But most of the physics and engineering people over there put Heiwa on their ignore list a long time ago, due to posts such as the ones I link to above.

[secondsun]

I seem to remember that you didn't have a lot to say when tabea blumenschein was trying to debunk the controlled demolition theory, whereas I taught myself physics, read papers by Bazant and Greening, and put time and effort into trying to disprove the pancake collapse theory.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48528


Since you're so impressed by tabea blumenschein's equations, can we take it you support the government's story that the towers fell at near freefall speed due to the damage caused by the plane crashes?

...after my post at #13 i have never referred back to that thread

...tabea` initial post was arguing free fall speed!

...having now read through...

No, that's not what I meant. I meant that if impact and fire damage led to collapse initiation...

...i hope i have read him properly and not missed a bit!?... but he does not deny the use of controlled demolition and says the `collapse initiation` he believed was due to impact and fire damage!... he did put the `if` in italics by the way!

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=737367&postcount=46

...he then says....

Impact and fire damage would not be expected to lead to simultaneous failure of all supporting columns at once.


...to me... he is saying here that subsequent failure was some how aided!

...bryan... i think you could do with a warning too!

...your a professional twister!

...imo`!

can we take it you support the government's story that the towers fell at near freefall speed due to the damage caused by the plane crashes?

...twister!

[stannrodd]

.. can we take it you support the government's story that the towers fell at near freefall speed due to the damage caused by the plane crashes?

Interesting how this crowd just can't resist the urge to speculate about others beliefs in a way which attempts miserably to twist the discussion in their favour.

On the other side of the coin .. the real truth seekers never do that.

There is no need .. !

Cheers secondsun

Stann

[matrix911]

Which part isn't basic physics?
My aim is not this .. my aim is to find the truth. You needn't go the "baseless accusation" route bryan .. it doesn't work for me... never has !:)

The dynamics is obvious in this collision IMO .. and for most people with a rational thinking mind .. perhaps not you yet.

So you concede that the tail has it's own momentum .. that's a good start.

Don't forget that the whole plane .. And all of it's various pieces which were flying in formation within the aluminium skin .. ALL had their own momentum. The total momentum is that contained inside .. and including the aluminium skin.

Think of the aircraft as a whole bunch of components, rather than a singular fragile object as is often used in the NPT argument. More like shotgun pellets v a singular "beer can" bullet. The concentration of momentum is centrally located in a shotgun blast.

In the aircraft scenario the concentration is also centrally located, with two satellite concentrations where the engines are. The wings we dealt with by force vector analysis. The rudder ( the upright fin of the tail) can also be dealt with similarly, and the damage caused by it is also consistent with that.

All these things make sense to me, add up mathematically and physics wise, and are supported by the forensic evidence at the impact site.
Stann


if you have so much common sense and it all just adds up so perfectly, why can you not explain or offer any rational logical or reasonable explanation for the visual evidence like this
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n237/StillDiggin/impact.jpg

http://911logic.blogspot.com/
THAT MY FRIEND, IS NOT A REAL PLANE. Nor is whats VISUALLY seen, possible within the PHYSICAL LAWS that GOVERN this Universe. Is it a cgi insert? whether it is or isn't, is not the important question. what important is that any honest logical and intelligent person would agree that photo cannot be a real photo of a real plane from a real live footage impacting a real wtc tower.

or like this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7181402991205199999
at 1:15:10 which shows a model/animation from the OCT how the TAIL is shown to TUCK itself under the GASH as if its got a mind of its own and the plane has moving body parts like a fish pulling its tail into a crevice. But of course you don't find anything wrong with that nor question such twisted evidence to fit the oct.


(on a side note that discussion with one of the structural engineers that contributed to the creation of the OCT animation starting @ 1:11:15 to 1:15:45 and specifically at 1:14:10 is just simply, well, amazing. This is yet another example amidst thousands, of the incompetence and insanity responsible for the contradictions, unanswered questions, inconsistencies, flaws, and problems they've created for themselves etc and the list goes on.)

[secondsun]

if you have so much common sense and it all just adds up so perfectly, why can you not explain or offer any rational logical or reasonable explanation for the visual evidence like this

...put your money were your mouth is asshole!

http://i39.tinypic.com/2nkmbg9.jpg

...lets have your reasonable explanation for the visual evidence like this Matrix!

[matrix911]

...put your money were your mouth is asshole!

http://i39.tinypic.com/2nkmbg9.jpg

...lets have your reasonable explanation for the visual evidence like this Matrix!

first of all, you didn't answer my question.

second of all your question has been addressed repeatedly in threads and posts such as this one starting around post 181 and going on for 10 or more pages

http://davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51667&highlight=judy+wood&page=19

so i'm not going waste my time with your circular arguments, rhetoric and childish debate.

now please answer my questions you've evaded as usual.

[secondsun]

first of all, you didn't answer my question.

...thought you were aiming at Stan`!... where did you ask me specifically?

now please answer my questions you've evaded as usual.

...please link to a question you have asked me that i have evaded?

...:confused:

[matrix911]

...thought you were aiming at Stan`!... where did you ask me specifically?


i asked you because you entered the discussion responding or rather, injecting your commentary or whatever it was on my post.

if you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.


...please link to a question you have asked me that i have evaded?
...:confused:

that wasn't my point... you're asking me to address a general pic and read your mind as to what you're wanting ME to answer.

i was merely pointing out a link to a thread where what you seem to suggest wasn't answered by me or addressed yet.

[secondsun]

if you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

...oh!... i can handle the heat!... i just wish i could cook some of the Chef`s!

you're asking me to address a general pic and read your mind as to what you're wanting ME to answer.

..wrong!... i just wanted a brief description of how you thought the holes were made!... without reading through a whole thread!

[matrix911]

..wrong!... i just wanted a brief description of how you thought the holes were made!... without reading through a whole thread!

there's only 2 possible ways since i KNOW there was no boeing 767 flight 175 or 11 that did the damage...

1. drone/missle and pre-planned explosives
2. no drone/no missle and just explosives

what else could it be if not the boeings the oct claims?

[secondsun]

1. drone/missle and pre-planned explosives
2. no drone/no missle and just explosives

what else could it be if not the boeings the oct claims?

...you are a very sad person!... either because you have a brain made of sponge!?...presuming you really believe the tripe you post or you lick the ar$e of the Establishment because you think you will be saved!?

...very sad indeed!

[matrix911]

...you are a very sad person!... either because you have a brain made of sponge!?...presuming you really believe the tripe you post or you lick the ar$e of the Establishment because you think you will be saved!?

...very sad indeed!


whats sad is the F A C T, you failed to show and prove exactly how and where what i've posited, is erroneous, illogical or false.

why?

because you can't.

and its this lack of evidence from oct supporters and rpters that illustrates why NPT has never been proven and only continues growing stronger.

therefore, to proclaim and hand-waive what i've said is sad etc without being able to provide anything to back up your claim that it is, proves you're far more sad and pathetic than the average hypocrite.

[stannrodd]

Off topic !!:eek:

[bryan]

...i hope i have read him properly and not missed a bit!?... but he does not deny the use of controlled demolition and says the `collapse initiation` he believed was due to impact and fire damage!... he did put the `if` in italics by the way!

...to me... he is saying here that subsequent failure was some how aided!


You think tabea blumenschein was suggesting there were explosives in the buildings?

Maybe the person in question can clarify the situation.

If it's true, I certainly got the wrong end of the stick. :)

[picha]

The question I'd like to consider in this thread is, "how much should a 767 travelling at 500 mph be decelerated while punching through the outer wall of a twin tower?"

I've posted a simple analysis of the plane's kinetic energy at least twice previously, but I didn't get much of a response from our resident no-planers either time. This time, I'll give the subject its own thread, and also elaborate on my own calculations a bit.

Where necessary, I'll use specs from this WikiPedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767) for data. The planes that hit the towers were both 767-200's, I believe, so I'll be taking my information from the left-hand column of the Boeing 767 Specifications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Specifications) section.

The empty weight of the plane is about 80,000 kilograms. The planes were both carrying about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel at the time of impact. If we take one gallon of jet fuel to be about 3 kilograms, this brings the total weight of the plane to 110,000 kilograms. There would also be some additional weight due to passengers, baggage, etc., but we'll neglect that.

We'll take the velocity of the plane to be 220 meters per second (492 mph). With this data, we can calculate the plane's kinetic energy at the moment of impact:

KE = 1/2 * m * v^2

KE = 1/2 * 110,000 * (220)^2 joules

KE = 2,662,000,000 joules of energy

With huge figures like that, it's usually helpful to have a "yardstick" figure to compare it to. A good yardstick for large amounts of energy is TNT, which equals 4,184,000 joules per kilogram. Dividing these figures, we find that the kinetic energy of the plane at the moment of impact is:

KE = equivalent of 636 kilograms of TNT (1400 pounds worth).

For any sane person, this by itself would be enough to prove that the plane is going to cause some serious devastation when it hits the tower. But I'm not dealing with sane people; I'm dealing with no-planers. So I'll have to soldier on ...

~

Okay, let's figure out how many perimeter columns the plane will actually hit (at most), and then pick a reasonable figure (in terms of pounds of TNT) it might take to actually destroy each perimeter column.

The towers were 206 x 206 feet, for a total perimeter of 824 feet. There were 236 perimeter columns in total, so that puts the perimeter columns about 3.5 feet apart.

The wingspan of a Boeing 767-200 is 156 feet. Dividing 156 feet by 3.5 feet per column, we find that the plane will hit as many as 45 perimeter columns.

Also, the width of the fuselage is 16.5 feet. That means the front of the plane impacts 5 columns, and the wings will impact 20 columns each.

~

Let's budget the energy equivalent to 5 pounds (2.27 kg) of TNT to destroy each perimeter column. What we're going to do is subtract the energy necessary to destroy the columns impacted by the plane from our original figure for KE above, and use that to recalculate the planes new, slower velocity. To do that, just solve the kinetic energy equation for v. You get:

v = square root[(2 * KE)/m]

The front, nose section of the plane hits 5 columns. If the energy dissipated is equal to 2.27 kg of TNT per column, that's a total energy of:

E = 5 * 2.27 * 4,184,000 joules

E = 47,545,455 joules

Subtracting that from our original kinetic energy figure gives:

KE = 2,662,000,000 - 47,545,455 joules

KE = 2,614,454,500 joules

Remembering that the mass of the plane is m=110,000 kg, we find that the velocity of the plane after impacting those 5 columns is:

v = square root[(2 * 2,614,454,500)/110,000] m/s

v = 218 meters per second. (487 mph)

The nose of the plane impacting and destroying the first 5 columns barely slows it down at all.

Now for the wing impacts. They hit a total of 40 columns. Budgeting energy equivalent to 2.27 kg of TNT for each column, we get a total energy of:

E = 40 * 2.27 * 4,184,000 joules

E = 380,363,640 joules

Subtracting that much from our most recent value for KE:

KE = 2,614,454,500 - 380,363,640 joules

KE = 2,234,090,900 joules

Solving for velocity after the wing impacts:

v = [(2 * 2,234,090,900)/110,000] m/s

v = 201 meters per second. (449 mph)

So as we can see, the impact with, and destruction of, 45 perimeter columns has slowed the plane down by less than 10% of its original velocity.

In the interest of completeness, let's also consider the energy required to destroy the outer aluminum cladding. Let's budget energy equivalent to another 200 pounds of TNT (90.1 kg) for that. Doing the usual calculations:

E = 90.1 * 4,184,000 joules

E = 380,363,640,000 joules

KE = 2,234,090,900 - 380,363,640 joules

KE = 1,853,727,300 joules

v = square root[(2 * 1,853,727,300)/110,000] m/s

v = 184 meters per second (410 mph)

The plane still has over 83% of its original velocity after destroying 45 columns and all that aluminum cladding. And I'm being very generous to the no-planers with my energy deductions.

~

Our no-planers will now probably argue that maybe the body of the plane can penetrate the wall, but the wings are "too flimsy" and should not have been able to slice through the perimeter columns like that.

We should begin by reminding ourselves that those wings are neither flimsy nor light. Most of the fuel is stored in the wings, so we're looking at 20 tons (or more) of mass stored in each wing when the plane is fully fueled. The engines weigh about 4 tons each, I'm guessing the landing gear could weigh a ton or more, and the wings themselves weigh a few tons. So each wing could easily represent 30 tons or more of weight.

Also, remember that the lift force holding the plane in the air (the lift force equals the plane's weight when flying level), as well as force of the tons of thrust generated by the engines, are also being exerted on the wings. Needless to say, those wings aren't the tinfoil and balsa wood constructions that no-planers like to pretend they are.

Let's try this. If we consider the kinetic energy of a wing, by itself, and ignore the fact that it's connected to the fuselage of the plane, we find that its kinetic energy is (using v=220 m/s):

KE = 1/2 * m * v^2

Case 1: mass of wing = 20,000 kg

KE = 484,800,000 joules

KE = equivalent of 116 kg of TNT (254 pounds worth).

Case 2: mass of wing = 25,000 kg

KE = 605,000,000 joules

KE = equivalent of 145 kg of TNT (318 pounds worth).

Case 3: mass of wing = 30,000 kg

KE = 726,000,000 joules

KE = equivalent of 174 kg of TNT (382 pounds worth).

BUT the energy we figure will destroy the 20 perimeter columns the wing hits is:

E = 20 * 2.27 * 4,184,000 joules

E = 190,181,820 joules

E = equivalent of 45 kg of TNT (100 pounds worth)

So forget it. Compare the numbers and you'll see that the wing by itself has waaaaay more than enough kinetic energy to do the job.

~

Finally, the "aluminum vs. steel" question. High speed impacts aren't a question of "rocks paper scissors", even though the no-planers in their ignorance believe they are.

The reason the plane didn't show much damage from hitting the perimeter columns is simple. The columns did cause some damage to the nose of the plane and the leading edges of the wing, but the columns also failed very quickly. And once the perimeter columns are sliced through or knocked out of the way, the plane is free to proceed into the building.

(Yes, the plane was thoroughly trashed as a result of the collision. Nobody says it wasn't. The outer columns the plane first hit weren't responsible for much of the damage, that's all.)

Maybe a numerical example will help.

I recently had an opportunity to see season one of Mythbusters on home video. One of the episodes featured, as an experiment, a crash test dummy being dropped into the water from a height of about 180 feet. The dummy hit the water at speeds of about 60 to 65 mph, and the peak g forces that occured when the dummy hit the water were recorded with an accelerometer. They averaged out to about 260 g's.

If we consider a case where the plane decelerates at 260 g's over the distance of one meter, here's how much it will slow down:

v = square root(u^2 - 2as)

Where v is the final velocity, u is the initial velocity, a is the acceleration, and s is the distance travelled. The acceleration is 260 g's, and one g is 9.8 meters per second squared. That's 2548 meters per second squared. We'll take the initial velocity u to be 220 m/s as usual, and the distance s = 1 meter.

v = square root[(220)^2 - 2*2548*1] m/s

v = 208.1 meters per second

The plane's kinetic energy is now:

KE = 1/2 * m * v^2

KE = 2,381,720,000 joules

KE = equivalent to 569 kg of TNT.

But the kinetic energy was originally equivalent to 636 kg of TNT, as we calculated above. So decelerating the plane at 260 g's over a distance of 1 meter brings the energy equivalent to 67 kg of TNT into play. That's almost 150 pounds.

There's no way around it. The perimeter columns are bound to fail in a hurry, just like we observe in the videos.

~

Not that this will do much good either, but I hope you would find the time to visit this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137438) (yes, the JREF forums), and watch the video linked to in the OP, and hopefully click on the link to view the accompanying charts as well.

~

Postscript:

Some no-planers might say that they won't believe a Boeing 767 can penetrate the outer wall of a skyscraper unless they see it with their own eyes. They reject any sort of model or mathematical analysis of the event.

If we were considering something extremely doubtful, then yes, I'd say a real life reproduction of the event might be useful. Maybe even necessary. But a large commercial jet hitting the wall of a skyscraper at well over 700 feet per second isn't a doubtful case. Imagine that you are called in to investigate a collision involving two cars. If you can establish, after considering the evidence, that each car was going 100 mph when the collision occured, would you really need to re-enact the event to prove to yourself or others that both cars should be totalled?

~

To be honest, I'm not expecting much from the no-planers in terms of a response. Probably all I'll get are arguments from incredulity, still-photos as supposed "proof", and verbal abuse of Mythbusters, the JREF Forum, Mr. Weick, and Mr. Mackey.

It would be so nice to be pleasantly surprised for once ...

At the end of the day, those equations are irrelevant when you can clearly see the building still in tact between the wing and the fuselage when the front part of the wing has supposedly punched through it, which is impossible.

[dave52]

At the end of the day, those equations are irrelevant when you can clearly see the building still in tact between the wing and the fuselage when the front part of the wing has supposedly punched through it, which is impossible.

Shhh... stop compounding the problem by actually looking at the facts....

[3stepsahead]

trying to rule out newtons laws by picturing a horse cart thats a new one.

how come you can answer the newton question when not even nist and other official storytellers can and will porvide an answer on record? they only consider the video evidence to be fact and therefore the plane went into the building.

quite intellignet.

the plane would have exploded less than halfway in because it would be crushed by the velocity of its own energy hitting the walls.

the wings? phew thats some cookie cutter wings on that special plane.

i think it was those tai chi planes that use the chi to crush through mostly anything and just pushes all energy and pain over to another dimension.


may the holy ones burn crisp;)

[stannrodd]

.. the plane would have exploded less than halfway in because it would be crushed by the velocity of its own energy hitting the walls.

This member has physics wrapped up .. crushed by the velocity of it's own energy .. :confused:

(scratches head furiously) ... just says so therefore is .. no reasoning offered

duh..

Stann :D

[goldengoose]

At the end of the day, those equations are irrelevant when you can clearly see the building still in tact between the wing and the fuselage when the front part of the wing has supposedly punched through it, which is impossible.


At the end of the day, you are still making up fantastic nonsense. The building is decidedly NOT "intact."

[killtown]

At the end of the day, you are still making up fantastic nonsense. The building is decidedly NOT "intact."
Then why does it look that way in the video?

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2045/butterplaneyn9.jpg
(Wall looks intact between left engine and fuselage.)

[stannrodd]

Then why does it look that way in the video?


(Wall looks intact between left engine and fuselage.)

More to the point.. Why doesn't the image show the vertical perimeter columns ?? !!

Because it's a lousy image .. and implying that the tower is intact at the point you mention does not add up because .. if it was intact you should see the perimeter columns there too ..The wall is shown as a singular flat mono colour surface, which it is not.

The claim that the tower is intact, based on that image, is pure unadulterated BS.

Stann

[stealth_0073]

stealth_0073

flight 175 hologram ?

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/5702/76744583.gif (http://img19.imageshack.us/my.php?image=76744583.gif)

[stannrodd]

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/1200500pxpjpeg.jpg

Should look like this ..

Stann

[stealth_0073]

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/1200500pxpjpeg.jpg

Should look like this ..

Stann

unfortunately!! i don't see your plane move!!
nice fake picture though!!.

my video shows the plane is transparent even before it hits the building
if you need glasses!! i can highly recommend optical express were i can get you a discount if you need it:).

[stannrodd]

unfortunately!! i don't see your plane move!!

It's a still .. duh !

How can a picture be a fake picture.

It's either a picture or it isn't a picture.

Thanks for the offer of glasses but I already have my own three sets.

You could go a bit further and explain what your post is supposed to convey.

Stann

[tabea_blumenschein]

trying to rule out newtons laws by picturing a horse cart thats a new one.

how come you can answer the newton question when not even nist and other official storytellers can and will porvide an answer on record? they only consider the video evidence to be fact and therefore the plane went into the building.

For those who don't know, the "horse and cart dilemma" is one of the most famous questions in all of basic physics. Physics teachers have bedevilled their students with that question for generations. The horse and cart dilemma isn't intended to "rule out Newton's laws", but to test your understanding of them.

~

I wonder if it might be helpful if we could discuss this topic in more general terms. Maybe the no-planers posting here would like to offer their thoughts on the following questions:

Would it ever be theoretically possible for a large commercial jet airliner to penetrate the outer wall of a large office building? If you believe that it would be theoretically possible, then under what conditions might such an event happen (please be as specific as you can)? If you believe that it is impossible under any set of circumstances, then can you explain why you believe that to be so? Thanks in advance for any responses.

[stealth_0073]

It's a still .. duh !


How can a picture be a fake picture.


never heard of video and picture manipulation


It's either a picture or it isn't a picture.

yes its a picture with a fake plane
who took it? name the camera guy?
were was he was positioned ?
what camera did he use!!!



You could go a bit further and explain what your post is supposed to convey.



the object in the Jennifer spell video its not
a solid object its a hologram.


Jenifer spell!! according to Jeff from pumpitout, never seen the plane
with 1 of her eyes!! but she seen it with the other eye while looking
thru the camera's viewfinder. now work that one out.

[secondsun]

Then why does it look that way in the video?

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2045/butterplaneyn9.jpg
(Wall looks intact between left engine and fuselage.)

...wing looks there in this one!

http://i43.tinypic.com/sq40om.jpg


...maybe somebody photoshop`d your one townkiller!?

[stannrodd]

the object in the Jennifer spell video its not a solid object its a hologram.

Wow .. how do you know this .. please explain.

Who the ferk is Jennifer Spell ??

yes its a picture with a fake plane
who took it? name the camera guy?
were was he was positioned ?
what camera did he use!!!

So it's a picture with a fake plane .. according to you. How do you take a picture of a fake plane ??

Really you guys are totally nutz ???

The person who took it is irrelevant .. check the image file .. I'm sure you can determine the camera. Though this was taken on 9/11 and I'm not sure that camera identity was jpeg filed then.

Location ??

