See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 UAL 175 Plane on Radar AFTER It Has 'Crashed' Into The WTC; (MSNBC)
Source:
,
URL Source: http://,
Published: Mar 16, 2009
Author: msnbc
Post Date: 2009-03-16 13:04:41 by Artisan
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 14713
Comments: 607
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-383) not displayed.
.
.
.
#384. To: FormerLurker (#348)
Do you understand the concept of "impressment"? Do you undertsand the concept of the relationship between velocity and weight?
He didn't design the building; he built it.
Fitterman is still undergoing reconstruction...the DB Building is being deconstructed. 1 Liberty was damaged massively and required a half year of reconstrcution. That said, none of those buildings burned for 7 hours...
When you use the word "toppling" you imply that it was already in motion and that should have been propelled away from the building. You need to grasp a basic concept of physics as to how gravity affects a body...once it's center is established...it falls straight down...the top of the tower was a body at rest and so while it was "tilted" it was so at rest...once the support beneath it gave way it was a simple exercise of falling...the only direction in which it should have continued was down...
The only force acting on it was gravity. Does gravity affect a body from the side?
Have you ever been in the Towers? If so then you know there is a natural sway to them...lateral forces were continually at work on them... Secondly, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, the external support mitigated the vertical load and since the external support was compromised the energy being put upon and expended by the core was substanially more than normal. Regardless, the majority of the exterior support columns were intact. Feel free to wax eloquently on the WTC designer's using redundant support columns on the exterior. Also, you want it both ways...you'll claim that it was controlled demolition that brought the towers down which is a process by which only some of the main supports are destroyed...but here you are claiming that because some of the support remained thatg it should not have collapsed. Can any of you Moonbats explain to me, that if the government did this, why did they allow 22K people to escape with their lives and why did they go to the trouble of haing planes flyu into the buildings? The WTC had been bombed before. Why not just bomb it again?
Well...I was accepting your use of the word topple which I then disputed above...the top does move angularly for the brief moment it took to establish a center of gravity...
Bad reporting. So what? I've posted how the architects and engineers describe it. Not a news reporter.
Nope. Wherein your post did you demand a pic of WTC 7?
No, the load put on the core would not have been significantly greater than normal. The vast majority of the exterior columns were undamaged so the change in load on the core would have been minimal.
God is always good!
Family has been here since the 1680's...I typoe fast and multi-task... Me: The individuals listed as the hijackers are not said to be using aliases war: If they weren't who they said they were, then what else could they have been using? Better?
Please list your engineering credentials that you could contradict the designers... Thanks...
Nope. The windows were broken by impact AND explosion. But your starement is moronic from several other angles as well not the least of which was that since the fire was already vented all it had to do was feed and accelerate......
I never doubted that they weren't. What they weren't designed for was an impact @ 400-500+ MPH, an internal explosion and fire.
I posted the one from the Boston Globe on 9/13, doof. That said, it's been said that the flight manifests have never been published showing Arab names. Is it your concession now that they were?
The "designers" did not say that the load on the core was significantly greater. And even if they did any model of the WTC with similar damage would prove that it wasn't. Credentials are only required for people that need to prove a basic understanding of something to someone else becasue they have no real experience to speak of. I need no such crutch.
God is always good!
Sorry...I probably screwed up the tag...
Why are you wasting your time here? We know you are a government stooge. You lack basic understanding of physics plus you are spamming this board. If I were the owner your ass would have been banned by now.
God is always good!
Better? Ok, now I can at least understand what you're trying to say. The thing is, there is no evidence that places those individuals onboard those doomed aircraft. They are NOT on the flight manifests from what I gather, and the flight manifests have not been made public, or if they were, they are no longer available. Being that there is a strong possibility that the planes were taken over by remote control (which is QUITE feasibile and possible), especially when you consider the rather precise manuevers performed to line the planes up with the towers, then those individuals could very well have been decoys made to APPEAR as if they had hijacked the planes. It worked out rather well, with the majority of the populace believing it, and those who haven't fallen for it are quickly dismissed as "conspiracy theorists".
The report states' Pure bullshit. It would have taken 9.2 seconds for a rock to fall to the ground from the top of the WTC, yet this person claims that it would have been possible for the tower to collapse FASTER than free fall speed. What did it have, a rocket engine on top of the tower pushing it down? Unbelievable, to say the least.
The planes flying into the buildings were needed for dramatic effect. It was a made for TV event. If they just blew the building up then they couldn't strip search pretty blonds at the airport and drive commercial airlines out of business. This operation was planned well in advanced and carefully researched to produce the most psychological bang for the buck.
God is always good!
The guy is copying and pasting things he does not understand thinking he is proving something. The only thing he is proving is his ignorance.
God is always good!
Have you ever seen THIS chart? Link it, as I haven't seen you post it.
