No Planes Theories on 9/11

feoil

bonkey wrote: »

Actually...I've been thinking more about this, and I'm not sure I agree.

Momentum is calculated based on velocity. Velocity, however, is relative.

Take two situations:

A stationary spacecraft hit by a meteorite travelling at 10 km/sec

and

A spacecraft travelling at 10km/sec hitting a stationary meteorite.

From a relativistic point of view, both of these are the same event. What is stationary and what is in motion is relative to the observer, but doesn't effect the event. Fom the perspective of someone sitting in the spacecraft, there is - in both cases - a meteorite approaching at 10km/sec. From the perspective of someone sitting on said meteorite, there is - in both cases - a spaceship approaching at 10km/sec. In both cases, the meteorite and spaceship should behave identically. How they behave relative to the rest of the universe may be different, but their effect on each other should be the same.

Similarly, if throwing a stone at a window will break the window at 5m/sec, but not at 4.999m/sec, then hitting the stone by swinging the window at it should break the window at 5m/sec, but not at 4.999m/sec (ignoring effects such as wind resistance etc.)

So, I go back to my previous position. Hitting an stationary aircraft with a building moving at 500mph will do exactly the same damage to the building as hitting a stationary building with an aircraft moving at 500mph will do. After all, from the perspective of the (doomed) passengers on that flight, this is exactly what happened.

Forgive my leaving cert physics, but isn't the area to which the force is applied relevant here. The nose of the aircraft and the blades of the wings present a small area through which the momentum of the aircraft is being applied to the steel. Pressure is inversely related to area. Had the planes hit "belly" first they would have bounced of the buildings.

bonkey

feoil wrote: »

I do, however feel your examples of structural failure of steel frame buildings due to fire aren't particularly helpful in trying to understand the failure of the WT buildings.

They're not supposed to be. They're supposed to show that the claim is false which says that no other steel-frame buildings have collapsed due to fire.

If someone wants to reword the claim, then we can look at the reworded claim.

Reword it so that is only high-rise buildings...with no water available for the fire suppression system...and with a (previously unidentified) design-flaw which makes it susceptible to collapse from fire....and we're only talking about WTC7.

The point is that steel fails in fire. This is known, established and should be indisputable...but there's always someone claiming something along the lines of "no steel structure has ever failed from fire" which is just plain misleading.

WTC7 collapsed in its entirety because of a design flaw. It was an exceptional case. It is ony by ignoring this finding that we find something remarkable about it being a total, rather than partial collapse (or indeed a collapse at all). Put differently...the official findings are that this was an exceptional case, and explains why. WTC1 and 2 are clearly exceptional cases, because of the aircraft that hit them at speed.

All three cases were exceptional. What makes them exceptional is, in each case, clearly part of the official findings. In effect the "astronomical odds" argument is saying exactly the same thing - that it was exceptional - but ignoring that the official findings already detail what was exceptional in each case.

The reason for this, incidentally, in the case of WTC7 is that most of material which alleges that it is somehow mysterious predates the publishing of NIST's final report. Unsurprisingly, not much (if any) of it has been updated since then, to deal with the claims of the report.

bonkey

King Mob wrote: »

I hate to disagree with you Bonkey.
We can assume the the reference frame is Earth and that the building is a zero velocity and zero acceleration.

Disagree away, but surely by assuming the reference frame you're already ignoring the point I'm making - that velocities are only meaningful with a reference frame. Change the reference frame, and the velocities change...but the energies involved don't.

Einstein (I believe) used to simplify things down to a universe with only the relevant objects. Take a universe with a stationary building and a plane travelling towards it at 500mph. This is indistinguishable from a universe with a stationary plane and a building travelling towards it at 500mph.

If we add a third body, then we have a reference frame from which the resulting behaviours may differ, but the effect of the plane on the building's structure cannot be effected by simply creating a different reference point.

In the real world, assuming a reference point is important in terms of determining what the behaviour will be relative to that reference point, but not what the behaviour of the objects will be releative to each other.

Assume the reference point is the nose of the plane, and you've got a building rushing towards you at 500mph. Shouldn't this thought experiment save everyone on board, if the plane would bounce off the building in such a case?

