simple question for the WTC collapse

[daws101]

Research Supposedly Supporting the OCT
Studies often cited as "proof" for the Official Conspiracy Theory
The "mountain" of research is actually a debunked molehill

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/OCT/

aqsshole and eunuchs now that wat I call credible!
btw where are a&e's test results?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtU69oWVNJY]9/11 victim's families claiming "9/11 was an inside job" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtU69oWVNJY]9/11 victim's families claiming "9/11 was an inside job" - YouTube[/ame]

an eot's classic half truth...
that should read:" a very small number 9/11 victim's families claiming "9/11 was an inside job".

 

[Derideo_Te]

oh and those specialists that pulled it off,you think they arent going to keep quiet after being paid off HUGE sums if money,they pay their specialists well in the CIA

Too bad the Conspiracy Theorists are incapable of applying "science" or even just a little logic to their own scenarios. The CIA is not allowed to operate within the USA. That is the FBI's jurisdiction. Then there is the problem of why would the CIA do something like this? Do the CT'ers believe that there isn't a single American patriot in the CIA who wouldn't blow the whistle if they knew anything about this alleged atrocity? Then we come back to the issue of "pre cutting" the steel and preparing the concrete core for demolition. Anyone who has ever worked with steel knows that there are lots of sparks and high temperatures involved which is why you don't have any flammable materials around. But somehow the CT'ers believe is was possible to do this without setting anything on fire. Drilling holes in concrete is loud noisy work. Furthermore there is no evidence that the foundations were damaged by explosives.

None of the CT'ers can provide a coherent, feasible alternative that doesn't rely upon things fro which there is zero evidence.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWkEbYgUk6c]Former FBI chief Ted Gundersen says 9 11 was an inside job - YouTube[/ame]

He was never the "FBI chief" and he retired more than 2 decades before 9/11/01. Another piece of the "conspiracy theory" falls apart before it even gets off the ground.

 

[eots]

too bad the conspiracy theorists are incapable of applying "science" or even just a little logic to their own scenarios. The cia is not allowed to operate within the usa. That is the fbi's jurisdiction. Then there is the problem of why would the cia do something like this? Do the ct'ers believe that there isn't a single american patriot in the cia who wouldn't blow the whistle if they knew anything about this alleged atrocity? Then we come back to the issue of "pre cutting" the steel and preparing the concrete core for demolition. Anyone who has ever worked with steel knows that there are lots of sparks and high temperatures involved which is why you don't have any flammable materials around. But somehow the ct'ers believe is was possible to do this without setting anything on fire. Drilling holes in concrete is loud noisy work. Furthermore there is no evidence that the foundations were damaged by explosives.

None of the ct'ers can provide a coherent, feasible alternative that doesn't rely upon things fro which there is zero evidence.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwkebyguk6c]former fbi chief ted gundersen says 9 11 was an inside job - youtube[/ame]

he was never the "fbi chief" and he retired more than 2 decades before 9/11/01. Another piece of the "conspiracy theory" falls apart before it even gets off the ground.

i do not see why that matters but you also ignored the fbi and cia that were active during 9/11

 

[Derideo_Te]

former fbi chief ted gundersen says 9 11 was an inside job - youtube

he was never the "fbi chief" and he retired more than 2 decades before 9/11/01. Another piece of the "conspiracy theory" falls apart before it even gets off the ground.

i do not see why that matters but you also ignored the fbi and cia that were active during 9/11

Alert the press, the "fbi and cia that were active during 9/11"!



Define "active" as being anything different to what their job description entails.

 

[DaveB]

i do not see why that matters but you also ignored the fbi and cia that were active during 9/11

Of course it matters, the video misrepresents his importance and what he actually knows. I didn't actually hear him say it was an inside job, what time did he say that at? Thanks.

BTW, what status should the CIA and FBI be at for any given time frame?

 

[DaveB]

that requires measurements its not done with "vapors"

wrong the vapors can only be created at a certain speed .
the measuring( meaning math) is calculated (on video or film) by how fast an object moves past a given point.

give it up dude! you're wrong!

afraid not, I have Boeing and highly experienced pilots telling me these speeds are not possible at sea level..and "I am not giving that up" because some buffoon on the internet tells me vapor stories...lol

Youtube: watch?v=9ZHqWJDu3eA The first one is a few hundred miles an hour easily.

