It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WTC Challenge

page: 44
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 04:21 PM
Maybe he works for Fox News aka The Republican News Network. Or, he is Bill O'Rielly or Sean Hannity in disguise.

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:05 PM

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Just one small example: Highjackers take off from different airports and fly all over the eastern seaboard, with minimal training and navigate back and hit three buildings with total precision.

[Snip: Aircraft Characteristics]

ATS Popup
You have voted LoneGunMan for the Way Above Top Secret award.

LGM, just wanted to say thanks for that post concerning the flight characteristics of the aircraft used, rather than what we normally see, of "hard/easy to fly a jet; compuerized; etc" [thoughts from non-flight folks, including myself if too deep into the matter].

I take it from this you are either a pilot, or a flight buff WAY above I, lol. While I do understand the principles of flight, and the workings of several aircraft [just from MS Flight Sim, full realism; and reading for fun], your pulling in the dynamics of this paritcular aircrafts glidescope brought a nice new perspective to the flight of WTC. With an aircraft that is persnickity to maneuver, and in need of that long of a glidescope, from a failed Cessna student pilot, well..............

Nice details to the thread LGM


[Edit = Drink coffee, THEN post ........ drink coffee, THEN post ...... drink coff.......]

[edit on 10-8-2005 by Misfit]

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:14 PM
It's called GPS. I hear that if you know the coordinates of anywhere on earth, and punch them in, and push this little bar down in the cockpit, that turns on this thing called "autopilot" the airplane will fly you there. That's what I hear anyway. And I also heard that the WTC buildings were pretty obvious sticking up in the skyline there.

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's called GPS. I hear that if you know the coordinates of anywhere on earth, and punch them in, and push this little bar down in the cockpit, that turns on this thing called "autopilot" the airplane will fly you there. That's what I hear anyway. And I also heard that the WTC buildings were pretty obvious sticking up in the skyline there.

I heard Dick Cheney turned on that GPS.

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 12:49 AM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's called GPS. I hear that if you know the coordinates of anywhere on earth


True to a degree. Depends on the model of autopilot the aircraft had. Some are simply A to B in level flight/turns, some are landing functional.

As for seeing WTC while coming in - keep in mind, what LGM was referring to about "glidescope", simply put, this is what angle of decent to take correlating to how far away an aircraft is when it enters its final decent. With that, the longer the glidescope required by the aircraft, such as this aircraft, a slighter angle is required while decending, rendering your view via the cocpit windshield even less, as it is flying closer to level, making the WTC's below the cockpit view. Ever watch aircraft land? Some come in at a hard angle [note: just before "flare", or. pulling the nose up just before touchdown]; while some seem to float in, it all depends on the flight dynamics of the aircraft.

Here is a shot of a view out a 757-200, is quite minimal.


posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 12:50 AM

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
I heard Dick Cheney turned on that GPS.

yeap I heard that too

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 01:11 AM

It's called GPS. I hear that if you know the coordinates of anywhere on earth, and punch them in, and push this little bar down in the cockpit, that turns on this thing called "autopilot" the airplane will fly you there.

Somebody has a poor understanding of onboard navigational systems and how auto-pilot works, of course if we had the 'black boxes' or data recorders they FOUND, we'd have a good idea of who was flying the plane. Of course a passport can survive the collapses and raging infernos, but those data recorders made to withstand exactly those conditions vanished in another super-amazing cooincidence on 9-11.
Also interesting to note, I read somewhere here recently that American Awacks have the capability of controlling commercial air craft remotely from a decent range, not as far fetched as it sounds either, aircraft control towers have had that technology for decades now.

Also another thought, the recent debacle involving the money for the respiratory problems related to the WTC collapse, remember that? Well, I got to thinking about that, and I think if they were to actually to have given these people the money, they would be admitting the extent of fireproofing in the WTC complex. Can you say Mesothelioma? I bet some ambitious civil law attorneys in NY could if they really thought about it.

Here's another theory I have discussed with Howard before on this thread...'

