The 911 challenge thread - Page 4 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Insert BS here A place to discuss anything you want

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-28-2008, 04:19 AM   #61
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 701
Total Cats: 0
Default

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.
MX_Eva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2008, 04:34 AM   #62
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhondaman View Post
Is Bush THAT smart to pull this off,lol.
Nobody said it was Bush.

Quote:
Regarding the Boeing 707, here's another snippet...
..
The energy contained in an airplane or other moving object is proportional to the velocity.
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.

Quote:
The engineers also did not consider how fires resulting from a crash would affect the buildings. It was a combination of the damage from the impact of the Boeing 767's, and the resulting fires that ultimately caused the steel columns to weaken to the point where they failed and the building collapsed.
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.

Quote:
The intense heat from the burning jet fuel,
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.

Quote:
however, gradually softened the steel core and redistributed the weight to the outer tubes, which were slowly deformed by the added weight and the heat of the fire.
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.

Quote:
Eventually, the integrity of these tubes was compromised to the point where they buckled under the weight of the higher floors,
Buckling steel would not fall at free-fall speeds.

Quote:
causing a gravitational chain reaction that continued until all of the floors were at ground level.
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2008, 04:36 AM   #63
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MX_Eva View Post
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.
OK I'll buy that. BTW FAR more money was spent on the 2 wars than the direct losses from the WTC collapses.

Quote:
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.
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...

Last edited by JasonC SBB; 01-28-2008 at 04:57 AM.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2008, 04:56 AM   #64
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MX_Eva View Post
don't you think if it was a "planned" explosive collapse the idea would be to NOT have little bits flying out places it shouldn't? I mean, you can't use both arguments "it fell too neatly, like someone used charges...look how contained it was!" and "look there were explosions! stuff flew out the sides!"
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).
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2008, 05:01 AM   #65
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,382
Total Cats: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
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.
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

Quote:
Model of Plane Impact at WTC Provides Clues to Structural Issues


National Science Foundation by Amber Jones

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, a civil engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, has constructed a realistic computer simulation of the World Trade Center North Tower being hit by a jet airplane. Astaneh's model has simulated the first few seconds of the plane's impact and entry into the building, and he is refining the model to include damage to the plane, the building floors and the internal core columns. The next step will be to include the effect of fire heating the damaged structure and initiating its final collapse.
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.


Quote:
http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/news/news_...
Researchers at Purdue University have created a simulation that uses scientific principles to study in detail what likely happened when a commercial airliner crashed into the World Trade Center's North Tower on Sept. 11, 2001.
Researchers:
Chris Hoffmann - Faculty
Sami Kilic - Former Member
Scott Meador
Voicu Popescu - Faculty
Paul Rosen - Graduate Student
Mete Sozen
But hey, I'm not a rocket scientist, and don't believe what I read on the internet.
elesjuan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2008, 09:24 AM   #66
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Loki047's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,145
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
In my mind the kinetic energy is largely irrelevant
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?
Loki047 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2008, 11:01 AM   #67
Elite Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,868
Total Cats: 66
Default

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.
Doppelgänger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2008, 04:16 PM   #68
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 502
Total Cats: 0
Default

News flash... JP8 is pretty much diesel.... all it takes is some over pressure to ignite it.
drewbroo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2008, 04:34 PM   #69
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Loki047's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,145
Total Cats: 0
Default

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.
Loki047 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2008, 05:07 PM   #70
I'm Miserable!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 589
Total Cats: 0
Default

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..

MX5-4me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2008, 05:12 PM   #71
Guest
iTrader: (1)
 
ray_sir_6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 714
Total Cats: 0
Default

....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.
ray_sir_6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2008, 07:06 PM   #72
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

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.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2008, 07:31 PM   #73
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Loki047's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,145
Total Cats: 0
Default

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?
Loki047 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2008, 07:34 PM   #74
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

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
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2008, 07:37 PM   #75
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Loki047's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,145
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki047 View Post
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?
Loki047 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2008, 07:41 PM   #76
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki047 View Post
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?
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).
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2008, 07:43 PM   #77
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Loki047's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,145
Total Cats: 0
Default

Can i see your code? Please output it to some "pretty format"
Loki047 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2008, 07:54 PM   #78
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MX5-4me View Post
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?
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.

Quote:
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 ?
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2008, 07:57 PM   #79
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki047 View Post
Can i see your code? Please output it to some "pretty format"
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".
Attached Thumbnails
The 911 challenge thread-conservation-momentum.gif  
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2008, 08:01 PM   #80
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

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.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OTS Bilstein to motorsports ASN conversion stoves Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 5 04-21-2016 04:00 PM
My solution for Oiltemp and Oilpressure input into Megasuirt (MS3) Zaphod MEGAsquirt 41 01-24-2016 01:25 PM
Going back to stock. Need some 1.6 parts. Trent WTB 2 10-01-2015 01:15 PM
Leaky Wilwoods mx592 Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 1 10-01-2015 01:45 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:21 PM.