I don't understand your logic here. You promote theories of conspiracies which you expect me to just accept these without question. Can you tell me how your expectations of me differ from those of what you claim I am? The fact is, I have weighed your arguments and I have weighed the arguments of others. Your arguments fail to persuade me that the counter argument is more believable. Part of your problem includes the fact that I was there that day. Another part of your problem is that I have spoken to people who were in BOTH towers. Another part of your problem is that I spoke to people who did not get out. I have also spoken to people who spoke to people who did not get out. Offices were damaged by the explosion throughout the building and not just at the point of impact. Your paradigm here assumes that I have done 0 research into what happened that day. The premise underlying that paradigm is 100% incorrect. Now, there are some elements that I can accept. I do believe that Boosh’s direct threat on the Taliban that Summer was, effectively, a "dare". I do believe that they had a good inkling that an attack was imminent but failed to act. I also believe that they used the attack as a pretext for eventually going after Iraq. Now, considering that latter statement for one moment, don't you believe that given how the post 9/11 events played out and in the context of a belief that the government ACTUALLY precipitated and executed this plot, that they would have put Iraqi's on those planes? That is the ONLY way that any of your blatherings would make a modicum of sense to me. You lack basic understanding of physics For example?
ROFLMAO...the simple fact that I am sourcing my information is problematic for you?
Source please...if only for context... Thanks...
Correction: Your arguments fail to persuade me that the counter argument is NOT more believable.
It already HAD a center of gravity until a portion of the structure below it gave way. Never mind trying to obfuscutate the matter, it simply fell in the direction of least resistance and that was into the corner that no longer had any support. Its momentum was already causing it to topple, and if the core HAD broken at that moment it probably WOULD have flipped over as it smashed into the solid edge of the structure below. Since it didn't, you'd have to assume the core was intact, although quite bent. So, the core should have remained where it was and been visible as the upper portion of the WTC slid down it. Of course it wasn't there, so what happened to it?
Actually when it was attached ot the building it did not as the structure had a center of gravity. when that support broke the top established its own. That's basic geometry bro...
That's not a flight manifest, that's a graphical image designed according to GOVERNMENT data. Now, show me the official airline flight manifest.
Bro, did you try to balance that can on your finger as I suggested? You can squawk all you want about centers of gravity, yet that can will fall off your finger each time, and it WILL tumble. You have no clue where the center of gravity was or wasn't in the upper portion of the WTC, as NOBODY could know since there is no way to know what part of the lower structure gave way and how long it supported the weight of the falling structure above. However, once a solid section of structure was impacted, the upper structure should have acted as your finger trying to balance a can, where it would have acted as a fulcrum on which it would have pivoted downwards to where it would have tumbled over.
I am not promoting anything. I am just not a brain dead moron. The towers being blown up is not something rational people debate about, it is too damn obvious they were blown up to debate it. If you really can't see something so obvious and/or lack basic understanding of physics which is required to know the buildings were without a doubt NOT taken down by just the planes impact, the mid-air explosion, and the fires, then I feel sorry for you. I have sympathy for your condition if you are indeed not a government stooge.
God is always good!
Bullshit. Put the 9/11 stuff aside and it boils down to the fact that you have a point of view that differs from mine and it grates on you to the point of wanting to see me banned. I don't accept what you believe to be orthodoxy and so I should be made gone. You believe that because someone doesn't **think** as you do then they must be some kind of shill or instrument of misinormation. Do you know what that says about you? The towers being blown up is not something rational people debate about, I agree. If you really can't see something so obvious and/or lack basic understanding of physics which is required to know the buildings were without a doubt NOT taken down by just the planes impact, the mid-air explosion, and the fires, then I feel sorry for you. Mid air explosion? The explosion was inside the building. As for my understanding of physics...you've yet to demonstrate that I have none.
Are you trying to tell me that there was more than one center of gravity on one structure? CoG is a fairly easy calculation but putting that aside, we know that basic design principles make it impossible to put the CoG outside of a building's footprint and at multiple points. So, you can make the arguemnt that the plane's impact SHIFTED the CoG but you cannot then argue agasint the physics that gravity affects CoG by anything othe rthan straight down. "It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."
Keep telling yourself that. What is your agenda? Tell us.
I'm not the one telling me that. The folks who designed it are. What is your agenda? Tell us. Your paranoia.
If the Towers were meant to survive an explosion...why is it that you promote the idea that it was an explosion that brought them down?
Yes, I have. I've also been on the Empire State Building, built in 1931. One could easily suppose without a degree in engineering, that, given the materials and abilities back in the late 1920's as compared to those of the early 1970's, were not only quite different, but there were conceivably lower standards to be met. Although the wind which blows against that tower is also quite severe and it has withstood the impact of a B-25 bomber...which also had fuel, commentary is nil regarding its current structural soundness. This tells me that it remains a safe building. It is apparent that, given the limitations of the 1920's, it was designed quite well. With a foggy day and the B-25 bomber in mind, the WTC was designed. I believe that, for a building, it is irrelevant whether fog is present or absent when it is directly hit by a plane. And it's a certainty that if a plane is in the air, it has fuel. You keep posting about the architects and designers anticipating flight impact and fog. Terrific! But do you mean to state also that, though these highly educated and intelligent architects and designers, who were anticipating and designing for the possibility of a jet aircraft collision with a tower near three of the busiest airports in the world (JFK, Newark, and La Guardia), who anticipated and designed for the possibility of the impact of SEVERAL 707's due to fog.........but were unable to conceive that the plane(s) would have fuel, possibly having just taken off from JFK, Newark, and/or La Guardia? Come on....let's give some credit to the designers instead of .gov's fairy tales!