If you want to read some really disturbing information, google "Radioactive and WTC Dust". A micronuke would explain alot of anamolies, cell phones going dead, cutting of the central columns, the molten steel pools, the pulverization of the concrete and other materials, the paranoid and expedient, even criminal disposal of the steel and debris, and the radiation...

Demolitions with micronukes is not a foriegn concept either.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by twitchy]

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 01:32 AM
I have a perfectly good understanding of how autopilot, navigating, and landing works. I spent 25 years working around planes, and pilots, and did some flying myself for several years. Oh, and as far as GPS goes, We had a KC-135 get within two miles of the airport here, by taking a handheld GPS unit, after they had only been out a year or two, and just holding it up to the window for periodic updates.

Oh, and by the way, they were 767-200s, not 757-200s. The Pentagon was a 757.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Zaphod58]

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:40 AM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
.... "I hear that if you know"......

.... "that turns on this thing called "autopilot"......

.... "That's what I hear anyway" .....

5 post later .............

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I have a perfectly good understanding of how autopilot, navigating, and landing works.
I spent 25 years working around planes, and pilots, and did some flying myself for several years.

Um, which is it? Is it "what I hear"? Or 25yrs plus flight experience?

And I also heard that the WTC buildings were pretty obvious sticking up in the skyline there.

If you have piloted, you would know that a line of sight for the WTC's is damn near non-exestent until at them, unless one is to fly the jet at the same height as the buildings, or be a few thousand feet at least in the air in order to hit a sharp angle of attack to gain clear field of view.

I'm at a loss as for what your scenario with a KC-135/GPS gives credence to

Oh, and by the way, they were 767-200s, not 757-200s. The Pentagon was a 757.

Chalk it to dislexia, the post I referred to for it, or simply confusion from 76757Boeing747pent200PennWTC for 4 years - in any case, the cockpits of these two aircraft [757-200 & 767-200] are virtually identical. The pic here will show you that, it is a 767-200, and the view is just as limited.

Coming up on 5 posts, gonna be something else? Won't apologize for the attitude, but c'mon eh, you went from knowing almost nothing and what you knew is what you "heard", to a 25yr aviation veteran that has even piloted.


posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 05:00 AM
I didn't SAY 25 years of flight experience. I said 25 years of working on and around planes, and pilots, including new autopilot systems the USAF was testing on one of their testbed aircraft.

Oh and btw, there was a LITTLE sarcasm in the "that's what I hear anyway." sorry I should have made that more clear.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Zaphod58]

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's called GPS. I hear that if you know the coordinates of anywhere on earth, and punch them in, and push this little bar down in the cockpit, that turns on this thing called "autopilot" the airplane will fly you there. That's what I hear anyway. And I also heard that the WTC buildings were pretty obvious sticking up in the skyline there.

From your obvious layman understanding of auto pilot systems I find it hard to believe you have 25 yrs aviation experience.
I only have 6 and I know operating and setting up an autopilot is a hell of a lot more complex than inputing GPS coordinates and pressing a button.

"Glass cockpit aircraft like the Boeing 757/767 have complex automation that pilots monitor using CRT-based (i.e., "glass") displays. The automation requires pilots to supervise the operation of multiple modes. A range of modes offers specific control advantages, but also results in a wide variety of behaviours and possible transitions in different contexts of which pilots must be aware."

"After take-off the minimum height for autopilot engagement is 500 feet AAL. During approach, the autopilot may remain engaged below 1,000ft ARTE only if coupled to an ILS glideslope or in VS mode."

If you really believe guys who barely got through Cessna training, in fact one didn't I believe(?), could have set up the autopilot to fly a 767 into the WTC, then you weren't paying much attention during your aircraft experience.

[edit on 11/8/2005 by ANOK]

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:12 AM

First - I really do think there was a bit more humour intended in those posts than you realise


Atta already had a pilot's license before he started retraining in the US.

Jarrah also had a license in Germany, and obtained a license to fly single-engine craft in the US.

Al Shehhi graduated from Embry Riddle Aeronautical University in 1997 with a bachelor's degree in aeronautical science, the university's commercial pilot training degree, and is listed as having a commercial pilot's license.

