Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity >> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 12/7/2007 1:04:06 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Polite sub, why do you think the towers fell too fast?  By what method do you determine the speed it should have fallen at?


I`m speaking construction only here Lucky. i have spent over 35 years working in the industry, including being on sites while controlled demolition takes place. i have never seen anything collapse that fast unless there has been a structural defect or a demolition job. Prior to 911 no building of that type had been destroyed by fire, including one in Canada ( i think ) that burnt for almost 24 hours. The central core in such buildings is designed to stay standing, and my theory is the bolts on the steel beams were badly designed and/or fitted ( And yes bodging jobs to save money or time does happen ) As the top floors collapsed the bolts sheared due to the pancake effect.

As for the actual speed, i cant give a formula but only say i have never seen anything fall that quick, and i have watched a lot of buildings be pulled. Admittedly nothing i have seen has ever been that tall, which makes it even more amazing, at least to me.

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 12/7/2007 2:10:28 AM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Ok, I can't argue with your subective opinion of the speed.  There was a quack scientist who tried to show it fell too fast to have pancaked, Miller I think her name was.  Her basic huge flaw was pretending it pancaked from the top 110th floor, instead of around the 70th where the impact happened and the collapse started.  The upper 40 or so floors basically fell as a unit.

And do remember the towers did not fall because of the fire.  They fell because of a high velocity impact, explosion, and fire.  Without the damage to the load bearing outer skin, and presumed interior damage, it is doubtfull the fire would have collapsed the buildings.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 12/7/2007 3:27:56 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
They fell because of a high velocity impact, explosion, and fire.
There was no impact, for there were no planes. The towers in any case were designed to stand up to multiple airplane impacts. WTC7 was never hit by an airplane and yet it collapsed. There is no credible evidence at all that the towers were hit by an airplane.
 
The explosion caused minor damage only. In my lay opinion twenty such explosions if random could not have made one of the towers collapse. But ask a structural engineer, for I am no expert.
 
Fire? You just said that it was not because of the fires. In any case the fires were insignificant; show rather than an inconvenience.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Without the damage to the load bearing outer skin, and presumed interior damage, it is doubtfull the fire would have collapsed the buildings.
There was scarcely any damage to the exterior of the building.
You presume too much. What evidence do you have for your presumptions? None. You are simply looking for excuses. As is Polite when he hypothesizes that the: "bolts on the steel beams were badly designed and/or fitted".

< Message edited by Rule -- 12/7/2007 3:28:54 AM >

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 12/7/2007 10:36:11 AM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Rule, the srtuctual engineers have already spoken on these issues.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 12/7/2007 10:56:20 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

 The explosion caused minor damage only. In my lay opinion twenty such explosions if random could not have made one of the towers collapse. But ask a structural engineer, for I am no expert.
 
Without the damage to the load bearing outer skin, and presumed interior damage, it is doubtfull the fire would have collapsed the buildings.

There was scarcely any damage to the exterior of the building.
You presume too much. What evidence do you have for your presumptions? None. You are simply looking for excuses. As is Polite when he hypothesizes that the: "bolts on the steel beams were badly designed and/or fitted".


Rule i stated that the bolts was my theory, so tell me how it is that you, in paragraph one, have an opinion, yet lucky and myself, in paragraph two, presume too much and look for excuses. Is no one else afforded the same options as yourself ?
You keep insisting no planes hit the tower, how about more credible evidence and less smoke and mirrors ?  

Lucky, in the normal high rise design, the outer or curtain wall isnt load bearing in anyway. Many buildings have an outer wall that is mostly glass. They get strength from being tied to each other and beams that run to the inner core.

Edited for spelling

< Message edited by Politesub53 -- 12/7/2007 10:59:19 AM >

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 12/7/2007 11:01:20 AM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Polite, but the WTCs were not normal high rise design.  The outer walls were load bearing, you can look it up if you like. 

