Jump to content

I know what happens in 2012.


titorite
 Share

Recommended Posts

Howcome on this website:

 

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/05/17/1147545364256.html

 

the pic looks like this:

 

spacer.png

 

And on this website:

 

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Pentagon-Crash18may06.htm

 

the pic looks like this:

 

spacer.png

 

I see a million differences between these two photos, most notably the POV, not to mention the cones etc... Was there more than one surveillance video?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 417
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Because the snapshot is taken from the frames of film the government released (the only one released to date). The actual explosion is 4 frames long I think. The one you bring up is frame 3 or 4.

 

As for the differences between the two; The photo you bring up is from the same batch of film. The difference is that it is a computer close up. That is why the sidewalk curve is more pronounced in your photo and why thier is alot less driveway. Who ever displayed that photo just cut out that portion of the photo and enlarged it. Same pentagon photo from the same film that we all have access too.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey heres a great photo I thought I'd share. Again notice all the green grass and lack of wreckage. More than that notice all the upright uncliped light poles.

 

spacer.png

 

And here is another photo of the wreckage again upright, uncliped light poles.

 

photo

 

Hope you don't mind the link but the photo itself streched the thread so I removed it

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darby...

 

"My friend, why should we be surprised at the occupation/employers (related to the federal government) of people flying out of Washington, DC?"

When I came back here yesterday, and saw Rustys post about People... it suddenly struck a chord within me. It wasn't so much about the people, as it was what they did and who they worked for at the time - and how it seems to correlate with events appearing in the news media leading up to 9/11.

I'll give you an example: One of the two people on board the plane that flew into the pentagon - was employed with Boeing (which as we both know is a govt contractor.) He worked for them as a engineer/scientist with their Integrated Defense Systems division. Prior to his employment with them - he was employed with the NSA for 14 years as a networking specialist. He was a computer science graduate. He served in the USAF for 4 years.

 

The other gentleman on board had been employed with Hughes for 17 years, and then Raytheon for 8 years (another Gov't contractor,) as their Director of Program management. He was a career soldier(US army, ret.) who had helped Hughes Corp develop anti radar technology, and was their "Dean of electronic warfare." On November 13, 2001 Army Brigadier General Edward M. Harrington, Director of the Defense Contract Management Agency, on the behalf of President Bush awarded the Defense of Freedom Medal to this guy as well as 3 other Raytheon employees. The medal was to recognize civilian Department of Defense employees killed September 11, 2001. It is the equivalent to the Purple Heart for civilians.

 

Now, knowing all of the above - I'd be awful curious to know what programs he'd been overseeing for the civilian DOD workers at Raytheon after reading this next part - wouldn't you??

 

v v v

 

Just 17 days before 9/11 occurred - Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force successfully auto land a pilot-less FedEx Boeing 727 six times at Holloman AFB, NM using a military GPS landing system that will enable ground control personnel to take control of a hijacked airplane and force land it.

 

Okay - lets both sit back and say so what??

 

Well, it seems too simple really, doesn't it? Raytheon conducts this test - and it just so happens one of these men whose killed in the crash at the Pentagon, worked for Raytheon as the Dir of Program Management (for the Dept of Defense?) Now, suppose for a moment, some of this mans work was overseeing this joint USAF/Raytheon project discussed above - that had completed testing 17 Days earlier?

 

There again, what about the first guy I brought up, (also, on the same flight,) who worked at Boeing in their Integrated Defense Systems Div? Whats the probability he could have been involved with the project above? This device Ratheon developed - and was testing, was installed in a Boeing aircraft. And as a scientist/ engineer in that div, it could be possible that he knew something about it - or perhaps had even worked thru Boeing with Raytheon, in engineering the means for the device to be installed and function inside the plane?

 

Yeah.. okay -- (to quote Sgt. Murtagh in Lethal Weapon... " Thats real thin Riggs...")

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First I must say I will not engage in the Pentagon debate, as that gives in to the "change the topic" tactic. Besides, it is an airplane issue which is RMT's area and he is doing fine, even though some don't wish to research his facts. Second, we should look at a tally here of where we have been. You, Mr. titorite, have presented two faulty pieces of analysis that I have proven to be incorrect:

 

1) You presented someone else's information about steel weakening at certain temperatures, and I have clearly shown that analysis to be incorrect, especially that the first Young's Modulus critical point occurs at 600 Deg F. I referenced an engineering website which shows the plots for the actual decrease in Young's Modulus for carbon steel over temperatures. This debunking speaks to the credibility of your sources and the fact that you do not appear to check their veracity.

 

2) I have shown how you attempt to use analogies which have no basis in fact nor are they valid comparisons (i.e. the silly notion that a screen door is like a load bearing set of steel columns). This again speaks to the credibility of what you believe, and how you will use invalid analogies to try to convince people.

 

Taken together these two are enough to show that there is a serious character issue here, and at a minimum anyone else reading should take anything you present as "compelling evidence" with a serious grain of salt. But there is much more as we shall now see:

 

Not quite. I don't see any evidence of buckling.

Here we see a clear example that you violate your own tag line of "Even if you ignore the facts it doesn't change the truth." I have seen you berate RMT for not reading information you offer on other people's websites. Yet we shall now see that you are clearly not even reading all the information available in the NIST reports and factual evidence.

 

Can you show some photographic evidence of buckled Columns? Surely if thats what happened then thier ought to be lots of HUGE buckled columns...Show me the photos.

http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf

This is a set of 36 viewgraphs from NIST that are chock full of evidence that perimeter columns were indeed bowing, which is evidence that catastrophic buckling is approaching. But I will not take the cheap way out that you do and say "scroll down and read for yourself". No, I will direct you to the specific pages of evidence that you have apparantly, to-date, ignored.

 

Slides 5-6 shows clear evidence of inward bowing (as much as 55 inches). And it is interesting to note that the maximum bending occurs directly below the largest part of the fires.

 

Slide 11 shows more inward bowing on WTC2.