When the building strikes the plane, the strength of it's structure imparts an acceleration in the direction the building is traveling in. Thus the plane (or pieces of) are now traveling in the same direction as the building.

Correct. In fact, if we do the math, we'll find that the plane (or pieces thereof) will be travelling at more-or-less exactly the same speed as the building....their speeds relative to each other will be effectively 0. This is the same as the building bringing the plane to a halt.

This is where we go back to Newton's Third Law, and ask what happens to the building when it imparts this energy to the plane? It experiences an equal and opposite reaction, which means that it will be subjected to a force equal to that the plane would have exerted had the plane impacted it.

In plane-into-building, the plane exerts a force on the building, damaging its structure. The building (and planet it is attached to) exerts a, equal-and-opposite force on the plane. This turns their relative motion to more-or-less 0, and the energies in both cases cause structural damage to both bodies.

In building-into-plane, the building (and planet it is attached to) exerts a force on the plane, which in turn exerts an equal-but-opposite force on the building. Their relative motion will (again) become more-or-less 0, and again the energies in both cases cause structural damage to both bodies.

When a body with more momentum impacts a body with less, it doesn't impart all of its energy. If it did, we could stop a flying aircraft by putting a sheet of paper in front of it. So the "moving building" having greater momentum doesn't matter, unless we can show that the energy transfer would also be different.

King Mob

bonkey wrote: »

Correct. In fact, if we do the math, we'll find that the plane (or pieces thereof) will be travelling at more-or-less exactly the same speed as the building....their speeds relative to each other will be effectively 0. This is the same as the building bringing the plane to a halt.

Well I think that's where you are going wrong.
Bringing a plane at 500mph to zero is not quite the same a speeding it up to 500mph.

When you're bring it up to speed you are only working against it's mass.
So for example if the plane had a mass 500kg it would require 500 Newtons of force to acceleration it to one metre per second. But when slowing it down you have to work against it's momentum.
Also consider that when it is being speeded up it is accelerating in the direction of the force, where as slowing down it would be accerlerating (or decelerating) in the opposite direction of the force.

bonkey wrote: »

This is where we go back to Newton's Third Law, and ask what happens to the building when it imparts this energy to the plane? It experiences an equal and opposite reaction, which means that it will be subjected to a force equal to that the plane would have exerted had the plane impacted it


In plane-into-building, the plane exerts a force on the building, damaging its structure. The building (and planet it is attached to) exerts a, equal-and-opposite force on the plane. This turns their relative motion to more-or-less 0, and the energies in both cases cause structural damage to both bodies.

In building-into-plane, the building (and planet it is attached to) exerts a force on the plane, which in turn exerts an equal-but-opposite force on the building. Their relative motion will (again) become more-or-less 0, and again the energies in both cases cause structural damage to both bodies.

When a body with more momentum impacts a body with less, it doesn't impart all of its energy. If it did, we could stop a flying aircraft by putting a sheet of paper in front of it. So the "moving building" having greater momentum doesn't matter, unless we can show that the energy transfer would also be different.

I know toss a penny in the air.
Which do you feel more? The throw or the catch?

The momentum of the moving plane gives it a greater force than one that is not moving.

murphaph

King Mob wrote: »

The momentum of the moving plane gives it a greater force than one that is not moving.

The momentum of a moving plane hitting a building is the same force as the inertia of a stationary plane hit by a building travelling at the same speed. The damage done to both structures will be the same regardless of which one was moving and which one was stationary.

How did NIST ascertain the impact velocity? Weren't the flight data recorders lost? IIRC someone senior in the NTSB was asked about the flight data recorders and he said he "couldn't remember any other incident where the black boxes had not been found." Perhaps they melted too, but a upposed hijackers passport survived the impact and landed on the street below.

King Mob

murphaph wrote: »

The momentum of a moving plane hitting a building is the same force as the inertia of a stationary plane hit by a building travelling at the same speed. The damage done to both structures will be the same regardless of which one was moving and which one was stationary.

No it's not.

murphaph wrote: »

How did NIST ascertain the impact velocity? Weren't the flight data recorders lost? IIRC someone senior in the NTSB was asked about the flight data recorders and he said he "couldn't remember any other incident where the black boxes had not been found." Perhaps they melted too, but a upposed hijackers passport survived the impact and landed on the street below.