Positioned in a place where the photo was taken .. I live in New Zealand not NYC

Stann

[dave52]

How can a picture be a fake picture.

http://mike.teczno.com/img/birddog.jpg

So this is for real Stann, or is this a fake picture...?


Who the ferk is Jennifer Spell ??

The person who took the picture, come on...

[bryan]

Would it ever be theoretically possible for a large commercial jet airliner to penetrate the outer wall of a large office building? If you believe that it would be theoretically possible, then under what conditions might such an event happen (please be as specific as you can)? If you believe that it is impossible under any set of circumstances, then can you explain why you believe that to be so? Thanks in advance for any responses.

This is a red herring. The question should be:

If a large commercial jet airliner penetrated the outer wall of a large office building, would we expect to see parts break off the aircraft, would we expect to see crumpling of the front section of fuselage, would we expect to see deceleration, would we expect to see fuel exploding on the outside of the building, and would we expect to see remains of the aircraft around the impact area?

Answer: Yes to all the above.

I believe that to be so, because I've seen hundreds of photos of plane crashes where the plane ends up as a broken, twisted, mangled heap of scrap aluminium alloy.

[goldengoose]

This is a red herring. The question should be:

If a large commercial jet airliner penetrated the outer wall of a large office building, would we expect to see parts break off the aircraft, would we expect to see crumpling of the front section of fuselage, would we expect to see deceleration, would we expect to see fuel exploding on the outside of the building, and would we expect to see remains of the aircraft around the impact area?

Answer: Yes to all the above.

I believe that to be so, because I've seen hundreds of photos of plane crashes where the plane ends up as a broken, twisted, mangled heap of scrap aluminium alloy.


As you know, we saw deceleration (proved by Dr. Frank Greening, among others), we saw fuel exploding on impact, we saw pieces of aircraft wreckage in the streets and on rooftops, and the plane was certainly torn to bits in the interior of the building. There are many collections of photos showing the wreckage.

Ryan Mackey has explained the physics of the crash very clearly on 'Hardfire.' No one in the fantasy movement will ever be able to point out any errors in his presentation.

[stealth_0073]

As you know, we saw deceleration (proved by Dr. Frank Greening, among others), we saw fuel exploding on impact, we saw pieces of aircraft wreckage in the streets and on rooftops, and the plane was certainly torn to bits in the interior of the building. There are many collections of photos showing the wreckage.

Ryan Mackey has explained the physics of the crash very clearly on 'Hardfire.' No one in the fantasy movement will ever be able to point out any errors in his presentation.

no we didn't see fuel exploding on impact what videos do you guys look at to see the fuel exploding, am i missing something

those planted plane parts dropped off by the abc7 van mossad crew

ryan mackey is a retard instead of showing us boring calculations why doesn't he show any videos or explain them and slow them down
and zoom in!!.

[gamolon]

http://i39.tinypic.com/2nkmbg9.jpg

there's only 2 possible ways since i KNOW there was no boeing 767 flight 175 or 11 that did the damage...

1. drone/missle and pre-planned explosives
2. no drone/no missle and just explosives

what else could it be if not the boeings the oct claims?

Matrix, can you please explain to me the varying degree of explosives used to obtain the different effects within the damage range?

1. How in the world did they use explosives to create an INWARD dent in the aluminum cladding on the two columns to the extreme left of the above photo's inset?

2. Looking at the first column to the right of the "dented aluminum columns", please explain how they got just enough explosives in between the perimeter column's outside face and the aluminum cladding to just blow of the aluminum cladding, yet not damage the perimeter column itself OR make a scorch mark.

3. Please explain how explosives could have been planted to sever the columns and bend them INWARD. Where would the explosives have been planted to achieve that effect.

4. How did these planted explosives leave thin, aluminum cladding still intact within a few feet of the explosions themselves?

[stannrodd]

the object in the Jennifer spell video its not
a solid object its a hologram.


Jenifer spell!! according to Jeff from pumpitout, never seen the plane
with 1 of her eyes!! but she seen it with the other eye while looking
thru the camera's viewfinder. now work that one out.

This really doesn't make any sense at all.

We've got a bunch here who say that there were no planes at all .. now we have a looney claim that someone could see a plane in the viewfinder of her video camera but couldn't see it in the sky with her other eye ??

Then of course we have the media reports of hijacked real planes.

1 holograms in broad daylight which can only be seen in a camera
2 no planes but inserted cgi planes in media footage
3 real planes.

So what's the point of having holograms if the video is cgi fake or why have fake video if we have holograms.

What are the holograms for ??

Are hologram planes BS ??
Are cgi planes BS?
Are real planes BS?

:eek::eek:

Stann :D

[gamolon]

those planted plane parts dropped off by the abc7 van mossad crew

Interesting. I haven't heard this before. Is there a link to the proof of this happening? I would like to read about this.

[stealth_0073]

This really doesn't make any sense at all.

We've got a bunch here who say that there were no planes at all .. now we have a looney claim that someone could see a plane in the viewfinder of her video camera but couldn't see it in the sky with her other eye ??

Then of course we have the media reports of hijacked real planes.

1 holograms in broad daylight which can only be seen in a camera
2 no planes but inserted cgi planes in media footage
3 real planes.

So what's the point of having holograms if the video is cgi fake or why have fake video if we have holograms.

What are the holograms for ??

Are hologram planes BS ??
Are cgi planes BS?
Are real planes BS?

:eek::eek:

Stann :D

you need to go out more stan because i can capture things on camera not seen with the naked eye. and yes i can see them in the lcd viewfinder but i dont see them with naked eye

all this could have been done in 1 studio the covering up of the amateur videos with cgi

if you look at the earlier videos you see the plane changes shape has missing wings etc

now add a cgi to a video and see if you can make a wing disappear
or make the shape constantly change.

you have to work out the difference between what is a cgi and what is a hologram.

[goldengoose]

no we didn't see fuel exploding on impact what videos do you guys look at to see the fuel exploding, am i missing something

those planted plane parts dropped off by the abc7 van mossad crew

ryan mackey is a retard instead of showing us boring calculations why doesn't he show any videos or explain them and slow them down
and zoom in!!.

Well, yes, we most certainly did see fuel explosions on impact. The notion that aircraft wreckage was planted by evil Joooos in plain sight of thousands of firefighters and rescue workers is preposterous. But, of course, you don't care.

Mackey is not a retard. He is a scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion laboratory.

Video compositing expert Steven Wright examined the videos with a fine-tooth comb when he demolished the pretensions of musician Ace Baker. Those two editions of 'Hardfire" are available on Google.

[goldengoose]

you need to go out more stan because i can capture things on camera not seen with the naked eye. and yes i can see them in the lcd viewfinder but i dont see them with naked eye

all this could have been done in 1 studio the covering up of the amateur videos with cgi

if you look at the earlier videos you see the plane changes shape has missing wings etc

now add a cgi to a video and see if you can make a wing disappear
or make the shape constantly change.

you have to work out the difference between what is a cgi and what is a hologram.


To repeat, the sort of real time compositing you require for your fantasy is impossible. Watch Steve Wright's annihilation of Ace Baker.

[goldengoose]

Interesting. I haven't heard this before. Is there a link to the proof of this happening? I would like to read about this.


What's interesting about it? According to anti-Semitic nuts, Joooos are responsible for everything bad that happens. Of course there's no "proof." How can there be proof when it's total idiocy?

[goldengoose]

http://i39.tinypic.com/2nkmbg9.jpg



Matrix, can you please explain to me the varying degree of explosives used to obtain the different effects within the damage range?

1. How in the world did they use explosives to create an INWARD dent in the aluminum cladding on the two columns to the extreme left of the above photo's inset?

2. Looking at the first column to the right of the "dented aluminum columns", please explain how they got just enough explosives in between the perimeter column's outside face and the aluminum cladding to just blow of the aluminum cladding, yet not damage the perimeter column itself OR make a scorch mark.

3. Please explain how explosives could have been planted to sever the columns and bend them INWARD. Where would the explosives have been planted to achieve that effect.

4. How did these planted explosives leave thin, aluminum cladding still intact within a few feet of the explosions themselves?


Shhh, asking fantasists to explain what conceivable explosives could cause the observed inward bowing of the external columns will not win you friends on forums such as this one. Your terribly inconvenient questions cause the entire fantasy house of cards to fall neatly into its own footprints.

[bryan]

Mackey is not a retard. He is a scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion laboratory.


You're right, he's not a retard. He just acts like one. He's actually a clever fraud.

[bryan]

Matrix, can you please explain to me the varying degree of explosives used to obtain the different effects within the damage range?

1. How in the world did they use explosives to create an INWARD dent in the aluminum cladding on the two columns to the extreme left of the above photo's inset?

2. Looking at the first column to the right of the "dented aluminum columns", please explain how they got just enough explosives in between the perimeter column's outside face and the aluminum cladding to just blow of the aluminum cladding, yet not damage the perimeter column itself OR make a scorch mark.

3. Please explain how explosives could have been planted to sever the columns and bend them INWARD. Where would the explosives have been planted to achieve that effect.

4. How did these planted explosives leave thin, aluminum cladding still intact within a few feet of the explosions themselves?

How did the plane's tail knock out at least three perimeter columns and one concrete floor?

[matrix911]

...wing looks there in this one!

http://i43.tinypic.com/sq40om.jpg


in other frames and footage, we observe GHOSTING and the WINGS DISAPPEAR and aren't there.

So your point is???

oh i know, you think it actually proves something :rolleyes:


...maybe somebody photoshop`d your one townkiller!?


but how is using a cgi or hologram taken from footage known to contain FAKERY, relevant or useful in proving or disproving anything?

its quite comical if not truly pathetic

[matrix911]

Wow .. how do you know this .. please explain.

Who the ferk is Jennifer Spell ??

So it's a picture with a fake plane .. according to you. How do you take a picture of a fake plane ??

Really you guys are totally nutz ???

The person who took it is irrelevant .. check the image file .. I'm sure you can determine the camera. Though this was taken on 9/11 and I'm not sure that camera identity was jpeg filed then.

Location ??
Positioned in a place where the photo was taken ..


funny how many questions and requirements/standards you have/alott and leeway you give to everything and to everyone other than the OCT and PERPS.



I live in New Zealand not NYC

Stann

oh well nevermind then,,, that explains everything.

[matrix911]

http://mike.teczno.com/img/birddog.jpg

So this is for real Stann, or is this a fake picture...?

The person who took the picture, come on...

Bwaaaaa ha ha ha!

now thats pretty damn funny.

[stannrodd]

Bwaaaaa ha ha ha!

now thats pretty damn funny.

Small things amuse small minds.. !

Have a look at this photo taken from some distance away

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/kratske-1.jpg

.. can you explain how there is a plane in the picture .. and can you tell me what sort ..

real .. cgi or hologram

and can you tell me how you know that from that picture?

Then when you've done that .. have a look at this picture, taken from a huge distance away, and explain how there is what appears to be the same plane in the picture .. and can you tell me what sort it is..

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/Amateur-1.jpg

real .. cgi .. or hologram ?

And then can you tell me how you know that from that picture?

Thanks
Stann

[gamolon]

How did the plane's tail knock out at least three perimeter columns and one concrete floor?

Brilliant Bryan. Answer my questions with a question.

:rolleyes:

I suppose you don't have an answer then?

[gamolon]

How did the plane's tail knock out at least three perimeter columns and one concrete floor?

Which three perimeter columns are you talking about? Please show me on a photo so I know exaclty which ones you are talking about.

[stealth_0073]

Well, yes, we most certainly did see fuel explosions on impact. The notion that aircraft wreckage was planted by evil Joooos in plain sight of thousands of firefighters and rescue workers is preposterous. But, of course, you don't care.

were i did mention joos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ielNX8WOv6g



Mackey is not a retard. He is a scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion laboratory.

big deal he is not a video editor or composting expert
so his credentials mean jack shit.


Video compositing expert Steven Wright examined the videos with a fine-tooth comb when he demolished the pretensions of musician Ace Baker. Those two editions of 'Hardfire" are available on Google.


still casting that show up
i would say ace baker demolished your fake steve wright
although ace!! i don't trust! because he is wrong too about certain things.

many videos did you examine? the saltergate video that no 1 can explain were it came from. you guys are real good

[bryan]

Which three perimeter columns are you talking about? Please show me on a photo so I know exaclty which ones you are talking about.

It turns out that, according to NIST, the columns may not even have been cut. So how did the tail get into the building?

http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-2d/7-87_wtc2-impact-comparison.jpg


The reason I answered your question with a question is because my question is more important than yours. If the tail couldn't have gone into the building like it does in the videos, it means the videos are fake and there were no planes. But just because we can't say how the holes were made, it doesn't mean they must have been made by a plane.

The most annoying thing is that you never think to question the obvious flaws in the official story, yet you scrutinize every detail of the alternative theories even when it's not essential to the big picture.

[3stepsahead]

For those who don't know, the "horse and cart dilemma" is one of the most famous questions in all of basic physics. Physics teachers have bedevilled their students with that question for generations. The horse and cart dilemma isn't intended to "rule out Newton's laws", but to test your understanding of them.

~

I wonder if it might be helpful if we could discuss this topic in more general terms. Maybe the no-planers posting here would like to offer their thoughts on the following questions:

Would it ever be theoretically possible for a large commercial jet airliner to penetrate the outer wall of a large office building? If you believe that it would be theoretically possible, then under what conditions might such an event happen (please be as specific as you can)? If you believe that it is impossible under any set of circumstances, then can you explain why you believe that to be so? Thanks in advance for any responses.


two kids could push a cart along considering it has wheels and it is on plane ground. and i hope you know the power a horse has.

i dont think the cart story is relevant at all to the wtc but to equations of energy mass and movement it is, like anything else.
but it is not comparable.

sorry but arguing about this feels like arguing about the pancakes. it just does not fit into common sense. and i guess, like i said, that if you just punch hard enough you can break anything, exept your hand, RIGHT? cause thats what youre saying.

so i dare you to find a concrete wall. hit it, ant let us know if you felt the power of the equal opposing force or not.
the harder you hit , the more it will hurt.
easy.

[gamolon]

It turns out that, according to NIST, the columns may not even have been cut. So how did the tail get into the building?

http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-2d/7-87_wtc2-impact-comparison.jpg


The reason I answered your question with a question is because my question is more important than yours. If the tail couldn't have gone into the building like it does in the videos, it means the videos are fake and there were no planes. But just because we can't say how the holes were made, it doesn't mean they must have been made by a plane.

The most annoying thing is that you never think to question the obvious flaws in the official story, yet you scrutinize every detail of the alternative theories even when it's not essential to the big picture.

Hey Bryan, if I never question the obvious flaws in the official story, why am I here asking you to post which three columns you are talking about? I asked you a legitamate question because I wanted to make sure what your obvious flaw was that you were tlaking about. You need to come of your high horse for a bit.

Now that you have respsonded I can look into it further.

[stealth_0073]

Small things amuse small minds.. !

Have a look at this photo taken from some distance away

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/kratske-1.jpg

.. can you explain how there is a plane in the picture .. and can you tell me what sort ..

real .. cgi or hologram

and can you tell me how you know that from that picture?

its a photoshop since its a still picture taken by Kelly Guenther
apparently!!! try take a picture of an airplane moving at 500mph
one thing you will get is motion blur, not a perfect image

Kelly Guenther is a lyer
http://www.nycweddingphotographer.com/about.html



Then when you've done that .. have a look at this picture, taken from a huge distance away, and explain how there is what appears to be the same plane in the picture .. and can you tell me what sort it is..

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/Amateur-1.jpg

real .. cgi .. or hologram ?

hologram


And then can you tell me how you know that from that picture?

Thanks
Stann

because i have the video!! the plane disappears completely for 1 or 2 frames which is impossible.

[bryan]

Hey Bryan, if I never question the obvious flaws in the official story, why am I here asking you to post which three columns you are talking about?

You came here a couple of months ago with expert knowledge of the Twin Tower steel cores, yet you don't see anything fishy about the way they collapsed at near freefall speed. :confused:

[3stepsahead]

its a photoshop since its a still picture taken by Kelly Guenther
apparently!!! try take a picture of an airplane moving at 500mph
one thing you will get is motion blur, not a perfect image



hologram



because i have the video!! the plane disappears completely for 1 or 2 frames which is impossible.

i always laugh when some guys here abviously proves their intentions by being extremely well versed in anything that has to do with being against the no planes.

even the mods are handling this issue like hazardous material.


just keep the info coming, if you believe that it is of any relevance to you and us.

thanks

fin

[3stepsahead]

You came here a couple of months ago with expert knowledge of the Twin Tower steel cores, yet you don't see anything fishy about the way they collapsed at near freefall speed. :confused:

there is probably no common relations between a collapse and the wtc

so i guess this really is wonderland
or hell
:D

[stealth_0073]

Interesting. I haven't heard this before. Is there a link to the proof of this happening? I would like to read about this.

proof is in the video, were the debris was planted for the
flight 175 there was a abc7 van sitting it had a crane on the roof

Kenny Johannemann and his mossad friends were all gathering about this area
guy in red shirt, guy in grey shirt + another mossad agent smirking
and laughing.

[gamolon]

The reason I answered your question with a question is because my question is more important than yours. If the tail couldn't have gone into the building like it does in the videos, it means the videos are fake and there were no planes. But just because we can't say how the holes were made, it doesn't mean they must have been made by a plane.

Really? Your question is more important huh?

Is it less important because you can't explain it? I bet it is. If you can't realistically explain how that happened, then explosives could not have been used. That means that it's one less piece of garbage that we don't have to worry about.

As I recall, photos and movies can be deceiving:
http://mike.teczno.com/img/birddog.jpg

[goldengoose]

You came here a couple of months ago with expert knowledge of the Twin Tower steel cores, yet you don't see anything fishy about the way they collapsed at near freefall speed. :confused:

Wow! It's 2009 and they're still trying to pretend that the towers collapsed at "free fall speed"! Don't they get embarrassed when people actually take the trouble to time the collapses?

[stannrodd]

its a photoshop since its a still picture taken by Kelly Guenther
apparently!!! try take a picture of an airplane moving at 500mph
one thing you will get is motion blur, not a perfect image

Wrong ... it's not a photo by Kelly Guenther. But I guess if that person claims to be the photographer .. perhaps he/she actually is lying as you assert.

It's accredited to William Kratske .. though this site isn't where I originally found it.

http://windfaktor.xanga.com/

A poor photographer with limited experience may get motion blur .. but at some distance the object of interest has a speed perspective.. This is why we can take photos of distant speeding objects more easily than close speeding objects. Seen any photos of a planet recently .. they move REALLY fast yet we can take nice clear pics of them.. !

But irrespective of what you said, .. you still failed to answer the questions.

Real, CGI, or hologram .....

and can you tell me how you know that from that picture?

All you have done so far is present some unvalidated comment. Perhaps you don't know .. which is probably much more to the point given your obvious lack of knowledge with photography.

Stann

[stealth_0073]

Wrong ... it's not a photo by Kelly Guenther. But I guess if that person claims to be the photographer .. perhaps he/she actually is lying as you assert.


It's accredited to William Kratske .. though this site isn't where I originally found it.

http://windfaktor.xanga.com/

it looks exactly like kelly gunther's

why are you posting pictures anyway!!
did you not know all photographs since 911
have all been doctored
you should do more research into the
people who have taken these pictures
instead of trying to believe there real.


A poor photographer with limited experience may get motion blur .. but at some distance the object of interest has a speed perspective.. This is why we can take photos of distant speeding objects more easily than close speeding objects. Seen any photos of a planet recently .. they move REALLY fast yet we can take nice clear pics of them.. !

But irrespective of what you said, .. you still failed to answer the questions.

Real, CGI, or hologram .....

i told you already can you not read?

1st picture == is photoshop plane
2nd picture = hologram video

do you want me to prove it with a gif file from the actual video
that it disappears and reappears.

[stannrodd]

No.. I'd like you to prove this to me.

1st picture == is photoshop plane
2nd picture = hologram video


Feel free to offer your proof and then I will have it assessed.

But you must use the photos I posted.

Stann :)

[tabea_blumenschein]

This is a red herring. The question should be:

If a large commercial jet airliner penetrated the outer wall of a large office building, would we expect to see parts break off the aircraft, would we expect to see crumpling of the front section of fuselage, would we expect to see deceleration, would we expect to see fuel exploding on the outside of the building, and would we expect to see remains of the aircraft around the impact area?

Answer: Yes to all the above.

I believe that to be so, because I've seen hundreds of photos of plane crashes where the plane ends up as a broken, twisted, mangled heap of scrap aluminium alloy.

1. The airplane is gradually ripped to shreds over the duration of the impact. The wreckage will end up coming to rest inside the building or proceeding all the way through the tower before exiting on the other side.

2. The parts of the plane that impact the perimeter columns crumple. But the columns fail quickly due to the momentum of the impacting material, and none of the available videos, to my knowlege, show enough detail to clearly see said crumpling.

3. Of course the plane decelerates. I estimated some of that deceleration in my OP, using some preposterously large estimates for energy required to destroy perimeter columns. I peg the plane's kinetic energy to be equivalent to 1400 pounds of high explosive. At that point during impact when half of that kinetic energy has been dissipated, the plane will still have over 70% of its initial velocity.

The plane is decelerating, but that fact won't be obvious on the available videos either.

4. No, it's more likely that fuel would deflagrate inside the building with the fireball expanding outward through the entry hole. Just like we see on the videos.

5. Yes, parts were found on the street below. Including that piece of landing gear you posted a picture of in another thread, and a pretty big chunk of one of the engines.

Of course, the no-planers will counter that the videos are all faked and the mangled airplane parts were all planted, so really, what's the use?

[kooskoets]

2. The parts of the plane that impact the perimeter columns crumple. But the columns fail quickly due to the momentum of the impacting material, and none of the available videos, to my knowlege, show enough detail to clearly see said crumpling.

The impacting material was no more than some aluminium-sheet
tube.

