Why do you think that? Why is it amusing?
Well, it's always amusing to see people with no understanding of physics attempt to use it in the defence of things they make up.
Why do you think that? Why is it amusing?
Last edited by gollUM; 4th August 2017 at 12:45.
I am saying that planes could not fly at this speeds and stay structuraly intact at sea level. And also this speeds are not reachable with engines installed on aircraft of the type in question at the sea level.
I can not say this more precisely than that. :)
So yes... they were way out of the operating limit! Not safe operating parameters, operating limit!
Last edited by gollUM; 4th August 2017 at 13:05.
Yes - I've been hit it in the eye by a bee on a motorbike. That is, I was on the motorbike, and the bee hit me. It hurt. A lot. And my aircraft had a airstrike at a relatively low speed (~90 kts), that did enough damage to ground it for a month.
I don't know that the WTC was specifically designed to withstand aircraft strikes. It'd be rather difficult to test for, anyway. Given that modern buildings are mostly concrete slabs with steel piles, and clad in glass, and concrete can presumably oxidise at high enough temperatures, I'd have thought that weakening of the slabs would tend to weaken the whole structure.
Yes, WTC were designed to withstand the aircraft impact, of the aircraft size of Boeing 707.
I don't know anything about physics. I have got an o level in it, but that's the sum extent of my knowledge.
I also don't know anything about flying a commercial jet liner. But people who do say that it is just not possible to do some of the manoeuvres that are said to have taken place on 911.
Whether they are making those things up, or have an agenda I don't know. But I do find it interesting.
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
VNe (Velocity Never Exceed) is Mach 0.84 in a 767. Since The speed of sound depends on altitude and temperature at that altitude - Mach 0.84 at sea level is about 640 mph, or about 570 mph at 30,000 feet. A dive will add speed to anything the engines can provide. I don't imagine the hijackers were much concerned about the structural integrity of an aircraft they were about to fly into a building, but VNe is designed to protect the airframe; it's not a speed which physically can't be achieved.
OK... not to get mathematical, let us hear what actual B 767 pilots have to say about the matter:
https://youtu.be/HdbBly5iz0E
Btw, there was no dive, straight level flight just... although some of the TV footage from that day may suggest it NTSB presented radar data shows no dive!
Last edited by gollUM; 4th August 2017 at 13:30.
Perhaps during normal operating airspeeds expected on approach or departure - i.e. < 240 mph - but not at any speed. Kinetic energy varies with the square of the speed. Double the speed, and kinetic energy increases fourfold; at slightly more than triple the speed, the kinetic energy increases tenfold. I've already pointed out that VNe is a lot higher than the approach speed, and a pilot in a dive and unconcerned about limiting speed would ensure that his aircraft packed a punch far greater than any design spec intended to cope with an air crash.
OK HappyJack... perhaps... :)
So, actualy you think that structural engineers during the project phase considered optimal scenario not a worst case. They are to blame for everything that happened that day then. Why are they not... blamed!?
Btw, officialy estimated speed of aircraft before impact was 510 mph, 150 mph bellow speed of sound at sea level... for commercial jetliner... C'moooon! :)
Last edited by gollUM; 4th August 2017 at 14:25.
I know more about ship design than tower block construction, but even warships, designed to go into harm's way, are not designed for worst case scenarios, but to survive a limited amount of damage, through subdivision into watertight compartments, etc. Even then, hit them with enough missiles or torpedoes, and they will eventually sink.
I very much doubt that the WTC architects were thinking in terms of protecting against a deliberate impact 5-10 x what would be experienced in normal flight, gone wrong.
OK... and this is mentioned in NIST report, or publicly, where!?
Because, this fact should change the way how we construct tall steel buildings! It is important!
Last edited by gollUM; 4th August 2017 at 13:46.
Might be wrong here, but I thought it wasn't the impact of the planes that brought the towers down, but rather the ensuing fire fuelled by the planes' aviation fuel.
We will come to that! :)
I thought this was going be about the mid-engined '911' Porsche are now racing as a GT!
If the engine's ahead of the rear axle, it's not a 911 and you can't pretend it's the same car you sell the public!