The tons and tons of wreckage a rubble might explain the lack of the black box. I don't think anyone has ever claimed it melted.
But yea a passport is the exact same thing. It's not like a passport is pretty light or anything and it is certainly, absolutely impossible for it to be blown clear of fire and such by explosions or impacts or anything.

bonkey

King Mob wrote: »

Well I think that's where you are going wrong.
Bringing a plane at 500mph to zero is not quite the same a speeding it up to 500mph.

Ignoring air resistance, static resistance, and so forth...yes...it is the same. The energy required to add momentum is exactly the same as teh energy required to remove momentum.

When you're bring it up to speed you are only working against it's mass.
So for example if the plane had a mass 500kg it would require 500 Newtons of force to acceleration it to one metre per second. But when slowing it down you have to work against it's momentum.

An object of 500kgs, travelling at 1m/s has a momentum of (unsurprisingly) 500N...exactly the energy which was used to accelerate it. Deceleration, by applying 500N in the opposite direction, will reduce that momentum to 0, thus reducing the velocity to 0.

It is only when we have inelastic effects that this doesn't hold true. In that case, applying 500N of force to an object at reast will not accelerate it to 500N of momentum, nor will applying 500N against an object in motion (with momentum of 500N) bring it to rest. In both cases, we lose energy through the inelastic effects.

I know toss a penny in the air.
Which do you feel more? The throw or the catch?

That depends on how you throw and catch. If you catch in a mirror of how you throw (i.e. drop your hand in a manner reverse to how you raised it to throw) then catching will feel no different to throwing (aside from the effect of gravity). Suspend the coin somehow, slap it into the air, and then catch it, and it'll feel the same each way too.

The momentum of the moving plane gives it a greater force than one that is not moving.

Momentum is frame dependant.

We have to remember this. All calculations involving momentum are relative to a frame of reference.

If you change your frame of reference, you will calculate different momentums....but that doesn't have any effect on the actual energies involved.

King Mob

bonkey wrote: »

Ignoring air resistance, static resistance, and so forth...yes...it is the same. The energy required to add momentum is exactly the same as teh energy required to remove momentum.


An object of 500kgs, travelling at 1m/s has a momentum of (unsurprisingly) 500N...exactly the energy which was used to accelerate it. Deceleration, by applying 500N in the opposite direction, will reduce that momentum to 0, thus reducing the velocity to 0.

It is only when we have inelastic effects that this doesn't hold true. In that case, applying 500N of force to an object at reast will not accelerate it to 500N of momentum, nor will applying 500N against an object in motion (with momentum of 500N) bring it to rest. In both cases, we lose energy through the inelastic effects.



That depends on how you throw and catch. If you catch in a mirror of how you throw (i.e. drop your hand in a manner reverse to how you raised it to throw) then catching will feel no different to throwing (aside from the effect of gravity). Suspend the coin somehow, slap it into the air, and then catch it, and it'll feel the same each way too.


Momentum is frame dependant.

We have to remember this. All calculations involving momentum are relative to a frame of reference.

If you change your frame of reference, you will calculate different momentums....but that doesn't have any effect on the actual energies involved.

I'm beginning to think you're right bonkey.

meglome

murphaph wrote: »

...IIRC someone senior in the NTSB was asked about the flight data recorders and he said he "couldn't remember any other incident where the black boxes had not been found." Perhaps they melted too, but a upposed hijackers passport survived the impact and landed on the street below.

I never cease to be amazed by this. The idea that light objects wouldn't be blown clear in an explosion when they clearly would. ID cards and passports are exactly the light objects you might expect to find.

murphaph

King Mob wrote: »

No it's not..

It is. And now it seems people are accepting my original point that a 500,00o tonne building hitting a plane at 500mph (or whatever) will indeed suffer the same damage as a building being hit by a plane at the same speed. So I ask my original question again....does anyone here think that a 500,000 tonne steel structure with curtain steel walls would be punctured by hitting a stationary 100 tonne aluminium aircraft? I know I don't. I've seen plenty of footage of NASA experiments where they deliberately crashed jetliners into concrete blocks (testing new fuel types) and they planes completely disentegrate.

