[Closed] 9/11 documentary

cheekyboy

So if the angle brackets failed all around the outer of the core and the inner of the perimeter tube, they [b]must[/b] have failed simultaneously or the remaining angle brackets [b]would[/b] have slowed the falling of the floors !

I've highlighted two of your words.

Please show the mathematics to support those assumptions. If you are unable to provide the mathematical proof(s) then you cannot use those two highlighted words.

So if the angle brackets failed all around the outer of the core and the inner of the perimeter tube, they must have failed simultaneously or the remaining angle brackets would have slowed the falling of the floors ! it still doesnt explain the total collapse of the core of the building,

Based on your failure to understand the science or your disregard for the information provided,,I don’t think there’s a way to dumb this down to a level you’ll understand. Sorry

I have never been so enthralled by a thread, or more aware of complete refusals to acknowledge logically and accessibly presented science. Almost replied to a JHJ post too!

It’s actually quite depressing how people who claim to seek the truth are so eager to ignore it.

Please show the mathematics to support those assumptions. If you are unable to provide the mathematical proof(s) then you cannot use those two highlighted words.

I asked first !
(back of an envelope calc suggest around 4GJ of energy stored in the planes mass at that speed, or about the same as an entire tonne of TNT going off. so yes, plenty enough to damage a building! In fact, it's more amazing that the Towers even survived the initial impact at all!)

So a thin skinned aluminium airplane can penetrate to the core and cause sufficient damage, could you scan in and post your back of an envelope calc, keep it simple eh

You are hiding behind academic drivel, try answering my questions re: the core, how did the core collapse, impact or fire

Keeping it simple for you,

Velocity x Mass = Force

Now your turn.

Velocity x Mass = Force

Maybe that's what 'they' want you to think?

academic drivel?

So now you are suggesting the very foundations of modern society are wrong?

For example, what are you sitting in front of right now, typing on? A computer, and that computer was developed by scientists and engineers using the laws of science that a vast number of people way cleverer than you have developed over thousands of years. Those laws enable us to do things like make computers etc.

It's your choice if you want to be an ignorant simpleton, But you can't have it both ways. You ask for things to be explained, but not using science. Well not using science means using beliefs and superstitions, which is precisely the reason that people without the necessary scientific aptitude believe fallacies such as the "fact" that an aluminium aeroplane couldn't damage a steel tower......

the explosives could have been strategically placed below the impact zone, the drone planes hitting exact spots. Entirely plausible.

Actually it's

Acceleration x Mass = Force

F = MA

(Velocity x Mass is proportional to Energy)

The building didn't have a steel outer skin. It was not armoured in any way. It was a steel girder skeleton so perfectly feasible for the aircraft to penetrate the building

What was the outer skin of the building made up of then ?
who stated it was armoured ?

impact or fire

does it have to be mutually exclusive?

how about, cumulative damage incurred through a combination of impact from a big object at high velocity, explosion (of jet fuel + massive energy release from impact), and resultant unchecked fire caused a number of structural overloads resulting in various load bearing elements no longer being able to withstand the forces involved, which in turn caused localised failures and thus initiated a cascade collapse, at which point gravity took over, and well, you know the rest...

What. Drone. Aircraft?

Come on, get real!

We're talking about a government that's demolished the World Trade Centre! You don't think they're capable of mustering a couple of drone planes from somewhere?!

Actually it's

Acceleration x Mass = Force

F = MA

(Velocity x Mass is proportional to Energy)

OK so where does the 4GJ come from and how was that force distributed acros the impacting surfaces of the aircraft to the building ? any theories as to the core yet ?

cheekyboy, what is the point you're trying to win here? Is it that crashed aircraft couldn't destroy the towers?

If so, for the sake of moving the debate on, maybe the non-Truthers and Truthers could all temporarily accept that hypothesis, and move on to the obvious next question:

If planes can't destroy the towers, why did the Lizard Overlords behind this choose to use planes as their cover story? They must have known planes can't destroy towers, because they had to hire a team to demolish the buildings with explosives.

and resultant unchecked fire caused a number of structural overloads resulting in various load bearing elements no longer being able to withstand the forces involved, which in turn caused localised failures and thus initiated a cascade collapse, at which point gravity took over, and well, you know the rest...

nice selective quoting there, you even started it with the 'and' to show that you missed the rest of it, was that deliberate?