The real collision would come when the 'heavy parts' hit the building,
And, as anyone undestands, those parts are in the middel of the plane...not in the nose.

So...we should have seen a crumbling front fusilage because it wouldn't punch a hole in that steel tubed wall.


And for the rest you write...just BS.
Just watch the many video's of REAL crashing planes !

[tabea_blumenschein]

The impacting material was no more than some aluminium-sheet
tube.

The real collision would come when the 'heavy parts' hit the building,
And, as anyone undestands, those parts are in the middel of the plane...not in the nose.

So...we should have seen a crumbling front fusilage because it wouldn't punch a hole in that steel tubed wall.


And for the rest you write...just BS.
Just watch the many video's of REAL crashing planes !

"The impacting material was no more than aluminum-sheet tube."

If that was a giant soda can hitting the building instead of an airplane you'd be right ...

"The real collision would come when the 'heavy parts' hit the building,
And, as anyone undestands, those parts are in the middel of the plane...not in the nose."

Hey genius, look inside the cockpit of a commercial jet airliner and tell me that there aren't any 'heavy parts' there.

"Just watch the many video's of REAL crashing planes !"

Do you know of any that show commercial jets hitting the sides of buildings at upwards of 500 mph? Those are the ones we'd need to look at.

If you think circumstances don't alter cases when it comes to collisions, then I can post a video of a fender-bender people walk away from and use it to argue that Princess Diana shouldn't have been killed in a high speed crash.

[secondsun]

Interesting. I haven't heard this before. Is there a link to the proof of this happening? I would like to read about this.

...we might as well give up lads!....stealth 007 was right!... our games up plane huggers!



http://i40.tinypic.com/kezp0j.jpg


...off to join the Obama youth!

...;)

[secondsun]

1. How in the world did they use explosives to create an INWARD dent in the aluminum cladding on the two columns to the extreme left of the above photo's inset?

...Gamolon said!

...was going to ask the very same question but could`nt be bothered with those w*****!

...they cant answer of course!... there were no window boxes full Geraniums to hide any explosives!

...;)

[bryan]

If you can't realistically explain how that happened, then explosives could not have been used.


Are you sure about that? Do we have to know everything the military are capable of before they can use it? Even if it was proved that explosives couldn't have been used, there are still other ways to make the hole. I've pointed out before that there was a chopper on the south side of the towers at the time of the second plane impact.

Not having an answer to the question doesn't contradict the theory of no planes. On the other hand, if a plane couldn't have made the hole, there was no plane.


Wow! It's 2009 and they're still trying to pretend that the towers collapsed at "free fall speed"! Don't they get embarrassed when people actually take the trouble to time the collapses?


Another lie from Ronald.

I said "at near freefall speed". A while ago I did some calculations using a ridiculously conservative estimate of 16 seconds for the collapse of the towers. In the case of the North Tower, that means over 90 floors fell at an average of 0.168 seconds per floor, or five floors per second. Each time a floor collapsed onto the next one, 47 steel core columns had to fail, on that level alone, in the space of 0.168 seconds.

Ryan Mackey is using Charlie Chaplin physics.


Here are some more lies from Ronald:

No-planers say the planes "bounced off the buildings".

The building's facade was "mainly glass".

The aircraft weighed "tens of thousands of tons".

[gamolon]

Are you sure about that? Do we have to know everything the military are capable of before they can use it?

Here we go. When you can't explain it, use the old obscure reference to the military having some unknown capability that NOBODY can prove, but you can lean on it all you want as proof.

That doesn't fly at all. You demand proof of the official story and point out all it's "strange" events. Why does that all of a sudden not work for you when I ask how explosives were used to produce the damage pattren? You can't believe in a plane hitting the towers, but you can believe that the military used some unknown way of blowing a hole in the tower wall WITHOUT any proof whatsoever.

How convenient for you.

Even if it was proved that explosives couldn't have been used, there are still other ways to make the hole. I've pointed out before that there was a chopper on the south side of the towers at the time of the second plane impact.

Not having an answer to the question doesn't contradict the theory of no planes. On the other hand, if a plane couldn't have made the hole, there was no plane.

Ok genius, you seem to know that there are other ways as you have been quoted as saying above (unknown military ways perhaps *laugh*). So what are they? Please explain what you know that can create an INWARD bending of the columns, can dent the aluminum cladding INWARD on the outside of the perimeter columns, and not blow some of the cladding of the perimeter columns that are close to the impact hole.

It go time pal.

:D

[3stepsahead]

Are you sure about that? Do we have to know everything the military are capable of before they can use it? Even if it was proved that explosives couldn't have been used, there are still other ways to make the hole. I've pointed out before that there was a chopper on the south side of the towers at the time of the second plane impact.

Not having an answer to the question doesn't contradict the theory of no planes. On the other hand, if a plane couldn't have made the hole, there was no plane.




Another lie from Ronald.

I said "at near freefall speed". A while ago I did some calculations using a ridiculously conservative estimate of 16 seconds for the collapse of the towers. In the case of the North Tower, that means over 90 floors fell at an average of 0.168 seconds per floor, or five floors per second. Each time a floor collapsed onto the next one, 47 steel core columns had to fail, on that level alone, in the space of 0.168 seconds.

Ryan Mackey is using Charlie Chaplin physics.


Here are some more lies from Ronald:

No-planers say the planes "bounced off the buildings".

The building's facade was "mainly glass".

The aircraft weighed "tens of thousands of tons".

watch how they will now skip your point about the free fall speed and start debunking your 3 lines of retaiation against ronald.

such a classic

whats sickening is people like cough cough are those that actually get into the mainstream and political arenas, because , they are born liars.

weird huh

[bryan]

1. The airplane is gradually ripped to shreds over the duration of the impact. The wreckage will end up coming to rest inside the building or proceeding all the way through the tower before exiting on the other side.


Here you say the aircraft is ripped to shreds. Later you say parts of the plane crumple and the columns fail quickly. It's a vague description and sounds more like a story from the Bible than the result of scientific research. Since we have the specifications of both the building and the aircraft, can the qualified physicists not build a model that would predict in more detail how the shredding, crumpling and column failure would proceed along a timeline? What use is a mathematical model of a 'slug of fuel' hitting a single perimeter column?



2. The parts of the plane that impact the perimeter columns crumple. But the columns fail quickly due to the momentum of the impacting material, and none of the available videos, to my knowlege, show enough detail to clearly see said crumpling.


Which impacting material has the momentum to cause the columns to fail?



3. Of course the plane decelerates. I estimated some of that deceleration in my OP, using some preposterously large estimates for energy required to destroy perimeter columns. I peg the plane's kinetic energy to be equivalent to 1400 pounds of high explosive. At that point during impact when half of that kinetic energy has been dissipated, the plane will still have over 70% of its initial velocity.

The plane is decelerating, but that fact won't be obvious on the available videos either.


In your estimate of the deceleration you forgot to consider that the steel spandrel plates, floor trusses and concrete floor pans would reinforce the columns against the impact.



4. No, it's more likely that fuel would deflagrate inside the building with the fireball expanding outward through the entry hole. Just like we see on the videos.


How do you know the fuel would choose to wait until it was inside the building before igniting? Has Ryan Mackey decreed that it is so?



5. Yes, parts were found on the street below. Including that piece of landing gear you posted a picture of in another thread, and a pretty big chunk of one of the engines.


The parts found in the street supposedly went into the building then were blown back out by the explosion or just continued under their own momentum. No plane parts are to be seen in or around the entry holes.



Of course, the no-planers will counter that the videos are all faked and the mangled airplane parts were all planted, so really, what's the use?


Can you tell us how a tyre can get wedged in a gap that's wider than the tyre itself?



Hey genius, look inside the cockpit of a commercial jet airliner and tell me that there aren't any 'heavy parts' there.


Is the momentum of the heavy parts in the cockpit enough for them to penetrate the wall without the help of the heavier parts in the middle of the plane?

[gamolon]

The impacting material was no more than some aluminium-sheet
tube.

An aluminum sheet tube? You mean just like a pop can? With nothing inside like a reinforcing support structure or mechanical gear to operate the wing flaps? Nothing inside huh? Just air like a can?

:rolleyes:

The real collision would come when the 'heavy parts' hit the building,
And, as anyone undestands, those parts are in the middel of the plane...not in the nose.

So...we should have seen a crumbling front fusilage because it wouldn't punch a hole in that steel tubed wall.


And for the rest you write...just BS.
Just watch the many video's of REAL crashing planes !

So based on your stement that "what everyone understands", aluminum is weaker than steel so should just crush against the steel columns right?

Can you please explain how this works based on "what everyone understands"?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm

Can you please explain how a martial arts expert's hand can smash through a wooden board or cinder block?

[gamolon]

Here you say the aircraft is ripped to shreds. Later you say parts of the plane crumple and the columns fail quickly. It's a vague description and sounds more like a story from the Bible than the result of scientific research.

You have GOT to be kidding me right? You say this to people here about their evidence yet you are allowed to say this:

Are you sure about that? Do we have to know everything the military are capable of before they can use it?

Pot, meet kettle.

:confused:

[gamolon]

You came here a couple of months ago with expert knowledge of the Twin Tower steel cores, yet you don't see anything fishy about the way they collapsed at near freefall speed. :confused:

Let's talk about this bryan. You are asking me if it seems "fishy". How does something become "fishy"? When you compare it to some other events and the event in question does not act the same? In that case, what other event in history are you comparing the towers collpase to? When was there another event involving two 110 storey towers, built with a tube in tube design mode of steel columns, and smashed into by two jets? I can't seem to find a comparsion can you?

1. When you say "near free fall", what is the time frame you are using for that? "Near free fall" is way to vague. Do you have a number in mind?

2. When you say "near free fall" are you speaking of the timne it took for total collapse of the towers?

3. Since you think it looks fishy, how SHOULD the towers collapsed in your mind? What would have been an "unfishy" collapse?

[gamolon]

proof is in the video, were the debris was planted for the
flight 175 there was a abc7 van sitting it had a crane on the roof

Kenny Johannemann and his mossad friends were all gathering about this area
guy in red shirt, guy in grey shirt + another mossad agent smirking
and laughing.

Which video? Link please?

[gamolon]

This is a red herring. The question should be:

If a large commercial jet airliner penetrated the outer wall of a large office building, would we expect to see parts break off the aircraft, would we expect to see crumpling of the front section of fuselage, would we expect to see deceleration, would we expect to see fuel exploding on the outside of the building, and would we expect to see remains of the aircraft around the impact area?

Answer: Yes to all the above.

I believe that to be so, because I've seen hundreds of photos of plane crashes where the plane ends up as a broken, twisted, mangled heap of scrap aluminium alloy.

Really? Can you show me some of these photos that you are using to compar eto the tower events and come up with the conclusion that your above statements are correct? I'd like to see the pictures you have seen of a jet slamming into a 110 storey tower that was a steel, tube in tube design that consisted of perimeter columns and widows that shows me what SHOULD have happened.

Please share.

[goldengoose]

Are you sure about that? Do we have to know everything the military are capable of before they can use it? Even if it was proved that explosives couldn't have been used, there are still other ways to make the hole. I've pointed out before that there was a chopper on the south side of the towers at the time of the second plane impact.

Not having an answer to the question doesn't contradict the theory of no planes. On the other hand, if a plane couldn't have made the hole, there was no plane.




Another lie from Ronald.

I said "at near freefall speed". A while ago I did some calculations using a ridiculously conservative estimate of 16 seconds for the collapse of the towers. In the case of the North Tower, that means over 90 floors fell at an average of 0.168 seconds per floor, or five floors per second. Each time a floor collapsed onto the next one, 47 steel core columns had to fail, on that level alone, in the space of 0.168 seconds.

Ryan Mackey is using Charlie Chaplin physics.


Here are some more lies from Ronald:

No-planers say the planes "bounced off the buildings".

The building's facade was "mainly glass".

The aircraft weighed "tens of thousands of tons".


Mackey is using the same physics used by scientists and engineers all over the world, which is why NOT ONE of them swallows the no-plane madness.


Ronald has told ZERO lies, as you know.


No-planers can't figure out what, in the garbled mockery of real science that prevails on their Bizarro World, the plane should have done. Real scientists understand that the plane HAD TO enter the building exactly as it did. Mackey explained why.

Of course the building's facade was "mostly" glass. Nobody denies that assertion because it is manifestly true. For a while, the no-plane brigade, led by Morgan Reynolds, Joe Keith, and Ace Baker, screamed incoherently about a plane impacting a 200,000 ton building. Eventually, they had the idea pounded into them that the plane didn't hit the whole building. It hit several external columns and a lot of glass. The NIST Report showed what columns were hit and gives their specifications. Such precise knowledge enables serious researchers to set up models and make accurate calculations.

Gee, do you think I might have meant to say, tens of thousands of POUNDS? Do you think that anybody might actually believe that a plane weighing tens of thousands of TONS (would it be half-a-mile long?) could get off the ground? Are slips of the tongue now part of the reptilian overlords' master plan? How desperate does it make you appear to label an obvious mistake as a "lie"?

[goldengoose]

Here you say the aircraft is ripped to shreds. Later you say parts of the plane crumple and the columns fail quickly. It's a vague description and sounds more like a story from the Bible than the result of scientific research. Since we have the specifications of both the building and the aircraft, can the qualified physicists not build a model that would predict in more detail how the shredding, crumpling and column failure would proceed along a timeline? What use is a mathematical model of a 'slug of fuel' hitting a single perimeter column?




Which impacting material has the momentum to cause the columns to fail?




In your estimate of the deceleration you forgot to consider that the steel spandrel plates, floor trusses and concrete floor pans would reinforce the columns against the impact.




How do you know the fuel would choose to wait until it was inside the building before igniting? Has Ryan Mackey decreed that it is so?




The parts found in the street supposedly went into the building then were blown back out by the explosion or just continued under their own momentum. No plane parts are to be seen in or around the entry holes.




Can you tell us how a tyre can get wedged in a gap that's wider than the tyre itself?




Is the momentum of the heavy parts in the cockpit enough for them to penetrate the wall without the help of the heavier parts in the middle of the plane?


You really don't understand any of this, do you?

[bryan]

Pot, meet kettle.

:confused:

Just to remind you of our respective positions:

You are trying to prove a positive, ie that a passenger plane COULD have penetrated the building like we see in the videos.

I am trying to prove a negative, ie that a passenger plane COULD NOT have penetrated the building like we see in the videos.

I don't need to prove what DID cause the damage to the building, although it would be nice to know.


I was looking up Levy and Abboud, who estimated the damage area for one of the diagrams I posted yesterday, and I found a couple of threads on the same topic. In these threads, a poster called Factfinder General destroys the real-planers, who just try to divert the thread by bringing up one red herring after another. It's interesting to note that chek, (presumbably) from the UK 9/11 forum, makes an appearance in the second thread, but doesn't contribute much to the topic.

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=8608&st=0

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=9681&st=0


Here's a gif which Factfinder says is an 'Officially Sanctioned Purdue WTC Impact Simulation'.


http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/1628/purdueaa11sim10mf0.gif


I read the other day about how some simulations show the tail dipping just before it goes into the building, and that's what it appears to do in this gif, unless it's supposed to be perspective.

[gamolon]

Just to remind you of our respective positions:

You are trying to prove a positive, ie that a passenger plane COULD have penetrated the building like we see in the videos.

I am trying to prove a negative, ie that a passenger plane COULD NOT have penetrated the building like we see in the videos.

I don't need to prove what DID cause the damage to the building, although it would be nice to know.

Ummmm, sorry my friend, but you DO need to prove how the damage was caused as it's part of your "plane could not have penetrated the building" theory. If a plane did not penetrate, then how was the damage created?

I see matrix refused to answer my questions concerning the INWARD bends of the columns in his "explosives were used" rationale.

;)

[gamolon]

Then why does it look that way in the video?

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2045/butterplaneyn9.jpg
(Wall looks intact between left engine and fuselage.)

Has anyone zoomed in on that photo? I just did and see darker pixels between the engine and the body.

How come the pixel colors in that area don't match the pixel colors of the "intact walls" from other areas of the building?

[karma_amputee]

What is "supposed to happen" is EXACTLY what the world observed to happen on 9/11.

All the numbers and formulas and debate is pointless.

We saw what happens when a plane hit the WTC...

Twice!! :eek:

[kooskoets]

"The impacting material was no more than aluminum-sheet tube."

If that was a giant soda can hitting the building instead of an airplane you'd be right ...

And if that was a civilian aircraft i'd also be right.


"The real collision would come when the 'heavy parts' hit the building,
And, as anyone undestands, those parts are in the middel of the plane...not in the nose."

Hey genius, look inside the cockpit of a commercial jet airliner and tell me that there aren't any 'heavy parts' there.

Who 's calling me a 'genius' here ?

What's in the cockpit that could be counted as a 'heavy part' like an engine or an full fueltank or a landinggear ?

Nothing he ?
Or you mean a fat pilot ?

B.t.w. : a good airplane design has all the heavy stuff in the middle of the plane. Certainly not in the nose. Just for maneuverability.


"Just watch the many video's of REAL crashing planes !"

Do you know of any that show commercial jets hitting the sides of buildings at upwards of 500 mph? Those are the ones we'd need to look at.

If you think circumstances don't alter cases when it comes to collisions, then I can post a video of a fender-bender people walk away from and use it to argue that Princess Diana shouldn't have been killed in a high speed crash.

Any video of a plane crash...even on water, shows a plane being ripped apart. Stop spreading nonsense of a plane being able to fly trough a steel tube wall without being crunched or without losing large parts.

You're a fairy-tale teller, a non sense well.

[kooskoets]

An aluminum sheet tube? You mean just like a pop can? With nothing inside like a reinforcing support structure or mechanical gear to operate the wing flaps? Nothing inside huh? Just air like a can?

:rolleyes:

What hits the building first : the front fusilage with the nose of the wings with all the heavy parts in the middle ?

Come on...use your brain...



So based on your stement that "what everyone understands", aluminum is weaker than steel so should just crush against the steel columns right?

Can you please explain how this works based on "what everyone understands"?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm


Well, you're just the next dumbo that compares the mechanics of a waterjet with with those of a collision.

If you'd done some research you'd have known that waterjet-cutting in reality is an eroding process. It just slowly grinds through the material, in doesn't 'shoot through it' as you probaly think.


Can you please explain how a martial arts expert's hand can smash through a wooden board or cinder block?

I guess it would be better for you to do some research for yourself.

[kooskoets]

Mackey is using the same physics used by scientists and engineers all over the world, which is why NOT ONE of them swallows the no-plane madness.

You're wrong...as in most of your answers.

If that guy Mackey is using the same physics he should reach the conclusion that what we see on the video's breaks Newtons' laws and thus cannot be real.

It's that simple.

Now you can spend an awfull lot of words on that subject but you cannot break Newtons laws.

And it's safe to conclude that Mackey is just another clown is the wieck-circus.

[gamolon]

Well, you're just the next dumbo that compares the mechanics of a waterjet with with those of a collision.

If you'd done some research you'd have known that waterjet-cutting in reality is an eroding process. It just slowly grinds through the material, in doesn't 'shoot through it' as you probaly think.

Sorry, but I have seen these in action when I was a construction supervisor for a couple if steel projects when they had to cut through large pipes.

What you fail to understand "Dumbo" is that you are using the "aluminum is soft and steel is hard" stance to refute the fact that it couldn't have cut through some of the steel beams. Well, water is WAY more soft than steel so how does it cut it? Did you read the article? Why do they continously use the word "cut". Go back and read.

I guess it would be better for you to do some research for yourself.

Couldn't answer that one either eh? Didn't think you would because it proves your argument null and void.

[kooskoets]

What you fail to understand "Dumbo" is that you are using the "aluminum is soft and steel is hard" stance to refute the fact that it couldn't have cut through some of the steel beams.

I allready knew you're new to physics and i just learned you cannot read either.

I didn't use words like 'soft' or 'hard' nor did i mean to.


Well, water is WAY more soft than steel so how does it cut it? Did you read the article? Why do they continously use the word "cut". Go back and read.

It's NOT cutting...it's an erosive process very much like grinding.

And don't use dumb arguments like if an article says it's cutting it has to be cutting.

It's clearly NOT cutting but it takes a brain to understand that.



Couldn't answer that one either eh? Didn't think you would because it proves your argument null and void.

Why don't you lookup things for yourself ?

[bryan]

Really? Can you show me some of these photos that you are using to compar eto the tower events and come up with the conclusion that your above statements are correct? I'd like to see the pictures you have seen of a jet slamming into a 110 storey tower that was a steel, tube in tube design that consisted of perimeter columns and widows that shows me what SHOULD have happened.

Please share.

You've seen the photos of broken planes and you've seen the photos of the column-spandrel sections that made up the perimeter walls of the towers. Just because a plane had never flown into the towers before, it doesn't mean we can't predict the result of a collision between the two. Even if we'd never seen an elephant stand on a mouse before, we could still have a pretty good guess which one would come off worst.



Of course the building's facade was "mostly" glass. Nobody denies that assertion because it is manifestly true.

The NIST Report showed what columns were hit and gives their specifications. Such precise knowledge enables serious researchers to set up models and make accurate calculations.


Let's take a rectangle that's repeated all over the facade:

Horizontal edge = width of a steel column + width of a gap between two columns

Vertical edge = a floor's height


width of steel column = 14", gap between two columns = 26", height of floor = 144", vertical depth of steel spandrel = 52"


Total area of rectangle = 40 x 144 = 5,760 sq ins.

Area of gap inside of rectangle = 26 x 92 = 2,392 sq ins.

Area of steel inside of rectangle = 5,760 - 2,392 = 3368 sq ins.


Steel = 58% of facade


Ronald says: "building's facade is mostly glass" = Ronald tells lies and Mackey doesn't care.


Has anyone zoomed in on that photo? I just did and see darker pixels between the engine and the body.