BTW of course we are not afforded the same rights as Rule, haven't you read his posts.  You would have a better conversation with your cat.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 12/7/2007 11:06:52 AM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Also, Politesub, I do not know if this expalins it, but you do realise that the farther an object falls the faster it goes(up to the 'terminal velocity').    Regardless of mass they accelerate at the same speed, but 100 plus stories falling will get up to a much higher speed than something 40 stories, that might explain why it looked to fast to you.

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 12/7/2007 11:28:03 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Also, Politesub, I do not know if this expalins it, but you do realise that the farther an object falls the faster it goes(up to the 'terminal velocity').    Regardless of mass they accelerate at the same speed, but 100 plus stories falling will get up to a much higher speed than something 40 stories, that might explain why it looked to fast to you.


Agreed Lucky, i hadn`t thought of that. Thanks for the info about the outer walls being load bearing. i didnt realise that either.

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 12/7/2007 11:30:23 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Rule i stated that the bolts was my theory, so tell me how it is that you, in paragraph one, have an opinion, yet lucky and myself, in paragraph two, presume too much and look for excuses. Is no one else afforded the same options as yourself?
Simple: anyone can see my sources as regards this, because the photographs and movies and the structural aspects of the towers is public information. Anyone can see with his very own eyes that the damage to the outer columns of the towers is superficial and minor. Twenty more such slashes if randomly applied would not bring such a tower down.
 
On the other hand your bolt hypothesis and the presumptions of lucky are the product of mere wishful thinking. Neither of you has any evidence to support your arguments. Nor are they in the least plausible. And you better believe that if there was anything to them I would be most easily convinced by the arguments of the both of you. Look, those towers have been swaying in the winds for thirty or forty years without your bolts giving a shrug and now a minor explosion and a couple of tiny boy scout fires would cause them to break? They were designed to bear up to airplane impacts and major - i.e. HUGE - fires.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
You keep insisting no planes hit the tower, how about more credible evidence and less smoke and mirrors?
I have already shown evidence in an earlier thread that Flight 11 never took off. In this thread I have shown that one of the eye-witnesses of the second plane - the first and only one of them that I investigated in a very minor way, and selected at random from the other witnesses - most likely is a liar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Many buildings have an outer wall that is mostly glass. They get strength from being tied to each other and beams that run to the inner core.

See? You yourself support my assertion that the damage to the outer columns was minor and negligible. Twenty times as much damage present at random locations would still be minor damage.

< Message edited by Rule -- 12/7/2007 11:50:14 AM >

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 12/7/2007 11:36:10 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: marcpiery
RealOne: Remember, Rosie O'Donnell is not a scientist. Therefore, her "science" is completely wrong.   One cannot learn science from her.


You are completely wrong in this.

Rosie is doing the same thing lucky and many others do, which is to read other peoples analysis and pick the one that best fits her knowledge base.  Maybe you are doing the same thing?

Her science, at least the amount of her science that I am aware of is bang on target.

If you have specific issues put them up maybe she said somehting about it I am not aware of.

I havent really spoken with her so I dont know if I can learn anythign from her or not

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcpiery
Point of fact, steel can burn.


Ok so you want to go there huh.

Yes you are correct that steel "can" burn, HOWEVER it cannot burn under the conditions at the wtc as proposed by all the government claims.

So here is your chance to shine!

Please give a detailed summary the conditions required for steel to burn:

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcpiery
That is why they spray all exposed steel in buildings with fire retardant.  When those planes hit the buildings, they tore away the retardant.


Please show and explain in detail the effects of heat on steel with and without the fire retardant used in the wtc:

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcpiery
Also, if steel did not burn, there would be a whole lot of very sad boy scouts. Those cute little fire starters that they use (flint striking steel) depend on the fact that the very hard flint strips away small bits of steel and heats them to the point of ignition. Wow, steel not only melts and vaporizes, but burns too.