Maybe people don't want to believe how little goes in to a commercial jetliner? Next time you're on one-look how thin the walls are and remember most of that is plastic and insulation (or you'd freeze to death at altitude) and the skin itself is only a couple of mm's thick. The only things with any real mass are the engines as they have to be made of steel and titanium alloys.

King Mob wrote: »

The tons and tons of wreckage a rubble might explain the lack of the black box. I don't think anyone has ever claimed it melted.
But yea a passport is the exact same thing. It's not like a passport is pretty light or anything and it is certainly, absolutely impossible for it to be blown clear of fire and such by explosions or impacts or anything.

Come on King Mob. Do you think it's likely the passport was in the supposed hijacker's pocket? That's where I keep mine. Do you believe the passport was blown out of his pocket, clear of a gigantic fireball that we are led to believe burned with such ferocity that it toppled one of the worlds largest buidlings, then was thrown outside the fuselage and outside the walls of the building only to land in a spot on the footpath where handily enough a NYPD officer spotted it amongst the other debris and went and picked it up? Given that nothing else was produced from the plane, is it a little 'suss' that this one identifying item should be found in these circumstances?

Remember it was this passport that led to the discovery of Atta's luggage in Portland which 'didn't make the connecting flight' and so fortunately for the FBI was all intact. In that luggage they found the video on a 757 flight deck and the last will and testament (among other cluedoesque clues) of Atta. Why would you bring your last will and testament on board a plane you were about to detroy in a huge fireball?

As for the data recorders. These things should have formed the key to any investigation. They didn't find them because they either didn't look for them or they didn't exist. They couldn't get that steel sold for scrap quick enough. The data recorders hould have been in that pile and should have been found. They found the ones from flight 93 buried deep underground, but they survived a plummet straight into the earth. So we are told anyway. Not to find a single black box from the WTC site is indeed unusual.

Also, just for completeness, why has Osama Bin Laden not appeared as indicted for the 9/11 attacks on the FBIs most wanted list? It's because the FBI has "no hard evidence that Bin laden was involved". Yet Bin Laden's name was first mentioned on (I believe) CNN within 12 hours of the attacks. No evidence to indict (even to this day) but they know for certain he did it?

murphaph

meglome wrote: »

I never cease to be amazed by this. The idea that light objects wouldn't be blown clear in an explosion when they clearly would. ID cards and passports are exactly the light objects you might expect to find.

If I even accepted that this man's passport was blown out of his pocket and clear of the fireball and the building itself, I find it hard to believe that in the chaos of the day that an NYPD officer was looking down at the ground when the whole world was looking up at the big hole in the side of the building!

King Mob

murphaph wrote: »

It is. And now it seems people are accepting my original point that a 500,00o tonne building hitting a plane at 500mph (or whatever) will indeed suffer the same damage as a building being hit by a plane at the same speed.

Yes but the there is apparently a difference between your opinion and ours.

murphaph wrote: »

So I ask my original question again....does anyone here think that a 500,000 tonne steel structure with curtain steel walls would be punctured by hitting a stationary 100 tonne aluminium aircraft?

Yes, yes it can.

murphaph wrote: »

I know I don't. I've seen plenty of footage of NASA experiments where they deliberately crashed jetliners into concrete blocks (testing new fuel types) and they planes completely disentegrate.

Concrete is not the same as steel. The walls of WTC where not huge sheets of pure steel.

murphaph wrote: »

Maybe people don't want to believe how little goes in to a commercial jetliner? Next time you're on one-look how thin the walls are and remember most of that is plastic and insulation (or you'd freeze to death at altitude) and the skin itself is only a couple of mm's thick. The only things with any real mass are the engines as they have to be made of steel and titanium alloys.

And would you please describe the details of the construction of the wall where the plane crashed? Or maybe you don't want to believe how little was went into them?