Those speeds at sea level may not be good for the long term structural integrity of the plane, but I'm guessing they weren't bothered with that.

 

[daws101]

wrong the vapors can only be created at a certain speed .
the measuring( meaning math) is calculated (on video or film) by how fast an object moves past a given point.

give it up dude! you're wrong!

afraid not, I have Boeing and highly experienced pilots telling me these speeds are not possible at sea level..and "I am not giving that up" because some buffoon on the internet tells me vapor stories...lol

Youtube: watch?v=9ZHqWJDu3eA The first one is a few hundred miles an hour easily.

Those speeds at sea level may not be good for the long term structural integrity of the plane, but I'm guessing they weren't bothered with that.

you'd be right .the jackers never bothered learning to land either..

 

[Derideo_Te]

Impossible Plane Speed with Boeing - YouTube

Once again Eots believes hearsay instead of facts.

The smallest available engines on the 767-200 produce 50,000 obs of thrust each. In a simulator it was more than possible to reach those air speeds and considerably greater speeds too. Pilots know that they planes have more power than they need because sometimes in a emergency they will use it climb out of danger. The planes are also built to withstand air pockets that place huge stresses on the airframe. These planes are build to safely fly for decades and millions of miles in all kinds of extreme weather conditions but Eots believes a phone call to someone at Boeing who admits that she is not an engineer.

Simulator Proves ?Impossible Speed? was ?probable? for Flt 11 and Flt 175 | 911Blogger.com

How accurate are Full Flight Simulators and how does the 767-300 compare to the 200?

The flight simulator in which I carried out this test is considered to be an exact representation of the real aircraft. It takes into account all of the test data gathered during the initial flight testing of the 767-200/300 and ongoing data gathered from Flight Data Recorders and observed performance. The instrumentation is exactly the same as the actual aircraft and can be put into service in a real aircraft. The performance of the aircraft engines and the aircraft’s structure are modelled so that a pilot can remain current without doing as many actual flight hours. Basically it is fair to say that what you can do in the simulator can be done in real life, especially as relates to thrust, lift and drag.

After doing this test I then spent a few days on the flight line checking whether the average 767 pilot thought that the engines could achieve .86 Mach at sea level considering what I found in the sim. Mostly they agreed--due to the exceptional power to weight ratio of the 767 series, and its low drag airframe, it was probable it could do just that. I also asked the older pilots that flew in the Pratt and Whitney (JT9-7R4) powered 767-200 series aircraft if those aircraft were similar to fly to the 767-300 General Electric (CF6) powered aircraft they now fly (current simulator configuration). They said they were very similar, having a little less power but being a little shorter and lighter, thus giving them nearly exactly the same power to weight ratio. Once again this was no surprise to me as this is what the manufacturer does--matches the airframe to the power plant to meet the performance specifications which are basically the same for 200 and the 300 series Boeing 767.

Conclusion: Is it probable that the 767-200 can make 560mph at sea level?

It is highly probable that AA11 and UA175 could easily make the airspeeds quoted in the official reports and as seen in the video footage. Here is a summation of the facts;

1. The aircraft were seen to make those airspeeds on September 11, 2001. This has never been questioned by any peer reviewed paper or team of experts, so it stands as fact.
2. The aircraft were well within their structural limit of .86 Mach by a margin of .12 Mach or approximately 14%; flying at maximum of reported speed of .74 Mach.
3. The simulator test carried out on an actual certified Full Flight Simulator (the best available), in a fully accredited pilot certification facility, showed that the 767 aircraft can reach an airspeed of .86 Mach in a flat trajectory at approximate sea level. It was also shown that .89 Mach could be achieved in a similar shallow dive as seen made by AA11 and UA175 on 9/11. These results show far greater speeds possible than the required official airspeed of 560mph or .74 Mach by some 16% at the minimum and 20% if the actual flight conditions were simulated in a shallow dive.
4. Considering the large margins demonstrated here, we can now conclude that the “Impossible Airspeed” stated by John Lear et al. is false.