Thats incorrect.  Its the flint that flakes off and makes the sparks.  You have that one backwards.

Here is the madrid tower and the only thing that did NOT burn was the steel

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcpiery
Also, not only can aluminum go through steel, but so can brass and even the very soft lead! I've personally fired 110 grain lead cored copper jacketed bullets through 1/4 inch thick steel. If there is enough energy, you can drive a fragile piece of straw into concrete... ask anyone who has survived a tornado.


Yes and I have shot 168 pills in a 300 through 3/8 too!  However once again that is not the case here.

If you honestly believe what you say applies them please back it up with your work.

You would have us believe that your bullet went through inscathed as can be seen here:

where the invincible plane doesnt even have a tarnish much less than a scratch after going through 14x14x1/2"thick steel, ON BOTH SIDES of the building the floor supports, the 4" thick concrete floors


Then it doesnt even leave a hole on the exit wall.

Does popular mechanics explain how a aircraft with a fiberglass nose cone can go completely through a steel and concrete building completely unscathed and for the grand finale leave no exit hole?

Seriously i cant wait to hear how all this can happen.

The straw into concrete is myth btw.


quote:

ORIGINAL: marcpiery
The problem is once a metal actually ignites, water will only make matters worse, as the water will oxidize the metal...the reason it is so difficult to put out car fires.


Again you are incorrect.  Car fires are so difficult to put out because they usually have a certain amount of fuel/oil etc that leaked out from leaky gaskets that is burning.  

If you believe the metal is burning please detail the process and demonstrate this to be true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcpiery
That is why one sees the plane enter the building so quickly and gracefully, as if going right through, yet nothing comes out the other side. The plane enters the building and as the friction of a 150 mph missile grates on concrete and steel, it ignites burning, as metal does, at extremely high temperature, softening and melting the steel infrastructure, causing the pancake collapse that was captured by so many cameras.


I dunno it seems faux news video would show you again to be incorrect

It looks like it went all the way through to me and did not catch burn before getting through.... it even left a shadow on the wall!

Again please show your work and references as to how this is possible in your theory as that is not supported by physics.

How much friction is available? How much heat is generated by said friction?  Was the plane going 150mph?  How hi was the "extremely" high temperature?  

Please show your references and or your work since it is not supported in physics based on the evidence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcpiery
An excellent NOVA special on the incident, also by engineers and physicists and architects, completely dissected the crash and its aftermath. But you know, every engineer and scientist in the country is part of the grand conspiracy .

Yep and its all bunk.

They are for the most part all staff engineers, and if you take a moment to research the rest you will find that they all got nice no bid contract kickbacks, grants, new jobs, etc etc from the government immediately after making their statement.  Oh and they used our tax money to do it!!!

No they are not part of any kind of conspiracy, they are just good business men falsifying data because it pays well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcpiery
The article written in Popular Mechanics was written by engineers.

yep.... so you have lots of respect for engineers then?






_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to marcpiery)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 12/7/2007 11:36:56 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Also, Politesub, I do not know if this explains it, but you do realise that the farther an object falls the faster it goes(up to the 'terminal velocity'). Regardless of mass they accelerate at the same speed, but 100 plus stories falling will get up to a much higher speed than something 40 stories, that might explain why it looked too fast to you.
That only applies in a vacuum. In the atmosphere falling objects have an individual maximum velocity. Worse: in the collapsing towers the air pressure was very much higher than atmospheric standard (which is why air and dust was spewed out) and this increased air pressure ought to have somewhat slowed down the collapse.

< Message edited by Rule -- 12/7/2007 11:47:24 AM >

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 12/7/2007 11:49:39 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
in the normal high rise design, the outer or curtain wall isnt load bearing in anyway. Many buildings have an outer wall that is mostly glass. They get strength from being tied to each other and beams that run to the inner core.