In answer to your question - It might, if there was also other damage, from a plane impact and an explosion...like the rest of the post said.

I could probably kick one leg out from a chair with you sitting on it and it'd not collapse, but it sure as heck would if I'd already kicked out one of the other legs.

any theories as to the core yet ?

What are you getting at here, suggesting that the core should have still been standing even if the rest collapsed? 'Cos it doesn't work like that...

Unchecked fire causes structural overloading ? What do you think Max ?

Prove it doesn’t

Those clips! That was the problem!

cheekyboy - Member
What was the outer skin of the building made up of then ?

Do you know know? If you don’t understand anything about the design and construction of the WTC how are you equipped to debate these issues?

Here’s a question. If you drop a 25 story building on a 75 story building.

What probably happens?

Surely if planes are so good at destroying massive steel structures then surely the best method of demolishing redundant buildings would be to fly un-manned aircraft into them, no explosives, no expensive planning, no fire proof wiring (sbob) just stand well back folks, what a great day out that would be eh !

Do you know know? If you don’t understand anything about the design and construction of the WTC how are you equipped to debate these issues?

Steel box columns ! :wink:)

A normal plane is very much money. Special plane is very, very ,very much money.

Ok, you asked for it!

Aircraft Mass at the point of impact: Mass taken from [url= http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_7673_en.php ]767-300[/url]

Max take off mass = 181437 kg
Max landing mass = 145150 Kg
Unladen mass = 88469

Assumption 1: Without detailed passenger, luggage and fuel loading data i am going to assume the mass at impact was half way between the unladen mass and the max landing mass, ie 116810 kg

Aircraft velocity at impact: More difficult to estimate, so i've had to resort to google

From: [url= https://www.cbsnews.com/news/speed-likely-factor-in-wtc-collapse-25-02-2002/ ]aircraft-speed-likely-factor-in-wtc-collapse[/url]

"The government's calculations put the speed of the first plane at 494 mph, and the second at 586 mph. The MIT analysis determined the first plane was traveling 429 mph, and the second 537 mph"

Assumption 2: i'm going to take the lower speed, or 429mph, as this will result in the lowest kinetic energy value (best case). This is 191.7 meters per second, as we need to use SI units for the KE calculation

Formula For Kinetic energy: KE = 0.5 x m x v^2

Units: KE in Joules, Mass in Kg, Velocity in m/s

Joules = 0.5 x 116810 x (191.7 X 191.7)

Joules = 2147186858 J or 2.15 GJ

The length of a 767-300 is 54.90 meters, so that 2.15GJ was delivered in around 300ms (0.3sec) which is an average power of 7.15GW

(roughly equivalent to the power produced by 60,000 family cars all at full power!)

Here’s a question. If you drop a 25 story building on a 75 story building.

What probably happens?

Well it would depend on how high it was dropped from ? btw was the building core detached ?

So you don’t know, interesting

Well it would depend on how high it was dropped from ?

A few inches would likely be more than enough, a 25 storey building hovering overhead (presumably hung from some kind of drone?) has rather a lot of PE.

btw was the building core detached ?

you keep banging on about the core, but you've yet to give any indications of why you think it matters?

Let's try a straight forward question:

Do you understand that the WTC towers were an inter-dependant load sharing structure?

ie:

- the 'core' alone cant stand up under it's own weight
- the skin alone can't stand up under it's own weight
- the two are tied together and share loads via connecting elements, it's not simply a core and stuff hung off it
- compromise one (core/skin) sufficiently and you can induce failure in the others
- compromise the connecting elements sufficiently and you can induce failure
- compromise all together and you can induce failure.
- get enough local failures and you can induce a cascade failure

(It's even more complex in the way loads were shared than that but simplified for example sake)

Do you understand that or is this new information to you?