 

Slide 12 shows the sagging floor slab in WTC2 floor 82. The transverse (shear) loads of these hanging floor slabs are what is causing the perimeter columns to bow inward. The compressive stresses in thes same perimeter columns of the building mass above are the destabilizing forces that ultimately drive the catastrophic Euler buckling phenomenon.

 

Slide 13, more clear evidence of inward bowing, which leads to buckling (that is, if you understand the differential equation of Euler column buckling).

 

Slide 15 is seconds before collapse, and is the best evidence that Euler column buckling is imminent. It is hard to argue that entire segments of that face are all bowed inward. And we must not forget that Euler buckling differential equation. The greater the deflection of bowing, the more quickly it induces the final buckling. It is an unstable derivative condition. (Look it up)

 

Slide 16 clearly debunks many conspiracy theorist charges that "the buildings fell straight down". It is obvious in the picture on the right side of this slide that the top of the building is tilted. This is, yet again, clear evidence that the columns on the "low side" of the tilt buckled as one would expect from the primary failure mode of vertical columns under load.

 

Later in these slides you will see other evidence that dispels notions you have floated here before about how the inner columns were "hardly damaged". But this is enough for this source, as it is now clear there is plenty of evidence to support the most likely failure mode of vertical columns under load, namely Euler column buckling. You have simply ignored it. That does not change the truth.

 

I told you I had not heard of Euler Buckling before you brought it up...Now I have read about it and..yeah, I doubt it.

That is merely an opinion. One which you cannot factually support, but I would welcome you to try. What you must now do is refute the evidence I have shown is in existence. And to refute Euler column buckling you must show me your math. By the way, that math would also have to refute the math calculcations by the civil engineers in the paper I quoted in my last reply to you. You've got some work to do.

 

I have no problem being blunt, you are not as smart as me

And what evidence, pray tell, would you possibly have to support that claim?

 

You defend the government version of events and defend thier version with disinformational tactics rather than just calmly HONESTLY looking at the inconsistencies of which thier is legion.

4. Use a strawman. The version from NIST is based on evidence, as they outline. I do not "defend" it. I merely point out the factual engineering that supports it. And the primary factual evidence that supports it is the differential equation of Euler column buckling. Once again, no one has been able to scientifically refute this primary failure mode, and I will continue to bring it up until you do. It is a must.

7. Question motives. Claiming I am not honest, when you have no evidence to support this, is essentially questioning my motives. I point to data and scientific fact. That is honest.

 

The melting point of steel

4. Use a strawman.

17. Change the subject.

 

For at least the 5th time now, the issue is NOT about steel melting (although I see how you wish to change the subject and make that strawman stick). The issue is about weakening of steel. This is specifically known as Young's Modulus. All the assertions by you that you are not using disinformation tactics in maneuvers like this do not make it so. Please stay on the topic that is associated with Euler column buckling, which is Young's Modulus, NOT steel melting. One happens well before the other in temperature, as I have adequately shown.

 

Because the north tower took a direct hit to its inner core. Instead of haveing less obstructions to blast through the fireball and all of the pressure force and heat had to of taken out a great deal of the concrete surrounding the 20x20 core columns. The damage was much worse then the north tower where the fireball blast zoomed through the columns and burned in mostly midair.

Not one word of this refutes the scientific fact laid out by that wikipedia page, which is based on the evidence that all can see and agree to: There was a larger mass above the damage zone in the building that was hit second. Force = mass*acceleration (in this case "g"). Larger mass above the damage zone means larger forces (and thus larger stresses) in the remaining load bearing column. Wiggle as much as you wish, and fool yourself into thinking you have refuted this evidence, but you have not.

 

remarked about my lack of intelligence

4. Use a strawman.

Not even once have I made a remark about your intelligence. This is a strawman. What I have remarked about is your ignorance of scientific facts, especially of Euler column buckling and structural engineering concepts. And I have shown that ignorance in more ways than one. Do not make the mistake of confusing general intelligence with ignorance on a specific topic, in much the same way you confuse melting steel with weakening of its Young's Modulus.

 

and have attacked the messanger and ignored the message.

I have not ignored the message. I have, in fact, disputed it and in many ways debunked it. However, you have certainly ignored evidence, especially that which indicates Euler column buckling.

 

I Provide links when applicable or asked. (Most of the time)

And the times you do not provide links, such as in the case of your claim about Wikipedia and iron (which is not steel), is when you cannot support your statements. I am now asking you to give me the SPECFIC LINK for that statement of yours that you are ignoring, and I would like you to quote the words in that link that support your original claim. Here:

 

As for Wikis' info on steel...this should really be comon sense. Goto wiki, type in iron, scoll down and read.

4. Use a strawman.

Fact: Iron is not steel. Fact: The Young's Modulus of iron is significantly smaller (weaker) than carbon-steel. Here is a link that supports that fact:

 

http://www.engineersedge.com/manufacturing_spec/average_properties_structural_materials.htm

 

Compare the values of "Cast Iron" with "Carbon Steel".

 

Fact: Even if you do as you say above (which is not providing a link, nor showing exactly where you claim is supported) you will not find any statements that will support this claim of yours:

 

Again Wikipedia has the right answer at 800 degrees steel gets hot but it doesn't even reach plascisity.

One reason you won't find it is because you point me to a page about iron, yet your vague statement you attribute to Wikipedia is about steel. I am sure others reading now see how you are indeed using disinformation diversionary tactics to avoid admitting you are incorrect in your knowledge (or even Wikipedia's statements) about steel weakening.

 

NOW THEN! When you accused me of being a disinformationalist, You said such things to the affect that; I made you out to be a straw man, riddiculed you, relyed on fall back position...Please re-read my reply to that post because I asked you many questions but you answered none.