See? You yourself support my assertion that the damage to the outer columns was minor and negligible. Twenty times as much damage present at random locations would still be minor damage.


Lucky informs me that i am wrong and the outer wall was infact loadbearing. I dont see anything in my post saying the damage was neglibible though.
Once again you Excuse me of wishful thinking. If you had read my post i said it was a theory. Big difference. I have based this on many years in the industry and having seen the mechanics of something fail due to something as simple as the wrong type of washer. Ask any engineer in construction and things such as bolt size, design of the connection, type of steel used, thickness of any welds, all are crucial in load bearing beams and columns.
Add to the above any extra weight caused by debris falling from floors above and the bolt point of connections will simply snap.

As i say, i dont claim this happened, just that its possible.


(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 12/7/2007 12:19:56 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
the outer wall was in fact loadbearing.
Off course it was load bearing. But it is known that taking out one floor of all the columns on one face of the building and some more on the sides would not impair the structural integrity of the towers.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
I dont see anything in my post saying the damage was neglibible though.
No, you didn't, but use your own eyes: did either of the towers collapse immediately after suffering this allegedly "mortal" wound? No, they did not. They could not have cared less about those couple of severed outer columns, because it was no big deal from a structural point of view.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Once again you Excuse me of wishful thinking. If you had read my post i said it was a theory. Big difference.
A theory is supported by valid arguments and evidence. Wishful thinking is not. Your hypothesis is not supported by any concrete evidence.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
I have based this on many years in the industry and having seen the mechanics of something fail due to something as simple as the wrong type of washer.
I believe you have seen such and that you have the experience. What you do not have is even a shred of evidence.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Ask any engineer in construction and things such as bolt size, design of the connection, type of steel used, thickness of any welds, all are crucial in load bearing beams and columns.
So what? Do not you suppose that the architects that designed the towers were well aware of those facts as well?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Add to the above any extra weight caused by debris falling from floors above and the bolt point of connections will simply snap.
Sure, but that is a platitude. Anything that is hit with sufficient momentum will break. Platitudes are not arguments.
You know what? I ain't no architect, but I suspect that them that architected those towers engineered it so that any floor could bear the load of another ten floors if they quietedly laid on top of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
As i say, i dont claim this happened, just that its possible.

It is plausible only when it is supported by some argument other than a platitude. You go hunt up the specifics of the way the floor supports were attached to the columns and show that the construction was so weak that if an angry bit of a girl had stomped her foot on the roof the whole tower would have collapsed and you have a convincing argument. Now you have nothing.

< Message edited by Rule -- 12/7/2007 12:23:10 PM >

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 12/7/2007 12:48:23 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline

So how many load bearing columns need to be destroyed before a collapse occurs?


Anyone know?


While the exoskeleton did share load, the primary load bearing was done by the core.


The exoskeleton gave it the shear strength to withstand 150mph winds






_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 12/7/2007 12:52:27 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		None of your theory is supported by valid evidence. Your whole argument consists of telling everyone you are right and they are wrong. "There was no plane" "The building was destroyed by explosions" "Its all a conspiracy"  Okay lets say you are right, by your own method of debate, where is the evidence that explosives were inserted into the towers.

Like you said, without that you have no argument.

Just because a building is designed to be built with certain materials, this doesnt mean it is. If you worked in construction you would see this on a regular basis, quite often its make do and mend and cutting corners.

If you do a search you will find the walls were connected via a plate, attached to the beams with two 5/8 bolts. The plate and the beam were then attached with an added weld to give more strength. Like i say, once one failed, the next would do so, and so on.


(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 12/7/2007 1:47:44 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Just because a building is designed to be built with certain materials, this doesnt mean it is. If you worked in construction you would see this on a regular basis, quite often its make do and mend and cutting corners.
Quite. It happens. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that this occurred when those two towers and WTC7 were built.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
If you do a search you will find the walls were connected via a plate, attached to the beams with two 5/8 bolts. The plate and the beam were then attached with an added weld to give more strength. Like i say, once one failed, the next would do so, and so on.