And if a plane couldn't have done it what exactly was it that did crash into the WTC?

murphaph wrote: »

Come on King Mob. Do you think it's likely the passport was in the supposed hijacker's pocket? That's where I keep mine. Do you believe the passport was blown out of his pocket, clear of a gigantic fireball that we are led to believe burned with such ferocity that it toppled one of the worlds largest buidlings, then was thrown outside the fuselage and outside the walls of the building only to land in a spot on the footpath where handily enough a NYPD officer spotted it amongst the other debris and went and picked it up?

Well you assume it was in his pocket. There is no reason to assume that.
But yes it is entirely possible for it to be blown clear.
The fuselage of the plane had broken apart and the building had a very large hole in it.

murphaph wrote: »

Given that nothing else was produced from the plane, is it a little 'suss' that this one identifying item should be found in these circumstances?

Well that's not actually true. There were many things recovered from the planes.
http://www.911myths.com/html/personal_effects.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

murphaph wrote: »

Remember it was this passport that led to the discovery of Atta's luggage in Portland which 'didn't make the connecting flight' and so fortunately for the FBI was all intact. In that luggage they found the video on a 757 flight deck and the last will and testament (among other cluedoesque clues) of Atta. Why would you bring your last will and testament on board a plane you were about to detroy in a huge fireball?

Wow luggage being lost in an airport that's never happened before!

But yea there is no other reason why he would carry his will on him. Just look at all that evidence that the FBI planted it.
Oh wait there isn't a scrap of evidence to that.

murphaph wrote: »

As for the data recorders. These things should have formed the key to any investigation. They didn't find them because they either didn't look for them or they didn't exist. They couldn't get that steel sold for scrap quick enough. The data recorders hould have been in that pile and should have been found. They found the ones from flight 93 buried deep underground, but they survived a plummet straight into the earth. So we are told anyway. Not to find a single black box from the WTC site is indeed unusual.

There's a slight difference between flight 93 and the plane at WTC.
Namely tons and tons of wreckage.
Some of which would have been hastily removed during a rescue operation.
And it's been shown that the scrap wasn't sold quickly at all.

And why would they go to the bother of placing a passport and a will in the guys luggage but forget to fake a flight recorder?

murphaph wrote: »

Also, just for completeness, why has Osama Bin Laden not appeared as indicted for the 9/11 attacks on the FBIs most wanted list? It's because the FBI has "no hard evidence that Bin laden was involved". Yet Bin Laden's name was first mentioned on (I believe) CNN within 12 hours of the attacks. No evidence to indict (even to this day) but they know for certain he did it?

Maybe because he was involved in an attack on the WTC before?
And the FBI doesn't deal with suspected criminals outside the country?

Why would not having "hard evidence that Bin laden was involved" stop them from putting him on the most wanted list anyway?

King Mob

murphaph wrote: »

If I even accepted that this man's passport was blown out of his pocket and clear of the fireball and the building itself, I find it hard to believe that in the chaos of the day that an NYPD officer was looking down at the ground when the whole world was looking up at the big hole in the side of the building!

http://www.911myths.com/Flight_11_Seat_Cushion_Large.jpg

Diogenes

murphaph wrote: »

If I even accepted that this man's passport was blown out of his pocket

You're making an assumption the passport was in his pocket. It could have been in his luggage or in the seat pocket in front of Atta's seat.

Would you like a list of things that were recovered from the planes at the WTC. Seat cushions, mail, and the frequent flyer card of one passenger were all recovered.

and clear of the fireball and the building itself, I find it hard to believe that in the chaos of the day that an NYPD officer was looking down at the ground when the whole world was looking up at the big hole in the side of the building!

Argument from incredulity.

As for the data recorders. These things should have formed the key to any investigation. They didn't find them because they either didn't look for them or they didn't exist. They couldn't get that steel sold for scrap quick enough. The data recorders hould have been in that pile and should have been found. They found the ones from flight 93 buried deep underground, but they survived a plummet straight into the earth. So we are told anyway. Not to find a single black box from the WTC site is indeed unusual.

Heres a list of 6 other crashes where black boxes were not recovered, or only partially recovered

Also, just for completeness, why has Osama Bin Laden not appeared as indicted for the 9/11 attacks on the FBIs most wanted list? It's because the FBI has "no hard evidence that Bin laden was involved". Yet Bin Laden's name was first mentioned on (I believe) CNN within 12 hours of the attacks. No evidence to indict (even to this day) but they know for certain he did it?