17. Change the subject.

None of those questions are pertinent to your incorrect analysis and facts that I have pointed out several times now. Your questions are merely an attempt to change the subject. Each of my assertions of your use of disinformation tactics stand on their own. You may not accept them, but again I will say that just because you say it is so, does not make it so. Stay on the topic of WTC towers 1 and 2, and do try to refute Euler column buckling in the face of the clear evidence. That is the topic, and each time you try to change it I will call you on it with "#17".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing indazona...There is a photo I have posted on page 10 of this here thread. In it a long haired person(likely female) can been seen standing at the edge of the impact hole holding onto a column.

 

Shouldn't that column have been too hot to touch according to your logic? Should not the whole area be too hot to approach?

4. Use a strawman.

17. Change the subject.

 

You are again confusing two distinct scientific principles. There is no fire present in the picture you offer of a person near the impact zone. So NO, this area does not have to be too hot to touch. That is flawed logic regarding Young's Modulus. You are inferring a different concept which is heat transfer of steel. The heat transport properties of a metal are fundamentally different than its rigidity and ability to handle loads (Young's Modulus). Obviously since there is no fire in the photo, in order for them to be too hot to touch, you would have to consider the TIME it would take for heat to propagate from where a fire exists up to that point in the photo. That is heat transfer. I am talking exlusively about Young's Modulus. Cease and desist in your attempts to change subjects. Like I said above, I will always call you on it. And yes, it applies.

 

Something you never talk about...TIME....How long does heat have to be applied to steel for steel to retain it? How fast does steel dissapate heat?

Again, you are either trying to change the subject, or your are showing your ignorance of these structural concepts. Both of these relate to heat transfer, not Young's Modulus. Therefore, they are irrelevant questions. Heat does not have to propagate to a specific portion of a column under stress to being to weaken its Young's Modulus. This is because compressive stress is equal along the length of the column from the point of the load. Any point where there is fire in existence, that spot will weaken due to temperature effects. Heat transfer has no bearing on this.

 

How long must heat of a constant tempature be applied to steel to make it reach elasicity?

Incorrect use of technical terms. The fact is, even at nominal temperatures (no fire), steel is already "elastic" and exhibits "elasticity". The term "elastic" refers to a linear range of a plot of stress vs. strain. When steel is loaded such that it remains in this linear region, steel is elastic. Once steel is loaded beyond this linear region, steel has been said to be stressed beyond the "plastic limit". This means when the load is removed, a permanent deformation will still exist.

What I hope you are referring to above when you use the incorrect term "elasticity" is the reduction in Young's Modulus when exposed to heat. That is the main topic we are addressing here, despite your attempts to change the subject. If this is what you mean, then the answer to your question of "how long" is: When a piece of steel at a nominal temperature is exposed to a higher temperature, it's Young's Modulus begins to weaken immediately at the surface that is exposed to the heat. The steel will continue to weaken from the surface inward to the center of the steel specimen as the heat remains constant or its temperature increases. So contrary to what you are implying, there is no appreciable "wait time" for steel to begin weakening when exposed to high temperatures. This is precisely why structural steel is required to have fireproofing applied to the exposed surfaces, because that fireproofing works to insulate the steel from the heat of the fire, thus preventing immediate weakening.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Hello JL (if you don't mind me shortening your handle):"

Not at all... whatever works best for the fingers. :)

 

" I am not clear exactly what you are saying... you mean the F-4 hitting a larger block, but the thickness of the Pentagon? Hard to say without modeling it (as a minimum). But as I mentioned earlier, due to the design strength of the F-4 wing it would put up a much greater resistance to the concrete than a commercial aircraft."

I'll go ahead and clarify my hypothetical. I'm fairly sure both of us know there are many different grades of plastic, steel, and cement that are used in a wide application of purposes in construction. In your link of the f-4 footage, the explanation given by the nararator states the cememt used was a 'bomb hardened' grade of cement (special mix) that is used in the construction of Nuclear Reactor housings (the dome(?)) Its no wonder the plane body literally disintegrated on impact.

Now - I'd be taking a guess here - that the outer wall hit on the pentagon is made of both 'bomb hardened / steel re-inforced' concrete. It would make for an interesting study, to fly the same type of f-4 - moving at the same speed - into a scaled down replica of that outer wall and see what develops - per the explanations in 1 and 2 in your reply post. The understanding was very helpful indeed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First I must say I will not engage in the Pentagon debate, as that gives in to the "change the topic" tactic.

Thats your progative.

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Can you show some photographic evidence of buckled Columns? Surely if thats what happened then thier ought to be lots of HUGE buckled columns...Show me the photos.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf

 

This is a set of 36 viewgraphs from NIST that are chock full of evidence that perimeter columns were indeed bowing, which is evidence that catastrophic buckling is approaching. But I will not take the cheap way out that you do and say "scroll down and read for yourself". No, I will direct you to the specific pages of evidence that you have apparantly, to-date, ignored.

If I ignore NIST it is because they lie. I clicked the link and looked at all 36 pages. I have to wonder why the bowing columns are worse in the more visable areas. In my mind it would be more logical for the most severe bowing to occur in the center of the fire. According to thier photo the fire heated up the area below it to an elastic state but not in the area of fire itself.

If it only takes 600 degrees F to weaken steel why do other sky scrapers survive fires that burn much longer?

 

Later in these slides you will see other evidence that dispels notions you have floated here before about how the inner columns were "hardly damaged". But this is enough for this source, as it is now clear there is plenty of evidence to support the most likely failure mode of vertical columns under load, namely Euler column buckling. You have simply ignored it. That does not change the truth.

NIST provides illustrations of which cloumns they say were severed and damaged. How can they know which columns were severed and damaged? Was thier people inside the building while it burned surveying the columns, checking to see which ones were severed and which ones were damaged? How did NIST reach thier conclusions?