Hanjour - the admitted "Unlikeliest To Have Ability To Perform Aeronautical Trickery" candidate - is really the only one ringing any warning bells. Sure, he obtained a commercial license - which has been verified several times - but even his instructors questioned the validity of the license before the attacks, but found nothing untoward.

So in short - yes, these men could (legally, to boot) fly planes. The degree of skill involved varied, but it'd be inaccurate to lump them all under the "couldn't fly a kite, let alone a jet" category.

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:22 AM
the question is, do you believe they were the men in the window-less aircraft that crashed into the tower and do you agree with the official story?

pardon if you answered this before in a previous post, not trying to backtrack tons of pages =]
just curious to hear your stand on it.

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Conspicuouz
the question is, do you believe they were the men in the window-less aircraft that crashed into the tower and do you agree with the official story?

(That's quite alright...some of these threads are so long we forget where we've posted very, very easily

Honestly? I haven't seen anything that shows beyond a shadow of doubt a window-less aircraft. I've seen videos of aircraft that are ambiguous (at best), and I've seen videos that would indicate it actually was indeed a passenger craft - I've watched enhanced versions, frame-by-frame versions and versions that defy categorisation. And still nothing was able to actually prove that those planes weren't actually passenger jets.

As for whether or not I agree with the official story....hmmmm. The short answer is "no". There are many unanswered questions I have, but most of these actually relate to the financing, pre-planning and pre-awareness of 9/11, not the events of the day itself.

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:27 AM

At 7:59 AM, Flight 11 took off from Boston's Logan Airport. At 8:13, the last communication between ground control and the pilots took place. At 8:15 Boston Air Traffic Control began unsuccessful attempts to contact the pilots after the plane failed to respond to an order to climb. At 8:20, Flight 11 stopped transmitting its transponder signal, and veered northward and departed dramatically from the westward heading of its planned route. The controlled concluded that the plane had probably been hijacked, Neither of the pilots pressed the distress call button. At 8:28 controllers reportedly watched the plane make a 100-degree turn toward the south. Presumably, Flight 11 continued south along the Hudson River until it reached the World Trade Center, though documentation of this is sparse given the lack of public information. According to NORAD's September 18 timeline, the FAA did not notify NORAD of the signs that Flight 11 was hijacked until 8:40, 25 minutes after the first signs of trouble.

At 8:21, phone calls from two flight attendants allegedly began. Betty Ong called Vanessa Minter at American Airlines reservations. 8 Flight attendant Madeline Sweeney called American Airlines ground manager Michael Woodward at Logan and spoke calmly to him for 25 minutes until the plane crashed. Supposedly the call was not recorded and Woodward took notes. Her first comment is "Listen, and listen to me very carefully. I'm on Flight 11. The airplane has been hijacked." At 8:45, just before the crash, she said "I see the water. I see the buildings. I see buildings," then after a pregnant pause, a quiet "Oh, my God!"

At 8:14 AM, Flight 175 took off from Boston's Logan Airport, 16 minutes after its scheduled departure time. At 8:42, Flight 175 veered off its planned course, and began flying south. According to NORAD's June 18 timeline and prior press reports, at 8:43 the FAA notified NORAD that the flight had been hijacked. At 8:46, Flight 175 stopped transmitting its transponder signal. 6 The subsequent course of Flight 175 cannot be verified due to the lack of public information, but the plane apparently flew in a southwesterly direction as it crossed the Hudson River, continued into New Jersey until it was southwest of New York City, and then made a sharp turn to the northeast in order to approach the World Trade Center from the southwest.
Phone Calls

There were reportedly two calls from passengers, and one from an unnamed flight attendant on Flight 175. Around 8:43 the father of passenger Peter Burton Hanson received a call from a man claiming to be his son and saying "Oh, my God! They just stabbed the airline hostess. I think the airline is being hijacked." At 8:58 passenger Brian Sweeney is said to have left a message for his wife "We've been hijacked, and it doesn't look too good" and talked to his mother.