Comments (425 - 607) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestAgain, you fail to address the question as to why it only took several seconds to demolish 100 floors of undamaged steel and concrete.
#385. To: TwentyTwelve (#355)
This what Frank A. DeMartini, WTC construction and project manag
#386. To: TwentyTwelve (#356)
It is important to note that Building 7 was no closer to the towers than any of several other large buildings outside of the WTC complex.
#387. To: FormerLurker (#357)
The top of the tower had started to topple over, indicating one corner of the supporting structure below had failed. It should have continued in that direction,
#388. To: FormerLurker (#357)
The top of the tower had started to topple over, indicating one corner of the supporting structure below had failed. It should have continued in that direction, ABSENT ANY OTHER FORCE
#389. To: FormerLurker, TwentyTwelve, litus, randge, scrapper2, James Deffenbach (#358)
There was not a hurricane going on that day, so resistance to horizonal force is not a factor.
#390. To: FormerLurker (#364)
BTW, you contradict yourself here. Did it topple or did it drop staight down?
#391. To: litus (#367)
So.......were they wrong then or wrong after 9/11...."what steel frames"?????
#392. To: FormerLurker (#368)
You're busted. I just noticed you posted an image of WTC5 trying to pass it off as an image of WTC7.
#393. To: war (#389)
Secondly, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, the external support mitigated the vertical load and since the external support was compromised the energy being put upon and expended by the core was substanially more than normal.
#394. To: FormerLurker (#369)
Huh? Are you even an American? You don't speak the language very well...
#395. To: RickyJ (#393)
No, the load put on the core would not have been significantly greater than normal.
#396. To: TwentyTwelve (#370)
In the 9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C.
#397. To: TwentyTwelve (#370)
So now you know that the WTC towers were well designed and quite capable of surviving a serious fire
#398. To: FormerLurker (#372)
As far as the FLIGHT MANIFESTS, well, go ahead and find them
#399. To: war (#395)
Please list your engineering credentials that you could contradict the designers...
#400. To: FormerLurker (#373)
repost the chart.
#401. To: FormerLurker (#373)
It must not have been very large or colorful since I can't find it anywhere on this thread
#402. To: war (#400)
(Edited)
#403. To: war (#394)
If they weren't who they said they were, then what else could they have been using?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#404. To: war (#401)
(Edited)
the published values (I have seen) all fall in the range 8 – 18 seconds. In addition, Newtonian mechanics dictates a minimum value for the collapse time, tc, which is calculated, (allowing for the thickness of each floor), as followsf82;: tc = (2h/g) = h54;{2(416 f85;10)/9.81} = 9.1 seconds
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#405. To: war (#389)
Can any of you Moonbats explain to me, that if the government did this, why did they allow 22K people to escape with their lives and why did they go to the trouble of haing planes flyu into the buildings? The WTC had been bombed before. Why not just bomb it again?
#406. To: FormerLurker (#404)
(Edited)
#407. To: war (#400)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#408. To: war (#398)
I posted the one from the Boston Globe on 9/13, doof.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#409. To: RickyJ (#402)
Why are you wasting your time here? We know you are a government stooge.
#410. To: RickyJ (#406)
The guy is copying and pasting things he does not understand thinking he is proving something.
#411. To: FormerLurker (#407)
Have you ever seen THIS chart?
#412. To: FormerLurker (#408)
Link it, as I haven't seen you post it.
#413. To: RickyJ (#402)
Your arguments fail to persuade me that the counter argument is more believable.
#414. To: war (#390)
the top does move angularly for the brief moment it took to establish a center of gravity...
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#415. To: FormerLurker (#414)
It already HAD a center of gravity
#416. To: war (#412)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#417. To: war (#415)
That's basic geometry bro...
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#418. To: war (#409)
#419. To: RickyJ (#418)
I am not promoting anything.
#420. To: FormerLurker (#417)
You have no clue where the center of gravity was or wasn't in the upper portion of the WTC
#421. To: war (#397)
What they weren't designed for was an impact @ 400-500+ MPH, an internal explosion and fire.
#422. To: TwentyTwelve (#421)
Keep telling yourself that.
#423. To: TwentyTwelve (#421)
Keep telling yourself that.
#424. To: war, FormerLurker, TwentyTwelve, randge, scrapper2, James Deffenbach (#389)
Have you ever been in the Towers? If so then you know there is a natural sway to them...lateral forces were continually at work on them...
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.
The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.
The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.
The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.
The Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences
being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.
Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling
faster on take-off and on landing.
The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.
The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.
In all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing
707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed
would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.
* source
.
.
.