Oh FFS, this again. Search the forum we've been over this. So if I have your argument there was a giant conspiracy among high end US government officials to blame Bin Laden for 911, they just didn't bother to fake any evidence for the FBI?

bonkey

murphaph wrote: »

So I ask my original question again....does anyone here think that a 500,000 tonne steel structure with curtain steel walls would be punctured by hitting a stationary 100 tonne aluminium aircraft? I know I don't. I've seen plenty of footage of NASA experiments where they deliberately crashed jetliners into concrete blocks (testing new fuel types) and they planes completely disentegrate.

If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that because you've seen aircraft impact a concrete structure (without details of the makeup of the concrete), you don't believe it can punch through 2 plates of steel, each of which are (roughly) 1/4" thick?

OK...fair enough. Me...I'd very much doubt that 2 thin plates of steel have anywhere near the stopping power of the concrete walls I've seen in the oft-posted videos of crash-tests. We'll just have to differ on that one, I guess, because I don't know exactly how to work out the stopping power of 1/4" plate.

Maybe people don't want to believe how little goes in to a commercial jetliner?

Its not a question of how much or little is in it. The energy has to go somewhere...and the only place for it to go is into the point(s) of impact.

Planes might be made of very little, but they've still quite quite an amount of mass. Mass at high velocity, impacting on a small area....the outcome is not one I find at all surprising.

meglome

murphaph wrote: »

It is. And now it seems people are accepting my original point that a 500,00o tonne building hitting a plane at 500mph (or whatever) will indeed suffer the same damage as a building being hit by a plane at the same speed. So I ask my original question again....does anyone here think that a 500,000 tonne steel structure with curtain steel walls would be punctured by hitting a stationary 100 tonne aluminium aircraft? I know I don't. I've seen plenty of footage of NASA experiments where they deliberately crashed jetliners into concrete blocks (testing new fuel types) and they planes completely disentegrate.

Maybe people don't want to believe how little goes in to a commercial jetliner? Next time you're on one-look how thin the walls are and remember most of that is plastic and insulation (or you'd freeze to death at altitude) and the skin itself is only a couple of mm's thick. The only things with any real mass are the engines as they have to be made of steel and titanium alloys.

Others can talk about the physics, I don't know a lot about it. However I've seen footage of timber from houses destroyed in a hurricane blasted through concrete walls and trees. So by your reckoning the timber should just break against the surface but it doesn't.

And isn't the lack of plane pieces the reason the 'truth movement' believes no plane hit the pentagon?

murphaph wrote: »

Come on King Mob. Do you think it's likely the passport was in the supposed hijacker's pocket? That's where I keep mine. Do you believe the passport was blown out of his pocket, clear of a gigantic fireball that we are led to believe burned with such ferocity that it toppled one of the worlds largest buidlings, then was thrown outside the fuselage and outside the walls of the building only to land in a spot on the footpath where handily enough a NYPD officer spotted it amongst the other debris and went and picked it up? Given that nothing else was produced from the plane, is it a little 'suss' that this one identifying item should be found in these circumstances?

Was his the only ID they found? Nope it wasn't.

murphaph wrote: »

As for the data recorders. These things should have formed the key to any investigation. They didn't find them because they either didn't look for them or they didn't exist. They couldn't get that steel sold for scrap quick enough. The data recorders hould have been in that pile and should have been found. They found the ones from flight 93 buried deep underground, but they survived a plummet straight into the earth. So we are told anyway. Not to find a single black box from the WTC site is indeed unusual.

Well lets make a comparison of the other instances when a big jet crashed into a big building at high speed so we can judge what should happen. Ah wait it never happened before so we can't say what should have happened.

murphaph wrote: »

Remember it was this passport that led to the discovery of Atta's luggage in Portland which 'didn't make the connecting flight' and so fortunately for the FBI was all intact. In that luggage they found the video on a 757 flight deck and the last will and testament (among other cluedoesque clues) of Atta. Why would you bring your last will and testament on board a plane you were about to detroy in a huge fireball?