At 9:03, a 767 collided with the South Tower. Whether that jet was in fact Flight 175 is questioned by some. Human remains recovered from Ground Zero were identified as belonging to Flight 175 victims.

The impact was 43 minutes after Flight 11 first went off course, 21 minutes after Flight 175 went off course, and 17 minutes after the North Tower impact, yet the jet was not intercepted.

At 8:20 AM, Flight 77 took off from Dulles International Airport, 10 minutes after its scheduled departure time. At 8:46, Flight 77 veered severely off course. At 8:50, the last radio communication was made from the pilots and air traffic control. At 8:56, the jet's transponder was shut off. The subsequent course of Flight 77 cannot be verified due to the lack of public information, but it apparently reversed direction around 9:10 and began flying back toward the capital. According to NORAD's September 18th timeline, the FAA didn't notify NORAD that Flight 77 was a possible hijack until 9:24, thirty-four minutes after the loss of radio communications. Press reports couch the notification as of a "suspected" hijacking despite reports that the plane was flying toward Washington, DC with its transponder off twenty-one minutes after both towers had been hit.

Phone Calls

There was only one person on Flight 77 who allegedly called: Passenger Barbara Olsen supposedly placed two calls to her husband Ted Olsen. US Solicitor General Olsen related to NEWSWEEK:
Barbara was calm and collected as she told him how hijackers had used boxcutters and knifes to take control of the plane and had herded the passengers and crew to the back. “Ted, what can I do?” she asked him. “What can I tell the pilot?” Then, inexplicably, she got cut off.


At about 9:38 AM, a twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded, according to numerous eyewitnesses on the ground. A Minnesota National Guard C-130 that had just taken off from nearby Andrews Air Force Base followed the jetliner in the seconds before it crashed. The pilot of the C-130, who described the plane as either a 757 or 767, provided the following account.

Here is the biggest problem. You have an airliner flying off course at 8:46 after two others have been highjacked for a long time, within minutes of flight 77 being highjacked WTC is hit. This aircraft flew for nearly an hour after flight 11 hit the tower. Everyone in the free world knows the tower was hit, 17 minutes later flight 175 hits the other tower. Everyone knows we are under terrorist attack.

Why in the world would we not have at that point scrambled the F-16's that were sitting on the tarmac a mere twenty miles from the Pentagon, the very aircraft that are for the defence of our nations capitol? The most defended, scutinized airspace in the world?

Its just too much, the airforce doesnt work that way, they scramble quicker than that for a UFO report!

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 12:00 PM

From the various sources already quoted, I've tried to put it together in one easier-to-view post.

The first two military interceptors, F-15 Eagles from Otis AFB in Massachusetts, airborne at 8:52 am, were too late to do anything about the second jet heading for the Trade Center or a third heading toward the Pentagon.

8:38 am: Boston air traffic center notifies NORAD that AA flight 11 has been hijacked.

8:43 am: FAA notifies NORAD that UA flight 175 has been hijacked.

8:44 am: Otis Air National Guard Base in Mass. orders to fighters scrambled.

8:46 am: AA flight 11 strikes the World Trade Center's north tower

It is true that NORAD was warned about the hijacking of the flights that hit the World Trade Center, both taking off from Boston, long before dispatching aircraft near Washington DC. But that is beside the point, as at that time there was no known threat to the capital area; only to New York.

At this time, flight 77 has just left Dulles in DC (8:22), and is probably not yet hijacked. Why would anything in DC be scrambled at all at this point?

9:10 am: (approximate time) UA flight 77 begins to fly back towards the capital, around 10 minutes after the transponder has been turned off.

9:25 am: FAA notifies NORAD that UA flight 77 may have been hijacked.

9:27 am: (approximate time) NORAD orders jets scrambled from Langley AFB in Virginia to head to intercept UA flight 77.

9:35 am: Three F-16 Fighting Falcons take off from Langley AFB headed toward Washington area.

9:37 am: AA flight 77 is lost from radar screens.

