MX_Eva

I'm sorry but there's a vast difference between small scale "public support" of Northwoods and taking down the WORLD TRADE CENTER. Do you have any idea how much money we lost because of that? like...our economy was a far more disasterous blow than the people who were killed. Which was televised more...you tell me.

Also, there's a vast difference between something being leaked and de-classified. There was no one to leak Northwoods because no one was asked to carry out those missions. If people were involved with 911 they would be coming forward or getting the word out somehow. I know I'd have the biggest guilty conscience if I were the one who set the charges.

JasonC SBB

Nobody said it was Bush.

In my mind the kinetic energy is largely irrelevant because it's still distributed over a second or more, the time it takes the plane to travel its own length. The extra energy only matters in how far the debris is flung into the building. Planes are "soft". You can even take a screwdriver and punch the skin. The largest objects are probably the engines.

AND it doesn't explain the collapse of the 50-story building #7 which was not hit by a plane. Many skyscrapers have burned far, far longer, with no sagging.

These, and many other points, are specifically addressed in the presentation.

The 2nd building struck, wherein MOST of the jet fuel burned in a fireball OUTSIDE the building due to the angle of the strike, collapsed in a lot less time than the other building.

The fire had black smoke, which meant it was an oxygen poor fire (rich air-fuel ratio), which don't burn very hot. This is shown in the presentation. In order to weaken steel significantly, the temperatures required need forced air such as what you have with an oxy-acetylene torch.

Again (a)the temperatures are too low (b)the margin of safety too high (c) if it slowly deformed, there would have been visible sagging.

Buckling steel would not fall at free-fall speeds.

The pancake theory. If the building pancaked, it wouldn't collapse at free-fall speed. Newton's conservation of momentum would see to it. The "chain reaction" was not modelled by NIST. They only modelled the initial collapse of the burning floors. Even that modelling, had to have a lot of assumptions tweaked to get the collapse - and they refused to release the details of the model. All this is in the presentation.

JasonC SBB

OK I'll buy that. BTW FAR more money was spent on the 2 wars than the direct losses from the WTC collapses.

I know this is *the* biggest unanswered question of the whole thing. However, consider that it's typical for operatives to be threatened with the lives of their kin and their friends, not their own lives. Would you, come forward, knowing that every single person you know, will perish? I wouldn't...

Consider also that other whistle blowers have come forward with very little fanfare from the media, such as that hottie Turkish FBI interpreter lady who told the media if they show an unedited interview, she would spill a lot of beans regarding some collosal FBI fuckup. No takers.

Look at the Valerie Plame affair as another example...

JasonC SBB

It was both. It *mostly* collapsed in a heap, but there were a couple of projectiles. I suppose these things can't be done perfectly (there are several examples of demolitions in the presentation).

elesjuan

iTrader: (11)

Oh bullshit dude. BULL ****.

Have you ever seen video of the Hindenburg Zeppelin after it caught fire? The flames were Orange, even though it was full of HYDROGEN which burns CLEAR. Think HOUSE FIRE... Carpet, furniture, ceiling tiles, ducting, etc, etc, etc, etc... All that **** on fire causes BLACK SMOKE...

Here ya go, just ONE reference from an Engineer debunking your Foil Hat Theory.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_2639813949

I've read dozens and dozens of reports from Engineering firms, watched hours of shows on television, interweb, everything. Fire retardant materials were knocked off of the steel structure by the impact force of the 767. You don't seem to think that kinetic energy of the impact has anything to do with it, how about the fact that part of a plane flew *THROUGH* the entire ******* building?




Oh, Whats this? Another video that shows your explosives theory is bunk.


But hey, I'm not a rocket scientist, and don't believe what I read on the internet.

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

i\

This is extremely ignorant. All energy is disbursed over time or else it is effectively infinite.

I can stab a screw driver through my car (which is all aluminum body panels made by Mr. Joe Perez). Are you saying that you don't care if i hit you with it at 10 or 70 miles an hour?

Doppelgänger

iTrader: (12)

You know, if there is one thing i have learned from all this, it's that you can believe what you want, but if it's not the same thing that majority believes, you're fucked. I have my views on this subject too, and have had this discussion with friends and whatnot... and it always ends up like the discussion going on here.
In all honesty, i don't think that if it were to be shown that the building could have withstood the hit from a jet, no one would come fourth and present it. Neither do I believe everything i see on the news.

WTC7 , yeah, there was a fire.. i saw the video. But it wasn't "ultra hot jet fuel" burning i n there. They say it was diesel. But what would have ignited diesel? It takes a large amount of pressure mixed with air to ignite it. You cannot just walk up to diesel and light it on fire...i've tried. And if it was weakened on one side, how come the building didn't fall over to the weakened side?

Plane crash in PA -

The conspiracy claims that there was no plane, but the gov't says there was. Well, when the nay says try to show a plane smacking down, then they say that the holw is too small and what not. But there is burned debris behind the hole. Plane? I still don't know. There is still a lack of any debris. Oh wait, it all magically and completely liquified and vaporized leaving no parts in the debris field. I find that total bullshit. Maybe if the plane managed to all fall into the hole and burn in one hot little pile. But that didn't happen. You can go look at any plane crash (sans the Value-Jet that crashed in the everglades) and find large debris near the crash site. There was NONE anywhere in the field in Pa.... not a tail, not a part of a wing , not a single engine. Im sorry, but those engines are quite dense material and are so compact, they don't seem to fall apart. Someone please go find another plane crash that happened on land where there was no debris in the area.