It's not just a case of hitting it really hard and if it's > X it falls, and if < X it stays up.
Damage was varied and cumulative.

Keeping it simple for you,

[b]Velocity x Mass = Force[/b]

Now your turn.

Actually it's
Acceleration x Mass = Force

F = MA

[b](Velocity x Mass is proportional to Energy)[/b]

Wtf? We got folks banging on 'because physics' and question the intelligence or scientific understanding of others, then we get this!

MIT

Even at a speed of only about 500 m.p.h., a partly loaded Boeing 767 weighing 132 tons would have created about three billion joules of energy at impact, the equivalent of three- quarters of a ton of T.N.T., according to another team of researchers at M.I.T.

"Only about 6 percent of that energy would be used up in cutting more than 30 exterior steel columns, said Dr. Tomasz Wierzbicki, a professor of applied mechanics at M.I.T., who did his research with a student, Liang Xue. But some 25 percent would go into ripping up floor structures. .and 56 percent in damaging structural columns in the core.

So the Professor of applied mechanics at MIT suggests there was plenty enough energy to cut the steel outer columns of the WTC towers. If you are the Professor of applied mechanics at a prestigious University then you should be able to easily make any necessary counter point to those figures and prove him wrong. if you are someone who struggles to do two plus two equals four, i suggest you shut up........

Just gonna add some context to your physics fuelled skewed debate the twin towers were very unique with not having a central core as we would know it in modern skyscrapers made of concrete. The entire structure consisted of a grid of load bearing steel girders, including the outside, with no canter leaver floors.

Ok, you asked for it!

Aircraft Mass at the point of impact: Mass taken from 767-300

Max take off mass = 181437 kg
Max landing mass = 145150 Kg
Unladen mass = 88469

Assumption 1: Without detailed passenger, luggage and fuel loading data i am going to assume the mass at impact was half way between the unladen mass and the max landing mass, ie 116810 kg

Aircraft velocity at impact: More difficult to estimate, so i've had to resort to google

From: aircraft-speed-likely-factor-in-wtc-collapse

"The government's calculations put the speed of the first plane at 494 mph, and the second at 586 mph. The MIT analysis determined the first plane was traveling 429 mph, and the second 537 mph"

Assumption 2: i'm going to take the lower speed, or 429mph, as this will result in the lowest kinetic energy value (best case). This is 191.7 meters per second, as we need to use SI units for the KE calculation

Formula For Kinetic energy: KE = 0.5 x m x v^2

Units: KE in Joules, Mass in Kg, Velocity in m/s

Joules = 0.5 x 116810 x (191.7 X 191.7)

Joules = 2147186858 J or 2.15 GJ

The length of a 767-300 is 54.90 meters, so that 2.15GJ was delivered in around 300ms (0.3sec) which is an average power of 7.15GW

(roughly equivalent to the power produced by 60,000 family cars all at full power!)

And you are convinced that was sufficient to do the damage that you previously stated even though your original figure was 4GJ ?

Seems the collapse was because the floors fell out of their holders

"Seems the collapse was because the floors fell out of their holders"

http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=910105

Seems like it, nice case study done on its structural integrity and design.

Am i convinced that 2.15GJ / 7.15 GW (that's best case, worst case is 4.98 GJ / 16.6 GW) is enough?

thats 7,150,000,000 Watts!

(or about 7.15 billion times more energy that your brain seems able to produce)

My original figure, you'll note was "back of an envelope" ie i had estimated the figures used in the calc, and as it turns out, got pretty much half way between the best (2.15GJ) and worst (~5GJ) values

Wtf? We got folks banging on 'because physics' and question the intelligence or scientific understanding of others, then we get this!

It’s easy to make a simple mistake, banging on about it. Well, that’s a dick move

They didn’t. Do some reading

done plenty of reading thanks, also lots of video evidence of policeman, construction guys saying that its about to come down.

I've linked to it before.

But you have no answer.