9:38 am: AA flight 77 (allegedly) strikes the Pentagon.

We've got to remember that prior to this there was no automatic signal sent to NORAD or NEADS if an aircraft went off-course. At that time the FAA and/or ATC had to physically make the call to NORAD.

Anyway - this is what we know: Mistakes were made, confusion reigned, there were numerous errors in protocol, and it was unique response to a unique situation; none of this is proof of a conspiracy or cover-up. And that's not saying there wasn't a cover-up; only that these events themselves do not prove anything of that nature.

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 12:35 PM

9:10 am: (approximate time) UA flight 77 begins to fly back towards the capital, around 10 minutes after the transponder has been turned off.

I am sorry I beg to differ this in itslf is a smoking gun. Seven minutes after the country is under attack, an ircraft turns towards DC, turns off its transponder and the F-16's with "hot guns" are not scrambled?!?

The F-15's that were scrambeld were to show that we were trying to do something. The first thing I said when the NYC airspace was breached for the second time was "where are the fast movers"? When an aircraft deviates from its flight plan it is contacted by the ATC. They are asked if they are having a problem.

Accually I do not have the time to go into detail on this. I come from a family with an extensive background in aviation, had two cousins die doing aerobatics at a family reunion even. I grew up with it. I know FAA protocal. This whole thing stinks. The FAA and NORAD have never, ever made these kind of mistakes! When I have more time I will lay out the protocal.

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 02:48 PM

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Geez, every time I come back to this thread to catch up, Howard is still pulling out the same rubbish that's been debunked before in the thread. I guess he's hoping that if he repeats something often enough, it will become the truth. I see he's dropped the two-word "prove it" method of rebuttal, however. Shows that everyone's doing a great job and that just won't cut it any more.
I think I'll give the "Prove It" thing a test drive though, and see what the ride's like.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Okay. Let's start at the beginning.

Yes, you always do, even when your nonsense has been debunked time and time again.

Hardly. Your theories have been proven wrong via simple science and engineering.

The impact of the aircraft physically severed ... a few columns opposite the impact point. For WTC 1, this was past the core area on the opposite side of the building.

"A few columns"? So what?? Prove that it was enough to cause a collapse.

We can't know the exact extent of the damage, but we can make reasonable guesses.

We don't want your "guesses", Howie. Prove it! And computer-game simulations with a pre-fixed conclusion don't mean jack.

Sigh - Why don't you read the NIST report.

There were a number of cumulative effects that contributed to the collapse.

The aircraft impact caused visible damage to the exterior columns and interior floor slabs. The interior stairwells were destroyed, choked off, and several of the elevator cables were cut. This is known.

Yes, the extent of the damage to the core columns is inferred based on calculations and computer modeling. I never said it was a known quantity. A lot of qualified engineers and scientists took the time to estimate the extent of the damage to these columns. I respect thier efforts and defer to their knowlege and experience.

If you suggesting that the estimates are wrong, lets hear your reasoning. Claiming that it was a "predetermined conclusion" won't do, unless it is your contention that the core columns were entirely undamaged from the aircraft impact.

Common sense tells us that there were three major damage categories

Common sense? You threw common sense out the window with your theory that a few fires collapsed three steel buildings.

C) The column received minimal physical damage, but the fireproofing was knocked of by the shock of the impact and force of the building and aircraft debris.

Minimal damage, and yet the fireproofing was all knocked off? Prove it!

From personal experience with the monokote style of structural fireproofing used in WTC, I can assure you that it was relatively friable and easily removed. In fact, there are historical records of fireproofing damage issues at WTC. This material is refered to as "Friable," able to be crushed or reduced to powder by hand pressure.

Furthermore, we know that many of the drywall core walls were breached. These walls would have been installed tight to the columns and the fireproofing applied afterwards. If the walls were knocked out, that would have exposed a strip of unfireproofed steel where they were.

