Anouncing a new web site: The Science of 9/11

[Cannuck]

I was on the original flight UA93. We were flown to Akron and taken off the plane. I will never forget that day. Starting it in Newark was bad enough but ending it in Akron...it's something I will never get over.

I heard a guy talking to another guy about some other guy. He said he was CIA and that they were setting up radio controls for the plane, implanting cancer in Patrick Swayze, setting up some Kenyan to take over the Presidency and, in their most diabolical plan, going to expose Janet Jackson's tit on network television.....oh the inhumanity!!!!

 

[MHz]

BTW, "I designed it for a (Boeing)707 to hit it." - Lee Robertson, the WTC project's structural engineer

"It was designed around that eventuality to survive this kind of impact"
---Aaron Swirski, one of the architects of the World Trade Center

A 707 isn't a 757. Sheer forces exceeded what the buildings were built for.

Advanced 707-320B Wingspan 145 feet 9 inches (44.42 m) Length 152 feet 11 inches (46.6 m) Wing Area 3,010 square feet (280 m2) Gross Weight 336,000 pounds (152,400 kg) Cruising Speed 607 mph (977 km/h) Range 6,160 miles (9,913 km) Service Ceiling 36,000 feet (10,973 m) Power Four Pratt & Whitney JT3D turbofans of 18,000 pounds thrust each Passenger Cabin 141 passengers mixed class or a maximum of 189 all economy


Technical Characteristics -- Boeing 767-400ER

Passenger Seating Configuration
Typical 3-class
Typical 2-class
Typical 1-class
245
304
375 Cargo 5,095 cu ft (144.3 cu m) Engines
maximum thrust Pratt & Whitney PW4000
63,300 pounds

General Electric CF6-80C
63,500 pounds Maximum Fuel Capacity 23,980 U.S. gal
(90,770 L) Maximum Takeoff Weight 450,000 pounds
(204,120 kg) Maximum Range 5,625 nautical miles
(10,415 km)

Typical city pairs:
London to Tokyo,
Newark to Moscow
Chicago to Warsaw Typical Cruise Speed at 35,000 feet Mach 0.80 (530 mph, 851 kph) Basic Dimensions
Wing Span
Overall Length
Tail Height
Interior Cabin Width
170 ft 4 in (51.9 m)
201 ft 4 in (61.3 m)
55 ft 4 in (16.8 m)

What is the difference in the impact of a plane weighing 335,000 @ 600mph and one that weighs 450,000 @ 530mph. The kinetic energy would not seem to be all that different.

Again the building was designed to withstand 140 mph winds, that should be many times mores kinetic energy than one single plane.

 

[TenPenny]

What is the difference in the impact of a plane weighing 335,000 @ 600mph and one that weighs 450,000 @ 530mph. The kinetic energy would not seem to be all that different.

Again the building was designed to withstand 140 mph winds, that should be many times mores kinetic energy than one single plane.

So, I take it now you're claiming that the planes hit the WTC at 500mph, and also that wind load is equivalent to, or more than, the impact of a plane crash?

 

[MHz]

So, I take it now you're claiming that the planes hit the WTC at 500mph, and also that wind load is equivalent to, or more than, the impact of a plane crash?

I take it you have some data that says 140mph wind will bend (measured at the very top)the towers less than a single airplane.

Explaining the Collapses

An Abundance of Explanations Unfettered by History or Science

[SIZE=-1] The CBS anchor told us what to see. "I mean when you look at it the building has collapsed, that tower just came down."
[full size image] [/SIZE] When the South Tower and then the North Tower exploded into dust and shredded steel, the news anchors used the words "collapsed" and "fell down". Neither "exploded" nor "imploded" were part of the vocabulary. When the North Tower was converted to rubble in mid-air, 29 minutes after the South Tower, it was made to seem inevitable.
In the hours and days following the attack, explanations of the collapses flourished. These explanations invoked myths about the damage from impacts and fires, and entirely avoided issues like the rapid collapse speed, the huge energy imbalances, and the thorough pulverization of the buildings. The myths include the following:

• No one had anticipated the Towers being hit by jumbo jets.
  IN FACT: The 767-222s that impacted the Towers were similar in size to the 707-340s whose impact the Towers were designed to survive.
• The jets spilled 24,000 gallons of jet fuel into each Tower.
  IN FACT: The 767-222s had no more than 10,000 gallons of fuel when they hit the Towers, and the impact fireballs consumed much of that in seconds.
• Engineers failed to anticipate the fires following the impacts.
  IN FACT: It's the job of an engineer to consider all such possibilities. They would have considered fuel loads based on a 707-340's capacity of 23,900 gallons.
• Damage to insulation was fatal to the steel structure.
  IN FACT: Fires have never damaged a vertical column in a steel-framed high-rise, with or without insulation.
• We are fortunate the Towers stood as long as they did.
  IN FACT: Since the Towers withstood the crashes they should have stood indefinitely. The structural steel -- an excellent conductor of heat -- would have regained most of any strength lost once the jet fuel burned out in about five minutes.

These myths were as common in articles in scientific journals as in popular media. Dressed up with phrases like "progressive collapse" , "creep buckling" and "catastrophic failure", the fanciful explanations were elevated to theories with an air of legitimacy provided by endorsements by professors and science television programs such as NOVA.
Some of the individuals most connected to the official investigations of the "collapses" have claimed, since the attack, that they anticipated the collapses. Gene Corley, claimed that he knew the collapses would happen, he "just didn't know when it was going to happen." [SIZE=-1] 1 [/SIZE]

9-11 Research: Explaining the Collapses

 

[EagleSmack]

So the planes were flown by remote control? All four?

 

[Kakato]

First he says

10,000 gallons of fuel when they hit the Towers, and the impact fireballs consumed much of that in seconds.

and a few lines down he then says

IN FACT: Since the Towers withstood the crashes they should have stood indefinitely. The structural steel -- an excellent conductor of heat -- would have regained most of any strength lost once the jet fuel burned out in about five minutes.

So what is it? Seconds or 5 minutes?

 

[EagleSmack]

9-11 Research: 1000 Missing Bodies


This talks about how the bodies at the WTC couldn't have been vaporized because you need heat at such and such a temp to cremate a body. :roll:

I supposed hundreds of floors collapsing, grinding and pulverizing everything into dust had nothing to do with it.

Don't bother reading it... it is just plain silly.

 

[MHz]

So the planes were flown by remote control? All four?

I don't know, you seem to find that absolutely impossible though. At least that way you were assured a direct hit (according to released footage of guided munitions in this decade they are bang-on 100% ) For all I know all four could have been flown by the same guy. Televise all the theories and you would have a show that made lost seem more like Beverly Hillbilly take one..
I especially like the part where the 'pilots' had to attend American classes just to show 'them' that they would have trouble flying a blimp so 'we' could be talking about it some time after the fact just because that is stranger-than-strange.

9-11 Research: 1000 Missing Bodies
This talks about how the bodies at the WTC couldn't have been vaporized because you need heat at such and such a temp to cremate a body. :roll:

I supposed hundreds of floors collapsing, grinding and pulverizing everything into dust had nothing to do with it.

Don't bother reading it... it is just plain silly.

Let me get this straight. An American in the hopes of persuading somebody (who may/may not be American) that only trustworthy deals are made. The time of deals like with that original people was from a different time and place. Dust to dust,ashes to ashes, and all the steel came tumbling down, and again, and again. They just don't make her like they used to do.
Welcome to the school for dummies. All I need to change my view is a model that fits the official story. Nothing elaborate, several stacks of coins that are on the same scales as to produce a similar resuilt. Pick any coin and I'm more than quite sure the other 93% of thre columns will absorb the energy needed to avoid total and complete failure. Slide-rules are not a bling item. GAL

First he says
and a few lines down he then says
So what is it? Seconds or 5 minutes?