How come the pixel colors in that area don't match the pixel colors of the "intact walls" from other areas of the building?

Maybe the fakers added shadow to the cgi to make it look more 'realistic'.


Sorry, but I have seen these in action when I was a construction supervisor for a couple if steel projects when they had to cut through large pipes.

What you fail to understand "Dumbo" is that you are using the "aluminum is soft and steel is hard" stance to refute the fact that it couldn't have cut through some of the steel beams. Well, water is WAY more soft than steel so how does it cut it? Did you read the article? Why do they continously use the word "cut". Go back and read.


If you read the threads on the Pilots For 9/11 Truth forum I linked to before, Factfinder explains that a waterjet cutter has a high-density cross-section, which is characteristic of anything designed as a projectile, like a dart or a missile.

[goldengoose]

You're wrong...as in most of your answers.

If that guy Mackey is using the same physics he should reach the conclusion that what we see on the video's breaks Newtons' laws and thus cannot be real.

It's that simple.

Now you can spend an awfull lot of words on that subject but you cannot break Newtons laws.

And it's safe to conclude that Mackey is just another clown is the wieck-circus.


You are someone who, obviously, has no background in science. Real scientists who actually understand Newton's laws regard the snake oil you peddle as nonsense.

All forty videos showing Flight 175 crashing into the South Tower are authentic. Video compositing expert Steven Wright demolished the bumbling efforts of musician Ace Baker to pretend that the plane shown on the videos and seen by tens of thousands of onlookers was a real time composite.

Mackey is a working scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion laboratory. Your infantile name-calling does not disguise the FACT that you can't dispute a word he says.

[goldengoose]

You've seen the photos of broken planes and you've seen the photos of the column-spandrel sections that made up the perimeter walls of the towers. Just because a plane had never flown into the towers before, it doesn't mean we can't predict the result of a collision between the two. Even if we'd never seen an elephant stand on a mouse before, we could still have a pretty good guess which one would come off worst.




Let's take a rectangle that's repeated all over the facade:

Horizontal edge = width of a steel column + width of a gap between two columns

Vertical edge = a floor's height


width of steel column = 14", gap between two columns = 26", height of floor = 144", vertical depth of steel spandrel = 52"


Total area of rectangle = 40 x 144 = 5,760 sq ins.

Area of gap inside of rectangle = 26 x 92 = 2,392 sq ins.

Area of steel inside of rectangle = 5,760 - 2,392 = 3368 sq ins.


Steel = 58% of facade


Ronald says: "building's facade is mostly glass" = Ronald tells lies and Mackey doesn't care.




Maybe the fakers added shadow to the cgi to make it look more 'realistic'.




If you read the threads on the Pilots For 9/11 Truth forum I linked to before, Factfinder explains that a waterjet cutter has a high-density cross-section, which is characteristic of anything designed as a projectile, like a dart or a missile.


Please stop making a fool of yourself. A NASA scientist showed exactly what happened when a Boeing 767 moving at 500 mph hit the facade of the South Tower. He explained how he derived his equations, and pointed out why his estimates differed slightly from the results NIST got.

Video compositing expert Steven Wright demonstrated that the plane on the Chopper 5 cannot be a composite. The sort of real time compositing posited by the delusional Ace Baker can't be done now, and it certainly couldn't be done seven years ago.

The incompetents at pffft can't analyze anything, much less a complex physics problem.

[kooskoets]

You are someone who, obviously, has no background in science. Real scientists who actually understand Newton's laws regard the snake oil you peddle as nonsense.

i understand physics and cannot be fooled by clowns like Mackey.
( or by you...)


All forty videos showing Flight 175 crashing into the South Tower are authentic. Video compositing expert Steven Wright demolished the bumbling efforts of musician Ace Baker to pretend that the plane shown on the videos and seen by tens of thousands of onlookers was a real time composite.

It's obvious to anybody that those video's are inconsistent. They cannot ALL be real just because of that. Most people will understand now that you can't possibly be telling truth.

Further investigation shows that none of the video's is real however.

You can say a lot about Ace Baker but he's correct when he states the video's that show planes entering buildings ar fake. Same for Simon Shack b.t.w.


Mackey is a working scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion laboratory. Your infantile name-calling does not disguise the FACT that you can't dispute a word he says.

Ah...NASA...that sounds reliable...
(not)

[goldengoose]

i understand physics and cannot be fooled by clowns like Mackey.
( or by you...)



It's obvious to anybody that those video's are inconsistent. They cannot ALL be real just because of that. Most people will understand now that you can't possibly be telling truth.

Further investigation shows that none of the video's is real however.

You can say a lot about Ace Baker but he's correct when he states the video's that show planes entering buildings ar fake. Same for Simon Shack b.t.w.



Ah...NASA...that sounds reliable...
(not)


You give us empty words to disguise your total lack of facts. You know nothing about science. Ace Baker is seriously ill. After he was taken to the woodshed by Steven Wright, he visited Wright's home and was given a free seminar in compositing. He repaid Wright's hospitality by slandering him with vicious and stupid falsehoods.

It remains incontrovertibly true that the sort of real time compositing you require for your absurd fantasy can't be done. There are no inconsistencies--NONE.

You desperately try to pretend that a NASA scientist is a clown, but what's far important is that NO PHYSICIST OR AERONAUTICAL ENGINEER ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD AGREES WITH YOU.

If you can't be fooled by people who know vastly more than you do, how can you be fooled so easily by ignorant agenda-driven dunces?

[goldengoose]

I allready knew you're new to physics and i just learned you cannot read either.

I didn't use words like 'soft' or 'hard' nor did i mean to.



It's NOT cutting...it's an erosive process very much like grinding.

And don't use dumb arguments like if an article says it's cutting it has to be cutting.

It's clearly NOT cutting but it takes a brain to understand that.



Why don't you lookup things for yourself ?


While you're looking up things, find out how a bird can damage a titanium fan blade. That little matter sent the frauds Morgan Reynolds, John Lear, and Joe Keith scurrying for the exits.

[secondsun]

1. How in the world did they use explosives to create an INWARD dent in the aluminum cladding on the two columns to the extreme left of the above photo's inset?

...Gamolon said!

...was going to ask the very same question but could`nt be bothered with those w*****!

...they cant answer of course!... there were no window boxes full Geraniums to hide any explosives!

...;)

...any no planers want to try and explain the gashes/dents.... you seemed to have passed it over.... no surprise there!!!

[secondsun]

While you're looking up things, find out how a bird can damage a titanium fan blade.

...posted this before but just for reference!

BIRD VS. JET ENGINE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&hl=en-GB&v=y2OS2pwrZTI&feature=related)

[gamolon]

I allready knew you're new to physics and i just learned you cannot read either.

I didn't use words like 'soft' or 'hard' nor did i mean to.



It's NOT cutting...it's an erosive process very much like grinding.

And don't use dumb arguments like if an article says it's cutting it has to be cutting.

It's clearly NOT cutting but it takes a brain to understand that.



Why don't you lookup things for yourself ?

Don't be stupid now. You KNOW you were implying that aluminum is MUCH weaker than steel AND that is was also formed into am empty tube just to try and make your argument sound more plausible to people reading it. You try and make it sound like it's impossible for a weaker material to slice through a stornger one.

Eroded/cut, whatever. The fact remains that your weaker material vs. stronger material is bullshit.

Since you "think" you have an answer to the water scenario, then explain how a hand can break wood board or a cinder block. I see you try and evade that question with your typical "go look it up yourself" crap. You can't use your argument that the "hand is eroding the board or cinder block".

So Mr. "I have a brain and you don't", please explain how this is possible in your world.

[bryan]

Since you "think" you have an answer to the water scenario, then explain how a hand can break wood board or a cinder block. I see you try and evade that question with your typical "go look it up yourself" crap. You can't use your argument that the "hand is eroding the board or cinder block".


Karate is mind over matter. Are you claiming that a Boeing 767 can concentrate?

[slartibartfast]

Karate is mind over matter. Are you claiming that a Boeing 767 can concentrate?

No it's physics...

[gamolon]

You've seen the photos of broken planes and you've seen the photos of the column-spandrel sections that made up the perimeter walls of the towers. Just because a plane had never flown into the towers before, it doesn't mean we can't predict the result of a collision between the two. Even if we'd never seen an elephant stand on a mouse before, we could still have a pretty good guess which one would come off worst.

You are correct.

The problem is, they HAVE shown you what happens. You just refuse to believe what they say because you'd rather put your beliefs into a video capture that supposedly shows a fake plane.

I'll ask you again. If the plane was fake, how did they accomplish the inward bends of the columns? How did they dent the aluminum cladding towards the end of the wing tips? How did they manage to match PERFECTLY the damage pattern of the plane with fake plane? Meaning the most damage is in the center where there was the stringest part of the plane and the damage LESSENS to dents at the weakest (wingtips).

You have no problem speculating about fake planes and demolition, but you can't speculate as to how the damage was faked? Maybe it's because it kind of shows your thinking to be flawed?

Can I ask you how they also coordinated the MOVING SOUND of the jet with the "fake" plane that everyone saw? Did they have a large speaker on to the "fake" plane...oh wait... Maybe is was a van with a speaker on top crusing down the road...

:rolleyes:

Let me ask you a question bryan. Have you ever looked for evidence to disprove a fake plane or do you just read and believe what is said and try and prove it correct? You see, I do both. I look at all theories. What I find is that the official story covers all the bases. For example, your fake plane theory. Yeah the video capture looks fake. So you take the real plane out of the equation. Now your stuck with how the damage to the columns bent inward and dents in the aluminum cladding was produced.

You are the typical conspiracy theorist. Let's look at a few other conspiracy groups/people:

1. You. You take your theory up to a certain point and then when the hard questions come in about it, you give the "I don't need to explain how the damage was created" excuse. Why? Wouldn't it benefit your theory to come up with somehting plausible?

2. PFT. They say that no plane hit the Pentagon yet whe asked to provide witnesses/photos to a flyover, they balk and say "we're just asking question", yet go no further.

3. Christophera. I have asked him to provide me with a floor plan of his core to show everyone that it is possible to fit everything that was in the core at the lobby level into it with proper clearances and he refuses? Why? It would further prove his point. Yet what does he do? Make excuses as to why he won't.

4. All you guys with your "aluminum can't slice through a steel column" garbage. Yet when I ask you, using your same logic, to explain how a hand can snap a wooden board or break a cinder block, I get the "look it up yourself' crap.

5. When I provide photos that disprove things, i'm called an agent and that they were photoshopped although they cannot provide proof.

6. Whenever Mackey provides mathematical proof to support his claims, all people can do is call him a "retard" and say he's full of crap and continue to believe "common sense". Common sense would seem to tell me that a tower standing 110 storeys would come crashing down in a strong wind but thousands of people trusted engineers and theor math that it wouldn't. Now all of a sudden engineers and math don;t cut it because you don't want to believe them?

Do you see a pattern here? I sure do. Whenever you guys are asked tough questions, you turn tail and run. When people on the other side of your theories are aksed questions, we try and provide answers.

Why is there such a difference? Why do you guys avoid questions that my prove you wrong, yet we don't?

[gamolon]

Karate is mind over matter. Are you claiming that a Boeing 767 can concentrate?

:eek:

You're kidding me right?

So guess in the "bird and the titanium fanblade scenario", the brid "concentrated" real hard?

Just another example of you being asked a question that goes against your thinking and you supply a goofy answer without any real proof.

It goes on and on.

[goldengoose]

Karate is mind over matter. Are you claiming that a Boeing 767 can concentrate?


Yeah, right. Concentrate and chant as much as you like. If you fail to generate sufficient momentum with your hand, the brick won't break and you will yelp in pain.

[gamolon]

Still haven't gotten an answer on the discolored part of the photo between the body of the jet and the jet engine. I though the perimeter walls show right through on the photo proving that the plane is fake?

Well, I went in and did some color sampling. I zoomed in on the picture, took a color sample from two different areas of the perimeter columns away from the plane, and then put those samples in between the engine and the body.

Guess what? They don't match. There is clearly something there between the engine and the body or the colors would match the other samples of the perimeter columns.

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/butterplaneyn9b.jpg

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/butterplaneyn9a.jpg

Apparently, those aren't the perimieter column walls, but something else. Hmmmm. What could it be that discolors that area?

[kooskoets]

Don't be stupid now. You KNOW you were implying that aluminum is MUCH weaker than steel AND that is was also formed into am empty tube just to try and make your argument sound more plausible to people reading it. You try and make it sound like it's impossible for a weaker material to slice through a stornger one.

Again : i never used terms like 'soft' or 'hard' 'cus i didn't mean to.

OK ?

Cut the crap please.


Eroded/cut, whatever. The fact remains that your weaker material vs. stronger material is bullshit.

Well....the difference between eroding and cutting is rather large....but you won't see it without a proper understanding of the physics.

The weaker material will NEVER be able to CUT a stronger material. It's possible to ERODE the harder material away using a weaker material.

So....
-airplane CUTTING through STEEL towerwall==IMPOSSIBLE.
-lots of airplanes ERODING a hole in STEEL wall == POSSIBLE.

Now...write that down on a piece of paper so you won't forget.



Since you "think" you have an answer to the water scenario, then explain how a hand can break wood board or a cinder block. I see you try and evade that question with your typical "go look it up yourself" crap. You can't use your argument that the "hand is eroding the board or cinder block".

So Mr. "I have a brain and you don't", please explain how this is possible in your world.

Hmmm...i'll leave that one as homework for you.

Now you finally understand the difference between ERODING and CUTTING it's a good training for your mind. Don' let it fall asleep again.

[gamolon]

Karate is mind over matter. Are you claiming that a Boeing 767 can concentrate?

Just so you are aware:

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scdiroff/lds/NewtonianMechanics/KarateBlow/KarateBlow.html

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2613/how-do-martial-artists-break-boards-and-bricks-using-only-their-bare-hands

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1246689/martial_arts_how_to_break_boards_and.html

There you go all you physics experts. Since some of you are to chicken to do research that my refute your garbage claims, I did it for you.

Have fun.

[gamolon]

Again : i never used terms like 'soft' or 'hard' 'cus i didn't mean to.

OK ?

Cut the crap please.



Well....the difference between eroding and cutting is rather large....but you won't see it without a proper understanding of the physics.

The weaker material will NEVER be able to CUT a stronger material. It's possible to ERODE the harder material away using a weaker material.

So....
-airplane CUTTING through STEEL towerwall==IMPOSSIBLE.
-lots of airplanes ERODING a hole in STEEL wall == POSSIBLE.

Now...write that down on a piece of paper so you won't forget.




Hmmm...i'll leave that one as homework for you.

Now you finally understand the difference between ERODING and CUTTING it's a good training for your mind. Don' let it fall asleep again.

So now we're at the "terms used" part of the debate I see. A plane can't CUT or ERODE through a steel beam.

I'll play your wicked game Trebek.

A plane wing can certainly "SNAP" a column into two pieces given enough MOMENTUM/FORCE. Just like the post above explaining how a hand can break boards or cinder blocks.

Go read genius. Maybe you'll learn something about our real world here.

;)

[kooskoets]

You give us empty words to disguise your total lack of facts. You know nothing about science. Ace Baker is seriously ill. After he was taken to the woodshed by Steven Wright, he visited Wright's home and was given a free seminar in compositing. He repaid Wright's hospitality by slandering him with vicious and stupid falsehoods.

It remains incontrovertibly true that the sort of real time compositing you require for your absurd fantasy can't be done. There are no inconsistencies--NONE.

You desperately try to pretend that a NASA scientist is a clown, but what's far important is that NO PHYSICIST OR AERONAUTICAL ENGINEER ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD AGREES WITH YOU.

If you can't be fooled by people who know vastly more than you do, how can you be fooled so easily by ignorant agenda-driven dunces?


Now...you've allready been exposed as someone that cannot possibly speak the truth. Still...you keep them lies coming...

-You know nothing about science

Even if that was the truth YOU wouldn't be able to notice.

-Ace Baker is seriously ill.

Even if that was the truth YOU wouldn't be able to notice.

-There are no inconsistencies--NONE.

That is an outright lie and you know it. ( ...and probably don't care 'cuz you've allready been outed as a disinformer )

-NO PHYSICIST OR AERONAUTICAL ENGINEER ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD AGREES WITH YOU.

Even if that was the truth YOU wouldn't be able to know that. Or did you ask them all ?

See...

[gamolon]

i understand physics and cannot be fooled by clowns like Mackey.
( or by you...)

Obviously you don't when you make claims that a reinforced aluminum plane wing, given enough momentum, cannot snap a steel column because "common sense" tells us that aluminum isn't as strong as steel.

You didn't even have the balls to look up the physics for how a hand can break a wooden board or cinder block because it proves your claim wrong.

Yeah, you understand physics...

;)

[gamolon]

Well....the difference between eroding and cutting is rather large....but you won't see it without a proper understanding of the physics.

The weaker material will NEVER be able to CUT a stronger material.

Bolding mine.

Then explain what type of action it is when a hand goes through a wooden board or cinder block?

Eroding
Cutting
Breaking
Snapping

Which term do we use here Mr. Phyics to describe a hand going through a board/cinder block and a plane wing going through a steel beam.

Just so you know, here area few links to the PHYSICS behind karate and breaking boards and cinder blocks.

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scdiroff...arateBlow.html

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...eir-bare-hands

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...oards_and.html

[goldengoose]

Again : i never used terms like 'soft' or 'hard' 'cus i didn't mean to.

OK ?

Cut the crap please.



Well....the difference between eroding and cutting is rather large....but you won't see it without a proper understanding of the physics.

The weaker material will NEVER be able to CUT a stronger material. It's possible to ERODE the harder material away using a weaker material.

So....
-airplane CUTTING through STEEL towerwall==IMPOSSIBLE.
-lots of airplanes ERODING a hole in STEEL wall == POSSIBLE.

Now...write that down on a piece of paper so you won't forget.




Hmmm...i'll leave that one as homework for you.

Now you finally understand the difference between ERODING and CUTTING it's a good training for your mind. Don' let it fall asleep again.


We've established that you can't understand how a plane cuts a steel column, a bird damages a titanium fan blade, or a human hand breaks a brick. Many ordinary people, not just physicists and engineers, are capable of understanding basic science. Why doesn't it trouble you that processing new information is beyond your powers?

[goldengoose]

Now...you've allready been exposed as someone that cannot possibly speak the truth. Still...you keep them lies coming...

-You know nothing about science

Even if that was the truth YOU wouldn't be able to notice.

-Ace Baker is seriously ill.

Even if that was the truth YOU wouldn't be able to notice.

-There are no inconsistencies--NONE.

That is an outright lie and you know it. ( ...and probably don't care 'cuz you've allready been outed as a disinformer )

-NO PHYSICIST OR AERONAUTICAL ENGINEER ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD AGREES WITH YOU.

Even if that was the truth YOU wouldn't be able to know that. Or did you ask them all ?

See...



Really? Who exposed me? I don't believe you. I think you've been caught lying again. There are no "inconsistencies" in the various mainstream accounts of the events of 9/11/01. The fantasy movement has certainly proved unable to find any.

I am able to recognize your abysmal ignorance of basic physics because I have made an effort to understand the explanations provided by real scientists, something you are apparently incapable of doing.

No conspiracy liar has ever caught me in a lie and none ever will. No physicist or aeronautical engineer anywhere in the world buys into your absurd fantasy, but you are not troubled by that FACT. Why not?

[gamolon]

Cut the crap please.

Do I need a knife or torch for this? Is it crap that's been in the yard for weeks or fresh crap?

[bryan]

Do I need a knife or torch for this? Is it crap that's been in the yard for weeks or fresh crap?

Is this the same gamolon who was so methodical and logical when he was debunking the concrete core theory? Is it the same gamolon who said he hadn't looked into the NPT and didn't have an opinion on it? It's getting harder and harder to spot the difference between gamolon's posts and goldengoose's posts. Has Ron lowered the tone so much?

[gamolon]

Is this the same gamolon who was so methodical and logical when he was debunking the concrete core theory? Is it the same gamolon who said he hadn't looked into the NPT and didn't have an opinion on it? It's getting harder and harder to spot the difference between gamolon's posts and goldengoose's posts. Has Ron lowered the tone so much?

I'm not allowed to try my hand at a little humor? I'm deeply hurt.

[bryan]

I'm not allowed to try my hand at a little humor? I'm deeply hurt.

It's all your posts. You've turned into a parody of Ronald Wieck.

[goldengoose]

It's all your posts. You've turned into a parody of Ronald Wieck.


You never get around to telling us why it's impossible for you to learn anything from a working scientist. What do you know that he doesn't, and how did you learn it?

[secondsun]

You never get around to telling us why it's impossible for you to learn anything from a working scientist

...so authority is truth is it?


...thats how we all got in this mess in the first place!


...we have, since birth, been conditioned to accept `AUTHORITY AS TRUTH`!


...BIGGEST MISTAKE WE ALL EVER MADE!


...not that we knew it at the time!... but hence the awakening process!... but we know not who to trust... i trust myself and my own logic and my abilities to think for myself again!


...how do you know what, or to who, your `working scientist` allegiance is truly placed?

[bryan]

You never get around to telling us why it's impossible for you to learn anything from a working scientist. What do you know that he doesn't, and how did you learn it?

I learned it from a genius.


To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

[slartibartfast]

I learned it from a genius.

You need to expand Newton to apply it to your theory...

P.S. Your Sig. The guy appears to be a retired Economics Professor. Presumably not a lot of experience in Physics.

[bryan]

...so authority is truth is it?
...thats how we all got in this mess in the first place!
...we have, since birth, been conditioned to accept `AUTHORITY AS TRUTH`!
...BIGGEST MISTAKE WE ALL EVER MADE!
...not that we knew it at the time!... but hence the awakening process!... but we know not who to trust... i trust myself and my own logic and my abilities to think for myself again!
...how do you know what, or to who, your `working scientist` allegiance is truly placed?