Additionally, another key factor is not just how well the this material adhered to the beams and columns but to the floor trusses as well. Remember that the truss is composed of small diameter diagonals and relatively thin flat and angle stock for the top and bottom chords. Not only is it harder to get the fireproofing to adhere to the smaller surface area of these pieces, but their smaller cross sections mean that they are also much more vulnerable to the heat of the fire.

If you sever or significantly damage a column, then it can no longer carry the building loads it was designed to carry. Since these loads do not go away, the adjacent columns now have to carry the weight formerly carried by the damaged columns.

The core had a 600% redundancy. Prove that 5/6 of the core columns were severed.

Where did you come up with that 600% figure?

Structural engineers have calculated the demand to capacity ratios for the structural members of the WTC towers. This calculation indicates whether or not structure can support the loads put on it. The WTC core columns averaged a DCR of around 0.84.

(oh, and BTW, are you familiar with what the purpose of the hat truss was?)

Other columns with less physical damage would of had the fireproofing scoured off by the impact forces.

By a significant amount?? 5/6ths of the columns? Prove it!

It wasn't necessary to remove the fireproofing from all or even 5/6th of the core columns. It was just necessary to transfer enough loads to them to exceed their capacity to support them.

Columns closest to the impact area would have been exposed to the heart of the fuel and building debris fed fires.

Temperature and heat are not the same thing, Howie, and bsbray11 has debunked you on this one time and time again. Steel reaching temperatures hot enough to melt/bend steel for any significant time period? Prove it!

No Sh*t, sherlock. temperature and heat are different. The heat release by the fires was tremendous, in the gigawatt range. Temperatures would have been in the typical range for structure fires. that is up to in the 1000 C plus range.

As these columns heated up, they would have gradually lost their ability to support the loads they were designed to support, and the additional loads transfered to them by the significantly damaged, nearby columns.

5/6ths of the columns?? Prove it! They all failed simultaneously?? Prove it!

The loss of structural stability would have gradually built up until the limit would have been reached when yes, the undamaged ones would have all failed in a runaway collapse. That is what a runaway collapse is. This is all basic structural engineering.

In addition to the damage to the columns, there was extensive damage to the floor slabs in the impact areas.

The floor slabs don't hold the building up. You know this, right?

The floor slabs played a crucial role in the stability of the building structure. They provided the lateral stiffness to the exterior columns. You know this, right?

As the floors failed, that lateral stiffness was lost. In addition the sagging floors pulled inward on the exterior columns, thus reducing the loads that those columns were able to carry.

The impact damage, and the fires caused the floor slabs to sag, thus the forces that the floor slabs were exerting against the exterior and core columns changed from vertical compression forces to inward tension forces.

Enough to cause simultaneous collapse?? Prove it!

The change in the forces caused the exterior columns to bow inward significantly.

"Significantly"? Prove it!

Read the NIST reports. There are quite dramatic photos of the extent of the bowing.
The proof is in the fact that that the structures collapse shortly after this buckling was observed.

The bowing pulled the whole side of the building inward up to 10 inches.

Oooooh! A whole 10 inches?! Oh no! That means my shabby old apartment building is about to go in to global collapse. I better get out of here!!...I'm back, it's still standing. BTW, if the building started to "sag" in one direction, if it collapsed under gravity it would continue in that direction and topple over. You say it would all collapse simultaneously and straight down? Prove it!

10 inches over a couple of floors is quite significant. Where do you live, in an abandoned building? If the exterior walls of your apartment building are bowed out of plane by 10 inches, the building would be condemned by the city.

10" is also pretty close to the size of the column itself. Once the column buckled past a certain point, the downward force of the gravity loads would start to accelerate the buckling.

Additionally, the building did not start to sag in a particular direction, the floor slabs sagged downward causing the exterior walls were buckling inward. There is a difference. And yes, there is photographic proof that the floor slabs were falling inside the building just before the collapse.

This inward bowing further reduced the loads the columns were able to carry.

See above

the gradual accumulation of changes to the loading of the columns caused them to fail one by one until a runaway collapse started. In other words, the remaining, undamaged columns were no longer able to support the building.

