What are the 2-3 best introduction points that have to do with science?

Originally posted by Yankee451
Furthermore, our favorite Frenchmen caught the evidence of HOW the hole was made. Below is a link which shows the shaped charges cutting the hole after the alleged jet disappeared into the building and after the initial explosion. This is is also in September Clues, but the below link shows frame by frame shots of the cutting charges making the cartoon cutout.

letsrollforums.com...

Cutter charges don't make flames. They make loud booms and intense light.

Originally posted by Yankee451

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343

 

So, all it takes is momentum in your world? Density of material doesn't enter into the equation, like the straw through the oak tree?

Get in at the ground floor! Aluminum bullet manufacturing!

I bet I could make an aluminum bullet that works. Hell, we have car crushing water!

Go for aluminum sledge hammers too...I wonder why no one's thought of this before?

It could work. I mean, if it wasn't so damn expensive. Aluminum alloys hold up a cars weight, why couldn't they make a sledge hammer out of aluminum alloys?

Originally posted by Yankee451

For my hypothetical situation, we were talking just the wing tip and a 14 inch square tube of 1/4 thick structural steel. See my earlier post showing the damage allegedly caused by the wing on the outside of the engine. The mass, momentum and density of material of the wing CANNOT cut steel in the real world.

Charges cut the hole. The connections failed during demolition. That is all.

Really? You showed the weight of the planes outer wing portion, and calculated the KE for that, versus the tensile strength of the connection on the WTC? I seem to have missed that.

Did you also take into consideration the stuff that the aluminum sheeting is rivited to? You seem to have ignored that post.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Can see it was broken off at the connections

This was taken about 9:30 am - before collapse of South Tower buried the area......

Yes, I can see that. Can you verify it was caused by a plane, and not by explosives? Can you verify the source, date, time and location of the photo? Can you match the wheel to flight 11?

Its certainly unfortunate for your argument that it was buried, but being buried, it is curious it wasn't unburied and cataloged as evidence for the crime scene. Has any of this murder weapon allegedly found at the crime scene ever been forensically matched to flight 11?

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Yankee451


Really? You showed the weight of the planes outer wing portion, and calculated the KE for that, versus the tensile strength of the connection on the WTC? I seem to have missed that.

Did you also take into consideration the stuff that the aluminum sheeting is rivited to? You seem to have ignored that post.

You also seem to have missed the claim by the engineers that the buildings could withstand multiple hits from comparably-sized jets. If you have issue with their figures, take it up with them.

I certainly did take into consideration what the aluminum sheeting is riveted to, and I it was not nearly as strong, dense or as massive as that which the columns, spandrel plates and floors were bolted to and welded to.

Newton wins. You lose.

reply to post by FDNY343

It could work. I mean, if it wasn't so damn expensive. Aluminum alloys hold up a cars weight, why couldn't they make a sledge hammer out of aluminum alloys?

And yet they don't.

You have obviously never used a sledge hammer.

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by Yankee451
Furthermore, our favorite Frenchmen caught the evidence of HOW the hole was made. Below is a link which shows the shaped charges cutting the hole after the alleged jet disappeared into the building and after the initial explosion. This is is also in September Clues, but the below link shows frame by frame shots of the cutting charges making the cartoon cutout.

letsrollforums.com...

Cutter charges don't make flames. They make loud booms and intense light.

Regardless what cut the steel, it was cut after the alleged wing already passed through it like a hot knife through butter. This is impossible; therefore the more likely explanation is the video of the plane isn't genuine, which when taken with the fact that there is no forensic evidence to tie flight 11 to the alleged crime scene and no evidence flight 11 was even scheduled to fly; should make an honest investigator doubt the very existence of flight 11.

However, if you begin your investigation trying to explain how planes did it, while ignoring the evidence that they couldn't possibly do it, I don't blame you for clutching at straws. It doesn't take math to know why aluminum isn't used for bullets and sledge hammers any more than it doesn't take math to know why they don't use structural steel for airplanes.