Secondsun, you are one of the few real-planers who stands up to people like Ron Wieck and Christopher Brown. Mynameis, for example, welcomes them on board just because they enjoy bashing NPT.

You and me don't see eye to eye, but I respect you for that.



P.S. Your Sig. The guy appears to be a retired Economics Professor. Presumably not a lot of experience in Physics.

Frank Greening is a British-born nuclear chemist, based in Canada.

Are you thinking of Morgan Reynolds?

[gamolon]

It's all your posts. You've turned into a parody of Ronald Wieck.

Hey bryan, why is it that you make a claim, I prove it wrong, and then you proceed to post stupid remarks instead of trying to come back with some logical explanation as to why your claim is STILL correct or why my proof is wrong?

Typical.

I find it quite humorous that most of you conspiracy people make a claim and then when proof is provided to the contrary, you all scatter into the wind.

I'll ask again.

Bryan's claim (and others) is that a weaker material cannot break/cut/snap and stronger material. If that were true, then how can a bird break a titanium fanblade? How can a hand smash snap a wooden board or cinder block?

C'mon Mr. "I taught myself phyics so I know what I am talking about." Answer the question and defend your claim. Like I have said before. You are just like any other typical conspiracy theorist. When proof is provided that a claim you make is wrong, you turn tail and run or try and change the subject.

[bryan]

I'll ask again.

Bryan's claim (and others) is that a weaker material cannot break/cut/snap and stronger material. If that were true, then how can a bird break a titanium fanblade? How can a hand smash snap a wooden board or cinder block?


My claim (and others) is that a large passenger aircraft cannot penetrate the wall of a steel-framed and concrete-floored building without sections of the plane folding up and parts breaking off. I (and others) have no problem with the idea that certain heavy parts of the plane could have broken through the wall.

Unfortunately, the expression 'aluminium can't cut steel' is often used as a sound bite for the above position, and it's more convenient for you to challenge the apparent implication that a weaker material can't break a stronger material. Titanium fan-blades, karate chops, and waterjet cutters are red herrings. They've been explained countless times, yet you still bring them up, even though they're not relevant.

Have you worked out why the vertical stabilizer didn't fall off?

[slartibartfast]

My claim (and others) is that a large passenger aircraft cannot penetrate the wall of a steel-framed and concrete-floored building without sections of the plane folding up and parts breaking off. I (and others) have no problem with the idea that certain heavy parts of the plane could have broken through the wall.

Unfortunately, the expression 'aluminium can't cut steel' is often used as a sound bite for the above position, and it's more convenient for you to challenge the apparent implication that a weaker material can't break a stronger material. Titanium fan-blades, karate chops, and waterjet cutters are red herrings. They've been explained countless times, yet you still bring them up, even though they're not relevant.

Have you worked out why the vertical stabilizer didn't fall off?

The big bit you seem to be missing is the velocity, if you could fly the aircraft into the build at 20mph the results would be very different. The reduction to 0mph would have been quicker etc.

If a bullet hit you at 5mph it would bounce off at 500mph it wouldn't. Same bullet, same body.

[guntherznads]

The big bit you seem to be missing is the velocity, if you could fly the aircraft into the build at 20mph the results would be very different. The reduction to 0mph would have been quicker etc.

If a bullet hit you at 5mph it would bounce off at 500mph it wouldn't. Same bullet, same body.

If you threw a glass bottle against a brick wall at 30 mph the bottle would break

But I guess if you could throw the same glass bottle at 500mph it would glide into the wall effortlessly without slowing down only to then completely vaporize once inside the wall.

Of course you'd have to make believe that glass bottles are capable of traveling at 500mph at sea level.

[gamolon]

My claim (and others) is that a large passenger aircraft cannot penetrate the wall of a steel-framed and concrete-floored building without sections of the plane folding up and parts breaking off. I (and others) have no problem with the idea that certain heavy parts of the plane could have broken through the wall.

Unfortunately, the expression 'aluminium can't cut steel' is often used as a sound bite for the above position, and it's more convenient for you to challenge the apparent implication that a weaker material can't break a stronger material. Titanium fan-blades, karate chops, and waterjet cutters are red herrings. They've been explained countless times, yet you still bring them up, even though they're not relevant.

Have you worked out why the vertical stabilizer didn't fall off?

:rolleyes:

The point is, the plane had enough momentum to penetrate the outside perimeter steel columned and GLASS wall. Are you aware that the floors were 4" thick poured concrete? How in the hell would a couple of 4" inch thick concrete floor slabs resist a jet slamming into them? Are you serious?

You are not slamming a plane into a SOLID, 1' thick steel wall. Which is why I bring up a hand breaking a board or cinder block. Which is why others have brought up the bird and titanium fanblade.

The plane is not a hollow aluminum tube made of a thin aluminum skin. There is struture inside the plane to create support and stability.

Why do you think the damage LESSENS from the central point of inpact to the tips of the wings? The wings GET SMALLER as you move from the bodt to the wing tips.

That is why the very end of the wings only DENTED the aluminum cladding.

I'll ask you again. Should the plane have completely compress against the steel column and glass perimeter facade and then fall to the ground? Is that what you think should have happened?

[gamolon]

If you threw a glass bottle against a brick wall at 30 mph the bottle would break

But I guess if you could throw the same glass bottle at 500mph it would glide into the wall effortlessly without slowing down only to then completely vaporize once inside the wall.

Of course you'd have to make believe that glass bottles are capable of traveling at 500mph at sea level.

Perfect example bryan. The fragile material against the stronger material.

Guntherznads, using your logic, how then does a HAND break a wooden board or cinder block then?

1. In your scenario above, does the glass bottle have a reinforcing structure like the inside of a plane?

2. In your scenario above, the concrete wall is FAR different than the perimeter column structure of the towers. The perimieter facades where NOT solid like a concrete wall, but consisted of HOLLOW steel columns with GLASS windows between them.

3. What if I shot a baseball out of a cannon at a 2" thick concrete wall? Do you think it would break it?

[slartibartfast]

If you threw a glass bottle against a brick wall at 30 mph the bottle would break

But I guess if you could throw the same glass bottle at 500mph it would glide into the wall effortlessly without slowing down only to then completely vaporize once inside the wall.

Of course you'd have to make believe that glass bottles are capable of traveling at 500mph at sea level.

a) Yes
b) Never Tried it
c) Why shouldn't they?

[guntherznads]

Perfect example bryan. The fragile material against the stronger material.

Guntherznads, using your logic, how then does a HAND break a wooden board or cinder block then?

1. In your scenario above, does the glass bottle have a reinforcing structure like the inside of a plane?

2. In your scenario above, the concrete wall is FAR different than the perimeter column structure of the towers. The perimieter facades where NOT solid like a concrete wall, but consisted of HOLLOW steel columns with GLASS windows between them.

3. What if I shot a baseball out of a cannon at a 2" thick concrete wall? Do you think it would break it?

A baseball is comparable to a Boeing 767 in your mind? I think a tennis ball would make a little more sense....baseballs aren't hollow....planes are thin skinned and hollow.
If a 767 sat on the ground and you dropped the the S. tower onto it....what would happen? Would the plane end up inside the building or smashed under it?
Doesn't matter anyways because a 767 can't fly at the speeds that they claimed to have been traveling at sea level. So that alone proves that the images of 175 are hoaxes.

[slartibartfast]

A baseball is comparable to a Boeing 767 in your mind? I think a tennis ball would make a little more sense....baseballs aren't hollow....planes are thin skinned and hollow.
If a 767 sat on the ground and you dropped the the S. tower onto it....what would happen? Would the plane end up inside the building or smashed under it?
Doesn't matter anyways because a 767 can't fly at the speeds that they claimed to have been traveling at sea level. So that alone proves that the images of 175 are hoaxes.

Planes are not hollow...Interlaced with supporting structures.

Where is your proof of the 767 not being able to fly at over 500 mph.

[guntherznads]

Planes are not hollow...Interlaced with supporting structures.

Where is your proof of the 767 not being able to fly at over 500 mph.

Where is your proof that they can? I don't have to prove shit...believe whatever you want....I don't care.
now check out my hella dope vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FexUxgCL3CE

[bryan]

The point is, the plane had enough momentum to penetrate the outside perimeter steel columned and GLASS wall.


You're still talking about whether the plane could penetrate the wall. I've said that some parts of the plane might do, other parts definitely wouldn't.

Do you agree that the wall was 58% steel?



Are you aware that the floors were 4" thick poured concrete? How in the hell would a couple of 4" inch thick concrete floor slabs resist a jet slamming into them? Are you serious?


I addressed this the other day. In the photos of the hole, some of the perimeter columns have been completely fractured between two floors, yet the spandrel plates above and below the fracture haven't moved. That means the steel gave way before the concrete.



You are not slamming a plane into a SOLID, 1' thick steel wall. Which is why I bring up a hand breaking a board or cinder block. Which is why others have brought up the bird and titanium fanblade.


Each different part of the plane would have affected its respective column to a different degree. That's why it's misleading to treat the impact as a single object with a certain mass colliding with another object at a certain velocity.



The plane is not a hollow aluminum tube made of a thin aluminum skin. There is struture inside the plane to create support and stability.


Which part of the structure is rigid enough to transfer the kinetic energy from the wings to the perimeter columns?



Why do you think the damage LESSENS from the central point of inpact to the tips of the wings? The wings GET SMALLER as you move from the bodt to the wing tips.

That is why the very end of the wings only DENTED the aluminum cladding.


What happened to the parts of the wing that only dented the aluminium cladding. Should they not have broken off?



I'll ask you again. Should the plane have completely compress against the steel column and glass perimeter facade and then fall to the ground? Is that what you think should have happened?


There should have been parts inside the building, parts outside the building, and maybe parts half-in and half-out.

[bryan]

Where is your proof that they can? I don't have to prove shit...believe whatever you want....I don't care.
now check out my hella dope vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FexUxgCL3CE

I noticed in that video at [1:07] that the sun is shining on the top part of the nose out, while the bottom part is in shadow. Would that be possible if it was debris?

[gamolon]

A baseball is comparable to a Boeing 767 in your mind? I think a tennis ball would make a little more sense....baseballs aren't hollow....planes are thin skinned and hollow.

You're kidding right? Please tell me you're kidding.

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/boeing2.jpg

Does that wing look hollow to you? Or is there a structure inside used to reinforce the "thin aluminum skin"? What about the mechanical aspect of controlling the flaps and such.

Hollow. Like an aluminum can.

:rolleyes:

[gamolon]

Each different part of the plane would have affected its respective column to a different degree.

DING DING DING!!!!!! We have a winner folks. Thank you for providing the statement that AGREES with the fact that a plane made the damage pattern!!!!

http://i44.tinypic.com/esudqb.jpg

Let's see. Each part of the plane would have affected it's respective column to a DIFFERENT DEGREE.

Hmmm...

1. At the wing tip, dented aluminum cladding
2. Moving inward toward the body, the plane wing gets wider. Oh Look!!! The aluminum cladding has noe been dislodged!
3. Move inward even more as the wing gets even wider. Yup, now the columns have been split and bent INWARD.
4. Move in closer towrds the body. On no! Columns have been removed and the entry point is at it's biggest! Was the engine there also?

:D

[gamolon]

What happened to the parts of the wing that only dented the aluminium cladding. Should they not have broken off?




There should have been parts inside the building, parts outside the building, and maybe parts half-in and half-out.

Take a look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgIZri5lT68

How do you know that the pieces/objects falling from the left side of the tower are not pieces of the jet?

You don't see debris falling on the left side here either?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrG_w1I2dWQ

You don't see pieces of debris falling in this video either?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XELamUnF0EU

Are you telling me that none of that debris is from the jet?

[bryan]

1. At the wing tip, dented aluminum cladding
2. Moving inward toward the body, the plane wing gets wider. Oh Look!!! The aluminum cladding has noe been dislodged!
3. Move inward even more as the wing gets even wider. Yup, now the columns have been split and bent INWARD.
4. Move in closer towrds the body. On no! Columns have been removed and the entry point is at it's biggest! Was the engine there also?


Just the kind of list that would be useful to anyone wanting to make a plane-shaped hole in a building.

5. A gash for the vertical stabilizer to pass through.

Oops! Forgot about that one.


DING DING DING!!!!!! We have a winner folks. Thank you for providing the statement that AGREES with the fact that a plane made the damage pattern!!!!

Let's see. Each part of the plane would have affected it's respective column to a DIFFERENT DEGREE.


So why are the physics departments not interested in constructing different models for the different parts of the plane? They could choose the part of the plane that would be least likely to break the columns, and build one model that would make all the others redundant. Instead, they base their models on the engines or the fuel tanks.

Of course we know why they don't do that. It's because they have to assume even before they design the model that the planes penetrated the buildings. All the models are circular and prove nothing.

[gamolon]

You're still talking about whether the plane could penetrate the wall. I've said that some parts of the plane might do, other parts definitely wouldn't.

Do you agree that the wall was 58% steel?

Where'd you get that figure from?

[tabea_blumenschein]

So why are the physics departments not interested in constructing different models for the different parts of the plane? They could choose the part of the plane that would be least likely to break the columns, and build one model that would make all the others redundant. Instead, they base their models on the engines or the fuel tanks.

Hey bryan, isn't a slug of jet fuel[b] the part of an airplane that would be LEAST likely to break a column? And isn't [b]a slug of jet fuel what Ryan Mackey used to build his model?

Walked right into that one, didn't you? :D

[secondsun]

...Bryan i feel... is due to depart!?.... but will return again under a different identity i`m sure!

...but i might be wrong!

...;)

[bryan]

Where'd you get that figure from?

Width of column = 14"

Width of gap = 26"

Height of floor = 144"

Depth of spandrel = 52"

I'm sure I posted the calculations the other day, but I can't find which thread it was now!


Hey bryan, isn't a slug of jet fuel[b] the part of an airplane that would be LEAST likely to break a column? And isn't [b]a slug of jet fuel what Ryan Mackey used to build his model?

Walked right into that one, didn't you? :D

A 'slug of fuel' is a figment of somebody's imagination, but conveniently for Mackey, it has relatively high mass compared to an aluminium shell.


...Bryan i feel... is due to depart!?)

You WISH!!!

[xray_spex]

Impacts to trees during hurricane Andrew
http://www.floridadisaster.org/mitigation/rcmp/HRG/images/openings/board_in_tree_large.jpg

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/116676main_plank_palm_lg.jpg

[bryan]

Impacts to trees during hurricane Andrew
http://www.floridadisaster.org/mitigation/rcmp/HRG/images/openings/board_in_tree_large.jpg

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/116676main_plank_palm_lg.jpg

Wow! They've played their ace!

[goldengoose]

Hey bryan, isn't a slug of jet fuel[b] the part of an airplane that would be LEAST likely to break a column? And isn't [b]a slug of jet fuel what Ryan Mackey used to build his model?

Walked right into that one, didn't you? :D


Ding-ding-ding-ding! WE HAVE A WINNER!

The no-planers never get around to explaining why real scientists, such as Mackey, are concerned to establish MINIMUMS in velocity and mass. When we want to know if a plane going 500 mph will break a steel column, it helps to know why a plane going 200 mph will break that column.

[goldengoose]

Width of column = 14"

Width of gap = 26"

Height of floor = 144"

Depth of spandrel = 52"

I'm sure I posted the calculations the other day, but I can't find which thread it was now!




A 'slug of fuel' is a figment of somebody's imagination, but conveniently for Mackey, it has relatively high mass compared to an aluminium shell.




You WISH!!!


Your desperation grows more apparent with each post. Why on earth is a slug of fuel a figment of somebody's imagination? Granted, you can't begin to comprehend how a scientist approaches a problem, but surely you recognize that a commercial airliner carries roughly 10,000 gallons of fuel. If we deliberately take a very small unit of that fuel--call it "a slug"--and assign mass and velocity to it, we can calculate its effects in collision with another object with known properties.

[supersmell]

I don't have time to do it, but I think it shouldn't be too hard to use recorded values of the impact toughness of steel to get a more accurate value for the amount of energy needed to break the columns than your TNT estimates.

[goldengoose]

I don't have time to do it, but I think it shouldn't be too hard to use recorded values of the impact toughness of steel to get a more accurate value for the amount of energy needed to break the columns than your TNT estimates.



Why do you think a NASA scientist's explanation is wrong? Do you understand that Mackey is concerned with how other scientists and engineers regard his work? If an angry, empty-headed adolescent spouts nonsense, Mackey doesn't care. If another professional in his field finds something wrong, he cares.

[bryan]

TNT estimates = smoke & mirrors

[supersmell]

I don't think Mackey is wrong, I think Tabea's decision that it takes 5 pounds of TNT per column seems pretty arbitrary.

[tabea_blumenschein]

I don't think Mackey is wrong, I think Tabea's decision that it takes 5 pounds of TNT per column seems pretty arbitrary.

Not really arbitrary. Of course the actual energy required to cause failure of a perimeter column is far less than the one I was using. But please understand what my intentions were. The no-planer argument is that the airplane can't completely penetrate the outer wall because the steel perimeter columns are too robust. But even the world's stupidest no-planer can understand - without a model, a mathematical equation or a real-world test - that anything equivalent to 11 pounds of high explosive is damn well going to demolish one of those columns. So when I wrote that opening post I was trying to show the no-planers - using numbers even THEY can understand - that the plane is going to destroy the perimeter columns without slowing down much at all.

I could have used Weirzbicki's figure of 1.139 gigajoules to destroy a perimeter column, but the no-planers no doubt would have argued that Weirzbicki's estimates are way too low or unreliable. Ditto for other published estimates. So I felt like I had to use a rather preposterous figure to keep the no-planers here from questioning it.

It's water under the bridge now, but I probably should have at least pointed out in my OP that I was budgeting far more energy to destroy each column than published estimates say is required. I guess I deserve a rap on the knuckles for that.

[stannrodd]

TNT estimates = smoke & mirrors

Proof ?

Stann

[bryan]

I could have used Weirzbicki's figure of 1.139 gigajoules to destroy a perimeter column, but the no-planers no doubt would have argued that Weirzbicki's estimates are way too low or unreliable.

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center
Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X


Résumé / Abstract
The problem of the airplane wing cutting through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center is treated analytically. The exterior columns are thin-walled box beam made of high strength steel. The complex structure of the airplane is lumped into another box, but it has been found that the equivalent thickness of the box is an order of magnitude larger than the column thickness. The problem can be then modeled as an impact of a rigid mass traveling with the velocity of 240 m/s into a hollow box-like vertical member. The deformation and failure process is very local and is broken into three phases: shearing of the impacting flange; tearing of side webs; and tensile fracture of the rear flange. Using the exact dynamic solution in the membrane deformation mode, the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted flange was calculated to be 155 m/s for both flat and round impacting mass. Therefore, the wing would easily cut through the outer column. It was also found that the energy absorbed by plastic deformation and fracture of the ill-fated column is only 6.7% of the initial kinetic energy of the wing.


http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14655835


Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Mohammed R. Karim and Michelle S. Hoo Fatt


in Wierzbicki and Teng (2003), the wing was assumed to be a rigid body.


http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geumADT89JVE0B7BeDBqMX;_ylu=X3oDMTBwMjNqdWV sBHBndANhdHdfd2ViX3Jlc3VsdARzZWMDc3I-/SIG=124rnsn9d/EXP=1238409347/**http%3a//home.comcast.net/~fszwtnj/impactwtc.pdf


Does anybody know where I can download any of Wierzbicki's papers? I'd like to be able to quote directly.

[supersmell]

Not really arbitrary. Of course the actual energy required to cause failure of a perimeter column is far less than the one I was using. But please understand what my intentions were. The no-planer argument is that the airplane can't completely penetrate the outer wall because the steel perimeter columns are too robust. But even the world's stupidest no-planer can understand - without a model, a mathematical equation or a real-world test - that anything equivalent to 11 pounds of high explosive is damn well going to demolish one of those columns. So when I wrote that opening post I was trying to show the no-planers - using numbers even THEY can understand - that the plane is going to destroy the perimeter columns without slowing down much at all.

I could have used Weirzbicki's figure of 1.139 gigajoules to destroy a perimeter column, but the no-planers no doubt would have argued that Weirzbicki's estimates are way too low or unreliable. Ditto for other published estimates. So I felt like I had to use a rather preposterous figure to keep the no-planers here from questioning it.

I honestly have no idea how much damage a pound of TNT could do, and I doubt any no planer would either. It just makes it a bit more abstract than it needs to be, and I doubt that Bryan or any other no planer actually read through the math so trying to use figures they might be able to better understand doesn't help anything.

(I also hope that it Weirzbicki calculated it to take 1.139 megajoules, nobody is going to call a gigajoule an underestimate.)

[guntherznads]

Math is just another heavily jewish controlled subject that gets pushed as "science" and "fact".

They made it up to control you. No one really knows what 2 + 2 equals because the value that is given to the symbol "2" doesn't exist in space time.

It's much easier to calculate given events if you use colors and smells. For example.... blue to the fishy power multiplied by yeast infection aqua marine is equal to hot wind over silver flake. You see how it's much more visual when you use these values rather than the evil zionist's 1's and 2's?

You've just been schooled by the best my friend.

[goldengoose]

Math is just another heavily jewish controlled subject that gets pushed as "science" and "fact".

They made it up to control you. No one really knows what 2 + 2 equals because the value that is given to the symbol "2" doesn't exist in space time.

It's much easier to calculate given events if you use colors and smells. For example.... blue to the fishy power multiplied by yeast infection aqua marine is equal to hot wind over silver flake. You see how it's much more visual when you use these values rather than the evil zionist's 1's and 2's?

You've just been schooled by the best my friend.


I like the way you think.

[bryan]

Tabea: For some reason I completely missed this post last week. I was wondering why you never replied. :o



Mackey's calculations show that the impact of a slug of jet fuel by itself at 500+ mph would be enough to fail a perimeter column. That sort of renders all your questions moot, doesn't it?