[img] [/img]

Nighty night, see you all tomorrow 😀

@whathaveisaidnow

This is the quality of your responses

Just the heat and the smoke from all the other
? buildings on fire, you couldnít see anything.

So it took us a while (i.5 hrs) and we ended up backing
p
p everybody out, and thatís when 7 collapsed.

Lieutenant William Ryan, Ladder 85

Yet they could see well enough to carry out a structural inspection to determine when it was going to collapse?

Literally pointless. You really aren’t contributing anything other than noise, maybe try to include some context, and also make a point?

@whathaveisaidnow you continually fail to explain why the fire crew on wtc7 would be told in advance about the demolition in your conspiracy model?

Can't be bothered reading all this but has anybody questioned what happened at the Pentagon that day!?

Yup. Not on here though. Thanks for the diversion, it got a bit shit there for a page or two.

Ned, thanks for coming back, I think amedias has answered most of the stuff I would have answered. And well done for ignoring the insults without biting. We all need to learn to communicate better.

FYI I figured you were busy, as you hadn't made an excuse in advance...

"Can't be bothered reading all this but has anybody questioned what happened at the Pentagon that day!?"
Which bit , the massive plane into the side of the building, or the failure of air defence to intervene ?

I can't tell whose who now....

& I'm out of doughnuts.....

😥

& I'm out of doughnuts....

Me too. I had a pile of 20 of them ready for this as well. But just as I picked up the first one,it slipped out of my fingers and just crushed the whole lot into tiny pieces.

Can't be bothered reading all this but has anybody questioned what happened at the Pentagon that day!?

Yes that was done a number of pages back.

Jam Doughnuts, Ring doughnuts, sprinkles? All of these will make a significant difference to their structural integrity.

For example, once the outer shell is punctured (for example, by an incoming marker pen) and the filling in a jam doughnut released, the overall structure is decidedly weaker than a ring doughnut with icing and hundreds and thousands on top.

Me too. I had a pile of 20 of them ready for this as well. But just as I picked up the first one,it slipped out of my fingers and just crushed the whole lot into tiny pieces.

[quote=CharlieMungus ]Me too. I had a pile of 20 of them ready for this as well. But just as I picked up the first one,it slipped out of my fingers and just crushed the whole lot into tiny pieces.

Greedy so and so - they must be humongous doughnuts if they do that.

Now we're off on that side note... The Pentagon impact I do remember finding 'a bit funny' at first glance, but in a:

"hmm, yes doesn't quite look how I would have expected, I wonder why that is and what the mechanisms at play are, there's probably some learning I need to do here..."

kind of way rather than a:

"look! weird and funny, it MUST have been a conspiracy/drone plane/ghosts"

kind of way...

Was actually planning to re-familiarise myself with it at some point to see if it really was 'odd' as I haven't read/looked for literally years on that aspect of it.

It's very much a case of hearing the clip-clop clip-clop of hooves approaching...some people think:

"that'll likely be a horse approaching"

and go to the window to have a look and see, where as others jump to:

"Oh my god! here comes zombie Jesus riding in on a War-Zebra with his Lance of Righteousness! Run for the hedges!"

And then spend the next week telling their mates down the pub how they narrowly escaped death from a very naughty boy on a stripey pony, despite the fact they never even saw a thing...

Me too. I had a pile of 20 of them ready for this as well. But just as I picked up the first one,it slipped out of my fingers and just crushed the whole lot into tiny pieces.

Pity there weren’t any police or firefighters around to warn you it was about to collapse.

[img] /revision/latest?cb=20071215181655[/img]

Hang on, hang on. I want proof that they were doughnut and not pancakes.

Were there any crumbs left over that you could eat?

No! I don't know where they went!

Jam Doughnuts, Ring doughnuts, sprinkles? All of these will make a significant difference to their structural integrity.

Well, they were these new ones. They are like ring doughnuts, but more triangular, but still with a round hole in the middle, anyone else tried them?

[img] [/img]

"Seems the collapse was because the floors fell out of their holders"
> http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=910105
Seems like it, nice case study done on its structural integrity and design.