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You defend the government version of events and defend thier version with disinformational tactics rather than just calmly HONESTLY looking at the inconsistencies of which thier is legion.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

4. Use a strawman. The version from NIST is based on evidence, as they outline. I do not "defend" it. I merely point out the factual engineering that supports it. And the primary factual evidence that supports it is the differential equation of Euler column buckling. Once again, no one has been able to scientifically refute this primary failure mode, and I will continue to bring it up until you do. It is a must.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad.Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

The issue at hand being the inconsistencies which I address and you avoid. NIST has nice "digitaly enhanced" photos of the outer wall bowing. Where are the photos of the buckled and severed columns of the inner core? That is an inconsistency. We have an illustration of which columns were severed but no photos of the severed columns. I am not using a staw man tactic, your argument IS weak.

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The melting point of steel

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

4. Use a strawman.

 

17. Change the subject.

 

For at least the 5th time now, the issue is NOT about steel melting (although I see how you wish to change the subject and make that strawman stick). The issue is about weakening of steel.

Now this is a good example you using the stawman method against me. You have quoted me out of context and you know it. You and asked me a question about why I trusted Wiki for some facts and not others and I was explaining how some facts are unchangeing (like the melting point of ANYTHING)

and how some facts change(like the earth being round and not flat).

 

You have tried to make me look bad by quoting me out of context and accuseing me of changing the subject when I was answering your question about wiki. Bad form sir.

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

remarked about my lack of intelligence

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

4. Use a strawman.

 

Not even once have I made a remark about your intelligence. This is a strawman. What I have remarked about is your ignorance of scientific facts, especially of Euler column buckling and structural engineering concepts. And I have shown that ignorance in more ways than one. Do not make the mistake of confusing general intelligence with ignorance on a specific topic, in much the same way you confuse melting steel with weakening of its Young's Modulus.

You have called me foolish,ignorant,ridiculous,vapid,transparent, told me to "grow up" and "go to school" and that is the short list. Why not avoid the name calling and intellectual insinuations?

 

I have not ignored the message. I have, in fact, disputed it and in many ways debunked it.

Really? Why haven't you answered my wtc7 questions? Was buckleing responsible for its demise aswell? The subject/topic/message is (for you at least) about the towers and the reason why they fell. WTC7 was one of those towers too but you haven't touched it.

 

And the times you do not provide links, such as in the case of your claim about Wikipedia and iron (which is not steel), is when you cannot support your statements. I am now asking you to give me the SPECFIC LINK for that statement of yours that you are ignoring, and I would like you to quote the words in that link that support your original claim. Here:

Iron is not steel??? What is steel alloy made out of then?

link

 

Melting point 1811 K

 

(1538 °C, 2800 °F)

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

One more thing indazona...There is a photo I have posted on page 10 of this here thread. In it a long haired person(likely female) can been seen standing at the edge of the impact hole holding onto a column.

 

Shouldn't that column have been too hot to touch according to your logic? Should not the whole area be too hot to approach?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

4. Use a strawman.

 

17. Change the subject.

So anytime I bring up a fact that you dont like you're just going to cite #4 and #17 weather or not it applies? I bring up an inconsistencey and you fall back on young's Modulus and buckling.

I asked a question reguarding the heat of the impact hole. That is not changeing the subject.

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Something you never talk about...TIME....How long does heat have to be applied to steel for steel to retain it? How fast does steel dissapate heat?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Again, you are either trying to change the subject, or your are showing your ignorance of these structural concepts. Both of these relate to heat transfer, not Young's Modulus. Therefore, they are irrelevant questions. Heat does not have to propagate to a specific portion of a column under stress to being to weaken its Young's Modulus. This is because compressive stress is equal along the length of the column from the point of the load. Any point where there is fire in existence, that spot will weaken due to temperature effects. Heat transfer has no bearing on this.

The question directly relates to the stiffness of steel. Instead of answering how long a certian temperture has to be applied to steel for it to retain the heat you dodged the question. You continualy insist that 600F was the all the heat needed to weaken the columns below load bearing strength. HOW LONG MUST 600 DEGREES BE APPLIED TO A CARBON STEEL COLUMN TO REACH THE POINT TO WHERE IT WILL EULER BUCKLE UNDER ANY INCRESED WEIGHT? in your opinon.

Can you provide any examples of other buildings pancake collapsing due to fire weaking the young's modulus?

 

Now then about WTC7 and everything else. Why don't you stop limiting yourself and address some of the other stuff many have brought up.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indy,

 

Are these columns buckled?

 

THREAD STRECHING PHOTO

 

What about these columns?

 

spacer.png

 

These columns don't look like they buckled.

 

spacer.png

 

These columns here all have nice even tops... no buckeling here

 

spacer.png

 

Have you considered controled demolition might attribute for any of the buckeling?

 

Now this hunk of metal looks buckeled...but wait look at the center of the photo?? Is that a strait shear? How does euler buckeling account for that?

 

spacer.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, your rebuttal rests on the validity of the eyewitness reports.

What makes you believe that to be true? It certainly is not. Eyewitness reports (as applied in aviation accidents which I have participated in the investigation of) are only used to confirm or substantiate material evidence. No investigator in their right mind would align their evidence such that their argument for what happens "rests" on an eyewitness account, and you cannot show that mine did.

 

This would also mean that anything at the scene where the crash occured would have to be ignored, as they indicate something other than an airliner was used.

Exactly what makes this true? I just explained above that foundational evidence is material, and at best eyewitness accounts are only supportive. Sorry, this statement of yours is just not true. Material evidence was clearly found for a polished airframe, which matches the American Airlines livery. That indicates an airliner. Material evidence was also found for turbine disks, landing gear pistons, a landing gear wheel, and let's not forget that "c" which can be shown to be a direct match for the "c" in the "American" title on the side of the airplane. Clearly, your statement does not hold unless you assume someone planted all this evidence in broad daylight.

 

You're rebuttals are equally as based on incomplete and inaccurate assumptions.

You say that, but you do not show it. Anywhere in your response.

 

We covered why it could not fly low as a large aircraft - obstructions.

You have not shown obstructions nor specifically shown a flight path that would meet with obstructions. Your are claiming a complete argument, but your argument is quite incomplete.

 

It was also high-speed, correct? The laws of accelation would not have allowed for a last-minute decent (followed by the neccessary slow-down to control the craft) and a sudden accelation into the building.