It doesn't tell us why the fuselage didn't crumple, the wings didn't break up and the tail didn't break off.



The "same old problem" is your "same old misunderstanding." A lack of material strength or rigidity does NOT limit the force an impacting object can exert on a barrier. The single deciding factor is velocity. This is easily shown by making a few substitutions to the "impulse/momentum" equation and arriving at:

P = pv^2

Where P is pressure exerted, p is density, and v^2 is velocity squared. Large values for v will give you large values for P, up to any amount you like. How much simpler does it have to be?


Same as above.



No, I showed that even if the wing does become detached from the plane it will have more than enough kinetic energy to destroy the perimeter columns in front of it.


But we know from the videos that the wings DIDN'T become detached. The question is WHY they didn't become detached.



I don't know who "the JREF poster who lives in an ivory tower" is, but it isn't me.


It's Childlike Empress.



Bryan, here are some examples of Heiwa at his "best":

Heiwa's pizza box experiment. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125881)

Heiwa's lemon experiment. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/HeiwaLemon.jpg)

Heiwa's cheese experiment. ( http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3828724#post3828724)

Heiwa's bathroom scale experiment. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127318)

Heiwa's matchbox experiment. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4211688#post4211688)

Heiwa's sushi analogy. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4495024&postcount=192)

Heiwa's "rubber ball" hypothesis. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4135919#post4135919)

Heiwa claims WTC7 was pulled down by a vacuum created inside the building. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4280881&postcount=94)

After reading through all that, do you still think this guy knows what he's talking about?

Yes, the other posters have answered Heiwa's claims using physics on many occasions. Here's one example. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942) But most of the physics and engineering people over there put Heiwa on their ignore list a long time ago, due to posts such as the ones I link to above.


After reading the threads you linked to and Heiwa's web page, I can see that the 'crush-down' and the 'plane impacts' have a common problem (among many others) which makes them both impossible. That is, there's no material in the collision area that's strong enough to transfer the energy from the moving body to the stationary body. I already knew that was true in the case of the alleged plane collisions, but now I know it's the same for the alleged collision between the upper block and the lower block of the towers. After I discovered that information, I started a new thread on the subject.


Here's an example of Heiwa applying physics and common sense to some of the claims in the 9/11 Commission Report, which is considered by the JREFers to be a credible source. Amazingly, the forum members there try to defend this story and say he's crazy to be sceptical of it.


OK - the WTC1 plane impact, &c; was on floors 94-96:

“A jet fuel fireball erupted upon impact and shot down at least one bank of elevators.The fireball exploded onto numerous lower floors, including the 77th and 22nd; the West Street lobby level; and the B4 level, four stories below ground.”– 9/11 Commission Report, P. 285

So, plane/fuel impacts horizontally at 450 mph at floor 94-96 and produces a fire ball. But some fuel is not fire balling but turns 90° and goes down the elevator shafts (of one bank?) and explodes at numerous lower floors, incl. floors 77, 22, lobby and B4 level. So - at least 4 elevator shafts must have been busy transporting jet fuel down them to floors 77, 22, lobby and B4 level.

Thus, the jet fuel drops or rather flows down four separate elevator shafts and then stops there, we are told.

But why would the jet fuel then explode down at floors 77, 22 lobby and B4 below? It is not easy to ignite jet fuel.

Or was it the fire ball - hot gases - that went down the elevator shafts? How is it possible? Gases are light. OK, they, the gases, were forced down the elevator shafts. By a fire ball!

And why would some of these hot gases explode ... again ... later?

My tankers have transported plenty of jet fuel without exploding. No gases or too rich gases. Empty tankers, without jet fuel, but with some jet fuel gases in pockets + air, may explode if you are really stupid. But only once!

That a fire ball pushes jet fuel gases down four elevator shafts that then explode at numerous levels is not possible.

Apparently the whole lobby and level B4 were severely damaged by explosions. By a fire ball 350 m above? Please!

Thus, in my humble view the 911 Commission report, P 285, is utter nonsense. Like all other pages of named report. It is a fairy tale!

But this is all OT. Unless RM makes a model of it!


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137438&page=9


I like Heiwa's experiments too. They're a bit like mine - designed to help people understand. :)

[goldengoose]

Tabea: For some reason I completely missed this post last week. I was wondering why you never replied. :o




It doesn't tell us why the fuselage didn't crumple, the wings didn't break up and the tail didn't break off.




Same as above.




But we know from the videos that the wings DIDN'T become detached. The question is WHY they didn't become detached.




It's Childlike Empress.




After reading the threads you linked to and Heiwa's web page, I can see that the 'crush-down' and the 'plane impacts' have a common problem (among many others) which makes them both impossible. That is, there's no material in the collision area that's strong enough to transfer the energy from the moving body to the stationary body. I already knew that was true in the case of the alleged plane collisions, but now I know it's the same for the alleged collision between the upper block and the lower block of the towers. After I discovered that information, I started a new thread on the subject.


Here's an example of Heiwa applying physics and common sense to some of the claims in the 9/11 Commission Report, which is considered by the JREFers to be a credible source. Amazingly, the forum members there try to defend this story and say he's crazy to be sceptical of it.



http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137438&page=9


I like Heiwa's experiments too. They're a bit like mine - designed to help people understand. :)


You don't quite understand why real engineers regard Heiwa (Anders Bjorkman) as a lunatic. Perhaps you can design an experiment that explains why dropping the top third of a 110-story skyscraper from a height of two miles onto the bottom two-thirds merely establishes a "new equilibrium" and doesn't reduce the entire structure to rubble. Bjorkman can't.

(Hint: no new equilibrium" is established and the structure is most certainly reduced to rubble).

You keep trying to pretend that fuselage of Flight 175 didn't crumple. It was smashed to small pieces.

[stannrodd]

It doesn't tell us why the fuselage didn't crumple, the wings didn't break up and the tail didn't break off.

You continue to fail to address why you think these things should happen.

Common sense tells you ? .. is that it bryan?

Is that all you can muster ??

What previous collision between a 767 and a WTC tower (or similar) can you point us to which determines your mindset on the outcome which you expect ??

Just curious.

Did you check out the EL AL 747 versus Amsterdam apartment block yet (1992) .. no wings fell off .. no tail broke off, total disintegration of the aircraft and penetration of the building resulting in it's partial demolition.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0b/Bijlmer747crash.jpg

Stann

[secondsun]

It doesn't tell us why the fuselage didn't crumple, the wings didn't break up and the tail didn't break off.

...well link us to some high speed quality video instead of the poor quality crap that you keep refering to as reference!!!

...got anything as good as this!?!...

High Speed Camera (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vajL48mwsCA)

...now imaging we had something to work off as good quality as that!!!

...you would be out of a job Bryan!

[bryan]

Did you check out the EL AL 747 versus Amsterdam apartment block yet (1992) .. no wings fell off .. no tail broke off, total disintegration of the aircraft and penetration of the building resulting in it's partial demolition.


Please link to the footage which shows that no parts fell off the plane as it collided with the apartment block.

If it's nothing more than speculation, conjecture, or wishful thinking on your part, feel free to ignore that request.


...well link us to some high speed quality video instead of the poor quality crap that you keep refering to as reference!!!

...got anything as good as this!?!...

High Speed Camera (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vajL48mwsCA)

...now imaging we had something to work off as good quality as that!!!

...you would be out of a job Bryan!

Can we take it you've signed the petition for the release of broadcast quality footage?

http://www.petitiononline.com/Video911/petition.html

[djeminy]

Bryan, here are some examples of Heiwa at his "best":

Heiwa's pizza box experiment. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125881)

After reading through all that, do you still think this guy knows what he's talking about?

Yes, the other posters have answered Heiwa's claims using physics on many occasions. Here's one example. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942) But most of the physics and engineering people over there put Heiwa on their ignore list a long time ago, due to posts such as the ones I link to above.

The pizza box experiment was a simple analogy, and without any 47 column inner core!
Yet the Jref devotees spend over hundred posts ridiculing this analogy without
once dealing with the important central argument regarding WTC1.

That you feel a need to associate yourself with these embarrasing clowns,
speaks volumes about yourself, tb.

And this engineer you seems to be rather impressed with, is definitely not
to compare with the sharpest knife in the drawer, according to this little
example from his pen:

(.....)
"A "rigid block" is not equivalent to a block with "infinite strain energy". It simply means that it moves as a unit. (An "indestructible rigid body" would fit your description.) Your objection to Bazant's "no crush up" simplification is correct. FOR THE MOMENT. When crush happens, it progresses both upwards and downwards. But very quickly after the crush begins, the open structure of the upper block becomes "impacted" with the debris of the collapse. The bottom edge of the upper block becomes almost a solid surface of impacted debris. This phenomenon does not occur for the lower block, because each floor's debris starts from a zero velocity. Since the upper block has been falling for several floors, it sweeps thru the crushing floor faster than the debris from that floor are descending, thereby incorporating its debris into the mass of the descending block or ejecting it sideways.

As a direct result of this, Bazant's assumption of a rigid upper block turns out to be very reasonable."
(.....)


This makes no sense. And in addition, your engineer completely fails to
mention that the 13 upper floors, with the help of explosions, start to
disintegrate into dust and debris before the lower floors begin to collapse.

Heiwa is a 'victim' of profound jref ignorance spiced with deep dark infantile nastiness.

Nothing more.

[goldengoose]

The pizza box experiment was a simple analogy, and without any 47 column inner core!
Yet the Jref devotees spend over hundred posts ridiculing this analogy without
once dealing with the important central argument regarding WTC1.

That you feel a need to associate yourself with these embarrasing clowns,
speaks volumes about yourself, tb.

And this engineer you seems to be rather impressed with, is definitely not
to compare with the sharpest knife in the drawer, according to this little
example from his pen:

(.....)
"A "rigid block" is not equivalent to a block with "infinite strain energy". It simply means that it moves as a unit. (An "indestructible rigid body" would fit your description.) Your objection to Bazant's "no crush up" simplification is correct. FOR THE MOMENT. When crush happens, it progresses both upwards and downwards. But very quickly after the crush begins, the open structure of the upper block becomes "impacted" with the debris of the collapse. The bottom edge of the upper block becomes almost a solid surface of impacted debris. This phenomenon does not occur for the lower block, because each floor's debris starts from a zero velocity. Since the upper block has been falling for several floors, it sweeps thru the crushing floor faster than the debris from that floor are descending, thereby incorporating its debris into the mass of the descending block or ejecting it sideways.

As a direct result of this, Bazant's assumption of a rigid upper block turns out to be very reasonable."
(.....)


This makes no sense. And in addition, your engineer completely fails to
mention that the 13 upper floors, with the help of explosions, start to
disintegrate into dust and debris before the lower floors begin to collapse.

Heiwa is a 'victim' of profound jref ignorance spiced with deep dark infantile nastiness.

Nothing more.


Heiwa is an incompetent fool who is incapable of processing corrections to his lunacy, corrections provided by real engineers. No "explosions" cause the upper floors "to disintegrate into dust and debris."

Have you figured out how the bottom two-thirds of a 110-story skyscraper manage to survive the impact of the top third being dropped from a height of two miles? Heiwa says that a "new equilbrium" will be establsihed. He is insanely, spectacularly WRONG! He is so wrong that a real engineer will laugh at his stupidity.

Heiwa is incapable of setting up the most basic equaltions and he has no understanding of scale.

[gamolon]

Width of column = 14"

Width of gap = 26"

Height of floor = 144"

Depth of spandrel = 52"

I'm sure I posted the calculations the other day, but I can't find which thread it was now!

Can you post how you figured that out please? I just did some calculations and I get that the perimeter wall of one side being 14% steel, 3% glass, and 83% air.

The perimeter columns were HOLLOW square tubes. The columns (using the dimensions you used, so I am assuming we are using the same diagram) at that level, were constructed of four .25" plates welded together. the dimension from floor to floor was 144". If you take the average width of the plates used to make the perimeter columns as 13.5" (four of them), you get a box equalling 182.25 square inches. Multiply that by 144" for the height from one floor to the next and you get 15.18 cubic feet total volume for one column. Since the plates used to make the columns were .25" thick, the empty space inside (air) is 13" times 13" which equals 169 square inches. Multiply that times 144" and you get 14.08 square feet of air inside.

I get the columns in that area of the tower to be 93% air, 7% steel.

As far as one wall being 14% steel, 3% glass, and 83% air, I'd like to see your calculations you used to derive 58%.

Someone please look at my values for the columns and see if they contain any mistakes. I will correct them as needed.

[bryan]

Can you post how you figured that out please? I just did some calculations and I get that the perimeter wall of one side being 14% steel, 3% glass, and 83% air.

The perimeter columns were HOLLOW square tubes. The columns (using the dimensions you used, so I am assuming we are using the same diagram) at that level, were constructed of four .25" plates welded together. the dimension from floor to floor was 144". If you take the average width of the plates used to make the perimeter columns as 13.5" (four of them), you get a box equalling 182.25 square inches. Multiply that by 144" for the height from one floor to the next and you get 15.18 cubic feet total volume for one column. Since the plates used to make the columns were .25" thick, the empty space inside (air) is 13" times 13" which equals 169 square inches. Multiply that times 144" and you get 14.08 square feet of air inside.

I get the columns in that area of the tower to be 93% air, 7% steel.

As far as one wall being 14% steel, 3% glass, and 83% air, I'd like to see your calculations you used to derive 58%.

Someone please look at my values for the columns and see if they contain any mistakes. I will correct them as needed.

Nice to see that you enjoy a joke now and again. Now do it properly.

[gamolon]

Nice to see that you enjoy a joke now and again. Now do it properly.

Not sure I follow.

[bryan]

Not sure I follow.

Width of column = 14"
Width of gap = 26"
Height of floor = 144"
Depth of spandrel = 52"


Total area of rectangle = 144 x 40 = 5760 sq. ins.

Non-steel area = 92 x 26 = 2392 sq. ins.

Area of steel = 3368 sq. ins. = 58%

[gamolon]

Width of column = 14"
Width of gap = 26"
Height of floor = 144"
Depth of spandrel = 52"


Total area of rectangle = 144 x 40 = 5760 sq. ins.

Non-steel area = 92 x 26 = 2392 sq. ins.

Area of steel = 3368 sq. ins. = 58%

Why are you using sq. in. when the wall has three dimension? You need to figure in cubic feet or inches.

Here's another example of how your thinking is flawed.

Say I build a 10 foot high by 10 foot wide by 10 deep concrete wall. From the front face of the concrete wall, I cut out a 5 high by 5 foot wide by 5 foot deep block and replace it with a wood block.

So we have a 1000 cubic foot of total volume to account for. That's 10 foot high times 10 foot wide times 10 foot deep. The wooden block is 5 foot high times 5 foot wide times 5 deep. That gives us 125 cubic feet of wood.

That makes the wall composed of 12.5% wood and 87.5% concrete correct?

If we use your two dimensional math, we get the following. 10 foot high by 10 foot wide equals 100 square feet total for the wall. The wood block measures 5 feet high by 5 feet wide. That gives us 25 square feet. That means by your math, the wall is constructed of 25% wood and 75% concrete.

Here's another question for you. If area directly behind the wooden block was knocked out and had nothing there but air, what would the composition of the wall be then?

Your calculation for the percentage of steel in the perimeter wall is wrong.

[bryan]

Why are you using sq. in. when the wall has three dimension? You need to figure in cubic feet or inches.

We are talking about two different things. People have claimed that the wall's surface was 'mainly glass', and a figure of 40% steel 60% glass has been given more than once. I suspect the spandrels were ignored in these calculations.

The figures were used to argue that much of the plane's fuselage could have been shredded between the columns. My argument is that if the glass was only 42% of the total surface area, the gaps between the steel would soon become clogged with debris and the plane would have crumpled on the outside.

[goldengoose]

We are talking about two different things. People have claimed that the wall's surface was 'mainly glass', and a figure of 40% steel 60% glass has been given more than once. I suspect the spandrels were ignored in these calculations.

The figures were used to argue that much of the plane's fuselage could have been shredded between the columns. My argument is that if the glass was only 42% of the total surface area, the gaps between the steel would soon become clogged with debris and the plane would have crumpled on the outside.


But your argument is damaged by the FACT that the plane did not crumple on the outside. Nor was it possible for the plane to do so.

[supersmell]

But your argument is damaged by the FACT that the plane did not crumple on the outside. Nor was it possible for the plane to do so.
You should know by now that what the videos show happening or what physics says would happen are completely disconnected from his beliefs.

[secondsun]

Can we take it you've signed the petition for the release of broadcast quality footage?

...if i thought it would make any difference i would!

[tabea_blumenschein]

(I also hope that it Weirzbicki calculated it to take 1.139 megajoules, nobody is going to call a gigajoule an underestimate.)

Yes, of course I meant to type megajoules. Thanks for catching that.

[bryan]

You should know by now that what the videos show happening or what physics says would happen are completely disconnected from his beliefs.

This is coming from a physics expert who believes that a model of a WTC tower with no floors, floor trusses or spandrel plates is somehow connected to reality.

Anyway, I'll rearrange your sentence to make it more accurate:

"His belief is that what the videos show happening is completely disconnected from what physics says should happen".


...if i thought it would make any difference i would!

With 441 signatures so far, it obviously it hasn't been pushed very hard by the truth movement. I only know about the petition because I followed a link to it from one of Ace Baker's web pages. No surprise that Alex Jones and Loose Change are not keen to see broadcast quality footage!

[supersmell]

Do you have any idea just how complicated the math is when solving for deflections of a single static beam?

You have to make some large assumptions if you even want to be able to run a FEA on it, and a lot of engineers have spent a lot of time working out what assumptions are reasonable or not. Just because the ones he used are not entirely intuitive doesn't mean that they aren't valid. Take a solid mechanics course and you'll be quite surprised at what gets done.

[guntherznads]

At this point most people have it in there heads as to what happened and NOTHING is going to change that. It's a total waste of time arguing about anything with people who refuse admit they don't know everything. I wasn't standing in NYC looking at the WTC on 9-11 so I could never know what actually what went down.
People that research 9-11 can only "know" as much as they're capable of "knowing". In other words....how far down the rabbit hole are you willing to go?
A lot of people sense 9-11 is a lie but they're only willing to say that our government knew about the attacks and allowed them to happen. Some think the gov. was involved but they won't say that there was a controlled demo.
I came to the conclusion that there couldn't have been planes on my own but the evidence that compels me to believe so might not mean shit to someone else. I mean, look at how many "truthers" say that no plane hit the pentagon or crashed out in shanksville.......most of them right? But they seem to have a real problem w/ the south tower, planes had to crashed because "we all saw it on tv". I think most people won't go there not because there's no evidence but simply because they think it's too taboo for newbies and it will make them sound retarded to other people when they try talking to em' about it.
We're almost 8 years into this and the so called "truth movement" has failed.
It never had a chance to be honest, the whole thing was controlled from the start. All that we're left with is well meaning people that have taken an interest in the matter and whatever their conclusion may be, have absolutely no power to do anything about it and so they come to forums like this one to vent and posture their position as if what they have learned or what they believe matters to anyone else but themselves.
People that are going to wake up will do so. Regardless. I have no problem telling people what I think about anything...but I do so know that they may or may not agree with me, and you know what........I don't care. What other people choose to believe is they're business.
But hey what the fuck do I know? I was born in Texas so nothing I say should matter anyway.

[gamolon]

We are talking about two different things. People have claimed that the wall's surface was 'mainly glass', and a figure of 40% steel 60% glass has been given more than once. I suspect the spandrels were ignored in these calculations.

The figures were used to argue that much of the plane's fuselage could have been shredded between the columns. My argument is that if the glass was only 42% of the total surface area, the gaps between the steel would soon become clogged with debris and the plane would have crumpled on the outside.

You need to be a little more clear then because this quote...

You're still talking about whether the plane could penetrate the wall. I've said that some parts of the plane might do, other parts definitely wouldn't.

Do you agree that the wall was 58% steel?

...says nothing about you meaning the SURFACE AREA being 58% steel.

[guntherznads]

gamolon...........didn't you read my post?

[gamolon]

gamolon...........didn't you read my post?

After reading posts like this...
Math is just another heavily jewish controlled subject that gets pushed as "science" and "fact".

They made it up to control you. No one really knows what 2 + 2 equals because the value that is given to the symbol "2" doesn't exist in space time.

It's much easier to calculate given events if you use colors and smells. For example.... blue to the fishy power multiplied by yeast infection aqua marine is equal to hot wind over silver flake. You see how it's much more visual when you use these values rather than the evil zionist's 1's and 2's?

You've just been schooled by the best my friend.

...and this...
...If a 767 sat on the ground and you dropped the the S. tower onto it....what would happen? Would the plane end up inside the building or smashed under it?...

...and this...
...I don't care.
now check out my hella dope vid.

...and this...
...I think a tennis ball would make a little more sense....baseballs aren't hollow....planes are thin skinned and hollow...

...I tend to just ignore your posts. Sorry.

:D

[kooskoets]

After reading posts like this...


...and this...


...and this...


...and this...


...I tend to just ignore your posts. Sorry.

:D

Of course.

...If a 767 sat on the ground and you dropped the the S. tower onto it....what would happen? Would the plane end up inside the building or smashed under it?...

...I think a tennis ball would make a little more sense....baseballs aren't hollow....planes are thin skinned and hollow...


These are very valid remarks.
Better not ignore them but finally try to understand them.

[guntherznads]

Yeah...I dont read yours either. I just need attention.

[gamolon]

We are talking about two different things. People have claimed that the wall's surface was 'mainly glass', and a figure of 40% steel 60% glass has been given more than once. I suspect the spandrels were ignored in these calculations.

The figures were used to argue that much of the plane's fuselage could have been shredded between the columns. My argument is that if the glass was only 42% of the total surface area, the gaps between the steel would soon become clogged with debris and the plane would have crumpled on the outside.