How many peoples luggage is misplaced or fully lost every year in the US? If I had to guess I'd say a lot. So I looked it up and about 10,000 pieces of luggage are lost in the US every day. So totally weird that Atta's luggage was lost initially.

murphaph wrote: »

Also, just for completeness, why has Osama Bin Laden not appeared as indicted for the 9/11 attacks on the FBIs most wanted list? It's because the FBI has "no hard evidence that Bin laden was involved". Yet Bin Laden's name was first mentioned on (I believe) CNN within 12 hours of the attacks. No evidence to indict (even to this day) but they know for certain he did it?

And yet Osama openly admits he did it.

murphaph wrote: »

If I even accepted that this man's passport was blown out of his pocket and clear of the fireball and the building itself, I find it hard to believe that in the chaos of the day that an NYPD officer was looking down at the ground when the whole world was looking up at the big hole in the side of the building!

So plane hits building and debris falls to the ground. Who would you expect to be checking around the area, Santa Claus perhaps? or maybe, just maybe the cops? They didn't just find his passport either they found many items belonging to passengers, some still attached to bits of them.

murphaph

Osama admits he did it? Did he not in the immediate aftermath deny involvement and then later he praised the actions but never implicated himself in it? There is that great video of a chap who looks diddly-squat like Osama Bin Laden apparently saying he did it to some chap beside him, the only problem is, it's not Osama Bin Laden!

It is also disengenuous to suggest that the upper floors of WTC1&2 were made of quarter inch steel and leave it at that. This steel was welded to form box girder sections which interlocked together in a strong grid pattern. This grid of steel girders was connected to the steel colums around the core shaft by steel trusses with reinforced concrete floors to provide compressive strength.

I accept (and hope) by the way that I could be wrong and that it was all done as described by the mass media. Do you guys accept that you could be wrong?

murphaph

meglome wrote: »

So plane hits building and debris falls to the ground. Who would you expect to be checking around the area, Santa Claus perhaps?

Grow up will you. Internet sarcasm is so old.

meglome

murphaph wrote: »

Osama admits he did it? Did he not in the immediate aftermath deny involvement and then later he praised the actions but never implicated himself in it? There is that great video of a chap who looks diddly-squat like Osama Bin Laden apparently saying he did it to some chap beside him, the only problem is, it's not Osama Bin Laden!

My understanding is his voice has been checked against known recordings of his voice. This doesn't mean every internet video is real though, just the ones which have been verified.

murphaph wrote: »

It is also disengenuous to suggest that the upper floors of WTC1&2 were made of quarter inch steel and leave it at that. This steel was welded to form box girder sections which interlocked together in a strong grid pattern. This grid of steel girders was connected to the steel colums around the core shaft by steel trusses with reinforced concrete floors to provide compressive strength.

I think you misunderstand the design of WTC 1 & 2. It was not a cube design but a cone within a cone to allow for big open floor space. With a weakness in the way the floors were connected as it turns out.

murphaph wrote: »

I accept (and hope) by the way that I could be wrong and that it was all done as described by the mass media. Do you guys accept that you could be wrong?

Of course anything may be possible however we have to add to that what's actually likely and what there's evidence for. The evidence fits the offical account as far as I can see.

murphaph wrote: »

Grow up will you. Internet sarcasm is so old.

Fair enough. But you seemed astonished that at a crash site a cop might pick something up in the debris. Whereas it seemed the most obvious thing that would happen to me.

bonkey

One warning gents...keep it civil

bonkey

murphaph wrote: »

It is also disengenuous to suggest that the upper floors of WTC1&2 were made of quarter inch steel and leave it at that.

Why is it disingenuous? I was responding to two points...that you remember how thick the columns looked when you were up there, and that you've seen large concrete walls be used to stop aircraft in crash testing.

I pointed out as a response to the first if these points that these "thick columns" were hollow columns made of 1/4"steel, and as a response to the second that a head-on collision with the outer columns of WTC2 has two 1/4" plates in the equivalent positions of your concrete wall.

It seems that you're accusing me of being disingenuous for not responding to points that you hadn't made...but now that you've made them, lets have a look....

This steel was welded to form box girder sections which interlocked together in a strong grid pattern. This grid of steel girders was connected to the steel colums around the core shaft by steel trusses with reinforced concrete floors to provide compressive strength.