Wave your hands and say the magic words, "runaway collapse" and suddenly the core columns disappear, and all the rubbish above ties together to make a pile of pick-up sticks and dust, eh? Sorry, but your magic trick didn't work. Despite 600% redundancy (do you even know what that means?) all those undamaged core columns and all those undamaged exterior columns were no longer able to support the building?? Prove it!

It's all there in the NIST reports. YOU prove that they are wrong.

If the exterior columns were no longer supporting the building loads due to the buckling, Those loads would have been transfered to the core. there is no way that the core would have been able support those loads. Even if we were to go with your theory that the core columns were essentially undamaged by the impact, they would not have supported the entire weight of the upper part of the building.

That is enough for now. I'm loosing track of the quote blocks.

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 03:02 PM

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Steel is not that strong.

WTF!???? Says you. And steel structures are even stronger.

Actually when you stop to consider the size of the structures and the weights involved, steel is not that strong. Yes steel structures are strong, not because of the inherent strength of the steel, but in how that steel is shaped and configured in the structural design to compensate for it's weaknesses.

Molten aluminum pouring off of the impact floors

All I see are sparks, and the intensity on the image has been doctored by NIST's own admission. NIST never mentioned "molten aluminium". This is the only piece of information you have come out with all by your little self that isn't parroting the NIST report, and it's complete tripe!!
bsbray11 has debunked you on this before as well. You completely made this up. Molten aluminium? Proooooove it!!

From the NIST report:

It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be molten metal was observed pouring from the north face near the northeast corner prior to the collapse of WTC 2. This is the area where the sustained fires on the 81st and 82nd had been burning since the aircraft impact. The likely explanation for the observation of pouring liquid is that the material had originally pooled on the floor slab above, i.e., the 81st floor, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when the floor slab in the immediate vicinity either pulled away from the spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The puff of smoke and/or dust just prior to the first appearance of the molten material suggests that the ultimate event responsible for the release of the material occurred suddenly, in the process creating a pressure pulse that forced smoke and/or dust out of open windows over three floors.

The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior suggests it could have been molten aluminum. Visual evidence already discussed shows that significant wreckage from the aircraft passed through the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower on the 81st floor, i.e., at the location where the molten material apparently originated. Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 (NIST NCSTAR 1-3). The melting points for these alloys vary as the material melts. The Aluminum Association handbook (The Aluminum Association 2003) lists the melting point ranges for the alloys as roughly 500 °C to 638 °C and 475 °C to 635 °C for alloys 2024 and 7075, respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca. 1000 °C), and any aluminum present is likely to have been at least partially melted by the intense fires that had been in the area for nearly 48 min.

That sounds reasonable to me. (I know it won't to you, but that is your problem, not mine.)

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 04:18 PM

estimate the extent of the damage to these columns...

Roark, given the unprecedented collapse of these structures, the fact that you are willing to take an admitted estimate of damage as proof positive says alot about your cognitive reasoning being biased towards their post-collapse observations. You defer to their wisdom, I defer to their lack of physical evidence which at best is biased speculations of experts for hire.
And what precisely does molten aluminum indicate howard? I can melt aluminum in a fireplace fire all day long with no heat damage to the Iron Grating it melts on. There is no indication whatsoever that the temperatures in the WTC fire were sufficient to cause pools of molten steel, or even support beam failures. In fact visual observations would clearly indicate that the fires were oxygen starved, soot is endothermic in nature, however thermite is exothermic... Even more complexing, the least damaged building was the first to collapse...

On another note, if the pulverization of the concrete in the falling debris was from weight and pressure as Uncle Sam Claims it was, then why did the pulverization begin at the top of the structures?
A massive and sudden energy release, or in laymen's terms, an explosion, is the only other explination. Concrete doesn't pulverize itself as it freefalls through its own structure howard, yet as we can see, something reduced ths conrete to microns... Top left of this photo shows the top of the building that a second before this was still intact, low and behold, it turns to dust as it falls, impossible without explosives.

A decent and well illustrated discussion of the concrete here...

[edit on 11-8-2005 by twitchy]

new topics

top topics

<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in