If I remember correctly there was a fairly detailed Documentary film made by Kris kristopherson, called "Millennium", that clearly explains everything.

Time travel.

@whathaveisaidnow you continually fail to explain why the fire crew on wtc7 would be told in advance about the demolition in your conspiracy model?

what I do know is that there is video evidence and speech on those videos, that suggests that people close to the building somehow new that its collapse was very imminent - not ow... it might come down,... more...'it's coming down right now.

there is also a video of two guys talking near to WT7 and two very loud (what sound like explosions) are heard. Their reactions are consistent with the sound of the explosions, so I'm airing on the side of it is not a fake video.

Also weinstein said the decision was made to pull-it. Now everyone will try and put a spin on that, but the most obvious conclusion for anyone taking it literally is that - hey, you know what, he meant 'pull the building down'.

Why would he say it? Maybe these devils are so far up their own rectums that they bait each other into playing these games, who knows?

If i was in the kitchen,...holding a tea-bag in my hand, and a mug in the other and the kettle was whistling and I told you i was going to make a tea.

would i be: making myself a cup of tea

or

would i be fashioning a letter T out of the kettle, the tea bag and the mug?

..exactly...

pentagon...er yeh....that wasn't a plane. a couple of fuzzy images and one very poor video from one of the most protected and highly surveillanced buildings in the world?

...ow..ow...and all our fighter jets happen to be on training exercise.

i think I'm done now. 😯

@whathaveisaidnow you continually fail to explain why the fire crew on wtc7 would be told in advance about the demolition in your conspiracy model?

Can we do Wako Texas next?

Whathaveisaidnow - Member

hey, you know what, he meant 'pull the building down'.

Ah, now it was pulled down?

Also weinstein said the decision was made to pull-it. Now everyone will try and put a spin on that, but the most obvious conclusion for anyone taking it literally is that - hey, you know what, he meant 'pull the building down'.

Can we do Wako Texas next?

Also weinstein said the decision was made to pull-it. Now everyone will try and put a spin on that, but the most obvious conclusion for anyone taking it literally is that - hey, you know what, he meant 'pull the building down'.

No it's not. I immediate think of 'pull the rescue operation and get our guys out of there'. Not pull the building down. That assumption can only be made if you're already thinking that there's explosives or some other mechanism that they control to bring the building down.

/whathaveisaidnow/

Some waffle.

Either you’re a troll or a wilful idiot who can’t read simple stuff put in front of them.

Regardless of debates on the physics of building collapse, do find it a bit odd that New York Police Commissioner on 9/11 [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Kerik ]Bernard Kerik[/url] went on to play a role in the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority...

Me too. I had a pile of 20 of them ready for this as well. But just as I picked up the first one,it slipped out of my fingers and just crushed the whole lot into tiny pieces.

Did it lead to the collapse of the nearby stack of Belgian waffles?

Whathaveisaidnow - Member

@whathaveisaidnow you continually fail to explain why the fire crew on wtc7 would be told in advance about the demolition in your conspiracy model?

what I do know is that there is video evidence and speech on those videos, that suggests that people close to the building somehow new that its collapse was very imminent - not ow... it might come down,... more...'it's coming down right now.

there is also a video of two guys talking near to WT7 and two very loud (what sound like explosions) are heard. Their reactions are consistent with the sound of the explosions, so I'm airing on the side of it is not a fake video.

Also weinstein said the decision was made to pull-it. Now everyone will try and put a spin on that, but the most obvious conclusion for anyone taking it literally is that - hey, you know what, he meant 'pull the building down'.

Why would he say it? Maybe these devils are so far up their own rectums that they bait each other into playing these games, who knows?

How long have you spent in the NYFD? or in NY at all, how much time did you spend listening to the way people in that organisations speak during emergencies or stressful situation?
I remember one day on an industrial site I was working on we got a call as there were flames coming out of places they shouldn't be near the bottom of the 300ft tower we were working on. Phrases like "gonna blow" "it's gone" "pull it" (in this case referring to the very expensive test gear) were being yelled around. None of us really knew what was going on but we were getting the **** out of there.