All correct. This is a pretty accurate description of what gave the building the structural integrity to remain standing after the impact. It does not, however, explain why the outer shell should have withstood a head-on impact with an aircraft flying at over 400mph.

A quick google shows any number of scientific papers and articles calculatinh aspects of the impact. One of these even suggests that 2cm of steel instead of the (approximately) .65 cm would have been enough to prevent entry.

I can find no equivalents to explain why teh plane should have bounced off. I can find many people arguing that it "surely" should have done so, but a conspicuous absence of anything passing as modelling or research. Have you any such links?

I accept (and hope) by the way that I could be wrong and that it was all done as described by the mass media. Do you guys accept that you could be wrong?

I always accept that I could be wrong...I just want someone to show me why, rather than appealing to a sense of "surely it must be..."

Dude111

PullMyFinger! wrote:

The maker is basically saying that no planes hit the buildings on 9/11 and he does a damn good job of trying to prove such an outlandish, even ludicrous, point

Well ill tell you one thing,WHATEVER THIS IS ONLY HAS 1 WING!!

http://www.youtube.com/v/7CI25gztMRk

Supposedly the "2nd plane" that hit!!!

I watched this over and over and i only see 1 wing on this!!

Penn

Dude111 wrote: »

Well ill tell you one thing,WHATEVER THIS IS ONLY HAS 1 WING!!

http://www.youtube.com/v/7CI25gztMRk

Supposedly the "2nd plane" that hit!!!

I watched this over and over and i only see 1 wing on this!!

That video has been edited to try and photoshop the wing out of it, although it also looks like they tried to edit the other wing out too. You can see the way the pixels move where the wings are meant to be in a completely unnatural way. Not to mention that the engine from that wing is still visible. I'm sorry, but that video is bullsh*t.

Unedited video below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUT7yup-YIg

meglome

Dude111 wrote: »

Well ill tell you one thing,WHATEVER THIS IS ONLY HAS 1 WING!!

http://www.youtube.com/v/7CI25gztMRk

Supposedly the "2nd plane" that hit!!!

I watched this over and over and i only see 1 wing on this!!

Just to add to what paddyirishman said. You cannot use compressed video as a source for details like this. In the compression process detail is lost, there's no doubt about that. You'd need to find hi-res copies. So far all the hi-res copy's I've seen have clearly shown a big jet plane.

seannash

Dude111 wrote: »

Well ill tell you one thing,WHATEVER THIS IS ONLY HAS 1 WING!!

http://www.youtube.com/v/7CI25gztMRk

Supposedly the "2nd plane" that hit!!!

I watched this over and over and i only see 1 wing on this!!

ha ha ha ha

Captain Chaos

It has two wings at 0:04, really bad edit job btw.

Di0genes

Dude111 wrote: »

Well ill tell you one thing,WHATEVER THIS IS ONLY HAS 1 WING!!

http://www.youtube.com/v/7CI25gztMRk

Supposedly the "2nd plane" that hit!!!

I watched this over and over and i only see 1 wing on this!!

I spent three years editing news for CNN, Al Jazeera, and Sky News. You really think the hundreds of editors who have spent countless hours with uncompressed versions of the footage, would be crying foul if there was only one wing?

meglome

Di0genes wrote: »

I spent three years editing news for CNN, Al Jazeera, and Sky News.

Nice mix there Diogenes

Di0genes

meglome wrote: »

Nice mix there Diogenes

Thanks there's also Bloomberg and the occasional stint at the Beeb.

Hopefully this should help put paid to the idea that news organisations are filled with corporate drones who obey their masters, news is filled with freelancers who jump from station to station, with no real loyalty to a particular ethos or philosophy.

orourkeda

Diogenes wrote: »

No, no they didn't they claimed that non of the hijackers names were on the passenger list. What they neglect to say is the list they are referring to, is a victims list, and that out of respect to the victims on the planes, the names of the people who killed them, are not included among the list of their victims.

It's one of the many factually inaccurate claims in that "documentary".

I'm not sure if these claims are made in loose change but I've heard it suggested that several of the hijackers had been seen alive after the sep 11 attacks.