 

[eots]

impossible plane speed with boeing - youtube

once again eots believes hearsay instead of facts.

The smallest available engines on the 767-200 produce 50,000 obs of thrust each. In a simulator it was more than possible to reach those air speeds and considerably greater speeds too. Pilots know that they planes have more power than they need because sometimes in a emergency they will use it climb out of danger. The planes are also built to withstand air pockets that place huge stresses on the airframe. These planes are build to safely fly for decades and millions of miles in all kinds of extreme weather conditions but eots believes a phone call to someone at boeing who admits that she is not an engineer.

simulator proves ?impossible speed? Was ?probable? For flt 11 and flt 175 | 911blogger.com

how accurate are full flight simulators and how does the 767-300 compare to the 200?

The flight simulator in which i carried out this test is considered to be an exact representation of the real aircraft. It takes into account all of the test data gathered during the initial flight testing of the 767-200/300 and ongoing data gathered from flight data recorders and observed performance. The instrumentation is exactly the same as the actual aircraft and can be put into service in a real aircraft. The performance of the aircraft engines and the aircraft’s structure are modelled so that a pilot can remain current without doing as many actual flight hours. Basically it is fair to say that what you can do in the simulator can be done in real life, especially as relates to thrust, lift and drag.

After doing this test i then spent a few days on the flight line checking whether the average 767 pilot thought that the engines could achieve .86 mach at sea level considering what i found in the sim. Mostly they agreed--due to the exceptional power to weight ratio of the 767 series, and its low drag airframe, it was probable it could do just that. I also asked the older pilots that flew in the pratt and whitney (jt9-7r4) powered 767-200 series aircraft if those aircraft were similar to fly to the 767-300 general electric (cf6) powered aircraft they now fly (current simulator configuration). They said they were very similar, having a little less power but being a little shorter and lighter, thus giving them nearly exactly the same power to weight ratio. Once again this was no surprise to me as this is what the manufacturer does--matches the airframe to the power plant to meet the performance specifications which are basically the same for 200 and the 300 series boeing 767.

Conclusion: Is it probable that the 767-200 can make 560mph at sea level?

It is highly probable that aa11 and ua175 could easily make the airspeeds quoted in the official reports and as seen in the video footage. Here is a summation of the facts;

1. The aircraft were seen to make those airspeeds on september 11, 2001. This has never been questioned by any peer reviewed paper or team of experts, so it stands as fact.
2. The aircraft were well within their structural limit of .86 mach by a margin of .12 mach or approximately 14%; flying at maximum of reported speed of .74 mach.
3. The simulator test carried out on an actual certified full flight simulator (the best available), in a fully accredited pilot certification facility, showed that the 767 aircraft can reach an airspeed of .86 mach in a flat trajectory at approximate sea level. It was also shown that .89 mach could be achieved in a similar shallow dive as seen made by aa11 and ua175 on 9/11. These results show far greater speeds possible than the required official airspeed of 560mph or .74 mach by some 16% at the minimum and 20% if the actual flight conditions were simulated in a shallow dive.
4. Considering the large margins demonstrated here, we can now conclude that the “impossible airspeed” stated by john lear et al. Is false.

i would consider this bloggers claims to be hersay

 

[Derideo_Te]

impossible plane speed with boeing - youtube

once again eots believes hearsay instead of facts.

The smallest available engines on the 767-200 produce 50,000 obs of thrust each. In a simulator it was more than possible to reach those air speeds and considerably greater speeds too. Pilots know that they planes have more power than they need because sometimes in a emergency they will use it climb out of danger. The planes are also built to withstand air pockets that place huge stresses on the airframe. These planes are build to safely fly for decades and millions of miles in all kinds of extreme weather conditions but eots believes a phone call to someone at boeing who admits that she is not an engineer.

simulator proves ?impossible speed? Was ?probable? For flt 11 and flt 175 | 911blogger.com

how accurate are full flight simulators and how does the 767-300 compare to the 200?