So the time-line for crash #2 goes like the fireball consumed X# gal/total...and then the black smoke means a low temp fire. If that part escapes you I might as well satart a cat thread.

 

[AnnaG]

If I was I doubt you could explain any points that I held questions about. That could stem from just me, when politness does not work then being more matter-of-fact
The difference I see is that the "core" is to keep the building upright by opposing gravity.
How much deflection was built-in when the design calls for 140mph winds at broadside. A plaque at the top said impact forces had been taken into consideration. The latest link I gave would be of interest to a welder more than almost any other trade. The tested sample either met specs or they did not. That is about as black & whites as things can get. What %age of the outer structure was damaged when the entire area of the outside is considered.Take away the bolts and but in bearings the building would sway more. You could almost sell tickets on really windy days.
Les also knows timber and cats (@-40 wood can be split by the dull end of the axe)
The wise cutter of lines will go at high speed and bunt the tall tree. He will then back-off and have a coffee and a smoke. During that time if any upper-portion that was going to snap due to harmonics will come down in front of you. The impatient one will sit back fot a bit ant think it is safe and then venture forth to destroy the main tree only to be hammered (like males 1/4"+ steel ring like a bell. Not occassionally it was almost the rule, a cutter got hammered sooner or later. It's called ignoring good advice. It is a life-lesson, so what?
If an impact


Which was the greater force, a steady wind on the whole complex of a high=speed bullet like onject. Like shooting a metallic train of sorts.
Which is greater (you and Les can work together on this. A tiger torch burns very hot and very close to complete combustion. The towers would be consider a suidge-pot in mosquito territory. Lots of initial heat and then enough non-combustible material to make many volumes of smoke.


Lets not forget the compression on the other side of the bendy-straw.



....ok.....hope you tag along.. The core, were they rivits (rigid) or bolts? From my reading the floor-joists were secure by 1" bolts, that allows sway. That would make the outer shell the holder of the floors, the core transfers any stretch (bend) to be countered by compression. The core expends as much energy as the fulcrum of a teeter-totter...none. That is the protection from lateral forces. That is what was attacked, failure should have gone in that direction. The failure of the floors should have been triggered by the holes in the wall being the very first things to move towards the earth.


What doors, they were built for fires caused via trash containers. An explosion would make all fire doors open holes. Those same doors above and below would remain intact. Intact windows would inhibit the intake of fresh-air, resulting in a fire that was bairly above a smolder.

Here I was expecting a 'thanks for the link'....do 'aliens fit your definition' to the ones in the link. And recorded it. I thought once the transponder was off the plane was not under their 'advice' (scheduled traffic).
The link supports remote transmission of video and directional control, 1980's.

Expain aliens, to me it means you are sane and any other version is from an insane person. In your own post you can claim that high-ground even though you freely admit some portions of the topic are above your level of understanding.

I have no idea what you are babbling about in some of that speech there. Trees? Straws? I think Dexter's right and you dip into the sacrificial wines a bit too much or something.
Anyway, your point initially was suggesting that those planes could not bring down the towers by themselves. I think there's more than enough evidence available to say you are wrong.

 

[AnnaG]

Advanced 707-320B Wingspan 145 feet 9 inches (44.42 m) Length 152 feet 11 inches (46.6 m) Wing Area 3,010 square feet (280 m2) Gross Weight 336,000 pounds (152,400 kg) Cruising Speed 607 mph (977 km/h) Range 6,160 miles (9,913 km) Service Ceiling 36,000 feet (10,973 m) Power Four Pratt & Whitney JT3D turbofans of 18,000 pounds thrust each Passenger Cabin 141 passengers mixed class or a maximum of 189 all economy


Technical Characteristics -- Boeing 767-400ER

Passenger Seating Configuration
Typical 3-class
Typical 2-class
Typical 1-class
245
304
375 Cargo 5,095 cu ft (144.3 cu m) Engines
maximum thrust Pratt & Whitney PW4000
63,300 pounds