Again, for any of your theory to hold you need to get 6 or 7 levels above it to where you have zero evidence, the numbers involved would be in the hundreds at least and you can't even hope to address those parts.

Can we do Wako Texas next?

Probably worth doing Operation Northwoods before that.

In alsorts of disasters eye witness accounts are almost always found to be very inaccurate. It was the same with Grenfell with reports of people throwing babies out of windows and assorts of other reports that were later found to be untrue. Besides,the top of the building was starting to lean over as the structure softened and buckled before it finally gave way, you can see this very clearly from watching the footage. If I was on the ground looking up and saw that I would have the sense the thing is about to go and get out of the way pretty sharpish.

Also weinstein said the decision was made to pull-it. Now everyone will try and put a spin on that, but the most obvious conclusion for anyone taking it literally is that - hey, you know what, he meant 'pull the building down'.

The obvious conclusion is that he meant pull the fire crew out.
What was the comment?
"We've lost enough lives, time to pull it" or words to that effect?
How would detonating the building save lives?

It wouldn't, ergo, you're a mentalist.

Here's the video:

It's obvious to anyone that he meant pull the fire operation out.

Anyone that isn't a mentalist.

Also weinstein said the decision was made to pull-it. Now everyone will try and put a spin on that, but the most obvious conclusion for anyone taking it literally is that - hey, you know what, he meant 'pull the building down'

Pull it to me would mean the operation or equipment, why would you use the phrase pull it when you actually mean blow it up ie controlled explosion...?

Pull it with regards to building demolition to me, would be using machinery to fell it, not an explosion.

Regardless of debates on the physics of building collapse, do find it a bit odd that New York Police Commissioner on 9/11 Bernard Kerik went on to play a role in the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority...

When you start looking into the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority, things get interesting...

For example, Chief Spokesman for the CPA was Dan Senor...

Before going out to Iraq, [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Senor ]Dan Senor[/url] had been working for the [url= http://historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=carlyle_group ]Carlyle Group[/url].

That's the same Carlyle Group that had received extensive funding from the Bin Laden Family, and Al-Waleed Bin Talal, both alleged by multiple sources to be involved in the funding and training of Al-Qaeda.

It's also the same Carlyle Group who were holding their annual conference on 9/11, among the guests of honor was one of Bin Laden's brothers... One of Carlyle groups key figures, who had multiple dealings with the Bin Laden family, George HW Bush had been in attendance the previous day

Of course, Bin Laden has many siblings, but what makes this more mysterious is the way [url= https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2003/10/saving-the-saudis-200310 ]several members of the Bin Laden family and the House of Saud were evacuated on a private flight whilst airspace was still closed in the wake of 9/11[/url].

The repatriation of the Saudis is far more than just a case of wealthy Arabs being granted special status by the White House under extraordinary conditions. For one thing, in the two years since September 11, a number of highly placed Saudis, including both bin Ladens and members of the royal family, have come under fire for their alleged roles in financing terrorism.

You can probably guess who was responsible for authorizing those flights...

[img] [/img]

[b]One of the commissioners, Max Cleland, even resigned because the commission had been "deliberately compromised by the president of the United States."[/b]

But what does this have to do with the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority?

And what does it have to do with the death of FBI Al-Qaeda Expert John P O'Neill?

All in good time...

wasn't weinstein busy producing films and interfering with women?

But what does this have to do with the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority?

And what does it have to do with the death of FBI Al-Qaeda Expert John P O'Neill?

All in good time...

wasn't weinstein busy producing films and interfering with women?

yep, but 'Pull It' would be a request more likely to have been said by Louis CK...

Ooh, are you serialising your investigations now?

Nope, it’s just we can only cope with a limited amount of batshit crazy in one go.

Of course, we could just ignore him. Like he ignores the facts when put in front of him.

I'll stick to facts, you stick to conjecture...

jivehoneyjive - Member
I'll stick to facts, you stick to conjecture...