The emboldened area of your quote above appears to show you think you have some knowledge of the requirements ("necessary") of aircraft control. You do not. Could you explain, technically, why it is "necessary" to slow down to control the aircraft in a maneuver? You might wish to write a book, because one of the most fundamental control analysis techniques we use is called a "constant speed manevuer". In addition, there are things called "automatic throttles" that are specifically designed to hold an airplane's speed constant in the face of not only disturbances but also when the airplane manevuers. Therefore, your statement above in bold is not correct.

 

I merely pointed out it would be impossible for an overhead plane, of that size, at that speed, to be able to pull off such a stunt. See above as for why.

You gave your opinion and nothing more. (In a sidenote you also use the word "impossible" which is poor form, as this is always a very difficult adjective to prove.) You also related your belief in some sort of control requirement which is not a requirement. I fail to see the purpose in debating a person such as yourself who clearly is bending the truth and making statements, as if they are fact, that they cannot provide evidence to support.

 

I doubt, in your training simulations, you had to fly low inside a crowded city

Are you inferring Arlington is a crowded city? This is a non-sequitor. Please show me the "crowded city" in the verified flight path of AA 77 into the Pentagon.

 

The air cusion effect, if I am not mistaken, only applies on flat land, which would have rendered it fairly useless over buildings of varying shapes and sizes.

You are indeed mistaken. The air cushion effect applies to any form of mass, even rolling hills. Flat land is simply used to make analysis and derivation of the ground effect simpler to derive. But the physics of the phenomenon itself are not restricted to flat land. All that rolling hills would do is change how deep in the ground effect the wing of the airplane is immersed as the airplane flies over the rolling hills. Again the non-sequitor: Please show me buildings in the AA 77 flight path into the pentagon. It went over a freeway interchange by the time it got below 500 feet.

 

I'd prefer it if you'd stop claiming I hold assumptions, when I am clearly showing you what I am basing it on. An assumption is a HIDDEN reason for an argument, IE it cannot be explict.

That is false. There is no requirement for an assumption to be "hidden" as you claim. Here is the link to the dictionary definition of assumption, and it does not make the restriction that an assumption cannot be explicit.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assumption

 

Your arguments are fatuous (see defintion #2 in the dictionary above), as I have shown in just these replies. I see no further reason for addressing all your statements which are not based in fact. Besides, I have some work to do right now. Good day sir.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YES RMT I am claiming that the fighter jet in the youtube video did not travel all the way through the concrete wall it smashed.

The problem is you have no material evidence to support that claim. Are you relying on the reporter claiming the airplane was "atomized" to come to this conclusion?

 

That you tube video shown with crystal clarity that the fighter jet could not go through on concrete wall.

Obviously it cannot show it with "crystal clarity" unless the video were extended to show the entire timeframe of the impact until the point where all parts of the airplane stopped moving, and then examining the resulting damage to the wall. Here we see a perfect example of how you jump to conclusions on incomplete data. That is very poor investigative technique. One of the mainstays of aircraft accident investigations is we do not "choose a theory and back it with evidence". Rather, the process uses evidence and data to eliminate those scenarios that the data/evidence shows could not happen. Once the tree of possibilities has been pruned, and all that are left are those things that the data/evidence allows could have happened, then a statement of highest liklihood is made for what had the highest probability of occurrence for happening.

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Titorite ...

 

The answer about the F-4 has been in front of you since yesterday, when RMT and I were discussing this video. On review of the footage several times and on giving some thought to the matter, I tend to feel "atomized" was a very poor choice of words on the reporters part. The cement block is reported to be a bomb hardend material. It was designed to withstand a bomb blast, but not necessarilly a plane impact at high speed.

 

If you look closely: From the POI - the cement block (stationary body) being struck, begins to "absorb" half of the F-4's ( moving body) velocity. Once this happens, you can clearly see debris beginning to come out at the back side of that block. Of course - nothing recognizable of the plane seems to be in it - yet - as a larger force beyond impact, due to deceleration of the plane hasn't finished completing to the end. Because this footage ends by that point - none of us can really say what the condition of the plane or the block were, post collision.

 

If I'm wrong -- then I'll stand corrected.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi again JL,

 

I'd like to say you are quite a pleasurable person to discuss and debate with... even if we don't agree on everything. I appreciate that very much.

 

I'll go ahead and clarify my hypothetical.

Gotcha. Now I understand, and yes I would also like to see such a test. It would be closer to what the commercial jet experienced at the Pentagon.

 

Now - I'd be taking a guess here - that the outer wall hit on the pentagon is made of both 'bomb hardened / steel re-inforced' concrete.

Yes, at first I also guessed the same thing. But then when titorite posted one of his pictures (the one which shows the Pentagon "peeled open" with lots of service vehicles outside already working on repairs) I noticed that the outer "shell" wall (where you can clearly see its thickness and some office spaces opened to the outside) does not seem as thick as I would have expected. Given perspective of this photo as compared to the close-up shots of the F-4 video, I can't for sure say that the Pentagon is "as thick", "thicker", or "thinner" than the F-4 wall that was tested. And of course we cannot tell just by looking at it to what standards it was built or reinforced. It would be a good little investigative project to see if one could ascertain the similarities or differences between the two walls. It could go a long way towards either validating the F-4 video as "similar" to the Pentagon, or invalidating certain aspects of it.

Thanks again,

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to retract my statement. During second 28 of the youtube video you posted you can see a bit of concrete bust out the other side.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWm5rU7oVn4

 

One of the mainstays of aircraft accident investigations is we do not "choose a theory and back it with evidence". Rather, the process uses evidence and data to eliminate those scenarios that the data/evidence shows could not happen. Once the tree of possibilities has been pruned, and all that are left are those things that the data/evidence allows could have happened, then a statement of highest liklihood is made for what had the highest probability of occurrence for happening.