General Electric CF6-80C
63,500 pounds Maximum Fuel Capacity 23,980 U.S. gal
(90,770 L) Maximum Takeoff Weight 450,000 pounds
(204,120 kg) Maximum Range 5,625 nautical miles
(10,415 km)

Typical city pairs:
London to Tokyo,
Newark to Moscow
Chicago to Warsaw Typical Cruise Speed at 35,000 feet Mach 0.80 (530 mph, 851 kph) Basic Dimensions
Wing Span
Overall Length
Tail Height
Interior Cabin Width
170 ft 4 in (51.9 m)
201 ft 4 in (61.3 m)
55 ft 4 in (16.8 m)

What is the difference in the impact of a plane weighing 335,000 @ 600mph and one that weighs 450,000 @ 530mph. The kinetic energy would not seem to be all that different.

Seems? Well, assume away all you want.

Again the building was designed to withstand 140 mph winds, that should be many times mores kinetic energy than one single plane.

If I slap the side of your head with my open hand doing 140 MPH and then hit a very small point on the other side of your head with something somewhat pointed doing 530 MPH, what do you think would happen? I think the first instance would make your entire head tilt a bit sideways. I think the second instance would put a hole in it. The plane did not attack the entire face of the building like the wind would have. The plane attacked a very small part of the face. There's a huge, massive, gigantic difference in effect.

 

[AnnaG]

I take it you have some data that says 140mph wind will bend (measured at the very top)the towers less than a single airplane.

Explaining the Collapses

An Abundance of Explanations Unfettered by History or Science

[SIZE=-1] The CBS anchor told us what to see. "I mean when you look at it the building has collapsed, that tower just came down."
[full size image] [/SIZE] When the South Tower and then the North Tower exploded into dust and shredded steel, the news anchors used the words "collapsed" and "fell down". Neither "exploded" nor "imploded" were part of the vocabulary. When the North Tower was converted to rubble in mid-air, 29 minutes after the South Tower, it was made to seem inevitable.
In the hours and days following the attack, explanations of the collapses flourished. These explanations invoked myths about the damage from impacts and fires, and entirely avoided issues like the rapid collapse speed, the huge energy imbalances, and the thorough pulverization of the buildings. The myths include the following:

• No one had anticipated the Towers being hit by jumbo jets.
  IN FACT: The 767-222s that impacted the Towers were similar in size to the 707-340s whose impact the Towers were designed to survive.
• The jets spilled 24,000 gallons of jet fuel into each Tower.
  IN FACT: The 767-222s had no more than 10,000 gallons of fuel when they hit the Towers, and the impact fireballs consumed much of that in seconds.
• Engineers failed to anticipate the fires following the impacts.
  IN FACT: It's the job of an engineer to consider all such possibilities. They would have considered fuel loads based on a 707-340's capacity of 23,900 gallons.
• Damage to insulation was fatal to the steel structure.
  IN FACT: Fires have never damaged a vertical column in a steel-framed high-rise, with or without insulation.
• We are fortunate the Towers stood as long as they did.
  IN FACT: Since the Towers withstood the crashes they should have stood indefinitely. The structural steel -- an excellent conductor of heat -- would have regained most of any strength lost once the jet fuel burned out in about five minutes.

These myths were as common in articles in scientific journals as in popular media. Dressed up with phrases like "progressive collapse" , "creep buckling" and "catastrophic failure", the fanciful explanations were elevated to theories with an air of legitimacy provided by endorsements by professors and science television programs such as NOVA.
Some of the individuals most connected to the official investigations of the "collapses" have claimed, since the attack, that they anticipated the collapses. Gene Corley, claimed that he knew the collapses would happen, he "just didn't know when it was going to happen." [SIZE=-1] 1 [/SIZE]

9-11 Research: Explaining the Collapses

Is it me or did this "Explaining the Collapses" of the collapses not explain the collapses? Were there bombs or not? Why didn't the author of this information reproduce the seismograph results so that we could actually read them? Who is the author?