The flight simulator in which i carried out this test is considered to be an exact representation of the real aircraft. It takes into account all of the test data gathered during the initial flight testing of the 767-200/300 and ongoing data gathered from flight data recorders and observed performance. The instrumentation is exactly the same as the actual aircraft and can be put into service in a real aircraft. The performance of the aircraft engines and the aircraft’s structure are modelled so that a pilot can remain current without doing as many actual flight hours. Basically it is fair to say that what you can do in the simulator can be done in real life, especially as relates to thrust, lift and drag.

After doing this test i then spent a few days on the flight line checking whether the average 767 pilot thought that the engines could achieve .86 mach at sea level considering what i found in the sim. Mostly they agreed--due to the exceptional power to weight ratio of the 767 series, and its low drag airframe, it was probable it could do just that. I also asked the older pilots that flew in the pratt and whitney (jt9-7r4) powered 767-200 series aircraft if those aircraft were similar to fly to the 767-300 general electric (cf6) powered aircraft they now fly (current simulator configuration). They said they were very similar, having a little less power but being a little shorter and lighter, thus giving them nearly exactly the same power to weight ratio. Once again this was no surprise to me as this is what the manufacturer does--matches the airframe to the power plant to meet the performance specifications which are basically the same for 200 and the 300 series boeing 767.

Conclusion: Is it probable that the 767-200 can make 560mph at sea level?

It is highly probable that aa11 and ua175 could easily make the airspeeds quoted in the official reports and as seen in the video footage. Here is a summation of the facts;

1. The aircraft were seen to make those airspeeds on september 11, 2001. This has never been questioned by any peer reviewed paper or team of experts, so it stands as fact.
2. The aircraft were well within their structural limit of .86 mach by a margin of .12 mach or approximately 14%; flying at maximum of reported speed of .74 mach.
3. The simulator test carried out on an actual certified full flight simulator (the best available), in a fully accredited pilot certification facility, showed that the 767 aircraft can reach an airspeed of .86 mach in a flat trajectory at approximate sea level. It was also shown that .89 mach could be achieved in a similar shallow dive as seen made by aa11 and ua175 on 9/11. These results show far greater speeds possible than the required official airspeed of 560mph or .74 mach by some 16% at the minimum and 20% if the actual flight conditions were simulated in a shallow dive.
4. Considering the large margins demonstrated here, we can now conclude that the “impossible airspeed” stated by john lear et al. Is false.

i would consider this bloggers claims to be hersay

His facts happen to fit the evidence whereas yours don't.

 

[Gamolon]

are you using an example of controlled demolition in order to refute the controlled demolition theory??

Oh Jesus...

You, TakeAStepBack, and others think that the upper section of the tower could not shear/demolish the lower section of the tower with gravity alone. This is based on:

Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both. You would need an energy input for that to occur and we dont have one. Unless you know something we dont.

So I asked that you explain, based on TakeAStepBack's explanation above, how the building in the verinage video I posted goes against TakeAStepBack's "understanding" of the laws of physics.

in your video the top section is not blown into a dust cloud..the instant collapse initiation starts

Let's try this again.

You just admitted that the upper section in my video of the verinage demolition was NOT blown into dust. Meaning it was still intact as it fell. With the floors removed from beneath that upper section, it began to descend.

Now according to TakAStepBack's "understanding" of the laws of phyics:

The issue at hand is that you're saying the upper section of the building sheered off into debris on its way down. Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both. You would need an energy input for that to occur and we dont have one. Unless you know something we dont.

So explain how TakeAStepBack's explanation applies to my verinage video, in particular, the building at 3:22.

The top half turned to debris on it's way down, thus, according to TakeAStepBack, expelled it's kinetic energy. How did the lower section get demolished?

 

[Gamolon]

You guys have no clue.

I suggest you look a femr2's video analysis. His work shows movement of WTC1 9 seconds prior to "release" AND shows that the acceleration was not smooth, indicating a non-freefall descent.

Is this the clown that makes the claim the towers slow by a millseconed each time it hits a floor so therefore its not smooth and not free -fall ?

You don't know what you're talking about do you?

There is a graph he created which shows the DECELERATION of the northwest corner in ft/s^2. What caused that deceleration if explosives were used to create your "no resistance" garbage?