Quite. It might and a demolition expert might take this aspect into consideration when calculating where and how much explosives to emplace. However, it has been argued by physicists that the towers collapsed at free fall velocity and that implies that the next floor immediately below the collapsing floors gave way before those floors touched it - and that is very damning to the snapping bolts hypothesis. So your disagreement is not with me, but with them physicists: take it to them.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 12/7/2007 4:44:53 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Polite sub, why do you think the towers fell too fast?  By what method do you determine the speed it should have fallen at?


I`m speaking construction only here Lucky. i have spent over 35 years working in the industry, including being on sites while controlled demolition takes place. i have never seen anything collapse that fast unless there has been a structural defect or a demolition job. Prior to 911 no building of that type had been destroyed by fire, including one in Canada ( i think ) that burnt for almost 24 hours. The central core in such buildings is designed to stay standing, and my theory is the bolts on the steel beams were badly designed and/or fitted ( And yes bodging jobs to save money or time does happen ) As the top floors collapsed the bolts sheared due to the pancake effect.

As for the actual speed, i cant give a formula but only say i have never seen anything fall that quick, and i have watched a lot of buildings be pulled. Admittedly nothing i have seen has ever been that tall, which makes it even more amazing, at least to me.



Thats the problem with most of the wtc stuff.   Its all stated incorrectly or stated with emphasis put on everything ut the truth.

v = a*t

for the formula



John Skilling
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3 

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4 

 

Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6   Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph

John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 8


Of course there are a lot of people who think they know better.



_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 12/7/2007 4:58:17 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Rule.... Thanks for the thread link, i will take another look at it.

Realone... I seem to recall you posting several links. One led to a site which had lots of documentries on the topic which i looked at. Some of the conspiracy theories looked a bit far fetched while others were more feasible.


When I post links on this and most subjects i post them only regarding the specific point i am making uless i otherwise state it differently.

Most conspiracxy theorys are just that, nothing more than conspiracy theory.  911 is conspiracy fact.  Well at least if it were taken into a court and treate4d like a trial.


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 12/7/2007 5:01:34 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Ok, I can't argue with your subective opinion of the speed.  There was a quack scientist who tried to show it fell too fast to have pancaked, Miller I think her name was.  Her basic huge flaw was pretending it pancaked from the top 110th floor, instead of around the 70th where the impact happened and the collapse started.  The upper 40 or so floors basically fell as a unit.

And do remember the towers did not fall because of the fire.  They fell because of a high velocity impact, explosion, and fire.  Without the damage to the load bearing outer skin, and presumed interior damage, it is doubtfull the fire would have collapsed the buildings.



and how does that theory work for worlds trade 7 which also fell at freefall speed and was not hit by a plane that were claimed to happen by fires in the basement?

Your theoryu just falls apart


< Message edited by Real0ne -- 12/7/2007 5:02:13 PM >

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown - 12/7/2007 5:13:04 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		However, it has been argued by physicists that the towers collapsed at free fall velocity and that implies that the next floor immediately below the collapsing floors gave way before those floors touched it - and that is very damning to the snapping bolts hypothesis. So your disagreement is not with me, but with them physicists: take it to them.

Yes rule ,one person argued that, Professor Miller.  However her work had a huge flaw that anyone can easily see.  She calculated a 110 story pancake, but the collapse started at the impact point around the 70th floor.  Her work was ridiculous and only accepted by fools.

Rule what I said about falling does not only happen in a vacume.  That is one of your sillyest assertions yet.  The individual maximum velocity you refer to is what I properly called the terminal velocity.  If you were somewhere else in space with a different gravity source, the rate of acceleration would be different than here on earth.  You are correct the air pressure would have slowed it a tiny bit.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity >> RE: 9.11 "mystery plane" still unknown Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094