 

[AnnaG]

First he says

and a few lines down he then says

So what is it? Seconds or 5 minutes?

Actually kerosene doesn't burn that quickly; slower than gasoline, as a matter of fact. It doesn't give off near as much vapor as gas, either. Thousands of gallions of fuel gone in a few seconds? I don't think so.
MHz says lots of smoke means low temperature fire. He's never seen acetylene burn then (4500º C and it smokes a lot).
The article is not very good at refuting the idea that the planes brought the buildings down.

 

[Liberalman]

Bottom line nobady is reporting the California brush fires as a terrorist act

 

[MHz]

I have no idea what you are babbling about in some of that speech there. Trees? Straws? I think Dexter's right and you dip into the sacrificial wines a bit too much or something.
Anyway, your point initially was suggesting that those planes could not bring down the towers by themselves. I think there's more than enough evidence available to say you are wrong.

Perhaps your inability to follow along is just that, your inability. The towers were meant to bend. Using examples to clarify something else is not my strong suit, I'll admit that.

Seems? Well, assume away all you want.

Okay give me the weight of both aircraft at the time of impact. Not therotical max weight, take-off weight on that morning mius the fuel that was used before destruction. While you are at it also take-away the fuel that was burnt up outside the building on the 2nd impact. That was a lot lot fuel.

If I slap the side of your head with my open hand doing 140 MPH and then hit a very small point on the other side of your head with something somewhat pointed doing 530 MPH, what do you think would happen? I think the first instance would make your entire head tilt a bit sideways. I think the second instance would put a hole in it. The plane did not attack the entire face of the building like the wind would have. The plane attacked a very small part of the face. There's a huge, massive, gigantic difference in effect.

A better example would be being put in a wind tunnel and being subject to 140mph winds with no ability to crouch. You would not say in one spot. If anchored your legs might actually break.
If you shot me with a projectile I may or may not be knocked ever, breaking the skin is not enough to cause total collapse.

You are right, but instead of your poor examples just how much force is applied to the whole building @ 140mph, look it up if you want to see gigantic numbers.

Is it me or did this "Explaining the Collapses" of the collapses not explain the collapses? Were there bombs or not? Why didn't the author of this information reproduce the seismograph results so that we could actually read them? Who is the author?

It was question that remain mostly unanswered.

He's never seen acetylene burn then (4500º C and it smokes a lot).

Been inhaling some of that smoke. Acerylene will not burn that hot by itself, once oxygen is introduced it certainly can but at that temp there is absolutely zero for smoke.

 

[Colpy]

YouTube - Oakland freeway fire/collapse

Game Set Match

 

[Kakato]

Actually kerosene doesn't burn that quickly; slower than gasoline, as a matter of fact. It doesn't give off near as much vapor as gas, either. Thousands of gallions of fuel gone in a few seconds? I don't think so.
MHz says lots of smoke means low temperature fire. He's never seen acetylene burn then (4500º C and it smokes a lot).
The article is not very good at refuting the idea that the planes brought the buildings down.

I know,Ive dealt with jetA and B lots so I know how flammable it isnt,a bell longranger will run on crisco if it has to.:lol:

The army on the other hand has a variety of jet fuels that the public doesnt have access to,mostly for their aircraft carriers and other high hazard situations,maybe thats what those planes were full of,a special mixture ordered up by ol GWB himself.

 

[AnnaG]

Perhaps your inability to follow along is just that, your inability. The towers were meant to bend. Using examples to clarify something else is not my strong suit, I'll admit that.

It might be my ability, but then I've noticed a few others having problems trying to follow what you are trying to say, too, so I doubt it.

Okay give me the weight of both aircraft at the time of impact. Not therotical max weight, take-off weight on that morning mius the fuel that was used before destruction. While you are at it also take-away the fuel that was burnt up outside the building on the 2nd impact. That was a lot lot fuel.

Why? Did they or did they not penetrate the buildings and spill their fuel inside?