M
I rest my case! :)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...-trade-center/
I got no time for the tin foil hat brigade. If anybody thinks the government (which is not a faceless entity but consists of actual people who would have been involved) orchestrated 9/11 for whatever reasons they might as well believe in fairies and Santa Claus.
Yes, I agree... popular mechanics is VERY reliable and thrustworthy source! You just do that... continue not having time. It is much easier than to think by yourself! Because, what if you conclude something different than everybody else!? You will stand alone... and what then!? It is warmer in the herd! :)
Last edited by gollUM; 4th August 2017 at 15:06.
He was just concentrated on oil. It is (was) not that important... :)
Last edited by gollUM; 4th August 2017 at 15:12.
I still believe the TV footage was fake and that there were no commercial aircraft at either of the crash sites and that it was a demolition job to justify going to war in The Middle East to bolster the US arms industry.
It could be of course that all the evidence I have seen and read to reach that conclusion are completely fake but on balance I doubt it.
I also believe the moon landings were faked,Diana was murdered and JFK was an inside job but to be honest I thought that was taken as read now.
Just hope I live long enough to prove the doubters were wrong all along.
Population of Manhatten is 1.6m, many of those saw it. I visited a six months after and the ground zero site was eerie. Debris and dust still visible on many of the nearby buildings and I spoke with a guy who's job it was to remove all directional street signage referring to the world trade centres.
We stayed with friends who had an apartment in Jersey on the shore of the Hudson river near the Colgate Clock, with a view overlooking downtown Manhatten, they didn't have to watch TV to see the events unfold.
---
As for a demolition job, that's perfectly plausible. I'm sure US gov had intel that an attack on one or several of New York's tall towers was imminent. They likely knew how and who by. The only way to prevent it would be to ground all flights indefinitely to NY, create a no fly zone or evacuate all tall towers and surround NY with war ships armed with anti-aircraft missiles until the threat is no longer there. That could take months or years, loose billions of dollars from the US economy and create a state of panic in NY.
So what else could be done?
Minimise the risk of damage to downtown NY by controlling how the twin towers might fall, a pre-planned controlled explosion could have been in the City's best interest as damage limitation.
I don't believe that the whole ting was a set-up to create justification to invade Iraq, the government didn't need to take such action for the Gulf War so why would they in 2011.
I didn't say there weren't any planes just no commercial aircraft.
There were probably hundreds of eye witnesses with completely different accounts of what they thought actually happened.
Again unless they were faked many of the firefighters spoke of explosions.
So the people who went missing on the flights boarded non-commercial aircraft? or are they held-up in area 51.
Ofcourse fire fighters would have heard explosions; servers, computers, cell phones, fridges, aircon units and many other things in those buildings would go with a bang when set alight.
I'm not sure if he's just trying to wind people up, but don't encourage him either way
Obviously the easiest way to 'fake' such an event to make it look like planes crashed into the twin towers was to get some nutters to do it.
Even if you wonder who was behind the events, the events themselves were pretty clear to anyone, whether watching the 'fake' TV footage or the numerous phone shot videos around the world or standing on the ground (as a colleague of mine was), and it would be much easier to fund a bunch of terrorists to carry out an atrocity believing the money came from wherever than to fake such an event...
M
It's well worth checking out the work of researcher Rebekah Roth. I think she has had alot of success in joining the dots together and supplying possible answers to unanswered questions.
Regarding the explosions, the eye witness account of the janitor who was at work that day in the WTC, William Rodriguez is well worth a watch. He knew the building better than most.
As I said before, you need an open mind. But if you genuinely want to understand what happened that day then I suggest that these are useful sources of information.
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
If you have a spare five hours, you could do alot worse than watch 'September 11, the new Pearl Harbor'. It's probably one of the most comprehensive overviews covering all the reasons why alot of people think there is room for a 9/11 conspiracy theory in the first place.
Good luck everybody. Have a good one.