Originally posted by FDNY343
My point was that to be accurate as to where it is going to fall, and when it will happen, and what portion will fail first, there are too many variables

Again, when virtually the same thing happened twice in a row, the "probability" of that doesn't reflect there being a huge variety of outcomes that were possible that day.

Notice that the two towers fell after different burn times? Notice that the buildings displayed different actions immediately before collapse? This is exactly what I am talking about.

You think this explains why other skyscrapers don't collapse at all from fires?

I have found nothing of the sort. You really shouldn't be trying to use Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, because he doesn't believe a damn thing you claim he believes.

Wrong. I didn't say he believes the towers were demolished either, so have enough sense at least to not put words in my mouth when you respond. I'll wait for you to consult the article itself again, and I'm sure you'll have to read my post again too as usual.


Since I have no faith in you to find the article and read and understand it in context, I guess I'll go ahead and spoon-fed your refutation to you.

NEW ORLEANS — The professional organization for engineers who build the nation's roads, dams and bridges has been accused by fellow engineers of covering up catastrophic design flaws while investigating national disasters.

After the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the levee failures caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the federal government paid the American Society of Civil Engineers to investigate what went wrong.

Critics now accuse the group of covering up engineering mistakes, downplaying the need to alter building standards, and using the investigations to protect engineers and government agencies from lawsuits. ...

In the World Trade Center case, critics contend the engineering society wrongly concluded skyscrapers cannot withstand getting hit by airplanes. In the hurricane investigation, it was accused of suggesting that the power of the storm was as big a problem as the poorly designed levees. ...

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a structural engineer and forensics expert, contends his computer simulations disprove the society's findings that skyscrapers could not be designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner.

Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers.

He also questioned the makeup of the society's investigation team. On the team were the wife of the trade center's structural engineer and a representative of the buildings' original design team.

"I call this moral corruption," said Astaneh-Asl, who is on the faculty at the University of California, Berkeley.

www.foxnews.com...

Compare to what I claimed Dr. Astaneh-Asl said:

He tried for years to recreate FEMA's modeling of the collapses only to prove to himself that not only the WTC towers, but most NYC skyscrapers can survive planes and fire according to his modeling, and as soon as he was satisfied of this he went to the AP accusing FEMA and the ASCE of criminal cover-up. He assumed they were trying to protect some interest of the original architects or engineers in covering up some design flaw his models did not take into account, but nonetheless using their own data, one of their own engineers from the BPAT team debunked them.

I'm not going to offer any further explanation. It's clear enough that you have no idea what you're talking about. Again, unfortunately, not unusual.

reply to post by Yankee451

Its certainly unfortunate for your argument that it was buried, but being buried, it is curious it wasn't unburied and cataloged as evidence for the crime scene. Has any of this murder weapon allegedly found at the crime scene ever been forensically matched to flight 11?

Have to get in touch with the stooges at the NWO (Demolition Divison) and tell then to be more careful when
they demolish a building

Of course had this section not been destroyed all the lunatic fringe would be screaming "FAKE" "PLANTED"

Originally posted by Yankee451

You also seem to have missed the claim by the engineers that the buildings could withstand multiple hits from comparably-sized jets. If you have issue with their figures, take it up with them.

I have no issues with that, since the WTC towers did not collapse from the impact of a 767. So, they did survive it. Thanks for playing.

Originally posted by Yankee451

I certainly did take into consideration what the aluminum sheeting is riveted to, and I it was not nearly as strong, dense or as massive as that which the columns, spandrel plates and floors were bolted to and welded to.

Newton wins. You lose.

Really? Where's the math? You never did show that, did you? You make a claim, so back it up with the math.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343

 

It could work. I mean, if it wasn't so damn expensive. Aluminum alloys hold up a cars weight, why couldn't they make a sledge hammer out of aluminum alloys?

And yet they don't.

You have obviously never used a sledge hammer.

Yes, you're right, they don't. And do you wonder why that is?

I can tell you.

Weight.