A better example would be being put in a wind tunnel and being subject to 140mph winds with no ability to crouch. You would not say in one spot. If anchored your legs might actually break.
If you shot me with a projectile I may or may not be knocked ever, breaking the skin is not enough to cause total collapse.

You missed my point. But anyway, eventually you would fall because you'd bleed out.

You are right, but instead of your poor examples just how much force is applied to the whole building @ 140mph, look it up if you want to see gigantic numbers.

No thanks; it's irrelevant.
It's only a poor example in your opinion because you missed my point and your point has little to do with the issue in the first place.

It was question that remain mostly unanswered.

Then the dolt should have titled his paper something else. I don't say "Apples are square and I'll tell you why" then go about trying to provide evidence why others' evidence saying apples aren't square is faulty.

Been inhaling some of that smoke. Acerylene will not burn that hot by itself, once oxygen is introduced it certainly can but at that temp there is absolutely zero for smoke.

I don't know what acerylene is. Deprive most things of oxygen and they won't even burn, let alone smoke. Get a grip. Air has oxygen in it.
BTW
Acetylene will ignite at 305º C in air.

when acetylene is ignited in air, it reaches a temperature of 2,200 °C to 2,400 °C.

Temperature of a Blue Flame

You're right, it needs pure oxygen to burn at 4000+. Either way, 2300º C is still bloody hot as far as flames go and acetylene still smokes like mad.

Getting back to the point of the smoke, though, it wasn't only the kerosene burning. There would be plastics and other textiles burning, as well. Plastics emit a lot of smoke also.

 

[MHz]

I know,Ive dealt with jetA and B lots so I know how flammable it isnt,a bell longranger will run on crisco if it has to.:lol:

You must have missed this clip that was posted only a few pages back. Lighting a standing puddle is not even close to how it reacts when in tiny droplets moving @ speed. This test was for a non-explosive variety, think it ever made it market?? Too bad the clip wasn't longer it would have shown how big the fire was after the initial flash-fire, and how long it burned with force.
YouTube - Kevin Saunders Grain Dust Explosion threw Kevin Saunders 300 feet killed 10

The army on the other hand has a variety of jet fuels that the public doesnt have access to,mostly for their aircraft carriers and other high hazard situations,maybe thats what those planes were full of,a special mixture ordered up by ol GWB himself.

George running the show ... LOL ... the truth does not point to George as being more than a bit-player.

 

[AnnaG]

You must have missed this clip that was posted only a few pages back. Lighting a standing puddle is not even close to how it reacts when in tiny droplets moving @ speed. This test was for a non-explosive variety, think it ever made it market?? Too bad the clip wasn't longer it would have shown how big the fire was after the initial flash-fire, and how long it burned with force.
YouTube - Kevin Saunders Grain Dust Explosion threw Kevin Saunders 300 feet killed 10


George running the show ... LOL ... the truth does not point to George as being more than a bit-player.

roflmao The truth? That the plane's were remote controlled into the buildings and they weren't enough to bring the buildings down in the first place, the buildings were riddled with explosives, and every single bit of the buildings' construction was absolutely impeccable and not flawed? roflmao

 

[MHz]

roflmao The truth? That the plane's were remote controlled into the buildings and they weren't enough to bring the buildings down in the first place, the buildings were riddled with explosives, and every single bit of the buildings' construction was absolutely impeccable and not flawed? roflmao

Weren't you looking for the forces that would be applied by high winds? A simple observation of that plane being crashed and the resulting fire-ball would suggest under similar circumstances jet fuel will produce a fire-ball. The fuel that left the building at the time of the 2nd crash was totally consumed in a matter af seconds, not minutes or hours.(in that the fire did not reach the ground...ever)

Even you can't believe that George was the 'king-pin of it all'. You really are too-too much at times. LOL I don't see any benefit in carrying this on any further.

Cave dwellers in a 3rd world country could pull it off but this is above all the heads of power that define the US as a global power. Please keep that version close to your heart.
LOL