Why did the towers not COMPLETELY collapse in about 9 seconds if there was "no resistance"?

 

[Gamolon]

You guys have no clue.

I suggest you look a femr2's video analysis. His work shows movement of WTC1 9 seconds prior to "release" AND shows that the acceleration was not smooth, indicating a non-freefall descent.

Is this the clown that makes the claim the towers slow by a millseconed each time it hits a floor so therefore its not smooth and not free -fall ?

What caused motion in WTC1 9 seconds PRIOR to the "release" of the upper section?

 

[Gamolon]

How quaint, Daws, that you should write that, considering that you are not troubled by the free-fall collapse of the towers -- a basic violation of the laws of Newtonian Mechanics, unless the resistance to movement of the lower stories had been eliminated !!

They were not free fall.

Show me a video of the complete collapse that happened in about 9 seconds.

I can do better than that. You get a stopwatch and a video of the collapse of either building, and then time it. The collapse is over in 15 seconds, tops.

WRONG! You can find photos and videos of the partial cores still standing.

From FAQs - NIST WTC Towers Investigation

11. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5A).
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

If the lower portions of the building had been crunched and then accelerated in free fall, it should have taken 30 seconds to a minute.

Where's your math numan? Can you provide me the math from any of the 2000+ engineers who show this? Can you show me the math where the floor below and it's connections should have resisted the descending mass from above? How much would that first floor being impacted have slowed the upper section before failing?

Don't have any math? I wonder why? 2000+ supposed engineers supporting your crap for almost 12 years and STILL no plausible explosive scenario OR math showing how the towers should have resisted.

 

[Gamolon]

Gee demolitions can go wrong? Yet we are to believe that the three largest ever attempted were prepared in secret and went off without a hitch even after planes slammed into two of them....

Got it......

but why did the dynamic load not crush the rest of the building ollie ?

Why did your explosives in the core not demolish the remaining core? What caused the floors to shear from around the remaining core?

 

[Gamolon]

Here's another good one for you eots, numan, TakeAStepBack...



The antenna visibly starts to descend at 1:23 so obviously the explosives in the core have gone off. In the frame at 1:24 where are all the ejected column due to those explosions? According to Chandler and his crap, heavy columns were ejected sideways at 70 mph. That translates into 103 feet per second. In two seconds that's 206 feet. I see nothing being ejected at 1:25, two seconds after the antenna starts to visibly go down. What about 1:26? Still no columns being ejected. Now were up to 309 feet at 70 mph.

What's going on you guys?

I see no massive squibs either at 1:24.

Screenshot of 1:25. Where are the ejected "heavy beams and columns" traveling at 70 mph? They sould have traveled 206 by at this point? I see no core columns crashing through the perimeter columns. I see no perimeter columns peeling away from the building.



Screenshot of video at 1:26. Core columns and perimeter columns should have traveled 309 at this point. Don't see them there either.

 

[eots]

oh jesus...

You, takeastepback, and others think that the upper section of the tower could not shear/demolish the lower section of the tower with gravity alone. This is based on:



So i asked that you explain, based on takeastepback's explanation above, how the building in the verinage video i posted goes against takeastepback's "understanding" of the laws of physics.

in your video the top section is not blown into a dust cloud..the instant collapse initiation starts

let's try this again.

You just admitted that the upper section in my video of the verinage demolition was not blown into dust. Meaning it was still intact as it fell. With the floors removed from beneath that upper section, it began to descend.

Now according to takastepback's "understanding" of the laws of phyics:

the issue at hand is that you're saying the upper section of the building sheered off into debris on its way down. Kinetic energy can't be used for two separate works. So it either expelled that energy as it sheered off (meaning that the total mass of the upper section became smaller, along with its potential/kinetic energy along the way), or it used it to pulverize the section below it. One or the other, not both. You would need an energy input for that to occur and we dont have one. Unless you know something we dont.

so explain how takeastepback's explanation applies to my verinage video, in particular, the building at 3:22.

The top half turned to debris on it's way down, thus, according to takeastepback, expelled it's kinetic energy. How did the lower section get demolished?

you mean on that concrete building ?