You mean like christophera's claim in this quote (bolding mine):
Also, take a 200 foot long piece of aluminum 0.040" in thickness and the width of the circumference of the plane fuselage, brace it extensively with other aluminum, then fly it into 40% glass and 60% steel at 500mph...

I think you need glasses.

[gamolon]

Yeah...I dont read yours either. I just need attention.

I figured.

:rolleyes:

[guntherznads]

I figured.

:rolleyes:

But see I don't read yours because they aren't very good posts at all.
Mine however are the mark of a genius, they are well written and contain some of the most compelling information you'll ever come across.
Seriously go back and read the stuff you write. It's drivel.

[gamolon]

But see I don't read yours because they aren't very good posts at all.

My bad. I thought you didn't read my posts becasue you were illiterate.

:o

Anyways, going forward, I'll try to model my posts after yours. If I do that, maybe someday they will grow up to be "genius" just like yours.

[guntherznads]

My bad. I thought you didn't read my posts becasue you were illiterate.

:o

Anyways, going forward, I'll try to model my posts after yours. If I do that, maybe someday they will grow up to be "genius" just like yours.

Thats more like it. Dylan Avery would be proud of you.

[bryan]

Heiwa is a 'victim' of profound jref ignorance spiced with deep dark infantile nastiness.

Nothing more.

I'm glad you put 'victim' between quote marks, because Heiwa is making mincemeat out of the JREFers, in spite of a concerted effort to ridicule him using ad hominem attacks. To put it bluntly, he's taking the piss out of them.

I don't doubt some of the regulars ARE ignorant and are just jumping on the bandwaggon, but I'm sure there are plenty of members there who are actively involved in rewriting the laws of physics just to accommodate the long list of physical impossibilities that occurred on 9/11.

[goldengoose]

I'm glad you put 'victim' between quote marks, because Heiwa is making mincemeat out of the JREFers, in spite of a concerted effort to ridicule him using ad hominem attacks. To put it bluntly, he's taking the piss out of them.

I don't doubt some of the regulars ARE ignorant and are just jumping on the bandwaggon, but I'm sure there are plenty of members there who are actively involved in rewriting the laws of physics just to accommodate the long list of physical impossibilities that occurred on 9/11.




Ooops, you made an ass of yourself again. The incompetent idiot Anders Bjorkman has been proved wrong by the real engineers every time he posts his idiocy.

Bjorkman believes that dropping the top third of a 110-story building from a height of two miles onto the bottom two-thirds merely "establishes a new equilibrium." The real engineers laugh and point out that a child realizes that his contention is insane.

Funny, you refuse to comment on this example of Bjorkman's stupidity and ineptitude every time I show it to you.

[goldengoose]

Bjorkman is a pathetic loon, a laughingstock in the eyes of real engineers. Look under "What's New" for a compilation of Heiwa's Greatest Hits:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

[goldengoose]

Yeah...I just need attention.



You left out the word "psychiatric."

[guntherznads]

You left out the word "psychiatric."

I left out other words too...


All seriousnesses though I'm just trying to lighten things up a little.

You fuckers are too anal.

[goldengoose]

I left out other words too...


All seriousnesses though I'm just trying to lighten things up a little.

You fuckers are too anal.



Don't get me wrong. I enjoy your posts immensely.

[guntherznads]

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy your posts immensely.

No you don't. My posts are stupid.

[goldengoose]

No you don't. My posts are stupid.


See? You're right again.

[bryan]

You mean like christophera's claim in this quote (bolding mine):


Originally Posted by christophera
Also, take a 200 foot long piece of aluminum 0.040" in thickness and the width of the circumference of the plane fuselage, brace it extensively with other aluminum, then fly it into 40% glass and 60% steel at 500mph...


I think you need glasses.

I was definitely wearing my glasses when I read Chris's post in my Kindergarten thread. A few posts earlier he'd said:


The building face is only 39% steel. Aluminum is much harder than lead, so the comparison is not competent. Your simplistic view cannot deal with reality. Immense forces are exerted by an object of that mass at that speed.

(Post #74)

So I assumed the later quote was a slip-up.


Chris wasn't the only forum member to demonstrate his ignorance concerning the ratio of steel to glass.


He will also not address the point that the majority surface area of the towers WAS glass: ergo the plane hit more glass than steel, shredded around the steel in the initial microseconds of the impact, with the total energy of the collision breaking the sectional welds and forcing the beams inwards, as the heavier titanium components (engines, landing gears,not made of aluminium: or wood) then continued to smash into the tower, and in the case of the right hand engine in the second impace, out the other side, subsequently falling into the street below
(Post #8)

[stannrodd]

The figures were used to argue that much of the plane's fuselage could have been shredded between the columns. My argument is that if the glass was only 42% of the total surface area, the gaps between the steel would soon become clogged with debris and the plane would have crumpled on the outside.

Irrespective of how you determine what the face of the tower is made up of percentage wise, in the two spatial directions, horizontal and vertical ... you also have to include the third dimension to determine what the complete wall is constructed from and what it's intrinsic strength is.

The aircraft is a 3 dimensional object and it is impacting a 3 dimensional object.

Gamolon is correct to assume the stance he has .. and his figures as far as I'm concerned are a correct way of looking at the issue.

The aspect yoiu introduce about "clogging and crumpling" is simply conjecture and has no place in the equation.

Speculate all you like .. but .. don't use it as fact, until you can show it to be true.

Stann

[gamolon]

bryan, you really need to brush up on your terms and try to understand what you are reading.

The "front face" of the tower perimeter wall IS only 35% steel and 65% glass. Why would you include the spandrels in a "front face" calculation? If I asked you to figure out the "front face" area of a two sided wall, would you include the back wall also in that calculation for front face area? Why are you including the spandrels when they are BEHIND the glass and front face of the perimeter columns?

Are you telling me that in your stress calculation you did to see if a plane could break through the perimeter columns, you only used the "front face" of the perimeter wall and not the whole wall?

:rolleyes:

You are putting the cart before the horse. You first need to prove that a plane COULD NOT pass through the perimeter columns. Then you can provide your calculations as to what you think crumpled up against the horizontal area of the steel. The fact remains that the plane was able to break thorugh the steel perimeter columns based on damage pattern estimates THAT YOU POSTED. All of them show that the majority of the plane wpould break through.

So. Where are your stress calculations that you did to prove thatthe perimeter columns would have resisted the plane? Let's see them so we can have people look at them and see if there are mistakes. If you can prove that, you are home free.

Can you?

It's funny how you people switch between physics and calculations when you think it proves your case, but then revert to logic arguments when you want to prove that we are wrong.

[gamolon]

You've got it the wrong way round. The experts who write papers tend to focus their attention on the large mass of the wings, fuel tanks and engines. It's assumed that the nose, cockpit and front section of fuselage will behave in the same way, although no calculations are ever done to back up that assumption.

Really?

What did they use to figure out the damage pattern of the third picture down? Just the engines?

http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-2d/7-87_wtc2-impact-comparison.jpg

[gamolon]

Interesting bryan. The man you support at the JREF forums (Heiwa) just wrote me back that he thinks it possible for the plane to fracture the perimeter columns. He based this on a quick calculation.

If you want, I will post his whole reply if gives me the ok.

Now what?

[thirdwave]

...sometimes,... the things people don't say...say more about them than the things they do say!

...No Planers say in a Plane `v Steel Building scenario... Steel building wins!... but they never say what they think should have happened to the plane!

...probably because they are too embarrassed to possibly suggest!?...

http://i41.tinypic.com/35k90df.jpg

...;)


Im kind of not into this argument but would not rule out the no plane thing at all...

The way the plane hits is extremely odd....

what I would have expected to see is of course nothing like the clip you have here... but that as soon as the nose hits you would see more impacted and by the time the plane is half way through the building there should be a huge hole and loads of debris and fire... but yes I would have also expected to see more bits flying back...

[thirdwave]

Matrix, can you please explain to me the varying degree of explosives used to obtain the different effects within the damage range?

1. How in the world did they use explosives to create an INWARD dent in the aluminum cladding on the two columns to the extreme left of the above photo's inset?

this is one of the reasons I have time for the NPT peeps.. your questions are easier to answer then theirs...

It is easy for them to create that hole without a plane... there are exploasives all around the airier in which they knew the "plane" was going to pretend to hit ... useing smaller bombs in the places they wanted less damage.

As for the inward steel... i would not say it is clearly inwards... there are a few bars that look like they are going in all angles and some even pointing out.. just as you would expect if there where bombs planted all over... some of the steel that has been broke would obviously need to collapse somewhere and some obviously collapsed inwards...

What is fishy in the pic is how it shows the bits where we are meant to believe the tips of the wings actually cut through the steel..... And I think it is very unlikely that the wings at all could slice through let alone the tips of the wings slicing through a substance that is far more dense, especially if you take into account that by the time the wings hit there should have not been much for them to hang onto, let alone penetrate thick heavy steel!

2. Looking at the first column to the right of the "dented aluminum columns", please explain how they got just enough explosives in between the perimeter column's outside face and the aluminum cladding to just blow of the aluminum cladding, yet not damage the perimeter column itself OR make a scorch mark.

not sure what you mean here... but explosives today are highly advanced ... we already see in how buildings are detonated and brought down they can do it with such accuracy the building falls on its feet.... the answer to these questions is that special explosives would have had to be used and would have had to have been put there by people who knew exactly what they were doing... they can control the position and direction of explosives... they would not have just used cheep explosives....


3. Please explain how explosives could have been planted to sever the columns and bend them INWARD. Where would the explosives have been planted to achieve that effect.

This I dont know, but I also don't know its not possible... they way I see it bombs where already placed all over the building in order to bring it down as it did... and that was impressive enough as it is.. Im sure there is a way to get to any part of the building.



4. How did these planted explosives leave thin, aluminum cladding still intact within a few feet of the explosions themselves?

easy... it is quite a large area you are looking at there... different sized bombs would have been needed and knowledge on how the type of bomb would effect the marital.... i think the word would be precision bombing useing precision explosives.... you don't think this is possible?

[gamolon]

this is one of the reasons I have time for the NPT peeps.. your questions are easier to answer then theirs...

It is easy for them to create that hole without a plane... there are exploasives all around the airier in which they knew the "plane" was going to pretend to hit ... useing smaller bombs in the places they wanted less damage.

Ok. You say it's easy. You obviously must now then. Explain in detail, what kind of explosives and how much were used?

As for the inward steel... i would not say it is clearly inwards... there are a few bars that look like they are going in all angles and some even pointing out.. just as you would expect if there where bombs planted all over

If "they" planted bombs to make the damage pattern look like a plane smashed into it, why would "they" plant bombs all over and use their "precise" technology to make ALL the columns go inward so you guys wouldn't have clues to find? In your explanation, were there "bombs" on the inside of the perimeter columns?

... some of the steel that has been broke would obviously need to collapse somewhere and some obviously collapsed inwards...

You mean the steel columns first resisted the inward blast form the "bombs", became loose enough, and then "collapsed" inwards? You mean the force of the blast wouldn't have pushed it inwards to begin with?

What is fishy in the pic is how it shows the bits where we are meant to believe the tips of the wings actually cut through the steel..... And I think it is very unlikely that the wings at all could slice through let alone the tips of the wings slicing through a substance that is far more dense, especially if you take into account that by the time the wings hit there should have not been much for them to hang onto, let alone penetrate thick heavy steel!

Ok. First of all, the columns were not made of "thick, heavy" steel. The columns were made of .25" steel. Before you can make an assumption that the reinforced wings of a jet can not break through the perimeter columns, you need to show me stress calculations that show you are correct. You can't base this on "logic" like everyone else does. Even Heiwa, who is aganist the official story, has told me that he thinks it's possible for the wings to break through the columns.

not sure what you mean here... but explosives today are highly advanced ... we already see in how buildings are detonated and brought down they can do it with such accuracy the building falls on its feet.... the answer to these questions is that special explosives would have had to be used and would have had to have been put there by people who knew exactly what they were doing... they can control the position and direction of explosives... they would not have just used cheep explosives....

What I am refering to are the two perimeter columns that still have the aluminum cladding on them. There are dents in that aluminum cladding FROM THE OUTSIDE, dentiong the cladding inward toward the column. How can you possibly get that effect from explosives set up on the OUTSIDE of the cladding?


easy... it is quite a large area you are looking at there... different sized bombs would have been needed and knowledge on how the type of bomb would effect the marital.... i think the word would be precision bombing useing precision explosives.... you don't think this is possible?

Ok. Again you say easy. Explain. How.

[gamolon]

thirdwave, I have a question for you. Why would they not just fly a REAL plane into the wall instead of going through all the trouble of holograms, explosives, faked media coverage, shills and agents planting plane parts, etc.

I mean look at the scope of the project. Flying a real plane into the each tower would have eliminated all the above and they wouldn't have to even lie.

Or don't you think the government would have the technology to remote control a plane into each tower?

Talk about overkill.

Tell me what the reasoning was as to why holograms, planted debris, explosives, agents, planted shills, faked media coverage, etc. was chosen over flying a real plane into them.

[thirdwave]

Ok. You say it's easy. You obviously must now then. Explain in detail, what kind of explosives and how much were used?

It is not about laying down the blue print of what went on and what was used... that view point is still used by people who still think it was Bin Ladans crew... it is about what can and cant be possible.

I am no pro when it comes to bombs and detonation But I have seen a program on it and have seen how precise explosions can can.... The question is what you seem to think is not possible... why is precision bombing not possible for you?

I point again that controlled demolitions alone could probably do it and that's not including any military bombs that may have been used... do you not think thatr in the military they face situations where they want to blow something up but not damage something else?

feel free to prove to me that this is not possible.



If "they" planted bombs to make the damage pattern look like a plane smashed into it, why would "they" plant bombs all over and use their "precise" technology to make ALL the columns go inward so you guys wouldn't have clues to find? In your explanation, were there "bombs" on the inside of the perimeter columns?

because they did not need too... also there was an explosion inside the building that blew outwards.. we can all see this...so we can see why some may have been pointing outwards... that is regardless of what created the it.


You mean the steel columns first resisted the inward blast form the "bombs", became loose enough, and then "collapsed" inwards? You mean the force of the blast wouldn't have pushed it inwards to begin with?


No, much of the steel was still attched... so just because it blew outwards it does not mean it was unable to swing back inwards....the same argument can be said that if a plane went through then why are some pointing out.. and even a few look to be side ways...

the bombs could have been places all over... it was vital that the hole was made and would have been a matter of make of brake... as if there was no hole then it was have failed.... so its highly likely that that airier was riddled with bombs... there could have even been bombs put on the steal its self...and for all we know some of it could have already have been cut and weakened.... we know that there were maintenance drills before and we know there must have been bombs inside in order to bring the towers down.



Ok. First of all, the columns were not made of "thick, heavy" steel. The columns were made of .25" steel. Before you can make an assumption that the reinforced wings of a jet can not break through the perimeter columns, you need to show me stress calculations that show you are correct. You can't base this on "logic" like everyone else does. Even Heiwa, who is aganist the official story, has told me that he thinks it's possible for the wings to break through the columns.


you can base it on logic.... and in order to debunk that logic you need to be able to prove that the tip of a planes wing who's body had just been obliterated can slice through 25" steel, rather than crush and smash, perhaps just leaving a dent in the steel.


What I am refering to are the two perimeter columns that still have the aluminum cladding on them. There are dents in that aluminum cladding FROM THE OUTSIDE, dentiong the cladding inward toward the column. How can you possibly get that effect from explosives set up on the OUTSIDE of the cladding?


well, i would agree You or I would not be able to do it..... is it impossible though? ..mmmm no, I guess they could have drilled into the steal and planted bombs in there?


Ok. Again you say easy. Explain. How.

You cant use the fact that I am not an explosives expert to tell if its possible or not.... I would lay money that it is possible, are you aware of the technical weapons our military have??

explain how? ... well made bombs of different sizes that behave just like they were built to behave... set up just the way they were meant to be set up... and hence exploded the way they wanted it to exploded...

you tell me, you do not think the military have the technology to blow something up in such a controlled way?

they take a pic of the building... they have a blue print of the building because they guy who owned it was responsible... they work out exactly where they could project the plane image and they work out exactly where they will blow up the steal....


are we talking about what is possible or what we can prove happened?

[thirdwave]

thirdwave, I have a question for you. Why would they not just fly a REAL plane into the wall instead of going through all the trouble of holograms, explosives, faked media coverage, shills and agents planting plane parts, etc.

Good question... here are ideas

1, to boast the technology and know how.
2, if they really have got the gear to pull this stuff off and the capabilities to do so then it would have been allot more fail safe than useing a huge Jet and aiming it at the building ..risking all kind of human mistakes or un expected side effects... more to clean up after them... remember 2 planes, 2 buildings... exactly the same scenario and out come with out exception.

3, if a real plan had hit and reacted as a real plane would do in such a situation ... it might have looked even stranger when both towers came down...



I mean look at the scope of the project. Flying a real plane into the each tower would have eliminated all the above and they wouldn't have to even lie.

they would have because they would have still had to put bombs around the buildings to bring the towers down.

Or don't you think the government would have the technology to remote control a plane into each tower?

this would have been possible as well, and something I think could have been possible... though again if they have the technology to use an illusion it is a safer bet on their part... more control.... where they literally have control over the explosion.. the way the plane hits and looks as it hits..... everything... no risk of leaving it up to impacted.


Tell me what the reasoning was as to why holograms, planted debris, explosives, agents, planted shills, faked media coverage, etc. was chosen over flying a real plane into them.

you forget that many of those things would have still been needed in order to carry it out in any event... those towers came down via a controlled demolition.... there would have still been a need for shills, agents...

[gamolon]

you can base it on logic.... and in order to debunk that logic you need to be able to prove that the tip of a planes wing who's body had just been obliterated can slice through 25" steel, rather than crush and smash, perhaps just leaving a dent in the steel.

http://i44.tinypic.com/esudqb.jpg

1. You see those two red arrows? Those are the dents in the aluminum cladding. The dents go inward. How did "explosives" create an inward dent FROM THE OUTSIDE of the clading?

2. Do you see the third column with the cladding knocked off? There is a mark on it from the wing tip.

3. Where in that photo do you see columns bent OUTWARD?

4. As far as proof, there were was already a damage calculation posted by bryan that shows a computer simulated damage pattern. There was a HOLE where the plane hit and broke through the columns.

[gamolon]

Good question... here are ideas

1, to boast the technology and know how.

Are you serious? They would risk being caught in a major conspiracy to boast some technology????

:confused:


2, if they really have got the gear to pull this stuff off and the capabilities to do so then it would have been allot more fail safe than useing a huge Jet and aiming it at the building ..risking all kind of human mistakes or un expected side effects... more to clean up after them... remember 2 planes, 2 buildings... exactly the same scenario and out come with out exception.

Woah, woah. You have GOT to be kidding me. Did you really say "risking all the HUMAN mistakes"? Let's see which scenario would have more HUMAN mistakes.

HOLOGRAM SCENARIO
1. People projecting the holograms into two towers
2. People planting the explosives in the correct spots in two towers
3. People detonating the explosives in two towers
4. People planting the plane debris in plain site IN THE DAYLIGHT
5. People in ALL MEDIA outlets showing two fake collisions
6. People controlling the "shutdown" of each tower to plant the explosives in the perimeter columns.
7. People controlling the sound projection of the planes roaring over the city into the towers

REAL PLANE SCENARIO
1. Person controlling the plane into each tower

Yeah. Less risky in my book from a human error standpoint.

3, if a real plan had hit and reacted as a real plane would do in such a situation ... it might have looked even stranger when both towers came down...

:eek:

[narcolepticwatchman]

thirdwave, I have a question for you. Why would they not just fly a REAL plane into the wall instead of going through all the trouble of holograms, explosives, faked media coverage, shills and agents planting plane parts, etc.

I mean look at the scope of the project. Flying a real plane into the each tower would have eliminated all the above and they wouldn't have to even lie.

Or don't you think the government would have the technology to remote control a plane into each tower?

Talk about overkill.

Tell me what the reasoning was as to why holograms, planted debris, explosives, agents, planted shills, faked media coverage, etc. was chosen over flying a real plane into them.

Risk. They had a plan, basically for 3 buildings to completely collapse and the pentagon to sustain damage and this would be the catalyst for world change. It had never been done before. What if it failed? What if the plane missed? What if the damage done to the building was not enough to suitably convince the masses that planes would cause these buildings to fall. do you think that they would take that risk? Seriously. One shot at this. With all the resources that they have at their disposal to actually carry off the fraud (shills, media fakery as you mentioned) why not? Sure people will suss it out and try to spread the word, but ultimatley, they own all of the media outlets....they control the fact that I can send this post to you just now......we are all pawns in their game, they can control what people think with ease. in fact, i would bet that they didn't use planes to test their matrix as it were. Lets see how big a scam we can get away with here boys. they have been covering up Kennedy for over 40 years now.....despite the mountainous evidence to suggest he was shot from the grassy knowl......not one major media outlet on the planet has ever admitted anything other than LHO killed kennedy.

[gamolon]

Risk. They had a plan, basically for 3 buildings to completely collapse and the pentagon to sustain damage and this would be the catalyst for world change. It had never been done before. What if it failed? What if the plane missed? What if the damage done to the building was not enough to suitably convince the masses that planes would cause these buildings to fall. do you think that they would take that risk? Seriously. One shot at this. With all the resources that they have at their disposal to actually carry off the fraud (shills, media fakery as you mentioned) why not? Sure people will suss it out and try to spread the word, but ultimatley, they own all of the media outlets....they control the fact that I can send this post to you just now......we are all pawns in their game, they can control what people think with ease. in fact, i would bet that they didn't use planes to test their matrix as it were. Lets see how big a scam we can get away with here boys. they have been covering up Kennedy for over 40 years now.....despite the mountainous evidence to suggest he was shot from the grassy knowl......not one major media outlet on the planet has ever admitted anything other than LHO killed kennedy.