The weight of the sledge is what does the most work if you are doing it properly. (Notice I said properly) The KE of a steel sledge being swung is much more than one made of aluminum. You would need to swing the aluminum one with much more force to do the same work.

And yes, i've used sledge hammers many times.

Originally posted by Yankee451
Regardless what cut the steel, it was cut after the alleged wing already passed through it like a hot knife through butter.

Way to shift those goalposts. You must have the newest version of Acme Insta-posts!!

Originally posted by Yankee451

This is impossible; therefore the more likely explanation is the video of the plane isn't genuine, which when taken with the fact that there is no forensic evidence to tie flight 11 to the alleged crime scene and no evidence flight 11 was even scheduled to fly; should make an honest investigator doubt the very existence of flight 11.

However, if you begin your investigation trying to explain how planes did it, while ignoring the evidence that they couldn't possibly do it, I don't blame you for clutching at straws. It doesn't take math to know why aluminum isn't used for bullets and sledge hammers any more than it doesn't take math to know why they don't use structural steel for airplanes.

So, absense (to you anyway) of evidence, you can make all the wild claims you want. How cool!!

Have you contacted the FBI and American Airlines to inquire where their plane went?

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Its certainly unfortunate for your argument that it was buried, but being buried, it is curious it wasn't unburied and cataloged as evidence for the crime scene. Has any of this murder weapon allegedly found at the crime scene ever been forensically matched to flight 11?

Have to get in touch with the stooges at the NWO (Demolition Divison) and tell then to be more careful when
they demolish a building

Of course had this section not been destroyed all the lunatic fringe would be screaming "FAKE" "PLANTED"

Don't hate; talk to the OS investigators who tossed it all into a land fill. Without anything to support your argument other than provably fake video, one wonders why you're not considering other explanations...like one that does have some evidence to back it up.

Just saying.

reply to post by FDNY343


Get a chunk of aluminum to weigh the same as a steel sledge hammer and put it on the end of a stick, and you'll be just as unsuccessful with it!

It isn't the weight that matters, it's the density of the material! A ton of feathers is still a ton.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Again, when virtually the same thing happened twice in a row, the "probability" of that doesn't reflect there being a huge variety of outcomes that were possible that day.

But yet, the two towers collapsed differently, acted differently during collapse iniation, and collapsed after two completly different burn times. THAT is what I said. You conveniently chopped my quote to make it seem that I said :

Originally posted by bsbray11

You think this explains why other skyscrapers don't collapse at all from fires?

No, that is not what I said at all.
Way to put words in my mouth and assume I said something that I did not. Sadly, typical from the "Truth*" movement.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Wrong. I didn't say he believes the towers were demolished either, so have enough sense at least to not put words in my mouth when you respond. I'll wait for you to consult the article itself again, and I'm sure you'll have to read my post again too as usual.

I linked to his homepage, and other articles that say nothing of the sort.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Since I have no faith in you to find the article and read and understand it in context, I guess I'll go ahead and spoon-fed your refutation to you.

Nope, not spoon-feeding. That is called the burden of proof, and it always is on the person making the claims.

Originally posted by bsbray11

NEW ORLEANS — The professional organization for engineers who build the nation's roads, dams and bridges has been accused by fellow engineers of covering up catastrophic design flaws while investigating national disasters.

After the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and the levee failures caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the federal government paid the American Society of Civil Engineers to investigate what went wrong.

Critics now accuse the group of covering up engineering mistakes, downplaying the need to alter building standards, and using the investigations to protect engineers and government agencies from lawsuits. ...

In the World Trade Center case, critics contend the engineering society wrongly concluded skyscrapers cannot withstand getting hit by airplanes. In the hurricane investigation, it was accused of suggesting that the power of the storm was as big a problem as the poorly designed levees. ...

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a structural engineer and forensics expert, contends his computer simulations disprove the society's findings that skyscrapers could not be designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner.

Astaneh-Asl, who received money from the National Science Foundation to investigate the collapse, insisted most New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers.