I remember reading somewhere that before 9/11 there was weeks of work carried out inside the lift shafts of the WTC
The issue with the 911 attack, even if you completely disreagrd the buildings, the fact that Bin Ladens realtive was allowed to leave the US at the time of the airspace grounding, the fact that Obama repeatedly blocked any legal action against Saudi Arabia ( if you have nothing to hide etc etc etc ) yada yada yada.
There is one issue that has never been explained to any reasonable satisfaction..."This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed"
So we are to belive that the body disintergrated but the pasport some how shot out of his pocket, out of the plane, to be found by an un known passer by, of course nothing else survived shooting out of the plane, no wallet, no phone, no watches, just one single paper passport....
Things like this make the 911 less than a conspiracy as there are stated "facts" that dont add up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTBOM
Last edited by kas9t82; 4th August 2017 at 17:40. Reason: link added
My god what have I done! At least the debate hasn't descended to petty insults as it seems to on FB.
I think the problem Dave is that it's impossible to truly understand what happened that day, but some of the suggestions I've seen are completely ridiculous and are blatant unconscious processes of wanting to feel superior by believing 'the truth' that the little sheep are too scared to believe.
I am one of the most hard-ass skeptics you could meet. I think all religion is utter garbage. There are no ghosts,spirits, fairys or any other invisible floaty things. No paranormal stuff, nothing has ever been proven, no bets collected and no one ever come back from death.
I believe what I see with my own eyes or clear cut unequivocal evidence from indisputable source(s).
Like many others here I watched the WTC disaster unfold live on TV and I believed what I saw with my own eyes. It was probably a few years later that I saw the first unexplainable theories and I was just as skeptical as the most prolific nay-sayer on here as everywhere else.
But the more you look into it you realise that 'Official' explanation is so utterly silly and we will probably never in our lifetimes know the truth.
Last edited by Harry Smith; 4th August 2017 at 17:54. Reason: bonehead
Regrets; read Schofie's remark out of context.
Last edited by Belligero; 5th August 2017 at 00:33.
I started to watch the theory videos that the planes were a) military drones with projected holograms or b) actually a hologram c) speakers to imitate jet engines ..all of it quite far fetched. Although the disappearing plane part was puzzling . It does appear to just disappear into the building like into a warp hole. There is no impact debris only on exit . Well whatever people think it isn't totally cut and dry. They had pilots saying they have hundreds of thousands of hours of air miles and simulations , that one pilot tried all his co pilots on a manhatten programme and not one could hit the tower. It was nigh on impossible at that decent to do it. He did it once after repeated attempts. No one is saying it was remote controlled or gps located to land at those towers but he said a couple of recruits in Al-Queda could not of pulled off those manoeuvres. I'm wide open on the whole thing . I watched reports of the fireman, dedicated ex chief of police and high ranking chief fireman go on record to say it was controlled demolition. This chap lost his men, was broken in what he saw and has zero credibility of his assertion of the events . Does his 30 years as senior fire inspector not count for nothing ?
The building 7 pancaked on itself in free fall from fallouts from the other towers collapsing .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by bond; 4th August 2017 at 18:24.
I agree, I think it will stay in the realms of JFK lore. But it needs challenging and in a comparatively different way challenged like the hillsborough disaster. If nobody bothered there arses to fight it , those 96 fans would of been denied justice.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
@Schofie
On the contrary, it is absolutely possible to comprehend what happened that day... if all chain of the events is looked upon without one's own prejudices and without influences based on general remarks.
Different people invested thousands of hours into that and, what is funny, all of this people have credibility in their respective proffesions established long before the events took place. To call them "tin hat people" is really hilarious and arogant.
But, it is how it goes through history. This event is not exception. It is easier to smear people than to learn and accept the facts that are possibly asking you to change your perspective. :)
I like a good conspiracy theory as long as there is something to question but I have yet to see one where I don't agree with the official story.
9/11 was just a shot in a million where everything worked for the bad guys BUT building 7 just falling over because it was on fire ( the only building of it's size to do so, ever) and the Pentagon hit by a plane of that size skimming in at ground level
Nothing wrong with questioning the official line without referring to tin hats but there are some awful theories which really are offensive like the Sandy Hook and other mass shootings not being real, those idiots really want a slap round the ear