That is the only proper way to investigate anything. So about all the pentagon photos I presented. Would you care to address some of those inconsistencies? Like why the grass infront of the impact point shown no sign of scorching. How did all the large pieces of werckage escape any burning despite being at the center of impact? You can't even find soot on any of the larger pieces of wreckage. What of all the light poles in the photos? The light poles are well past the freeway and they are directly in the path of the final approach, so why are they upright and undamaged? The jet flew in low to the ground, shouldn't the jet exhaust burned/browned the grass?

Can you address these questions I bring up based on the photos I posted?

 

photo number one of light poles in relation to wreckage

 

Photo two

 

spacer.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So about all the pentagon photos I presented. Would you care to address some of those inconsistencies?

I'd be happy to:

 

Like why the grass infront of the impact point shown no sign of scorching.

Why do you assume it should be? Or better yet, how do you know it is not, and simply scorched in a wide dispersal (i.e. individual blades or sections but perhaps not whole swatches)? The fact is that hot gases (hotter than the surrounding air) rise. This is why your attic in your house is always hotter than your main floor. This is also why a hot air balloon rises. The gases in the impact explosion were certainly more hot than the surrounding atmosphere. So first of all, if we assume no other forcing velocity, the tendency for these particles is to rise. Now we know there were other forcing velocities (outward from the Pentagon). But even with these outward components of velocity there are still going to be buoyant forces acting on these hot gases to give them an upward component of velocity in addition to that component of velocity sending them outward from the blast. It would be incorrect to assume that the majority of the molecules of hot gas had to impinge on the grass for these reasons. That is not to say that SOME of these molecules did not hit the grass, but it would clearly not be a majority. So with all of these FACTS, again I ask why we must assume a "scorched earth policy" must be the norm? For all we know, if you had a very close-up shot (as opposed to the ones further away) we might see some minimal signs of scorching.

 

How did all the large pieces of werckage escape any burning despite being at the center of impact? You can't even find soot on any of the larger pieces of wreckage.

Why do you assume that all pieces must be burned or have some noticeable sign of soot on them? I can explain a viable physical reason why some pieces would not. When pieces start to fly apart from the airplane after such a violent collision, quite a few pieces will "bounce off" the building as the airplane disintegrates, and they will have velocities AWAY from the building. This is reversal of momentum due to the "elastic collision" effect. Soot requires smoke, and at that moment of the fireball there was little smoke (that comes later). Burning or charring of the parts requires sustained fire (and by sustained I mean for at least several seconds). When the airplane flies apart on impact, a great many of those pieces that are thrown outward away from the impact zone will not experience any smoke (hence, no soot) and they will fly away so rapidly that they will not experience sustained fire. Look at photos of many aircraft accidents and you will see many airplane parts thrown clear of the impact area. Not many of those have soot or are charred. Pan Am 103 (Lockerbie Scotland), or United Airline DC-10 into Sioux City Iowa. I can show plenty of examples of why one should not immediatley assume that parts thrown clear of an impact site should always be sooted or charred. Again, you may wish to cling to a belief that they should be sooted/charred, but that does not make it real, actual or truthful. The fact is this happens on many aircraft accidents.

 

What of all the light poles in the photos? The light poles are well past the freeway and they are directly in the path of the final approach, so why are they upright and undamaged? The jet flew in low to the ground, shouldn't the jet exhaust burned/browned the grass?

How do you know they were directly in the path of the final approach? How do you know how low if flew to the ground before impact? Where is the evidence that allows you to make these conclusions? In photo #1 how do you know the airplane should have passed over the light posts in that photo, and in addition how do you know that it was at an altitude to hit them? In photo #2 how do you know the direction that this photo is taken from is the actual lateral flight path into the building? Where is the undisputable evidence that leads to an assumption that these posts were in the pathway of the jet?

 

That is the only proper way to investigate anything.

I am trying to tone down the rhetoric, but the questions I ask above indicate that you are not following the best practices of aircraft accident investigations. All of the things you have asked me to address are apparant assumptions. You seem to think that all the parts thrown clear should have been sooted/charred. You seem to assume the posts not clipped were definitely in the approach path or at/below the level of the airplane. But there is no hard evidence that would allow you to make those conclusions. Let me try to explain with your last question:

 

The jet flew in low to the ground, shouldn't the jet exhaust burned/browned the grass?

Where is the evidence that tells us exactly HOW LOW it flew over the ground? We would need that if we were to wish to perform a thermodynamic analysis to show the grass had to be burned/browned. We cannot just assume "it must have flown low enough for the engines to burn the grass". Another factor is HOW FAST it came in. Over 500 mph. At that speed there may not be time for the grass to have been burned, especially if the jet exhuast cone was more than 3-4 feet above the ground.

What I am describing to you is just how excruciatingly we adhere to standards of evidence in aircraft accident investigations. No aircraft investigator for the NTSB (or private companies) would ever just assume "the jets must have been close enough to the ground to burn the grass." They would have to have EVIDENCE that they, in fact, WERE that close to the ground. That would be something like the radar altimeter readouts from the airplane in question. Once again, I don't doubt that you may poo-poo this and say that I am "ignoring evidence", but I am not. Instead I am asking for the evidence to back your assumptions that these things should have happened.

 

Another photo you posted may indeed show some signs of ground disturbance where you seem to claim there is none. When I get home from work this evening, I will download that photo, mark it up, and repost it to show you where I see something that MAY be evidence of the grass being disturbed. Bear with me.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmmm

 

an another side of the discussion here about 9-11

 

quoted:

 

"Evidence now built higher than the lost towers themselves, points towards BETRAYAL ON AN UNIMAGINABLE SCALE, against you and I THE PEOPLE,

 

to pave the way for WARS PLANNED LONG AGO.

 

On that fateful September morning, more than 3000 + people, mother's, fathers, sons and daughters, were MASSACRED by bombs beneath their feet, and flames above their heads, while those who weren't, jumped to escape the nightmarish slaughter.

 

How does that make you feel?