He also questioned the makeup of the society's investigation team. On the team were the wife of the trade center's structural engineer and a representative of the buildings' original design team.

"I call this moral corruption," said Astaneh-Asl, who is on the faculty at the University of California, Berkeley.

www.foxnews.com...

Compare to what I claimed Dr. Astaneh-Asl said:

He tried for years to recreate FEMA's modeling of the collapses only to prove to himself that not only the WTC towers, but most NYC skyscrapers can survive planes and fire according to his modeling, and as soon as he was satisfied of this he went to the AP accusing FEMA and the ASCE of criminal cover-up. He assumed they were trying to protect some interest of the original architects or engineers in covering up some design flaw his models did not take into account, but nonetheless using their own data, one of their own engineers from the BPAT team debunked them.

I'm not going to offer any further explanation. It's clear enough that you have no idea what you're talking about. Again, unfortunately, not unusual.

edit on 7-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

Again, he does not mention models, or anything of the sort in the FoxNews article you linked to.

Maybe you could post something now?

ETA: I stand corrected. After taking the time to actually read the original article, I see what is actually being said, is that "contends his computer simulations disprove the society's findings that skyscrapers could not be designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner."

Meaning Dr. Astaneh-Asl believes that most NYC building COULD withstand the impact, and that most NYC buildings WOULD prevent the type of fires seen in the WTC.

HOWEVER, MOST NYC buildings are not 110 story-tube-in-tube, steel framed, non-concrete cored, skyscrapers.

Hence, when he said "MOST New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs " which is NOT the WTC.

But hey, you can go on with the quotemine all you want.

reply to post by FDNY343

Way to shift those goalposts. You must have the newest version of Acme Insta-posts!!

Now you're getting desperate. It's too bad you resort to projections and not addressing the points I've made. Try to focus on the issue of wings cutting through steel.

So, absense (to you anyway) of evidence, you can make all the wild claims you want. How cool!!

I have posted evidence which shows the government's claim that a wing sliced through structural steel. If you must use math, feel free to post your calculations as to how those exterior columns were cut by a wing. I'm not sure if anyone's still arguing they were "pushed out of the way", so you can just focus on how a wing did it.

I am not the one making the extraordinary claim that aluminum can slice steel. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

The government claims flight 11 disappeared into a building yet provides no proof of the existence of the aircraft, or that it could possibly do what they claim in the physical world. Aside from provably fake video, there is no proof provided.

I am giving you a chance to provide proof of their claims, but instead you're arguing for the viability of aluminum sledge hammers and bleating about math.

Have you contacted the FBI and American Airlines to inquire where their plane went?

No, but it appears Nick Kollerstorn has. Evidently it never flew that day:

Key No. 8 – AA Flights 11 & 77 Weren’t Scheduled November 2003
For years, the ‘Flight 11’ was the American Airlines' early morning transcontinental flight out of
Logan airport in Boston, to LA. It was regular as clockwork. It made however its last-ever flight on
Monday, 10th September, 2001. The next day it was not scheduled to depart, and then for the week
following it was scheduled but cancelled – because it was grounded, like other passenger planes, in
the aftermath. On 9/11, the earliest scheduled flight from Boston to Los Angeles departed that
morning at 11.15 am. What then started flying again, as the morning flight from Boston to LA, had a
different code (which needn’t concern us). United Airlines’ Flight 175 left from the same airport, for
the same destination, as that of the suddenly-cancelled Flight 11, just twenty minutes later, and we
may therefore accept ‘Holmgren’s hypothesis’ that passengers expecting to board Flight 11 were
simply re-scheduled into Flight 175.

www.scribd.com...

reply to post by FDNY343

Meaning Dr. Astaneh-Asl believes that most NYC building COULD withstand the impact, and that most NYC buildings WOULD prevent the type of fires seen in the WTC. HOWEVER, MOST NYC buildings are not 110 story-tube-in-tube, steel framed, non-concrete cored, skyscrapers. Hence, when he said "MOST New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs " which is NOT the WTC. But hey, you can go on with the quotemine all you want.