Ahhh, but it DID fail. It failed because you and bunch of other bright eyed, bushy tailed people in the world were smart enough to find out all their mistakes. How is it that it was a success if you folks are holding all the evidence that proves it was a conspiracy and the government murdered thousands of people? Why are you not getting together the thousands of people who believe it was a conspiracy with all the undeniable proof you have of holograms, fakes photos, shills, explosives debris, videos and eyewitness accounts of debris being planted, faked flight paths to the Pentagon, all the eyewitnesses to the fake Pentagon flight paths, etc. and go and march on Washington and demand the truth?

You have the proof don't you? What's stopping you guys? Why do you only appear on the internet in these forums? You mean to tell me that a march of thousands of people holding undeniable proof wouldn't do anything? Why hasn't this happened after 8 years? Why are you folks holding back?

[dave52]

Are you serious? They would risk being caught in a major conspiracy to boast some technology????

Oh yeah, and they LOOOOVE the fact that some people have worked it out.

REAL PLANE SCENARIO
1. Person controlling the plane into each tower

Yeah. Less risky in my book from a human error standpoint.

First thing's first - forget the hologram thing. I'm not saying it's not possible, but to constantly bang on about the holograms (which is speculation) detracts from the important issues - imho.

The risks of using real planes far outweigh the risks of faking it (however it was done). For 9/11 to work with real planes (and you must times this by 2)...

1. They have to be accurately guided into the towers (either by remote control - wide margin of error, or by suicidal pilot - absolutely impossible to predict what said pilot would actually do when push comes to shove).

2 Ensure that the plane impacts the tower in the desired way - the plane must actually penetrate the tower, if it doesn't the whole core columns, burning jet fuel, progressive collapse thing goes out of the window.

If you were to pre-plant explosives and/or fire a missile, get enough plants on the ground screaming about the plane and get the fake footage (and scripted reporters) on to the tv, the only people to convince would be a handful of shocked, scared and traumertised witnesses on the ground - er, piece of piss...

You have far more control in this scenario because there are far less unknowns.

[dave52]

You have the proof don't you? What's stopping you guys?

Just as an aside - do you believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only shooter working alone when JFK was killed...? How long has that debate raged...? Why hasn't that crime been satisfactorily prosecuted...?

[thirdwave]

http://i44.tinypic.com/esudqb.jpg
1. You see those two red arrows? Those are the dents in the aluminum cladding. The dents go inward. How did "explosives" create an inward dent FROM THE OUTSIDE of the clading?

I cant see if they are dented in or out, you can see they are marked.... why are not all the frames cut... there are some odd frames uncut.

2. Do you see the third column with the cladding knocked off? There is a mark on it from the wing tip.
of an explosion.


3. Where in that photo do you see columns bent OUTWARD?

the thing is, we allready know there was huge explosion here

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/images/9-11(a).jpg

yet this also did not seem to effect the those steal parts, (another strange thing, why indeed are there not more outward steel parts!?).... but I have covered this... if they inserted the bombs next to the steel or even drilled into and EVEN weaken those steel parts... it would have been possible for them to make some of it face inwards...


4. As far as proof, there were was already a damage calculation posted by bryan that shows a computer simulated damage pattern. There was a HOLE where the plane hit and broke through the columns...

maybe a valid but of info had he not ignored a load of other questions to settle with it.

I cant help but feel you guys sound like the same peeps who argue that it was not an inside job.. instead of address the valid questions you just ask more.... maybe there are some questions people cant answer.. but that does not change the issue.

[bryan]

The aspect yoiu introduce about "clogging and crumpling" is simply conjecture and has no place in the equation.


Can I take it you have evidence for your assertion that the 'tubular aluminium aircraft' were shredded by walls that had a surface area of 58% steel?


The planes penetrated the flat side of the buildings with ease at full momentum. The WTC towers were very strong things compared to a tubular aluminium (not lead) aircraft, hence they did not pass through in one piece but were shredded by the steel core and perimeter columns and so did not produce such massive damage on exit.


http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=515&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=525


You say it as though it's a fact.

[thirdwave]

Are you serious? They would risk being caught in a major conspiracy to boast some technology????

:confused:
Risk?

and there was no risk in the other method?




Woah, woah. You have GOT to be kidding me. Did you really say "risking all the HUMAN mistakes"? Let's see which scenario would have more HUMAN mistakes.

HOLOGRAM SCENARIO
1. People projecting the holograms into two towers
2. People planting the explosives in the correct spots in two towers
3. People detonating the explosives in two towers
4. People planting the plane debris in plain site IN THE DAYLIGHT
5. People in ALL MEDIA outlets showing two fake collisions
6. People controlling the "shutdown" of each tower to plant the explosives in the perimeter columns.
7. People controlling the sound projection of the planes roaring over the city into the towers

lol, you like to tell it all one side...

1 is not a risk, its simply knowing how to use the technology.
2 would have had to been done in order to bring the towers down anyway... do you seriously think they did not expect the towers to fall down as they did?
3, easy, all by computers, all in the pre programming.... once the "plane got to a certain number... the bombs went boom.... then more bombs when boom..... wait for a while and then boom, the whole towers came down...
5, maybe tricky... then again they with all the panic who is going to find out... once the way is cleared its not as if people would have been rushing to the bottom of the towers..
6, this would have had to happen regardless of if their were planes..
7, easy, just timing... could be triggered by same computer..


REAL PLANE SCENARIO
1. Person controlling the plane into each tower,
also

2, a real plane crashing in could have detonated the other bombs prematurely..
3, its easer to drive a hologram into an exact spot in a building , than a
it is to aim a real jet.

and add most of the things you listed in the hologram scenario to this list.

[thirdwave]

Ahhh, but it DID fail. It failed because you and bunch of other bright eyed, bushy tailed people in the world were smart enough to find out all their mistakes.

and they care because??... because they control our military like a bunch of zombies?

because the control our banks?

because they control the mainstream media??

the fact that they were happy to convince most people that the planes caused the buildings to fall on their feet is enough to show they were not petrified of being spotted... just needed to do enough to convince the afraid.

[stannrodd]

Can I take it you have evidence for your assertion that the 'tubular aluminium aircraft' were shredded by walls that had a surface area of 58% steel?

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=515&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=525

You say it as though it's a fact.

How about we stick to the comments I make in this thread for the purposes of this thread .. rather than taking a quote from a completely different website forums and a totally different thread where I was discussing things with different people at a different time.

I use the same username at my own risk .. because I want other people to be able to read what I have said. You don't have my permission to use any of what I have said elsewhere .. here .. OK.

I can't stop you but I ask politely that you refrain from doing so.

And have reported your post for that reason.

Thanks Bryan

Stann

[thirdwave]

I do still think its a week discussion as I don't see how it matters either way...

I think the "no planers" (a word that makes me cringe) have a case... but right now most people don't even believe its a inside job let alone trying to convince them the technology of these people exist to do such a thing... one thing at a time.

the most important thing is that people do not put their trust into these people and do not believe the mainstream media and understand that inside jobs like 9/11 do go on and and are easy for them to carry out with the current state of ignorance people are in..... this is what is important.

[gamolon]

Oh yeah, and they LOOOOVE the fact that some people have worked it out.



First thing's first - forget the hologram thing. I'm not saying it's not possible, but to constantly bang on about the holograms (which is speculation) detracts from the important issues - imho.

The risks of using real planes far outweigh the risks of faking it (however it was done). For 9/11 to work with real planes (and you must times this by 2)...

1. They have to be accurately guided into the towers (either by remote control - wide margin of error, or by suicidal pilot - absolutely impossible to predict what said pilot would actually do when push comes to shove).

2 Ensure that the plane impacts the tower in the desired way - the plane must actually penetrate the tower, if it doesn't the whole core columns, burning jet fuel, progressive collapse thing goes out of the window.

If you were to pre-plant explosives and/or fire a missile, get enough plants on the ground screaming about the plane and get the fake footage (and scripted reporters) on to the tv, the only people to convince would be a handful of shocked, scared and traumertised witnesses on the ground - er, piece of piss...

You have far more control in this scenario because there are far less unknowns.

Here is my point.

The truth movement, in my opinion, has failed miserably. Based on everything I have read concerning their theories leads me to believe that the movement is full of nothing but arrogant, self-righteous, selfish people.

Why do I think that?

Because everyone in truth movement is sitting on the common belief that there was A COVERUP or LIE of some sorts concocted by the government. The truth movement supposedly has a TON of undeniable proof of this. Instead of banding together and presenting the lump sum of proof proving that there was some type of devious LIE, the individual cells of the truth movement prefer to squabble about their OWN theories and ignore the movement as a whole. You have the following groups:

The Twin Tower DEW Group
The Twin Tower Demolition (Explosives) Group
The Twin Tower Demolition (Thermite) Group
The Twin Tower Concrete Core Group
The Twin Tower Heiwa Group
The Twin Tower Pod Group
The Twin Tower Missile Group
The TWin Tower No Hologram Group
The Twin Tower Micro Nuke Group
The WTC7 Demolition Group
The Pentagon NOC Citgo Group
The Penatgon missile Group
The Pentagon explosives Group
The Shanksville Group

How pathetic.

What if just ONE of these groups happens to be correct in it's theory? Sorry, but it's buried beneath all the childish bantering of who is correct and who is not.

[dave52]

How pathetic.

Er... nice rant - and I agree, there is not one united front, and it is a shame.

But - you actually ignored the points I raised in my post, well done.

[gamolon]

The risks of using real planes far outweigh the risks of faking it (however it was done). For 9/11 to work with real planes (and you must times this by 2)...

1. They have to be accurately guided into the towers (either by remote control - wide margin of error, or by suicidal pilot - absolutely impossible to predict what said pilot would actually do when push comes to shove).

Ok. I'll use the same logic that everyone else does. The has the technology that they wouldn't have to worry about accurately guiding a plane into the towers. They can guide a missile to it's target accurately, why not a plane?

2 Ensure that the plane impacts the tower in the desired way - the plane must actually penetrate the tower, if it doesn't the whole core columns, burning jet fuel, progressive collapse thing goes out of the window.

Again, the government supposedly has this advanced technology that we probably don't know about. Why is this an issue?

If you were to pre-plant explosives and/or fire a missile, get enough plants on the ground screaming about the plane and get the fake footage (and scripted reporters) on to the tv, the only people to convince would be a handful of shocked, scared and traumertised witnesses on the ground - er, piece of piss...

You have far more control in this scenario because there are far less unknowns.

I did a comparison between real planes and holograms. Did you miss it? How are there less unknowns with the hologram scenario than there would be with using real guided planes?

[dave52]

Ok. I'll use the same logic that everyone else does....

Again, the government supposedly has this advanced technology that we probably don't know about. Why is this an issue?


Er... ok - again, pretty good deflection. You have been putting forward a case for using real planes, I have suggested some reasons why this could be unpredictable. Your response to this is to suggest that the government has great future tech (fair enough - no arguments from me).

So you think the government was complicit and that 9/11 was an inside job...?!?

[gamolon]

Er... ok - again, pretty good deflection. You have been putting forward a case for using real planes, I have suggested some reasons why this could be unpredictable. Your response to this is to suggest that the government has great future tech (fair enough - no arguments from me).

So you think the government was complicit and that 9/11 was an inside job...?!?

Let me put it to you this way. I have yet to see someone put forth any evidence that can derail the official story let alone prove any of the conspiracy theories.

For example, the holograms. There are people that claim holograms were used, but cannot provide any evidence of this. All I ever get is "Come on man! You don't think the government has the technology!!!"

[gamolon]

Can I take it you have evidence for your assertion that the 'tubular aluminium aircraft' were shredded by walls that had a surface area of 58% steel?

Can I take it you have the calculations for the perimeter columns to have resisted the force of the planes slamming into them? I mean you have to prove the the columns would have resisted the stress created by the plane right? Where are those calculations you have done?

You actually posted a computer simulation of the damage pattern that shows that the plane would have broken through the columns.

[thirdwave]

Let me put it to you this way. I have yet to see someone put forth any evidence that can derail the official story let alone prove any of the conspiracy theories.


lol,... ahhhh ok I got ya!

[bryan]

Can I take it you have the calculations for the perimeter columns to have resisted the force of the planes slamming into them? I mean you have to prove the the columns would have resisted the stress created by the plane right? Where are those calculations you have done?


I'll take Stann's word for it:


The WTC towers were very strong things compared to a tubular aluminium (not lead) aircraft, hence they did not pass through in one piece but were shredded by the steel core and perimeter columns


That's good enough for me. :)



You actually posted a computer simulation of the damage pattern that shows that the plane would have broken through the columns.

I posted it to show that the computer simulation is another piece of fraudulent research.

[dave52]

Let me put it to you this way. I have yet to see someone put forth any evidence that can derail the official story let alone prove any of the conspiracy theories.

And herein lies the problem. You believe the Official Conspiracy Theory, therefor you never have to look for problems. It doesn't matter to you whether the planes completely penetrated the towers or not, because the collapse of the towers that day was not the main event, that was just something that happened.

Whether the planes reacted to the impact in an expected way or not is academic, it's just what happened that day.

We will never agree, and in fact, you will never agree with most of the people on this forum because, regardless of our differences, none of us believe the Official Conspiracy Theory.

[onourwayto2012]

And herein lies the problem. You believe the Official Conspiracy Theory, therefor you never have to look for problems. It doesn't matter to you whether the planes completely penetrated the towers or not, because the collapse of the towers that day was not the main event, that was just something that happened.

Whether the planes reacted to the impact in an expected way or not is academic, it's just what happened that day.

We will never agree, and in fact, you will never agree with most of the people on this forum because, regardless of our differences, none of us believe the Official Conspiracy Theory.

now dave, that's not true...there are at least 3 or 4

[onourwayto2012]

Originally Posted by gamolon View Post
Let me put it to you this way. I have yet to see someone put forth any evidence that can derail the official story let alone prove any of the conspiracy theories.


There's a word for it.......... it's called common sense.

[kooskoets]

Let me put it to you this way. I have yet to see someone put forth any evidence that can derail the official story let alone prove any of the conspiracy theories.

For example, the holograms. There are people that claim holograms were used, but cannot provide any evidence of this. All I ever get is "Come on man! You don't think the government has the technology!!!"

It can be far worse.

Some people *believe* passenger airplanes were used to hit the towers but they cannot provide any evidence of that.

All i get is "Come on...the Gov. and media wouldn't tell lies !"

[kooskoets]

i mean, Gamolon, you know a man called "David Icke" and his research ?

Well...you're posting on his forum... :)

[goldengoose]

I'll take Stann's word for it:



That's good enough for me. :)




I posted it to show that the computer simulation is another piece of fraudulent research.


It doesn't trouble you that you are unable to process information?

[goldengoose]

Risk?

and there was no risk in the other method?






lol, you like to tell it all one side...

1 is not a risk, its simply knowing how to use the technology.
2 would have had to been done in order to bring the towers down anyway... do you seriously think they did not expect the towers to fall down as they did?
3, easy, all by computers, all in the pre programming.... once the "plane got to a certain number... the bombs went boom.... then more bombs when boom..... wait for a while and then boom, the whole towers came down...
5, maybe tricky... then again they with all the panic who is going to find out... once the way is cleared its not as if people would have been rushing to the bottom of the towers..
6, this would have had to happen regardless of if their were planes..
7, easy, just timing... could be triggered by same computer..


also

2, a real plane crashing in could have detonated the other bombs prematurely..
3, its easer to drive a hologram into an exact spot in a building , than a
it is to aim a real jet.

and add most of the things you listed in the hologram scenario to this list.

It is still impossible to project holograms against a sunlit sky.

[gamolon]

Interesting bryan. The man you support at the JREF forums (Heiwa) just wrote me back that he thinks it possible for the plane to fracture the perimeter columns. He based this on a quick calculation.

If you want, I will post his whole reply if gives me the ok.

Now what?

Here you go bryan. Posted in the right thread. Heiwa's messaage to me. Notice he says he thinks it's possible.

Let's look at a collision between the 350x350x12.5 mm vertical steel column (the bread) and a aluminium wing profile consisting of two plates say each 4 mm thick and 3000 mm wide (the knife) with variable distance between the plates.

Or, say, can ju cut a 350x25 mm (8 750 mm²) steel plate with a 3000x8 mm (24 000 mm²) alu plate.

The steel is 3X denser/stronger than the aluminium.

At contact the pressure must have been quite big, evidently both objects fracture at very high temperature ... and are cut in pieces. It goes very quick.

So I think it is possible. But it would have been interesting to see the fracture surfaces of the columns.

At the wing tips and where the wing profile hits a rather thick floor, you should wonder what happens.

If a wing tip cannot cut the column, the wing tip would bounce or get stuck. Same when hitting a floor. But as the bouncing pieces are still connected to structure with forward motion hitting nothing maybe everything just continues into the tower.

Now what?

[bryan]

Here you go bryan. Posted in the right thread. Heiwa's messaage to me. Notice he says he thinks it's possible.

Now what?

What is it that he thinks is possible? Can you post the question you asked him? I suspect you've been asking the wrong questions again.

[gamolon]

What is it that he thinks is possible? Can you post the question you asked him? I suspect you've been asking the wrong questions again.

Sure thing!

I am in another forum debating whether it is possible for a 767 to break/fracture/cut (whatever term) the perimeter columns of the twin towers.

Any calculation I have seen (computer or otherwise) shows that the plane would have broken through the columns. I don't know how to calculate this, but in my estimation, there is no way that 13.5"x13.5" (average) columns. made of .25" steel, would resist a plane smaching into them.

I was just curious as to what you thought.

Thanks for your time.

There you go. Have fun.

[bryan]

Sure thing!

There you go. Have fun.

Just as I thought. The question is a strawman.

No planers don't doubt that parts of the plane could break the columns. They believe that deformation of the plane would be visible in the videos, especially the front section of fuselage, the wing tips and the tail section.

[stannrodd]

No planers don't doubt that parts of the plane could break the columns. They believe that deformation of the plane would be visible in the videos, especially the front section of fuselage, the wing tips and the tail section.

Those who believe that planes hit the towers also have similar views. There must have been deformation and buckling, squashing, crumpling etc etc.. there is no doubt in my mind.

The difference is that unless the video cameras were of sufficiently hi resolution and of sufficiently hi frame rate .. the time base of the impact sequence is too small for that visual information to have been captured by the (lo frame rate .. lo resolution) cameras we have so far been fortunate enough to see.

Have you investigated the possibility that the footage we are used to seeing, had the capability of capturing the impact event how you wish, so you could see it in miniscule detail. I haven't .. has any body ??

My guess is that there are better quality versions in the hands of those people with an interest in seeing their handiwork .. but I doubt we'll be seeing any of that soon.

Stann

[noewhan]

Planes have crashed into buildings before. This all probably proves nothing, and doesn't add to this 'discussion' very much, but hey.

http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/empire_state_crash2.jpg

Empire State. July 28 1945, B-25 bomber, flying at more than 300 mph.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1935000/images/_1938461_pirelli5_300inf.gif

I thought this was interesting because they have depicted even a small plane disappearing into a wall...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1740000/images/_1744999_ap300hanging.jpg

...When really it probably looked more like that. (Not the same event though, as above.)

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Link (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html)

Does he actually men withstand, or, absorb? They kinda mean the same thing really, but withstand could also mean - to actually repel.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."

So by his 'analysis' he really means to absorb. In my opinion.

[stannrodd]

Planes have crashed into buildings before. This all probably proves nothing, and doesn't add to this 'discussion' very much, but hey.

http://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/empire_state_crash2.jpg

Empire State. July 28 1945, B-25 bomber, flying at more than 300 mph.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1935000/images/_1938461_pirelli5_300inf.gif

I thought this was interesting because they have depicted even a small plane disappearing into a wall...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1740000/images/_1744999_ap300hanging.jpg

...When really it probably looked more like that. (Not the same event though, as above.)

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Link (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html)

Does he actually men withstand, or, absorb? They kinda mean the same thing really, but withstand could also mean - to actually repel.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there."

So by his 'analysis' he really means to absorb. In my opinion.

I think he was comparing and referring to the way a pencil will penetrate an insect screen on a doorway or window, and would leave a hole but the general structural integrity of that screen (perimeter wall) would remain intact. The building load would simply transfer to remaining wall columns.

Stann

[stannrodd]

I think he was comparing and referring to the way a pencil will penetrate an insect screen on a doorway or window, and would leave a hole but the general structural integrity of that screen (perimeter wall) would remain intact. The building load would simply transfer to remaining wall columns.

Just following up on that point about the load transfer concept ..

The perimeter wall was held vertically by the building and some clever engineering with the co-operation of the core structure.

I can see that the buildings survived the holes ...

Therefore I tend to agree with Skilling .. regarding the load perimeter wall HOLE..

.. let's also remember that Skillings original professional task was to build this thing .. not to design a defence against an attack ..

Stann

[apollo_gnomon]

Engineering a construction project is not about imagining worst-case scenarios, it's about getting the thing done on time, within budget, and minimally compliant with expensive regulations.

[ultima1]

This photo shows how fragile a aluminum airframe is and the damage done by small trees.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/INDONESIA_AIR_CRASH_03.jpg?t=1275574841

Also the animation done by Purdue university shows the aluminum airframe being shredded as sons as it contacts the steel lattace of the building.

[kooskoets]

This photo shows how fragile a aluminum airframe is and the damage done by small trees.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/INDONESIA_AIR_CRASH_03.jpg?t=1275574841

Also the animation done by Purdue university shows the aluminum airframe being shredded as sons as it contacts the steel lattace of the building.


Pssst...they HATE this picture....

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/INDONESIA_AIR_CRASH_03.jpg?t=1275574841

....as they hate ANY picture of a crashed plane.
You know why i guess... :)