 

Since then, MANY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of further innocents, are no longer with us, their lives taken, by those same bombs in the towers.

 

'Planes' were crashed, no body parts found, everything miraculously vaporised.

 

The passengers on THE REAL planes, were probably (and I hate to say it, the words don't come easy) taken to a secret faciliy, lined against a wall, and shot.

 

If not, they now probably lie beneath the Atlantic, in a tin coffin, put there by a laughing goverment, that still walks free.

 

Either way, any possible witnesses, as witness to THE CRIME were eliminated.

 

Their deaths should NEVER be forgotten, and inquests in to how they really died, should be started now.

 

All died heroically, and we will never hear their stories.

 

Following the bloodbath, kangaroo courts were set up, in prosecution of a foreign religion, which still today, remain in effect.

 

'You're either with us, or against us,' (GWB Nov 2001)

 

meaning,- if you're against us, YOU ARE a terrorist.

 

That's many people like YOU and I.

 

How does it feel to be a terrorist?

 

"

 

end quoted from:

 

STA web page

 

--

 

regards

 

USAF's 'Space Assets?'

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, i have never flown a plane, and probably never will. BUT!, i have used microsoft flight simulator since wayyy back in the day. im pretty sure that i could easily fly that plane into that spot. with a keyboard no less! however, one would expect to bounce off the pentagon. after all, it does have the u.s.'s most important folks in it.

 

im bored, so i think im gonna fire the simulator up and try it inverted :o

 

on another note, why dont you guys stop arguing? titorite, are you aware that rmt is an official genius?! seriously, he makes planes and stuff man. so this is what i propose to maybe get a pause in the titorite-rmt warzone: maybe 911 was designed to fool engineers. maybe the government thought up a plan, and said, "hey, we cant do it that way, the engineers will notice. we cant let them know anything." because both of yall are on the same side. rmt isnt defending the government, he is defending science.

 

this thread was "i know what happens in 2012." well, i know what happens in 2012. titorite and rmt are still arguing about 911 lol.

 

yall are both smart people, and i can only assume that you both know that you arent going to change each others opinions on the subject. just my opinion on it. :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

recall- your last post is a little bit over the top. But then again, all conspiracy theories always are.

 

>The passengers on THE REAL planes, were probably (and I hate to say it, the words don't come easy) taken to a secret faciliy, lined against a wall, and shot.<

 

Come on man- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Any real hope of ever getting to the bottom of a conspiracy revolves around inconsistencies in the facts, not assumptions- stick to the facts.

 

You should pick out 3-6 things about 9/11 that don't add up and that should be your focus. I posted on this thread what appears to be two different security cams when there should only be one. And it's not cropped or photoshopped- it's clearly another video. THAT ALONE is enough info to get people asking questions, but you glazed over it.

 

Where are the tollbooths and orange cones in this photo?

 

spacer.png

 

Why does the curb in the foreground appear to be different?

 

spacer.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Like why the grass infront of the impact point shown no sign of scorching.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Why do you assume it should be? Or better yet, how do you know it is not, and simply scorched in a wide dispersal ... So with all of these FACTS, again I ask why we must assume a "scorched earth policy" must be the norm? For all we know, if you had a very close-up shot (as opposed to the ones further away) we might see some minimal signs of scorching.

When planes crash and explode they scorch the earth. That is normal is it not?

spacer.png

 

In the above photo we can see that the white hot fireball expands past the structure so we can have a general idea of how far the flame traveled along the ground. A white hot fireball should incinerate the ground charring it black shouldn't it? Isn't the ground normaly charred black at plane crash sites?

 

In the photo two photos below we can see a clear lack of blackend ground.

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

And in the above photo here we can reference the building in relation to the fire ball. And again that grass does not look scorched, singed, or even browned.

 

Why do you assume that all pieces must be burned or have some noticeable sign of soot on them? I can explain a viable physical reason why some pieces would not. When pieces start to fly apart from the airplane after such a violent collision, quite a few pieces will "bounce off" the building as the airplane disintegrates, and they will have velocities AWAY from the building. This is reversal of momentum due to the "elastic collision" effect. Soot requires smoke, and at that moment of the fireball there was little smoke (that comes later). Burning or charring of the parts requires sustained fire (and by sustained I mean for at least several seconds). When the airplane flies apart on impact, a great many of those pieces that are thrown outward away from the impact zone will not experience any smoke (hence, no soot) and they will fly away so rapidly that they will not experience sustained fire. Look at photos of many aircraft accidents and you will see many airplane parts thrown clear of the impact area. Not many of those have soot or are charred. Pan Am 103 (Lockerbie Scotland), or United Airline DC-10 into Sioux City Iowa. I can show plenty of examples of why one should not immediatley assume that parts thrown clear of an impact site should always be sooted or charred. Again, you may wish to cling to a belief that they should be sooted/charred, but that does not make it real, actual or truthful. The fact is this happens on many aircraft accidents.

Well I know if I put a steel butter knife in a lighter flame it will blacken the metal in about five seconds or less. I don't think the blackening is cause by smoke but by carbon residue. Judgeing by the size of the explosion I would assume that any debries that flew away would have some blackened carbon residue...

 

How do you know they were directly in the path of the final approach? How do you know how low if flew to the ground before impact? Where is the evidence that allows you to make these conclusions? In photo #1 how do you know the airplane should have passed over the light posts in that photo, and in addition how do you know that it was at an altitude to hit them? In photo #2 how do you know the direction that this photo is taken from is the actual lateral flight path into the building? Where is the undisputable evidence that leads to an assumption that these posts were in the pathway of the jet?

Well for one thing I saw a nice youtube video earlier that showed the flight path and the light poles flight 77 hit. Yup according to the offical story 5 light poles were knocked down by the plane. I just found this youtube video today. Although I do have to wonder about pole #one

spacer.png

 

a plane traveling at 550 miles an hour knocks down a lamp post into this car and only the windshield is damaged? Lets get a close up.