Isn't it strange then that engineers haven't gone back to the old way of doing things?

This laid the foundations for the tube structures of many other later skyscrapers, including his own John Hancock Center and Willis Tower, and can been seen in the construction of the World Trade Center, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960s.[3] The strong influence of tube structure design is also evident in the construction of the current tallest skyscraper, the Burj Khalifa.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by FDNY343


First I'm just wrong, and then when you realize you hadn't even read the article and had no clue what you were talking about, come back to admit you were wrong but couldn't even come to finish your edit without going on to ignorantly and erroneously next accuse me of "quotemining" when nothing I posted was inaccurate. I guess there is no way I can ever get anything right after all the way you play your little game, huh "FDNY343"?

Thanks for reminding us that all we're doing is wasting our time with someone who cries when he should be man enough to own up to his own errors in judgment. Not to mention someone who just made 2 posts denying what was in an article he hadn't even bothered to read.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Yankee451

 

911research.wtc7.net...

Here is section of exterior wall lying in street after being dislofged from the building

I sense you are angered by the line of questioning here...that you take offense that I don't accept the official story. Please understand that I mean no offense, but these questions need to be asked, and they should have been asked by the authorities. It is unfortunate it's come to us.

I've been bothered by this image of a whole exterior beam section lying in the street. You offered it as proof that a plane impacted the building on one side, and a wheel from landing gear "pushed out of the way" a multi-ton section of structural steel on the opposite side of the building.. On first glance, your links show a WTC exterior column section, but I took the liberty of highlighting a few details that stand out. The biggest red flag to me is the lack of damage to the column section.

For having fallen several dozen stories and impacting the street, these three column sections are remarkably intact. They are all lying parallel to eachother, with no twisting, and with only the spandrels and the tops of the columns being bent much. Note the lack of damage to the asphalt too.

There are square cuts at the top of the columns where it looks like floor joists were cut out and then they were dented in with a sledge hammer. Midway through you can see square cuts as well.

The wheel. Seriously?

The floor joist connections weren't sheared off, their bolts were removed.

The Spandrel plates appear to have been bent towards the outside, as one would imagine if an explosion had dislodged this section, however there is no scorching or jagged edges which one would expect with explosives.

The burning car or debris behind the car in the background. For being almost a quarter mile away from a kerosene fire, there's a lot of damage here.

I also don't see any bystanders, but I do see an American flag in one photo...makes me all weepy.

Looks like a crane dropped an old spare or damaged exterior wall section on the street and someone took a sledge hammer to it, stuck a wheel in it and covered it with dust, snapped a couple photographs and then buried it by dropping a building on it.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/05cc519c7dca.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343

 

Meaning Dr. Astaneh-Asl believes that most NYC building COULD withstand the impact, and that most NYC buildings WOULD prevent the type of fires seen in the WTC. HOWEVER, MOST NYC buildings are not 110 story-tube-in-tube, steel framed, non-concrete cored, skyscrapers. Hence, when he said "MOST New York skyscrapers built with traditional designs " which is NOT the WTC. But hey, you can go on with the quotemine all you want.

Isn't it strange then that engineers haven't gone back to the old way of doing things?

This laid the foundations for the tube structures of many other later skyscrapers, including his own John Hancock Center and Willis Tower, and can been seen in the construction of the World Trade Center, Petronas Towers, Jin Mao Building, and most other supertall skyscrapers since the 1960s.[3] The strong influence of tube structure design is also evident in the construction of the current tallest skyscraper, the Burj Khalifa.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 7-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: duplicate link

Oh, you mean by installing concrete cores into the structure? OOPS! The New 7WTC did exactly that.
You mean by using concrete instead of SFRM to insulate structural steel? OOPS. The New 7WTC did that also.

Also, many of the building codes here, and around the world, have been changed since 9/11, to make our skyscrapers safer.

And there is only ONE other building built identical to the WTC, and IIRC it is in Kansas or somewhere out west. I don't recall the name or exact location of it though.