Pentagon - Im still out on this one. I do think it's kinda strange that there is NO video of this. Given all the businesses in the area, security cameras that are around there, the traffic cames etc... Also, i saw on popularmechanics website was [quote =http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6]What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen." [/quote]

Really? The plane 'liquified' and all got sucked into the hole? OooooooK.

drewbroo

iTrader: (2)

News flash... JP8 is pretty much diesel.... all it takes is some over pressure to ignite it.

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

i wonder if there was any pressure and heat with debris falling from a plane (which turned into a fireball) and crashed into a building next to it....

Do you realize how many engineers there are? And only 80 of them signed up with that group?

My school graduates more than that a year.

MX5-4me

don't you think the second building falling faster than the first might have happened because a 100 floor building had just fallen next to it?

The same goes for building 7 don't you think two 100 Floor buildings falling right next to it might have major impact on it's structural integrity ?


Just some thoughts..

ray_sir_6

iTrader: (1)

....then why did the 2d building hit fall first? If it was done by explosives, wouldn't they have brought the first one hit down first??? The "conspirators" would have wanted it to seem plausible, so they wouldn't have had them fall in an order contradicting the impacts. That would raise too many questions.

There, argue that theory.

JasonC SBB

Yes the explosives theory has unanswered questions. A possible explanation of that is that the person who "pushed the buttons" screwed up.

However more evidence points to explosives:
- squibs (see side by side videos of WTC, and actual demolition, in pres'n)
- pulverization of concrete - no large slabs - basically the pulverized concrete was mostly dispersed in the huge dust cloud - it was 2" thick on the sreets around the wtc, and crossed the river
- free fall speed (violates Newton's 2nd law)
- sideways ejection of some beams at 55 mph
- spectrographic evidence of thermate - (FEMA report)
- failure mode of ends of pieces of beams were not shear failures - they were cut by explosives
- molten puddles of steel under rubble for weeks - "looked like lava" said witnesses - fire wouldn't melt steel
- and much more


I did a rough Mathcad simulation/calculation of what the fall velocity vs. time should be if the pancake theory were true... and the drop would have taken an additional 2.5 seconds as compared to free fall ... due to the conservation of momentum. Every floor that is met by the falling chunk will slow down said chunk by the conservation of momentum (inelastic collision). NOTE THAT this assumes no resistance from the core below the burning floors, which is a very implausible assumption. If there is any resistance from the core below the burning floors, it would slow down even more.

The video showed that it took only 1 second over free fall (vs 2.5s due to conservation of momentum). I will review my assumptions and look at the videos again tonight.

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

You know the buildings went levels underground right jason? Was that taken in your your mathcad simulation?

Jason whats your profession and whats your training?

JasonC SBB

Then there's the other stuff:

- several foreign intellligence agencies warned the US gov't of impending attacks
- the famous report that went nowhere, about the ******** who were learning to fly but not land
- large put options purchases on the 2 airlines (and no others), and on the 2 largest tenants of the wtc (if you buy PUT options, you make money if a stock goes down):
http://www.hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html - traced to a company run by an ex CIA director
- wtc ownership changed hands before 911 and owner insured it for much more than its worth
- no bomb sniffing dogs allowed in buildings prior to 911
- air traffic controller came forward and said that in previous suspected hijackings NORAD had a fighter plane in the air minutes after notification. On 911 they were told there was a "drill" which delayed their response

- Neocon group "PNAC" late 90s document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" talks about war and controlling the Middle East, but will not be acceptable to the public without a "Pearl Harbor"-like event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project...erican_Century
Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).[22]

- Zbigniew Brzezinski's mid 90s book "The Grand Chessboard" says "Eurasia needs to be controlled" and that the largest untapped oil deposits are in Uzbekistan, and that a pipeline needs to run through Afghanistan and Pakistan (note Bhutto's assassination may be a setup)
http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

JasonC SBB

That the buildings go underground is irrelevant - I simulated what would happen if the top 20% of a building starting falling and crushing the levels below, picking up mass along the way, and calculated up to ground level, as the videos are clear when it reached the ground. The pancake theory basically.

I am a practicing electronics engineer and I have design experience in motion control feedback systems, and have had to do modelling of said motion control systems. I have simulated motor drive electromechanical systems, loudspeakers, and quarter car tire/wheel/damper/body/road systems (for FatCat Motorsports to optimize damper dyno curves).

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

Can i see your code? Please output it to some "pretty format"

JasonC SBB

I wasn't clear. The 2nd building struck by the planes fell first, despite the fact that most of its fuel burned in a fireball *outside* the building because the plane near a corner at an angle, pointing *away* from the center of the building. IOW a lot less jet fuel ended up inside the buildings, yet that building collapsed first, taking a lot less time before doing so, than the other building that had a bigger fire.

The building didn't seem to have any big damage from projectiles. There were other buildings with bigger damage from flying beams but no fire.


All of this is really creepy... the fact that the 911 commision report glossed over a lot of this, suggests a whitewash. They didn't even mention the insider trading that profited from the drop in the stock prices of American and United Airlines, and the wtc's 2 largest tenants, merrill lynch and another.

The FEMA report too, is fucked up. Not releasing the computer model for peer review is lame.

JasonC SBB

Lemme know if you see any errors.
I will generalize it later to use different assumptions (floor at which collapse starts), and to make the "floors" "finer".

JasonC SBB

The last statement returns a 2 element array composed of the vectors V and T (which need to be the same units). They are Velocity and Time. The division by units is to make them unitless, because of the requirement mentioned above.

The above assumes 14 ft high floors, and collapse starting at the 80th floor, with 20 floors above it. I need to go back and change it to what the actual info is.

The i variable cycles through the floors.

If you plot time vs. i, the last element is the time it took to reach the ground. It is around 2.5s longer than a straight free fall from the 80th floor.