 

spacer.png

 

Here we can see the refelction off the hood...No dents, No scratchs in the paint, Nothing to indicate a lamp post knocked over by an object traveling at 550 MPH other than a broken windshield?

 

Is damage to the car consistent with what was reported to of happened to it?

 

In reply to:

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The jet flew in low to the ground, shouldn't the jet exhaust burned/browned the grass?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Where is the evidence that tells us exactly HOW LOW it flew over the ground?

The evidence is in the height of impact hole. The impact hole was at the bottom of the pentagon not the top somewhere around the first and second story. From this we can safely assume that the plane was somewhere within 10 feet give or take off the ground. Further evidence is in the alleged 5 cliped light poles. Since the plane cliped them we know that it was flying under them.

As for the speed of the plane. It was around 550 mph. Shouldn't the thrust alone tear up grass and ground?

 

Take your time RMT..We'll all be here waiting to hear from you.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rmt isnt defending the government, he is defending science.

Thank you, ruthless. I might tweak the wording a bit (but you have the right idea): I am imploring we adhere to the best practices of scientific methods in our investigations, and not allow our beliefs to dictate the conclusions. Only the evidence should do that.

 

because both of yall are on the same side.

Kind of, but not exactly. I believe there is sufficient evidence to believe the GOV knew 9-11 was coming, but I just cannot see any real evidence that definitively points to the GOV actually orchestrating it. It is my belief that to jump to that bigger conclusion is inappropriate, given the current evidence, and not supported by the facts of that evidence.

I would also like to see more investigation (by professionals, not Alex Jones), and I would also like to see more evidence revealed. But I also can understand the need to withhold some evidence, and it is seen in the trial of Moussaoui, where held-back evidence WAS released during that trial. The reason evidence is withheld from public view when criminal acts have taken place are for very good reasons:

 

1) To not permit perpetrators to begin to prepare their defense BEFORE they are even apprehended.

 

2) To not pollute any potential jury pool with information that could bias their opinion (one way or the other).

 

These are reasons that are used quite often for not releasing evidence (although sometimes evidence will find ways to be leaked). I am not making excuses for our GOV, I am relating facts about what has been done in past precedent and the reasons for that past precedent.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RMT does not defend the government version of events he defends science....If thus is so then I will be able to open his eyes to a few fine inconsistencies he may of missed.

 

He believes the government knew but failed to act. Why not cross the rubicon and accept that Elements (not the whole but some) within our own government enabled and helped in the attack just like the Gulf of Tolkin? I don't have every answer and I don't claim too. When wrong I promptly admit it. At this point I don't think mine and RMTs debate is "heated". Now indazona is doing a good job of emotionalizing our disscussion but he picks and chooses what he will and will not answer and the answers he does give have not been addressing questions I bring up.

 

I am willing to debate this event because I believe I can change peoples minds by pointing out the flaws and contradictions in the offical story. WTC7,Pancake collapse,paper passports that survive fireballs, unburnable grass,Failed pilots preforming ace areonautical manuvers, etc. etc. and once that is understood one can move onto "cue bono" and how. Then once you understand the truth and the lies you can ask "what am I willing to do about it"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Hi again JL,

 

I'd like to say you are quite a pleasurable person to discuss and debate with... even if we don't agree on everything. I appreciate that very much."

Hi RMT,

Yeah, I've enjoyed discussing this topic along with you guys - although its got a ways off track from discussing titorites claims to know what happens in 2012. :D (coff, coff) I've appreciated the time you've taken to answer my posts. Admittedly, I'm no Physics or engineering expert but as I'm reading these posts and doing research on my own, I'm learning about a lot of new things. I read up on Euler Buckling lastnight. While its all greek to me - I think I understand better why the twin towers collapsed esp when reviewing the NIST reports.

 

"[/i]Gotcha. Now I understand, and yes I would also like to see such a test. It would be closer to what the commercial jet experienced at the Pentagon.

 

Yes, at first I also guessed the same thing. But then when titorite posted one of his pictures (the one which shows the Pentagon "peeled open" with lots of service vehicles outside already working on repairs) I noticed that the outer "shell" wall (where you can clearly see its thickness and some office spaces opened to the outside) does not seem as thick as I would have expected. Given perspective of this photo as compared to the close-up shots of the F-4 video, I can't for sure say that the Pentagon is "as thick", "thicker", or "thinner" than the F-4 wall that was tested. And of course we cannot tell just by looking at it to what standards it was built or reinforced. It would be a good little investigative project to see if one could ascertain the similarities or differences between the two walls. It could go a long way towards either validating the F-4 video as "similar" to the Pentagon, or invalidating certain aspects of it.

 

[/i]

I agree. In fact, perhaps two tests could be performed, one head on at the first test wall and then a 2nd test on a 2nd wall - from the calculated angle of attack the plane used to impact the building. I'll take a look at those pictures again. Something tells me those walls couldn't have been tilt up panels - and that they were poured in place. That building was built in the early 1940's so there should be some construction pictures of it with false work in place, online dating from when it was built.

Heres some facts I found online. 3 construction systems were used to construct the building: Reinforced Concrete walls, wood framing, slate roof.

 

Details

 

Location is across the Potomac River from Washington D.C.

 

71 feet (21.6 meters) high, five stories tall, plus a mezzanine and basement.

 

The five concentric rings are named A, B, C, D, E, from the inner ring facing the courtyard (A ring) to the outside ring (E).

 

921 feet along each outer side facade

 

Floor area of 6.5 million square feet, 34 acres, 13.8 hectares, of which 3.7 million square feet are used for offices.

 

80 million dollar construction cost in 1943 dollars

 

17.5 miles of corridors

 

During construction, up to 13,000 workers were employed. 6,000,000 cubic yards of earth was moved, 41,492 concrete pilings were driven. The construction documents included 2500 sheets of drawings, typically sized 34"x60". 410,000 cubic yards of concrete went into the building, using 680,000 tons of sand and gravel dredged from the adjacent Potomac River.

 

Source: http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/The_Pentagon.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...